Current Reading: Marching As To War, by Pierre Burton
Inspirational Quote: "Once you have invented a character with three dimensions and a voice, you begin to realize that some of the things you'd like him to do to further your plot are things that such a person wouldn't, or couldn't, do." -- Thomas Perry
Dr. Carnage plans to kill off much of the city by poisoning the water supply. Ryan, a shape shifter, and Rachael, his intrepid reporter girlfriend, infiltrate Carnage's lair through an unguarded side entrance. They are captured and Ryan is knocked unconscious. He awakens tied to a chair in time to see Rachael being lowered into a vat of poison. Ryan struggles to free himself before Rachael goes for her last swim.
It's dramatic, but it's also proof that Ryan's an idiot. An intelligent hero wouldn't storm the villain's lair without an army for backup. A shape shifter would sneak in for reconnaissance before making a move, and he'd never take along a character who couldn't do the same. But then, Dr. Carnage ties up someone who can change shape, then waits for them to wake up before threatening someone else. Ryan's not alone in moron-land.
Thankfully, so far as I'm aware, this is not a real-world example.
I've seen worse, though.
I've been encountering a lot of examples of Plot Induced Stupidity lately. Most of them show up on television, or in comic books, which are not known as bastions of intellectual entertainment. However, I'm ashamed to admit that I've seen some examples in print as well. The writer has a plot in mind, and the actions of the characters are restricted by what the plot requires. They'll make stupid choices, forget things they know, and refuse to take advantage of powers or resources at their disposal.
And I wish they'd stop it. It's frustrating.
I believe every writer should stick to the Principle of Maximum Character Effort: every character must use all their abilities and resources to attain their goal. No holding back, no convenient amnesia.
The corollary to this is that plot should never be imposed on characters. If a writer finds they must rely on Plot Induced Stupidity to tell their story, then either they're writing with the wrong plot or with the wrong characters.
Current Reading
Techniques of the Selling Writer, by Dwight V. Swain
Current Reading
The Return of the King, by JRR Tolkien
Ulyssesography
- Ulysses
- Ulysses is a self-taught programmer who, through a combination of dedication and luck, finds himself programming professionally. His other pursuits include writing, drawing and 3D design.
Ports of Call
-
-
-
In Memoriam: Janet Reid6 months ago
-
-
-
Polite self-promotion13 years ago
-
12 comments:
Good day, Ulysses. Shall we argue?
Ryan didn't exactly storm in. He and Rachael went in through the unguarded side entrance. Why it was unguarded, is what I want to know. I also question a shape shifter's need for a backup army. Surely he could turn into something predacious or better.
Also, why can't Rachael sneak in for reconnaissance? She is a reporter. She is intrepid. She should be capable and willing to sneak around a bad guy's lair. I would also speculate such a woman would not be left behind by Ryan. Although it might be endearing if he tried to leave her behind, I think this idea is getting old. True, one might argue Dr. Carnage will do terrible, unimaginable arch-evil things to her if he catches her, but real world bad boys gleefully gang rape and mutilate real-world women every day. If I had to choose between an arch-evil drowning in poison and the real world, my hand's up for the arch-evil drowning.
I think the fact that Dr. Carnage ties Ryan up, simply shows him to be a bully rather than a psychopath, which is an important distinction depending on the type of story one is going for. Bullies can be explained: they need to dominate to make themselves appear big, because they feel small. This can be handy if one doesn't want to cross over into the realm of horror, and it may keep one's work PG verus R rated. Had Dr. Carnage simply left Racheal's eviscerated body at Ryan's feet, it may have appeared more practical, but very little crime is purely about practicality. Motives are complicated, because people are complicated. As nice as straightforward psychopaths may be, there really aren't that many of them in the world.
What I found truly difficult in your example was Ryan's failure to shape shift upon regaining consciousness. Couldn't he have simply shifted into something smaller to free himself? Has Dr. Carnage injected him with anti-shift venom? If so, I think Rachael should have some gymnastics training so she can swing herself out of this mess.
Speaking of messes, would you consider reading my query and first few chapters? My query seems to work. My first few chapters have not. I've rewritten the chapters, but would love to have a smart pair of eyes dissect them before I try again. All I can offer in return are my eyes (sadly, I'm not a genius, but I do hold my own) and all the free veterinary care you could ever hope for. Oh, and birthday party plans; therein my brilliance lies.
Enjoy your evening.
--slc
P.S. You know, I'm starting to feel rather fond of Ryan and Rachael. Do they have a story?
"Good day, Ulysses. Shall we argue?"
...I'm game.
"Ryan didn't exactly storm in. He and Rachael went in through the unguarded side entrance. Why it was unguarded, is what I want to know. I also question a shape shifter's need for a backup army. Surely he could turn into something predacious or better."
It was only apparently unguarded. Since Ryan didn't do any reconnaissance, he had no idea that an army of heavily armed mooks waited just inside the door. Ryan tried to turn into an elephant, but there wasn't enough room, and his choice of an enraged lion turned out to be badly thought out, since lions aren't bulletproof. Fortunately, he was only wounded by a bullet grazing his skull and knocking him unconscious.
"Also, why can't Rachael sneak in for reconnaissance? She is a reporter. She is intrepid. She should be capable and willing to sneak around a bad guy's lair. I would also speculate such a woman would not be left behind by Ryan. Although it might be endearing if he tried to leave her behind, I think this idea is getting old. True, one might argue Dr. Carnage will do terrible, unimaginable arch-evil things to her if he catches her, but real world bad boys gleefully gang rape and mutilate real-world women every day. If I had to choose between an arch-evil drowning in poison and the real world, my hand's up for the arch-evil drowning."
Sure, Rachael can sneak in. But if it's a choice of sending in a full-sized human or a human shape-shifted into a mouse, I'd go with the mouse. Nothing against Rachael's courage (I'm sure she's quite adventurous and capable) it's just that she's a lot easier to spot and catch. And it's not that Dr. Carnage would do evil things to her, I mean... with a name like Dr. Carnage, it shouldn't be a surprise. In fact, I wonder what kind of medical/scientific establishment would grant a PhD to a man with the last name "Carnage." Rachael shouldn't take torture or abuse personally. He'd have done the same to anyone.
"I think the fact that Dr. Carnage ties Ryan up, simply shows him to be a bully rather than a psychopath, which is an important distinction depending on the type of story one is going for. Bullies can be explained: they need to dominate to make themselves appear big, because they feel small. This can be handy if one doesn't want to cross over into the realm of horror, and it may keep one's work PG verus R rated. Had Dr. Carnage simply left Racheal's eviscerated body at Ryan's feet, it may have appeared more practical, but very little crime is purely about practicality. Motives are complicated, because people are complicated. As nice as straightforward psychopaths may be, there really aren't that many of them in the world."
For which I'm grateful. I suspect, rather, that Dr. Carnage is trying to hide some aspects of his personality. He decides to tie up Ryan and dispose of Rachael. That could easily be the act of a sociopath with homosexual tendencies and a bondage fetish disposing of a heterosexual rival. It's the kind of thing on which horribly profitable websites are founded.
"What I found truly difficult in your example was Ryan's failure to shape shift upon regaining consciousness. Couldn't he have simply shifted into something smaller to free himself? Has Dr. Carnage injected him with anti-shift venom? If so, I think Rachael should have some gymnastics training so she can swing herself out of this mess."
Yes, he could have. But he's already been portrayed as an idiot, so he might as well see it through. Conversely, he may be subconsciously aware of and encouraging Dr. Carnage's crazed advance. Rachael may be an intrepid reporter, but she has lousy taste in men.
"P.S. You know, I'm starting to feel rather fond of Ryan and Rachael. Do they have a story?"
By all that's holy, I hope not.
Oh, the side entrance was only "apparently" unguarded. I missed reading that part. It is odd that Ryan would miss noticing a whole army. Also, the elephant was a bad choice beyond the size issue. Elephants are big and tough, but built much more for defence. I'd guess he also chose to turn into a male lion, as he is male, and male lions are really only good at eating and reproducing. Now a lioness is as good at stealth as she is at killing, but of course there would still be those bullets to contend with. And by the way, what kind of mooks are they dealing with here, the archetypal young, frat-boy male, or faceless henchmen? I think it would make all the difference for offensive strategy, and with Dr. Carnage's taste in question, either seem a possible choice.
I'd bet regardless of mook type that mooks in general are not nice to mice either. Oh sure mice are tiny, quiet and quick, but there's probably glue traps everywhere in that lair, and Carnage really seems like a cat sort of evil villain to me. Maybe Ryan should try turning into a bacterium or even a prion. I bet the mooks wouldn't see that coming. A nice Clostridium infection could take out the whole lair rather quickly, but Dr. Carnage could have a stash of antibiodics on hand I suppose. Now a prion wouldn't work as quickly, but there is no known cure for such things as mad cow disease. The question then is: how much time does Ryan have before Dr. Carnage poisons the water supply?
The fact that Dr. Carnage tortures all good people with equal malice is exactly my point in regards to Rachael. Why leave her behind? Anybody's going to be in trouble with Carnage, and women aren't even safe in the real world from rather sick cruelty, so these are not strong arguments for leaving her out. Also, she may not be able to shape shift, but I'm sure she has skills, and it looks like Ryan could use all the help he can get. Why, maybe she's not even really a reporter. Perhaps I also didn't read she's actually a Mossad agent. Perhaps the evil Dr. Carnage is left over from World War II, which could explain his credentials and twisted behavior. Although, he wouldn't be the first to make me wonder at the admission practices of medical schools and PhD programs.
Yes, I very much agree in regards to the minority of psychopaths; it helps me sleep at night. What is scary though, is that so many people so eagerly look for easy labels when trying to understand crime, rather than face the true source. This lack of honesty could very well be a part of Dr. Carnage's problem if he is trying to hide his true self. No good ever comes of lying to one's self. However, if his story does stray toward deviant sexual behaviour, I no longer think it's for me.
It's sad isn't it when people live up to the labels others put on them; poor Ryan, behaving like an idiot just because he's been told he's one. If he is just trying to play into Dr. Carnage's hands though, I think you're right, Rachael needs to get better taste in men. Although, there is a chance Israeli headquarters sent her to recruit Ryan. They could likely use a shape shifter, and perhaps I also didn't read Ryan's mother was Jewish. It was probably his Irish father's accent which first attracted her, but I bet what she really fell for was the shamrock tattooed on his biceps.
It really is too bad Ryan and Rachael don't have a story. I still think they're fun, but then I do love an underdog, and I tend to be a glass-half-full sort, so there's a good chance it's just me.
I don't think this counts as arguing.
Obviously, I disagree. 8)
"It really is too bad Ryan and Rachael don't have a story. I still think they're fun, but then I do love an underdog, and I tend to be a glass-half-full sort, so there's a good chance it's just me."
You know, after reading through all the strangeness above, I don't think we can say they don't have a story. I think it possible they have too much of one, or maybe even too many stories.
Okay, you win. You made me laugh hard. But I would argue everyone has too much story, most just won't admit it.
And now an aside... Ulysses! A typo! I love it. You're real. But if you did that on purpose, karma will get you.
A TYPO?!?
Where?!? For the love of all that is holy, WHERE?
Sorry to leave you hanging. I've been away, and in my haste to get away, read your comment wrong on Thursday, of course. Bugger, I think I may hate you now.
Anyway, that "it" in the last sentence of your second to last comment: I wanted to read it as an "it's".
Also, I forgot to mention (and this was because you made me laugh and distracted me), I don't think it's the "what" that matters so much as the "why". I don't care if characters are idiots or do stupid things (I've never met anyone who never has), so long as I get the why they do it.
There's a huge and important difference between characters which are portrayed as stupid (or flawed) doing stupid things, and characters which are portrayed as intelligent doing stupid things simply because the plot will not stand up to them using their intelligence.
One is in character. The other is out of character.
I've said it before: I won't blink if you break the laws of time and space in your story, but I'll put the book down if you break the rules of character.
I think we may now be arguing the colour of something iridescent, and I was completely willing to give you this game, but "the rules of character"... what? Have you never had a bad day? Have you never done anything out of character?
At the heart of what you are saying I completely agree, and may be less tolerant of it in my entertainment than you are. I can't stand it when characters do foolish things for no apparent reason. However, I would also become bored if a character always did exactly what was expected of he or she, because it was the rule. What I need to see is motivation. Adequately motivated and I think anyone will do anything. The trick is not to make this motivation up mid-story. This is where a nice little character outline will come in handy.
(You do realize don't you, that if you'd put "apparently unguarded" in your plot summary, none of this would have happened?)
"the rules of character"... what? Have you never had a bad day? Have you never done anything out of character?Big difference: I'm a real person. I'm a whole lot more complex, conflicted and confused than any fictional character will ever be. As a result, I may do something that makes perfect sense to me, but to any number of observers may appear to be completely out of character. (Important note: crazy people are the same as the rest of us. It's just that their definition of "perfect sense" doesn't jive with anyone else's).
The "rules of character," are ones a writer sets up themselves. If a character is an ophiophobe (afraid of snakes) in chapter 1, she'd better not pick up a viper (not the car, mind you) in chapter 7 without some serious trauma. If she does, then you've violated the rules of character.
Unlike the real world, the actions of a fictional character must make sense with what's been established for that character.
I think the difference in our thinking is mostly semantics. Like you said, the key is motivation. With plot-induced stupidity, there is no believable motivation. Characters can surprise us, and should, but we should always see the potential for that surprise when we look back on their story. The protagonist's best friend betraying the good guys because the villain has promised to resurrect the dead love of his life... that's surprising (at least to the protagonist), but in character. If he betrayed the protagonist because the villain offered him something of no compelling value, that's plot-induced stupidity.
(You do realize don't you, that if you'd put "apparently unguarded" in your plot summary, none of this would have happened?)Actually, it was in an earlier draft of my post...
First, I must say I like characters to be really complex, conflicted and confused.
Second, I agree on all ophis points, but I still don't like "rules". I prefer guidelines. Rules are only for those incapable of lateral thought.
And finally, you took out "apparently"? So much hinged on that one word. Well, at least that shows you're not perfect. Good. Now I like you much better.
Post a Comment