Jack M. Bickham, Scene & Structure, Chapter 10: Problems and how to fix them
1. Too many people in a scene. A scene normally needs two people, one to want something and the other to stop them getting it. If you have more than two, find a way to shut the others up for a while or send them away, and the scene will be more intense.
2. Circularity of argument. Plan the strategies of both parties ahead of time. Keep the protagonist focussed on (and restating) the scene goal, and they can argue about other, related issues without getting off track (problem 4) or forgetting the goal and not answering the scene question (problem 7).
3. Unwanted interruptions. Only allow interruptions with a purpose, not for “realism”.
5. Inadvertent summary. Show, don’t tell. If part of the scene is boring, start later.
6. Loss of viewpoint. Don’t head-hop, and make sure your viewpoint character experiences something every so often and internalises about stimuli.
8. & 9. Unmotivated opposition and illogical disagreement. The antagonist should want something too.
10. Unfair odds. Don’t make the antagonist so powerful that the protag has no reasonable chance of winning.
11. Overblown internalisations (a risk of romance fiction). Keep things happening.
12. Not enough at stake. Make sure scene goals are important.
13. Inadvertent red herrings. Don’t mention something and then fail to develop it.
14. Contrived disasters. The disaster should be unanticipated, but flow logically out of the scene.
#sceneandstructure
I dislike 1 with a passion. It’s a top way to cripple characterization and ruin interesting fights and debates. A good author can write in a lot more than two active characters in a scene–and ramp up the tension. But it takes skill to be able to write in more than two characters…
Sure, it’s easier to write in two only, but it’s lazy and doesn’t mean you’re going to end up with a stronger story. I find the opposite is true. Most of my favorite scenes involve 3-5 characters–sometimes more. Active characters, not just window dressings.
I dislike 1 with a passion. It’s a top way to cripple characterization and ruin interesting fights and debates. A good author can write in a lot more than two active characters in a scene–and ramp up the tension. But it takes skill to be able to write in more than two characters…
Sure, it’s easier to write in two only, but it’s lazy and doesn’t mean you’re going to end up with a stronger story. I find the opposite is true. Most of my favorite scenes involve 3-5 characters–sometimes more. Active characters, not just window dressings.
Yes, I found that one surprising, too. I often have more than two characters. I think I see his point about head-to-head intensity, but is that always what you want?
Yes, I found that one surprising, too. I often have more than two characters. I think I see his point about head-to-head intensity, but is that always what you want?
Mike Reeves-McMillan I can think of so many scenes that are more intense because of the presence — active presence — of others. I think it’s a slackass suggestion for those who want to be lazy when they write.
It’s only a problem when the author is too lazy to really make a scene–and the characters within those scenes–vibrant.
If your characterization sucks, yeah, head-to-head scenes with 2 actors is easier and ‘more intense.’
But it’s only good that way if you lack the skills to pull off more dynamic and fleshed-out scenes.
Mike Reeves-McMillan I can think of so many scenes that are more intense because of the presence — active presence — of others. I think it’s a slackass suggestion for those who want to be lazy when they write.
It’s only a problem when the author is too lazy to really make a scene–and the characters within those scenes–vibrant.
If your characterization sucks, yeah, head-to-head scenes with 2 actors is easier and ‘more intense.’
But it’s only good that way if you lack the skills to pull off more dynamic and fleshed-out scenes.
Mike Reeves-McMillan “Is that always what you want” is exactly the question. I find myself reacting that way to just about all of the quotes you’ve presented from this particular guide.
Mike Reeves-McMillan “Is that always what you want” is exactly the question. I find myself reacting that way to just about all of the quotes you’ve presented from this particular guide.
Yes, Brian Rush, he’s primarily a thriller writer, and that’s what the advice is optimised for. Still, if you know that, you can pick and choose.
Yes, Brian Rush, he’s primarily a thriller writer, and that’s what the advice is optimised for. Still, if you know that, you can pick and choose.