![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, while I was, uh, diligently alphabetizing all the drop files from the past 10 years at work today, I came across this awesome article about plotting in SFF novels. In conclusion: IT'S FUNNY 'CAUSE IT'S TRUE. All literary criticism should be this hilarious and astute. And also bash The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever if possible.
I especially like that this was written over 20 years ago but is still widely applicable, because there's no reason a trope that had been going strong for AT LEAST 30 years when this was written (dating from the publication of LoTR) shouldn't let another two decades get in the way. For example, replacing "the Force" with "the Plot" works just as well in the Star Wars Prequel trilogy:
MACE WINDU: You refer to the prophecy of The One who will bring balance to the Plot. You believe it's this boy?
COUNT DOOKU: It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the Plot... but by our skills with a lightsaber.
PALPATINE: Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Plot to influence the midichlorians to create life...
Or take Harry Potter (please! ::ba-dump chh::). The plot of each book is pretty much determined by 1) the space of one year and 2) Harry interacting with the [Noun of Noun] bit of the title. Observe:
1. Harry learns about, finds, and protects the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone
2. Harry learns about, finds, and defeats the monster(s) in the Chamber of Secrets
3. Harry learns about, finds, and (eventually) protects the Prisoner of Azkaban
4. Harry gets attacked by Voldemort's ridiculously overcomplicated plot to destroy him, starting with the Goblet of Fire
5. Harry learns about, imitates, and eventually joins the Order of the Phoenix
6. Harry (and the reader) tries to figure out what's up with the Half-Blood Prince
7. Harry learns about the Deathly Hallows and uses this knowledge to defeat Voldemort
Obviously there's a certain amount of "NO KIDDING" with these summaries (since, you know, titles SHOULD generally reflect what's going on in the book) but my point is that the [noun of noun] bit, particularly in the first three books, is what starts the plot, keeps it going, and then wraps it neatly up in the end, barring the series-long plot threads. Conveniently, the more complicated relation of the [noun of noun] title to the plot also fits the more complicated view of the world Harry develops in the last four books.
However, the presence of these kinds of plotting isn't necessarily BAD (despite all the mentions of crap). After all, it's popular because it WORKS. Readers usually like fiction to wrap up neatly, and Chekhov's gun (or whatever) to be governed by rules, but they also like to be surprised. Plot coupons, plot vouchers, and dei ex machina et al. are ways to deliver the conventions readers expect; they're just more obvious in SFF because it's cooler when they're played by killer robots and magic swords. In the end, they're just a tool, and a good writer can use them well and a bad writer will still be bad even if s/he avoids them.
I especially like that this was written over 20 years ago but is still widely applicable, because there's no reason a trope that had been going strong for AT LEAST 30 years when this was written (dating from the publication of LoTR) shouldn't let another two decades get in the way. For example, replacing "the Force" with "the Plot" works just as well in the Star Wars Prequel trilogy:
MACE WINDU: You refer to the prophecy of The One who will bring balance to the Plot. You believe it's this boy?
COUNT DOOKU: It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the Plot... but by our skills with a lightsaber.
PALPATINE: Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Plot to influence the midichlorians to create life...
Or take Harry Potter (please! ::ba-dump chh::). The plot of each book is pretty much determined by 1) the space of one year and 2) Harry interacting with the [Noun of Noun] bit of the title. Observe:
1. Harry learns about, finds, and protects the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone
2. Harry learns about, finds, and defeats the monster(s) in the Chamber of Secrets
3. Harry learns about, finds, and (eventually) protects the Prisoner of Azkaban
4. Harry gets attacked by Voldemort's ridiculously overcomplicated plot to destroy him, starting with the Goblet of Fire
5. Harry learns about, imitates, and eventually joins the Order of the Phoenix
6. Harry (and the reader) tries to figure out what's up with the Half-Blood Prince
7. Harry learns about the Deathly Hallows and uses this knowledge to defeat Voldemort
Obviously there's a certain amount of "NO KIDDING" with these summaries (since, you know, titles SHOULD generally reflect what's going on in the book) but my point is that the [noun of noun] bit, particularly in the first three books, is what starts the plot, keeps it going, and then wraps it neatly up in the end, barring the series-long plot threads. Conveniently, the more complicated relation of the [noun of noun] title to the plot also fits the more complicated view of the world Harry develops in the last four books.
However, the presence of these kinds of plotting isn't necessarily BAD (despite all the mentions of crap). After all, it's popular because it WORKS. Readers usually like fiction to wrap up neatly, and Chekhov's gun (or whatever) to be governed by rules, but they also like to be surprised. Plot coupons, plot vouchers, and dei ex machina et al. are ways to deliver the conventions readers expect; they're just more obvious in SFF because it's cooler when they're played by killer robots and magic swords. In the end, they're just a tool, and a good writer can use them well and a bad writer will still be bad even if s/he avoids them.