SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Errors of the famous - help for the aspiring author
See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_...A list of Idiot Plot examples may be seen on the always-helpful TV tropes page: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php...
Great Baelor! Now I know the term...Idiot Plot. It's a perfect term. Harry Potter seems to feature in a lot of the examples. Now has anyone seen glaring mistake written by famous authors?
The way to avoid this (one of the ways, anyway) is to keep in mind that every person, and every entity, in the work is pursuing her or its best interest. They are not going to do something against their best interest, just because your plot demands it. The War of the Ring has to stand up to analysis in the editorial pages of the GONDOR DAILY NEWS. Voldemort is going to consider how his actions impact his pension plan. Beorn is going to weigh how investing food and assets in a bunch of dwarves is worth the tsouris he will get from orcs. Why? Because they would be -stupid- if they didn't, that's why.
If you run around through your work, sitting in the chair or putting on the head of every major character and entity, it will be well.
Many an author, including a few of the successful and famous, has occasionally utilized "Deus ex Machina" as an emergency exit to escape a scenario that has taken on a life of its own and somehow became much more convoluted than initially intended.Not saying that its okay; just that it happens now and again.
@Brenda. Sometimes, stupidity, or more likely "action by impulse", is what gives the character life.We can think of the best course of action sitting comfortably at home, but how many times under pressure we do stupid things? Well, maybe you don´t. But I do.
There is though a difference in my mind between mistakes made by characters following their nature, and mistakes setup by the writer to advance the plot.
Well of course any character can be seized by impulse or idiocy. But institutions ought not to be. Nations do not go impulsively to war; you have to set it up -- a pattern of historical grievances, a 9-11, that kind of thing. They do weigh costs, because war costs money. You might impulsively drop $4 on a latte. You probably would not impulsively drop $40,000 on a Porsche.And even at the individual level, you can't have the character =always= doing this. If you do, we will not believe that they are general of the army, the head of the chemistry department, in charge of Thaumaturgy at Hogwarts. People do not give loose cannons big responsibilities -- again, because they dislike the costs.
Brenda wrote: "Well of course any character can be seized by impulse or idiocy. But institutions ought not to be. Nations do not go impulsively to war; you have to set it up -- a pattern of historical grievances,..."I have to agree and disagree with you on that one (and both at the same time). The Iraq war was actually a great example, though I hesitate to get into that one.
What we really do see in history is nations...or rather, the leaders of nations taking their countries irrationally into war for personal, self-serving reasons (those reasons being ideology or short-sighted political gain, or whatever). So simultaneously idiocy can be self-serving and totally impulsive/irrational.
The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam is a great expose on idiocy at the national level.
Also, Tuchman's A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century contains historic accounts of French knights literally riding down their own troops because they'd be damned if any lowly peasants were going to get into battle before the noble classes. Can't have peons getting any of the glory, can we? The result being predictable: it was the knights who got cut down first rather than the "expendable" arrow fodder.
Rationality isn't actually one of humanity's strongest points.
What I am saying is that there are forces that compel, if not rationality, then common sense. You can't afford a war? Don't start one. You can't afford a space program? If you promise the electorate one, you may be forced into Potemkin moon shots. There are ways to short-circuit the compelling practicalities. (I have all the oil!) But by and large even these cannot be permanent. (Agh, I pissed all my oil revenues away and now the nation is a toilet bowl!) And there is always somebody standing there pointing out that no, it is dumb to invade Iraq, it is dumb to use a year's worth of revenue to build yourself a palace. You throw them in jail, fine. But the author should be aware of it.
The reasons behind WWI come to mind too. It seemed to be a domino effect of stupidity. I like the article below where it describes it in terms of a bar fight:http://www.tentimesone.com/if-world-w...
Just utterly senseless.
Calvin wrote: "I am presently reading the second book of the Harry Potter series and reached a particular point where I got really quite annoyed. Harry decides not to tell his Principal that he was hearing voices..."See, I wouldn't call Harry not confiding in an adult a plot hole or blunder, but rather, very IC for his character. He's a teenage boy who relies on himself because he has been left to fend for himself his entire life. Trusting in an adult to fix a situation is contrary to his established character.
Most teenagers try to handle things on their own or ignore the advice of their parents and listen to their friends. There's so many everyday examples of this, ie: bullying, teenage pregnancy, injury, etc.
As for major blunders in literature. Although I haven't read it, I'm told that Alexandre Dumas had d'Artagnan made a Musketeer multiple times during the course of The Three Musketeers.
Sabrina wrote: "See, I wouldn't call Harry not confiding in an adult a plot hole or blunder, but rather, very IC for his character. He's a teenage boy who relies on himself because he has been left to fend for himself his entire life. Trusting in an adult to fix a situation is contrary to his established character. Most teenagers try to handle things on their own or ignore the advice of their parents and listen to their friends. There's so many everyday examples of this, ie: bullying, teenage pregnancy, injury, etc."
I have to agree with this. There are logical and illogical actions, and then there are actions that are in or out of character. In fiction, having the character be in character is, I think, more important than having them behave in a perfectly logical way. Especially if the character is that most illogical of beings, a preteen/young teenager. Kids that age want to avoid, at all costs, being the "weird" one. Even in a magical setting, Harry may not know whether or not anyone else is hearing voices - something different from magic. And if he's the only one, telling someone would have been like putting a big flashing "I'M WEIRD" sign on his back. So while his decision not to tell might not be what we as adults would consider logical, it makes perfect sense for an adolescent and is very much in character.
Yes, you can make anything convincing if you build it right.
Brenda wrote: "What I am saying is that there are forces that compel, if not rationality, then common sense...And there is always somebody standing there pointing out that no, it is dumb to invade Iraq, it is dumb to use a year's worth of revenue to build yourself a palace."But if there's always someone pointing out the dumb stuff, is it really common sense that people/nations go ahead and do the dumb stuff anyway? That's Tuchman's whole premise in the March of Folly...her conditions for folly include that there must be contemporary and credible alternatives to the dumb action, yet the dumb action happens anyway.
As an author, the things to remember (if verisimilitude is what you're after) are:
1) Just because something is obviously stupid, and there are alternatives available (championed by other more sensible characters), does not mean your character have to follow the common sense path. BUT they will have to have some compelling reason to act stupid, whether that's their ideology, a personality flaw or some perceived short-term gain.
--and--
2) I think authors need to be careful on the other hand of making all characters act too logically. People aren't like that. You must take into consideration their personality, background history, cultural pressures (smoking was really cool for a long time, even when people really did know it was bad for you).
As for the Potter book...I've never read any of them, but I can see the described situation both ways. Depends really on how the author pulled it off.If Harry didn't tell the principal he was hearing voices because he wanted to solve it for himself, or was too shy, or doubted himself, or because he's being tough and trying to just be a man and handle it (i.e., personality traits), then it seems like it would be fine.
BUT...if it's portrayed that Harry didn't tell because he didn't think people would believe him, or that they'd think he was crazy...well, in the HP world of wizards and all that it does sound pretty ridiculous.
"So I was, like, flying around on a broom all day chasing flying balls and then had a fight with a ghost and then zapped a couple monsters with my magic wand, when...and I know you're going to think I'm crazy...I swear I started hearing voices in my head. Weird, huh?"
"Oh, Harry, you're just making things up."
Hmm....
A list of all prominent characters' names, accompanied by a brief description of personality traits, physical/mental capabilities, idiocyncricies, and prejudices will help the writer to remain focused upon having each character respond to any given situation or conversation true to his/her personality and keep the writer from inadvertently having the character respond as the writer himself might.
A too common 'idiot plot' that I see in some books is the author's urge to make some lead male and female characters have sex or fall in love in a story context that is completely inappropriate. I recall a very bad scifi novel where a princess from outer space kidnaps an Earth man to help her free her planet from some tyrant. Their efforts however turn sour and the planet explodes, with the whole population being killed. What does the princess do then? Jump the bones of the male lead, of course, while pieces of the planet are still flying around!
Jim wrote: "Many an author, including a few of the successful and famous, has occasionally utilized "Deus ex Machina" as an emergency exit to escape a scenario that has taken on a life of its own and somehow b..."A textbook example is the frequent interventions of the Great Eagles in Tolkien's books.
On the topic of Idiot Plots, dumb mistakes must be a) in character, and b) not perceived as intelligent. The problem I have with TV shows like The Walking Dead is that the characters make really dumb decisions over and over again, but no one ever seems to learn from the mistakes, and the writers do not even seem to be aware of how idiotic the characters are.
Hi Micah, with HP, it was the second scenario. He just didn't want to appear weird. I found this totally lame, given that it was a private conversation where his friends knew of him hearing voices and were expecting him to tell the Principal. Not only that, the Principal had already said that dark forces were at work, and Harry had already developed a rapport with the Principal at the end of book 1 and knew the Principal was not likely to make light of him. I didn't buy this idiot plot.Sandra, with Romeo and Juliet, I had the same thought when I finished it!
The first two Harry Potter's are also middle grade books. The genre tends to heavily favor kids figuring stuff out for themselves. Adults are usually the badguys or the squawking Charlie Brown adults.Almost all the Harry Potter books have examples of this. As do most Middle Grade and a lot of YA as well.
The adults in Harry Potter start getting smarter toward the end of the series when it starts getting darker and becomes YA.
I wouldn't say the example above is a plot blunder. If you started hearing voices would you go around telling everyone?
@Baelor -- OMG. Tell me about it. That's my prob with The Walking Dead too. Try the comicbook. It's not as bad. I'm really to the point with most zombie stuff that -- Look, we get it. You're in a zombie apocalypse. Live it! I don't need the moralizing. You live in a completely different world than we do. Act like it.
James wrote: "That's my prob with The Walking Dead too."Walking Dead has always pushed the limit of contriving situations to make slow and stupid zombies an actual threat, but recently, they've taking it to a new level of contrivance. The episode where zombies were raining down onto our heroes comes to mind...
Kevin wrote: "James wrote: "That's my prob with The Walking Dead too."Walking Dead has always pushed the limit of contriving situations to make slow and stupid zombies an actual threat, but recently, they've t..."
Just watched that one. Actually, I just watched the scene in the next episode where (view spoiler).
You have to allow TV and movies to indulge in idiocies. It seems to be part of the medium. And let us not get started on comic books....
It's not part of the medium Brenda, but it does appear to have become part of the expectations of the medium. ;)If we the viewers refuse to accept that stuff, they'll stop making it.
Writers, whose primary goal for plying their trade is financial reward, will continue to create stories with plots and character development aimed at the masses of readers who contribute to the writer's income as long as the royalty checks keep coming.Writing is still considered an art form; however, all writers are not artists.
James wrote: "I wouldn't say the example above is a plot blunder. If you started hearing voices would you go around telling everyone?..."I think you're kind of missing his point. In the real world one might think twice because you'd be scared to admit you're friggin' nuts...
BUT in a world where magic was real and you're attending a school for wizards, and know that all the weird things you've ever heard about are true and commonplace, and I you have built a trusting raport with a very wise adult master mage who has warned you that evil bad spooky dangerous things are going on...and if you have a brain...yes, in that case I'd think no question you'd blab about the spooky voices in your head.
In fact, in the HP world the only people who would hear voices and not think "hey, something really bad other than me going crazy is very, very likely to be going on here" would be muggles, who don't believe in magic and supernatural stuff.
Kinda sounds like a noob mistake to me.
Kenneth wrote: "It's not part of the medium Brenda, but it does appear to have become part of the expectations of the medium. ;)If we the viewers refuse to accept that stuff, they'll stop making it."
Totally agree. The problem is that the emphasis has been put on "we want X, Y and Z to happen" but no emphasis has been put into making sure that X, Y and Z are natural outcomes of their world creation. It's sloppy writing done for dramatic effect without regards to verisimilitude.
I stopped watching The Walking Dead after 2 seasons (and really should have stopped half-way into the first season) because of that. The reimagining of "V" I stopped watching after 2 shows. Same with Defiance. Falling Skies was a little better but they lost me after the first season.
Pretty much all the SF TV shows erred in that way.
Baelor wrote: "Jim wrote: "Many an author, including a few of the successful and famous, has occasionally utilized "Deus ex Machina" as an emergency exit to escape a scenario that has taken on a life of its own and somehow b..."A textbook example is the frequent interventions of the Great Eagles in Tolkien's books."
Hmm. I think if you really know your Tolkien lore they hardly count as a bad example of that. Tolkien explains their appearance in The Hobbit and thereafter they are as much a part of his world as are orcs and trolls and elves and ents. They have their realms and their concerns and are a constant part of the lore and history. So...though they technically are a Deus ex Machina, I would count them as the best example of how the device can be utilized. (And in no way were they introduced simply as an escape hatch for situations that got out of Tolkien's control. If you think Tolkien lost control of his story, I really don't think you know enough about him. It took him 12 years to write Lord of the Rings and he was editing/tweaking/fussing over it for the rest of his life because he really wanted it perfect.)
This article puts it pretty good:
http://observationdeck.io9.com/why-ye...
It's conclusion wraps up: "All this is to say that the Eagles are a sign of divine grace. They are a form of deliverance that must be earned, and yet can never be counted upon. In other words, they represent the god from the machine. I’m sure that’s exactly what everyone means when they call them that, right?"
A better example of a poor use of the device would be in Joe Haldeman's Forever Free, which at the end suddenly brings in a powerful external force that is never even hinted at before, literally pulling the rug out from the entire novel's plot, quite egregiously.
Brenda wrote: "Well of course any character can be seized by impulse or idiocy."Any human being can be seized by impulse or idiocy.
For a character, we have to provide some kind of excuse. Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.
Jim wrote: "Many an author, including a few of the successful and famous, has occasionally utilized "Deus ex Machina" as an emergency exit to escape a scenario that has taken on a life of its own and somehow b..."Jane Austen even managed to pull it off in Northanger Abbey.
It is the classic argument against Thomas Hardy that coincidence plays too large a part in his plots. However in real life people who plan out anything always tell you you cannot plan for the unexpected.that said we all know we plan for things and try to second guess other peoples' reactions and many a time we get them wrong. So there is an argument for writing a novel with a certain amount of luck attached.
I think it is utterly wrong to talk about Harry Potter in this. You seem to forget it was written for children. I doubt a novelist would get away with a plot line that makes the richest novelist in the world one who writes for children to find out the adults read her work more than the kids :)
I too quit Falling Skies after the first season. The first season finale assured I wouldn't watch anymore of that series.
Daniel wrote: "It is the classic argument against Thomas Hardy that coincidence plays too large a part in his plots. However in real life people who plan out anything always tell you you cannot plan for the unexp..."That's where the art of the writer comes in. Blindsiding your characters with something that looks unsurprising in hindsight is usually the trick.
Jim wrote: "Writers, whose primary goal for plying their trade is financial reward, will continue to create stories with plots and character development aimed at the masses of readers who contribute to the wri..."
Does this mean that authors who write just for the fun of it will be less prone to write plots that simply aim to please the larger mass of readers? Then, maybe we need more phylantropic type authors!
Does this mean that authors who write just for the fun of it will be less prone to write plots that simply aim to please the larger mass of readers? Then, maybe we need more phylantropic type authors!
Michel wrote: "Jim wrote: "Writers, whose primary goal for plying their trade is financial reward, will continue to create stories with plots and character development aimed at the masses of readers who contribut..."Please, allow me to clarify. I was referencing authors who take no pride in their work as an art form and tool of self-expression and write whatever drivel they feel will earn them the most in royalities regardless of quality or merit.
There are numerous fine authors who manage to write great books and make a lot of money doing it.
By the way, I glanced at your bio. Thank you for your service to your country.
Daniel wrote: "I think it is utterly wrong to talk about Harry Potter in this. You seem to forget it was written for children..."I have written my own novel for young adults. In my view, it does not matter if the story is for children or adults, it has to stack up to logic. My 11-year old grumbles when she reads stuff that doesn't sound reasonable. We owe it to out children that we do not write incidents for our own convenience, assuming they will buy anything.
I don't have an issue with Harry keeping his mouth shut - he has spent his whole life not being able to trust the adults around him, so silence would be his default setting. Where I call shenanigans is the entire plot of Goblet of Fire. The whole plot hinges on Voldemort needing Harry to be in a specific place at a specific time, and his entry into the competition was intended to facilitate that. You can't tell me that there wasn't an easier, less Rube-Goldbergesque, way to make that happen?
Even the villains from the old sixties Batman television show were shaking their heads and saying, "No way, dude, too complicated."
Calvin wrote: "Daniel wrote: "I think it is utterly wrong to talk about Harry Potter in this. You seem to forget it was written for children..."I have written my own novel for young adults. In my view, it does not matter if the story is for children or adults, it has to stack up to logic..."
I agree, Calvin. Anything less is assuming too little of the intelligence of children.
I remember as a kid I was terribly offended by TV programs made for kids (or with elements that were supposed to appeal to kids...shows like Lost in Space where a couple of the main characters were kids) that were obviously written by adults who had forgotten what being a kid was like. They were filled with things adults assumed kids would love, but which were either horribly condescending or just completely stupid. Many Disney products often felt like that to me, especially the old Mickey Mouse Club shows and a lot of the movies from the 60s and forward.
Calvin wrote: "Daniel wrote: "I think it is utterly wrong to talk about Harry Potter in this. You seem to forget it was written for children..."I have written my own novel for young adults. In my view, it does ..."
Conceded. I think I am just eternally surprised by how popular this children's series was with adults when it was a poor literary experience.
Daniel wrote: Conceded. I think I am just eternally surprised by how popular this children's series was with adults when it was a poor literary experience. It is fun. :D
(Some people like me never grow up, we just get old *sigh*)
I read only to the third book. When it tried to make that transition from a kid´s adventure to a more complex story, and I took my kid hat and put the adult one... I just quit.
Children are exposed to too much too soon today.Childhood lasts for such a brief time in one's life; so I believe we adults should try to preserve that magic time in our children's lives for as long as possible.
They will have more than enough time to experience the harsher realities.
Daniel wrote: "I think I am just eternally surprised by how popular this children's series was with adults when it was a poor literary experience."They were fun to read. Far from perfect, but still enjoyable IMO.
Hi Daniel. I have got over my frustration and picked up where I left off. It may not be brilliant adult matter but I agree...a fun read.
I agree with Micah re@ kids programs. We should not, as adults, "dumb down" things for kids. And I'll disagree with Jim in that looking back, I wish more of my childhood experiences prepared me for instead of sheltering me from adulthood. Comparatively, I know of others who had a very adult-like childhood and think fondly of it and how it helped them.
Kenneth wrote: "I agree with Micah re@ kids programs. We should not, as adults, "dumb down" things for kids. And I'll disagree with Jim in that looking back, I wish more of my childhood experiences prepared me for..."You may be correct. One of us is.
I based my personal philosophy upon having raised 5 children.
The youngest is now 33, the oldest is 43.
All left home and became totally independent by the age of 22 and all now enjoy very successful careers.
Best of all; we remain a very close-knit family - with the addition of 4 grandchildren.
Steven Spielberg expressed what I am trying to say much better: "The past may dictate who we are, but we get to determine what we become."
Well, I think we can both preserve the magic of childhood and prepare them for the harshness of adult life. I mean, look at The Hobbit (the book, of course)...It's written in a very safe, magical, whimsical way yet it actually includes quite a lot of horrible stuff: talking about torture and cruelty, killings, greed and irrational stubbornness, war and anguish. It just takes a good writer to do it, and a commitment to the intelligence of our children.
Micah wrote: "Well, I think we can both preserve the magic of childhood and prepare them for the harshness of adult life. I mean, look at The Hobbit (the book, of course)...It's written in a very safe, magical, ..."Well said; and very true.
A good writer can create a fictitious world that a child is able to comprehend, including exposing them to some of the harsh realities that they must learn exist in order to cope in real life, without utilizing exaggerated graphic, horrific descriptions just for the shock value alone.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (other topics)Northanger Abbey (other topics)
The March Of Folly: From Troy To Vietnam (other topics)
A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (other topics)
This made me think, are there examples of "famous" authors who have made errors or given silly arguments in their books to progress their story?
Although this sounds like a negative discussion, I hope there is a positive. As an aspiring author, this could really provide me (and others) with confidence: if the greats made such blunders, maybe there is hope for us...after thorough editing.