Call it Research: A Movie with Character

So, yesterday I had one of my "crawling out from under the rock I've been living under" days.  For me, that usually means it's the end of a semester and I'm feeling like I'm down to my last few brain cells.  I just want to be entertained!  I could read, but usually I want a movie.  I got lucky and found "The Next Three Days," with Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks.

What a surprise -- in a great way!  I don't think I've watched a movie that had such a complete arc for the hero's journey for some time.  One other example I thought fit this characteristic was "The Firm."  That movie also inspired a blog on Action Scenes where I explored proactive and reactive types of action.

The movie "The Next Three Days"is another hero's journey wrapped up (or rather unwrapped) in an action thriller.

What's New?

As I notice the calendar says November 11 and it's my first blog of the month, I realize I have plenty of options for topics. After all, lots of "really interesting things" have been happening over the past few weeks. Really! They must have been, or why wouldn't I have been here, right? Like...

*a clock ticks away the seconds as I think about interesting past events. I know they happened. Tick...tick...tick...

Wow, ever notice how a clock can sound really loud in a quiet house? Tick...tick...tick...*

Oh, yes, interesting stuff.

*tick...tick...tick...turns on radio to drown out ticking*

Well, stuff did happen. I just can't remember the most interesting "stuff" off the top of my head! Or if I do, it's not as interesting in the remembering. It's kind of like writing a letter (or an email) to a friend you haven't talked with for a while. What do you choose to say to sum up past events that are old news? Maybe you give up on the letter because everything you start to talk about has a certain "you kind of had to be there" distance to it.

Okay, it's a little different for a blog. Here, if I wrote a blog based on "a funny thing happened today" (that actually happened two weeks ago), nobody is going to call me on embellishing the truth. I don't think so anyway! But to make it interesting, I'd have to be acting like it just happened. And if I succeeded in being exceptionally generous, I'd involve the recipient. I'd make it a story about something not just about me, but something the reader also could relate to as something that has or could happen to them.

This brings up an interesting thought. In just about all cases, we want our writing to be immediate and in the moment. But two fleeting things are at play here; both the interest level of the giver and the interest level of the receiver of information. As a giver, we quickly forget or lose interest -- and it shows. And in the recipient's shoes (the one hearing the information), we don't particularly want to hear about what happened weeks, months or years ago to someone else. True, "old news" can be very interesting -- especially if we were there or know the people involved. But generally it's simply not natural to want to hear about old news. People don't typically ask "what's old?" They ask, "what's new?" -- even if what they get is going to be old. But why do they ask what's new? Because they want to be part of the new story -- the current interaction.

This, of course, has a lot of implications for a writer to think about. However, most implications I realize I routinely ignore because this is a writing paradox of sorts; while it's natural to ask what's new, it's also natural to tell what's old. But it's a tendency I think we need to overcome. If it isn't new -- and really, everything is old the second after it happens -- we need to try and make it seem new and proactively give the recipients what they want. That's not so easy. If we accept the premise of natural tendencies, it goes against the grain.

In fiction writing this whole "making old news seem new" situation comes up often in the many decisions necessary for relaying what happened in the past. It also explains a little what the big deal is about using the word "was." I must love that word because I use it so much. Why is that word picked on so much? Possibly, it's because the little culprit tempts you tell a story as if responding to someone who has asked about "old news." I don't know why they'd do that, but I think it would make a difference in the response.

What's old, you ask? Well, I had a play writing exercise in my theatre class. It was about writing a missing scene for the play The Crucible. It was a lot of fun to do and I learned a lot about... *losing steam in my enthusiasm* Sorry, I realize I may have lost your interest there and I'll partly blame that little word "was."

Instead:

What's new, you ask? Oh! I have a fun new writing exercise! It gives you the freedom to write dialogue without worrying about "telling" character actions. You have permission to "tell" and I think it can work as a form of a rough draft blueprint for non-play writing.

I could be off and running with that blog topic, but it's been a while and I'm letting it go. LOL The point is, it's not easy to make the "old" seem new in our writing, but I think we always have to give it a shot.

Do you ever think we're writing at cross purposes with our natural communication tendencies?

(Btw, a not-so-perfect example of this play writing exercise is posted.)

Mission Statement: Make 'em Laugh

Now I admit, I can't tell a joke to save my life. I've heard somewhere that comedy is all in the timing and I have no real life comedic timing. Not much anyway. It's certainly not that I don't have a sense of humor, but it kicks in a half beat too late. Sigh.

But writing comedy is another matter. I love to write humor. I have time to set up the punch line. I have time to create a running thread of humor. Some days, I love it so much that I laugh at my own writing. Yes, I crack myself up! I also work on the theory that if you laugh with a character, you might also cry with a character.

Just as in real life, humor in romantic fiction comes in many forms. Sometimes it's bold. It catches you by surprise and laughter will erupt like a volcano you can't contain. Other times its gentle and subtle, coaxing a smile. In my own writing, I've used both. Let's take a closer look at both forms.

Bold humor. One form of bold humor is "Three Stooges" humor. Physical, slapstick humor elicits laughter as a reflex. You can't help it. Have you ever laughed when someone hit their head? Or worse, the groin shot that is a staple in America's Funniest Videos? Don't feel bad. I do too. (And if you don't...um, awkward moment. *looking sheepish* Sorry!)

(Give me a moment. For some reason, a couple outrageous scenes from the movie SOMETHING ABOUT MARY are playing out in my head.)

Okay, where was I? Oh, yes, bold humor. You see, I wasn't distracted too long. My memory of the movie was a couple of outrageous scenes (can you guess which ones?), but the rest fell flat. One or two slapstick episodes is enough. Too much bold comedy, one scene after another, and they lose their effect. I think this is what an article I read meant about keeping the humor fresh and avoiding slapstick. At first I was like, what? I love slapstick. But I realize what I love about it is the surprise.

What else for bold humor? Eccentric secondary characters. They either delight in shocking us or do so by accident. While I feel the need to limit the eccentricities of the hero or heroine, I believe there are no holds barred on secondary characters. In THE DUKE'S ANGEL, I had a butler with OCD who only stepped on the white tiles of a black and white tiled floor. And he had another odd quirk, such as one the hero witnessed:

Justin ran after Ariana and halted in the foyer. She had moved fast and he tried to decide which way she had ran. He noticed one of the medieval armored knights that decorated the hall was frozen in a position of pointing the way down a corridor.

“Soames?” he asked suspiciously. The knight raised his visor to reveal the old man’s face.

“The young lady looking quite green can be found in theconservatory, your grace.”

Justin took himself off in that direction, calling over his shoulder, ““Take off that armor before you fall over and break your old bones!”

“Precisely what armor is supposed to prevent,” called back Soames.

I did so not only for comedic effect, but to characterize the hero. He tolerated the butler's quirks because Soames had been with the family for years. It was part of the hero's character as a "Guardian" of his household. He took care of the people around him. In a way, the butler was part of the family. However, although an eccentric character might be outrageous, the humor is also subtle in the reaction of the hero.

Subtle humor. As mentioned, a character showing a sense of humor or tolerance for the outrageous is subtle humor. We can also relate to bad days of Murphy's Law when anything that can go wrong does go wrong. This is not slapstick. We're not laughing at the character out of reflex but laughing with them. If the heroine has a broken heel on her shoe looks up at the sky and asks "what else can go wrong?" and gets splashed by a mud puddle we're sympathetic, but still find the situation funny. Or compromising situations with the hero and heroine can be funny. Snowbound in a cabin and have to share a sleeping bag? Even intimacy can be funny. Awkward is funny. Funny can turn to sexy. It's all in the reaction of the character to the situation.

There is also subtle humor in the tone of entire books. I think many true Regency romances excel at subtle humor with light and witty dialogue that bring a smile to the reader's face. There are also many light contemporaries that are true romantic comedies.

Which is it? What about one liners? I admire a quick wit and one liners from many talented writers, but are they subtle humor because the effect is generally a fleeting chuckle of amusement, or bold because they take risks? Like a stand up comic, one liners take a gamble on receiving either a big pay off or groan. Some humor is best left alone if it in any way feels forced. In whichever form, humor must be natural.

If you put a gun to my head and tell me "say something funny" I'd blurt out Groucho Marx's classic line, "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know." Ba ba boom. Come on. How can you not laugh? It's a classic. Not your cup of tea? That's just it. Comedy isn't received the same by everyone. I can pretty much bet an attempt at a one liner in my writing would fall flat with many readers. But thankfully, there are many different forms of humor, and many shades of bold or subtle. And if I lack the quick wit of a comedian, I like to think an open mind to absurdity is the key to writing humor.

12/09/09 Update: Here's another blog that is discussing "What's so funny?" from Jennifer Shirk at Long and Short Romantic Reviews.

What kinds of bold and subtle humor do you enjoy? Do you like to write humor? Which do you find more difficult - - writing humor or the tear jerker scenes? Do you like both comedy and tragedy together?

Mission Statement: Make 'em Cry

Now we’re talking. There are few professions that claim “make ‘em cry” as a goal. And I don’t mean nasty bosses in the corporate world either, although I’ve had a few of those. I’m thinking of creative persons like you and I. Actors and writers. Kind, wonderful people who will get a thrill of a job well done and say a heartfelt thank you if a reader says we made them cry.

I’ve come across a couple of sources that offer advice on this lofty goal. Check out: How to Make Readers Cry in Six Steps I also found timeless advice in the book “How to Write a Romance and Get it Published” by Kathryn Falk, copyright, 1983, 1984, 1989. (Side note: An oldie but a goodie from the publisher of Romantic Times. I’ve been re-reading this one and finding lots of interest. Some information, granted, is more than a bit dated…did you know, in 1989 “micro computers” are becoming popular. Apparently they will allow you to make mistakes faster than a typewriter. LOL And the internet? What internet? But the crafting articles are excellent. I’ll probably quote from this book for a while.) I found this part interesting. Moving the Reader to Tears is Quite an Achievement:

• Pick Your Favorite Tragedy. Death is usually the most common tactic. But grief is also valuable. Other elements that makes a reader reach for the box of Kleenex include: failing relationship with parents, siblings; a companion’s social rejection; an accident leading to disfigurement; mental disease; illness.
• Decide Upon Who Will Suffer in Order to Change. Cruel as it sounds, suffering will make your reader more sympathetic toward the character. You will then get them to share another person’s pain. Even in real life, this gains incredible sympathy, doesn’t it?
• Keep the pain going…Don’t make the pain happen too quickly. Pain today, gone tomorrow, will not evoke a tear. Be sure the pain lingers on and on. (It’s easier for your editor to cut scenes than to ask you to pad it.) [<--not a="" agent.="" agree="" an="" assuming="" back="" be="" before="" being="" considered="" different="" easier="" editor="" elusive="" first="" fix="" have="" i="" if="" is="" it="" li="" more="" novel.="" obtain="" perhaps="" relationship="" s="" submission.="" sure="" the="" then="" things="" think="" this.="" this="" timing="" to="" up="" was="" were="" with="" you="">
• The longer your character suffers, the longer the readers will sympathize. And then the tears will come. BUT ONLY IF YOU WRING IT OUT OF THE READER. So, no quick tragedies!
• Add the Teary Scene AFTER the Story is Strongly Constructed. Many writers put the “tear jerker” scene in AFTER they write the book. That way, motivation to reach for the Kleenex is clearly motivated; it comes on top of a naturally good story. A teary scene ALONE doth not make a book.

On what makes me cry, I hate to admit it, but a lot more movies come to mind than books. Or the great, tear jerker scenes in books have been made into a movie and that's what I remember. In fiction, I have to think longer, but the floodgates will open. I have cried at near death scenes where all seemed lost (some Kleypas books come to mind) and at a sacrafice in Penelope Williamson's Once in a Blue Moon. I've cried at the pain felt by an abused heroine or the pain felt by either the hero or heroine who believed he/she was unworthy.

I do know that a character crying doesn’t necessarily make me cry. It might make me laugh…and if not intended, that’s not good! I will, however, enjoy well crafted humor (perhaps dark humor) mixed with tragedy. My favorite example (admittedly, it’s been a while since I read the book and I’m going off of the vivid memory of PBS’s Masterpiece Theatre) is JANE EYRE. I love this story passionately. Also in “How to Write a Romance,” an essay by Violet Winspear says it much better than I can. She is referring more to the sensual nature of JANE EYRE, but it also, in my opinion, applies to why it is a tear jerker: JANE EYRE is one of the most passionate of romance novels; it throbs with the sensuality of a woman’s growing love for a man; there is a deep longing of the lonely heart in its every line. In all the true heroes and heroines of romance, there is a loneliness that speaks for all of us. There is this reaching out for love…for just one person in the world to love with every beat of the heart…

Yes, that will make me cry.

I'd have to add "lonlieness" to my list of elements of a tear jerker, but just doing so emphasizes that it is not a fast process to evoke tears. It is not death itself, but what it means; the grief of losing and being alone.

One thing that I know I’ll try is Add the Teary Scene AFTER the Story is Strongly Constructed. I have several areas in mind that might be padded in revision. I completely agree that I think a strong foundation is needed before adding the Teary Scene.

You too can make the reader cry if you work at it. Take the time to build something worth crying over, then make it better. Sooth the hurts. The HEA might also make the reader cry.

What makes you cry in a romance (movie or fiction)? Is "make 'em cry" one of your goals as a writer?