I have often read scenes that I thought were way over the top and was wondering how one would define the difference between dramatic and melodramatic to a new writer.
If I feel a scene is melodramatic rather than dramatic, how do I know I am right?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited April 12, 2006).]
The first (with all due respect to the writer here at Hatrack who LOVES it) is the Count of Monte Cristo. Melodrama.
The second is, oh, I'll just draw one off the top of my head and the first that comes to mind is OSC's The Lost Boys.
I've been sitting here thinking about what the difference is, and I think a great deal of it has to do with showing vs. telling. In the COMC the reader is told time and again how the Count is feeling or that he's taking on some pose or that he's 'crying out in despair!' In TLB, we take from the character's actions, words, and reactions that we're dealing with a dramatic moment.
In addition, Melodrama is just overdone. It's overly extravagant reactions, it's Tammy Faye Baker, it's making mountains out of molehills.
Drama feels REAL. Drama is watching the reactions of the people on the street when the Twin Towers start to crumble. It's making mountains out of mountains and molehills out of molehills.
Not that it needs clarification, but I thought I'd add my 2:
Drama is subtle. Melodrama is not. It's in your face, "this is how he felt, and this is how he reacted, and this is how his tears sparkled in the moonlight as they rolled mournfully down his cheek".
posted
Last time I heard "drama vs melodrama" defined it went something like this:
In a novel you have the hero, the heroine (victim), and villain. If the character's stay in that role for the entire novel, you have melodrama.
Example: Villain puts damsel in distress. Hero saves her. End of story.
If the character's shift roles- you have drama.
Example: Villain puts damsel in distress. Villain turns out to be misunderstood. Damsel (now hero) saves villain (now heroine). Hero (now villain) attacks villain and Damsel must protect villain. (a good movie example of this is "The Panic Room" with Jodie Foster.) ----- Because the characters do not change in melodrama. There is no character arc. The motives can often be very superficial and shallow. This accounts of the word "melodrama" being used as meaning "over the top" or "unbelievable".
posted
And the thought of coming here today I wouldn't learn a damn thing. Now I know the difference between drama and melodrama. I knew that nelodrama was an overexaggeration of drama, but not really understood how.
Posts: 384 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To my knowledge, melodrama is often caused by one of the following:
Drama that is not backed up: We all want dramatic moments in our stories, but these moments have to be backed up. It's really hard for our characters to pull off a convincing dramatic moment if we do not develop them. If we only ever see characters in dramatic moments, we will think that's all there is to them.
A story that doesn't arc: This is really pretty similar. A story has to have ups and downs. If it's all up, eventually it'll start sounding false. Start building for your moment in the "down time" of the arc so that when the drama comes it is satisfying and real. Make it flow.
posted
Melodrama is subjective. One person's melodrama is another person's drama. So if you feel that something is melodramatic you're not wrong, but there might not be a right answer.
There are some blanket exaggerations, usually done on purpose, that are clear.
posted
I've never been that clear on the difference myself. Then again, I've been incredibly moved by stories that I've also seen dismissed as "melodramatic," so I also wonder whether it's just an insult to be hurled or has actual meaning...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with others that melodrama can be subjective. A good example is this:
There's an episode of LOST where a character nearly dies. When I first saw that episode, I came in at the point where they were trying to revive the character. I thought that scene was the most horrible, overly emotional scene ever put on television.
Melodrama, in other words.
But when I saw it the second time, I saw the episode from the beginning, where they set up all the things that seemed melodramatic before. When I saw that scene in context, I realized it couldn't have been written any other way. It needed to be as emotional as it was.
Drama.
Therefore, I think part of what distinguishes melodrama from drama is the set-up. If you know the characters' histories, and let the reader see those histories as well, you have more leeway during emotional scenes, if that fits the character. Of course, if you've made the history of a character clear, then you can also get away with subtlties that in any other situation would just be confusing.
And, imo, this is part of what makes melodrama subjective. If you don't buy a character's history as the author presents it, the character's emotions become unreal and easily blown out of proportion.
posted
Hmm...I'll agree that melodrama is subjective, as is drama. And of course the reality of the characters is important in determining whether we feel that there's really anything to get us worked up.
I don't think I have anything more to say than I mentioned on the other thread, though.
posted
Aalanya: Thanks, but if I hadn't been reading this post in a packing-induced haze, I probably would have seen what you'd already written and not posted at all. You said essentially the same thing in fewer words (always a good thing).
And I definitely agree about making sure there are downtimes in your story, especially in a novel where a steady stream of ups can become very annoying very quickly. Of course, I've noticed in some stories, the author tries to avoid melodrama by making the entire novel... um, flat. I know when I make that mistake in my own writing, I'm just trying to keep it real: instead, I end up avoiding conflict. It's a tricky balance (for me anyway).
posted
I can see it now: "Zen and the Art of Balanced Writing." The more I write, the more it seems that the line between too much and too little gets thinner and thinner. Not just for drama but for anything, style, tone, what have you.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the May, 2006 issue of Writer's Digest, there's an article by Jessica Morrell with a sidebar on page 44 entitled "Avoiding Melodrama." Let me quote the first sentence of the sidebar:
quote:It's often when emotions and actions are the most intense that you, the writer, must pull back instead of exploiting the scene.
She then gives, as an example of good drama, a several paragraph excerpt from Ron McLarty's The Memory of Running in which a character is with his mother as she dies in a hospital.
I found it too subtle to be at all emotionally accurate. In fact, I thought it emotionally dead. A little melodrama might have helped. Maybe, though, I'm experiencing a reverse of Keeley's Lost episode, and if I read the excerpt in context I'd get it, I'd feel the character's pain.
So I'd guess that not only is the difference between drama and melodrama subjective, it's also context sensitive.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited April 22, 2006).]
posted
I don't know that we've been presenting drama and melodrama as opposites. Seems to me the opposite of both would be dull, where nothing happens and nothing is felt -- maybe literary fiction?
quote:a tragedy that had a happy ending instead of a tragic one
That definition covers most stories, I'd think, especially since the rule of thumb is that readers don't like sad endings.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited April 23, 2006).]
posted
It's because you're drawn to hotbutton issues. By definition, any drama that relies on the audience having a preconditioned response to the dramatic elements is a melodrama in the modern sense of the term.
There's nothing wrong with liking melodrama. I don't like it, but I do like jellybeans, even the cheap ones that don't have disgusting flavors like "rotten fruit cocktail" and "used doggie chew". Okay, I do like some of the fancy ones as long as the flavors aren't totally offensive, but you have to use a reference booklet to identify them to figure out which ones are safe to taste. Spare me.
Um...there's a metaphor up there, but mostly I'm just saying I like jelly beans
posted
Lots of definitions of melodrama here, so it's hard to know which one is being discussed!
Drama with background music: most of them on TV, I think Something without character development: ? Something that has exaggerated emotion. That's the kind I want to avoid. (Well, that plus lack of character development.)
quote:I do like jellybeans, even the cheap ones that don't have disgusting flavors like "rotten fruit cocktail" and "used doggie chew". Okay, I do like some of the fancy ones as long as the flavors aren't totally offensive, but you have to use a reference booklet to identify them to figure out which ones are safe to taste. Spare me.
Survivor, did you try the fancy beans that were offered only around Halloween, I believe, with flavors like 'dirt,' 'ear wax' -- wow, I can't even remember the other flavors; I must have been traumatized. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's talking about the ones that are named not only for spreadable fruit, but also body parts. It's not entirely false advertising.
A lot of the reasoning here is reminiscent of the Deus Ex Machina discussion we had not long ago. You have to back up your plot with story and characterization. But not so much that the plot gets lost.
P.S. I wanted to defend The Count of Monte Cristo as well. All I can say is that it is one of the small handful of books I have enjoyed over the years. But I was diagnosed with Bipolar at one time.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited April 26, 2006).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
