It is often suggested that when
writing fiction you don’t want to tell your audience the answer is 4, you want
to put 2 and 2 in front of them and let them work it out.
This is a powerful way of getting
them involved in the story. If they’re putting things together in their head
then they’re participating in the narrative, which is what you want.
But the way logic works once people
are involved is not always the same as it works in mathematics.
Sometimes 2+2=5, and when you put
that in front of your audience they will want to know what the hell you mean
and demand an explanation. And there’s nobody more involved than someone
wanting answers.
For example, I buy a packet of
ten cookies. It takes my family exactly one week to finish the packet. If I
then buy mega-packet of twenty cookies, how long would it take my family to get
through them?
The answer, of course, is still
one week. When my family see more cookies in the cupboard they immediately
stuff twice as many in their big fat faces.
People follow their own logic,
and so do fictional characters. In order to engage a reader you have to teach
them the logic specific to your story.
You can, if you wish, choose to
have your characters act in an obvious manner, liking the things most people
like, fearing what we all fear, etc. People will certainly be able to relate to
these characters, but they probably won’t find them very interesting.
This doesn’t mean you can’t make
this sort of story interesting, everyday life can still be of interest if
captured well. The advantage is there’s a lot less to explain or justify. The boy
falls in love with the girl because she’s very beautiful. The businesswoman
wants the promotion to prove she’s as good as the guys. The knight kills the
dragon because that’s what knights do. 2+2=4, what’s not to get?
The disadvantage is that it’s no
easy task to make these stories rise above the predictable and familiar. When
you know the answer immediately, when you can work it out well in advance, it
can be tricky maintaining the tension. Good technique will help, good ideas
would help more. And when it comes to oft used premises good ideas are hard to
come by.
However, if you want to write
about characters who don’t necessarily act in a conventional manner you can’t
just assume readers will understand what they’re doing and why. So how do you
make sure the unobvious is still clear and easy to follow?
First of all, you don’t need to
be familiar with a way of acting to be able to understand it. Whether your
family is a bunch of greedy monsters who don’t follow cookie-eating rules (no
matter how often you explain them) or if they’re very well-mannered and
restrained (in which case please let me know how you managed that) , I’m sure
you were able to understand my cookie eating example.
But bear in mind that I didn’t
mention anything about what my family look like. How many, how old, hair
length, eye colour... none of that is needed for you to understand their
behaviour.
You can add that stuff if you
wish (and you probably should), but it isn’t the part that makes things clear
to the reader, or what holds their interest.
Knowing something unexpected or
unusual about a character makes the reader feel like they know them. The things
everyone does the same doesn’t make it very easy to tell people apart. The illogical
things they do are what sticks in the memory.
We want to know their idiosyncrasies,
what sets them apart and how that plays out in the narrative. It doesn’t have
to be how we would behave, it just needs to makes sense to them.
It starts with establishing that
2+2=5, which grabs the reader’s attention, and then demonstrating why on the page. When
the reader can see that it really does equal five, even if only for this particular
character, they will feel privy to private information and that much closer to
the character.
If you found this post useful please give it a retweet. Cheers.
*
Last chance to nominate for your favourite writing blog of 2013 at Write To Done. Click HERE and put the blog name and url in the comments section before December 12th.
11 comments:
I need to learn how to add cookies better...
It seems to me your family and my family are similar. I knew it would be still one week before you said it. Must be the cookie monster gene. Or that I am too deep into the illogical side of logic.
I'm afraid I belong to the eat more cookies if they're there gang. I may be a long lost member of your family. If so, let me know when you stock up on those cookies. As to the post, it was so interesting. I knew it, but reading it was exactly what I needed now. Thanks.
Good stuff! I've so much to learn in this area. Thanks for helping me along. :)
Have a great week!
@Alex - subtracting is easier - they disappear very fast.
@Al - a little of both maybe.
@Lee - I have no cookies, or if I did they'd be very well hidden, hypothetically speaking.
@Karen - And you too!
Personally, I think it's impressive that the cookies would last a week. Nice examples here.
@Beverly - of course you're right, they would never last a week, but I don't want people to know how depraved a household I live in.
I think Leonard Nimoy learned to give that look in playing Spock because he was forced to wear spandex (the most illogical of fabrics).
@Michael - Fascinating...
Your blog is great. I take so much interest in the writing and literature. It is very profitable for me.I have my website for report writing
I love this 2+2=5 example as applied to characters. Thanks for giving me a new way to look at character development! Tweeting this!