Things that take you out of a story....
Jan. 30th, 2012 10:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWas thinking about this...in response to two different posts on my flist about fanfic - one was contemplating whether Angel and Spike would discuss the AR scene in Buffy, and the other was about why AU fic doesn't work.
What takes you out of a story?
It's an interesting question. I remember a short story I wrote in undergrad about my grandparents. My grandfather had had three brain tumors removed. I inserted this into the story. But it did not work for one of my classmates who'd read it. She had a relative who died of brain cancer, just one tumor, and felt offended by my story. The three brain tumors felt like overkill to her. It took her out of the story. Short of my bringing in evidence that this was real, which I could have done because it was, it was not real to the classmate.
Which brings up the next question - when does it ruin the story for you? Or does it?
For many people online, the AR or attempted rape sequence in Seeing Red took them out of the story. It wasn't so much that they did not buy the fact that Spike might attack Buffy, but how that sequence was shot. Buffy was shown as being unable to fight Spike off after what amounted to a minor back injury in a graveyard. Considering Buffy fought Spike off with little effort in various episodes, with far greater injuries, including fighting a hell-god, and Angelus, this was difficult to believe. Also Spike attacked Buffy in her bathroom of all places. Entering it much like he might a living room. And we, the audience, had never really entered this room before.
Plus the sequence was shot in black and white, drenched of color, and as if it were in a different show. It, in short, took many viewers out of the story. And with it, their suspension of disbelief. It was difficult after that episode for the viewers to trust the writer, they stopped.
In tv land, this event is often called a "jump the shark" moment. It's when the viewer questions the story being told and finds themselves thrust outside of it. A huge wall suddenly exists between the viewer and the tale. They can no longer escape into it - instead they are critiquing it. Their critical faculties have become engaged and have in effect hijacked their viewing experience. It's no longer enjoyable.
It happens all the time to me with fanfic...I'll be reading along, and suddenly a character does something that just does not work for me. It feels out of character or outside how I viewed or more importantly the canon of the character. I don't mind AU (Alternate Universe) fanfic - it's basically a writer experimenting and you can argue all fanfic goes Alternate Universe at one point or another, but often...characters will do things that either do not make sense within the fabric of the story being told or are so outside what they would have done in the canon or original story that you wonder why the writer is bothering using this character and hasn't created a new one.
Example? A few years back, a group of us wrote a collaborative fanfic on the Fanged Four in Buffy, and our plotter got it into his head that Spike and Angelus should wear dresses to a costume party/ball with the Mayor back in the 1800s, in order to steal some doodad from the Mayor. We fought over this, because many of us weren't sure this worked for the characters. Would Spike and Angelus wear dresses? Was this out of character? Was the funny plot stunt that our "plotter" devised worth making our readers question what we were doing?
It's a valid question. The one thing a writer doesn't want is for the reader to start nit-picking.
Wait, thinks the reader, there's no way that a bullet can hit and kill this character from that angle? Without being a magic bullet. And it's not. So the reader or viewer is spending a great deal of time trying to figure out how the bullet could have hit the character...instead of enjoying the story.
Or...wait, there's no way Gregory House could still be practicing medicine at the same hospital after driving his car into his ex-girlfriend's house or going to prison. I can't buy this.
When does it happen? More importantly, from a writing perspective? How do we avoid it? Not as easy as it sounds. I remember writing a story with a gun. I went online and researched guns, bullets, and what happened when you shot someone. Because I was aware of the problem of throwing a knowledgable reader out of my story. It's a pain when you reader/watcher either knows more than you do about the topic you are writing about, or when they think they know more than you do and have pedantic streak. Be wary of critical readers.
Stephanie Meyer who wrote Twilight got away with a lot - mainly because her novels aren't directed towards a critical audience. They are young adult gothic fantasy romance novels. That audience tends to be more forgiving than the sci-fantasy audience that loves Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (ie. less critical). So it does depend on who the reader or audience is. A daytime soap opera watcher for example isn't going to be hyper-critical of the fact that the innocent guy gets thrown behind bars without due process. But a watcher of the series The Good Wife or NCIS or Breaking Bad - will be. We apply a different level to the medium.
And it is mainly based on experience. Another example? The last episode of the Good Wife had a grand jury hearing, where the prosecutor sort of screwed up royally and got derailed. Some posters didn't see this as realistic. I thought, why not? Didn't you guys watch The OJ Simpson Trial? Or for that matter American Politics? I mean come on. The State's Attorney's Special Prosecutor would get derailed that easily - I've seen it happen in real life, hello, Kenneth Starr? Newt Gingriech? I was bewildered by the reactions inselenak's review on the episode. Because they didn't track with my own real world experience. Doesn't mean they aren't valid. Just that our experiences are vastly different so our reactions are as well. This is also true with Breaking Bad - I was thrown out of the story in S2, and stopped watching. It was no longer real to me. It felt false and cliche based upon my experience. These are examples of how personal experience can affect viewing and pull us out of a story, even though others may have no issues with it - much like the reader of my short story about my grandparents. She was thrown out of the story based on her personal experience, and the assumption that her experience was the only valid thread.
Stories are supposed to pull us into another experience, outside of our heads and into another. Shared experiences. To show us a view or angle that we may never have considered. Not all stories, obviously. But many. That's part of the beauty of stories, I think. That ability to experience something you could not imagine or see a point of view that you never considered. But it's a tricky road to get the reader there - without thrusting them out of the story. Or another way of putting it? Not engaging their critical faculties in such a way that they question your story,
and spend all their time - going, wait a minute, that can't happen. There's no way this character would own a gun. Or there's no way they would tell them that.
I don't know about anyone else? But I've spent hours wrestling with plot-bunnies that don't feel plausible. I want two characters to have a specific conversation -but I realize, wait, there is no way on earth they are going to say these things. It just doesn't work. Example: Can you imagine Spike, a vampire who got his soul after he sexually forced himself on his lover, Buffy, who'd rejected him, telling his vampire brother/mentor/nemesis and rival for Buffy's affections why he'd sought a soul and what caused him to go after one? No. There's no way in hell that Spike would discuss this with Angel. Not willingly. So how do you make it happen? Sometimes? You just can't.
I've seen writers force things to happen between characters or plot-wise to achieve a specific theme. Notably the Buffy comics - which felt at times as if the writer was forcing his characters to play to his tune, instead of letting their story flow organically from their own personalities. In short, free will such as it is in stories was removed from the characters, and they became little more than puppets playing to the writer's thematic whimsy. OR at least that was my perception, your mileage may vary. As a result, I stopped reading the Buffy comics, because I could not buy the story. I was thrust out of it. I've seen this happen in tv shows as well.
Haven't we all? It also happens in novels. You are reading along, enjoying it, then wham - what? that can't happen! They would so not do that! Book goes crashing against the wall, and you feel betrayed by the writer.
So...what takes you out of a story? And how can a writer fix it? Is it even fixable?
Off to bed.
What takes you out of a story?
It's an interesting question. I remember a short story I wrote in undergrad about my grandparents. My grandfather had had three brain tumors removed. I inserted this into the story. But it did not work for one of my classmates who'd read it. She had a relative who died of brain cancer, just one tumor, and felt offended by my story. The three brain tumors felt like overkill to her. It took her out of the story. Short of my bringing in evidence that this was real, which I could have done because it was, it was not real to the classmate.
Which brings up the next question - when does it ruin the story for you? Or does it?
For many people online, the AR or attempted rape sequence in Seeing Red took them out of the story. It wasn't so much that they did not buy the fact that Spike might attack Buffy, but how that sequence was shot. Buffy was shown as being unable to fight Spike off after what amounted to a minor back injury in a graveyard. Considering Buffy fought Spike off with little effort in various episodes, with far greater injuries, including fighting a hell-god, and Angelus, this was difficult to believe. Also Spike attacked Buffy in her bathroom of all places. Entering it much like he might a living room. And we, the audience, had never really entered this room before.
Plus the sequence was shot in black and white, drenched of color, and as if it were in a different show. It, in short, took many viewers out of the story. And with it, their suspension of disbelief. It was difficult after that episode for the viewers to trust the writer, they stopped.
In tv land, this event is often called a "jump the shark" moment. It's when the viewer questions the story being told and finds themselves thrust outside of it. A huge wall suddenly exists between the viewer and the tale. They can no longer escape into it - instead they are critiquing it. Their critical faculties have become engaged and have in effect hijacked their viewing experience. It's no longer enjoyable.
It happens all the time to me with fanfic...I'll be reading along, and suddenly a character does something that just does not work for me. It feels out of character or outside how I viewed or more importantly the canon of the character. I don't mind AU (Alternate Universe) fanfic - it's basically a writer experimenting and you can argue all fanfic goes Alternate Universe at one point or another, but often...characters will do things that either do not make sense within the fabric of the story being told or are so outside what they would have done in the canon or original story that you wonder why the writer is bothering using this character and hasn't created a new one.
Example? A few years back, a group of us wrote a collaborative fanfic on the Fanged Four in Buffy, and our plotter got it into his head that Spike and Angelus should wear dresses to a costume party/ball with the Mayor back in the 1800s, in order to steal some doodad from the Mayor. We fought over this, because many of us weren't sure this worked for the characters. Would Spike and Angelus wear dresses? Was this out of character? Was the funny plot stunt that our "plotter" devised worth making our readers question what we were doing?
It's a valid question. The one thing a writer doesn't want is for the reader to start nit-picking.
Wait, thinks the reader, there's no way that a bullet can hit and kill this character from that angle? Without being a magic bullet. And it's not. So the reader or viewer is spending a great deal of time trying to figure out how the bullet could have hit the character...instead of enjoying the story.
Or...wait, there's no way Gregory House could still be practicing medicine at the same hospital after driving his car into his ex-girlfriend's house or going to prison. I can't buy this.
When does it happen? More importantly, from a writing perspective? How do we avoid it? Not as easy as it sounds. I remember writing a story with a gun. I went online and researched guns, bullets, and what happened when you shot someone. Because I was aware of the problem of throwing a knowledgable reader out of my story. It's a pain when you reader/watcher either knows more than you do about the topic you are writing about, or when they think they know more than you do and have pedantic streak. Be wary of critical readers.
Stephanie Meyer who wrote Twilight got away with a lot - mainly because her novels aren't directed towards a critical audience. They are young adult gothic fantasy romance novels. That audience tends to be more forgiving than the sci-fantasy audience that loves Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (ie. less critical). So it does depend on who the reader or audience is. A daytime soap opera watcher for example isn't going to be hyper-critical of the fact that the innocent guy gets thrown behind bars without due process. But a watcher of the series The Good Wife or NCIS or Breaking Bad - will be. We apply a different level to the medium.
And it is mainly based on experience. Another example? The last episode of the Good Wife had a grand jury hearing, where the prosecutor sort of screwed up royally and got derailed. Some posters didn't see this as realistic. I thought, why not? Didn't you guys watch The OJ Simpson Trial? Or for that matter American Politics? I mean come on. The State's Attorney's Special Prosecutor would get derailed that easily - I've seen it happen in real life, hello, Kenneth Starr? Newt Gingriech? I was bewildered by the reactions in
selenak's review on the episode. Because they didn't track with my own real world experience. Doesn't mean they aren't valid. Just that our experiences are vastly different so our reactions are as well. This is also true with Breaking Bad - I was thrown out of the story in S2, and stopped watching. It was no longer real to me. It felt false and cliche based upon my experience. These are examples of how personal experience can affect viewing and pull us out of a story, even though others may have no issues with it - much like the reader of my short story about my grandparents. She was thrown out of the story based on her personal experience, and the assumption that her experience was the only valid thread.Stories are supposed to pull us into another experience, outside of our heads and into another. Shared experiences. To show us a view or angle that we may never have considered. Not all stories, obviously. But many. That's part of the beauty of stories, I think. That ability to experience something you could not imagine or see a point of view that you never considered. But it's a tricky road to get the reader there - without thrusting them out of the story. Or another way of putting it? Not engaging their critical faculties in such a way that they question your story,
and spend all their time - going, wait a minute, that can't happen. There's no way this character would own a gun. Or there's no way they would tell them that.
I don't know about anyone else? But I've spent hours wrestling with plot-bunnies that don't feel plausible. I want two characters to have a specific conversation -but I realize, wait, there is no way on earth they are going to say these things. It just doesn't work. Example: Can you imagine Spike, a vampire who got his soul after he sexually forced himself on his lover, Buffy, who'd rejected him, telling his vampire brother/mentor/nemesis and rival for Buffy's affections why he'd sought a soul and what caused him to go after one? No. There's no way in hell that Spike would discuss this with Angel. Not willingly. So how do you make it happen? Sometimes? You just can't.
I've seen writers force things to happen between characters or plot-wise to achieve a specific theme. Notably the Buffy comics - which felt at times as if the writer was forcing his characters to play to his tune, instead of letting their story flow organically from their own personalities. In short, free will such as it is in stories was removed from the characters, and they became little more than puppets playing to the writer's thematic whimsy. OR at least that was my perception, your mileage may vary. As a result, I stopped reading the Buffy comics, because I could not buy the story. I was thrust out of it. I've seen this happen in tv shows as well.
Haven't we all? It also happens in novels. You are reading along, enjoying it, then wham - what? that can't happen! They would so not do that! Book goes crashing against the wall, and you feel betrayed by the writer.
So...what takes you out of a story? And how can a writer fix it? Is it even fixable?
Off to bed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 08:07 am (UTC)We have a vampire who is soulless questioning his own morality, his reason for being. It may be the most interesting scene in the entire series from a psychological and philosophical standpoint. That scene - makes you wonder if Spike needed a soul.
Much more recently, in an LJ post about the comics and the resolution of the Season 8 by the destruction of the Seed of Wonder, I noted that IMO, Whedon used the Seed and magic to symbolize religion, and that it might be worthy of considering (in his opinion) what the world would be like without, or with significantly less religion.
Your comments about whether Spike needed a soul or not falls right alongside arguments made by people over whether or not atheists can be moral individuals. I can assure you that according to regularly appearing editorial page letters to my local newspaper, many people in my area strongly believe that such is simply impossible and will not tender arguments to the contrary. Of course, atheist that I am, I beg to differ.
So you could also see the soul dilemma as another analog for religion vs. no religion.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 08:41 am (UTC)Nietzsche already gave an answer to that 150 years ago. Or, more precisely, Nietzsche said that the "seed" is already broken (in the so-called "Western World"). So, 150 years of experience of living in a world with a broken seed (to stay within the Whedon-metaphor) and what followed directly after Nietzsche...
...and then the over-religious AtS and how that turned out (for the characters, the characterization and the world).
Hm, doesn't really "click" for me in the "soul" vs. "no-soul" dichotomy.
(And maybe that's because Nietzsche really thought about stuff and Whedon only sells stuff. :-P )
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 05:21 pm (UTC)1) What throws us out of the story.
and
2) So much of this is subjective -
i.e. if you've read a lot of philosophy, such as Nietzche...Whedon's clumsy attempts could either turn you on, or really turn you off. Just as Nietzche turns some people on and some off, as does Ayn Rand.