Lessons from "Lost" -- Some Spoilers

Steve 211 · Sep 29, 2005

I’d like to propose a thread on the writing techniques used in the series "Lost." It just won Best Drama, has a loyal following, and there’s no less than six series attempting to copy it this season. The reason is the writing – the dramatic telling of situations similar to thriller, fantasy, and mystery novels.

This thread will not be about the characters or what’s going to happen next – there’s plenty of other forums for that. This is about the techniques used in the scripts that we can learn from.

So, if you’re interested, here’s my thoughts on the best writing lesson from the first episode.

SPOILERS WARNING - the events of the show will be laid out, so if you haven't seen the show yet, or want to save it for watching on DVD later on - please don't read on.

Second Season - Episode #1 – Man of Science, Man of Faith

Last season it all ended on a cliffhanger, with them blowing the hatch. That was the mystery – what’s in it? I thought they’d spin out the mystery through half the season, with them exploring one part of the bunker, with another part blocked off.

But what did they do but show you, in the very opening scene, exactly what’s in that bunker. They did it in a clever way, where you didn’t know it was the bunker till the explosion, but still, they revealed the mystery.

So the question is, as writers, what did they gain and lose from this?

They lost the mystery, and yet it didn’t take away any of the dread of Kate going down the hatch. She didn’t know what was down there, and we felt her panic when she saw the light moving below.

If we didn’t know what was in the hatch, and Kate saw the light and was suddenly pulled down and disappeared, we would’ve thought it was monsters or something. Wouldn’t have enjoyed it because of our fear. The burden of dread. Of needing to know.

But once we were told what’s down there, we could enjoy the show. As when Jack sneaks along, gun drawn, and that Mama Cass song starts playing – totally surreal. If we didn’t know the guy in the bunker was playing it earlier as working out, it would’ve been too weird. But now we could enjoy Jack being confused by it all simply because we know what he doesn’t.

So is there a name for this technique? And how would you use it? The show started with Desmond’s point of view, and nearly all the rest was from Jack and Kate’s point of view. Multiple third-person would seem a must, unless one uses a prologue.

In fact, Sagan’s "Contact" uses this with little prologues to each chapter, describing what the alien transmitter is doing even as the characters aren’t aware the signal is coming or what it means. It amps up the drama 'cause we know what's out there.

Steve 211 · Sep 29, 2005

Episode #2 – Adrift

Again - MAJOR SPOILERS WARNING.

Last season, when we left the men on the raft at night, Michael was in the water, calling for his kidnapped son, Sawyer was shot, and Jin had jumped in to save Sawyer.

I wondered how they’d begin tonight’s show, starting from that point, and all I saw was the three of them sitting on the wreckage of the raft, waiting for dawn and hoping they’d drift back to the island.

Not very dramatic, is it? The show’s writers, though, knew better. I forget who said it, but one writer described plotting as getting your main character up a tree and throwing rocks at him. So they started throwing rocks.

First, Michael goes under and drowns, and Sawyer has to drag him onto the raft and give him CPR. Jin isn’t found at all.

Second, the writers literally put the characters onto thin ice by having them on just a small part of the raft, and it’s falling apart.

Third, the characters have just gone through a wrenching experience, and the writers let them vent their feelings – Michael yells and yells for his son, and along with loss comes blame, and so he starts to take it out on Sawyer.

And then bam – just as they’re arguing, something hits them from beneath – a huge shark.

They argue more, Sawyer swims to another piece of raft just to get away from Michael, it falls apart on him, and just before he attempts to swim to a larger piece, he gives the gun to Michael, bonding them as he counts on him to watch his back. The shark chases, the gun doesn’t fire, Sawyer goes under...

Finally, the show ends with the two them drifting on the raft, at dawn, with the island in view – exactly where I, and any other lame writer, would’ve started.

So that’s the lesson for this show – doesn’t matter how far down your characters are – start throwing rocks at them. Amp up the emotions, get some conflict going, pull out the ground from under their feet, add an oposing force, and finally they’ll join together and make it through in a gripping and enjoyable novel.

brokenfingers · Sep 29, 2005

Hello,

I don't watch TV and have never seen Lost but it sounds to me like the technique you're describing in your first post is dramatic irony, a very effective technique many authors - especially thriller and horror authors - use often to heighten reader suspense.

three seven · Sep 29, 2005

You might want to put a nice big SPOILER WARNING across the top of this thread. I don't know about all the other countries our members come from, but the UK is certainly only halfway through the first series.

maestrowork · Sep 29, 2005

brokenfingers said:
Hello,

I don't watch TV and have never seen Lost but it sounds to me like the technique you're describing in your first post is dramatic irony, a very effective technique many authors - especially thriller and horror authors - use often to heighten reader suspense.

A thriller show like Lost or 24 (both has excellent writing) does employ these standard techniques to hook you -- dramatic irony, cliffhangers, flashbacks, foreshadows, bizarre plot twists, etc. to heighten anticipation. Is that good writing. You bet, especially for those particular genres.

Don't forget, though, that for thrillers, editing/direction has a lot to do with the excitement and nail-biting quality of these shows. They have to know when to cut away (and for how long) or intercut to show tension...

Much of the other popular shows such as CSI root in their formulas. Soap operas like ER or Desperate Housewives rely on their characters. But they all have pretty good writing.

Maybe we can start related threads about what makes the writing of these shows great. My personal favorite, Six Feet Under, has just gone off the air, but by far I think it had one of the best writing in show biz and may even sweep the Emmys next year.

willietheshakes · Sep 29, 2005

maestrowork said:
A thriller show like Lost or 24 (both has excellent writing)

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like "24 has excellent writing". Sure, there's some good stuff there, some genuine suspense, some surprisingly moving scenes, but a lot of it is dreck. They had an amnesia subplot for several episodes in the first season, for cripes sake.

Too often, what we see with 24 is the television equivalent of a first draft. Writing to the demands of a weekly schedule, the writers lack the luxury of substantive revision. Additionally, the format of the series is such that too often the writing is forced to conform to hyper-paced beats -- it ends up turning into the Perils of Pauline...

I'm not saying there aren't lessons there, but they're not all good ones...

maestrowork · Sep 29, 2005

willietheshakes said:
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like "24 has excellent writing". Sure, there's some good stuff there, some genuine suspense, some surprisingly moving scenes, but a lot of it is dreck. They had an amnesia subplot for several episodes in the first season, for cripes sake.

Too often, what we see with 24 is the television equivalent of a first draft. Writing to the demands of a weekly schedule, the writers lack the luxury of substantive revision. Additionally, the format of the series is such that too often the writing is forced to conform to hyper-paced beats -- it ends up turning into the Perils of Pauline...

I'm not saying there aren't lessons there, but they're not all good ones...

I do think it's a matter of opinions, though. I mean 24 keeps people up all night. It keeps them at the edge of their seats. And it's been nominated for the Emmys since season one. There has to be some merits in its writing. Whether you like the show or not, I think it's fair to say that the writing is above the cut as far as that genre is concerned.

Obviously, nothing is going to beat Six Feet Under.

Alan Ball is a genius.

scarletpeaches · Sep 29, 2005

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Somebody blind me!!!

I didn't read any of it (just skipped over) but please, spoiler warnings!!!

brinkett · Sep 29, 2005

maestrowork said:
There has to be some merits in its writing. Whether you like the show or not, I think it's fair to say that the writing is above the cut as far as that genre is concerned.

It's great as long as you don't think about it too much--if you do, you realize how implausible most of it is, and that means the writing isn't all that great, IMO (yes, it's subjective). I don't know of anyone 24 has kept up all night, and I know quite a number of avid 24 watchers.

maestrowork · Sep 29, 2005

brinkett said:
It's great as long as you don't think about it too much--if you do, you realize how implausible most of it is, and that means the writing isn't all that great...

That pretty much describes most thrillers.

Like I said, it's good writing as far as thrillers are concerned -- it does what it does: it thrills.

brinkett · Sep 29, 2005

maestrowork said:
That pretty much describes most thrillers. Like I said, it's good writing as far as thrillers are concerned -- it does what it does: it thrills.

Yes, that's true, the writing is standard thriller fare. I'm not sure I'd say the writing is superior, though, compared to other thrillers.

victoriastrauss · Sep 29, 2005

I'm a big fan of Lost. I watch it faithfully, and have fun talking and speculating about it with a friend who's also a fan.

I think one of the show's strengths is the characterizations, which are multi-layered and consistent--but that's due as much to the actors, I think, as to the writers. And yeah, it's suspenseful and intriguing and sometimes creepy and sometimes even true to life, as in the characters' flashbacks. As to plot, though...I am absolutely sure that the writers don't have a clue about where it's all going, and are making it up as they go along. My friend thinks there's more to it than that, and I'm willing to admit that maybe they do have a basic concept they're working from. But if so, I suspect that it's a grain of concept and a bushel of improv. One thing is for sure: the show's popularity has given the writers a license to bamboozle and mystify the audience indefinitely, so I don't expect to see any major mysteries resolved anytime soon.

I also thought the first two episodes of the new season were a cheat. In order to have the premiere episode end on a jaw-dropping moment (and who was surprised about the identity of the guy with the gun? I sure wasn't--the minute he appeared in a flashback, I knew we were going to see him again soon), they skipped a whole lot of story, which they then had to go back and fill in in the next episode. That's not good writing, IMO--it's cheesy audience manipulation. I was really irritated last night when I realized it was all going to be backstory. I hope there isn't going to be too much of that.

I also hope the show doesn't wind up like X-Files, which got so tangled up in paranoid speculation that things would have been almost impossible to resolve, and then petered out on a hasty cobbled-up conclusion without even trying to wrap things up.

- Victoria

maestrowork · Sep 29, 2005

I know people (intelligent people) who rave about these shows. "Oh, oh, can you believe what happened on Lost? I can't believe that" or "Oh, I can't believe the president's wife is the killer. I didn't see it coming, but now it all makes sense." I guess when you have people sitting around the water cooler (pun intended) talking about these shows, they must be doing something right. Something thrilling with characters you can care about... They don't have to be Shakespeare (if you want some Shakespearean stuff that is profane and profound, try Deadwood). There are so much drab out there in TV land.

I for one am glad that scripted shows like these are coming back with a vengeance. As writers, we should be happy to see this trend. I'm so sick and tired of stupid, mean-spirited reality TV. The only one I sometimes watch is the Amazing Race. That's it. All the other ones just dumb down Americans, IMHO.

willietheshakes · Sep 29, 2005

maestrowork said:
I do think it's a matter of opinions, though.

Well of course it is.

maestrowork said:
I mean 24 keeps people up all night. It keeps them at the edge of their seats. And it's been nominated for the Emmys since season one. There has to be some merits in its writing. Whether you like the show or not, I think it's fair to say that the writing is above the cut as far as that genre is concerned.

You didn't say 'above the cut' -- you said excellent. I like the show, but I did think that saying the writing on 24 was excellent was perhaps overstating the case, and overlooking a lot of ... well, dreck.

Remember, people watch and talk about a lot of things -- popular appeal isn't a measure of quality of the work. Saturday Night Live remains popular and talked-about, despite the fact that it's 99% crap these days.

It's back to the Da Vinci Code again -- yes, it gets the job done. It sells millions of copies, etc, etc. But it's not 'excellent writing' -- it gets the job done.

Mike Martyn · Sep 29, 2005

willietheshakes said:
Well of course it is.

You didn't say 'above the cut' -- you said excellent. I like the show, but I did think that saying the writing on 24 was excellent was perhaps overstating the case, and overlooking a lot of ... well, dreck.

Remember, people watch and talk about a lot of things -- popular appeal isn't a measure of quality of the work. Saturday Night Live remains popular and talked-about, despite the fact that it's 99% crap these days.

It's back to the Da Vinci Code again -- yes, it gets the job done. It sells millions of copies, etc, etc. But it's not 'excellent writing' -- it gets the job done.

A recent poll of readers (7000 in the sample) puts Da Vinci Code first in the best 100 books of all time followed by Jane Austen's stuff, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and all the Harry Potter books in the top ten.

A similar poll of critics put James Joyce's Ullysses as best book of all time. (try reading that book, I dare you!)

So the question is this. Are we writing for readers or critics? I venture to say that we're writing for readers but we're acting like a bunch of critics.

As for me, I plan to read the da Vinci Code as well as the Harry Potter stuff even if I have to take anti nausea medication.

They must be doing something right.

willietheshakes · Sep 29, 2005

Mike Martyn said:
A recent poll of readers (7000 in the sample) puts Da Vinci Code first in the best 100 books of all time followed by Jane Austen's stuff, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and all the Harry Potter books in the top ten.

A similar poll of critics put James Joyce's Ullysses as best book of all time. (try reading that book, I dare you!)

So the question is this. Are we writing for readers or critics? I venture to say that we're writing for readers but we're acting like a bunch of critics.

As for me, I plan to read the da Vinci Code as well as the Harry Potter stuff even if I have to take anti nausea medication.

They must be doing something right.

I believe this conversation has been going on here for a while, and there's no real way out of it. Yes, DVC sells a lot of books. It appeals to readers. That's unquestionable. It's also a crappy book -- poorly written, poor characterization, more chunky exposition than is healthy, etc, etc. As a writer, I want to emulate its sales, not its style...

It's dangerous, I think, to generalize about the writers on this board. Yes, I write for my readers, but I also think like a critic (and do quite well with that on a freelance basis, thanks very much). In my mind, these two things are not irreconcilable, as you seem to view them. Isn't it better, for example, to provide your reader with a well-written book (one which will survive re-reading), rather than providing them with something that skates over its shortcomings with cheap theatrics (ie, DVC's cliffhangers to close every chapter)?

<shrug>

It might be different for you, but I want to provide the best book I am able for my readers, and see no reason to merely get by in hopes of becoming appealing...

As to Ulysses -- I love it. Have read it several times.

PattiTheWicked · Sep 29, 2005

victoriastrauss said:
I also thought the first two episodes of the new season were a cheat. In order to have the premiere episode end on a jaw-dropping moment (and who was surprised about the identity of the guy with the gun? I sure wasn't--the minute he appeared in a flashback, I knew we were going to see him again soon), they skipped a whole lot of story, which they then had to go back and fill in in the next episode. That's not good writing, IMO--it's cheesy audience manipulation. I was really irritated last night when I realized it was all going to be backstory. I hope there isn't going to be too much of that.

Yeah, I felt like last night's episode was a rip-off, at least as far as the hatch was concerned. I was like, "HEY!! Y'all did that LAST week!" I did enjoy the interplay between Sawyer and Michael on the raft, tho, I thought that was really well done. I really beleive the success of the show is due in part to the writers, but also to the skill in the delivery by some of the actors. Maggie Grace (a fellow Buckeye), who plays Shannon, could have let her character be shallow and one-dimensional, EASILY. However, she's not, and Shannon has actually turned out to have significantly more depth than anyone ever thought she would. Same with Hurley -- could have just been the funny fat guy, but he's actually turned out to be really interesting, with many layers.

If they want to keep me REALLY happy, more scenes with Josh Holloway's shirt off should do the trick.

Fishmonkey · Sep 29, 2005

willietheshakes said:
It's dangerous, I think, to generalize about the writers on this board.

I would also suggest that it is dangerous to generalize about the readers -- they are not created equal. The truth of the matter is, bestsellers are created by people who don't read a whole lot -- that is, they are bestsellers precisely because they appeal to the millions that don't have a habit of daily reading. These are the folks who overlook lacking characterization, sentences that are painful, and general inconsistency that made my teeth hurt half a page in.

There are also other readers -- who read a lot, who like language, and who pay attention to more than mere action. They maybe not the majority that propels a book into the bestselling rank, but they do exist. If I write for this minority, I'm still writing for readers -- just different kind of readers.

Of course, there are many different reader categories, but I'm only mentioning two to make a point.

Another issue: I was a bit puzzled by the fact that TV shows are discussed in the novel thread. Not that I don't love me a show or two, but writing for TV and movies is very different from writing books. Then it occurred to me that many bestsellers, such as DVC, read as bad screenplays. They have the same cinematic feel -- a guy on all fours, turns around to see a silhouette, then cut to the closeup of the villain who's an albino, etc etc. It might be a reason such books resonate with wide audience -- it reads like a movie. But there are still those of us who prefer our books to read like books. Readers and writers.

my 2 c.

Jamesaritchie · Sep 29, 2005

Lost

I'm not a huge fan of Lost, or of 24, but the rest of my family loves both, so I've sat through a number of episodes. The two places where I see the writing doing great things is in building tension though mystery, and then leaving the viewer hanging just the right amount of time, and in the dialogue. Lost, in particular, has incredibly good dialogue.

Dialogue is tough. Having a character say just the right thing at just the right time may be teh hardest part of writing. I don't care how good the rest of the show is, lousy dialogue will ruin it all. Whatever else Lost has, the dialogue is about as good as it gets.

victoriastrauss · Sep 29, 2005

Mike Martyn said:
A recent poll of readers (7000 in the sample) puts Da Vinci Code first in the best 100 books of all time

Wow. That's almost as depressing as the glut of reality shows.

- Victoria

Greer · Sep 29, 2005

Mike Martyn said:
A recent poll of readers (7000 in the sample) puts Da Vinci Code first in the best 100 books of all time followed by Jane Austen's stuff, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and all the Harry Potter books in the top ten.

Of course it does. All of those books (even Jane Austen's) are very much in the popular mind because of recent publication or film adaptations. It's like asking my eight-year-old cousin what the greatest movie is right after he comes out of the theater. It's whatever he just watched.

Ten years from now poll the same 7,000 people and their answers will all be totally different, reflecting whatever the airport bookstores are displaying at that particular time, or what books Hollywood has chosen to spend hundreds of millions putting on the big screen.

Jamesaritchie · Sep 29, 2005

Da

Mike Martyn said:
A recent poll of readers (7000 in the sample) puts Da Vinci Code first in the best 100 books of all time followed by Jane Austen's stuff, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and all the Harry Potter books in the top ten.

A similar poll of critics put James Joyce's Ullysses as best book of all time. (try reading that book, I dare you!)

So the question is this. Are we writing for readers or critics? I venture to say that we're writing for readers but we're acting like a bunch of critics.

As for me, I plan to read the da Vinci Code as well as the Harry Potter stuff even if I have to take anti nausea medication.

They must be doing something right.

I don't think Code is as bad as Victoria does, but it isn't great. It isn't even very good. The writing is, at best, competent, and there are numerous other problems. But it does have a story that interests millions, and that's what makes books sell well.

But that anyone would consider it as one of the best books of all time is frightening, and speaks volumes about the current generation of readers. I'd like to have its sales, but I'm not sure I want any of its fans.

sassandgroove · Sep 29, 2005

I wasn't annoyed with the writing when I realized they were going back in the second episode. I saw it as an editing choice; they wanted to end last week on the cliff hanger of Jack and Desmond at gunpoint and John inbetween. I think it was interesting to then see how John and Kate got to that point, plus it showed that it was simultaneous with the guys on the raft, which they didn't show any of last week.

And yeah, you can say that is audience manipulation, but it is a series, and they do need to get you to want to watch next week. That is the point.

Is anybody else freaked out that Jack met Desmond before hand? I only started watching because of my husband, but man the curiosity of it all....

Mike Martyn · Sep 29, 2005

willietheshakes said:
I believe this conversation has been going on here for a while, and there's no real way out of it. Yes, DVC sells a lot of books. It appeals to readers. That's unquestionable. It's also a crappy book -- poorly written, poor characterization, more chunky exposition than is healthy, etc, etc. As a writer, I want to emulate its sales, not its style...

>>>You have the advantage of me there. As I've said, I have yet to read the book.<<<

It's dangerous, I think, to generalize about the writers on this board. Yes, I write for my readers, but I also think like a critic (and do quite well with that on a freelance basis, thanks very much).

>>>Your welcome.<<<

In my mind, these two things are not irreconcilable, as you seem to view them.

>>>> With respect, I don't consider them irreconcilable. It was merely an observation on my part as to comments in this forum. We have to look at our own work with a critical eye after all. As for generalisations, just as with sterotypes, they are after all a first order approximation of reality. <<<<

Isn't it better, for example, to provide your reader with a well-written book (one which will survive re-reading), rather than providing them with something that skates over its shortcomings with cheap theatrics (ie, DVC's cliffhangers to close every chapter)?

<shrug>

>>> I cannot but agree with your rhetorical question.<<<

It might be different for you, but I want to provide the best book I am able for my readers, and see no reason to merely get by in hopes of becoming appealing...

>>> My muse, for want of a better word, wouldn't let me off with anything less than the best I can do. I can't fake it. <<<

As to Ulysses -- I love it. Have read it several times.

>>>Well, you have me there. Evidently I have low brow tastes although I admit to having read and enjoyed Portrait of The Author As a Young man when I was the same age as its teenage protagonist. That was more than fourty years ago during my short lived literary phase.

<<<<

Steve 211 · Sep 29, 2005

First, big apologies to scarletpeaches and everyone else who read on without having seen the episodes first. I never would've wanted to take away the drama from anyone. So thanks to the Moderator who put up the warning, and I added a couple of my own.

brokenfingers – Thanks for the tip on dramatic irony. I'll read up on it.

maestro – The editing is indeed key, as well as the music, acting, characters, and dialogue, as James and others pointed out. What I’m looking at, though, is stripping the show to bare bones structure. That no matter what situation or characters, why do these storytelling techniques engage us so?

victoria – You're right - the writers have openly said that they have no clue where it’s all going, and it might indeed fizzle out like other shows. It'll be interesting to see how they can keep it up, and how they might go wrong.

Still, I don’t agree that the second episode was a cheat in that it was all backstory. They had to end the first episode on a cliffhanger, and so they cut out Locke and Kate meeting up with Desmond. By going back to it in the second episode, while very repetitive and frustrating to end on the same cliffhanger note, it was interesting to see the same events told from another point of view. Giving another layer to what’s going on and what might happen next.

fishmonkey – Yeah, this is an odd place to discuss a TV show, but all the other Lost forums are about the characters and trivia, while I simply wanted to discuss the storytelling techniques and how we can learn from them. A popular TV show is a useful example because many have seen it and it doesn’t take two weeks to read it.

Lessons from "Lost" -- Some Spoilers

Here and There

Here and There

Walkin' That Road

(Graeme Cameron)

Fear the Death Ray

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

Fear the Death Ray

Elder Scrolls devotee

Fear the Death Ray

Elder Scrolls devotee

Writer Beware Goddess

Fear the Death Ray

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

Unleashing Hell.

Writer Beware Goddess

Sassy haircut

Here and There