Plotting a Perfectly Good Waste (Or: Good Ideas Make The Story Worse)

This isn't actually related to my own personal writing; rather something in a book I just read. But it's a writing concern, so I'm curious to see what others think.

Suppose an author makes a choice about a way in which to tell his or her story. That choice makes sense within the boundaries of the universe, or serves as a way to show characterization, or plays with a trope in some fashion. However, although they are willingly making that choice, it is, in some way, Bad Writing. For example, using ludicrous purple prose because a character would write that way and they're the POV character, or using a Deus ex Machina when a character is Pals with Jesus. While it's universally sound (if the character is friends with a god, why wouldn't they ask the god to just solve all their problems?) or good character sense (the POV character isn't exactly a fine writer), it still might feel like a cheap ending (Suddenly no more conflict! Hooray!) or be hard to read (''Beedy gray organs of sight?' You mean his eyes?' 'Let's not jump to conclusions.'). So while they might serve a purpose, they can also detract from the reader's enjoyment of the work. We have it as They Plotted a Perfectly Good Waste.

The thing that made me think of this was that, in the book, there was a fairly major conflict going on in the background which the main character had absolutely no part of. He referenced it a lot and it drove the majority of the plot, but its effects were almost never seen on-camera and he never participated in it. As such, it felt kind of superfluous, and made the book feel a little aimless at times. Now, in thinking about it, I realized that this made perfect sense in its way because the hero was A) in hiding, and B) he had far more pressing concerns, so naturally he missed out on the worst of it. But at the same time, the lack of buildup or real tension still on the whole made the story feel kind of empty, even if the reasons for it were fairly logical.

So my question is: Have you ever done something like this? And what are your thoughts on this kind of device in general? Is it better to fudge a thing or two and be slightly "untrue" to your characters in order to ensure your narrative is more perfect and cohesive and works as a story? Or is it better to be truer to your characters even if it makes your work as a whole less enjoyable, less interesting, or more difficult to pick up?

A better thing is to set up the situation so that they can't take the cheap out they normally would have, for some reason. If the way your characters would react naturally would make a bad story, don't break characterization — give them reasons to do differently.

You can find nearly all these points in Cerebus. Usually there's interesting stuff going on, but if C isn't there, you only hear about it later if at all. There are poorly written text passages that have little or no relation to the plot. There are in jokes galore. The book was notoriously hard to pick up.

Don't be that writer.

Hm, I wonder about this sometimes.

In the micro sense, there are words and phrases I feel would make for a really nice description, but the current narrator wouldn't say them because it's not their style. In this situation, I usually try to stick with their voice/find a more appropriate alternative.

In the macro sense...I try to make the situation around them involve them with the wider story. They don't want anything to do with the wider conflict (yet), but it keeps coming to them.

Keep them engaged in their own devices, but have the wider story keep intruding on their life.

edited 10th Sep '11 1:50:41 PM by deathjavu

Yes, without reservation. This is one of my most fundamental writing principles, in large part stemming from the fact that I write from a very Watsonian perspective. In general, I would find a work less enjoyable or interesting when the characters in it break from their established patterns for the sake of the all-powerful plot.

Seconding Morven in that there's usually a way around the problem if you look long enough. Let's take your example of a character writing in Purple Prose—maybe we don't read their prose directly, but instead read another character snarking about it.

To play devil's advocate here and/or needle the conversation on, what if the story is told in first person (as the book I read was) and one of the characters would write this way? Or what if a first-person POV character is a young child?

Then you've set yourself a hard-ass task and only have yourself to blame if nobody likes it.

You can get away with wildly idiosyncratic writing and dialog, but it's generally considered very experimental and will generally generate extreme reactions.

In that case it's entirely your own fault and your own choice, and also possibly not quite as valid as the first post lays it out. You're taking away your options as a writer, after all, and any choice that leaves you more constrained makes the task harder.

It would be really difficult to do without elaborating on the background plot a lot.

I dunno. I usually have plots where characters are single people in the midst of huge events, but I've never had one where they just weren't involved...

To get away from viewpoint stuff, what's your view on things like the like Deus ex Machina example?

I'm a fan of Plotting a Perfectly Good Waste when I can make it work. If I can't, it's either out of my range of ability of totally unnecessary; in either of those cases... I do not pursue the point.

Consider changing the plot so it doesn't work or isn't necessary.

This is really what I was talking about before. If you're going to put in characters or other factors that can cause a Deus ex Machina, then I would be in favor of going ahead and doing the Deus ex Machina rather then doing something arbitrary to keep it from happening. Obviously, this is not me advocating the use of Deus ex Machina - but I truly dislike arbitrary authorial meddling for the sake of THE PLOT. The best thing to do would be to think twice about whether you really need that possible source of Deus ex Machina in the story to begin with.

I'm not sure that IS a Deus ex Machina. To quote the wiki:

Pals with Jesus sets it up; it's not unlikely anymore, though it might be anticlimactic. It's probably still some kind of bad writing, but there is a chance for it not to be.

edited 11th Sep '11 4:38:16 PM by Night

But our Deus ex Machina page does allow for examples where it has been set up in advance (for instance, the Night's Dawn Trilogy).

Well then I need to send it to TRS 'cuz the definition is contradicting itself again.

The fourth option even says "looks like but isn't".

I think the point of that last one is to illustrate a kind of subversion, but I don't know...

edited 11th Sep '11 4:45:21 PM by JHM

The Pals with Jesus example actually seems like it might make for a really interesting story - you've got the main character / a group of them with Jesus on speed dial who call him up to ask him to help them out. Sure, that ends your conflict, so treat the conflict as a Cold Open - maybe even play it for laughs. Then, once you've established everything, get into the character drama and Deconstruction - maybe Jesus has more important things to do than help out these petty mortals, maybe one of them is abusing their power to call down heavenly fire to perfectly burn the sugar on top of a creme brulee, maybe one of them is starting to get some inadequacy issues from having to be around someone who can literally fix everything around him at will, etc. And then what happens if Jesus somehow gets taken out of the picture and these characters, who have grown dependent on him, have to suddenly fend for themselves?

OK, I think I have my Na No Wri Mo project pretty much set up now.