The Grand Illusion
The other day I read the prequel to a very popular fantasy that I’d enjoyed a year or so ago, but somewhere around halfway through the book I knew exactly how it would end. Well, except for the death of the largely-out-of-view-until-the-last-chapters villain, whose way of death was definitely a surprise, but not quite enough to overshadow the feeling that the “emotional plot” was identical to the first book.
That brought up the question of where one draws the line between a novel set in the same world that, by necessity, shares a certain resemblance to others in a series, and a novel that is far too predictable.
Now, it’s pretty clear that, in books that have the same protagonist, the author isn’t likely to kill that protagonist in book one. I don’t consider that an overly predictable flaw.
Readers being readers, I doubt that few draw that line in the same place. That’s why some readers find some of my books too predictable, because my competent protagonists always find a way, if indirect, or excessively bloody, to obtain their goal, or a different goal that they never considered at the beginning of the book. Perhaps I’m too grounded in reality, but I’ve never seen someone who “lucks” into money or power, or who is strongly flawed, really make much of it in real life – not over their entire life (we’ll see how that works with Trump).
And sometimes, when readers get upset with predictability, it’s for the wrong reason. In a lower-tech world, when a leader first uses a significant innovation in weapons or tactics, each land he or she conquers will use the same old predictable tactics against the attacker – and usually fail – because no one’s seen them before and because, first, communications are slow, and, second, it’s often difficult to describe new tactics and weapons until you’re faced with them, and then it’s a little late. This problem becomes less and less of a difficulty with higher technology and faster and more in-depth communications systems.
In the end, every author has to find a balance between predictability and surprise, because too much surprise can be unbelievable to readers and too little makes the book too predictable. But readers have differing thresholds for determining what’s too unbelievable, even in fantasy, and what’s too predictable… and that’s why what’s too predictable for one reader can be just right for another, and why reader recommendations need to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
A blog (https://writersstore.com/blogs/news/the-emotional-pattern-of-plot)
describes the emotional and action aspects of an entertainment’s ‘plot’, in part, this way: — “Plotting a story is more than just mapping out specific steps a character takes toward his goal within a conflict; it is structuring action and emotion to achieve an intended effect.” and “Characters feel full and real, with emotional lives; the action has weight and meaning.”
How would you define your reference to an “emotional plot”?
Given the need for balance in a story or novel, how necessary is the balance of action (defined by the novels genre) and emotion (needed for the protagonist’s ‘realness’) to avoid ‘predictability’?
By “emotional plot” I meant the arc of the protagonist’s emotions over the course of the story. Some books/movies show little or no emotional development. James Bond, except possibly for the last movies, shows no real change. That’s not necessarily a problem, because the point there is action and more action.
There’s also the adage of “Readers want more of the same thing – but different”
The Recluce series as a whole for example can largely be boiled down to “competent people do competent things while ensuring they can eat well and survive their trials”
But how each does their thing is different enough that each storyline feels distinct, although I will admit they get a bit repetitive if you reread half a dozen in a row. That combination of familiarity with difference has likely aided the longevity.
In terms of prequels, I’m usually not interested in how they end – I largely already know. Instead I’m more interested in how they got there, and that is where the author has room to put in the twists and surprises. Prequels are almost always journey over destination.
“readers have differing thresholds for determining what’s too unbelievable”
Viz – people who could believe that a Time Lord could have two hearts, be 1000 years old through regenerating, and have a time machine, but couldn’t possibly be female.
Yes though in most cases people enjoy fiction when they can identify with the protagonist in some way. They want an emotional connection. They experience a catharsis when the protagonist succeeds at the end. Clearly there are a group of people who can’t identify with a female protagonist. For some it is belief and for others it is the ability to relate.
“…. never seen someone who “lucks” into money or power, or who is strongly flawed, really make much of it in real life – not over their entire life ….”
“By “emotional plot” I meant the arc of the protagonist’s emotions over the course of the story. …”
Both quotes seem to tie the action to the emotional evolution and vice versa.
I asked the question because; although many critics of entertainment are pointing out the over-bearing ‘noire’ effect of most modern novels, plays, movies and TV series, they seem to ‘miss’ the separation, by authors and playwrights, of the ‘emotional plot’ from the ‘action or story plot’. This struck me as particularly noticeable in law enforcement and detective TV series from about the middle 1990’s onwards. It was particularly noticeable in British productions which usually tied the two plots together in the way LEM defined “emotional plot”.
If the observation is correct, then the question arises whether this ‘noire’ effect is the consequence of ‘real life’ events affecting the modern authors and readers tastes; or, the entertainment industry having this effect upon our real world because of the numbers in the audiences and speed of dissemination?
In any event, we may consider the entertainment/news/social media as a conduit for this negative effect: which brings up where to draw the line between our ‘First Amendment’ and the ‘freedom of misuse of language for communication’ and ‘entertainment’. Specifically to avoid: ‘no one gets hurt, physically or psychologically’!
The re-re-assessment of AI is needed.
“In a lower-tech world, when a leader first uses a significant innovation in weapons or tactics, each land he or she conquers will use the same old predictable tactics against the attacker – and usually fail”…
If I understand correctly, that’s exactly how Alexander the Great succeeded as he did.
I actually had Alexander in mind, and the Mongols might be another example.
Based on the few times we’ve emailed, this is probably the first time our minds have followed the same path.
I’ll take it!! :}