I have mentioned these elements in a former post, but now I’d like to break each one down over the next few weeks, pointing out the questions I ask as to whether or not a work hits the mark in any given area. Different people prefer one of these elements over the other. I, myself, am a plot guy.
What is plot? Quite simply, it is the series of events that drive a story forward. Conflict, tension, rising action, climax, and resolution. That stuff. On paper we were taught these terms in high school English, but how does one create a compelling plot? Again, there is a lot of subjectivity, but I ask the following questions--whether consciously or unconsciously--as I delve into a plot.
Does the story pull me in? Wrestling with the right beginning is so often the plight of many creators. It is so crucial that a book or movie hooks an audience. It’s hard to know what will draw any given individual in. I like a good mystery. I like to be thrown into a scenario, where I have little idea as to what is going on, yet what to find out. Some want to be immersed in other-worldly action. Some want to cozy up to a relatable character. What draws people in is hard to pin down. Identifying what doesn’t work is a bit easier. Long, boring exposition. Whether in a book or movie, if the writers spend too much time trying to explain everything--i.e. a character’s entire backstory, every minute detail of the setting, or how the audience is supposed to think or feel--readers/watchers will grow bored quickly.
Are the plot points logical? There’s a fancy term going around called the plot hole. A plot hole occurs when one scene transitions to another in a way that doesn’t seem possible--at least within the given fictional world. Yes, we all suspend our disbelief as we engage, so not all scenes have to perfectly transition. For instance, in The Empire Strikes Back (considered by many as the best) the time Luke takes training doesn’t logically match up with Han and Leia’s journey to Cloud City (although avid fans have defended this). Subjectivity still rules with this question, yet, when an individual doesn’t accept a transition, it takes him or her out of the moment. The more outrageous the transition, the more people will refuse to suspend their disbelief.
Does the plot follow a "because of" or an "and then" sequence of events? Just because scenes transition logically, does not mean they are connected. There are two ways to connect scenes. The “because of” transition: because of the events of scene A, scene B happens. Or the “and then” transition: scene A happens, and then scene B happens, etc. The “because of” sequence of event does more to draw an audience. It keeps the plot flowing. It ups the stakes. You can find a great YouTube video comparing and contrasting Jurassic Park and Jurassic World. In the video, the commentator explains how Park uses “because of’ story telling elements, while World uses “and then” elements. To find this here.
Are there any contrived mechanisms of tension? Contrived tension is one of my biggest pet peeves concerning plot. A story needs conflict. Every story, has conflict. Someone or something has to have a goal, and someone or something must be standing in the way of that goal. That’s the backbone of a plot. But, when conflict is built upon a shoddy premise… That just frustrates me. And, the worst contrive tension mechanism offered is the misunderstanding. I’m not saying people never take things out of context and react poorly, yet so many books and movies use this element so lazily. Example? Shrek. Fine movie, but when Shrek overhears Fiona calling herself a monster, but thinks she’s talking about him… blugh! That bothers me so much. How is it he happened to walk in to hear her at that exact time? Why was she speaking so vaguely about herself in a manner that could be misconstrued? There are so many instances of this plot device being used poorly in both books and movies. So, yeah, contrived tension does that to an audience. Again, it’s subjective.
Is the ending or the event leading to the ending predictable? This isn’t always a make or break for me. Yet, I love a surprise. I think most people do. What surprises people varies greatly among genres and mediums. Still, something should surprise an audience.
Are conflicts resolved (or not resolved) in a believable manner? I love a twist. I love being surprised nearly more than any other feeling from a movie or book, but also it is hard to surprise me. In fact, I think it is getting harder and harder to surprise audiences in general. Thus, some writers go to great lengths in order to surprise an audience. Yet, there are leaps people are not willing to accept in order to be surprised. For instance, if a writer wrote a historical romance, and ended it with aliens abducting the protagonist, the audience would most likely be miffed. It wouldn’t make sense. However a conflict is resolved, it must come from within the world built. Readers and viewers must be able to gather clues throughout a work that the final resolution is one that could happen. One fact that annoyed many people about The Last Jedi was that in trying so hard to create an unpredictable work--which it was--Rian Johnson stomped over all (yes, I mean all) the mysterious elements hyped up from The Force Awakens. To many, The Last Jedi did not resolve itself in a manner believable to the established world.
What tropes are being used? Are they effective? Are they unique enough to make the story compelling? Tropes are mechanism or formulations that so often fill our stories. The hero's journey. The love triangle. Gruff character whose life is changed by a youngin'. The chosen one. And, unfortunately yes, the misunderstanding. I know everyone wants to create that "purely original" masterpiece, but some go as far to say, there are no new stories, just new spins. So, while there are certain tropes I really don't like (we all have them), I am not necessarily turned off by all tropes. How they are used is what most important.
Next post I’ll tackle the questions I ask concerning Character.
No comments:
Post a Comment