How many times must I learn the same lessons?

[BWFoster78]

[rant]

Going over a scene that I wrote a few weeks ago. It's horrid. And that's okay since it was just a rough draft. Still, though, what makes it particularly horrid is:

1. My best scenes are built around a simple premise - a character has a goal for the scene, faces opposition to that goal, and fears clear consequences should that goal not be met. During the course of either succeeding or failing at meeting the goal, important Plot Stuff is revealed, but the scene is about the goal. This scene...is about dumping the Plot Stuff.

2. My best scenes have characters doing stuff. My natural tendency is to have characters sitting around talking. This scene...has characters sitting around talking.

Again, it's just a rough draft, but I had to read the stupid thing four or five times to figure out why it was so bad. Really?

[/rant]

Thanks for listening.

Brian

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm going through a similar thing at present. In the middle of revising the first act of my novel & I slowed to a crawl in chapter seven because I just couldn't get into the scene. Took me several rewrites before I realized I needed to cut almost the entire first third of the chapter because nothing was happening. It was merely information I thought necessary at the time. It isn't necessary.

At least you've developed to the point that you recognize these issues without other's eyes. That says something for growth, if you ask me.

Hopefully, the more we write the better we'll get... possibly to the point of not writing like that, ever.

 

[skip.knox]

Distance. To switch to a painting analogy, I get so caught up in drawing in the perfect trees and rocks, I utterly miss the fact that the mountain is out of perspective. I have to remember to step back from the canvas.

Or, it's because you're apparently living in La. LA land.

 

[Penpilot]

When a scene isn't working, one of the fall-back questions I ask myself is "Are the characters walking?" I got this from a variety of sources, but I remember it from watching the TV show House. Sometimes when a scene had heavy exposition, they would have the team walking through the Hospital halls. The character reasoning was it helped him think, but the practical reason was it added motion to a scene.

"Walking" to me means the characters should be doing stuff, whether it's washing the dishes, or pouring sugar into their coffee, etc. The stuff doesn't have to be plot related, but it should reveal character or build on the world. For me, once that clicked in, making scenes work, in part, became finding the right setting for the scene to take place and having the character be doing a task of some sort.

The task is something for emotions be revealed through. EG. Slamming plates vs. whistling while washing dishes says something about the character.

 

[evolution_rex]

For a long time I didn't realize I was doing these 'talking scenes' completely wrong until I watched a youtube review for the film Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The reviewer noticed that many scenes were simply two characters walking along side each other down a hallway, occasionally looking out a window or sitting in a chair. It shattered my brain a bit and realized that I did exactly that sort of thing. So I definitely go a long with what Penpilot said.

 

[TheCatholicCrow]

[rant] ... [/rant]

Brian ... you're a freaking genius.


I feel like I have quite the opposite issue as you, Rex, & Pilot. I end up writing more detail about how they're washing dishes than the conversation that's supposed to occur between them as they're doing it which results in a ton of crap that feels like it vaguely contributes to the plot (in a wordy Dickensian sort of way) but it reality it really doesn't. My current writing style is too fluffy. I'm working on that. I agree - distance definitely helps.

 

[Svrtnsse]

The question in the topic is answered by Rule 4 in this list: The Ten Rules For Being Human | Dr. Cherie

 

[Russ]

[rant]

Going over a scene that I wrote a few weeks ago. It's horrid. And that's okay since it was just a rough draft. Still, though, what makes it particularly horrid is:

1. My best scenes are built around a simple premise - a character has a goal for the scene, faces opposition to that goal, and fears clear consequences should that goal not be met. During the course of either succeeding or failing at meeting the goal, important Plot Stuff is revealed, but the scene is about the goal. This scene...is about dumping the Plot Stuff.

2. My best scenes have characters doing stuff. My natural tendency is to have characters sitting around talking. This scene...has characters sitting around talking.

Again, it's just a rough draft, but I had to read the stupid thing four or five times to figure out why it was so bad. Really?

[/rant]

Thanks for listening.

Brian

I agree that talking scenes work better if the characters are doing something while talking.

Your second point is good, but you can cut yourself some slack. I, and many people wiser than I, expand the scene format a little to include scenes that are a "reaction" to the goal seeking scenes. Some people advise a Scene-Sequel rythem.

But like every problem, the first step is recognizing it, so kudos to you for spotting the problem, being able to classify the problem and the finally articulate it.

 

[cupiscent]

Don't knock characters sitting around and talking. If you write it right, a conversation can have all the tension and urgency of a fight scene. In fact, I'm reminded of a blog post Max Gladstone wrote on just that topic: Of Meat Hooks and Desire. (My key takeaway line: "I mean, in this scene, what change do your characters wish to bring to pass in the world, and what’s stopping them?")

The key point is what BWFoster laid out in point 1 of the original post: good scenes can be summarised as "Scene Protagonist wants a goal, but Scene Antagonist and complications get in the way." The BEST scenes can be summarised that way for every major character involved. And that pertains whether it's a shoot-out on a moving train or a conversation over tea and crumpets.

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm confused by Penpilot saying this:

When a scene isn't working, one of the fall-back questions I ask myself is "Are the characters walking?" I got this from a variety of sources, but I remember it from watching the TV show House. Sometimes when a scene had heavy exposition, they would have the team walking through the Hospital halls. The character reasoning was it helped him think, but the practical reason was it added motion to a scene.

And evolution_rex saying this:

For a long time I didn't realize I was doing these 'talking scenes' completely wrong until I watched a youtube review for the film Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The reviewer noticed that many scenes were simply two characters walking along side each other down a hallway, occasionally looking out a window or sitting in a chair. It shattered my brain a bit and realized that I did exactly that sort of thing. So I definitely go a long with what Penpilot said.

It sounds like Penpilot is advocating "walking" as a good thing and evolution is saying it's a bad thing? Did I miss something?

 

[BWFoster78]

Russ,

I agree that talking scenes work better if the characters are doing something while talking.

Actually, I'm not sure I expressed myself well. The problem isn't adding motion while talking as much as talking instead of doing. My first editor for my novel pointed out that my characters tended to talk about stuff instead of doing stuff. She suggested that, instead of my characters having an argument in which they discuss my protagonist's desire to leave, my protagonist perform an action - running away when the others' backs were turned. The scene was much, much improved.

I still have a major tendency to have characters talk about stuff instead of being active. It's a show versus tell thing, really.

 

[Russ]

Russ,



Actually, I'm not sure I expressed myself well. The problem isn't adding motion while talking as much as talking instead of doing. My first editor for my novel pointed out that my characters tended to talk about stuff instead of doing stuff. She suggested that, instead of my characters having an argument in which they discuss my protagonist's desire to leave, my protagonist perform an action - running away when the others' backs were turned. The scene was much, much improved.

I still have a major tendency to have characters talk about stuff instead of being active. It's a show versus tell thing, really.

Ah...I see. Quite different than what I was thinking. Good on your first editor for pointing that out. In real life we talk about stuff way more than we do it...but I don't want that in my fiction.

 

[Svrtnsse]

It sounds like Penpilot is advocating "walking" as a good thing and evolution is saying it's a bad thing? Did I miss something?

The way I read it, Penpilot is using walking as a way of describing the characters being active and doing something that furthers the plot/character development while they walk.
The way Evolution describes it, the characters merely wander about, without getting anywhere. In that example, the walking doesn't add anything of importance to the plot or the characters. It's been a long time since I saw the movie though and I could be wrong about it.

 

[skip.knox]

Walking or sitting, one thing I've learned to watch for is this: when I write a first draft I am feeling my way through the story. Sure I have an outline, but what does this room look like? What's the weather today? How does this group of people react to the arrival of the MC? Should a scene play this way, or this way?

As a consequence, in the first draft I am telling *myself* the story. I'm writing out a bunch of stuff that very likely doesn't need to be there in the story. At a guess, you characters aren't just talking *about* stuff, they're talking *over* stuff. That is, it's you trying to decide things or to imagine them in more detail.

I've learned to let it stand in the initial writing, not to be appalled when I find it on a re-read, and to cut it fearlessly. Well, perhaps not quite fearlessly!

 

[BWFoster78]

Walking or sitting, one thing I've learned to watch for is this: when I write a first draft I am feeling my way through the story. Sure I have an outline, but what does this room look like? What's the weather today? How does this group of people react to the arrival of the MC? Should a scene play this way, or this way?

As a consequence, in the first draft I am telling *myself* the story. I'm writing out a bunch of stuff that very likely doesn't need to be there in the story. At a guess, you characters aren't just talking *about* stuff, they're talking *over* stuff. That is, it's you trying to decide things or to imagine them in more detail.

I've learned to let it stand in the initial writing, not to be appalled when I find it on a re-read, and to cut it fearlessly. Well, perhaps not quite fearlessly!

Skip.knox,

I do the same. Putting too much information or conveying the wrong information or not including information that is needed doesn't bother me too much. That's what a first draft is for.

What bothers me is when the construction of the scene itself is so fundamentally flawed. I guess if I looked at it like an extended outline of the information I want to include, that would be okay. But that's not how I write...

 

[Caged Maiden]

I feel like any scene experiences a sort of evolution, allow me to explain one I recently evolved:

In the first draft, I had a HUGE 17-page prologue that an omniscient narrator force-fed to the reader, to tell them all about the history of the world and why this magic book was stolen and why the MCs needed to go break into a treasure trove to rescue some dragons trapped as statues. Still with me? You can quit laughing now, btw...

IN the second and third revisions, I added a few scenes and changed that awful prologue into chapter one, broken into three scenes. The first was a library burning and the book being stolen, the second was an old man masquerading as a priest going to find an elf (written from the POV of the elf), and they discussed the fate of the book and how it pertained to the dragons the MC (priest) was trying to prevent falling into a madman's hands, and the third was a later scene where the elf travels to the priest's home to tell him that despite his best efforts to destroy the book by magic, the MC had bigger problems--that the dragons trapped as statues were being hunted as well as the dragon mentioned in the magical stolen book.

Okay, so that still wasn't connecting with readers because there was no action, just HUGE chunks of talking back and forth and a shit-ton (yes, when discussing verbose characters, that IS an actual unit of measuring dialogue) of information I had to get across, so I couldn't have them doing too much or it would have taken too many pages.

The last revision of chapter one was completed last night. Chapter one is now broken into six numbered parts. The opening scene is the elf searching out the priest at his home. They sit down and in two pages he says he's concerned for the fate of the stolen book they discussed at their last (off screen) meeting. He explains in a sentence why. Scene two then, is the library burning and the book being stolen, but I increased the tension by using a character more (a throw away character I wrote to be a witness, but now I've included him more fully in the story, because he was always the nephew of the MC priest, but now he has an actual speaking part that means something). Scene three cuts back to the priest and elf talking again, but this time, they're elaborating on what they can do about the book. The elf plans to destroy it and this shocks the priest, who asks why, if the elf could do it, he didn't think to do it before. So the elf reveals there's more to the story, and the priest probably needs to hear what he found when reading the book... Scene four cuts back to the mercenary who stole the book and his interaction with the nephew he doesn't want to kill but can't allow to contact his uncle. It's a little tense, some small bit funny, and mostly just breaks up the long dialogue between the elf and priest. So scene five then cuts back to the two men talking in front of the fire, and the elf reveals he's concerned for the dragons trapped as statues, because he has seen them and didn't know what they were. He even hands one over to the priest, saying, I know where the other two are, and I'll help you however I can, but you need to take this one off me right now, because I don't want it in my home. Scene six then is the elf leaving and it ends in a brief combat when he's mugged, and the whole point of it is to reveal my priest is a werewolf and it sets up the opening for my other MC who awakes after an unusual experience in the place where the elf got mugged.

So...that was my chapter one's evolution, and I found this way to break up a long dialogue into smaller parts and intersperse action. It's really tricky when your characters seriously NEED to sit down and have a long heart-to-heart, but everyone who read it said it was okay, but too long and too boring. The thing was...no amount of them drinking, gesturing, hell, even if they threw punches, the scene wasn't going to get better from mere "action". I needed a bigger, more complete solution. So just as another idea, I put forth that long dialogues are troublesome and sometimes breaking them up is a good option. Some ways you could also do this is like in movies, where one character is running and the other chasing, and they are yelling shit at each other the whole time. Not a chase literally, but something similar. Maybe one is hammering nails into shingles and he hits his thumb and tells the other to stop gabbing in his ear. The other complains how the character never listens and he needs to right now because it's important. OR, maybe the other just leaves and later the character comes back at her angry, because he NEEDED the information she tried to give him, but she left? There's loads of ways to have characters talking without sitting in comfy arm chairs, but I needed the arm chairs and roaring fire in my scene because it fit. So, I did the next best thing to putting action into the room...I took the action outside every couple pages and let the conversation come across in smaller chunks.

I've also done the hammering shingles thing, and characters fishing and making asses of themselves in competition, a card game, and loads of arguments that let them yell and make snide remarks as they made their points.

Best wishes.

 

[Penpilot]

The way I read it, Penpilot is using walking as a way of describing the characters being active and doing something that furthers the plot/character development while they walk.
The way Evolution describes it, the characters merely wander about, without getting anywhere. In that example, the walking doesn't add anything of importance to the plot or the characters. It's been a long time since I saw the movie though and I could be wrong about it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. If the actions characters perform in a scene don't add to the plot/character/world or emotion then it's wasted motion, like Evolution's Star Wars reference. But when the actions do add to the scene, then a scene with two people just sitting down and having a cup of coffee can be engaging and revealing.