Writing series

[bartl]

I'm creating a new thread instead of putting this under "theme", just to keep things more on topic.

This is in regard to Grant's "con man" analogy.

When in high school, I was interested in stage magic; even made some extra cash doing kid's parties as a magician. I had the good luck to pick up a book, MAGIC AND SHOWMANSHIP, which turned out to be one of the most influential books ever written in stage magic. What the book did was to take a look at stage magic from a new point of view; taking the point of view that the most important skill of magic not the mechanical skill, but the acting skill. It pointed out that most magic was in the form of what a later comedian would call, "Now you see it, now you don't, you're a jerk." What it emphasized was moving the thoughts in the audience from "how did he do that?" to "isn't that wonderful!".

The phrase used throughout that book was "suspension of disbelief." This is the ability of people to temporarily take fiction as if it were fact. Just look at the fan reaction when DC replaced Hal Jordan with Kyle Raynor. All of them knew that these were people who didn't exist. But they thought of them as real people, and felt, even though they knew otherwise, that someone they cared about was gratuitously harmed (more recently, the reaction about the rape of Sue Dibney was similar). As Grant pointed out, as long as internal consistency is maintained, so is suspension of disbelief. Go away from it, and the whole house of fictions collapses.

Consider the final episodes of two TV series: NEWHART, and SEINFELD. Both were series that operated on the edge of possibility. SEINFELD operated just on this side of believability, while NEWHART strayed to the other side. With NEWHART, the final episode went well beyond the line, then made the whole series a dream by his previous character. The "it was all a dream" ending was well received, because it made such retrospective sense, and because THE BOB NEWHART SHOW operated, like SEINFELD, just on our side of the line. But SEINFELD strayed over the line in the final episode, going from the improbable to the impossible, which many, if not most, considered to be a letdown, if not a betrayal.

[bartl]

There are 3 basic rules to keep in mind of systems analysis, whether the system is computers, writing, or whatever.

1) If you don't define the problem, you are not likely to solve it.
2) Never confuse the problem with the solution.
3) Rules are solutions; when you break them, consider #1 and #2.

There is an age group, generally 10-14, which is called the "gangster years". This is when kids learn that they can break the rules, but have yet developed the judgment to figure out when breaking the rules is actually useful. Too many writers these days are stuck in that mentality; they break the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules, and not to solve any problem where the rules get in the way of the solution.

However, sometimes, a problem comes up where the rules interfere with the solution; in other words, keeping the rules is a confusion of the problem with the solution. For example, rules of storywriting have a purpose. The rule against deus ex machina, for example, is to avoid breaking suspension of disbelief. However, in a series, having everything neatly foreshadowed (another term implied but not explicitly used in today's article) can actually defeat this purpose. In life, there are occasionally surprises. There are ways that deus ex machina can be used, if used judiciously, rarely, and where it makes sense, at least in hindsight. One key is for the protagonist to be as surprised as the reader. It helps if it advances the characterization of the protagonist.

A good example was the origin of the Falcon. Captain America comes across a guy on an island with a strange talent; a telepathic link with his pet falcon. He never questions this, just accepts it. Being the Marvel Universe, so does the reader. Except that it turns out that the Falcon was a creation of the Red Skull, using the Cosmic Cube. Until this is revealed, there is not even a hint of this; no clues that would make the reader come to this conclusion. It may not even have been part of the original plan. Yet, it is effective within the storyline.

[Steven Grant]

The "it was all a dream" ending was well received, because it made such retrospective sense, and because THE BOB NEWHART SHOW operated, like SEINFELD, just on our side of the line. But SEINFELD strayed over the line in the final episode, going from the improbable to the impossible, which many, if not most, considered to be a letdown, if not a betrayal.
The NEWHART ending also worked beautifully and wasn't a disappointment because a) it immediately made sense of the often wildly irrational events of NEWHART (a show that was funny because it as often as not operated on a sort of dream logic, to which everyone in the show but Newhart was privy); b) it played on what the show had always played on: the public association of Newhart with the very popular BOB NEWHART SHOW; c) despite following the show's logic, it was a complete left field surprise; and d) it was funny.

The conclusion to SEINFELD, on the other hand, was bloated and unfunny. It was like all the characters were screaming all the way through, "PLEASE GOD, JUST LET IT END!"

My favorite ending for a TV show, which had many people up in arms screaming, was for ST. ELSEWHERE, which placed the run of the show in the overactive mind of an autistic child staring into a large glass ball in some cramped working class apartment in Boston...

[WatsonGlenn]

I liked the ending of MASH. It stayed true to the story and still was able to shock me with the dead baby bit.

I also liked the last episode of NYPD Blue. It seemed like a natural progression.

[bartl]

The NEWHART ending also worked beautifully and wasn't a disappointment because a) it immediately made sense of the often wildly irrational events of NEWHART (a show that was funny because it as often as not operated on a sort of dream logic, to which everyone in the show but Newhart was privy); b) it played on what the show had always played on: the public association of Newhart with the very popular BOB NEWHART SHOW; c) despite following the show's logic, it was a complete left field surprise; and d) it was funny.
But that's my point; the ending fit in perfectly with the logic of the show. SEINFELD's ending did not. I never really was a ST. ELSEWHERE watcher.

[badMike]

My favorite ending for a TV show, which had many people up in arms screaming, was for ST. ELSEWHERE, which placed the run of the show in the overactive mind of an autistic child staring into a large glass ball in some cramped working class apartment in Boston...By the way: Just about the entire fictional TV universe exists in Tommy Westphall's mind:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html

This is a really fascinating bit of research.

[dancj]

By the way: Just about the entire fictional TV universe exists in Tommy Westphall's mind:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html (http://home.vicnet.net.au/%7Ekwgow/crossovers.html)

This is a really fascinating bit of research.

That's cool, but it goes by the big assumption that when a character appears in St Elsewhere they really did appear in St Elsewhere. There's every possibility that Tommy had seen the telly programmes in question and imagined them in his world. In this case, the only necessarily valid links from St Elsewhere are the ones where St Elsewhere characters appeared in other programmes.

[Bob Violence]

The NEWHART ending also worked beautifully and wasn't a disappointment because a) it immediately made sense of the often wildly irrational events of NEWHART (a show that was funny because it as often as not operated on a sort of dream logic, to which everyone in the show but Newhart was privy); b) it played on what the show had always played on: the public association of Newhart with the very popular BOB NEWHART SHOW; c) despite following the show's logic, it was a complete left field surprise; and d) it was funny.

The conclusion to SEINFELD, on the other hand, was bloated and unfunny. It was like all the characters were screaming all the way through, "PLEASE GOD, JUST LET IT END!"

My favorite ending for a TV show, which had many people up in arms screaming, was for ST. ELSEWHERE, which placed the run of the show in the overactive mind of an autistic child staring into a large glass ball in some cramped working class apartment in Boston...

I liked the Seinfeld ending, just because it took the meanness that pervaded the show to another level. It wasn't heatwarming or charming, that would've been false. Instead, we got to see the real consequences of the main characters' selfishness. It wasn't perfectly executed, but it was true to the series.

[Steven Grant]

I suppose. But it still wasn't funny, which was very much against the spirit of the rest of the series.

Ah, Bob Violence. We hardly knew ye...

[bartl]

I suppose. But it still wasn't funny, which was very much against the spirit of the rest of the series.

Once again I would like to point out that the end of Seinfeld stretched believability to the breaking point. It's also an excellent example of the type of thinking similar to what I called "writing at a character" in another thread. Consider the law that they were supposed to have broken: failing to come to the aid of a crime victim.

A) They took a video of the crime, which could greatly aid the detection and the capture of the criminal. Nobody was physically harmed. By any real world logic, they had actually done the most effective thing they could have done.

B) The way current law is going, especially in urban areas, if they had tried to stop the crime, they might have been guilty of a crime themselves.

Now, if they wanted to bring their past victims on parade in a trial, here's a simple alteration, which would have been much better in terms of the series (Grant may remember a game we used to play online in the RIME Comics Conference. It was something like "find half a dozen better ways of resolving the plot in less than a minute").

The criminal starts running away. They move to get into a better position to tape his fleeing, getting into the way of a police officer pursuing him. The police officer gets injured in a permanent but comical manner (such as breaking his trigger finger, so he can't use a gun any more and has to go to a desk job).

You still get their self-centeredness getting them into legal trouble, but now it's something that is merely improbable, rather than impossible.

[Gingold]

Once again I would like to point out that the end of Seinfeld stretched believability to the breaking point. It's also an excellent example of the type of thinking similar to what I called "writing at a character" in another thread. Consider the law that they were supposed to have broken: failing to come to the aid of a crime victim.

A) They took a video of the crime, which could greatly aid the detection and the capture of the criminal. Nobody was physically harmed. By any real world logic, they had actually done the most effective thing they could have done.

B) The way current law is going, especially in urban areas, if they had tried to stop the crime, they might have been guilty of a crime themselves.

Now, if they wanted to bring their past victims on parade in a trial, here's a simple alteration, which would have been much better in terms of the series (Grant may remember a game we used to play online in the RIME Comics Conference. It was something like "find half a dozen better ways of resolving the plot in less than a minute").

The criminal starts running away. They move to get into a better position to tape his fleeing, getting into the way of a police officer pursuing him. The police officer gets injured in a permanent but comical manner (such as breaking his trigger finger, so he can't use a gun any more and has to go to a desk job).

You still get their self-centeredness getting them into legal trouble, but now it's something that is merely improbable, rather than impossible.

Yeah- but then they get arrested for doing something instead of nothing -- which was the whole point. It's an almost clever nod to the concept of the show, but it failed miserably as an episode, mainly because the plot of having them arrested prevented the main characters from having to do anything. And it just wasn't that funny.

I still like the final scene with Jerry doing his standup act in prison, though.

[bartl]

Yeah- but then they get arrested for doing something instead of nothing -- which was the whole point. It's an almost clever nod to the concept of the show, but it failed miserably as an episode, mainly because the plot of having them arrested prevented the main characters from having to do anything. And it just wasn't that funny.
According to Jerry Seinfeld, the "show about nothing" was a joke. It was never a show about nothing. It was a show about a bunch of people who are always trying to take shortcuts through life, and end up having to take the long cut.

[Drew Van T.]

According to Jerry Seinfeld, the "show about nothing" was a joke. It was never a show about nothing.

Yeah; the other problem with the statement was its implication that previous sitcoms had been about something, which is a bit silly seeing as how even one of the better ones - Cheers - had been about a bar and its patrons, which is not a heck of a lot.

[stealthwise]

My favorite ending for a TV show, which had many people up in arms screaming, was for ST. ELSEWHERE, which placed the run of the show in the overactive mind of an autistic child staring into a large glass ball in some cramped working class apartment in Boston...

Wait... what? Can you put that into some context so that it doesn't sound like the stupidest idea I've ever heard?

[Steven Grant]

Wait... what? Can you put that into some context so that it doesn't sound like the stupidest idea I've ever heard?
You had to be there...

[Bob Violence]

Wait... what? Can you put that into some context so that it doesn't sound like the stupidest idea I've ever heard?
St. Elsewhere always had a streak of whimsy running through it. Plus, closing the hospital would've caused the show to take on more pathos than it ever had before. Keeping it open would not be an ending to the show.
The "it's all a dream" ending worked on three levels 1-the whimsy level 2-the title, St. Elsewhere 3- the macro level, the autistic kid looking into the snowglobe is not unlike us, the viewers, who take time to make a point of watching our favorite shows and caring about them.