|
 n
issue I've long pondered. Is it necessary, or even useful, to "up
the ante" in a novel? Does a story become more exciting if the fate
of the entire world hangs in the balance, rather than just the fate of
one character, or one group, or one city?
Personally,
I'd rather read a story where a character or characters I care about are
in danger than one where the future of mankind is at risk. On the other
hand, if all things are equal, wouldn't higher stakes add to my
enjoyment of a story? I love epic themes
and big, big bang payoffs, when they're done well.
Here
follow blog entries on this subject, added in chronological order.
December
12, 2005
I've done a ton of
writing this weekend, and while going over my outlines and ideas for how
my novel will end, I've returned time and again to an old issue that comes
up in every sort of fiction. How high are the stakes? By this I mean,
what's the key challenge or struggle in a work of fiction, whether film or
book or TV show or whatever. Are the main characters fighting for their
lives, or are they trying to get rich, or are they trying to save the
world? And does it matter?
My novel appears to be largely one man's quest for personal gain, before
it becomes a much larger struggle/war between two nations halfway through,
and then it takes another turn at the very end. But since no one has read
it but me, I'll give examples of other things. Most epic fantasy has very
high stakes. LotR has heroes trying to destroy a dark lord who will
enslave their entire world, or at least their entire continent. Jordan's
Wheel of Time series (which Malaya is reading now, hence my thinking about
it lately) has a band of heroes trying to stop a dark lord from being
reborn and destroying everything. Star Wars has a band of heroes as they
try to stop a dark lord from taking total domination over the universe.
Notice a recurring theme?
Is that necessary, though? Of course not.
Plenty of great stories
are about much smaller stakes. Take some early Stephen King classics. The
Stand was about a battle between good and evil for the fate of the
world. The Shining was about a guy and his wife and kid in a hotel.
They're both good books, but it's obvious that The Stand isn't
millions of times more thrilling just because that's the number of lives
at stake. Since readers are more interested in individual characters they
know, rather than the fate of entire worlds they know nothing about,
writers have to focus on the micro even as they juggle the situation of
the macro. If you only talk about the world at large (in fantasy or
whatever genre), and your individual characters aren't interesting, no one
is going to enjoy the book.
James Bond movies are another easy example. In lots of the older films,
the story was much more personal. Bond had to solve a mystery and chase
down a rogue spy, or defeat one evil gun runner, or whatever. Over time
though, the plots have become more and more grandiose, until every story
now has to threaten global Armageddon, or World War III, or whatever.
Either movie can work, but the enjoyment of the viewer is always going to
hinge far more on the individual characters and their struggles, rather
than being overly effected by world peace or the survival of democracy.
Returning to fantasy
literature, since that's my current area of preoccupation, I think there
are somewhat different standards. Fantasy, perhaps more than any other
genre, tends towards the epic. Readers want big stakes and huge themes,
especially in longer works. Like trilogies, or longer series (as they all
seem to be). I'm not sure why, but it seems odd for a fantasy novel to
just tell a regular story, set in a fantasy world. Most fantasy readers
have come to expect the future of humanity (or various other fantasy
races) to hinge on a final showdown between good and evil. And they
usually get it, with the basic fantasy archetype of some low-born boy/girl
following their destiny and answering a prophecy and ascending to the
saviour king/queen role almost the default in fantasy series. It's such a
common theme that most of the time, every reader knows it's going to
happen from page one, and this often turns maybe half of the first book
into pointless preamble.
I didn't
dislike Eragon (much to my surprise), but it's obvious from the
get go that the title character was born to be a king/hero/dragonrider,
and that makes his various close scrapes and adventures sort of
anti-climatic. Of course he's going to be forced from the small village he
grew up in, of course the evil king is going to chase him, of course he's
going to find new powers and magic, etc, etc. The same was true of Rand in
The Wheel of Time series, Ged in The Wizard of Earthsea,
Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, Harry Potter, the main character in
every book of Shannara, and so on.
The question is; is this a bad thing, since it's so predictable, or is it
a good thing, since the reader can anticipate enjoying the main
character's inevitable rise to power and mastery? (Answer: it all depends
on how the author handles it, but that's a boring answer, so I'll continue
as though I didn't give it.) Is there even any point in an author of such
a fantasy epic with the archetypal savior character trying to hide it, or
beat around the bush? Everyone knows right from the start that the
character will suffer and struggle a lot along the way, but that
eventually they'll overcome and be great. So why not just get on with it,
rather than having the character deny their manifest destiny, or making it
seem (to the reader) that maybe that character isn't the chosen one after
all?
I know I'll never write a story where the poor young man/woman is destined
to be the savior, just since it's become such a clichι now. I will likely
delight in screwing with reader expectations though, as the young
struggling ones they think are destined for great things turn evil, or
die, or fade away, or whatever. I would also like to see a story where the
handsome, strong, and intelligent prince, born into wealth and power,
raised with every privilege and advantage, with few goals higher than
bedding another wench and hunting another stag, ends up saving the world,
perhaps even by accident or with indifference to his triumph. Not his
noble younger brother, not his bastard squire of unknown parentage, and
not the orphan girl he insults and ignores in chapter one. Him. Who would
expect it?
Of course the question that comes up then is a familiar one. Is that a
good idea? It would be shocking to have James Bond die early in the film,
or have him lose the final battle and the bad guy triumph, but would
viewers appreciate the novelty, or would they be disappointed that they
were cheated out of the inevitable triumph they paid $9.50 to see?
I'm off track again, but
I do wonder about it in fantasy literature. Could someone write and
sustain a good fantasy series where the novels weren't building up to
higher and higher stakes? Where the fate of the entire world, or at least
the kingdom, wasn't coming into question? I think so, and I'm sure it's
been done, but was it a good idea? Wouldn't the same novel have been more
entertaining if it had been much the same, but with a final battle that
had the fate of the world in the balance? Of course in that case you'd
lose almost all worry that the good guys/main characters would lose, but
then again, how often does the main hero character ever really lose at the
end of a book or series? And I mean lose, not just suffer a temporary set
back.
I'm really curious to see how Martin's series turns out, since through
four books (Well, I've not read #4 yet, since I don't get to until I
finish my novel.) we've grown to know and care about main characters on
all sides of the action. There aren't any obvious "lf course they'll
win, they're the good guys" moments, (especially since numerous good
guys have already lost/been killed, through book 3) and with dozens of
main characters, we never know which are going to survive and triumph.
That adds to the suspense, since it's entirely possible that someone the
reader really likes will die and leave the book entirely. On the other
hand, since we know and care about both sides in most of the struggles, no
matter who wins, it's someone we want to read more about (with the
possible exception of Sansa). It's not like major characters and plot
threads just end suddenly. Well, they do, but only by being rubbed out or
absorbed by other main plot threads, so something continues on.
I didn't consciously do it to emulate or pattern myself after Martin, but
I'm going to enjoy having people read the end of my novel, since it winds
up in a confrontation between two sides who are deadly enemies, but who
the reader has lived with for hundreds of pages. I honestly don't know
which will be considered the good guys or bad guys, or which the reader
will sympathize with and root for. I hope the reader will be torn, and
wonder how it can possibly end in satisfying fashion, and will be
surprised by how it turns out. And I really hope I actually get to write
the damn thing someday, given the way my chapters turn into damn novellas,
and then get completely rewritten during editing.
Comments
from the initial post:
One series that doesn't have amazingly high stakes is the crystal singer trilogy by Anne McCaffrey. I can't really remember what the plot of the 1st one is, but the 2nd one she has to overthrow a government that is enslaving it's populace (but no ones dying or anything, and they're all perfectly happy, they just don't have very much freedom) and in the 3rd one its simply about the changing times in profession of the singers when a new head of the guild trys to institute new procedures and memory preservation techniques. These books are very much about the characters.
Crystal Singer, Killashandra and Crystal
Line.
#: 11:42 AM posted by Lanthanide
I was just reading the book sci-fi Sunstorm. Which is basically a entire-world-in-peril disaster movie. There is much that was wrong with it (Limp characters, slilted dialog) but the immense gandiose scale made the whole thing worthwhile.
If it wasn't for the apocalyptic devastation and high stakes, it wouldn't have been worth the read.
#: 4:35 PM posted by Strabo
McCaffrey seems comfortable writing smaller books within her larger worlds. Many of the Pern novels are struggles for the survival of humanity on Pern, but others are much smaller scale adventures. The prototypical "teen coming of age while fighting the misunderstanding of his elders" character goes off and does something important to him/her, but that doesn't really impact their society as a whole. Dragonsong, Dragonsinger, and Dragondrums, for instance, and the first two of those are among my favorite fantasy novels ever, even as they play for virtually zero stakes.
#: 4:09 PM posted by Flux
I blame Tolkein. :)
The first Drizzt series that dealt with his underworld home doesn't have very high world stakes IMO...it's mostly a character study. Sure the stuff is high-stakes to Drizzt, but not to the world. Too bad the writing style of the author is so horrible, particularly early on. The Drizzt series is one of those rare cases where I kept reading, with gritted teeth, just because I liked a single character so much.
#: 2:02 AM posted by Kim
|
