Clever or Contrived?

[Guest]

As a lot of you probably know (I think), I read a lot of horror novels, and as a consequence (partly) most of what I write ends up being horror - the longer stuff anyway.

In horror novels, the characters often end up in certain situations where they are put in danger. Or, they meet someone who might do them harm. In these types of books there is often a plot device or twist that brings antagonist and protagonist together. Sometimes this is done in a very clever way, or it can seem so contrived it makes me wince.

I know this is a very broad subject area, but it is something I have become increasingly aware of trying to avoid in my own writing.

I read a book recently (Amara, by Richard Laymon) which was ruined for me by what I considered to be a plot riddled with such obviously contrived actions and situations. I say that with a heavy heart, because he is my favourite author.

What do you consider contrived?

Here's an example: A friend of the antagonist's intinded victim just happens to be driving along the road at the same time said antagonist is trying to hitch a ride. The antagonist was trying to find a way to get close to his intended victim, and it has now been handed to him on a plate.

Does that sound contrived to you? Or a reasonable plot development?

It must be taken into consideration that the antagonist was close to the driver's place of work at the time, so the chances of them coming across each other was pretty high. Does that make a difference?

I'd love to hear some opinions, both on the specifics of these questions, and on the wider question of what you consider to be contrived. Have you ever read a book which has disappointed you, because if this exact thing? Is so, which book? What happened to leave you with this impression?

Thanks, in advance,

Lou

 

[razor_nut]

For me, I like to read/watch new things, the same old plot twists get old quickly. So IMO the hitchhiker thing, overdone. Creating something new is difficult, but it's so much more enjoyable when a reader/viewer enctounters the unknown. At least try to put a new twist on an old idea to refresh it. For the current example, instead of just hitchhiking, maybe the antagonist intentionally knocks a tree in the road, forcing the victim to stop.

 

[Guest]

For me, I like to read/watch new things, the same old plot twists get old quickly. So IMO the hitchhiker thing, overdone. Creating something new is difficult, but it's so much more enjoyable when a reader/viewer enctounters the unknown. At least try to put a new twist on an old idea to refresh it. For the current example, instead of just hitchhiking, maybe the antagonist intentionally knocks a tree in the road, forcing the victim to stop.

Yeah, very good point.

Ok, I'll explain a little more. I have just written such a scene in my novel, which isn't actually a hitchhiker thing, in the "traditional" sense.

The guy is covered in muck and blood - after just committing a murder and burying the body. He's stuck in the middle of nowhere, cos his own car crashed. He needs to get home, so he runs to the nearest road, and flags down the first car he sees. The driver panics, seeing this "madman" in the road, brakes, avoids hitting him, then gets out of the car. The blood-covered guy tells the driver his wife is in trouble and he needs help. The driver offers to take him home, cos he believes him and feel sorry for him.

The other twist: the guy that has been picked up has just murdered his wife, although he wasn't the woman's husband, not really. The antagonist is what could be called a "body rider". Through black magic (the only way I know to describe it), his essence/spirit was able to leave his own body and enter the body of another, pushing out the soul of the body's original "owner". He uses these bodies as hosts, to travel around in and avoid being recognised. It also enables him to get close to his victims.

He ends up taking and using the body of the car driver. Hence his way to get close to the car driver's friend (although he doesn't realise the car driver's identity until later on).

Does that lot sound contrived to you? LOL!

It sounds pretty complex, but I think it works over the course of the novel. My only concern was that the "lucky coincidence" of being picked up by a friend of his intended victim might seemed rather contrived.

Lou

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't think problems with contrived plots are always just about what the event or plot element is. It can also be about pacing and context. As an author, you start out with a certain amount (small!) of "capital" with the reader - a certain amount s/he is willing to put up with in order to be amused. If you spend it early or too hard, you run out and the reader throws the text down and gives up. Depending on how badly contrived the situation is, you may or may not exhaust your supply of goodwill.

On the other hand, you can also build goodwill. For me, a good example was the movie "A Knight's Tale." I was prepared to hate that movie. The commericials looked terribly corny and simplistic. I had very low expectations, but also very low goodwill. However, the movie began by carefully avoiding things that would really rile someone looking for some vague gesture toward historical accuracy, and instead did some very nice work with characterization and especially extremely effective use of supporting cast. By the time Chaucer showed up, they'd hooked me entirely. By the time they were singing English football cheers in the pubs, I was singing with them. And by the time we hit some of the admittedly silly contrived elements, I didn't care. They'd won me over, and my stock of goodwill was so high that I was willing to forgive a great deal.

If, on the other hand, they'd telegraphed exactly the same contrived events at the beginning of the movie when I hadn't been lured in and coaxed to love the characters, I would have been much more impatient and felt much differently about the movie. It showed a very able hand in judging just how and when an audience could be pumped for a little suspension of skepticism, and how to get them to that point. (At least, for me.)

 

[Guest]

I don't think problems with contrived plots are always just about what the event or plot element is. It can also be about pacing and context. As an author, you start out with a certain amount (small!) of "capital" with the reader - a certain amount s/he is willing to put up with in order to be amused. If you spend it early or too hard, you run out and the reader throws the text down and gives up. Depending on how badly contrived the situation is, you may or may not exhaust your supply of goodwill.

On the other hand, you can also build goodwill. For me, a good example was the movie "A Knight's Tale." I was prepared to hate that movie. The commericials looked terribly corny and simplistic. I had very low expectations, but also very low goodwill. However, the movie began by carefully avoiding things that would really rile someone looking for some vague gesture toward historical accuracy, and instead did some very nice work with characterization and especially extremely effective use of supporting cast. By the time Chaucer showed up, they'd hooked me entirely. By the time they were singing English football cheers in the pubs, I was singing with them. And by the time we hit some of the admittedly silly contrived elements, I didn't care. They'd won me over, and my stock of goodwill was so high that I was willing to forgive a great deal.

If, on the other hand, they'd telegraphed exactly the same contrived events at the beginning of the movie when I hadn't been lured in and coaxed to love the characters, I would have been much more impatient and felt much differently about the movie. It showed a very able hand in judging just how and when an audience could be pumped for a little suspension of skepticism, and how to get them to that point. (At least, for me.)

Very cool. Exactly the kind of take on things I was after.

That's a very reasonable way of looking at it, and does make me feel better about my novel, I must admit!

The incident I described above happens four chapters into the novel, and what has gone before I think was pretty good and doesn't have the slightest hint of a contrived event. In my opinion, there are plenty of hooks and questions asked of the reader to hopefully let them forgive me this one slightly contrived plot device, and make them want to read on.

Thanks for your opinion!

Lou

 

[Colleen Thomas]

As a lot of you probably know (I think), I read a lot of horror novels, and as a consequence (partly) most of what I write ends up being horror - the longer stuff anyway.

In horror novels, the characters often end up in certain situations where they are put in danger. Or, they meet someone who might do them harm. In these types of books there is often a plot device or twist that brings antagonist and protagonist together. Sometimes this is done in a very clever way, or it can seem so contrived it makes me wince.

I know this is a very broad subject area, but it is something I have become increasingly aware of trying to avoid in my own writing.

I read a book recently (Amara, by Richard Laymon) which was ruined for me by what I considered to be a plot riddled with such obviously contrived actions and situations. I say that with a heavy heart, because he is my favourite author.

What do you consider contrived?

Here's an example: A friend of the antagonist's intinded victim just happens to be driving along the road at the same time said antagonist is trying to hitch a ride. The antagonist was trying to find a way to get close to his intended victim, and it has now been handed to him on a plate.

Does that sound contrived to you? Or a reasonable plot development?

It must be taken into consideration that the antagonist was close to the driver's place of work at the time, so the chances of them coming across each other was pretty high. Does that make a difference?

I'd love to hear some opinions, both on the specifics of these questions, and on the wider question of what you consider to be contrived. Have you ever read a book which has disappointed you, because if this exact thing? Is so, which book? What happened to leave you with this impression?

Thanks, in advance,

Lou

To me, contirved vs. clever is a matter of building it up. The idea of a killer just "lucking in" to a situation where he gets close to whom he is after sounds contrived on the surface. A kind of literary laziness.

But consider how may people end up the victims of random violence every day. Over half the people who die in gangland violence who aren't in the gangs are just victims of wrong place at the wrong time. How many serial killer victims are in the exact same boat? You happen to be similar to his type and he stops in at the 7-eleven as you are picking up a gallon of milk and some kitty litter. Follows you home and, you are a statistic. If you hadn't had that call from mom that kept you from running out an extra 15 minutes, you wouldn't have been there when he was.

Coincidence or random chance can work in a tale. It would run counter to reality if it wasn't a factor occasionally. If you go to the well too often though, it becomes hokey. There is a fine line there between moving your plot with a random coincedence and driving the plot with random events that while possible, begin to stack up too heavily to remain plausible.

As a reader, random coincidence can feel like a contrived thing, simply because you know the writer controls the whole world. You are looking for deeper continuity and the random fortuitous event just seems lazy. The grand old cliche of cliche random events, the car not turning over when the girl is being chaced by the big ugly, seems very contrived. Same with out of gas, or having your glasses broken, or any number of other very cliched events that move the plot. My truck turns over the first time 99% of the time, I have never run out of gas, etc. so they seem even more forced.

In the end, you are playing with the suspension of disbelief that is the foundation of most fiction. If you are skillful and have done the rest of it well, the occasional nod to providence won't hurt. If you are relying on the fates more often than a gambler at Las Vegas, you are probably in trouble.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Clever or Contrived?

To me, contirved vs. clever is a matter of building it up. The idea of a killer just "lucking in" to a situation where he gets close to whom he is after sounds contrived on the surface. A kind of literary laziness.

But consider how may people end up the victims of random violence every day. Over half the people who die in gangland violence who aren't in the gangs are just victims of wrong place at the wrong time. How many serial killer victims are in the exact same boat? You happen to be similar to his type and he stops in at the 7-eleven as you are picking up a gallon of milk and some kitty litter. Follows you home and, you are a statistic. If you hadn't had that call from mom that kept you from running out an extra 15 minutes, you wouldn't have been there when he was.

Coincidence or random chance can work in a tale. It would run counter to reality if it wasn't a factor occasionally. If you go to the well too often though, it becomes hokey. There is a fine line there between moving your plot with a random coincedence and driving the plot with random events that while possible, begin to stack up too heavily to remain plausible.

As a reader, random coincidence can feel like a contrived thing, simply because you know the writer controls the whole world. You are looking for deeper continuity and the random fortuitous event just seems lazy. The grand old cliche of cliche random events, the car not turning over when the girl is being chaced by the big ugly, seems very contrived. Same with out of gas, or having your glasses broken, or any number of other very cliched events that move the plot. My truck turns over the first time 99% of the time, I have never run out of gas, etc. so they seem even more forced.

In the end, you are playing with the suspension of disbelief that is the foundation of most fiction. If you are skillful and have done the rest of it well, the occasional nod to providence won't hurt. If you are relying on the fates more often than a gambler at Las Vegas, you are probably in trouble.

-Colly

Colly, thanks so much for taking the time to give such a well thought out response. I really appreciate it!

I agree with everything you said, and you made me think of it in a much broader sense. There is an incident, quite early on in the novel, which sets of the chain of events that leads up to the car driver picking up the strange man. That particular incident wasn't a random or chance occurance, so I do think the whole thing from there after does read as plausable and not particularly contrived.

Thanks again!

Lou

 

[CharleyH]

What do you consider contrived?

Here's an example: A friend of the antagonist's intinded victim just happens to be driving along the road at the same time said antagonist is trying to hitch a ride. The antagonist was trying to find a way to get close to his intended victim, and it has now been handed to him on a plate.

Does that sound contrived to you? Or a reasonable plot development?

It must be taken into consideration that the antagonist was close to the driver's place of work at the time, so the chances of them coming across each other was pretty high. Does that make a difference?

Very terrible of me, but I don't really read all that much in the way of horror. Used to read John Saul, but it has been many years. On the other hand I happen to watch just about any horror or suspense film I can lay my hands on. Lets NOT talk about how contrived Alien vs. Preditor was! (I got suckered into that one because I did not have to foot the bill).

Your question. With the scenario you have given me, I would say flat out contrived. Its as if the author is forcing the characters together by creating a circumstance where the two will meet. To me it is an unlikely circumstance. We know that the two must eventually meet, and if they live in the approximate vicinity there are many, many more scenarios that would not be so typical. The hitchiker scenario has been done a thousand times over.

In this case something more realistic and plausible. Besides, what is a working guy hitchiking from his office, I presume in a city, for?

Just my take.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Clever or Contrived?

Very terrible of me, but I don't really read all that much in the way of horror. Used to read John Saul, but it has been many years. On the other hand I happen to watch just about any horror or suspense film I can lay my hands on. Lets NOT talk about how contrived Alien vs. Preditor was! (I got suckered into that one because I did not have to foot the bill).

Your question. With the scenario you have given me, I would say flat out contrived. Its as if the author is forcing the characters together by creating a circumstance where the two will meet. To me it is an unlikely circumstance. We know that the two must eventually meet, and if they live in the approximate vicinity there are many, many more scenarios that would not be so typical. The hitchiker scenario has been done a thousand times over.

In this case something more realistic and plausible. Besides, what is a working guy hitchiking from his office, I presume in a city, for?

Just my take.

Hi Charley!

Now you've gone and confused me and made me doubt myself. LOL

The working guy was the guy driving the car, btw. It's set in a forest, his place of work is nearby, he has to drive through the forest to get home. The guy that gets picked up has just committed a murder.

Here's a snippet from my second post, does this make things seem a little less contrived?

It's not actually a hitchhiker thing, in the "traditional" sense.

The guy is covered in muck and blood - after just committing a murder and burying the body. He's stuck in the middle of nowhere, cos his own car crashed (chain of not at all contrived events led to that). He needs to get home, so he runs to the nearest road, and flags down the first car he sees. The driver panics, seeing this "madman" in the road, brakes, avoids hitting him, then gets out of the car. The blood-covered guy tells the driver his wife is in trouble and he needs help. The driver offers to take him home, cos he believes him and feel sorry for him.

The other twist: the guy that has been picked up has just murdered his wife, although he wasn't the woman's husband, not really. The antagonist is what could be called a "body rider". Through black magic (the only way I know to describe it), his essence/spirit was able to leave his own body and enter the body of another, pushing out the soul of the body's original "owner". He uses these bodies as hosts, to travel around in and avoid being recognised. It also enables him to get close to his victims.

He ends up taking and using the body of the car driver. Hence his way to get close to the car driver's friend (although he doesn't realise the car driver's identity until later on).


I might just carry on with the novel and write a nice dirty sex scene next, then come back to this, if need be.

Thanks for your input, babe.

Lou

 

[CharleyH]

Re: Re: Re: Clever or Contrived?

Hi Charley!

Lou

Hi Lou!! I only read the first post I will thoroughly consider everything and post again addressing what you have said, however it will not be right away. Too many things on the go at this exact moment.

I will try to offer something more beneficial than an off the cuff opinion.

 

[gauchecritic]

Ok I haven't read throught the rest of the posts but:

A thing goes round pushing out people's souls and taking over their bodies and you're worried that someone stopping for a hitch hiker is a bit far fetched?

This just reminds me that if the background music is menacing don't go in that direction.

Gauche

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think a coincidence or two is ok, as long as

1. there are not too many

2. there are actually good reasons for the 'coincidence' to happen (he's driving down that street because he does it every day, or because another road is closed, or because he's hiding from a crazed ex girlfriend or *whatever* as long as he didn't for no reason just decide that he felt like driving down that particular stretch of road.)

3. It doesn't happen at the most crucial point in the story and *fix* everything. A coincidence that gives a clue or helps a character realize something can be ok, but we want the protagonist to win by his skill or cleverness or strength or something he/she does, not by luck. (we were fighting and just when I was about to get a punch to the face that surely would have knocked me out cold, a bolt of lightning came from the sky and struck my attacker. I lived happily ever after...)

Coincidence is particularly clever and useful if you can show how the character may have set the 'coincidence' in motion himself without realizing it. In other words, if it seems like a coincidence to the characters, but it's really not.

Hope this helps.

 

[Guest]

Ok I haven't read throught the rest of the posts but:

A thing goes round pushing out people's souls and taking over their bodies and you're worried that someone stopping for a hitch hiker is a bit far fetched?

This just reminds me that if the background music is menacing don't go in that direction.

Gauche

I take it that was a facetious response.

If it wasn't, thanks so much for the injection of confidence.

 

[Guest]

I think a coincidence or two is ok, as long as

1. there are not too many

2. there are actually good reasons for the 'coincidence' to happen (he's driving down that street because he does it every day, or because another road is closed, or because he's hiding from a crazed ex girlfriend or *whatever* as long as he didn't for no reason just decide that he felt like driving down that particular stretch of road.)

3. It doesn't happen at the most crucial point in the story and *fix* everything. A coincidence that gives a clue or helps a character realize something can be ok, but we want the protagonist to win by his skill or cleverness or strength or something he/she does, not by luck. (we were fighting and just when I was about to get a punch to the face that surely would have knocked me out cold, a bolt of lightning came from the sky and struck my attacker. I lived happily ever after...)

Coincidence is particularly clever and useful if you can show how the character may have set the 'coincidence' in motion himself without realizing it. In other words, if it seems like a coincidence to the characters, but it's really not.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Sweet.

Yes, that was very helpful. I particularly liked what you said in the last paragraph. Hmmm, very intriguing!

Lou

 

[Pornofan420]

To me, contrived seems more likely if the two characters meet for no other reason than it's that point in the story and *poof*, they meet.

I find a story much more interesting if two characters are doing what they do, follow whatever path they're on, and come to a point where it feels reasonable, even if unexpectedly so, that their paths cross. If everything they've been doing up to that point feels like it's brought them to a meeting point, that's what keeps my attention.

My first reaction to the hitchiker bit was that it did feels contrived. It feels like the meeting needed to happen so it did. That's not as satisfying to me as a reader.

It's not that coincidences don't happen in real life. But if I'm reading a story, then it does indeed have a godlike author controlling what happens and I prefer a hands-on deity; one who pulls string and arranges events, building towards a convergence.

Too convenient a coincidence and I feel like the literary demiurge is sitting back, just watching things casually when their daytime television goes to commercial. Then some celestial timer goes off, divine fingers go *SNAP*, and the meeting happens.

Coincidence is particularly clever and useful if you can show how the character may have set the 'coincidence' in motion himself without realizing it. In other words, if it seems like a coincidence to the characters, but it's really not.

What SnP said.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Something's contived when it satisfies the needs of the story more than it does our sense of reality.

In your hitchhiker scenario, if the driver of the car is someone this soul-rider's been aiming for all along and he just happens to bump into him this way, then it's terribly contrived and unacceptable, because we all know the probability of bumping into a specific person on a deserted road at night is just unlikely in the extreme.

On the other hand, the odds of bumping into any old someone on that road is pretty good, and quite within the bounds of probablity.

It's like the story of the guy who buys his wife a ring and then loses it overboard while he's fishing. We can accept that he might catch another fish big enough to allow him to buy a new ring, but if he catches the very fish that swallowed the ring, we know we're dealing with a fairy tale. It exceeds what we know of life's probabilities.

You see what appear to be all sorts of contrivances in Greek tragedy, but that's because the Greeks wanted it understood that the Gods were behind all these events; that fate was inescapable.

On the other hand, you take something like the end of Hamlet, with the queen drinking the poison intended for Hamlet and the mix-up with the swords, and it's just ludicrous. It goes way beyond belief and it's farcical.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

To me, contrived seems more likely if the two characters meet for no other reason than it's that point in the story and *poof*, they meet.

I find a story much more interesting if two characters are doing what they do, follow whatever path they're on, and come to a point where it feels reasonable, even if unexpectedly so, that their paths cross. If everything they've been doing up to that point feels like it's brought them to a meeting point, that's what keeps my attention.

My first reaction to the hitchiker bit was that it did feels contrived. It feels like the meeting needed to happen so it did. That's not as satisfying to me as a reader.

It's not that coincidences don't happen in real life. But if I'm reading a story, then it does indeed have a godlike author controlling what happens and I prefer a hands-on deity; one who pulls string and arranges events, building towards a convergence.

Too convenient a coincidence and I feel like the literary demiurge is sitting back, just watching things casually when their daytime television goes to commercial. Then some celestial timer goes off, divine fingers go *SNAP*, and the meeting happens.



What SnP said.

Thanks for your input, Pornofan.

Once I've written the whole novel, I might go back to that part and have a serious re-think. I'm undecided as to whether or not the circumstances leading up to thier meeting is just too damn coincidental, or, as you say, whether it reads as them just going about their lives (however weird one of those lives might be) and then meeting. I think I need to distance myself from it a bit, to make that decision.

Lou

 

[Guest]

Something's contived when it satisfies the needs of the story more than it does our sense of reality.

In your hitchhiker scenario, if the driver of the car is someone this soul-rider's been aiming for all along and he just happens to bump into him this way, then it's terribly contrived and unacceptable, because we all know the probability of bumping into a specific person on a deserted road at night is just unlikely in the extreme.

On the other hand, the odds of bumping into any old someone on that road is pretty good, and quite within the bounds of probablity.

It's like the story of the guy who buys his wife a ring and then loses it overboard while he's fishing. We can accept that he might catch another fish big enough to allow him to buy a new ring, but if he catches the very fish that swallowed the ring, we know we're dealing with a fairy tale. It exceeds what we know of life's probabilities.

---dr.M.

Thanks so much, Dr Mab.

You've made me think that maybe what I have written is ok. The thing is, the antagonist is just looking for a lift, from anyone. The guy that comes along is unknown to him, and he only finds out much later on (after he has "jumped" into his body) that the guy is actually a friend of the boyfriend of his ex-wife - his ultimate intended victim.

Hmmm, putting it like that does make it sound rather contrived. Oh, I dunno, I'll probably come back to it and re-write it a little.

Your comments are always appreciated, thanks again!

Lou

 

[sweetnpetite]

Thanks for your input, Pornofan.

Once I've written the whole novel, I might go back to that part and have a serious re-think. I'm undecided as to whether or not the circumstances leading up to thier meeting is just too damn coincidental, or, as you say, whether it reads as them just going about their lives (however weird one of those lives might be) and then meeting. I think I need to distance myself from it a bit, to make that decision.

Lou

I had forgotten, that I was also going to say:

If this is for NaNo, don't worry about it now, just write it and work it out later

(If my novel needs any reserch- and it might, I'll be inserting it later, after November)

 

[oggbashan]

Does it work?

That is really the only question that validates a story.

The style, the characters, the plot, the development - if they work in this particular scenario then they are valid. If the reader's suspense of disbelief is shattered then the whole edifice crumbles.

Contrived can be a deliberate way to construct a plot. John Buchan (he of 'The Thirty-Nine Steps) described how he created one of his thrillers with just three unlikely scenes, one a blind woman sitting at a spinning wheel in the Hebrides, and thought how he could link the three together plausibly. The result was a book called 'The Island Of Sheep' - not one of his best but still good.

But if the reader could see the scaffolding that held Buchan's plot together the book would be unreadable.

Og

 

[Subo97]

conveniently contrived

Isn't all fiction contrived? Some works of fiction are just better contrivances than others. None of it is real. some authors are just better at making it sound real.

The point is, does the reader buy it? it seems to me, that it all depends on how quickly an author wants his/her reader to bite into the meat of the fictional stew. It's a double edged sword. If I weave a too complicated web of circumstances that sets up the main story, my reader may get bored and stop reading. If I get too quickly to the main conflict (and I'm a believer that all good fiction revolves around conflict: man vs man; man vs nature/God; man vs himself) then the reader may toss me aside for being too obvious. I'm not a big reader or fan of the horror genre, but it strikes me that fans of it come in two groups: those who enjoy building suspense, and those who want their frights early, often and fast.

I don't have answers, just more questions. My feeling is that, if the pace of the story requires an early connection, connect fast, if it requires mystery or mounting suspense to achieve your goals, hold off.

 

[Guest]

I had forgotten, that I was also going to say:

If this is for NaNo, don't worry about it now, just write it and work it out later

(If my novel needs any reserch- and it might, I'll be inserting it later, after November)

Yes, it is for NaNo, and you are right, that's exactly what I should do.

But, ya know when you're writing something, you think, hmmm, is that right? Does that work? Well, it's been nagging at me so much that I couldn't move on with the novel.

Not nagging me nearly as much now, though, even though I haven't reached any kind of conclusion.

Lou

 

[Guest]

Re: Does it work?

That is really the only question that validates a story.

The style, the characters, the plot, the development - if they work in this particular scenario then they are valid. If the reader's suspense of disbelief is shattered then the whole edifice crumbles.

Contrived can be a deliberate way to construct a plot. John Buchan (he of 'The Thirty-Nine Steps) described how he created one of his thrillers with just three unlikely scenes, one a blind woman sitting at a spinning wheel in the Hebrides, and thought how he could link the three together plausibly. The result was a book called 'The Island Of Sheep' - not one of his best but still good.

But if the reader could see the scaffolding that held Buchan's plot together the book would be unreadable.

Og

Thanks, Og.

Hmmm, skilled writer I am not, wannabe skilled writer, yes!

At this moment, I am more inclined towards the opinion that, yes, it does work - with the build up I have in place, the characterization that I've done, and also, how the plot will move on from here.

I'll just leave it as is, for now.

Lou

 

[Guest]

Re: conveniently contrived

Isn't all fiction contrived? Some works of fiction are just better contrivances than others. None of it is real. some authors are just better at making it sound real.

The point is, does the reader buy it? it seems to me, that it all depends on how quickly an author wants his/her reader to bite into the meat of the fictional stew. It's a double edged sword. If I weave a too complicated web of circumstances that sets up the main story, my reader may get bored and stop reading. If I get too quickly to the main conflict (and I'm a believer that all good fiction revolves around conflict: man vs man; man vs nature/God; man vs himself) then the reader may toss me aside for being too obvious. I'm not a big reader or fan of the horror genre, but it strikes me that fans of it come in two groups: those who enjoy building suspense, and those who want their frights early, often and fast.

I don't have answers, just more questions. My feeling is that, if the pace of the story requires an early connection, connect fast, if it requires mystery or mounting suspense to achieve your goals, hold off.

Thanks so much, Subo. You make an awful lot of sense.

Oh yes, conflict. A good story must have conflict. I have plenty of that going on already, with more to come.

My story is quite fast paced, and, as such, I do think this could work, with the reader buying it.

Thanks, again, for a great post.

Lou

 

[tolyk]

I understand that face description you did in my thread now Even just from those two tidbits of your story, I am inclined to say that it works. "Body thieves" really haven't been overdone, defiantely not from a black magic view. I hate it when they use technology for body stealing.

Anyways, good luck with your story, and stop doubting in yourself so much. Hell, you have a fan base, you've earned it somehow right?