posted
1 An argument necessitating a choice between equally unfavorable or disagreeable alternatives 2 Any situation in which one must choose between unpleasant alternatives 3 Any serious problem SYN. predicament
A false dilemma is not one in which the alternatives are not all unfavorible. In fact, a situation itself can never be a false dilemma. What I'm talking about is a presentation or narration of a situation in which the alternatives are artificially limited.
For example, I command a small force defending the approach to my capital city. A much larger enemy force approaches. Do I [list type=A]
Make a hopeless frontal assault on the enemy.
Surrender without a fight. [/list]
The answer is C, I divide my force into to parts, one of which rides out ahead of the enemy and withdraws to the city, the larger of which descends on the enemy rear and destroys their seige supplies and rear command staff, leaving them helpless to maneuver or conduct a seige. The situation is a dilemma, but the presentation of only the two worst choices makes it a false dilemma.
Why do I bring this up? Well, a certain person to whom I am related often tries to fix a bad decision by taking the exact opposite course. When she does this in her writing, she ends up having her protaganist act in incredible and foolish ways.
For example, a ruler has to punish a group of traitors. First she is going to have him let them all go. Then she decides to have him kill a bunch of people for mouthing off. But those aren't the only two alternatives.
For a while she portrays this guy as a total puppet of whoever can browbeat him into doing stuff, then she starts portraying him as a total control freak that makes all the decisions for everyone and won't let anyone else speak.
I could give a few more examples, but I'm sure that would be going too far, and that's the whole point of this topic. How do we end up going too far? What makes us lock characters into unrealistic choices that ignore real possibilities? Why do we construct pretentious dilemmas that anyone else can see as having obvious solutions?
posted
This would be why we join writer's groups-- so that others can present to us options that we didn't think of. Maybe you should suggest another alternative to her. It's ultimately the author's decision what happens, but there's no reason for you to sit back and let her make a mistake without at least trying to suggest something.
posted
Huh? Isn't she the author? Why wouldn't it be her option? Actually a control freak who's also easily manipulated is kind of an interesting character study. I guess there's more to the story than that, but I'd actually wonder whether she wrote that way on purpose or wrote herself into a corner and needed help getting out. After getting that answer, I'd have to go with Jeannette here. Offer alternatives and let her decide. Posts: 303 | Registered: Feb 1999
|
posted
Oh, I do let her decide, but only among the alternatives that I regard as acceptable. Sometimes there's only one, but usually more. Anyway, everyone seems to be off topic.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Perhaps we misunderstood what you were asking. I guess I was more intrigued by your apparent "take control" attitude about another author's work. Did she ask you to do that? Even if she did, why would you?
posted
Because, she actually knows me, and she knows that I'm invariably correct. I help her because she's my mom, and that's just what any good son would do. Well, any good son that was invariably correct. I guess good sons that are always wrong don't do that so much.
But the original point was only briefly touched on by Jeannette. And her answer is not really satisfactory. I all the time find my mom putting someone in a situation that she herself would know how to deal with, which I know because she's been in similar situations, and she doesn't provide them with the option that she would have chosen herself.
What makes an author lock characters into unrealistic choices that ignore options and possibilities that the author is perfectly well aware of themselves? This might work if we have cast the character as lacking some key bit of knowledge or skill that we ourselves have, but what about things that are just too common for our character to be lacking?
posted
I personally think it's stubbornness. An author plans out her story and doesn't want to deviate from her plans, and yet when she writes her story deviances must appear. If it turns out that a certain course can only come about if the characters act like idiots. OSC calls this the "idiot story" in his Characters and Viewpoint; apparently it's something that happens a lot. -Rball
Posts: 445 | Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted
Surivor, there is no such thing as a person who is invariably correct, no matter how nice, intelligent, or aritculate he is. Sorry.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted
Sometimes I think we get too uptight when we are writing. Maybe we get brain freeze. Anyway, the best way I have found to overcome the condition is to have someone ask me questions about my characters or some part of the story line. It unfreezes my thought processes and I can go on with my story. I would never let someone else be come the ruler of my story, not even someone I have enormous confidence in.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted
Agreed. And, Survivor, I have decided that you are just playing a role here. It helps me get over my feelings of annoyance. Posts: 303 | Registered: Feb 1999
|
posted
In a sense that is true, since even after I hit the submit button, I can go back and edit anything that I say. I would say that I'm making calculated statements that fall in line with my perception of the needs of the dialogue that we engage in here...which is both more true and more deceptive.
The fact of the matter is, I am trying to push the perceptions open, bring in new arguments and ideas and test them in an environment where they are exposed to other points of view. But while it is deliberate and sometimes calculated, it is also myself. You might have noticed (or perhaps not) that there are persistent threads running through my various deliberations. I am open about my thoughts, and yes, I make an effort to reveal rather than obfuscate my opinions and insights. And of course, it is quite deliberate.
But of course, I would not care (in the theoretical case of my being another person reading my own argument) whether or not I was playing a part or showing my true self. I would be studying the ideas themselves, seeing if they were cogent and coherent. If they were not, I might speculate about why that person expressed them, though not usually.
Anyway, I guess that to some extent my own writing suffers from the fact that I almost never have my viewpoint characters suffer from the kind of indecision that accompanies a knotty dilemma. So maybe this discussion should focus on how we can add believable dilemmas to our stories
How can the reader tell what you're character really feels or thinks if he is just playing around, trying out new pick up lines.
Or, on another tack, how can one actor determine if another person is just acting or is expressing his/her real opinions.
I'm not trying to be flippant here. As annoyed as I am with you right now, I still do find your posts thought provoking. If those thoughts involve bodily harm, then...
Actually, just because all the world's a stage, doesn't mean that we have to "consciously" act like it.
posted
Well, if a character is more interested in trying out new pick-up lines than finding the killer, or whatever, then that tells us something about him or her, anyway, doesn't it? Not that I wouldn't be frustrated with a story like that, but in a broader sense, it's viable character development.
Now, Survivor, as far as your closing suggestion, I'd say I must agree. Other than the main story/conflict, how can one insert other, smaller dilemas along the way? One of the elements of good adventure writing for RPG's involves this tactic, and I'd like to develop better skill with it. That's the problem I'm having with the second part of the story I'm working on. It's from a totally different point of view, and perspective, than the first part, and I have to get this guy from point A to point B in a way that isn't boring, but he still has to make it. Sigh....
posted
I think that she's saying that the character has to make an important transition to a different sort of belief or perspective about life and the things that are important to him, Eh? That's an interesting question. Presuming, of course, that's what you're asking.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Okay, in the absence of further comment, I'll assume that she is trying to write about a character that undergoes a high degree of change in the course of the story.
Basically, I break down a character into twp parts, the inner and the outer. I leave relationships out since they are only half (at most) based on a character, the other half (or more) being a reflection of the other character, the environment and situation, past history, ect.
The outer part is things like physical and mental abilities, appearance, the sort of thing that would be represented by 'stats' in a RPG situation. The inner part is motives, attitudes, beliefs, the sort of thing that is represented (continuing our RPG analogy) by player decisions ('alignment'--such as good, evil, or neutral--is really more a matter of history and reputation, i.e. relationships, so I don't count it here).
Of course the environment affects the character, and within the character there is interaction between the outer and inner aspects. A storm might make a character sick, changing physical attributes, and illness can lead to depression. Conversely, determination, an inner characteristic, could lead to efforts to change the environment, leading to better physical attributes, like a slave escaping and teaching himself to read, thus becoming mentally superior (and leading to a change in venue as well).
So if you are telling a story in which the attitudes and beliefs of the character must change, then you can have the environment challenge his starting character, leading to a cycle of action and reflection/response that takes the character into a series of problems that require adaptation. This is very vague, but I can't really get more specific without knowing something of what the change in viewpoint is supposed to be.
I have a story or two that revolve around that kind of crucial experience, though I've never really gotten a long development of character going, since my characters tend to start out pretty good, and leap right to almost perfect on their first try But I would like to try it sometime...I think.
posted
Actually, the second part of my story is told from the pov of another character who has just left the room with the main character in the first part. (No fair telling, Bob!). The first part is told in present-tense, more like a screenplay than a literary story. The second part, since the character is more cerebral and detached, plus not in immediate mortal danger, is told differently. (I don't want to give too much away before Friday, when it's my turn to submit to group 9). I just don't want it to be boring, so I'm considering what sort of trouble I can make for the character without killing him.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted
So I just wasted an entire post? Man, I hate it when that happens.
Anyway, I think that just because a character is more cerebral doesn't mean there is less perception of danger. After all, think of the Lord of the Rings, the part where the company gets split up. Merry and Pippin are only worried about whether they are going to die, they can't do anything about the larger war. Aragorn is oppressed by the weight of responsibility for the whole group, while Frodo is all but crushed, almost in a demented state half the time, because he's responsible for the whole war. He would gladly die if only the ring could be destroyed in the process.
I think the more thoughful and introspective a character is, the more they are able to understand dangers, the more tension is implicit in everything uncertain. So really, with a more cerebral character, you can illustrate the larger consequences of failure. That alone increases the drama of your story. And also, a more perceptive character can see dangers that wouldn't be apparent to a character with more immediate concerns. So it's really not a handicap or barrier at all, writing from the more detached perspective.
posted
Hm... It isn't that he's any less aware of the danger, or that it's any less real. The change has more to do with his personality, I guess. He's thinking more about what to do next than who might jump out of the next elevator, but is still aware that the jumping could happen, you know? As I said, the first part is all about immediacy and physical action, while the next part is more about "where do I go from here?" Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted
Well, on a less environment oriented note, if you have two characters that have very different outlooks on their situation, then there is an opportunity to explore interpersonal conflict as well. I mean, it seems like the one that you are talking about in the beginning might have a problem with accepting the leadership of the one that you are following in your second segment, or at the least might have difficulty understanding him.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
The story goes something like this-- The first main character, Storm, is hired to "extract" a client, Mr. Frost, from a hotel room. Though she mostly suceeds, the lower half of her body has succumbed to the effects of EMP, (being cybernetic), so she's crippled until she can get help. That's the end of the first part. In the second part, Mr. Frost must decide what he's going to do, and is on his own until he chooses one of his three or four viable options. He is a software engineer, worth a great deal of time and money to both his former and, if he decides to go with the original plan, his present employers. So, he's got a lot on his mind, *plus* he has to avoid being recaptured by his former employer. So, I have to come up with something that is both believable and interesting, but for the bigger picture to take form, he must survive. (Storm, by the way, is perfectly able to take care of herself despite her current condition, so she is not one of his concerns).
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted
Hmm. Maybe if Mr. Frost got run over by a Dumpster-bot so that the Meditrons come and replace his lower body with robo-legs, he would feel more compassion towards Storm, and would go back and help her rather than leaving her there to beep helplessly. That would contribute a great deal to their interpersonal relationship.
No, I'm just kidding. Just make sure that he doesn't keep on having to figure out what to do next. Make up something plausible, and have Mr. Frost deal with it as a sensible person would. In order to make the distinction between the first half and the second half apparent, the progression of events need as unpremeditated in the second half as they were premeditated in the first. But just to be fair, the number of obstacles in the second half should just about equal the number in the first.
posted
No, I think that the tension should increase. But I see now that I was incorrect about some of my assumptions about the trend of the action.
Storm is still nominally in charge, right? And Frost is following her lead, but he could effectively dissent or betray her, and he has at least some plausible motives for doing so. So that makes it a sort of interesting trust game, in a sense. Every situation provides a chance for him to defect, and he isn't decided about whether he will or not. The real element of suspense, though, is whether or not Storm is aware that he may betray her. He doesn't know that, he doesn't want to tip his hand, and he doesn't really know whether she has some contingency plan in case he defects.
That's the real danger to him. His former employers won't kill him, not until it's a last resort, but can he be sure about Storm? It becomes a game of pure maneuver and deception.
posted
Sorry, I'm still stuck on the line abut making her change it--and that as a good son you would have to--any of my kids tried to "make me" change something I wrote --I'd knock them into a wall.
On the note of why do some writers keep making the same mistakes over and over--ego, stubbornness, an inability to see the mistakes they make (thus they see the suggestions as a mistake rather than what they wrote)-- I have been in crit groups where one person keeps doing the same error over and over and over no matter how many times people point it out. The writer simply cannot see a way past the error because they do not see the error.
But--we are not the writer and should keep our dang hands off that writers work.
posted
From the original post I see one of two possible problems. The character has not been properly developed, which I can relate to since I have this same problem sometimes. Ok, more often than I like. The other possiblity is that the concept of change has not been propery thought out. For a character to change there has to be a reason. I take it that the changes happen without known reason from the reader's perspective.
I would suggest explaining, nicely since it is your mother, that to make the change believable she has to show why the change occures. Give some believability to the change that is happening. Of course I'm throwing in quite a few assumptions here.