The importance of suffering in fiction

[Brian G Turner]

Kirsten Lamb argues that the longer a writer can hold readers in tension, the better the experience: Stop Killing Your Story! Why Suffering is Essential for Great Fiction

She also underlines the point of not explaining everything about your characters and their histories - something I've mentioned before.

Post a reader with unanswered questions and they'll push on until those questions are answered - but the moment you stop to reveal everything, the reader can put your story down. That's been my theory, anyway.

 

[Phyrebrat]

She also underlines the point of not explaining everything about your characters and their histories - something I've mentioned before.

I agree so completely with this. Humans are problem solvers; we look for patterns and answers even when there are none, and to me that's part of the fun of a novel's slow burn. Look at the excited theories about what will happen in the next GOT book, or TV show, or Star Wars. It's intrigue. We're gossipy curtain-twitchers with a predilection for judgment and supposition.

Not only does this apply to characters, but also your story's setting and direction.

On a related point, I've just listened to the latest Writing Excuses podcast and Mary made a really good point: Short story readers know you have a limited space and do not expect full and exhaustive expo; novel readers expect motivations and threads to be resolved sufficiently; but novella readers occupy a sweet spot who are far more forgiving and are willing to give in to the writer's idiosycrasies.

pH

 

[Parson]

I was about to disagree with this when I thought: "Does she really mean suffering? Or is that code for tension in a novel." I discovered that she means "tension" much more than literal "suffering." Suffering is something that I can tolerate in a novel but in small doses. Tension is what keeps up until 3 am, and turning pages when I've got real work to do. --- I wish she had been more precise in her language, but then perhaps fewer people would take the time to read it. SIGH!

 

[J Riff]

Oh you meant suffering for the characters, not the readers..

 

[DelActivisto]

Oh you meant suffering for the characters, not the readers..

Is it a horrible book or a great book that makes the readers suffer?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Is it a horrible book or a great book that makes the readers suffer?

Depends why you are making them suffer.

Anyhow, I don't believe in characters suffering. (Tongue firmly in cheek, there...) but I do think it should be aligned to sound story and character arcs.

 

[Toby Frost]

First, I agree with Parson that this is tension, not suffering. People sometimes get the idea that heaping miseries on a character makes them sympathetic: I reckon that making them active, not passive, is as capable of generating sympathy as making them good. There's probably an ideal combination of likeability and dynamism that makes a (heroic) character compelling. Tension is making the reader wonder what will happen, which is vital.

Secondly, I'm a firm believer that there is no need to explain a character's backstory, and often it is better not to. I don't want to know anything more about, say, Boba Fett or Imperator Furiosa, because at the point they appear, they are fully formed for the purposes of the story. I don't know or care about the details of what happened to Furiosa's arm because it's not necessary, and the "real" explanation probably wouldn't be as exciting as the story I could make up.

Further, certain characters are nearly-mythic without being overtly supernatural, largely by being mysterious (The Man With No Name in the "dollars" Westerns, for instance). Unfortunately, it seems to be a facet of modern fandom that people want endless spin-offs and the tidying of loose ends, no matter how much damage that would do the story as a piece of art. And of course spin-offs sell...

 

[DelActivisto]

Depends why you are making them suffer.

Anyhow, I don't believe in characters suffering. (Tongue firmly in cheek, there...) but I do think it should be aligned to sound story and character arcs.

Yeah, I agree there. There needs to be a reason for it, not just some masochistic author that likes writing out detailed torture scenes. Of course, that can make us really, really loathe the villain. It can also make the story hard to read and can easily go over the top.

I think fantasy as a genre often relies too much on exaggerations. Fancy magic gets used to full plot holes, villains are often super evil for no reason.

Want to know what is actually scary? People who commit great evil in the name of the greater good, or in the name of religion, or use psychological tactics and smooth talking to flatter people into doing their bidding. People who can make you smile while you kill innocents, thinking you're doing the world a service.

Far more nuanced, harder to write.

 

[R.T James]

Want to know what is actually scary? People who commit great evil in the name of the greater good, or in the name of religion, or use psychological tactics and smooth talking to flatter people into doing their bidding. People who can make you smile while you kill innocents, thinking you're doing the world a service.

Far more nuanced, harder to write.

Guess my MC is evil afterall.

 

[AlexH]

I had to close the article straight away when I saw GoT mentioned. Does it contain any spoilers? I've watched up to and including series 4.

But anyway - I definitely agree about upping the tension and making your characters suffer. I think there can be a fine line though - sometimes things get so ridiculous I don't believe in it any more, and it becomes funny.

 

[Cathbad]

Post a reader with unanswered questions and they'll push on until those questions are answered - but the moment you stop to reveal everything, the reader can put your story down.

This is something Cinema has forgotten!!

 

[Cathbad]

Fancy magic gets used to full plot holes

Not good fantasy.

 

[The Big Peat]

Not good fantasy.

Eh, there's plenty of fantasy commonly regarded as good that's using magic to cover the plot holes. Lets not get all "No True Scotsman" here.

But then there's plenty of non-fantasy fiction that's commonly regarded as good that relies on ridiculous coincidence, deus ex machine, or just plain old hoping no one minds the plot holes that much.

 

[DelActivisto]

Guess my MC is evil afterall.

I think it's definitely an interesting notion to have your MC be "evil." It can be used to show how evil is not necessarily what we think it is. For instance, it appears that the devil of the Christian Bible, Lucifer, actually originated from Venus; the Lord of the Morning, et al. Robert Jordan used these names in various forms for his Devil, Shai'tan, which is fun, because I understand the allusions now. It demonstrates how something that is good can become a symbol for evil - the Nazis perverted the Swatika from a symbol of hope and goodness into one of, well, you know.

Evil, the devil, and good vs bad have evolved in various forms over the years.

Devil - Wikipedia

Not good fantasy.

True, that. Magic should be a supplement to the system, not a filler.

Oh, and how come everyone uses the word magic? In a world where magic is ubiquitous, wouldn't magic be called something other than by a word that means "imaginary?" Something to think about.

 

[DelActivisto]

Eh, there's plenty of fantasy commonly regarded as good that's using magic to cover the plot holes. Lets not get all "No True Scotsman" here.

But then there's plenty of non-fantasy fiction that's commonly regarded as good that relies on ridiculous coincidence, deus ex machine, or just plain old hoping no one minds the plot holes that much.

That is also a good point. There are a variety of over-ready cliches I can think of immediately, such as the one where the world is about ready to be plunged into darkness and the hero is about ready to throw in the towel, but along comes the magic sword/ribbon/rainbow trout that the MC needed all along to complete his mission! Yay!

On the other hand, think about how often coincidences happen that seem super unlikely. Case in point, we probably averted nuclear war with Russia on an occasion, due to a computer glitch in the Russian computers. It looked like the US had sent a nuke to attack Russia. Someone decided to ignore the system, there was no nuke, and the day was saved. Hmm...

 

[Cathbad]

Oh, and how come everyone uses the word magic? In a world where magic is ubiquitous, wouldn't magic be called something other than by a word that means "imaginary?" Something to think about.

Not necessarily. In most worlds where magic is used, only a few (and possibly a single race or two) have the ability to use it. 'Things' are usually named by the masses. Most "people" would probably mistrust the users, and would try to discourage their offspring from admiring it. So, unless there is a worse thing to call it...

 

[The Big Peat]

Oh, and how come everyone uses the word magic? In a world where magic is ubiquitous, wouldn't magic be called something other than by a word that means "imaginary?" Something to think about.

It does?

I mean, this is the first definition I get when googling "magic dictionary"

"the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."

Not necessarily. In most worlds where magic is used, only a few (and possibly a single race or two) have the ability to use it. 'Things' are usually named by the masses. Most "people" would probably mistrust the users, and would try to discourage their offspring from admiring it. So, unless there is a worse thing to call it...

The amount of words of Latin, Greek and French etymology in the English language casts a lot of doubt on this imo.

 

[Cathbad]

The amount of words of Latin, Greek and French etymology in the English language casts a lot of doubt on this imo.

Why? Weren't there masses in Rome, Greece and France?

But even more modern words have come from "the masses", not from some geek guy at the Pentagon! The plethora of abbreviations (lmao, gtg, etc.) not the least.

 

[DelActivisto]

Not necessarily. In most worlds where magic is used, only a few (and possibly a single race or two) have the ability to use it. 'Things' are usually named by the masses. Most "people" would probably mistrust the users, and would try to discourage their offspring from admiring it. So, unless there is a worse thing to call it...

I'm not an expert on language evolution. That's true to a degree. The masses invented the word "selfie," for instance. But it usually has its origin in a single couple instances, or a movie that made it popular, or a lord or lady who said something. It starts to grow in popularity until it's a generally accepted part of the language.

I think constantly using the word "magic" is simply slightly unimaginative writing. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. The fact that the word "magic" in Harry Potter is probably used as much as, well, "Harry Potter" doesn't detract from the story.

It is different in a world where there's one 'sphere' thats magical, and one that's not. Like in HP, the muggles live completely separated from the wizarding world.

It does?

I mean, this is the first definition I get when googling "magic dictionary"

"the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."



The amount of words of Latin, Greek and French etymology in the English language casts a lot of doubt on this imo.

"mysterious or supernatural forces" Right, imaginary.

 

[DelActivisto]

For instances, the origin of the word "selfie" has a fairly pin point location and history. It helps that we can document things in the modern era with unsettling precision:

Selfie: Australian slang term named international word of the year

It seems almost certain the selfie originated in Australia with a young drunk first using the word to describe a self-portrait photograph more than a decade ago.

Oxford Dictionaries revealed this week the earliest known usage is from a 2002 online ABC forum post.

The next recorded usage is also from Australia with the term appearing on a personal blog in 2003.

"It seems likely that it may have originated in the Australian context," dictionary editor Katherine Martin said.