Some brief things about my life before getting into the topic I really want to comment on: I started my graduate studies this week. It's going to waste me, it's so much work already. I have a job in addition to my studies, which are work-heavy this semester. I have a short story due every other day for one class, and in another I will complete a novel by the final. Not to mention that my classmates are stupendous writers, so I'll learn a lot but my grade will likely suffer when my professors compare me to them. Oh, well. I'm here to learn my craft as well as I can. As long as I pass.
On to lighter things. I wanted to talk about musicals today. I know I'm the story fanatic, and I generally deal with the verbal elements of storytelling like dialogue and plot, but I feel like something needs to be said in defense of using music to tell parts of a story. I hear way to many people call musicals "gay" or "lame" because the characters break into song and dance to express their emotions. I don't think that's fair; it's kind of like bashing a fantasy novel because dragons don't really riddle with hobbits.
No one really, truly, actually in real life starts singing and dancing in an elaborate musical number with a bunch of people who know the same song and choreography - here's a good example of that from Disney. I get that. I want to talk about why the writers would have chosen to include music and dance in their storytelling. First off, I'm sure a lot do it because it's entertaining. It's amusing to see people dancing on stage, and song is beautiful to human ears. It's not me saying this, it's generations of proof. We like rhythm, and we like spectacle.
However, music and dance can be powerful non-verbal means of showing emotion. I think of songs in musicals as soliloquies, often set apart from the movement of the plot and meant to allow the audience to see deeper into a character. The character has a problem. Does he view it with humor or concern? Well, is the song upbeat and bouncy, or is it heavy and in a minor key? The words can be exactly the same, but the two different tones can color our impression of who the character is. Imagine, for a moment, that in a scary part of a thriller movie the music wasn't the intense, suspense-building kind normally used but the optimistic, swelling strains of a romantic comedy. How would that change your impression of that scene?
Dance is the physical movement of emotions, in a musical. The same rules apply - are they leaping with happiness or trudging along?
I feel like allowing music to carry some of the weight of characterization frees musicals to not place as much emphasis on the words. I love words, don't get me wrong, but when 90% of human communication is non-verbal, maybe we get things more when we see and hear the story in other places than just the words.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Pros and Cons of Surprises
This week I want to discuss something that is surprisingly touchy for me: whether or not it is better to end a story with a shocking revelation. That is, a big surprise reveal that tells the reader he or she has been tricked the whole time, that the truth is not what it has seemed to be. This might not sound like a very controversial subject, but after reading On Becoming a Novelist by John Gardner, I have seen that one can argue quite extensively on this.
Gardner's view is that surprising the reader at the end is poor writing because it eliminates what makes fiction writing "good." That means, the character development, the difficult choices, and the internal strife that makes a story worth reading. In his opinion, the "victim story", a story told from the perspective of someone who eventually gets used or harmed in some way, is useless because the victim doesn't know that this is happening until the end, and cannot act on it. Think of a story written from the perspective of someone unknowingly being conned out of his life savings. Until the end, there is no conflict for him, no problems. Now imagine the same story, but either told from the perspective of the con artist (questions of morality, fear of getting caught) or the victim, but this time the victim knows he's being conned. In this second case, maybe he knows the con artist personally and has reasons for going along with it. What would they be? Why would it be preferable to lose all his money rather than turn in, or even just brush off, the con artist? Gardner's point is that a story where the character knows the problems and has to deal with them is a much more interesting story.
However, I think there are times when it's okay to shock the reader with surprises at the end. It worked for O. Henry of "The Gift of the Magi" fame. One can make the argument that mystery writers have no choice but to surprise the reader. Yet, I feel like I should add a qualification to this part. O. Henry's stories were short stories, and a reader didn't need much patience to get to the big reveal in the end. Holding out revealing something huge until the end in a novel requires lying to the reader; there's no other way to keep a secret for so long.
Mystery novels can have some kind of huge revelation at the end because the plot revolves around searching for the truth. The story is not about character development - well, some may be, but mostly that's not the case - it's about getting the bad guy and finding out how he did it. However, while the plot may end with a surprise, many mystery novels hide little clues along the way that let readers catch on, if they're observant.
So, what's my final opinion? Surprises have their place, but probably not in a long work like a novel unless it's a mystery novel. Even then, a writer has to be careful to let the story flow and not work to obscure the truth to the reader. That's never a good thing. Why is this touchy for me? I have written at least one story with a big, snappy reveal at the end, and now I have begun to question whether or not my story could be stronger if my characters knew more from the beginning. They would not be victims; they would have the power to act in their circumstances. And then, who knows what consequences they would set in motion?
Gardner's view is that surprising the reader at the end is poor writing because it eliminates what makes fiction writing "good." That means, the character development, the difficult choices, and the internal strife that makes a story worth reading. In his opinion, the "victim story", a story told from the perspective of someone who eventually gets used or harmed in some way, is useless because the victim doesn't know that this is happening until the end, and cannot act on it. Think of a story written from the perspective of someone unknowingly being conned out of his life savings. Until the end, there is no conflict for him, no problems. Now imagine the same story, but either told from the perspective of the con artist (questions of morality, fear of getting caught) or the victim, but this time the victim knows he's being conned. In this second case, maybe he knows the con artist personally and has reasons for going along with it. What would they be? Why would it be preferable to lose all his money rather than turn in, or even just brush off, the con artist? Gardner's point is that a story where the character knows the problems and has to deal with them is a much more interesting story.
However, I think there are times when it's okay to shock the reader with surprises at the end. It worked for O. Henry of "The Gift of the Magi" fame. One can make the argument that mystery writers have no choice but to surprise the reader. Yet, I feel like I should add a qualification to this part. O. Henry's stories were short stories, and a reader didn't need much patience to get to the big reveal in the end. Holding out revealing something huge until the end in a novel requires lying to the reader; there's no other way to keep a secret for so long.
Mystery novels can have some kind of huge revelation at the end because the plot revolves around searching for the truth. The story is not about character development - well, some may be, but mostly that's not the case - it's about getting the bad guy and finding out how he did it. However, while the plot may end with a surprise, many mystery novels hide little clues along the way that let readers catch on, if they're observant.
So, what's my final opinion? Surprises have their place, but probably not in a long work like a novel unless it's a mystery novel. Even then, a writer has to be careful to let the story flow and not work to obscure the truth to the reader. That's never a good thing. Why is this touchy for me? I have written at least one story with a big, snappy reveal at the end, and now I have begun to question whether or not my story could be stronger if my characters knew more from the beginning. They would not be victims; they would have the power to act in their circumstances. And then, who knows what consequences they would set in motion?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Much of Madness
For those of you who thought that last week I would talk about the use of mental illness in writing, here you go. Today I'm actually going to talk about it. I took a class on mental illness in film and literature, so hopefully I sound like I know what I'm talking about.
Personally, I kind of enjoy the use of madness in literature, if only because it tends to complicate things a little. In my own writing, I like to use a facsimile of mental illness because it causes tension between characters. For example, a character may behave in an insane way but be sane, but the other characters see only the actions and none of the method. The sane character may have a method, or be just as confused as everyone else as to what is going on but still feels that he has not quite lost his mind. Not yet. It makes the characters develop in the way they interact with themselves and others, and makes for interesting writing.
Also, it is an interesting experiment for the writer when he or she tries to write from the perspective of someone with a mental illness. In my class we studied different kinds of mental illness and how they distort the way a person views the world. Everything, from depression to schizophrenia to dissociative identity disorder, change the way a person views the world and they are all different. When constructing a character, it's one thing to say "she's crazy" and it's another to say "she has bipolar depression". With a specific illness in mind, the writer can't make the character do anything he or she wants. The writer has to try to see the world as someone with that specific illness would.
But, like with all things, I think using mental illness in writing should be used as appropriate. Throwing in a crazy character simply because he is crazy is bad writing, only out for flash and amazement. Especially since, today, mental illness is a sensitive subject for many people. Research has to be done, and it has to be done well. As much as I like Poe and Lovecraft and all those Romantic writers with their swoons and brain fevers, their version of madness isn't usually that accurate nowadays, and it's definitely not politically correct. Care needs to be taken to make sure the story's use of mental illness is as appropriate and true-to-life as possible.
That, of course, is more important for realistic fiction. In science fiction and fantasy, the reader can assume something supernatural or not yet understood is at play, making characters lose their minds in ways we don't know anything about in our world. But still, it must be done as the story needs it. I believe that, as much as possible, all the elements of the story should contribute something. If it doesn't develop character, push the plot along, or worldbuild (or anything else I neglected to mention that makes the story grow), it doesn't need to be there.
Personally, I kind of enjoy the use of madness in literature, if only because it tends to complicate things a little. In my own writing, I like to use a facsimile of mental illness because it causes tension between characters. For example, a character may behave in an insane way but be sane, but the other characters see only the actions and none of the method. The sane character may have a method, or be just as confused as everyone else as to what is going on but still feels that he has not quite lost his mind. Not yet. It makes the characters develop in the way they interact with themselves and others, and makes for interesting writing.
Also, it is an interesting experiment for the writer when he or she tries to write from the perspective of someone with a mental illness. In my class we studied different kinds of mental illness and how they distort the way a person views the world. Everything, from depression to schizophrenia to dissociative identity disorder, change the way a person views the world and they are all different. When constructing a character, it's one thing to say "she's crazy" and it's another to say "she has bipolar depression". With a specific illness in mind, the writer can't make the character do anything he or she wants. The writer has to try to see the world as someone with that specific illness would.
But, like with all things, I think using mental illness in writing should be used as appropriate. Throwing in a crazy character simply because he is crazy is bad writing, only out for flash and amazement. Especially since, today, mental illness is a sensitive subject for many people. Research has to be done, and it has to be done well. As much as I like Poe and Lovecraft and all those Romantic writers with their swoons and brain fevers, their version of madness isn't usually that accurate nowadays, and it's definitely not politically correct. Care needs to be taken to make sure the story's use of mental illness is as appropriate and true-to-life as possible.
That, of course, is more important for realistic fiction. In science fiction and fantasy, the reader can assume something supernatural or not yet understood is at play, making characters lose their minds in ways we don't know anything about in our world. But still, it must be done as the story needs it. I believe that, as much as possible, all the elements of the story should contribute something. If it doesn't develop character, push the plot along, or worldbuild (or anything else I neglected to mention that makes the story grow), it doesn't need to be there.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
How to Quickly Lose Your Mind
If you got excited upon reading the title of this post, thinking that I was going to talk about using madness in writing, then I'm sorry. That's not happening this week. It's a great idea for a blog post topic, and I'm sure I'll hit it soon, but I have to admit I'm not mentally capable of writing something intellectual. I have learned how to go crazy in only a few days, and it will be a while before I recover.
Here it is: on Thursday my editor sent back my novel manuscript with 308 comments on it, not including in-text issues like comma placement and awkwardly phrased sentences. The publisher would like to get my book out relatively soon and I'm starting grad school in a few weeks. Thus, I feel pressure to finish making revision as soon as possible so the publisher can keep their schedule and I can focus on my writing for school and not fall behind in my classes. It is now Tuesday, and I am on comment 225. My head hurts.
Through this process I'm learning valuable lessons about myself and about how to revise with an editor. I am addicted to writing and have to set goals for myself, or I keep going until I can't think anymore. That sounds weird: setting goals so I can stop sooner. Right now the goal is revise 50 pages a day, which is more than manageable given my current empty schedule. But all that writing is removing me from the real world, which is making me act a little crazy. I'm excited by my writing, mentally fatigued, and crazy. Not a good combination for social functions. Or maybe it is - I guess it depends on what kind of social functions you enjoy.
As for writing with comments from an editor, it's interesting. I usually make the changes he suggests, because they really do make the book more awesome, but I am stubborn and always try to find a way to do it my way. Probably not the best mindset, but it keeps my voice in there. The worst part is when he suggests a change I don't want to make, but in trying to keep things the way they are and still make sense, I realize he is right and it should be changed. On the other hand, it's cool to see that he recognizes my characters are as cool as I think they are!
Sorry this post isn't more interesting. I just have a lot on my mind right now. I'll keep you posted on publishing details!
Here it is: on Thursday my editor sent back my novel manuscript with 308 comments on it, not including in-text issues like comma placement and awkwardly phrased sentences. The publisher would like to get my book out relatively soon and I'm starting grad school in a few weeks. Thus, I feel pressure to finish making revision as soon as possible so the publisher can keep their schedule and I can focus on my writing for school and not fall behind in my classes. It is now Tuesday, and I am on comment 225. My head hurts.
Through this process I'm learning valuable lessons about myself and about how to revise with an editor. I am addicted to writing and have to set goals for myself, or I keep going until I can't think anymore. That sounds weird: setting goals so I can stop sooner. Right now the goal is revise 50 pages a day, which is more than manageable given my current empty schedule. But all that writing is removing me from the real world, which is making me act a little crazy. I'm excited by my writing, mentally fatigued, and crazy. Not a good combination for social functions. Or maybe it is - I guess it depends on what kind of social functions you enjoy.
As for writing with comments from an editor, it's interesting. I usually make the changes he suggests, because they really do make the book more awesome, but I am stubborn and always try to find a way to do it my way. Probably not the best mindset, but it keeps my voice in there. The worst part is when he suggests a change I don't want to make, but in trying to keep things the way they are and still make sense, I realize he is right and it should be changed. On the other hand, it's cool to see that he recognizes my characters are as cool as I think they are!
Sorry this post isn't more interesting. I just have a lot on my mind right now. I'll keep you posted on publishing details!
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Banter is Fun!
Again, sorry this post is late. Sheesh, I'm really failing here, aren't I? I blame the summer and its pull toward procrastination. I also blame myself and not writing over the weekend, forcing me to catch up this week and put that ahead of posting something new on my blog. But, in any case, here it is. I'm not going to review a book I like this week, or really even talk about what I think makes writing good. I'm going to talk about what I've been doing with my time: writing banter.
I've mentioned a story I'm working on, a middle-grade novel about a sixth-grade thief (sorry, retrieval specialist) and how he bites off more than he can chew with a job and has to work with enemy, a sixth-grade girl detective who wants him caught. As I've been writing, I've realized the story is less about how they manage to make things right and more about the relationship between Jeremy (the thief) and Becca (the P.I.). Both these characters are outgoing, clever, and sarcastic, which has been making my job easy. Why? To show the relationship grow and change but still keep the elements of these two personalities, I get to write banter!
Jeremy and Becca are always trying to outsmart each other, and that doesn't stop when they team up. The fight continues with words so I got the chance to try my hand at witty jibes and insults. Here's a passage from my first draft so you can see what I mean, even if the material is still a little rougher than I'd like it to be:
Don't think this is a book full of talking, though. This scene takes place after I show - not tell - Jeremy breaking into a locker and almost getting caught.
I kind of can't wait to go back through and up the crazy through this story. Make the banter more clever and funny, maybe raise the stakes a little higher, and add details about Jeremy's friends. One of them, Case, is a forger/football buff who will never play the game because he doesn't want to damage his sensitive hands. As for the rest of the characters...I want them to all be as quirky.
I'm almost all the way through the first draft of this novel. Middle grade books tend to be from 20,000 to 40,000 words long, and I'm already in that range. There's not much left to say before the story is over and the world is set right for my characters.
That is, until they need each other again. (Hint, hint.)
I've mentioned a story I'm working on, a middle-grade novel about a sixth-grade thief (sorry, retrieval specialist) and how he bites off more than he can chew with a job and has to work with enemy, a sixth-grade girl detective who wants him caught. As I've been writing, I've realized the story is less about how they manage to make things right and more about the relationship between Jeremy (the thief) and Becca (the P.I.). Both these characters are outgoing, clever, and sarcastic, which has been making my job easy. Why? To show the relationship grow and change but still keep the elements of these two personalities, I get to write banter!
Jeremy and Becca are always trying to outsmart each other, and that doesn't stop when they team up. The fight continues with words so I got the chance to try my hand at witty jibes and insults. Here's a passage from my first draft so you can see what I mean, even if the material is still a little rougher than I'd like it to be:
The first thing
Becca did when she opened the door was hold out her palm and say, “Hand it
over.”
“Hand what over?”
“You know what. I can’t in good
conscience allow you to keep it.”
“Can we at least talk strategy
first?”
Becca hardened her jaw and
practically shoved her hand in my face. I bet she was thinking about doing it
literally.
I sighed. “Fine.” Reaching into my
pocket, I dug out the twenty dollar bill and tossed in her waiting hand. “That
belongs to me as payment for my services. Who’s the thief now?”
Becca smirked. “I don’t think taking
it from a locker you broke into counts as legitimate payment. Come in; we have
a lot to talk about.”
I followed her inside to her kitchen
table, where we first struck our deal. There was a plate of cookies, two
glasses, and a gallon of milk waiting in the center of the table.
I froze. “What is that?” I asked,
pointing at the spread.
“Snacks,” Becca said. “Don’t they
have them where you come from?”
“What did you do to them? Did you
bake truth serum into the cookies? Is it in the milk?”
Becca rolled her eyes. I was
beginning to notice that she did that a lot. “We have a lot to plan, and I
thought we’d want something to eat. And if you want to meet the devious,
truth-serum-lacing chef, look right over there.” She pointed to a garbage can
where an empty store-bought cookie package lay crumpled.
“If it’s safe, you eat one.” I have
to admit, I knew she hadn’t laced the cookies with anything. It was just too
much fun to bug her about it.
“Oh, for heaven’s sake,” Becca
groaned. But she took a cookie and shoved it in her mouth.
I did the same, after making a big
show out of examining the chips and sniffing the overall dessert. The cookies
were pretty good.
“So, Phase One went pretty well,”
Becca said.
“I guess,” I said. “At least I
didn’t get caught.”
“Did
you find the key?”
“Trust me–”
“I never trust you, Wilderson.”
“Will you let me finish my sentence?
I was going to say, ‘Trust me, you would know if I found the key.’ You’d have
it in your hand along with that twenty. Which belongs to me, by the way.”
“Yeah. And I paid a down payment on
the Taj Mahal. I don’t trust you not to lie and keep the master key if you
found it.”
“If
that were the case, you’d know I had the key because I wouldn’t be here eating
processed cookie. I’d be off breaking into your locker.”Don't think this is a book full of talking, though. This scene takes place after I show - not tell - Jeremy breaking into a locker and almost getting caught.
I kind of can't wait to go back through and up the crazy through this story. Make the banter more clever and funny, maybe raise the stakes a little higher, and add details about Jeremy's friends. One of them, Case, is a forger/football buff who will never play the game because he doesn't want to damage his sensitive hands. As for the rest of the characters...I want them to all be as quirky.
I'm almost all the way through the first draft of this novel. Middle grade books tend to be from 20,000 to 40,000 words long, and I'm already in that range. There's not much left to say before the story is over and the world is set right for my characters.
That is, until they need each other again. (Hint, hint.)
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Something Awesome
Sorry this post is a little later than I usually post - about a day late, if we're being optimistic - but I was on vacation so I guess it's lucky that I'm posting at all. If you want to know, the vacation was great. I went swimming, read a lot, and jumped off a cliff. No, I'm not kidding, why do you ask?
Anyway, some of the reading I did inspired this post. I read the second in the Horatio Wilkes mystery series by Alan Gratz. The first one in the series was called Something Rotten and is a modern, mystery version of William Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The second one, the one I read while on vacation, is called Something Wicked. You guessed it - it's based on Macbeth. There's going to be more; according to Gratz's website he's planning another based on A Midsummer Night's Dream to be called Something Foolish, and there may be more after that. I've already talked about my love of retellings, so I want to do a basic review of this series and why I like it.
Gratz's books are YA mysteries, so you have a smart-mouthed teenager poking around where he's not welcome. I will say this up front, that his books are not the cleanest YA I've read, so if you don't like teens drinking alcohol or discussing sex, then this series is probably not for you. Any mystery novel would have those elements and it's not Shakespeare's work is all that pure either. But consider yourself warned.
Moving on. The cool thing about this series is that Gratz does a wonderful job of writing a story that stands on its own but is awesome if you know the play. The protagonist, Horatio Wilkes, is clever and snappy with dialogue. It's fun and exciting to read and the story unfolds like any other mystery. If I didn't know Hamlet and Macbeth as well as I do (it's kind of pathetic how well I know those two plays), I would still get caught up in the murder mystery and relate to the hero and other characters.
But the books are retellings, and for those who have read Shakespeare it is a gold mine of understated references and well-modernized scenes. For example, in Something Wicked the characters go to a psychic where the fatal prophecy is given to Mac and his girlfriend Beth (cute, huh?). They even have the porter scene when Horatio checks into a motel and has to bang on the door to make the manager let him in. There are so many other scenes that come right out of Shakespeare, as well as some wonderful dialogue that is modernized versions of famous lines from the plays.
For a Shakespeare fan looking for something new and exciting, I would definitely recommend the Horatio Wilkes series. I have to say, I'm looking forward to reading Gratz's next installment and any others that follow.
Anyway, some of the reading I did inspired this post. I read the second in the Horatio Wilkes mystery series by Alan Gratz. The first one in the series was called Something Rotten and is a modern, mystery version of William Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The second one, the one I read while on vacation, is called Something Wicked. You guessed it - it's based on Macbeth. There's going to be more; according to Gratz's website he's planning another based on A Midsummer Night's Dream to be called Something Foolish, and there may be more after that. I've already talked about my love of retellings, so I want to do a basic review of this series and why I like it.
Gratz's books are YA mysteries, so you have a smart-mouthed teenager poking around where he's not welcome. I will say this up front, that his books are not the cleanest YA I've read, so if you don't like teens drinking alcohol or discussing sex, then this series is probably not for you. Any mystery novel would have those elements and it's not Shakespeare's work is all that pure either. But consider yourself warned.
Moving on. The cool thing about this series is that Gratz does a wonderful job of writing a story that stands on its own but is awesome if you know the play. The protagonist, Horatio Wilkes, is clever and snappy with dialogue. It's fun and exciting to read and the story unfolds like any other mystery. If I didn't know Hamlet and Macbeth as well as I do (it's kind of pathetic how well I know those two plays), I would still get caught up in the murder mystery and relate to the hero and other characters.
But the books are retellings, and for those who have read Shakespeare it is a gold mine of understated references and well-modernized scenes. For example, in Something Wicked the characters go to a psychic where the fatal prophecy is given to Mac and his girlfriend Beth (cute, huh?). They even have the porter scene when Horatio checks into a motel and has to bang on the door to make the manager let him in. There are so many other scenes that come right out of Shakespeare, as well as some wonderful dialogue that is modernized versions of famous lines from the plays.
For a Shakespeare fan looking for something new and exciting, I would definitely recommend the Horatio Wilkes series. I have to say, I'm looking forward to reading Gratz's next installment and any others that follow.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Breaking the Fourth Wall, or, This is a Blog Post
Today I'm going to talk about breaking the fourth wall, which is much easier to do in a blog post than in a novel or film or TV show. Personally, I don't break it very often when I'm writing stories, but I love it when it's done well (or done at all) in other stories. So, I'm going to talk about who does it well and why I think that is.
Breaking the fourth wall, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, is an act of metafiction, or something that deconstructs the boundaries set by fiction. The work itself seems aware that it is a work that will have an audience that will enjoy it. Basically, if you are reading or watching something that references itself or talks about itself as a work of fiction, then it's breaking the fourth wall. For examples of this, please watch anything by the Muppets, because if they don't break the fourth wall into dust particles (and probably every other wall involved in the making of the film), it's not the Muppets.
Lately I started reading a book series by fantasy great Brandon Sanderson that does quite a lot of breaking the fourth wall. It's the Alcatraz series, a fantasy series for middle grade/young adult audiences that barely acknowledges the fourth wall, if it does at all. The premise of the books is the world is held captive by evil Librarians, and a 13-year-old boy named Alcatraz Smedry somehow is going to save the world from them. He also has a Talent for breaking things, but you really should read the books if you want o know more about that.
However, the story is apparently told by a much older Alcatraz who is doing everything he can to convince the audience that 1) the book is true, 2) he is a terrible person and a liar, and 3) everything you know about the world is false. The narrator repeatedly breaks the fourth wall by mentioning that he's working with Brandon Sanderson (whose books are too big and heavy to be of any use other than knocking yourself unconscious) and by talking directly to the audience about writers and books and other relevant topics. The books know they're books, if that makes sense, so the fourth wall is broken.
Another book series like this is The Name of this Book is Secret series by Pseudonymous Bosch. The writer spends the whole series pleading with the reader to stop making him tell you everything because it's too horrible. But he does, and you read, and it goes on.
I really love it when a book breaks the fourth wall, but it's not appropriate for all stories. All of my examples are quirky, crazy stories that appeal to younger audiences (though I think adults would enjoy them too). More epic stories are better off without it; I can't imagine The Lord of the Rings breaking the fourth wall without it feeling out of place. This literary device is funny, and best suited to comedy. And when used in comedy, it just makes the funny all the more awesome.
Breaking the fourth wall, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, is an act of metafiction, or something that deconstructs the boundaries set by fiction. The work itself seems aware that it is a work that will have an audience that will enjoy it. Basically, if you are reading or watching something that references itself or talks about itself as a work of fiction, then it's breaking the fourth wall. For examples of this, please watch anything by the Muppets, because if they don't break the fourth wall into dust particles (and probably every other wall involved in the making of the film), it's not the Muppets.
Lately I started reading a book series by fantasy great Brandon Sanderson that does quite a lot of breaking the fourth wall. It's the Alcatraz series, a fantasy series for middle grade/young adult audiences that barely acknowledges the fourth wall, if it does at all. The premise of the books is the world is held captive by evil Librarians, and a 13-year-old boy named Alcatraz Smedry somehow is going to save the world from them. He also has a Talent for breaking things, but you really should read the books if you want o know more about that.
However, the story is apparently told by a much older Alcatraz who is doing everything he can to convince the audience that 1) the book is true, 2) he is a terrible person and a liar, and 3) everything you know about the world is false. The narrator repeatedly breaks the fourth wall by mentioning that he's working with Brandon Sanderson (whose books are too big and heavy to be of any use other than knocking yourself unconscious) and by talking directly to the audience about writers and books and other relevant topics. The books know they're books, if that makes sense, so the fourth wall is broken.
Another book series like this is The Name of this Book is Secret series by Pseudonymous Bosch. The writer spends the whole series pleading with the reader to stop making him tell you everything because it's too horrible. But he does, and you read, and it goes on.
I really love it when a book breaks the fourth wall, but it's not appropriate for all stories. All of my examples are quirky, crazy stories that appeal to younger audiences (though I think adults would enjoy them too). More epic stories are better off without it; I can't imagine The Lord of the Rings breaking the fourth wall without it feeling out of place. This literary device is funny, and best suited to comedy. And when used in comedy, it just makes the funny all the more awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)