The importance of suffering in fiction

[R.T James]

@DelActivisto the desire for scientific explanations sure is strange coming from someone claiming to be Mary Poppins. So, you gonna tell us how that talking, flying umbrella and bottomless handbag work?

The hand bag is obviously the entryway to a stabilized pocket dimension, the umbrella doesn't actually fly but manipulates time as it is effectively quantum locked in relations to the dimensional plane that is earth. So what we see as flying is really it being moved around its axis on the fourth dimension.

 

[Dan Jones]

Well why doesn't she ever say that!?

 

[Parson]

Frankly, I really don't care why those islands float in the air: That the phenomenon exists is awe-inspiring! It should be left so, without the explanations that take away that awe. Likewise, I don't want t know the inner workings of a phaser, or why a silicone-based lifeform might exist.

Ah, but Cathbad, I do want to know those things; or at least why the author believes such a thing possible. In S.F. much of the science is "hand-wave'em" but I still want a modicum of thought behind it. Why would a life form coming from the clouds of a gas giant get into conflict with human life? etc. Without explanation and especially without consistency in science or magic, I find the story much less entertaining and thought provoking.

 

[DelActivisto]

@DelActivisto the desire for scientific explanations sure is strange coming from someone claiming to be Mary Poppins. So, you gonna tell us how that talking, flying umbrella and bottomless handbag work?

Yes, the talking umbrella is actually a sentient species from another world of shape shifters. This one landed on earth, decided to take on the shape of an umbrella to hide, and then wound up trapped in that form due to water pollution.

The bottomless handbag is closely related to the Tardis. Obviously.

Also the fact that I'm a dude is immaterial.

 

[Overread]

Ah, but Cathbad, I do want to know those things; or at least why the author believes such a thing possible. In S.F. much of the science is "hand-wave'em" but I still want a modicum of thought behind it. Why would a life form coming from the clouds of a gas giant get into conflict with human life? etc. Without explanation and especially without consistency in science or magic, I find the story much less entertaining and thought provoking.

This is why we have technobabble.
The average reader isn't a scientist, nor a blacksmith, nor a horse rider, nor a mage, nor an aviator etc.... They don't need to know the ins and outs of everything perfectly and honestly science and magic are both the same when the science is at the advanced end.
As long as the reader knows enough to know what's going on; as long as the writer is consistent so that the reader can follow the patterns and even predict what's supposed to/going to happen before the writer explains it; as long as the reader isn't left confused- as long as all that fits you can get away with anything.

Heck look at NCIS - CSI or heck nearly any crime drama - they do daft things in those that sometimes are so clearly wrong that even average people get that its wrong. Yet they are top shows and they get away with it.


Of course a good writer will do their best to understand what is known as best as they can to give their story as much grounding in reality as possible; within practical limitations (you can't study everything).

 

[DelActivisto]

This is why we have technobabble.
The average reader isn't a scientist, nor a blacksmith, nor a horse rider, nor a mage, nor an aviator etc.... They don't need to know the ins and outs of everything perfectly and honestly science and magic are both the same when the science is at the advanced end.
As long as the reader knows enough to know what's going on; as long as the writer is consistent so that the reader can follow the patterns and even predict what's supposed to/going to happen before the writer explains it; as long as the reader isn't left confused- as long as all that fits you can get away with anything.

Heck look at NCIS - CSI or heck nearly any crime drama - they do daft things in those that sometimes are so clearly wrong that even average people get that its wrong. Yet they are top shows and they get away with it.


Of course a good writer will do their best to understand what is known as best as they can to give their story as much grounding in reality as possible; within practical limitations (you can't study everything).

My favorite show for that is Bones because of how in depth they go into analyzing everything. The fact that they often use real science is a big plus. Yes, they still stylize stuff, and have things in their lab that don't actually exist yet, but it's still a good, very believable show.

The period I especially likes was when they had a psychologist on board, Sweets. They closely analyzed a suspect's reasons, rationale, background, motives, projections, perceptions, etc. That was fascinating, because my mom is a psychologist, so we watched those shows together and would often talk about the show afterwards, dissecting the details and pondering why people do what they do.

 

[Vaz]

Urgh I hate Sanderson's "magic systems." Purely preference, I believe magic should remain powerful, mysterious, and dangerous to the wielder/user's.


v

 

[DelActivisto]

Urgh I hate Sanderson's "magic systems." Purely preference, I believe magic should remain powerful, mysterious, and dangerous to the wielder/user's.


v

Well, he started out going to college for a biochemistry degree. I'm sure that explains some of it. His rules and magic regulations are part of why I love his stories so much. There's something for everyone.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I've been musing on this. Now, I do tend to be one who puts their characters through a lot. Suffering is part of what I write - although I rarely set out to do so, per se. So, why.....?

1. For me, part of it is about honesty. In stories, we present characters in critical situations - to ignore that at least some of that involves some sort of suffering seems dishonest to me. (I'm not some sort of miserable cow, btw. Most of my mates find me pretty positive. But I have my bad days, I've lost people I love, I've had injuries, and times of fear. Anyone here who hasn't?) My best mate just finished Waters and the Wild, and messaged me to say if she hadn't grown up with me she'd think I'd had one miserable childhood so, perhaps, in books, the mirror reflects back a different perspective than our real experiences - a narrower one, perhaps.

2. From hard times, I grow. So, I want a character arc that gives growth and satisfies. I really struggle to think of anyone who really grows who hasn't known sadness, or pain, or grief. So, for me, a character arc without some sort of trauma feels weak.

So, for me, writing suffering is more about honesty than tension. But I'm a pretty honest person.

 

[Overread]

Tension - suffering - torment - stress - loss - struggle - adventure - discovery

I would say that suffering is but one mechanic in advancing a story and that not every story has to make use of the same mechanics; and most will use multiple ones at different and often the same time. The idea is to present a situation of challenge toward the character which they must face and tackle however they can (or can't). By maintaining an event that is either current or overarches the characters actions and the world around them it gives a sense that the world has driving elements. In general this mirrors reality in that no person is ever "god". They are never without some form of pressure on them even if its a positive pressure.

In general I think its about ensuring that your story has focus and that the writer doesn't end up writing and endless series of chapters where nothing happens; where the story fails to advance or where the characters are languishing in nothingness. Parts of any story are going to be like this, you often get them at the start of many stories where the author is more concerned about setting a stage up and about introducing you to the world. Bolder authors start without this and it can throw readers - Steven Erikson starts his Gardens of the Moon off with a huge key battle near the end of a campaign of battles. Hardly any scene setting at all goes on before you're already in the thick of stress and action and events propelling the story along. Yet go to Lord of the Rings and the Fellowship of the Ring has a very slow steady start, few pressures, a few storylines bubbling but really a long period of very little happening for a long chunk of the start.

In the end both stories work and both are highly respected.

 

[Toby Frost]

This topic reminds me of a discussion about the Dragonlance books that happened a while ago. A few people (me included) had read them when much younger. On re-reading, the more outlandish, tormented characters, especially the wizard Raistlin, were less interesting than the more "normal" ones (in as far as any of them were normal). The wackier characters were stuck doing one thing (brooding evil, comic relief, bumbling foolishness etc) while the more normal guys had much more range. Ironic that the craaaazy characters became the more predictable ones.

I get the feeling from this article and others that there is a bit of an arms race to produce the most intense reading experience possible. The tension has to be super-high, the stakes colossal, the characters dreadfully tormented or completely mad. Basically, this works, or at least using it is more likely to make a novel work than not work. However, it can be rather superficial. I'm suspicious of the idea that the entire reading experience has to be one of constant high emotion.

Some novels, like the Gormenghast books and probably The Lord of the Rings, are best read in quite a distant way, and gain strength from the slow way they spread out their setting. Sure, these are older books (some older SF is pretty emotion-free, and probably suffers for it), but I still think there doesn't always have to be this attempt to give the readers the "feels". In fact, books like alternate history and some detective stories are probably best read in a detached way, so you can get the most information out of them. That in itself can be very engrossing and make you read on.

So, in short, yes, use with caution.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Finally had time to read the blog.

She's certainly putting her belief into practice. Had I written that blog, it would have been perhaps 300 words but she dragged it out, didn't she?

She's also all too fond of memes.

However the message is a good one, but it must be related to genre and context. I'm with the opinions above of a time and a place for everything. It's dangerous to use cultural phenomena like Star Wars and GOT to underline your point - or even make your point for you - because not every story is Star Wars or GOT.

The biggest error she makes imo is that tension comes from the character's suffering. Tension comes from the reader, not the character, and you don't want the reader to suffer. You want to compel them. We're compelled by all sorts of things, not just pseudo-schadenfreude.

Escapism has become a dirty word in writing but I still think it has its place and doesn't necessarily mean Mary-Sue characters.

pH

 

[Lumens]

Good thread! Can't wait to see how it ends...

I skimmed through the blog post, because I found that it dragged a bit too. I wholeheartedly agree on her points made about popular movies though. You don't need to explain some things. In Star Wars, the Midicloriants issue was a strange move. Likewise for whole Hannibal background story, although I understand why it was made.

There were other issues with these movies though. If those were the only problems, I would have overlooked them.

 

[R.T James]

I skimmed through the blog post, and while there might be some good information in there. I did not bother to dig deep because everything was way too damn Imgur for me.

Also it was a marketing thing for her class which the cynical man in me who was one step away from being an army dealer in the cities looked at it and went OH right theres a problem. YOU got the solution for one low payment of 30.xx! WOW MUCH BARGAIN!

Yeah... Sorry. I can see how certain genres get that kick from killing off characters like GOT. Personally hate it because now EVERYBODY DIES! in Oprah style. You get an axe to the face! YOU GET AN AXE TO THE FACE! EVERYBODY GETS AN AXE TO THE FACE!!! Sure it might have been in a few things, but now everybody is killing off characters to tug at heartstrings.. Now I'm just bitter and going they're all going to die. Oh well, sucks to suck. You can make people numb to an event. Death is so finite. If you were to capture a character and have one sick SOB go after them with a cigar cutter and instruments. Death lasts for a few seconds, psychological trauma lasts a life time. Take somebody strong and crush them. That has more impact than killing them. But what do I know?

I prefer slow reads where the tension or issues are really things that are hard to control. Oh sure war, dragons and death and destruction are marvelous conflicts they're so easy to see as a problem. Thats why in my stories usually the characters view such things are minor inconveniences, (because gods damnit my wife is giving me the cold shoulder and NOW I NEED TO KILL A DRAGON!? By the great gods above could this day get any worse!) Because I like issues that are more personal and deep seated to the character. Mental issues, self destruction, or even regrets on actions, and potentially biting off more than you can chew. All while the circus that is the world is going on and spiraling out of control.

Guy De Maupassant did this great in Bel Ami a book which heavily inspired me in style, theme and just the story is oh so damn victorian french its glorious. I'm 99.9999% I feel can safely reveal elements of a plot of a Victorian era book of a dead man.

Bel Ami is about a soldier who comes back to Paris, and with the help of a friend gets a job into a newspaper. He however is the least qualified person, and so he bites off more than he can chew. The boss man then pars him up with his wife who ghost writes for him due to culture at the time. This guy is a total fraud and he's basically running around going "OH DEAR GOD WTF IS GOING ON!?" But as he is lobbed into the higher paris coterie he accepts his fate with vigorous glee until one mademoiselle falls for him, and at the same time the boss man croaks and gives the hand of his wife to this guy. So in order to keep his editorial job he needs the bossman's wife, yet he has a mistress now and... Just oh yeah. It's so french it hurts in that glorious 'I need a baguette and a glass of wine stat' way. Oh how I adore french literature of that time period whilst the british were writing arguably duller stories the french were writing stories where a man gets attacked by furniture that walks out of his house and painters that get ran over by carriages in the name of love. Ahhh *sips the wine and crunches on a baguette*

Oh yeah its a crazy read and has more bite than most things i've read today. Theres a chapter where the MC is challenged to a duel and is sweating bullets. It happens in a second (A a great use of the anticlimactic.) and the doctor goes "Damn these things either always miss or end up with a casket." with the largest sense of disappointment that neither party got shot.

I've found many older novels from the era of 1889-1915 can have a lot of surprising tension in them. I began to collect the odd ball books from this era, and I've been pleasantly surprised by the quality and really the depth of writing.

Main thing I am saying is that she's saying you shoe in horn in tension like you're denial your foot is too big for that high heel shoe. I disagree and say it should come naturally, and if it does not then figure out, but course if you're going down the cliché route just give everybody an axe to the face. Because random Death = emotions Am I right?

Also some things need to be explained.. I will stand by that. If the victorian books did not explain everything then I would have NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON. Think about it this way.. details are good, especially if the times radically change. If you leave a book without much description of the what is going it can become dated really quickly especially if everything is treated as modern because then you have a slight visual clash that comes from the presumption that people know everything you're rambling on about.

And oh boy do I know a thing or two about rambling. LOOK AT THIS POST!

 

[DelActivisto]

I enjoy a good, rambling, lengthy read myself. Although with less leisure time these day, I find myself preferring punchy novels that I can pick up at any given point and have something explode in about 25 pages and then put it down again.

But I feel tension comes from the slow and steady world building of a mature writer, like Tolkien, Jordan, or Sanderson. In Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, constantly wondering how they were going to defeat the main antagonist, who was immortal for all intents and purposes, kept me going to the end.

Spoiler: Mistborn spoiler!

Except, they killed him in book 1. What? Doesn't that end the story? No. He just drove the first story. The world still epically sucked after he died, and in fact, started to go seriously downhill after he died. The Devil had been keeping the world together! The mountains starting spewing more ash, the plants started withering, and the evil force in the world grew stronger. So the next two books actually focused on saving the world in a different way. Most antagonist become minor compared to defeating the evil portion of the magic system and restoring order to the world so that people could survive.

My goal in my own story is to draw out the tension, yes, but also have things happen, some low points, some high points... the traditional story arc. But if I go for more books in the series, I need the tension to hang... cliffhanger, that is. That can be tricky. How to make a story that is largely completed on its own, yet begs for more to come?