13 June 2008

Post 138

I have had the tendency to lean toward morbidity off and on throughout my life. Due to my recent "paradigm shift," I no longer lean that way (though I don't know how long that will last; I am one given to vacillation in such matters), but I can understand, to some degree, those who do. This post, then, is not me looking down on anyone; this post is me pointing out some blatant cheating that pops up occasionally in fictional works.

A couple of weeks ago, I watched Dead Poets Society. [Random sidenote: is it just me, or ought there to be an apostrophe at the end of poets--Dead Poets' Society? I mean, doesn't that make more sense? Kinda like Two Weeks Notice (which I've never seen) probably ought to be Two Weeks' Notice. Does Hollywood have something against apostrophes?] I cannot tell you how many times I've had Dead Poets' Society (HA! Take that, punctuation nazis!) recommended to me; people have often told me that I would like it.

I don't know why it is, but many people seem to recommend movies to me that they don't like. Dead Poets' Society is one of them. K-Pax is another. Whenever I ask someone if they liked K-Pax, it seems like they say, "Meh. Not really. You'd like it, though; it's your kind of movie." Moulin Rouge is another movie I've gotten such recommendations for: "I don't know that you'd like it, Schmett, but I'm sure you could appreciate it." I'm never quite certain how to take these kinds of recommendations. Curiosity is bound to get the best of me eventually, though, so I may end up seeing all of these.

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, I was at the library and saw that they had Dead Poets' Society, so I picked it up and checked it out. I was not surprised (though somewhat chagrined) when one of my roommates saw what I was about to watch and said, "Oh, you'll like that movie: it's depressing." I think, actually, two of my roommates made such observations, the other one saying, "Oh, that movie? It's pretty good, and it's sad enough that you'll probably appreciate it."

*sigh*

So I watched it, and (get this:) I didn't like it. Not that I hated it; it just didn't really appeal to me. Which is sad because I really like Robin Williams in dramas (I own Jakob the Liar), and I also like teachery stories (Freedom Writers and Mr. Holland's Opus are in my DVD collection; Goodbye, Mr. Chips is on my bookshelf), so it seems like it should be a real winner. But it wasn't. It was good right up until the suicide, which, ironically enough, is probably the part that my roommates thought I would like. (Do I really seem that sick, guys? I mean, c'mon!).

Death is a powerful thing. I mean, on the list of Things That'll Change Your Life, I'm not sure anything is so dramatic as death. Maybe I just think that because I've never been directly affected by a birth, but endings always seem more dramatic than beginnings, so I'm willing to say that death is the more impactful of the two. (Yes, I did just make that word up). Because of this, death is an extremely useful tool for a writer of fiction, and I fear that, as a device, it is becoming a bit overused.

In high school, several of we Drama Club folk were aspiring novelists, and I remember talking with a couple of friends at lunch and we decided that one of the Rules of Fiction (back then, I believed such rules existed, but I've since gotten over that) was Someone's Gotta Die (were I still an advocate of rules, I'd probably give that one a cooler name--Subito Morte, perhaps). We all agreed on this because each of us had, in the course of writing our individual novels (all of them fantasy, of course; it's the easiest place to start--perhaps because it's the hardest one to screw up [oh dear... I'll get angry comments for that, I fear!])--in each of our novels, we had come to the point where we had to kill off a very lovable supporting role; we certainly didn't want to, but that was just the way it had to be. If you ever want readers to become really attached to your lead, you've got to kill off that kindly old father figure/mentor person (*ahem!* J. K. Rowling *ahem!* George Lucas *ahem!*) or that best friend friend or that love interest or whoever, and that's just the way it is with fiction.

That seems ridiculous to me now, but I'm glad I remember having that discussion, remember agreeing with that sentiment, because it helps me to understand why some writers are so fond of killing people. (It also makes me love Stanger than Fiction just that much more.) I mean, sure, sometimes people are going to die in stories. I'm not saying that death should be removed from fiction altogether; that would just be silly. What I'm saying is that death has become a crutch, and Subito Morte in any story throws up a little red flag in my head that flaps and shouts, "Amateur author!"

Granted, death is often sudden. As is stencil spray-painted in Gothic text on the side of a newspaper stand here in Provo, "...But Death Is Always Certain." I mean, death is coming for all of us, and sometimes he comes for us out of that proverbial blue, and that's fine. But sometimes death just doesn't make sense in the context of a story. I feel that Dead Poets' Society was a good example. Now, I'm no psychologist, but the suicide in Dead Poets' Society rubbed me the wrong way because it didn't seem to fit in the context of the character who killed himself. There was nothing in the movie up to that point to support that suicide--nothing! It just didn't make any sense at all.

But this is one of those stories wherein the teacher character must be kicked out of the school. How can we do this? Aha! We shall blame him for the suicide of one of his students! This will spark flames of injustice in the hearts of all who watch this movie, and they will be moved by that beautiful, poignant injustice we have created. Look at us; we are such good writers. Let's go get slobbering drunk and write a movie, guys! Who's with me?

Tonight I came across Subito Morte again as I watched The Bridge to Terebithia. This was an especially offensive death because the surrounding story wasn't strong enough to support the weight of it. It just--it wasn't that kind of story! Had the girl's family suddenly moved (Subito Moto?), I think the whole story would have played out about the same and probably been a bit more believable. I liked the movie other than that; I thought it was a pretty good story and an intriguing idea, but the death was adipose (sorry for the malapropism--I'm tired--can't think of the word I'm actually looking for--something like inappropriate--stuck with the one that popped into my head) and kinda turned me off to the rest of it.

So beware the Subito Morte! (And I mean that, I think, in every way possible.) If you deign to write a story, don't take any cheap-shot shortcuts; there are other, better ways!

10 comments:

  1. I mean, on the list of Things That'll Change Your Life, I'm not sure anything is so dramatic as death.

    You got laugh points for that quote. I'm just telling you that in advance of disagreeing with you about a few things.

    A. Personally, I think the suicide in Dead Poets Society is actually well set up. You can tell that Neil feels like he's going to be in a gilded cage all his life, and you know he wants to get out. And he honestly only sees that particular out, because all other outs he has enjoyed (like the acting) have been taken away).

    B. I've never seen the movie verson of The Bridge to Terabithia, but I can tell you I certainly never thought that her death in the book was used as a cheap device.

    C. Fantasy novels the easiest not to screw up? I respectfully disagree. Especially since, as a creative writing major in college, I helped to peer edit chapters from quite good fantasy novels and also from quite wretched fantasy novels. (Of course, I couldn't tell them that their novels were quite wretched, so they often got critiques that said I liked one particular sentence and thought their semi-invented language was 'inventive.')
    Anyway, fantasy novels are the easiest to screw up because they involve creating whole new worlds with complete internal logics. And while people can certainly do well with the whole-new-world part, causing that whole new world to maintain any certain type of logic is often either not done at all or not done well.

    And I can think of plenty of times death has been used well as a device. (Let's be honest. Sometimes readers get too pacifistic and the only way to get them to react is to kill someone off that they really care about. Besides, I will freely and openly admit I liked that J.K. Rowling killed Dumbledore off, because it gave her the chance to establish that death isn't the end of everything and just because somebody dies doesn't make them any less real.)

    I think I had another point to make, but I don't remember it right now. So you're off the hook for the moment. Till I remember . . .

    ReplyDelete
  2. A. I dunno.... Maybe I'm just a naive optimist (doubtful), but I don't think people like Neil generally kill themselves; they catch a midnight train to NYC or run away to a friend's house to talk things through or just emotionally implode, go off to that military school, stripped of their charisma, dead inside, and live out a life of meaninglessness. And the last of those three options seems to me a greater tragedy than suicide anyway.

    B. Whereas I've only seen the movie and not read the book, this seems to me a moot point.

    C. RE: Fantasy is "the easiest place to start--perhaps because it's the hardest one to screw up"--mostly said (as you surely must have gathered) to get a rise from you; thanks for obliging. Honestly, though I don't LIKE fantasy much, I do have a lot of respect for the genre because I have tried it, and I failed miserably and screwed the whole thing up royally, so I'm willing to grant that a lot of work goes into fantasy and that it is a respectable art form.

    As for Dumbledore, yeah, his death is among some of the most necessary fictional deaths, but the whole Snape thing (especially as it was revealed in the final book) seemed a little--I don't know--a little much to swallow. Rather than seeming like any logical behavior on the part of either Snape or Dumbledore, it felt to me like Rowling just trying to add unnecessary (and honestly detracting) spice to a story that was interesting enough on its own. Kinda like adding paprika to cinnamon french toast--it just doesn't make sense. I suppose what I'm saying, then, in my own convoluted way, is that, though Dumbledore's death was logical and even (one may argue) necessary, its manner seemed a little off.

    That said, I wanna ask you if you really meant THIS:

    "Sometimes readers get too pacifistic and the only way to get them to react is to kill someone off that they really care about."

    Um. Do you really think authors ought to be pandering to THOSE readers? I mean, talk about selling out! Cheapen your story so people will read it? This from the person who nearly had me convinced that some fiction was actually worthwhile?

    ANYway, if you DO have something else to say, BRING IT!

    (P.S. I'm reading Brainiac; thanks for the NON-fiction recommendation)

    ReplyDelete
  3. A2: I would maintain that none of your options for him are actually options. He has already imploded, more or less. If he took the midnight to NYC, his dad would just hunt him down and bring him back. Or he could stay stuck in meaninglessness. I think he as a character would agree with you that imploding would be the worst option of all, so suicide looks like the "best" out.

    B2: It's not a moot point if the movie is faithful to the book. But since I've never seen the movie, I obviously can't make a call on that one. Also, in all fairness, it didn't seem like a cheap death when I was 12 or when I was 18. It may perhaps strike me that way now. (Though I doubt it)

    C2: Yes, I figured you anticipated a rise out of me. And I'm always happy to oblige. Points for 'adding paprika to cinnamon french toast.' That got a rather loud 'ha' out of me. And I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree about Snape. Talking strictly in terms of personal reaction, I was just as torn about his character when he died as I was about his character when he was alive. (Rowling was a master at that--giving you all of these excellent reasons to hate Snape and then also providing you with instances where he's just so darn human that all of a sudden you find yourself feeling sympathetic . . . which leads to a significant pause wherein my thought process, at least, is: "Wait. This is Snape. I'm feeling bad for Snape. Does this mean I like Snape? Or that, at the very least, I believe he has some type of moral compass?")

    And I obviously phrased poorly. But I think sometimes in the course of a series, authors realize that the way they are writing is going to lull their readers into a sense of security. And a good author keeps a reader completely involved by not always letting them feel completely secure. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that authors do it for readers who don't care, by any means, but that authors recognize when their readers will start to feel too secure.

    (If I'm not making sense, I may have to dedicate a whole blog to this topic . . . Especially since my comments are epic, anyway)

    (P.S. You're welcome. But it wouldn't kill you to read some more FICTION)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, sad things are usually more powerful then happy things... It's easier to make them more powerful. Easier for the audience to connect, I think.

    You had a problem with the suicide in Poets' Society? Really? Huh... I thought it fit 'cause he had no where else to go. His father thought he was a failer and didn't understand him. Dunno... *reads other comments* Yeah, I agree with confuzzled. ^.^

    As for the rest of it... My brain just fell asleep... I'll have to poke it later.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As my brain is also currently sleeping and that poking it is causing it to emit "gobledygook" or "gpuuhs" (which also happens to be the word verification security check right now) I'm not going to say exactly why, but I agree with Schmetterling on this one. The phrase "yes, but not this way" comes to mind... and it's too bad that nobody but schmetterling will have a clue to what I mean by that. Not explaining.

    -Schlange

    ReplyDelete
  6. Confuzzled:

    A. Well, I think I'll drop this point. Not because you've convinced me but because I doubt my ability to convince you.

    B. So it is a moot point because neither of us can vouch for the relationship between the book and movie. However, you'll be happy to know that I met a nice guy who emphatically disagreed with my sentiment, which I suppose means a point for you. Nevertheless I still think that an unexpected death was a bit too intense for the surrounding story (though this guy I was talking to seemed honestly offended that I thought her moving away would have been better; "No," he said, "she HAD to die."

    C. I admit that Rowling did a pretty good job of keeping me conflicted in regards to Snape, but I still feel that the killing Dumbledore thing was a bit much. Here again, though, I doubt very much that either of us will concede to the other.

    D(?). Okay, THAT makes more sense. But I'll pretend not to understand, if that'll give you something to blog about. ;)

    E(?). I dunno--it MIGHT....

    --

    Fei-chan:

    Et tu? Okay, whatever. You girls--all the same.... (I kid!)

    Oh. And don't poke your brain TOO hard; I hear that's a bad idea.

    --

    Schlange:

    That's AWESOME! I never thought to relate that talk to writing fiction! That's BRILLIANT! I'm TOTALLY going to go reread it with that in mind!

    --

    Everybody:

    Just so you don't think, what with this happy-go-lucky kick and all, that I'm opposed to death in fiction now, I want you to note that I still love Jakob the Liar, and I STILL think Iron Man should have died.

    And, because Schlange merely quoted THE BEST TALK EH-VER without actually citing it, I give it to you here:

    The Inconvenient Messiah by Jeffrey R. Holland.

    ReplyDelete
  7. .

    Hhhhhhhhh.

    I was all set up to agree with you and I was going to submit Jonathan Safran Foer as a particularly egregious sinner, but now I think you're out of your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wait, what? What 'd I do? Was it something I said? (seems likely)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thhhhhp! ;P

    Yeah well, first I have to find it... then I'll poke it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This should probably be required reading for anyone wanting to write a fantasy novel. Plus, it spends half the article basically ragging on the Dragonlance and Wheel of Time books, and that makes it hilarious.

    C'mon, can you blame us in high school? Look at what was coming out: Harry Potter, and the Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean movies. We were being completely inundated with the fantasy stuff.

    And if you really want to see death and the "anyone can die" rule overdone, read anything by Melanie Rawn. No more than 1/4 of her main characters make it through a trilogy. Plus, any named character ever mentioned is probably going to come back as a main character in a later book only to be killed off.

    ReplyDelete