Narrative Conventions
Jul. 6th, 2010 12:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI was thinking about these this morning: the implicit rules of Western storytelling, without which stories tend to be unsatisfying or feel badly constructed. Such as:
* The Rule of Plans: If the characters explain The Plan to the reader beforehand, it cannot work. This is because no author wants to describe the same thing twice and if it worked, acting it out would be just like explaining it.
The Corollary of Detailed Plans: If the characters explain the Plan in detail, it will go horribly, horribly wrong. The description of the Plan is only there to serve as a blueprint of how it went wrong.
The Rule of Significant Characters: Any character important in the second half of a story must be introduced in the first half. This is to prove you're not just making it up as you go along. Writers who are just making it up as they go along are advised to introduce a lot of extraneous characters in the first half just in case you need them later.
The Corollary of Secret Identities: Characters whose specific identity is unknown but who appear throughout the story as an actor (eg, a masked thief) must be mentioned by their secret identity at least once in the first half of the story and be revealed as such in the second half. This applies even if their real name is irrelevant and your story is not about the mystery of unmasking them.
The Rule of Resolutions: Any special abilities/skills/super powers/vulnerabilities which will be critical at the climax must be mentioned well before the climax. This is also to prove that you aren't just making it up as you go along. Writers who are just making it up as they go along should be aware that introducing extraneous powers well before the climax in case you need them later doesn't work as well as doing the same thing with characters.
What other narrative conventions can you think of? When have you seen these conventions flouted -- especially flouted effectively? The best case of flouting that I know is on the Corollary of Secret Identities in Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta": V is never unmasked and it doesn't matter who he "really" was, or if he was anyone that appeared elsewhere in the graphic novel.
Or, almost as good: followed but followed badly? I remember two instances of bad implementations of the Corollary of Secret Identities: one where the author clearly had one character in mind for the "real villain", and then decided that was too obvious and switched it to a different character, who made no sense at all as the secret id. And another where the secret id was completely irrelevant to the story, but had still been mentioned in a single throwaway paragraph near the start just to satisfy narrative convention.
* The Rule of Plans: If the characters explain The Plan to the reader beforehand, it cannot work. This is because no author wants to describe the same thing twice and if it worked, acting it out would be just like explaining it.
The Corollary of Detailed Plans: If the characters explain the Plan in detail, it will go horribly, horribly wrong. The description of the Plan is only there to serve as a blueprint of how it went wrong.
The Rule of Significant Characters: Any character important in the second half of a story must be introduced in the first half. This is to prove you're not just making it up as you go along. Writers who are just making it up as they go along are advised to introduce a lot of extraneous characters in the first half just in case you need them later.
The Corollary of Secret Identities: Characters whose specific identity is unknown but who appear throughout the story as an actor (eg, a masked thief) must be mentioned by their secret identity at least once in the first half of the story and be revealed as such in the second half. This applies even if their real name is irrelevant and your story is not about the mystery of unmasking them.
The Rule of Resolutions: Any special abilities/skills/super powers/vulnerabilities which will be critical at the climax must be mentioned well before the climax. This is also to prove that you aren't just making it up as you go along. Writers who are just making it up as they go along should be aware that introducing extraneous powers well before the climax in case you need them later doesn't work as well as doing the same thing with characters.
What other narrative conventions can you think of? When have you seen these conventions flouted -- especially flouted effectively? The best case of flouting that I know is on the Corollary of Secret Identities in Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta": V is never unmasked and it doesn't matter who he "really" was, or if he was anyone that appeared elsewhere in the graphic novel.
Or, almost as good: followed but followed badly? I remember two instances of bad implementations of the Corollary of Secret Identities: one where the author clearly had one character in mind for the "real villain", and then decided that was too obvious and switched it to a different character, who made no sense at all as the secret id. And another where the secret id was completely irrelevant to the story, but had still been mentioned in a single throwaway paragraph near the start just to satisfy narrative convention.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-07 12:10 pm (UTC)Still, some shows seem to call for the idea of competent heroes who make a plan and it DOES work - but telling us in intricate detail about the plan and then telling us again (or, "showing us") would be lame. So, they signify this by:
1) Leader Guy says, "I've got a plan..." Fast forward into the heroes actually carrying it out.
1b) Optionally, for TV or movies, have a narrative that is apparently taking place during the planning session. Rather than watching the characters stand around and talk, we're watching the events play out. It might just be Leader Guy talking, or other team members might jump in with "what if?" concerns (which may or may not be borne out by the events we're witnessing). This is something that takes advantage of the medium of TV/movies in that we can have two "tracks" going on: what we see, and what we're hearing. I think I've also seen it done for comics. I haven't really seen this done in a text medium, except (sorry, can't remember example), some story wherein it kept bouncing between "past planning" snippets, and "future acting out" bits.
As in, here's a section of things being carried out, then, break, suddenly we're back at the planning session, and someone says, "Hey, what if...?" with someone else saying, "Well, then..." ... and then we go back to "the present" and see, whaddyaknow, this problem cropping up, but our team is prepared. Not quite the same, though.
2) Detail one, highlight the other. E.g., we hear in great detail the plan, but "fast-forward" through carrying it out. Usually, though, this means "fast-forwarding until something goes NOT according to plan," and then the "action" picks up again there ... which falls right into that trope, because that's what I *expect* to happen whenever too much "telling" is given up front.
3) Different POV. We witness character group one making their plan. Later on, in a chapter from the POV of the "bad guys" or whatever, we get to see events unfold from their perspective, and we can "fill in the gaps" on what the heroes are up to where we can't see them directly based on what their plan was. Still, I strongly expect, if the opposing team has become the "viewpoint" character, that they'll get to throw a monkey wrench into things somehow. It's not much fun (for me, anyway) to watch doomed characters from their POV, where you know the outcome is predestined (even if they're "bad guys").
no subject
Date: 2010-07-07 02:03 pm (UTC)3) can work for me. Some of it depends on how much I hate the bad guys, and how badly things go for them. Sometimes it can be a lot of fun. >:)