bartl
03-23-2005, 09:45 AM
I have, over several years, on and off, been working on a project, moving storywriting techniques into other fields. As what Steven is writing about is SOP for many writers, there are a number of parallels between what I have been writing and what he has been writing (including the use of terms "protagonist" and "antagonist", although I have not used, and SHOULD have used "ancillary characters"; I've called them "minor characters").
In any case, there is one term that I have used which Steven certainly covers, but I use a bit more compactly: "dramatic conflict opportunities". As Steven pointed out, conflict is necessary for the main character. Frankly, without dramatic conflict, there is no point. The basis of it is that characters, both protagonists and antagonists, have multiple goals and purposes, and to make a story interesting, it is necessary to make these to appear to be, at least in part, mutually exclusive. The story needs to show how these conflicts are resolved. In horror (since we've been talking about horror), the resolution is often "you can't resolve them"; that is why there is horror. It can be as simple as the character having a goal to stay alive, and put into a situation where staying alive is an impossible task.
The reason why I have always expressed a dislike for the fondly remembered (by most) "ADVENTURE OF SUPERMAN RED/SUPERMAN BLUE" story is that, to me, it is the equivalent of the torture of Tantalus; it takes juicy morsel, puts it in front of you, and, just as you are about to bite into it, it pulls it away. The entire story is setting up one dramatic conflict after another, and resolving each one by simply removing it. Isaac Asimov did the same with his last novel, NEMESIS, where the conflict was solved by the obvious ("My God, there's a meteor, and, in 1 hour, it's going to hit us! What do we do?" "I have a great idea! It will solve the whole problem?" "What's the solution? I'm wracking my brains, and can't think of any!" "Let's move a couple of hundred yards to the left!" "Brilliant! You've saved us all!").
Now, on the other hand, the anticlimax can be used effectively when it becomes a joke on the protagonist. An example that sticks in my mind is a Luke Cage story in his HERO FOR HIRE days, where Dr. Doom stiffs him on a bill, and he goes to collect. Except that the real dramatic conflict doesn't occur until the end of the story, where Dr. Doom is conflicted by his ego that does not allow for him being wrong, and the fact that, even by his own standards, he IS in the wrong. He resolves this by blaming it on his underlings, and having them give Cage his money, suddenly deciding that Cage is beneath his notice. It leaves an empty feeling all around, except that, in this story, that's the whole point. It's a joke.
Now, for example, with Steven's central character, the central conflict is still missing (I assume to be filled in later). Stevn said that he is going to be the one to reveal the secret to the world (or, seeing that this is horror, TRY to reveal the secret to the world; the horror genre normally requires that his attempts should at the very least be useless). But there is nothing in the character, as SO FAR described, that would cause him to do so; he needs something in his character, which needs to be established BEFORE he learns the secret, that would cause him to want to reveal it to the world. Certainly, it can be worked in with his established fears; that there's a spark of idealism left in him, and the spark is more important to him than even he realizes.
In any case, there is one term that I have used which Steven certainly covers, but I use a bit more compactly: "dramatic conflict opportunities". As Steven pointed out, conflict is necessary for the main character. Frankly, without dramatic conflict, there is no point. The basis of it is that characters, both protagonists and antagonists, have multiple goals and purposes, and to make a story interesting, it is necessary to make these to appear to be, at least in part, mutually exclusive. The story needs to show how these conflicts are resolved. In horror (since we've been talking about horror), the resolution is often "you can't resolve them"; that is why there is horror. It can be as simple as the character having a goal to stay alive, and put into a situation where staying alive is an impossible task.
The reason why I have always expressed a dislike for the fondly remembered (by most) "ADVENTURE OF SUPERMAN RED/SUPERMAN BLUE" story is that, to me, it is the equivalent of the torture of Tantalus; it takes juicy morsel, puts it in front of you, and, just as you are about to bite into it, it pulls it away. The entire story is setting up one dramatic conflict after another, and resolving each one by simply removing it. Isaac Asimov did the same with his last novel, NEMESIS, where the conflict was solved by the obvious ("My God, there's a meteor, and, in 1 hour, it's going to hit us! What do we do?" "I have a great idea! It will solve the whole problem?" "What's the solution? I'm wracking my brains, and can't think of any!" "Let's move a couple of hundred yards to the left!" "Brilliant! You've saved us all!").
Now, on the other hand, the anticlimax can be used effectively when it becomes a joke on the protagonist. An example that sticks in my mind is a Luke Cage story in his HERO FOR HIRE days, where Dr. Doom stiffs him on a bill, and he goes to collect. Except that the real dramatic conflict doesn't occur until the end of the story, where Dr. Doom is conflicted by his ego that does not allow for him being wrong, and the fact that, even by his own standards, he IS in the wrong. He resolves this by blaming it on his underlings, and having them give Cage his money, suddenly deciding that Cage is beneath his notice. It leaves an empty feeling all around, except that, in this story, that's the whole point. It's a joke.
Now, for example, with Steven's central character, the central conflict is still missing (I assume to be filled in later). Stevn said that he is going to be the one to reveal the secret to the world (or, seeing that this is horror, TRY to reveal the secret to the world; the horror genre normally requires that his attempts should at the very least be useless). But there is nothing in the character, as SO FAR described, that would cause him to do so; he needs something in his character, which needs to be established BEFORE he learns the secret, that would cause him to want to reveal it to the world. Certainly, it can be worked in with his established fears; that there's a spark of idealism left in him, and the spark is more important to him than even he realizes.