posted
I'm a fan of reading a book then seeing the movie, so in anticipation of the upcoming movie Angels and Demons, I'm reading the Dan Brown book of the same title.
As I'm reading, a big question about dramatic tension occurred to me and I thought it might be a fun question to talk about here.
The reason this has occurred to me is that I can see as I'm reading that Brown is laying groundwork for MC misunderstandings/misinterpretations of things, he's revealing information that's important to the MC at the time (no need to debate how well or poorly he does it - the book is adequate but really any popular action-filled or fast-paced book would be appropriate for these questions.) I find myself wondering how he's able to hold back from just blabbing the secret (or some key tidbit the MC knows but doesn't realize applies to the mystery yet) while he's working through the plot of the story.
I am (usually) an organic writer. I don't (but need to) outline much, I have general ideas, but I often don't even know how I'll resolve the conflicts I create until I am upon them. There are pluses and minuses to this approach. Often I have to go back and tweak things to make it work with the way I've ended a story. Often I get stuck, unable to figure my way out of a particular corner I've painted my MC into. But on the other hand, the tension I create feels real to me because I'm experiencing it myself as I'm writing.
What do you do? How do you walk the line of dribbling out plot details without annoying the reader with the feeling that you're witholding? How do you hold back on info-dumping everything the MC knows at the beginning (since that would basically kill all dramatic tension)? How do you keep that push-pull going throughout the story?
posted
In my stuff, usually it happens or it doesn't...I don't seem to have much luck introducing things to create it, or at least I think I don't.
I do seem to be drawn to characters who are hiding something...they've got a secret, even if only one person, the character, knows it...this seems to generate some suspense. (Or at least I think it does.)
posted
I differentiate to a degree between plot details and dramatic tension.
I see dramatic tension as a very organic thing, as it is largely concerned with human interaction with their world, creatures that populate it, etc. I tend to let that part of a story go it's own way as the story evolves, rather than trying to force things.
Plot details on the other hand I do sometimes outline or plan, but only to a limited degree. Certainly they can contribute to the dramatic tension by providing obstacles to the character(s), and the actions a character takes against their obstacles become part of the plot, but in the end I find the true drama in how the characters deal with their situations in "real time". Maybe that doesn't make much sense except to me.
I tend to just write with minimal planning; and quite often things wander far away from my initial fuzzy notions of where things were headed (as I follow what feels like the natural evolution of the dramatic tension). So, I often have to go back and redo early parts of the story to fit the way the ending turned out. It sounds like we have similar approaches in that regard.
I tend to use close POVs so that it is clear where the character's attention is focused and what they are thinking about at the moment. So things they "know" emerge when their thoughts go to them, and when they glean new information they will focus on some parts of it more than others, implicitly dismissing some things as unimportant which could later become important when looked at in a different light and/or combined with other discoveries.
I try to stay away from situations where the character knows the "answer" all along but just can't put it together or is forgetful. If there's an element of mystery I would make the process of discovery take place over time through the gradual gathering of new information and assimilation of it with what the character knew to start with. Of course things would be getting more hopeless as things proceed and all those other good dramatic things.
posted
There's a wide lattitude in writing lexicons at play in writing discussions. I wish it were otherwise. Questions posed by the topic and post are manifold, too.
What's dramatic? What's tension? What's conflict? Is a narrator or a character creating misunderstandings/misrepresentations? If so, are they withholding information or artfully posing questions?
In general, drama is an intersection of causation, tension, and antagonism. So what's dramatic is invariably influxing or effluxing influences. Influx, external causal circumstances that internally influence characters. Efflux, internal causes and effects that influence characters' external actions.
In a story, influx commonly dominates in the first half, and efflux dominates in the second half, with influx presenting from the beginning. Efflux presents as a result of an inciting crisis. Influx drops off as efflux increases. Influx is gone after a final crisis. Efflux is gone after a reversal of fortune. And equilibrium is restored at resolution. Vice versa, efflux can dominate in a first half and influx dominate in a second half, but that's introspective, inward turning in orientation and not as likely to be as dramatic as the other way around.
Tension internal to a story is readily confused with reader tension. In a simplistic approach, a story's internal tension comes in two parts, from the beginning to the middle as a predicament that has an increasingly doubtful outcome. At a climax, a turning from increasing doubt to decreasing doubt of the outcome. Doubtful outcomes are a fundament of tension. Not answering an artfully posed question too soon keeps an answer waiting in suspense. However, reader tension ideally continues increasing after a climax. Because the outcome answer is still pending, a reader is invested and desperately wants to know an ending's answer.
Conflict is too readily confused with antagonism. Basic examples of conflict are diametrically opposing forces that correlate to outcomes, life or death, gain or loss, satisfaction or tragedy, etc. On the other hand, antagonism is the compelling, sometimes parallel forces of purpose and problems, which does include conflict but also incorporates causal influx and efflux. Other confusions mix conflict with crises, conflict with premises, conflict with motivations.
If a narrator is presenting misinformation, misdirection, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, is the narrator reliably reporting the story? Is suspension of disbelief jeapordized by the unreliable nature of the narrator's reporting? If not, is the effect dramatic and relevant to the story? A clueless character is less likely to be unreliable than a clueless narrator. Withholding information is annoying, though.
Yes, I outline extensively. I start there and build up scene sketches of the relevant character and scene causations, tensions, and antagonisms. Using this outline has shown me how to write a fully-realized story, short or long, without getting lost in story and plot sidetracking digressions and how to maintain unity.
Introduction Inciting crisis First rising action setback Second rising action setback Third rising action setback Tragic crisis Climax and turn First falling action setback Second falling action setback Third falling action setback Final crisis Reversal of fortune Resolution
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited April 14, 2009).]
posted
I do a little of both (outline and non). I'm mostly an organic writer, but I usually have a sense of what the main conflict is. Maybe not he little conflict. As I write, I use my instinct, which will often clue me in to little things, or that will allow me to foreshadow or raise the stakes on the major conflict. In my mind I also work it. For example, if my prince is off to kill a dragon, I think about raising the stakes or complicating things. Maybe it's not just the village that's going to fail. Maybe his father is a wizard and will hate him if he kills the dragon, and thinks he should use his in-born magic, which the knight has rejected for social reasons, to try to talk to the dragon.
I've never written a story that relies on the MC knowing or figuring things out at the right point in the story. That sounds kind of specific to a mystery novel. All of my stories tend to be about my characters just doing things; the dramatic tension happens naturally by (hopefully) the readers caring what happens to my characters and not necessarily being able to predict what happens, or realizing whatever happens, there's a cost the MC will have to pay, and so then the tension comes from not knowing how the MC will deal with that.
posted
I guess you could say I'm an organic writer although, I am trying to do a little more outlining so I know where the story is going. Stories tend to come to me in dream format. It's various images, sounds, songs, smells, feelings emotions that come to me as if it were a vague flashback of a movie I can't quite remember. I try to realize that dream through writing. Trying to go with he flow with what feels right. Thus I am just as interested to write it as if I were a reader. That's why I don't like over planning, it's like giving away the ending then I lose interest. So the outline is vague and straightforward.
Dramatic tension doesn't really occur to me. It's as if I were watching a movie, I don't ask myself about my interest or my intrigue, it's just there.
posted
I used to write organically. Just sitting down to write, but I find that I spend a lot of time fixing things when I do that. My hats off to those of you who can do it!
So now I am spending more time up front in outlining and thinking about the structure of the story as a whole for anything longer than a flash.
I've started thinking about it like I do my day-job as a systems program manager. I don't have to know all the details to get started, but I find it helps to understand my main objectives, policies and the obstacles. I want a story architecture before I start coding (er writing)- it must be extensible because I know the story will take me to new places, but I have to have some structure to start a story of any length. For me, this translates into mapping out the structure of a story and then filling in the details.
This also allows me to start writing at any point with some known context. I like that a lot because I can work on framework and then pause and write some details. For me, it's a lot like developing a systems architecture.
This has been very helpful to me in trying to understand why some stories seem to work and others not. I have been taking all my stories and deconstructing them. Essentially, uncovering the bones of the story. When I do that the problems seem pretty obvious.
quote:The tension I create feels real to me because I'm experiencing it myself as I'm writing.
Just because you experience it while you are writing it, that doesn't mean it's there. The real question is "Does the reader experience it while he/she is reading it?" Whichever approach makes THAT happen for you, I would say is the better approach.
posted
I feel like a lot of dramatic tension can be created when the author proves he or she is willing to do anything. When I read certain stories, even though the protagonist is in trouble, I am never nervous. I just know that the story will work itself out. However, if the author has done something to ensure the reader won't take anything for granted, I find myself substantially more scared for the hero's safety.
posted
Chris has a good point. This is getting a bit off topic maybe, but George R R Martin has that effect on me in his Fire and Ice story. You figure out in the first book that the kid gloves are off--anything can happen.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
haha yeah, he likes killing off MCs and it freaks me out sometimes o.o
I don't nearly have as many MCs in my writing, but I tend to do the same thing with my supporting characters. I've killed off a couple so far and plan on killing more when their time comes. If it makes sense, it makes for some great tension
posted
I don't think you have to kill characters to create tension.
I think true suspence comes from reading about characters you care about.
If you really like a charachter and understand them, and understand what they want to happen, and what the worst possible thing they could imagine happening is, then I as a reader will stick around to see which happens.
I like to write a character and then make them live through their worst nightmare, and survive it. Then when the worst has happened, anything can happen, and you know the character can survive it.
Also. I as the writer, usually have several endings in mind for how the story will end, and I don't just say, this is going to end happily, or perhaps beautifully tragically. Then the reader knows what is going to happen, by little clues you give subconsiciously.
Create characters you like, put them through heck, and have multiple ideas for how the story could end, and only choose when you are writing the last chapter.
posted
Oh, I agree for the most part. I guess I never mentioned that the one thing the MC didn't want to ever happen was his friend die.
Though, I don't always think characters have to survive their worst fears. Granted THE main character has to survive but I think that (if the story allows it) sometimes a character shouldn't survive those things simply because it might be more realistic. I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law when it doesn't shatter the story.
posted
Certainly characters don't have to die to create tension, but if the tension the writer chooses is life-threatening physical danger, then making it happen "on the page" the way Martin does is one heckuva way to make it feel real. You never read with the feeling that you know in the back of your mind that a character will survive. It's not "How will he survive?" It's "Will he survive at all?". The latter to me is a more potent question, more emotional; the former a bit more intellectual.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a different kind of reader. I find that "will he die?" question to be aggravating and often contrived. There are series' that I won't continue reading because the author spends so much time putting the MC in peril, forgetting that good pacing includes slow points as well as fact points.
posted
As Dee mentions, Martin does in "the MC can't die" with a vengeance. One of his MCs may well be the first to die--probably in some really horrendous way. Or survive and wish they had died. I was just shocked in Game of Thrones when a certain character died. Have rarely been so shocked reading a novel.
I don't think the danger of dying is contrived when the reader KNOWS darn well that they may indeed die.
I've never had quite enough nerve to kill off an MC. I'm not G.R.R. Martin, ya know.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited April 25, 2009).]
posted
I recently read a novel by OSC where the main character dies about two thirds of the way through the story. I would prefer not mentioning the title, because the death was so shocking that to expect it I believe would detract from the story.
That said, the character was often in peril, but I didn't feel that it was enough for him to be killed off. His death actually occurred during a lull in the action. This had a strong effect on the dramatic tension of the story. Suddenly, the stakes of all the remaining characters became far greater. Although I was initially upset, I feel that it did make for a better story.
Regarding the question of the topic: I write using an informal outline, basically sequencing the main events and revelations that will occur during the story and then writing the narration and dialogue more organically within the context of sequence. I have sometimes changed important events and revelations within a story due to something that occurs during the action or dialogue. I write down the sequence for longer stories and use a mental sequence for shorter stories with some main points jotted down on occassion.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
