I dislike writing that only make sense in retrospect

[Kasper Hviid]

I just tried watching season 6 of Bojack Horseman. The humor is very cringe-dependent, something I simply cannot deal with, so I only watch it at short bursts. Yeah, I'm a sensitive soul. Since I can take several days to watch a single episode, I also end up analyzing it a bit more than if I had just binge-watched. One thing I noticed was that some of the jokes were simply not very good. But, I understood that their purpose was to tie into a major theme. And that bit worked quite well, and, granted, it was very clever.

But I think most viewers will simply fail to pick up this subtle, theme-building stuff. And the price is a scene that, when watched, is rather pointless.

I have seen something similar in a horror series where the story obviously just served to cleverly lead up to the big reveal. Same with some prologues, which cleverly hints to all kinds of stuff later in the story, but in themselves, they just ain't that interesting.

My take is that it is the reader's experience as he read the piece that matters. Whatever the piece is going to mean later is less important, because by then the reader has already moved past it.

What says you?

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I have a similar problem with Westworld. Great show, but I wish they'd stop trying to trick me - ie the viewer. These time shifts they throw at you right at the end are just frankly annoying. I had a story in my head that sort of made sense until then and I was happy with it, then they threw it away and left me confused. I tolerated it in season 1. I feared it was coming in season 2 - and it bloody did and I still didn't know how it would work. I'd have to rewatch all of season 2 to make sense of it. And I'm just not going to do that.

Personally, I feel the writers do this just to prove how clever they are. There was no need to do it, and the time shifts don't add anything to the story except confusion. And quite simply I don't care how clever they are. I won't be getting season 3. I just can't trust the writers to tell a simple, enjoyable, linear story and I don't want at the end of the season to be left trying to work out how everything fits together.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Devor]

I can't sit through Bojack Horseman for the same reason. It's just, cringe, constant cringe. But the show is really well regarded in many circles because of the same thematic depth you're talking about. It may not be how the broader "mass market" approaches things, but if it's genuinely clever and meaningful, somebody will be out there who appreciates it.

Netflix is in a different boat than the rest of us though. They get to appeal to the mass audience through multiple franchises as a whole. The buzz that Bojack gets in those circles, the reputation that Netflix earns because of it, more than justifies their investment in the show. Bojack doesn't need to be super popular by itself.

Authors don't get to work that way, at least not until we've got a dozen or so books out there. It's hard enough to make a splash in the market without jumping over readers' heads while making them cringe.

 

[The Dark One]

I love being fooled, but it doesn't happen often (at least with no cheating involved). The curse of a storyteller is that you just about always know what's going to happen in movies or books because you are analysing as you go - plus all of my books involve massive twists so I (nearly always) see the set ups coming in the work of others.

I love producing work that is full of layers and textures and hopefully merits deconstruction. People often tell me they enjoyed my work better the second time because they knew what was coming so could appreciate the texture more deeply.

What I hate, is when someone goes for a big twist but cheats to get there. For example The Sixth Sense - every other ghost's mortal wound was obvious but not Bruce Willis's - not until the end when it was part of the big revelation. Everyone around me is going Wow! and I'm yelling Boo! Hiss! Cheat!

 

[skip.knox]

>The curse of a storyteller is that you just about always know what's going to happen in movies or books because you are analysing as you go

Not this storyteller. When I'm reading a book or watching a movie, I'm in that moment. I'm nowhere near Metaland. My wife, otoh, is constantly standing outside the story, anticipating, reading between the lines, skimming whole chapters to "get to the point." Her approach is a mystery to me, and mine to her. So I don't think it's the curse of a storyteller, I think it's just different people experience stories differently. Just as you can't fool all the people all the time, neither can you please (or surprise) them all the time, because they aren't all the same.

 

[Kasper Hviid]

The curse of a storyteller is that you just about always know what's going to happen in movies or books because you are analysing as you go

I don't think people are analyzing all that much. But a lot of stories are way predictable, and most people knows the rules. Like, if a female tries to escape but gets wounded then she gets killed right after, no reason to keep flawed goods in the story. (not making the rules here, just pointing them out)

 

[Darkfantasy]

I tend to live scenes where on the surface it's a basic conversations but there's so much more going on under the surface. My turn off with movies/TV is over-acting or just "cringe" acting. Pantomime villains are the worst for me. Constant heighten drama with very little down time.

 

[The Dark One]

Not this storyteller. When I'm reading a book or watching a movie, I'm in that moment. I'm nowhere near Metaland.

I wish I could be like that, but those days are gone for me.

When you spend so much time yourself filling your stories with apparently innocuous detail and ambiguities which can later be exploited for shock revelations, you tend to spot it a mile away when others do it.

I love it when they trick me, as long as they don't cheat.