Cutting away from the action

[Hex]

I'm doing a writing course just now and I got some of my stuff critted in class. It was exciting, and sweet and gentle, especially compared to maulings I've had elsewhere.

Anyhow, for once I was writing in third person past (and probably getting carried away by the possibilities) and the tutor commented that I built up to a pivotal scene (where there's a kind of magical explosion plus surgery going to happen) and then cut away, didn't show the scene, and told the reader what had happened in it later.

I haven't been aware of this being discussed much before, and it made me stop and go "argh" because I really don't like that sort of evasion when I'm reading, but also, it was going to be bloody and sticky and full of fluids and screaming, and maybe I shied away from writing it because of that.

It made me think, in any case, about the strategy of cutting away -- or, in what I more normally write, having things happen that the POV character doesn't see until they've happened -- and when it can be a good thing rather than a bad one. Are there ways to use it effectively? Do you?

 

[Droflet]

I'm all for a bit of blood and guts. The only time I cut away is if the next battle is going to be an obvious repeat of the one before. Always better to show than to tell. Right? Just my 20 cents worth.

 

[HareBrain]

I think this kind of thing was discussed a few months back, but I can't remember in what context.

Anyway, I have no problem with it. It can be very effective in a horror situation, where you know something awful is about to happen, and then the next scene takes place after the horror and you have to piece together what happened and what the consequences were -- that can be far more unsettling (and gripping) than showing the actual thing. (Though it's easy to overdo and make frustrating.) And I prefer it in a lot of battle-heavy stories, as I find they can otherwise get very samey. In fact, i remember now in the previous discussion that it was pointed out that GRRM actually shows very few of his significant battles: they're either talked about afterwards or their impact is shown on people who aren't at the centre of it.

 

[Hex]

We talked about HP Lovecraft as well (genre writing course -- woo!) and from what I remember, a lot of his scariest stuff happens off-screen.

Just to be clear: I'm convinced the tutor was right about my particular scene. Not only has the book so far led up to it, but it's a good place for some explanation of what's actually going on. But I wondered about finding principles for when to do it (repetition is a good one -- endless battles, I must admit, don't really work for me either -- implied horror -- stories where you don't want blood and guts. We've also discussed it in the context of romance, I suppose, when you cut away right after the characters kiss).

 

[HareBrain]

I was taken to task once for not showing the immediate aftermath of a particular turning-point event. This was where a character had brought another (effectively her son) back from the dead, but very much altered, and had damaged herself in the process. The interaction between them afterwards would be highly charged emotionally, which I think was what this reader wanted to see, but I also thought that it would just be near-endless (there were other characters there at the time, who could all be expected to have a say), and that everything they would say to each other was likely to be already guessable by most readers.

I might have made it work, but I thought it best to get the story moving again in its new direction as quickly as possible, and fill in anything important about their conversation or feelings later. It wasn't an easy call, though.

 

[Hex]

In one of my pretty-much-finished stories, a character's murder happens off-screen. The mc only catches up when he's about to die. It would be a very dramatic scene, but I was going for her helplessness and the way she couldn't even try to change anything, because actually --in a wider sense than just her missing the murder -- it had already happened. I think that's what I was thinking, anyway.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

and then cut away, didn't show the scene, and told the reader what had happened in it later.

Sometimes the readers imagination is far better than any writer can write, and books are not cinema. So sometimes it works better to not follow the scene and have a summary later. Especially if the tension has been built up. A less than stellar rendition of the scene will disappoint, more so the more the tension has been built in advance. Some sorts of things don't suit dialogue well and are nearly impossible to describe in detail. While I prefer books to visual mediums there are scenes that work best visually.
In SF & F too, a too close description can destroy the suspension of disbelief. Opinions based on reading published novels rather than my own attempts at writing

 

[tinkerdan]

Personally I look for : how does this move the story forward. If it becomes gratuitous violence-sex then it gets cut or I have to find a way to really justify why it's there. There a bit of it all teetering on the precipice; because there will be complaints that you are squeamish and don't write the bloody scenes or have some problem dealing with sex scenes. But if you wrote the scene in and examined how it fit into moving the story forward and it just doesn't fit then the cut makes sense.

Writing in first person and present tense it is really easy to just start listing every single activity of the character to the point that you're counting the number of breaths they take and seeing each step and taking in every sight, ,sound, smell, and taste that assaults them from the moment they get up to the moment that go to sleep. That would be insanely silly to try to do so you put in cuts and leave the stuff that moves the story forward.

In the same token you need to find the same balance with the characters sex and violence and decide just how much has to be shown to move the story forward. That leave the whole field open for any gratuitous scenes you want to throw in later.

 

[Hex]

That's a really good point.

I suppose, though, that a scene can always be made to move the action forward if you choose to make it that kind of scene -- does that make sense? So if I do write my gore and slime and magic scene, I can't just do it for the explosive fluids, I'll need to add some story progression too (which is probably why I skipped it in the first place -- I need to decide how to show the story progression in that bit, so there might be an argument or something or a risk of being discovered, or something else going on...).

I'm not even sure what I'm asking any more :s

 

[Gonk the Insane]

I built up to a pivotal scene (where there's a kind of magical explosion plus surgery going to happen)

While there are plenty of times when a good cutaway is the best option, it sounds like the explosion/surgery scene is, if not a turning point, then a moment of high tension. It seems like a prime opportunity to really build to a crescendo and milk it for all it's worth. If you're concerned about the icky factor, then you could focus more on the characters and their emotions rather than the physical surroundings.

I've found that its those scenes I shy away from writing that tend to help me grow as a writer the most.

Why not try writing the scene, and if you're not happy with it you can always go back to the cutaway.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Why not try writing the scene, and if you're not happy with it you can always go back to the cutaway

Yes. No doubt then it can be obvious that the originally desired outcome in this case might look implausible if the MC was there, as they'd interfere. It can indeed be written and junked. I must myself do more experimental writing.
Or it might work

 

[The Judge]

I think this kind of thing was discussed a few months back, but I can't remember in what context.

I raised something along the same lines (not cutting away as such, though, just omitting scenes) in Significant Omission.

 

[Hex]

Ah yes. So you did. It had clearly fallen out of my head. Sorry!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Teresa caught me on this for Abendau and made (well, you know suggested. Strongly. As in please do this. Now. ) me put some scenes in I'd previously not included.

I outlined them here:

https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/552109/page-2

(Under the spoilers tag)

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I'm doing a writing course just now and I got some of my stuff critted in class. It was exciting, and sweet and gentle, especially compared to maulings I've had elsewhere.

Anyhow, for once I was writing in third person past (and probably getting carried away by the possibilities) and the tutor commented that I built up to a pivotal scene (where there's a kind of magical explosion plus surgery going to happen) and then cut away, didn't show the scene, and told the reader what had happened in it later.

I haven't been aware of this being discussed much before, and it made me stop and go "argh" because I really don't like that sort of evasion when I'm reading, but also, it was going to be bloody and sticky and full of fluids and screaming, and maybe I shied away from writing it because of that.

It made me think, in any case, about the strategy of cutting away -- or, in what I more normally write, having things happen that the POV character doesn't see until they've happened -- and when it can be a good thing rather than a bad one. Are there ways to use it effectively? Do you?

You can use it to build tension. Build up to this big to do, cut away to another scene, then come back to the big, tense scene... but you'd want to actually play it out.

I think in the other thread I had mentioned what you're talking about as an effective way to avoid a thoroughly reprehensible scene. The example was from an Elizabeth Moon Paks the Paladin novel, the first I think. There was a rape (or attempted rape, I forget). Moon went right up to the moment Paks knew she was going to be attacked, then simply cut to later, after the fact, and continued the story. The effect was a good one, from my perspective. But that follow-up scene was very much detailing the hurt, pain, injury, and repercussions of the attack. To me that was great because instead of focusing on the potentially prurient rape scene, Moon focused on the devastation and anguish the character felt after the fact. It was really well done.

 

[Piousflea84]

Cutting away from a pivotal scene can be effective if it's done properly. GRRM and HP Lovecraft were both mentioned because they use the "hide the action" technique frequently. Hiding the action does several things. It spares the reader from a gruesome description of violence, and it makes the action seem more mysterious. It allows the author to inject a genuine feeling of uncertainty, hinting at the "fog of war". The majority of GRRM's battles have some degree of this, usually when a bunch of characters excitedly shout conflicting accounts of the battle. "We won! We won but Robb Stark was hurt! We won because Robb transformed into a wolf and ate the Lannister men! THE KING IN THE NORTH!"

That said, the "hide the action" technique comes with a lot of built-in emotional detachment. Sometimes this is intentional, as in most of HP Lovecraft. The detachment helps to build the sense that the reader's mind could shatter if they ever truly understood the vast crawling inhumanity of the horrors in the story.

Other times, the author has to work hard to put the emotional involvement back into the scene. For example, GRRM almost never shows Robb Stark in combat, but he frequently shows Catelyn waiting for Robb to return from the battle. The reader is emotionally involved because we can feel the mother's pain and anxiety...

 

[Zebra Wizard]

I think its up to you as a writer to judge whether it is interesting enough or worth writing or hiding. for example, sex scenes. Often they are not written and theres a fade to black, or maybe just a bit of the beginning of it. Similar could be said with torture scenes. Or any scene your PoV isn't actively part of. Action such as in GRRM doesn't detail the wars and battles, because he probably thought it was unnecessary.

I remember reading name of the wind, where the writer/narrator decides not to share the events of a trial and in his other book when the main protag got shipwrecked by pirates. simply because he didn't want to write it. I think, in the end it just comes down to your own judgement for what works best.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think its up to you as a writer to judge whether it is interesting enough or worth writing or hiding. for example, sex scenes. Often they are not written and theres a fade to black, or maybe just a bit of the beginning of it. Similar could be said with torture scenes. Or any scene your PoV isn't actively part of. Action such as in GRRM doesn't detail the wars and battles, because he probably thought it was unnecessary.

I remember reading name of the wind, where the writer/narrator decides not to share the events of a trial and in his other book when the main protag got shipwrecked by pirates. simply because he didn't want to write it. I think, in the end it just comes down to your own judgement for what works best.

Actually, apparently the shipwreck scene was taken out because Rothfuss's editor was concermed about the huge wordcount.

 

[Hex]

Clearly we've been discussing this since the dawn of time and I just haven't connected it up properly. One of those only-when-you-are-ready moments, maybe.

@Zebra Wizard -- I like your point about torture scenes and sex scenes. It really clarifies things for me. I would pretty much always cut away from a torture scene, because I don't want to read about torture (also, battle scenes that are too realistic tend to put me off) but I don't mind reading sex scenes and unless the author signals clearly that they're going to cut away, it can feel like a bit of a cheat when they do.

Hmm. Like so much else it seems to be: use it when it works and know what you're doing, which is both very helpful and completely useless :|

 

[Boneman]

Well, how many Battle scenes do you remember reading in Lord of The Rings? Forget the films, in the book, JRRT has a habit of knocking his pov out, and waking him when the battle's over. I've just finished Joe Abercrombie's Half a War, and he cuts away a lot, and it does work. SPOILER: once they collect the weapons from stokom, we don't see the voyage back, the testing of the weapons, mainly because it's irrelevant in a way: they've survived the journey there - in fact we don't see that either, we just see them arriving on the beach.It's a last-minute-cavalry-arriving moment, so it does create some tension, not knowing if they're going to arrive in time.

I'd agree with the semi-consensus: write it both ways and see which works. And then ask yourself: what does it add to the story? If there's a lot of positive answers, then you needed it. If there are quite a few negatives, you could leave it out (or re-write it 18 times until you're happy....)