Writing plot that doesn't seem fake
Nov. 8th, 2018 01:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThis is something that is likely obvious to other people but appeared in my head and I couldn't easily put into words.
Often, when plot happens in a book, it feels like it kind of comes out of nowhere. It feels like (and maybe was) that the author had written a note that at that point "then the main characters have a big argument" or "then the assassins guild attack them". And then that's what happens. Even if it feels out of character or doesn't make sense with what happened before.
But if instead, I think of it as, "X resents Y for foo but doesn't admit it as long as bar" and "Y thinks X is bad at baz but doesn't want to say so" and "the assassins guild put a bounty on them but have't found them yet", then that typically shows through in previous scenes, naturally creating some amount of factual or thematic foreshadowing.
Like, instead of the current status quo being a natural peaceful state and each plot development being instigated by a new impetus, imagine the status quo is an equilibrium between many opposing forces, both internal to the character (what they want to do, what they're scared of) and external (other factions, things that will likely go wrong, etc). And then every event occurs naturally if you just knock the situation off balance a bit, without needing to contrive new forces of motion.
Also, if the characters have a smaller number of motivations they pursue through many situations, it feels more like a whole plot instead of a series of coincidences.
Roleplaying
If anything, that's probably even more important in roleplaying, and was the way I was thinking of roleplaying scenarios even if I didn't put it in those terms. If you have an overall force pushing the players towards the main antagonist (revenge, macguffin, curiosity, he's hunting them down, whatever), and a force pushing them away (typically, "he's too tough"), then the scenario will likely end up with a big showdown somewhere even if it goes off the rails at every intermediate point. If the momentum is already in that direction, it's easy to improvise some of the details, e.g. they don't know where he is, all you need to do is drop an appropriate clue.
But if you don't have existing motivation shared and understood by the players (often subconsciously), then every event feels tacked on, with the players constantly looking for clues what they're "supposed" to do.
Caveats
Obviously, this is just a way of thinking, it's not actually a solution. And even if you do show problems coming they can feel fake: you repeatedly show a characters' anger, but the reader doesn't accept it and is shocked when it bubbles out of control; or you repeatedly reference the risk of death from something, but without even small consequences, it doesn't feel "real" and when it actually kills someone, it feels "unfair".
Often, when plot happens in a book, it feels like it kind of comes out of nowhere. It feels like (and maybe was) that the author had written a note that at that point "then the main characters have a big argument" or "then the assassins guild attack them". And then that's what happens. Even if it feels out of character or doesn't make sense with what happened before.
But if instead, I think of it as, "X resents Y for foo but doesn't admit it as long as bar" and "Y thinks X is bad at baz but doesn't want to say so" and "the assassins guild put a bounty on them but have't found them yet", then that typically shows through in previous scenes, naturally creating some amount of factual or thematic foreshadowing.
Like, instead of the current status quo being a natural peaceful state and each plot development being instigated by a new impetus, imagine the status quo is an equilibrium between many opposing forces, both internal to the character (what they want to do, what they're scared of) and external (other factions, things that will likely go wrong, etc). And then every event occurs naturally if you just knock the situation off balance a bit, without needing to contrive new forces of motion.
Also, if the characters have a smaller number of motivations they pursue through many situations, it feels more like a whole plot instead of a series of coincidences.
Roleplaying
If anything, that's probably even more important in roleplaying, and was the way I was thinking of roleplaying scenarios even if I didn't put it in those terms. If you have an overall force pushing the players towards the main antagonist (revenge, macguffin, curiosity, he's hunting them down, whatever), and a force pushing them away (typically, "he's too tough"), then the scenario will likely end up with a big showdown somewhere even if it goes off the rails at every intermediate point. If the momentum is already in that direction, it's easy to improvise some of the details, e.g. they don't know where he is, all you need to do is drop an appropriate clue.
But if you don't have existing motivation shared and understood by the players (often subconsciously), then every event feels tacked on, with the players constantly looking for clues what they're "supposed" to do.
Caveats
Obviously, this is just a way of thinking, it's not actually a solution. And even if you do show problems coming they can feel fake: you repeatedly show a characters' anger, but the reader doesn't accept it and is shocked when it bubbles out of control; or you repeatedly reference the risk of death from something, but without even small consequences, it doesn't feel "real" and when it actually kills someone, it feels "unfair".
no subject
Date: 2018-11-14 11:39 am (UTC)"I generally seem to see the plot as legitimate whilst I'm reading it"
Now I think about it, I think what I'm talking about is things that *break* suspension of disbelief. This really does vary a lot between people. I don't *intend* to be analytical, but it seems like I'm more likely to be jolted by one of those things than you are.
To some extent, I guess some people are just naturally more inclined to roll with things. If a character suddenly starts acting differently, or if some gadget can do something that was never mentioned before, some people get hung up on it, and some people just accept that as the way things are now. But you can't just completely accept things. Accepting "how things are" is based on cues from the book -- not consciously processed, but from the dialogue, the tone, and the facts, communicating "these characters are in trouble now" or "they're angry at each other". And lots of response to the book can only appear by the reader having a model in their head of how they expect a character or gadget to act, or they have no way to judge what's an important occurrence, but if you have that at all, you must sometimes be jarred by things not meeting it.
I don't mean like a critic reviewing a film, I mean more like a child saying, "Character X wouldn't do a bad thing like that" or "Character Y can't die, it's not fair", because they don't expect characters to just die.
Often this depends on some sort of shared assumption -- importantly, it doesn't have to be CORRECT, but you need SOME model of, for instance, "the bad guy has a gun, they're dangerous", even if it's completely different to a real-life model, and if you don't you won't know when to be scared for the hero and when you won't.
My original post was about avoiding those moments, like when a scene is supposed to be tense but isn't, because the author intended the reader to feel the hero's in danger but the reader doesn't. But I guess if you rarely experience those, then it makes much less difference. Even if I think the same techniques typically do help a reader be engrossed, even if the failure to do so isn't an obvious one. Like I said before, of it "not working" often doesn't translate to the reader spotting the problem, but just getting bored and not caring.