Being Too Saccharine vs. Being Too Cynical

[srebak]

This is an issue that has been haunting my writer's thoughts for quite some time now: being too saccharine or being too cynical.

Over the years, there have been shows that i like that did some things and showed some things that i didn't. Things that i (for the most part) would prefer not to incorporate within my own stories. However, in my attempts to bar such things from my own writing, i'm starting to think that that makes certain aspects of my stories unrealistic.

Example:

In some shows and movies, it is a common idea that if you do something good for someone else and show them kindness and compassion, it will not go unrewarded, even if being rewarded wasn't your intention. The same has been said to apply to animals in such stories, for example: if you help an injured lion and show it some love and compassion, then later on, when you're attacked by a another animal, the very same lion would come to your defense. I sort of liked that reasoning. However, in recent years, i'm reminded of at least two TV shows that i watched (both by Disney), which both showed the heroes doing something good for a carnivorous beast and then had said beast go back to attacking them. I know, I know, that's more realistic, but it's too cynical for my tastes.

So, the question remains: how do i keep out the stuff that i don't like without the story becoming too saccharine and how do i make the story realistic without seeming to cynical?

 

[Jabrosky]

What does "too saccharine" mean to you?

 

[Penpilot]

No basic idea is too saccharine. It's the execution of the story that makes it that way. When you tell your story, you have to set up reader expectations. If your story is supposed to be a sappy-love-conquers-all story then let it be obvious that that's the story you're telling. It's like telling the reader this is the type of story I'm telling and now is the time to get off the train if you're not into it.

The next things are truth, honesty, and intelligence.

Truth, as in stay true to the story you're telling. No half spoons of sugar, only full spoons.

Honesty, as in everything must be earned, by the writer and the characters. No sudden changes of heart by the villain/hero with only a flimsy excuse to explain it away. Changes must be honest cause by good reasons.

Intelligence, as in treat your characters and audiences with it. Unless a character is a dimwit, don't have them do obviously stupid things to advance the plot. If a simple phone call can resolve a conflict, there better be a really good reason a character doesn't make that call.

Recently, I saw this movie, August Rush. It's a pretty saccharine movie, and as a movie it's pretty average. But I really enjoyed it because it was unapologetic in the type of movie it was. Right off the bat I could tell the movie was whimsical like a fairytale and that's the way it played out. My expectations were met. The characters weren't quite fully developed, but the didn't need to be. Their motivations were honest and so where their changes. And there were no characters played on for their stupidity.

 

[Feo Takahari]

So, the question remains: how do i keep out the stuff that i don't like without the story becoming too saccharine and how do i make the story realistic without seeming to cynical?

To be honest, you've just hit on something that peeves me--the assumption that a cynical work is more realistic than one that isn't cynical. For instance, did you know that after disasters, the survivors tend to band together to share supplies and reestablish order? Just think about all those cynical, "realistic" stories that show disaster survivors descending into violent chaos!

If you want to write something realistic, look at how people actually act. Study their behavior in real-life situations, and portray that in your stories. I think you'll wind up with a result that not only isn't saccharine, but isn't (overly) cynical.

 

[Mythopoet]

To be honest, you've just hit on something that peeves me--the assumption that a cynical work is more realistic than one that isn't cynical. For instance, did you know that after disasters, the survivors tend to band together to share supplies and reestablish order? Just think about all those cynical, "realistic" stories that show disaster survivors descending into violent chaos!

If you want to write something realistic, look at how people actually act. Study their behavior in real-life situations, and portray that in your stories. I think you'll wind up with a result that not only isn't saccharine, but isn't (overly) cynical.

This is a big pet peeve of mine as well. Especially when writers portray war as full of nothing but horrors and death and destruction. It's true that a lot of bad stuff happens during a war, but it's also true that a lot of people display levels of compassion and heroism that you don't see under normal circumstances. People always rise up to fight evil with good, but too many writers ignore the acts of heroism and good in favor of just showing the bad. It really bugs me.

 

[srebak]

Well, this scenario happened to me again

This time, it was the idea of someone saying that coming to another person's aide is what friends do, only for the person they're saying this to to hesitate in agreeing with them, thus implying that the latter does not see the other as a friend. This has led me to think about all the times i heard characters say things like "we're not friends" and "nothing's changed between us, we're still enemies" or times when the animal companion was only loyal because they were getting treats.. It also led me to think about the possibilities of my characters being naive.

Say what you want about such concepts, but for me, it just bothers me like nobody's business, especially when it disrupts the kind of story i want to tell.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Feo I could not agree with this more. This is the basis behind Grimdark fantasy and it is in my view just as flawed as the former overly optimistic happy ending epic fantasy that came before. I mean I love Game of Thrones, but there are points at which I think grief - you can't just kill and torture everyone. In fact at some points I wonder if GRRM is just indulging some secret fetish about torture etc.

Srebak, realism is a very hard thing to find in any fantasy book, and often what people should be aiming for isn't realism at all. It's believability. As you go through your work ask yourself and ask your beta readers to ask this simple question, does this seem believable? Is the happy ending too happy? Too improbable? Sickening? Are the deaths and suffering understandable and reasonable?

I'd also add one other thing. There is no pleasing everyone. What some will see as reasonable others will see as completely over the top. Readers will also see agendas where there aren't any, and miss them where you've added them. For example I have a review on one of my books that paints my world view as essentially anti-government / big brother, and anti scientist - as in they're all evil monsters. I haven't had the heart to tell the guy that I work as an epidemiologist in a government organisationand am essentially a scientist. I have another review on another book in which the reviewer insists that he hates my MC feeling guilty for brutally murdering someone. Naturally I don't agree with these thoughts, though I have given them considerable thought over the previous year or so. But I respect that these are genuine opinions, and that people are different. If I changed the works no doubt I'd have others saying I'm too idealistic and my MC is a sociopath.

You aren't going to win on these sorts of issues. You can only write what you think is fair and makes a good, believable story and hope that most readers agree with you.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[skip.knox]

Realism is that which is needed by the story. Too dark means the author has introduced dark elements arbitrarily. Too saccharine means the author has introduced sweet elements arbitrarily. Either way, it's a failure on the part of the author.

Realism might be fantastical or ordinary, happy or sad, heroic or pedestrian. It all depends upon the story.

I don't see how one can talk about this in the abstract. To me, the only true test is whether or not the story succeeds for the author. How it is received by the reader is a separate matter.

 

[Terry Greer]

I like my tea and coffee without sugar - my son takes 2 sugars in each - it's all a matter of taste.
Same goes for cynicism and saccharine stories.

I guess the reason it's called saccharine is that this is a 'false sugar' and tastes 'off' compared to the real thing.
I can take any amount of honest sweetness in a novel if it's heartfelt and honest, but I hate the fake emotion that sometimes finds its way into stories where a good act is always rewarded nicely.

Game of Thrones gets a lot of stick for being too cynical - I personally don't see it quite that way - there's a lot of goodness and nobility in it, and characters you want to see succeed. they don't all survive, but that's not cynicism or realism - just a demonstration of luck, or emphasizing how bad some body else is in the story. Labeling it cynical or realistic (to me anyway) misses the point.

That's all a bit of a ramble - I guess what i'm really saying is it's down to your own personal taste if it's too sweet or not.

 

[srebak]

I guess when it comes down to it, i want to work in certain things that sound ideal and good, and make my heroes sound like heroes. But my mind keeps thinking back to shows and movies that actually poked fun at these things (I don't even see the humor in these circumstances or any other reason for doing them)

 

[wordwalker]

There's no easy answer about where the balance could be. After all, once you decide, it involves making umpteen tweaks to make the story work with that mix.

What I do think is that a lot of making a story saccharine is skipping how many problems could happen-- and sometimes it's the number of them that makes that difference, as much about how often they remind us of them as how big they are. An action tale can be a bit bland if it has one strong villain but everyone else misses all their chances to have even the slightest disagreement with the hero.

Part of that seems to be human nature, and reflected in writing: because we're always primed to watch for problems, life and stories are "about" problems before they can slow down to be about anything else. So the longer a story goes without at least something going wrong from a given quarter, the more it starts to feel unrealistic, or at least unusual writing.

--Though that can lead to a lot of lazy (or just too-dark-for-me) writing, built on the theory that conflict= quality= More Backstabbing Is Good. (Yes, GRRM's third initial should have been an "I.")

 

[Trick]

I guess when it comes down to it, i want to work in certain things that sound ideal and good, and make my heroes sound like heroes. But my mind keeps thinking back to shows and movies that actually poked fun at these things (I don't even see the humor in these circumstances or any other reason for doing them)

The fun being 'poked' is likely due to Mary Sue and Gary Stu characters. Flawlessly moral and heroic characters who follow an idealistic code without deviation are just plain boring. That doesn't mean that good deeds must go unrewarded for realism or that characters have to be dark or pshyco/emotionally damaged; it just means that characters with no flaws whatsoever are not relatable for human readers. Add some flaws and the fun-poking will die down.

Every person has lived a different life than the rest and that means your book will be different than mine and that is good. More than good, necessary for success! If I think your book is saccharine who cares? I'm one guy and I know many people who disagree with me regularly (just ask my wife hehe). I like Joe Abercrombie. I don't want to write just like him by any means, my work is saccharine in comparison to his, but he's successful for a reason, as are a multitude of writers with much lighter and more cuddly stories.

To oversimplify this, do you prefer Batman or Superman? I have a feeling that you will say Superman, along with millions of others whose opinions are just as valuable as mine. I prefer Batman. You can write about the hero who is good at heart, never lies and saves the day and it could easily be a storming success. I will write about the anti-hero with a flawed moral character and poor decision making who gets wrapped up in plots by those more intentionally evil than himself and that could also sell very well (though I try to have my darker protagonists grow toward goodness at the very least).

Just my $0.02