The Write Stuff: Playing Poker with Your Readers

[AndyC]

Discuss @David Flin 's latest article here

 

[Max Sinister]

Since you mention Shakespeare tragedies... are you thinking of "Richard III"? Or rather "Titus Andronicus"?

 

[Redolegna]

Since you mention Shakespeare tragedies... are you thinking of "Richard III"? Or rather "Titus Andronicus"?

I'd say King Lear. Titus Andronicus is a revenge play, you expect a lot of plot going in, the gruesomer the better. In King Lear, the blinding is unexpected, Cordelia's fate as well...

 

[zaffre]

Excellent article; I know we like to rag on She Who Must Not Be Named but one of the better modern examples of this that has always stood out to me is Cedric Diggory.

 

[Alex Richards]

There's an interesting case study here in Kevin J. Anderson's Saga of Seven Suns. It jumps about through lots of different character PoVs, and after the first part of the first book, up to about the end of book 2 it's quite effective in setting up things where some new PoV characters are basically just set up to be killed off at the end of that chapter, some have been introduced but don't make it to the end of the book, and some are going to be focal characters.

And then from roughly Book 3 onwards (to the end of Book 7) it's somewhat obvious that some characters are going to survive to the end of the series, while with others it's a bit more ambiguous.

 

[Japhy]

I would argue that Cedric is a minor character, and as such, the emotional impact either way should be much reduced. If I recall, he never appears before the book he first appeared in, and essentially, he is introduced solely so that he can get killed. Now, if Ron or Hermione had been killed off in, say the penultimate book, then consider what that might do to the tension in the final book. Dumbledore being killed, well, that's almost the standard fate for a wise old mentor who has passed on enough of their wisdom to the central character to become expendable.

If the death of a character is to have an emotional impact on the reader, the reader has to be emotionally invested in the character who dies.

But then, I'm told I'm trigger happy when it comes to central characters.

Yet again I feel like this isn't a great take on HP. Not even a big HP fan, just feel like this leans way more on the movies take on things then the book.

 

[Thomas27]

Intelligente & interressent article.
But when we come to alternate history, sometimes the character/hero is History itself.
ie: In At the Edge of the Abyss, the characters pass with time as History follows its course.

 

[Japhy]

Intelligente & interressent article.
But when we come to alternate history, soemtimes the character/hero is History itself.
ie: In At the Edge of the Abyss, the characters pass with time as History follows its course.

Can't say I agree, a lot of AH online winds up being virtual encyclopedias or history textbooks rather then compelling fiction when you do it that way. There are exceptions but things are far more interesting when the human plays the central focus. And people like Jared and Thande have shown that even in big picture writing that things are elevated by that inclusion.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I think the thing with Cedric Diggory is that it needs to be remembered that these are, fundamentally, books for children.

I'd just turned twelve when Goblet of Fire came out, and I remember my classmates being absolutely shocked that a good guy could get offed like that in the middle of a paragraph, and then things would move on without even giving you the chance to process.

It absolutely landed with the target audience. This was an Australian school, where everyone religiously devoured John Marsden's Tomorrow series* to find out a: what the heroes blew up in this book and b: which one of them wouldn't make it out. So the concept of kids' adventure tales where people died obviously was familiar- but Cedric hurt. It just felt so damn off-hand- 'Kill the spare!'

So yes, I think Rowling needs credit for that one.



*Gripping invasion literature for young adults, if you weren't an Aussie kid in the late nineties.. Massive racist undertones, which at least puts it above usual invasion literature with massive racist overtones.

 

[Thomas27]

Can't say I agree, a lot of AH online winds up being virtual encyclopedias or history textbooks rather then compelling fiction when you do it that way. There are exceptions but things are far more interesting when the human plays the central focus. And people like Jared and Thande have shown that even in big picture writing that things are elevated by that inclusion.

The article and the series is concerned with the writing of a story, whether that story be historical, fantasy, SF, alternate history, or whatever.

If a book is being presented as a history book, and that is the focus, then the craft of writing will follow different priorities. Throughout, whether it be making characters more convincing or making a plot that is coherent, making villains that actually have motivation or creating a narrative arc, I've focused on the craft of writing fiction.

Something like Drake's Drum, where essentially the story is a history book arc, the story doesn't delve into the motivations or developments or characterisation of individuals. Such stories follow a different set of rules, and I'm not qualified to talk about those rules. I'm a story-teller, with a focus on telling a story about people (and snowmen and ravens and ghosts, but that's another matter).

Bring Me My Bow, for example, could have been written in the form of focusing on the technical developments and the political manoeuvres and the grand strategy by which things develop, how without WWI, aircraft technology hasn't advanced so much, so therefore there is a bigger opening for airships, in terms of being able to carry goods and people faster than ships, and in greater quantity than planes. But that wasn't the story I wanted to tell. I wanted to tell how the world looks for someone in the world who isn't at the forefront of devising strategy and who doesn't get to see the grand strategic plans, but who gets to be involved at the sharp end of the consequences.

It's up to the reader which they prefer.

Yes. This is why I said "sometimes"

 

[Japhy]

Yes. This is why I said "sometimes"

While I am loath to except it when someone tries to wink their way out of defending what they said, it doesn't really matter because my point is that it's not sometimes, but should be more of a "never". You shouldn't try to write encyclopedic AH anymore.

 

[Charles EP M.]

It just felt so damn off-hand- 'Kill the spare!'

I'd agree on this - the impact comes from the casualness, he's killed just for being inconvenient, and this is the point in the books when nobody's been killed yet (nobody cares about you, Quirrel), for an audience who are still getting to grips with how the 'rules' can be broken at all. How effective Diggory's death is would depend on how old you are when you read it. (For me, it's no Thunderbird 2 being shot down by the Sentinel)

 

[Nofix]

Good article, and good segue in from the Poker analogy.

I'm not sure if I personally dislike it more when the main cast is immune from the risk of death, thus turning every life or death scenario boring; or when they drop like flies, thus making any interest in the characters (and their fate) difficult. It's definitively a thin line to tread, to keep the threat of death real without making it impossible to actually care.