TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Timothy Zahn

Go To

TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#1: Sep 27th 2011 at 10:55:14 AM

Timothy Zahn is an author who I have to say is a real hoot. He has written Star Wars books that are simply great. In fact, in the most recent Star Wars Insider, he listed off five pet peeves related to movies, TV shows, and books.

1. Inconsistent Technology.

Notable example: ET The Extra Terrestrial. The minute we see E.T. and Elliot float away on the bicycle, the whole movie instantly unravels. If the alien can levitate himself - or an object he's touching - why didn't he just grab a tree branch at the beginning of the movie and head straight up through the forest to his ship? He would have evaded the search party, thereby trimming the movie down to the length of an extra-long Reese's Pieces commercial. Don't get me wrong - I like Reese's Pieces. But still....

2. Experts Who Do Stupid Things Within Their Areas Of Expertise.

Notable example: Jurassic Park. Near the movie's climax, the big-game hunter - who now has some firepower in his hands, a high wall at his back, and a patch of open space in front of him - leaves that position to go off into the jungle after a bunch of velociraptors who are apparently smart enough not to bring the battle to his turf. The result is inevitable, and serves him right.

3. Large, Mean, Powerful Organizations Who Are Incompetent.

Notable example: Independence Day. An alien warship in the middle of combat allows a 50-year-old fighter to simply fly aboard and upload a virus. That means this military, which blows up planetary landmarks for a living, has apparently spent the last half-century not upgrading its fighter design, its friend/foe recognition system, its computer software or its transmission protocol. Any of it. I know budget cuts are all the rage, but seriously?

4. Unnecessary Deaths Of Major Characters.

Notable example: Serenity. Two of Mal Reynolds' extended crew are killed. The first death is necessary to the plot, as it's the last straw that finally galvanizes Mal to action. The second seems solely designed to gut-punch the viewer. I hate it when that happens.

5. Time Travel As A Plot Device.

No. Just no. Please.

I like Timothy Zahn. A guy like him ought to become a member of TV Tropes.

edited 27th Sep '11 10:59:01 AM by TiggersAreGreat

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#2: Sep 27th 2011 at 4:55:12 PM

5. Time Travel As A Plot Device.

No. Just no. Please.

Zahn must hate Dr. Who...

clockworkspider Needs moar friendship. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: Sinking with my ship
Needs moar friendship.
#3: Sep 27th 2011 at 6:41:11 PM

On #4: So...characters in dangeous situations should only ever die if it's absolutely required by the plot?

[up]Also, this.

edited 27th Sep '11 6:41:40 PM by clockworkspider

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#4: Sep 27th 2011 at 8:04:40 PM

I think he was specifically mentioning killing characters to gut punch the audience. If there's not a plot reason to kill someone, don't do it.

edited 27th Sep '11 8:05:37 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#5: Sep 27th 2011 at 10:45:01 PM

  1. 's 1 and 2) Remember, make your characters' action and thought processes as rational as possible at all times (because that's realistic). If your characters make mistakes, this is a sign of bad writing.

  2. 4) The bit on being realistic said, people never die arbitrarily or randomly, so your characters should always have a direct purpose for dying, and never die naturally unless it suitably advances the plot (not necessarily the other characters, however). Not doing this is a sign of bad writing.

While everything he's saying is generally good advice, he seems pretty overly absolute about it, particularly the first two. Then again, I may just be exaggerating for the sake of 2AM facetiousness, and the fact that I generally the - "the characters didn't act the way a perfect rational/pragmatic being looking at the situation from the outside, like me, would have acted (or, more precisely, how I optimally think I would have acted). That's unrealistic" - idea people get when looking at things.

edited 27th Sep '11 10:45:26 PM by KnownUnknown

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#6: Sep 27th 2011 at 11:22:41 PM

It's more likely that he sees these issues on a constant basis and is going with "don't do them if you're still at the stage where you need advice writing".

Fight smart, not fair.
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#7: Sep 28th 2011 at 5:30:20 AM

I agree with the sentiment that killing a character to purely gut punch the audience is stupid, the same as to simply kill a character to show "now its serious!".

But for contrast to quote David Weber "Military fiction in which only bad people—the ones the readers want to die—die and the heroes don't suffer agonizing personal losses isn't military fiction: it's military pornography."

So, its maybe not if somebody dies but HOW the death is set in scene, for plot (ie dying as a consequence of the plot) purposes or inserted more to shock the viewer/reader...

"You can reply to this Message!"
TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#8: Sep 28th 2011 at 1:03:52 PM

To expand on what Timothy Zahn said about the pet peeve Inconsistent Technology:

You can also include magic and psi powers in this one. If a gadget works in a certain specified way, it should always work in that same way unless there's a good and clearly shown reason why it works differently in a particular situation. (It doesn't necessarily have to be explained at the time, but it does eventually have to be explained.)

(Zahn gives his example of ET The Extra Terrestrial here.)

Note that this doesn't apply to situations where the power or tool isn't under the user's control and therefore may not work in any discernable pattern. Johnny Smith of The Dead Zone can't control what he sees in a vision; Sam Beckett can't control where he quantum leaps, etc. It also doesn't apply to comedy or tongue-in-cheek kitsch. (Sonic screwdriver, anyone?)

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#9: Sep 28th 2011 at 2:07:48 PM

so basically a form of "Magic A" Is "Magic A"? Maybe something for the quotes part of the trope...

edited 28th Sep '11 2:09:50 PM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"
TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#10: Sep 28th 2011 at 3:18:26 PM

Here's some more on the pet peeve of Experts Who Do Stupid Things Within Their Areas Of Expertise:

I'm not talking here about people thrown completely in over their heads - a plumber, say, suddenly faced with otherworldly Goombas. That sort of thing can throw anyone off his game. I'm also not talking about a panic reaction, because - let's face it - even experts' brains can shut down when the adrenaline starts flowing. I'm talking about a relatively cool, relatively calm situation, with no immediate threat, where people do dumb things solely for the benefit of the writer.

(Timothy Zahn gives the example of Jurassic Park.)

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
Ana Since: Jan, 2001
#11: Sep 28th 2011 at 11:16:23 PM

So, its maybe not if somebody dies but HOW the death is set in scene, for plot (ie dying as a consequence of the plot) purposes or inserted more to shock the viewer/reader...

Zahn killed off major characters, so yeah. That's pretty much the point. Although I usually cannot stand the death of major characters in fiction because it's rarely handled well, mostly just to shock the reader or establish someone as the bad guy or even just to set the tone. Usually such a death doesn't feel gratifying, it feels like the author is deliberately wasting my time by setting someone up just to increase the impact. I don't want to slog through the obligatory character and red shirt deaths in military fiction just so the author can get the "War sucks" point across.

And ever since Song of Ice and Fire it's some kind of law in the fantasy genres that you have to kill off at least half of the protagonists or you'll get laughed out of the room by sneering morons because that's "cliché" and "unrealistic" and thanks to the hacks keen to follow what's popular these tropes are rapidly approaching the Rape as Drama level.

edited 28th Sep '11 11:16:55 PM by Ana

TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#12: Sep 29th 2011 at 5:52:37 AM

Adding to the pet peeve Large, Mean, Powerful Organizations Who Are Incompetent:

This includes governmental agencies, military groups, and shadowy conspiracy-theory-class clubs. Anyone can make mistakes, but when those mistakes are evidence of gross ineptitude - and worse, when they're clearly there for the writer's convenience - it just gets ridiculous.

(Timothy Zahn elaborates with the Independence Day example.)

To put it in modern terms, try flying a Vietnam-era fighter at the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan and see if you can land without them noticing. See if you even get within sight of any of the ships of its task force. Odds are pretty good you won't.

Don't worry, Timothy Zahn. You're not the only person who felt that the situation in Independence Day was handled to an Egregious degree! grin

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#13: Sep 29th 2011 at 10:55:22 AM

Here's some on what he said about Unnecessary Deaths Of Major Characters:

This one's a bit more personal than some of the others. I realize that killing off characters is one way for writers to show how serious the stakes are. For me, though, the death of any major character has to mean something within the context of the story. It has to advance the plot, help define the character, or even just make a morally defensible case for offing the bad guy at the end.

(Timothy Zahn illustrates his points with the example of Serenity.)

It makes me think about the Star Wars Expanded Universe, and I wonder what he would say about the deaths of Chewbacca, Anakin Solo, and Mara Jade. sad

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#14: Sep 29th 2011 at 11:22:56 AM

Believe it or not, I don't have to add anything about what Zahn said regarding the Time Travel As A Plot Device. Those four words I put down in Post #1, that was all he had to say on that pet peeve! surprised

Well, I think I could understand why he would say that about the Time Travel thing. The concept of Time Travel sounds cool...as long as you don't think too hard about what would logically happen as soon as you start using this as a plot device.

Take the Video Game series Command And Conquer. It started with Albert Einstein going back in time to kill off a young Adolf Hitler, in the hopes of preventing World War II. Instead, it just causes a different World War to happen between the Allies and the Soviet Union (Russia). Sounds simple, right? Yes, but then later games end up including alien invaders, a cult called N.O.D. led by a man named Kane (no other than the world's biblical first murderer, and the cult's name is a reference to the land of Nod, where Cain was banished to as punishment for killing Abel), an evil time-traveller named Yuri, among other things. Also, one of the games starts off with the Russians going back in time to kill off a young Albert Einstein, in the hopes of guaranteeing victory for the Russians. Instead, it just causes a different war between a somehow different Allies group, a somehow different Russian group, and throwing in the Japanese group for the first time! Indeed, there are now a lot of games in this series that now have a loose, jumbled, and dubious connection to each other, and it's all thanks to Time Travel!

Take Comic Books, like the X Men series. That one involves Time Travelling, and one major effect of this is that it has resulted in the hideously Tangled Family Tree of Scott Summers AKA Cyclops!

Take the film The Butterfly Effect. This one essentially involves a very specific form of Time Travelling, where the protagonist is able to go back in time in the body of his younger self by looking at writings or videos taking place at that period of time. It helps to explain the blackouts he has at moments of his life - because, apparently, he is not supposed to remember that he engaged in Time Travelling at that point. Unfortunately, he ends up blundering with the changes he makes, with the results being unpredictable and making little sense a lot of the time.

All things considered, I guess Timothy Zahn was trying to express in as few words as possible why Time Travel As A Plot Device is a bad idea!

edited 29th Sep '11 11:24:43 AM by TiggersAreGreat

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#15: Sep 29th 2011 at 1:35:09 PM

Your C&C example is more of a example of Nice Job Breaking It, Hero! instead of why time travel as a plot device is a bad idea.

I personably think it has more to do with the Inconsistent Technology thing. Given you have a situation which could be resolved with timetravel? Why not do it again in the NEXT situation, and the one before. It just opens a giant can of worms from a storytelling perspective.

For Example, Star Trek First Contact...Borg go back in time and do succeed until the Enterprise comes after them...why do the Borg not try it AGAIN? And Again and Again and Again, so the Federation has to stop them Again and Again and Again and here we have a Time War.

Time Travel as such does not make a bad story, see Doctor Who, two Star Trek Movies and Back To The Future (which does avert the above things for the most part, imo) its just a veeeery difficult plot device to use properly withhout poking more Plot Holes into your story than you can fix.

edited 29th Sep '11 1:41:20 PM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"
WarriorEowyn from Victoria Since: Oct, 2010
#16: Oct 1st 2011 at 5:55:43 AM

I think he's right. 3) and 4) in particular are ones that have been frequently - almost constantly - violated by other writers in the Star Wars EU, with Kevin J Anderson by far the worst offender for "powerful organisations who are incompetent" and everyone in NJO onward (ESPECIALLY Denning and Traviss) for "randomly killing off main characters for the angst".

TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#17: Oct 1st 2011 at 6:58:32 AM

Yeah, The Empire of Star Wars most certainly qualifies as a big, mean, powerful organization who is actually incompetent. At least Timothy Zahn's stories demonstrate what the Empire would be like if it was actually competent. A number of stories in the Star Wars Expanded Universe have apparently done their best to justify this incompetence, by revealing that various "cogs in the wheel" decided to stop helping to turn the wheel, as well as revealing that almost the entire leadership of the Empire are in the class of Complete Monster, Smug Snake, and Ax-Crazy, and all three classes naturally experience the trope Evil Cannot Comprehend Good. Of course, it raises the question of why doesn't somebody with more common sense and decency just boot them off their seats.

The death of Chewbacca...that one just puts a bad taste in my mouth. It had Cerebus Syndrome and "We are serious and we mean business now!" written all over it. It did have the effect of gut-punching me and a lot of other readers. I would like to think that it did advance the plot, in the sense that it forced a number of characters to realize that they were not so invincible. Unfortunately, what doesn't help is that Han, Leia, and Luke are still considered untouchable. Luke was supposed to be the one to get killed off, but George Lucas himself vetoed that idea. So Chewie's number came up instead. However, a number of readers are convinced that Luke might still die in the last Fate Of The Jedi book Apocalypse....

The death of Anakin Solo was pretty nasty. Still, at least the kid went out in a Heroic Sacrifice. While it advanced the plot, it may have contributed to Jacen Solo going Sith Lord. Clearly, not all advance the plot moments are necessarily a good thing.

The death of Mara Jade was a real gut-puncher. She was my favourite character in the franchise. I never imagined that she would be killed off by her own nephew Jacen. At least it had the effect of her son Ben Skywalker eventually coming to realize that he was on the wrong side, as well as making a better relationship with his father Luke. I just wish that the writing didn't make it sound like Ben has an Oedipus Complex towards his mother. sad Timothy Zahn did say that he was not happy with Mara Jade getting killed off, and that the writers did not even bother to inform him of this. I can tell you that I was practically weeping tears of joy when I found out that Zahn was writing the book Choices Of One. I was so sure from his statements that he had given up writing any more books for Star Wars out of disgust. grin

edited 1st Oct '11 11:43:36 AM by TiggersAreGreat

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
WarriorEowyn from Victoria Since: Oct, 2010
#18: Nov 9th 2011 at 8:33:59 AM

So, what does everyone think of Allegiance and Choices of One? I enjoyed them but felt that (especially in Choices) Mara was being made a bit too perfect; I don't find her Mary Sue-ish in Zahn's other books at all, but she's pretty close to it in the prequels. She's hypercompetent, makes virtually no errors, makes the Rebels (and especially Luke) look like utter incompetents in comparison, and isn't shown doing anything seriously wrong despite her position as the Emperor's personal assassin. The one upside to it is that it really sheds light on her hatred for Luke in the Thrawn trilogy and illustrates just how much her life has collapsed by that point.

And the misdirection of the reader throughout Choices in terms of where you think Thrawn is was excellent. I'm never able to predict Zahn's twists.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:59:04 PM by WarriorEowyn

3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#19: Nov 9th 2011 at 8:43:15 AM

Weeeeeeeelll... Please Keep in mind: One the one side we have the Hand of the Emperor. Trained since probably before she entered school age by the very best the Empire has to offer. On Missions for a long time and empowered by the frikkin Emperor himself.

In the other corner we have Luke Skywalker. Lived for 18 years on Tatooine. Been with the Rebellion for like 10 months. Had (basic) Jedi Training maybe for a week before his teacher meet the business end of Darth Vaders Lightsaber. Post-Dagobah Luke might fare (a lot) better, but in that timeframe? No chance.

Sorry but if she wouldn't appear hypercompetent by comparision it would look somewhat ridiculous. As if somebody who is a week in basic training would be expected to be as good as a Navy Seal.

Also it was made a point in the Hand of Thrawn trilogie that Mara never was really on the dark side despite serving Palpatine (mainly because she was SERVING him and doing it for the good of the people in her mind.) Probably because that way Palpy never had to really fear her trying to betray him and maybe it gave him probably laughing fits that he was basically having his personal Grey (as close as ) Jedi as errant girl.

And i had the same reaction with Thrawn in Choice...seriously. "ZAHN you Magnificent Bastard ! I'm reading your Book!"

edited 9th Nov '11 8:50:22 AM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"
Add Post

Total posts: 19
Top