Need film examples to help show my screenwriting prof. that he's making a huge generalization

I was just thinking about this earlier today. Good coincidences are "bad" because they give a character an easy way out. The writer doesn't have to come up with a more interesting solution and the character doesn't have to grow or show heroic qualities or whatever because the problem is solved by fortune.

However, I think the exception to the "good coincidences are bad" rule is the inciting incident. It isn't really an exception, of course, because that "good" thing still sets a story in motion, and a story comes from complications.

For instance, if your character is battling money problems through the whole story and all of them are solved at the end by winning the lottery - BAD.

Your character is battling money problems at the beginning of the story and suddenly he wins the lottery and THINKS his problems are over, but actually that was the inciting incident for a whole different set of complications and challenges. I see no problem there.

As to your question, the non-romance example that comes to mind right away is Slumdog Millionaire, in which the coincidences are part of the fabric of the story and take on an almost magical quality.

The Goonies: coincidentally the treasure map and other treasure-finding necessary paraphernalia are in Mikey's attic.

Star Wars Ep IV: a princess sends two robot messengers to seek help against an evil space dictator, and coincidentally said robot messengers happen to be purchased by said evil space dictator's kid/said princess's damn twin/the only guy capable of defeating him.

First one that popped into my head is "You've got Mail" but now I can't decide if that was a good coincidence or a bad one. Probably a bad one. I can think of all kinds of ones in animes but I will keep thinking on more main stream ones, the above examples are certainly good ones.

ETA: Just thought of one. It's actually in a movie I quite detested (not much of a romance fan with few exceptions) An Affair to Remember. The woman who he delivers the painting to happens to be the girl who never met him on top of the tower because she got paralyzed.

Well, a lot of romantic films are based on good coincidences. If in Brief Encounter, Laura hadn't got that piece of grit in her eye, she would never have met Alec, who happened to be a doctor.

In romantic films and some comedies, good coincidences are widely used because these films aren't supposed to be depictions of real life. They are escapist fantasies. It all depends on how unlikely the coincidence is.

KarlaErikaCal said:

So are there more film examples where a fortuitous coincidence worked well for the film? Romance or non-romance ones, but non-romance ones especially because my prof. isn't a huge fan of rom-coms.

If anyone can help, I'll really appreciate it!

Click to expand...

Hitchcock films especially swarmed with fortuitous coincidences - or maybe not so fortuitous - and we're talking film legend, right? We even invented a word - Hitchcockian - to describe his imprint on film print.

North by Northwest. Look at that film. A man is mistaken for a non-existent government agent because he happens to beckon a bellboy at the same time a page for George Kaplan sounds? And at the end of it all - he marries a beautiful blonde as a result?

How about this for a coincidence? "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world - and she walks into mine."

Here's a non-fortuitous one to the nth degree. A guy is being chased in his car by two guys who just happened to be across an intersection from him (in Los Angeles?) and want him because he's missed payments on that very car. They want to repossess. So they chase him all over Hollywood and he just happens to pull into a driveway that just happens to have an open, empty garage space and escapes them. Then as he's about to leave that property he's beckoned by the home dweller who just happens to need a screenwriter - which is what he is. Doesn't turn out so well for him. Sunset Boulevard.

KarlaErikaCal said:

All right, so I know, in general, academia has certain biases (like against genre fiction and for literary fiction as a big example). But my screenwriting professor seemed really cool and I didn't think I'd have this kind of issue with him.

So he'd actually liked my idea for my final script originally. I'd sent him a synopsis of the entire thing. He replied saying that it was decent, but that a writer friend recently told him "the only good coincidences in a screenplay are bad ones."

My inciting incident is a good coincidence and he thinks I can make the inciting incident more of a bad thing. But that means changing the entire script. And I don't understand his friend's view because it's a huge generalization using the word "only." I mean, I can understand how bad coincidences can be better. But does that automatically mean that romance movies that are based on fate/coincidences (like my script) are bad because those coincidences are fortuitous? (Okay, that was a generalization too, but it's meant to be an overstatement.)

One movie that I can think of that's similar to my concept is Serendipity with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale. And the idea of serendipity is pretty much lucky coincidences.

So are there more film examples where a fortuitous coincidence worked well for the film? Romance or non-romance ones, but non-romance ones especially because my prof. isn't a huge fan of rom-coms.

If anyone can help, I'll really appreciate it!

Click to expand...

Well, the ultimate "good coincidence" -- and the one that violates every rule of sensible screenwriting is the end of The African Queen.

The African Queen sinks, the Hero and Heroine are captured by the Germans, they're about to be hanged -- and what happens?

The boat bobs up out of the water -- torpedoes topmost and just as they're about to die, the German cruiser runs into the boat and blows up, fortunately (or apparently) killing all the Germans, but allowing our heroes to escape unscathed and swim happily to shore.

Really? Now there's one heck of a piece of good luck all around.

And yet people totally accept it because it's emotionally satisfying even if logically absurd.

I think though that you have perhaps a different problem.

What we're really talking about is not "good" or "bad" -- but helpful vs. harmful coincidences and it's pretty obviously why there's a tendency to avoid helpful coincidences.

That's because, unlike in real life, audience know that there is a literal mind at work behind the events that are happening on screen and if suddenly "helpful" things begin to happen that facilitate the journey of the hero through the story, the audience begins to smell a rat -- that is, they start to detect the clammy hand of the storyteller giving the hero an unfair advantage by reaching down into the story and fiddling around with the putative laws of nature.

And it's one thing to do that -- fiddle with the laws of nature, to make things a little harder for your hero -- to drop a boulder into his way. But it's another thing altogether to reach down into the story and push a boulder out of the way.

Can good things happen to people? Obviously, yes. But generally, good things in stories come in two ways.

First -- good comes when the hero seeks it out. Thus, it is earned. The hero is on a mission and seeks out the people or the objects that will help him. So the finding of those good things isn't mere coincidence. And for that matter meeting up with the bad things, likewise isn't mere coincidence -- the bad things are also, in essence, sought out as a consequence of the choice of the "mission" -- whatever it is that the hero is seeking to achieve.

Second -- the hero finds a good thing that has a dual aspect. It has both a good and bad side and in embracing the good side he must also contend with the bad side of whoever or whatever it is.

The classic example of a story like this is the "winning the lottery ticket" story -- this might qualify as a "good coincidence" story. Sometimes it may even be that somebody just finds a lottery ticket -- it's a winning number.

But the nature of such stories is always that winning the lottery ticket -- sudden wealth -- always has a dark side.

So that the "good thing" also has a bad aspect and the story revolves around the hero coming to understand that dual aspect of whatever the good thing is.

The whole point of an inciting incident is not that it is helpful or harmful to the previous state of affairs of the character per se, (maybe he was poor and it makes it rich, maybe he was rich and it makes him poor) but rather that it *changes the trajectory of his life* -- and by changing the trajectory of his life, it causes the journey of the story to begin.

What, after all is the beginning of Mr. Deeds -- he's just inherited a hundred million dollars. That seems like good news. Only it turns out that now has to make a whole new set of decisions that he never had to make before. With money comes responsibility and he has to decide what he's going to do with that responsibility. And that's the story.

NMS

The inciting incident - is ALWAYS 'coincidental'. It coincides with the characters movements through life at that point. The lottery ticket, the missed train connection, the glance through the window - whatever. As an inciting incident - coincidental happenings are the norm. As NM pointed out - usually there is a 'twist' - what seems good is dark, the disaster holds a silver lining. That's pretty standard fair.

I think the thing to avoid, especially as an ENDING is the "Deus Ex Machina" The hero is saved THROUGH NO EFFORT ON HIS OWN. Literally the Machinery of The Gods' creeks into movement - and rescues/destroys him. In such a case, the "hand of God' is of course, the screenwriter.

I think the ending of African Queen avoids that label. Why? Because 'fortune favors the bold'. "We make our own luck." The African Queen was in that lake, at that moment - because of everything that happened prior to it in the film. Thus it was not "The Hand of God" that put the explosives there - it was the efforts of the main characters. A fortuitous coincidence? Sure - but they worked hard to make it plausible, AND possible.

A true "Deus Ex Machina" comes 'out of the heavens'. Such an ending would be something along the lines of a lightning strike killing all the Germans, just before the hanging. Or more likely, the German boat, for some strange mechanical reason we had no prior knowledge of - decides to blow up. THAT would be an implausible "Deus Ex Machina" - That would be the screenwriter painting himself into a corner and saying "Damn... how do I get out? Oh... lets just say a meteor comes down and kills the bad guys." - This robs the characters of their arc and their efforts. It robs the villain of his 'just deserts'. This I think - is an example of a bad use of a "Coincidental" moment in a story line.

KarlaErikaCal said:

Funny you say this because he said this as a point: "It would be like someone down on her luck and poor as hell just so happens to stumble across a bag of money."

Click to expand...

That's exactly what happens to John Cusack's character in the 1993 movie Money for Nothing. That's the inciting incident. (Good movie.)

And the 1994 movie It Could Happen to You has a cop winning the lottery as the inciting incident. (Also a good movie.)

In both cases, the "good" coincidence both incites plot developments, and tests the protagonist's integrity; it brings out what kind of person he is.

Yep. Without coincidence none of the character's lives in any stories anywhere would ever intersect or change.

I like things that appear to be coincidence when you first read or see them but that turn out to be anything but.

I think, as a general rule of thumb, the original "good coincidences are bad ones" notion is actually quite helpful. (Inciting incidents excluded, for reasons stated a lot already.)

Every time I see the plot's solution come from somewhere else than the heroes' actions or the antagonist's hubris, I feel cheated. It's called 'hero's journey', after all, not 'hero's sightseeing trip'.

Of course I'm generalizing. There are good movies that come close to the "hand of God" thing. Two amazing ones popping up right now are Robert Altman's Short Cuts and Jim Jarmush's Mystery Train. In both movies, an outside incident (the gunshot in Mystery Train, the thunderstorm in Short Cuts) helps release the tension between the characters (actually, I'd have to watch MT again to see if I remember that one right). But it feels right and true because the characters' reactions and the consequences of their actions are still all theirs.

KarlaErikaCal said:

Both great examples! And I think he has a thing for Star Wars, so that second example will really help I think.

Click to expand...

Star Wars you say?

It seems very fortuitous that the Death Star can be blown up entirely merely by shooting into a circular opening that just happens to be waiting for someone to shoot into it.

KarlaErikaCal said:

One movie that I can think of that's similar to my concept is Serendipity with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale. And the idea of serendipity is pretty much lucky coincidences.

Click to expand...

The concept you're thinking of in Serendipity is actually not about "lucky coincidences". It is about fate/destiny and how it cannot be avoided. And human intervention (the choices we make) conflicts with fate, which creates the central complication of the story.

But I suppose by arguing semantics, you can break almost any film down to a "lucky coincident". But in my opinion, a "good" story doesn't rely on them. Perhaps your story seems to rely on these so-called coincidences, and that is where it is weak.

In Serendipity, I don't think the inciting action was any one of the apparent coincidences. I think the inciting action was when she wrote her number in the book. It's been a while since I've seen it. But the inciting incident needs to be boiled down to one SINGLE action that, without it, the story as we know it would NEVER have happened.

All of the "coincidences" in that movie mean absolutely nothing unless she writes her number in that book. Without that, the movie would have ended the first night they met. I think where that movie might be a little weak, is that he received the book by "coincidence". However, it's also strong for two reasons: 1) It proves a thesis of the story (fate cannot be avoided), and 2) Lots of dramatic irony because his fiance buys it for him.

All of that said, I would have a hard time finding a story where the inciting incident is a pure coincidence. And I think it would be darn near impossible to find what I would consider a "good" story. So, IMO, "coincidences" are OK when used correctly. Many times they are great at furthering the plot. But not for something as important as the inciting incident, complication, thesis, or theme.

That's my .02

WriteKnight said:

The inciting incident - is ALWAYS 'coincidental'. It coincides with the characters movements through life at that point.

Click to expand...

As I stated above, I disagree.

First let me preface this post by saying that 1) I haven't seen all of the films that were mentioned here, and 2) the film industry is chock full of what I would call "badly written stories".

My entire contention that a "good" story has an inciting incident that is not purely coincidental is based on the "hero's" journey.

Suppose our hero wants to be rich. What adds to our hero's journey?

1) He leaves his house for work. The same time he always does. Nothing different. and he finds a winning lottery ticket laying on the sidewalk?

Or...

2) He is running late for work. But he gets a call on a stock tip. He decides to log onto his online trading account to buy the stock... causing him to be even later for work. To make up some time, he decides to drive his car to work instead of the train, even though this means he'll pay a lot more to park his car in Manhattan for 8 hours on a work day. All day, he watches the stock market and he loses all his money. He gets out of work and "coincidentally" sees a piece of paper on the ground where he parked - the winning lottery ticket.

Yes, it's a "coincidence". But the inciting action was that he chose be late for work in order to make a stock trade. This creates inner conflict and irony throughout the theme because he subsequently also "chose" to spend money to make money. And in the end, he gets what he wants, but not the way he thought.

By putting your characters in control, it adds to the journey. It makes it richer and more poignant than pure coincidences. And it makes recognition and reversal that much more powerful.

Again, that's just my .02

He chose to leave for work, when he found the lottery ticket. The inciting incident is COincidental. He COincides with the actions the character takes.

He CHOSE to log on and do the stock trade.

He CHOSE to turn left instead of right.

Getting the call for the stock tip - that's right out of the blue, right? That's the machinery of the gods, creaking into motion through no effort of his own...He didn't CHOOSE that call, it chose him. That's a huge COINCIDENCE that he was running late, and got the call for the stock tip... right?

It's all COincidental.

WriteKnight said:

He chose to leave for work, when he found the lottery ticket. The inciting incident is COincidental. He COincides with the actions the character takes.

He CHOSE to log on and do the stock trade.

He CHOSE to turn left instead of right.

Getting the call for the stock tip - that's right out of the blue, right? That's the machinery of the gods, creaking into motion through no effort of his own...He didn't CHOOSE that call, it chose him. That's a huge COINCIDENCE that he was running late, and got the call for the stock tip... right?

It's all COincidental.

Click to expand...

This.

PaulyWally, I think the point you are making is that the "coincidence" of the inciting incident is more satisfying when it intersects with character. In your two examples, both are coincidences, but the second is more interesting because you've already told us something about the character when the coincidence happened, and that enhances the feeling of destiny or inevitability.

Your first example - character leaves for work, same as every day, and then finds the ticket - didn't sound very interesting because we didn't get to know the character. I wouldn't open a movie that way. I'd open with some sort of picture of the character.

But once you show his day, you show his choices. You show him brushing his teeth, you show him kissing his wife goodbye, you show him checking his watch and then the kitchen clock and then his watch again - yup, right on time as always - and then you show him finding the lottery ticket. And suddenly THIS coincidence seems as much about the character's choices as the one where he was late for work, because THIS coincidence couldn't have happened if he weren't so habitually punctual. Someone else would have snatched up that ticket. Maybe, in a movie, you show a person dropping it a moment before he walks down the street. Everything is connected.

In fiction, we get to manipulate the butterfly effect so that what might look like chaos in the real world actually organizes into some thematic sense in the fictional world. But first you have to let the butterfly flap its wings.

WriteKnight said:

He chose to leave for work, when he found the lottery ticket. The inciting incident is COincidental. He COincides with the actions the character takes.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following you.

He CHOSE to log on and do the stock trade.

Click to expand...

Yes. That is the inciting incident.

He CHOSE to turn left instead of right.

Click to expand...

That action was never introduced in my example story.

Getting the call for the stock tip - that's right out of the blue, right? That's the machinery of the gods, creaking into motion through no effort of his own...

Click to expand...

No. Deus ex machina is not just any random coincidence that occurs in a story. Deus ex machina is something that resolves certain plot complications that cannot be resolved within the confines the writer has created. My hero's objective is to be rich. Getting a call for a stock tip is not a deus ex machina because it is directly related to the plot line and main idea.

He didn't CHOOSE that call, it chose him. That's a huge COINCIDENCE that he was running late, and got the call for the stock tip... right?

Click to expand...

The coincidence of the call is irrelevant because it's not the inciting incident to the example I gave.

Yes, he got the call. Yes, it was through no effort of his own. But in my example, the hero had a choice: 1) Ignore the stock tip and go to work as usual - in which case, he would have never been led to the lottery ticket. Or 2) he could choose to be late, thus putting into motion the rest of the events that would lead him to the lottery ticket.

Sarah Madara said:

This.

PaulyWally, I think the point you are making is that the "coincidence" of the inciting incident is more satisfying when it intersects with character. In your two examples, both are coincidences, but the second is more interesting because you've already told us something about the character when the coincidence happened, and that enhances the feeling of destiny or inevitability.

Click to expand...

That's not really what I'm saying. I am saying that writers have many options at their disposal. One of those options is to directly link the inciting incident with the hero's journey. That means making it a choice for the hero. 100%.

I'm not sure how you see that my 2nd example is a coincident. The hero made a choice. Not only that, but he made a choice that caused a conflict with his main objective.

Your first example - character leaves for work, same as every day, and then finds the ticket - didn't sound very interesting because we didn't get to know the character. I wouldn't open a movie that way. I'd open with some sort of picture of the character.

Click to expand...

I painted the same picture for both examples: Our hero wants to be rich. I introduced no further information about the character in either example. I only tried to demonstrate how one choice makes a stronger story.

If we know the hero wants to be rich, then it's a stronger choice to open the story with a conflict. i.e. - it's expensive to park a car in Manhattan for 8 hours. But he takes that risk because he got a stock tip that morning.

There is no conflict with someone that wants to be rich, and leaves work the same way he always does and just happens to stumble upon a lottery ticket. I don't care what color hair he has, or how he kisses his wife, or how long he brushes his teeth. I find this to be a very boring inciting incident because there is no conflict. I need to sympathize with this guy. I need to make the audience choose a side. "Yes! Take the stock tip!" ...or... "No! Stock tips are for suckers! Save the money you'd pay to park in Manhattan."

If you don't create that conflict, you're giving the audience very little to become emotionally invested in.

But once you show his day, you show his choices. You show him brushing his teeth, you show him kissing his wife goodbye, you show him checking his watch and then the kitchen clock and then his watch again - yup, right on time as always - and then you show him finding the lottery ticket. And suddenly THIS coincidence seems as much about the character's choices as the one where he was late for work, because THIS coincidence couldn't have happened if he weren't so habitually punctual. Someone else would have snatched up that ticket. Maybe, in a movie, you show a person dropping it a moment before he walks down the street. Everything is connected.

Click to expand...

You're trying to prove a point by introducing a very important character trait in order to make the "coincidence" more poignant. But I provided a very clear set of given circumstances. And the hero's punctuality was not one of them.

That said, you could have the workings of a very good story. I won't argue that. But because you introduced an important character trait, your inciting incident is no longer coincidental (and subsequently, mine is not longer valid). In other words, you completely changed the story and its theme, thesis, and main idea.

And that's fine, if that's the story you want to write. But like I said, your inciting incident is no longer purely coincidental.

In fiction, we get to manipulate the butterfly effect so that what might look like chaos in the real world actually organizes into some thematic sense in the fictional world. But first you have to let the butterfly flap its wings.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But back to my original question... what provides a stronger story? What gives the writer more material to work with? What allows the audience to sympathize more with the hero? And what creates stronger conflict?

- Something that happens out of pure coincidence?
- Or something that happens as a result of conflict, irony, values, and willpower?

This is just my philosophy, but I don't see how pure coincidence has the upper hand here.

PaulyWally said:

That's not really what I'm saying. I am saying that writers have many options at their disposal. One of those options is to directly link the inciting incident with the hero's journey. That means making it a choice for the hero. 100%.

Click to expand...

I think we probably have a disagreement more with semantics than substance, but I can't tell for sure. I'm not sure what you mean by linking to the hero's journey, a phrase with a very specific meaning and well-defined steps. The call to action/adventure often comes from out of the blue.

In your example, the choice for the hero was to take a call, not to find a lottery ticket. A winning lottery ticket is not a consequence anyone can reasonably expect in that situation. That makes it coincidence, in my book. My point was that every coincidence happens because of choices we make, and the only difference between your two examples was that in the second one, you showed us the choices. But the first guy made choices, too.

I painted the same picture for both examples: Our hero wants to be rich. I introduced no further information about the character in either example. I only tried to demonstrate how one choice makes a stronger story.

Click to expand...

I agree. The second example was a much stronger story. I just didn't find it any less coincidental. That's where our definitions of coincidence may be a problem.

There is no conflict with someone that wants to be rich, and leaves work the same way he always does and just happens to stumble upon a lottery ticket. I don't care what color hair he has, or how he kisses his wife, or how long he brushes his teeth. I find this to be a very boring inciting incident because there is no conflict.

Click to expand...

Well, it's all in the execution, but the conflict comes from suspense. Conflict can happen in the form of turning an ordinary life upside down, so typically when you show an ordinary world without conflict, it is to make the audience start wondering when the other shoe will drop. Not saying I could personally pull that off, but I'm sure someone could.

You're trying to prove a point by introducing a very important character trait in order to make the "coincidence" more poignant.

Click to expand...

Yup. Because without character, there is no story. That was my point.

"There is no conflict with someone that wants to be rich, and leaves work the same way he always does and just happens to stumble upon a lottery ticket. I don't care what color hair he has, or how he kisses his wife, or how long he brushes his teeth. I find this to be a very boring inciting incident because there is no conflict."

You're building strawmen here. If the opening sequence of the film, was a person finding a lottery ticket - it likely wouldn't be the inciting incident. The inciting incident would likely be further on - perhaps when he goes to CASH the ticket. We get a bit of the first act to build the ordinary world.

In your example, you took the time to 'build' an ordinary world, where the stock tip he receives out of the blue - is somehow more relevant than finding a ticket out of the blue would be. If he had not received the phone tip in your example, the choices he made following it would not have occurred.

If he doesn't find the ticket on his walk to work -the choices he makes would not have occurred.

Both incidents occur in the course of the hero's ordinary day.

Bad writing will screw up either example - sure.

I understand what the Deus Ex Machina is - In my first post I describe it as the unsatisfactory way to END a story.

WriteKnight said:

"There is no conflict with someone that wants to be rich, and leaves work the same way he always does and just happens to stumble upon a lottery ticket. I don't care what color hair he has, or how he kisses his wife, or how long he brushes his teeth. I find this to be a very boring inciting incident because there is no conflict."

You're building strawmen here. If the opening sequence of the film, was a person finding a lottery ticket - it likely wouldn't be the inciting incident. The inciting incident would likely be further on - perhaps when he goes to CASH the ticket. We get a bit of the first act to build the ordinary world.

In your example, you took the time to 'build' an ordinary world, where the stock tip he receives out of the blue - is somehow more relevant than finding a ticket out of the blue would be. If he had not received the phone tip in your example, the choices he made following it would not have occurred.

If he doesn't find the ticket on his walk to work -the choices he makes would not have occurred.

Both incidents occur in the course of the hero's ordinary day.

Bad writing will screw up either example - sure.

I understand what the Deus Ex Machina is - In my first post I describe it as the unsatisfactory way to END a story.

Click to expand...

I think that people may have some confusion about what constitutes an "inciting incident" -- just what it means.

You start with a character who is simply going about the normal activities of his life - whatever that may be -- being a stock trader, being a burglar, being a crooked cop, being an unfaithful husband -- being a kid on a distant planet longing for adventure, being whatever he or she is, doing whatever he or she does, carrying whatever thematic baggage he carries in the normal course of his life.

But simply going on his way.

But then something happens - and that something *changes the trajectory of his life" -- and it is that change of trajectory that causes the story to get underway.

Whatever that event may be, how it happens, when it happens, where it happens -- that's not the point. The MC doesn't even have to be there. It doesn't have to happen in the same place, in the same time, on the same continent, in the same *epoch.* All that matters is that the incident, whatever it is, is the thing that is ultimately going to intersect with the MC and knock him off of the trajectory of his normal life -- and that gets the story started.

So -- what is the inciting incident in Jaws? The inciting incident in Jaws is the opening scene of the movie -- it's the arrival of the shark on Amity.

Yes -- the inciting incident occurs before we even meet the MC. Because when you ask the question -- what knocks this guy's life off it's normal trajectory?

Answer -- a shark arrives on the island.

When do we see that happen? Opening scene. He's not there, doesn't even know about it at that time. It's not his "finding out about it" that causes everything to change because he really doesn't "find out" for sure for quite awhile, and then only in dribs and drabs -- no. It's the arrival of the shark itself and what it does.

You could have an inciting incident happen on the other side of the world from the MC -- a terrorist delivers a nuclear bomb to somebody -- oops -- that it. Inciting incident. A bit later, we meet the guy who's going to have to stop it.

Or for that matter, it could be a meteor flying through space -- cut to some guy driving to work. Chances are, at some point, these two -- meteor flying through space and guy on his way to work, are going to meet up in a way that's going to disrupt this guy's normal routine.

Or you simply get up one morning and wouldn't you know it? The dead have started coming back to life and eating the living. Hate it when that happens. Not your fault. Didn't have anything to do with you.

You were just going about your normal life worrying about your everyday stuff -- suddenly, without warning -- somebody's trying to kill you and eat you. Deal with it.

That's what you call one major inciting incident.

Now -- obviously, the storyteller crafts the story in order to develop the theme he has in mind, the inciting incident, just like everything else, isn't going to be arbitrary. There aren't "really" any coincidences in stories -- everything is in there because we put it in there.

So obviously, the shark doesn't just happen to find its way to the island nor the lottery ticket just happen "by chance" to find its way to the main character of the MC in question.

Of course not. Rather - we, as storytellers, have chosen to *tell a story* about somebody who is facing the challenge of a great white shark, or conversely, of somebody who has won the lottery. So we send them the winning ticket, or the shark.

But it's perfectly fine for us to choose to tell the story of someone who is "sent* a shark by chance and then has to deal with it, as opposed to someone who goes looking for sharks, just as it's perfectly fine to tell the story of someone who simply stumbles upon a lottery ticket by coincidence, and then has to deal with it, as opposed to someone who is, in some sense out looking for lottery tickets.

You can certainly tell either kind of story -- but they are different stories, and both perfectly legitimate stories to tell. We can "craft" the coincidences of our stories in exactly the same as we "craft" the predestination of our stories -- both can work and both can sometimes stick in people's throat, depending on when and how we use them.

NMS

Sarah Madara said:

I think we probably have a disagreement more with semantics than substance, but I can't tell for sure.

Click to expand...

I went to bed last night thinking the same thing. But let's find out.

I'm not sure what you mean by linking to the hero's journey, a phrase with a very specific meaning and well-defined steps.

Click to expand...

When I referred to the "hero's journey," I meant the psychological, ethical, emotional, moral (et al) changes that the hero goes through.

For example, in About a Boy we open the story with Hugh Grant's character believing that his life is perfect by himself - he has no inter-personal responsibilities and it's perfect. Due to a certain set of circumstances that take place, he finds himself in many different conflicts, his world gets turned upside down, and his entire belief system is put to test. By the end of the story, he learns many lessons that change what he believes. And now he is a person that believes a life with strong companions is better than the life he thought was perfect.

In a nutshell, that's what I mean as his "journey".

The call to action/adventure often comes from out of the blue.

Click to expand...

Yes. Often the call to action does seem to come out of the blue. My only contention is that it would be stronger if it had a stronger relation to the story.

i.e. - in my example, the call to action was the phone call. But since the hero's objective is to be rich, a phone call with a stock tip fits into the story - it has a direct relation to what our hero wants. It makes perfect sense that the hero COULD get a call on a stock tip because he wants to be rich.

So I guess I just don't consider that to be "out of the blue" since it fits in with his objective and creates immediate conflict, irony, and test of will. Getting a phone call instead from his friend who needs a ride to work doesn't have as much to do with the hero's objective. And it's a bit more random (and weaker) as a result.

My point was that every coincidence happens because of choices we make, and the only difference between your two examples was that in the second one, you showed us the choices. But the first guy made choices, too.

Click to expand...

OK. I see what you're saying. And yes, I agree. Everything that happens should happen as a result of something else.

But all I was trying to convey was that an inciting incident that is a pure coincidence is not a strong one. We call it an "inciting incident" - not an "inciting coincident".

Also, in my school of thought, coincidences have a certain amount of randomness to them (as I tried to describe above).

I agree. The second example was a much stronger story. I just didn't find it any less coincidental. That's where our definitions of coincidence may be a problem.

Click to expand...

I think so.

Like I said, to me, coincidences have a random element to them. And I argue that my 2nd example does not rely on a random element in order to begin our hero on his journey.

Yup. Because without character, there is no story. That was my point.

Click to expand...

Yes. Totally. But when you changed my given circumstances in order to prove your point, you changed the main idea, theme, and thesis of the story as well. And in doing so, you reduced the randomness of your inciting incident. You made it directly related to the new main idea.

Like you said, it's all in the execution. And you (unknowingly?) re-wrote the story to make the inciting incident less "coincidental" and random.

If you want to try and prove that all things being equal, a [random] coincident is just as strong, then you need to keep all things equal and not modify the given circumstances.