How can it get any WORSE?

[Chessie]

Chester, just looking at one thrust of your post 111, can I say that this isn't a particularly complex writing issue at all. I think most people would understand it easily enough.

Okay, again, that isn't what I meant. I agree that the concept is simple, and my response to Heliotrope was right along the line of Fifthview's post in regards to how adding the extra questions she gave as an example complicated matters more. That's it. Not that people shouldn't discuss advance writing techniques or even that this is one. None. Of. That.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Wow, I go away for the weekend, and there's more pages on this thread I didn't thin would even resonate with folks, just wanting to muse on the off chance it helped someone else in my situation. HA!

So, for my personal situation, I've finished plenty of novels that are very middle of the road. I had character concepts and plot elements, but the real thing I was missing was tension. I had SOME tension, but I was missing some opportunities to make the story feel more real, with stakes apparent up front.

That was the heart of this realization for me. I needed to make some situations worse. I needed to put more at risk for the character. When i gave the GOT example, I was simply saying that that eye-opening experience cut straight to my heart, it made me realize how easy I'd made things sometimes for my characters because I felt it was logical.

Here's the basic message I want to get across to you (since I just finally got it myself): If you have a character in a situation, it might feel exceptional "right" and logical for them to do THIS ONE THING next. Maybe it's a prisoner charged with something they didn't do, and you feel it's logical and fitting for him to be cleared of the charges. But there is an alternative. You can make it worse. You can deny the reader (and yours;f, the writer) the logical, or even hoped-for outcome, and you can instead create one more layer of "worse" for that character to experience before giving him the freedom or pardon. That's all I mean.

I'm not advocating one "way" is right over any other, I just wanted to share the moving experience I had when I was denied the happy outcome I desired, and the very fulfilling feeling of seeing things get more desperate.

I'd like to equate this to another thing, because I think it's really applicable. Same theory. Many years ago I read a book by a professional hypnotist. He said that there were a couple ways you can use hypnotism in everyday life. One, was technique that interrupts a person's own mind during the process of a non-active thought. When you go to shake someone's hand (the example in the book), their subconscious mind kicks in. They don't actively think about shaking a hand, it's a reactive action. And if you somehow interrupt that response, you can catch a brief moment before the active mind kicks in. If you DON'T shake the hand, that person who is on autopilot, is suddenly sort of shocked, but before they regain their conscious thought, they are susceptible to a hypnotic suggestion. THAT'S how I felt when Tyrion was denied his freedom, when we all thought the duel was won.

And so now, all I'm saying is that maybe twice in this book, I'll simply choose NOT to shake the hand. Throw a real surprise in there and go in a completely unpredictable direction. Not just for the sake of throwing in the wrench, but because readers will remember that moment they were disarmed, like anyone would remember that person who went to shake their hand, and then went in a different direction.

 

[X Equestris]

Except not even remotely, because ASOIAF is a never-ending parade of misery and death, and as horrible as things got throughout history it wasn't only that all the time. In Martin's world, everyone is a bastard and if you hand someone a sword they will immediately become a thieving rapist 99% of the time.

Yes, the real world can be worse. But the only reason we notice is because it usually isn't. It's precisely this reason that I was emphasizing the dangers of losing the audience with excessive grimness. If there's nothing in the forecast but relentless pain and disappointment, why bother continuing? Darkness finds meaning in contrast with light, otherwise you're just staring at pointless monotony.

Martin's failure as a writer is in that he is convinced that nobody will take his story seriously if characters can ever obtain any form of victory that doesn't immediately somehow turn around and leave them worse off than they were before. Which might have been engaging ramping of tension the first 17 times he does it, but after shocking failure number 51 it's hard to care anymore.

I think you're overlooking the fact that Martin's series is set within the confines of a particularly bad period (The War of Five Kings) and during such events people have a tendency to descend to some awful levels for survival. It's one of those "usually isn't" instances. Further, there absolutely are good hearted characters, some of whom make it out well enough. A few of the low level septons, whose names escape me at the moment, are notable examples.

Sympathetic characters do win on occasion, and some of those victories aren't simply undone later. Keep in mind that the series is also unfinished. I'm sure we'll see victories and good characters surviving once we reach the end, but we're not there yet.

 

[Malik]

during such events people have a tendency to descend to some awful levels for survival.

It doesn't take a War of Five Kings. War helps, but it's not remotely necessary. The majority of people are entitled, uppity shitbags at heart and need very little impetus in order to descend to awfulness. GRRM is giving humanity a pass.

Keeping that in mind, imagine a world where Plato's Republic was never written; where laws are determined by the rulers on a whim, and upheld by auxiliaries and parastatal agencies, with no formal or stated notion of justice being worthwhile for its own sake. Where the concepts we take for granted about justice and political theory -- hell, even right and wrong as we know it -- have never been uttered, and where you'd be skinned alive for writing the ideas down. Where Joffrey, Caligula, and Idi Amin are the rule and Pope Francis and The Dalai Lama are the radicals.

That's every other world but ours. Hell, that's a good chunk of the world we live in; we just never see it from here.

 

[FifthView]

my response to Heliotrope was right along the line of Fifthview's post in regards to how adding the extra questions she gave as an example complicated matters more.

Just want to clarify that my response was meant to reference the specifics of her brainstorming about my example premise, not so much those questions she gave in that later comment—although those brainstormed ideas would have complicated my example premise beyond what I would want.

But the general thrust of my response (and the one previous to it referencing Mary's comments in the Writing Excuses podcast) was related. All of these questions, Heliotrope's approach and reasoning re: "make it worse," can be very helpful in designing a story and individual scenes, chapters, and the plot and pacing for a story. But they don't need to be asked and answered for every single thing within a story, every step of the way. I think Helio clarified on this point in her last comment.

My mind has moved on a little bit to wondering about the nuts and bolts and various strategies to be used for different story types, my own included. That exercise earlier in the thread, of worsening the premise, has itself thrown a wrench into a current project: I see I did not ask "How can this be worse" and now that I have begun to ask it, inspired by my exercise here, I'm like, Crap. Maybe it really does need that for this project.

But more generally, I think that some stories can be front-loaded with worsening, a set of really rough and conflict-producing initial conditions, but maybe some stories can start out with a simpler premise and we can build worsening throughout in our development/unfolding of the plot and with our pacing. So for instance, a relatively simple premise (guy must rescue Princess from evil overlord, and thus also save the kingdom) can have a quest journey, a plot development, that progressively grows worse in its details—without substantially "worsening" the overarching premise, or without front-loading the story with tension and complication.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I have no idea how this might be useful, but was thinking about my WIP storyline, and how "make it worse" functions not simply in chapter to chapter decisions but in underlying construction, which is where make it worse really should happen most so it all fits the storyline without looking like the opposite of deus ex machina... diabolus ex machina... bad happens just to pump up the tension/drama, which often gets labeled melodrama.

Story Premise: Bad things happen and the MC leads his people on an exodus from their homeland. Bad is a given, but who is the MC?

MC could start as head of clan... clean, simple. No way.
MC could be the obvious heir... a little messier, still need to off pops somehow.
MC starts as the third son of the second son, meaning he starts well out of the loop for succession to being the clan head. Now things must get real bad for him to lead. Unless of course everyone just cedes power to him because he is a super-genius... that ain't gonna happen.
MC's uncle and dad both must die, + older cousins and brothers must either croak, become incapable of leadership, or cede rule to him... Now we're talking things are bad just to get our MC where he needs to be for the plot.
MC's relatives could be on a ship that sinks, or killed by a disease... yeah, that's drama... but we're talking about conspiracies and demons driving the people from the island... so they could die in battle. Realistic, dramatic... but, better...
They're assassinated by the Church, who our MC has felt a loyalty to at the start of the book. Yeah, now we're talking worse.

So, by choosing the right character for the story, it produces a plot need for bad things to happen. And if things are done right, the good and bad flow and feel "real".

A good conversation could probably be started about Diabolus ex Machina too... heh heh.

 

[Heliotrope]

I just watched Gladiator the other night and my husband says

"Man, they took everything away from that guy didn't they?

Yes. Yes they did.

 

[FifthView]

Story Premise: Bad things happen and the MC leads his people on an exodus from their homeland. Bad is a given, but who is the MC?

This is very odd, because I'm in the middle of a Nova episode looking at archeological evidence for the Exodus.

There's no clear antecedent for the pronoun in "Make it worse."

Make....what worse?

So maybe we can look at MICE: Milieu, Idea, Character, Event. Quite a few things can be done in these areas, for the initial premise.

But maybe the granular level (a term I've been using too much lately) can be made worse also. So instead of having to cross through a narrow canyon where they could be ambushed and trapped at any time....they have to do it during a major storm, so there's flooding, possible mudslides into the canyon, and maybe this just happens to be the point also when their pursuers catch up to them. —See, that's not front-loading by making the premise worse vis-à-vis MICE (although it may involve those areas on the granular level). It's also not a case of having to use deus/diabolus ex whatever, but can fit within the story naturally.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Just to interject, no they didn't. Had they given him the Game of Thrones treatment it would have been much worse. No doubt he would have been tortured. Probably mutilated in some way that still allowed him to complete his mission. His dignity and self respect would have been stripped from him by his carrying out some horrific act that showed him to be less a champion / hero and more a monster. No one to admire. And what they did take away from him, his family, his home, his rank his noble station are what let you enjoy the movie.

They didn't do the Game of Thrones thing, and that's what makes the movie. You can still root for Max. You can still admire him and want him to succeed. You can listen to his speeches and be moved. You can want him to defeat the evil emperor.

But you wouldn't really care if he wasn't a man with all those noble qualities. It'd be like one slightly less evil emperor killing the more evil one. You wouldn't really care who wins, and if they all died quickly it would be best. You could change the channel.

Ask yourself. If this was Gobels as the gladiator and Hitler as the emperor, would you be invested in the movie?

Cheers, Greg.

 

[FifthView]

Maybe to add a slight curveball...I remember an earlier discussion on "going deeper" rather than "going broader" in reference to world building. I.e., instead of adding 50 cultures and 20 types of magic, you pick a much smaller number but dig deeper into those.

Similarly, this "making it worse" can be used without having to add artificial roadblocks, 50 new screws turning. So if there's a forced exodus....well, what are all the natural dimensions of such an exodus, the hardships already built in (or that can be built in without having to add 100 types of mythical bloodthirsty creatures populating the land)? Or, if there's a city torn by civil war, with street-to-street fighting...well, what makes such a thing bad? Find its proportions, the natural badness in it, go deeper.

 

[Caged Maiden]

As an example of how I just "made it worse", I had a character who wanted to leave her crime boss. That was bad. She is afraid he'll simply say no, and then maybe she'll end up floating face down in the bay. So, one of her reasons for wanting to leave is that she's caring for a teenage girl who reminds of her when she was younger. She wants the girl to get out. But wanting it wasn't enough. Hello just suggested I show how the girl is sort of enjoying the lifestyle, which is the thing that prompts the MC to REALLY want to leave, NOW.

No one got maimed. No one got assaulted. It was just a teenager hanging out with folks who engaged in every form of debauchery at a party, and the girl's presence that made it really hit home that another year, another month, may not be a good thing. She has to act sooner, rather than later.

If you have two characters who are in a certain place, and they're working well together, maybe have them disagree. it doesn't need to be a fight, but maybe someone's being difficult, or maybe there's two type-A personalities in a bit of conflict over who's giving orders. Have one person kick a clue under a rug. Have a disagreement over how to proceed. A snappy dialogue is loads of fun for readers. No one needs to bleed.

I think that's what people mean when they say "A day in happy town". It just means that no one wants to read about two people who just got married and are celebrating a romantic honeymoon. Rather, they want to see some odd thing in the room, left by one of the couple. A clue that something isn't right in paradise. Raise a suspicion. Raise the stakes. Then, when you reveal that something really is wrong, it'll be that much more engaging, rather than feeling like it comes out of nowhere. If readers see some small clues, they can sink their teeth into the story, and be more engaged by the situation.

I really think I've been going about creating tension the wrong way since the beginning. I was showing many days in happy town, where characters dined together, had a plot-important conversation, but I forgot to create personalities in conflict. I forgot that beautiful sentence structure is a poor substitute for a more engaging story.

Making it worse for the sake of making it worse is just plain silly. But if we can find a couple instances where we can really throw a curve ball, it'll help the story all around.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Side note on GoT/ASOIAF, which has already gotten too much airtime in this thread, is that the series could absolutely end on high notes. I think a lot of people discount this possibility. Maybe I'm just a cynical-optimist, but I see plenty of positives in the series as an old interpretive lit guy... yeah sure, people get mutilated, tortured, killed... Valar Morghulis... All men must die, but the spirit of survival and the impending threat from the north gives a major opportunity for redemption, both on an individual level and humans as a species. Of course, it won't be pretty, nor should it be, and it could be turned into a cynical feast of flesh where the dead and winter rule the world... but, the story could be powerfully uplifting on a fundamental level by the time it ends. That is part of the fun with the series as a whole. 'tisn't for everybody, no doubt, but I find it fun.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Hi, Just to interject, no they didn't.

Had they given him the Game of Thrones treatment it would have been much worse. No doubt he would have been tortured. Probably mutilated in some way that still allowed him to complete his mission. His dignity and self respect would have been stripped from him by his carrying out some horrific act that showed him to be less a champion / hero and more a monster. No one to admire. And what they did take away from him, his family, his home, his rank his noble station are what let you enjoy the movie.

They didn't do the Game of Thrones thing, and that's what makes the movie. You can still root for Max. You can still admire him and want him to succeed. You can listen to his speeches and be moved. You can want him to defeat the evil emperor. But you wouldn't really care if he wasn't a man with all those noble qualities. It'd be like one slightly less evil emperor killing the more evil one. You wouldn't really care who wins, and if they all died quickly it would be best. You could change the channel.

Although I see your point, Greg. I must disagree. Going from general of a legion to slave turned gladiator, after losing your wife, child, & security is pretty bad. Also consider that before he was given an opportunity to exact revenge, he'd given up on any purpose, including life itself.

He'd lost the desire to live until the slaver, who once was a gladiator himself, gave him the opportunity to reach Rome in a match attended by the emperor. As a gladiator, Maximilian slaughtered countless other slaves on the path to Rome, a practice both he and his father figure (Marcus Aurelius) found loathsome & barbaric. As such, Maximilian debased himself and betrayed his ideals to satisfy his thirst for revenge.

He didn't receive the Theon Greyjoy treatment, but he certainly lost more than his family & station. He lost himself along the way. However, he lost himself in a sympathetic fashion. That is why we root for him. Sympathy, in the face of terrible choices & circumstance, makes the movie.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

As an example of how I just "made it worse", I had a character who wanted to leave her crime boss. That was bad. She is afraid he'll simply say no, and then maybe she'll end up floating face down in the bay. So, one of her reasons for wanting to leave is that she's caring for a teenage girl who reminds of her when she was younger. She wants the girl to get out. But wanting it wasn't enough. Hello just suggested I show how the girl is sort of enjoying the lifestyle, which is the thing that prompts the MC to REALLY want to leave, NOW.

Ok... So, just my opinion here, but this isn't Making it Worse. This is adding a layer of justification or motivation.

An example of making it worse might be.... Your MC trusts a smuggler friend to help her and the girl escape. However, the friend betrays her for monetary gain and poisons the MC or the girl with some slow acting agent. She has a few days until she succumbs to the poison. The only person who has the antidote is the crime boss, who knew all along your MC wanted out.

That's an example of making it worse...and it could worsen still. Perhaps once she realizes she's been poisoned, a coup replaces the crime lord. Now, the only person who knew the antidote's location is missing or dead.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, I see what you are saying T.A.Allan for sure... but I think what CM is getting at is that "make it worse" does not have to be macroscopic (like where Psychotick keeps going with it)... exactly how you were explaining Gladiator. "Make it worse" can be as simple as just a slight worsening for the character.

CM had this scene where her MC wanted out of the business. She kept talking about the girl "I need to get this girl out." But the girl was all safe up in the bedroom for the entire scene.

I merely suggested a slight worsening of the situation...Why not bring the girl to the party? I asked, after reading the scene. Why not show this young girl indulging in the booze and the debauchery, and really give your MC an emotional moment the reader can latch on to, instead of just talking about it?

So in many ways I see "make it worse" as exactly as you said, add another layer. Give them that bigger push. Give them more motivation. Make it impossible for them to keep going the way things have been going.

And yes, FifthView, I was just thinking about your point while at the pool with my kids.

Gone with the Wind... did Melany Hamilton HAVE to give birth in the middle of a battle? No. But that was a concious choice on the part of the author to ramp up the tension. Did Rhett Butler HAVE to be at a brothel when Prissy the serving girl went to fetch him? No, but that was the worst possible place for Prissy to have to go.

If the scene had been: Melany Hamilton went into labour one sunny day, and Prissy called on Rhett at his hotel where he was reading the paper and having a mint julip Gone With The Wind would not be the famous story it is today.

On a larger scale, Scarlet O'Hara had everything taken from her, and then she was rubbed it in over and over and over again. Which gives so much weight to her wonderful "I will never go hungry again" speech.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I see what you're saying, Heliotrope. There are certainly varying levels of "worse".

I still think "worsening" applies more to consequences of action, or choices, rather than adding more to a character's motivation.

It is a bit muddy. I'll give you that. But, to me, motivations should start as something a character cannot walk away from. That circumstance needs to offer no alternative.

From that viewpoint, CM's character might not want to stay in the gang, but it's the girl falling into the lifestyle that moves her to action. Whatever lead to the main character thinking about leaving the life is the inciting event. Adding the girl into the equation is the key event, also known as the call to action.

The worsening occurs once the character acts. It is the consequence, and early on it typically makes matters worse. That is the Try/Fail cycle that causes events to spiral and forces characters to change.

That's merely my opinion & concept of craft. Maybe, it's a case of TOE-MAY-TOE / TOE-MAW-TOE, but it appears as if we are talking about two distinct aspects of story while using the same term.

 

[Heliotrope]

Actually, I think we totally agree for the most part, I might just have a broader definition.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think there are different kinds of "worsening" sometimes with bigger consequences, or a push that makes action happen NOW, and the other kind, where we truly try to make a character hit rock bottom. I haven't made the character hit rock bottom in the first chapter, but it's coming! And it gets much worse for her. Still...if I think about it, I can make it worse. A little more uncomfortable, a little more desperate. A little larger a leap of faith.

This realization has hit me hard and i'm taking time to reflect on all the ways I can increase drama and tension, while remaining true to the story I'm telling. Where the results will be the same, I'm going for increased tension. Where I want a different outcome, I'll make things really worse and change directions. But like i said, I'm looking at only doing that sort of thing about twice in the novel. In key areas, where I need a more dramatic conclusion for something.

 

[FifthView]

But, to me, motivations should start as something a character cannot walk away from. That circumstance needs to offer no alternative.

From that viewpoint, CM's character might not want to stay in the gang, but it's the girl falling into the lifestyle that moves her to action. Whatever lead to the main character thinking about leaving the life is the inciting event. Adding the girl into the equation is the key event, also known as the call to action.

The worsening occurs once the character acts. It is the consequence, and early on it typically makes matters worse. That is the Try/Fail cycle that causes events to spiral and forces characters to change.

Indiana Jones acts....which leads to multiple things and then ultimately the boulder rolling after him.

But that boulder starts coming.....and so he acts–starts running! Great motivator, seeing that boulder coming.

Was the boulder a worsening because he acted before? Or was it merely a motivator, not a worsening, since he acted after?

I think we'll agree that much of the time a worsening will invite the character to reorient to his situation, which may lead to action informed by that worsening.

But I still think we might be talking about two different things.

If Caged Maiden's MC's young ward was just a young ward who might be affected by the MC's lifestyle...that could be a bad thing. But if that young ward also is the sort to like that lifestyle or want to experiment with rowdiness, that's worse. But this is still about worsening the original premise, making the initial conditions worse. And get this: The reader is never going to know that worsening happened! The author chose to make it worse before publication.

BUT the example of this,

An example of making it worse might be.... Your MC trusts a smuggler friend to help her and the girl escape. However, the friend betrays her for monetary gain and poisons the MC or the girl with some slow acting agent. She has a few days until she succumbs to the poison. The only person who has the antidote is the crime boss, who knew all along your MC wanted out.

That's an example of making it worse...and it could worsen still. Perhaps once she realizes she's been poisoned, a coup replaces the crime lord. Now, the only person who knew the antidote's location is missing or dead.

...is a worsening the reader will experience. At least, it's the sort Caged Maiden was talking about with the metaphor of the handshake pulled back at the last moment.

So....these are two different things.

Now, it might be possible to cause the first to be experienced in the second way. Say, if CM's MC thought of her ward as being an angel, led the reader to believe that a sweet innocent's life was at stake, for a certain length into the first chapter, and then that ward comes down and starts throwing back shots and flirting with the roughest of the rough crew in the tavern, and the MC thinks, "Oh yes, I gotta do something," then perhaps the reader can be made to feel the situation has gotten worse even when it hasn't. But this is a bit tricky to pull off well.

 

[Heliotrope]

I guess I see them as two different ways of using the same tool.

Gladiator... It is a general rule that in tragedy the most effective ending rests upon how high you built the character up first. You have to build them up as high as you possibly can and then take it all away. Examples maybe include "Blow", or "Wolf of Wall Street". In order to build the character up the author has to invent stuff for them to loose.

So in gladiator, I imagine the writers sitting around the table:

-oh, he should be a general at the top of his game just after winning a battle.
- yeah, and he should also have a beautiful farm he loves and a wife and son

Ok... Hmmmm, what else could we take away?

Oh! I know the ceaser was going to announce him ceaser before he died!

Yeah, and he had a trusty servant who he loved too!

Yeah, and he has all these important principals about life that he would never betray.




Ohhhhh, yeah....

Then they strip everything away... And things get worse and worse...

But all that stuff had to be invented by the author in the first place, in order for all the worsenings to happen...