I'm interested in your differenting conflict and tension. That's thought provoking because it underline how a writer or movie maker can provide all kinds of action without hooking the audience into looking toward the future and wondering how something important is going to turn out.
In general, I've been disappointed in books that bill themselves as part of a trilogy (though I adore GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire and Tolkien is my idol). I think it's for the reason you name, that too often the individual books aren't satisfying on their own. We get tons of setup or recap. Martin doesn't do that. Each book has a satisfying arc of its own, even though it also links to the other books. I like books that are a series (ie use the same characters and world) but I prefer it when each book can stand on its own.
You know I was at that Taos Toolbox workshop in July and one thing Connie Willis pointed out was that when only one character is around, there's inevitably a lot of musing that lapses much too easily into telling. Having more than one person on stage at a time promotes livelier action.
Whew, you're making me think. I got the comment this afternoon, and I almost started rattling off a response, and then I froze. :) It's complex, and I'm not sure if I can explain it coherently, but let's try. :)
Conflict: in the book, there's lots of fight scenes, lots of people who don't like each other, plenty of action. There's plenty of internal conflict as well, at least with two of the main characters that I can think of.
But there never seemed to be any goals. No immediacy. Months would pass between chapters and I wouldn't even realize it. Action happened that felt arbitrary, not as something that truly posed a danger to the characters. And because I don't know what the main goal of the arc is, other than to save the world, I'm assuming, I can't feel any real tension.
I think that's the downfall, at least in this case, of the overarc that doesn't have a subplot, or at least an obvious goal. Sometimes, the latter doesn't bother me, but I have to be really taken in by the character/world/writing for that to happen.
You know I was at that Taos Toolbox workshop in July and one thing Connie Willis pointed out was that when only one character is around, there's inevitably a lot of musing that lapses much too easily into telling.
I'd never thought of that, but that's a very good point. It's something I know I'm trying to avoid in my own fiction, as much as I can. :)
In general, I've been disappointed in books that bill themselves as part of a trilogy (though I adore GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire and Tolkien is my idol). I think it's for the reason you name, that too often the individual books aren't satisfying on their own. We get tons of setup or recap. Martin doesn't do that. Each book has a satisfying arc of its own, even though it also links to the other books. I like books that are a series (ie use the same characters and world) but I prefer it when each book can stand on its own.
You know I was at that Taos Toolbox workshop in July and one thing Connie Willis pointed out was that when only one character is around, there's inevitably a lot of musing that lapses much too easily into telling. Having more than one person on stage at a time promotes livelier action.
Reply
Conflict: in the book, there's lots of fight scenes, lots of people who don't like each other, plenty of action. There's plenty of internal conflict as well, at least with two of the main characters that I can think of.
But there never seemed to be any goals. No immediacy. Months would pass between chapters and I wouldn't even realize it. Action happened that felt arbitrary, not as something that truly posed a danger to the characters. And because I don't know what the main goal of the arc is, other than to save the world, I'm assuming, I can't feel any real tension.
I think that's the downfall, at least in this case, of the overarc that doesn't have a subplot, or at least an obvious goal. Sometimes, the latter doesn't bother me, but I have to be really taken in by the character/world/writing for that to happen.
You know I was at that Taos Toolbox workshop in July and one thing Connie Willis pointed out was that when only one character is around, there's inevitably a lot of musing that lapses much too easily into telling.
I'd never thought of that, but that's a very good point. It's something I know I'm trying to avoid in my own fiction, as much as I can. :)
Reply
Leave a comment