←back to thread

Are you stuck in movie logic?

(usefulfictions.substack.com)
239 points eatitraw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.231s | source
Show context
everdrive ◴[] No.45954809[source]
This really interesting, and I first observed this with the movie the Matrix. Not so much that the conflict couldn't be resolved. (although the Oracle's entire character is based on this idea) But instead, if I were really on the Nebuchadnezzar I would have wanted to have hours-long conversations with Neo about the nature and limitations of his powers. The crew is faced with a deistic and perhaps apocalyptic super hero on their crew. They might be witnessing the end times!

And NO ONE digs into this for more details? When I was younger this frustrated me, but as I got older I realized this was a reflection of normal human psychology. People avoid interesting topics all the time. "Why did you cheat on your husband?" "How come you're depressed all the time?" "What do you do when no one is watching?" "Do you like your job?" etc ... all of these questions have pretty direct answers, but it seems like people will do almost anything to avoid speaking about uncomfortable topics directly.

It's still not something I fully understand, but it's something I've at least made some peace with. It's human nature, for better or (usually) for worse.

replies(5): >>45954889 #>>45954914 #>>45954968 #>>45958500 #>>45963415 #
eslaught ◴[] No.45954889[source]
It's because if you explain what's going on, you stop the action. And viewers/readers don't like that.

In fiction it's called an info dump. As an aspiring science fiction author, virtually every beta reader I've had has told me they don't like them. I want my fiction to make sense, but you have to be subtle about it. To avoid readers complaining, you have to figure out how to explain things to the reader without it being obvious that you're explaining things to the reader, or stopping the action to do it.

Movies are such a streamlined medium that usually this gets cut entirely. At least in books you can have appendices and such for readers who care.

replies(7): >>45954970 #>>45955079 #>>45955308 #>>45955331 #>>45955434 #>>45958495 #>>45959620 #
ashtakeaway ◴[] No.45955079[source]
If we succumbed to everyone's complaints we'd have a much more dumbed down version of everything. Consider if you had a concussion on the right temporal lobe and had hypergraphia as a symptom of the resultant temporal lobe epilepsy. I'd write everything I'd want to write regardless of who complains. Philip K. Dick was one such person.
replies(1): >>45955174 #
1. eslaught ◴[] No.45955174[source]
It depends on what you care about. If you're writing purely for yourself, then by all means, go ahead and do so.

I've found there's a balance to be found in listening to others vs yourself. Usually, if multiple people give you the same feedback, there is some underlying symptom they are correctly diagnosing. But they may not have the correct diagnosis, or even be able to articulate the symptoms clearly. The real skill of an author/editor is in figuring out the true diagnosis and what to do about it.

In the communication example, this means rooting conflicts in the true personalities of the characters and/or their context, so that even if they sat down to have a deep chat, they still wouldn't agree. E.g., character A has an ulterior motive to see character B fail. Now you hint at that motive in a subtle way that telegraphs to readers that something is going on, without stopping the action for what would turn into a pedantic conversation. At least, that's what I'd do.