Stage directions

Hmm . . . maybe try to make the mention of the action less about the action itself and more about the motivation. For example:

She got up and left the room thinking to herself, "Why did I let him get to me like that?"


Or your example:

He got himself a drink of water, but his throat was so tight he could only take one sip before dumping the rest down the drain.



Just one idea, dunno if it helps .

For some unknown reason, whenever I'm writing a first draft and move my characters to a new place, I need to describe where everyone is standing or sitting. I usually pull out the description in revision, but unless I put it in the first version, I have difficulty continuing the scene.

So agreed, overly detailed stage directions are annoying, but sometimes one needs to get it out of one's system and chop it in revision.

I always was a person who kinda described some actions, but then I changed.

Do you watch TV? I like NCIS where it's written exactly like a novel. Meaning they show only what needs to be shown. They don't place a subject on a person walking by unless that person is the killer sneaking past the agents.

If the detail isn't important, skip it. Or even combine it with a main sentence.

After I got a drink of water, I went back to bed.

Rather than:

I got a drink of water. Then I went back to bed.

But that drink of water must be important to even write it in. If it's not, skip it.

Hell, I don't even let my characters eat or drink on the first draft.


Rely a lot on the "mind's eye" effect or is that affect? (psychology joke).


EDIT: List anything without the story mixed in as turning off the story. Like I'm writing a travel scene where the MC and his partner argue the entire way there. He just says the argued all the way there, rather than to actually show it.

In a Donald Maass workshop, he said when it comes to description, to try to avoid writing the obvious and instead write the little, weird, memorable things.

So rather than saying, "MC enters the room," say, "MC's rugby cleats catch on the carpet and make a grunting sound with every stride."

You can always combine the action with a bit of inventive description, like the above example.

I think the hardest part is admitting to yourself that the reader really doesn't need to know those precise details. You could even start the scene in the room rather than describing everyone entering it and nothing critical would be lost. But man, it's hard sometimes.

In a play, "stage direction" is there to tell the actors what to do. It is a necessary device. It's the job of the actor to show the audience what is happening. When the villain sneaks out from stage left, the audience doesn't need to be told he's coming from stage left.

In fiction, "stage direction" tends to be there for the author to tell readers what to think. For me, as reader, it is bad weakness and a fault in the writing. The characters should "show" stuff to the reader; it's the job of characters. The author shouldn't be in the business of stage-directing the reader.

caw

A lot of new writers think they need to list evry detail for every moment of the story. We are all laive and live our lives every day, we get drinks of water, we use the can, we make lunch, we step in dog shit and bubble gum. (hopefully not at the same time)

When we read a story we assume those things happen to the characters.

If the action in one scene at the end of a chapter (and no this doesn't have to be big huge Hollywood action get the stunt men actions) doesn't carry on until the next day at the office, we don't need to document that John, got a drink of water, put on PJ's, got in bed, covered up, went to sleep, snored, the the alarm went off, he peed, ate breakfast, shaved, brushed his teeth, showered, picked up his brief case, got in the car and drove to work.

Did you stop reading in the middle of that and skip down to here?

That's the point. If you fill in the scenes between the "good stuff" with a bunch of unimportant stage direction then the reader will skip the parts, that is the least of your worries, if they are bored they will put the book down and not pick ip up again.

Now if we say, "John walked to the kitchen. His socks stuck to the floor and in front of the sink the floor felt cold, or wet. He turned on the tap and dropped his glass into the sink when he saw the red blood pouring from the silver faucet.

The drink of water is important enough to include the details.

Only keep what moves the story forward. If it isn't important to the story then it doesn't belong.

I'll put my hand up to this. It's especially bad in my first drafts. I think it comes because I often have two or three characters in a scene, so I picture them in relation to each other as I write. That comes out as stage direction.

Some amount is, I think, necessary so that readers can 'see' what's going on. You need to know if someone comes in etc. In third limited and especially first though you can cunningly disguise it/use it as a bit of voice.

'X lumbered in and perched on the corner of my desk like the world's ugliest gorilla'


If you need to show who's doing what (and sometimes you really do), at least make it interesting. It doesn't stand out as stage direction as much that way, but as a part of the story you're telling.

As for getting into/out of a scene, try writing the into and out of, write the whole scene and then see if you can't enter the scene later and leave it earlier without altering what's essential(and cut those directions, and tighten up your scene in the process. Win win!). I've found the rule of thumb 'enter the scene as late as possible and leave it as early as possible' very helpful in keeping things tight.

This is all really good advice and I never thought about it before...

blacbird said:

In a play, "stage direction" is there to tell the actors what to do. It is a necessary device. It's the job of the actor to show the audience what is happening. When the villain sneaks out from stage left, the audience doesn't need to be told he's coming from stage left.

In fiction, "stage direction" tends to be there for the author to tell readers what to think. For me, as reader, it is bad weakness and a fault in the writing. The characters should "show" stuff to the reader; it's the job of characters. The author shouldn't be in the business of stage-directing the reader.

caw

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this.

In the "getting a drink of water" example, why is it important to the character, and therefore to the reader? If it's just something that happened in the course of the character's day, it doesn't need to be there. If, however, the way he gets that drink, or his reason for getting up to get a drink, can give the reader some important information about the plot or about the character, then you've successfully shown rather than told.

Examples:

I gave him the bad news about the money, and he lurched to his feet. He stumbled past me into the kitchen, bumping into the table on the way. A moment later I heard the creak of a cabinet door, then the tap running. When he returned, he seemed more composed.

Click to expand...

As soon as Tracy hung up, Mark set the phone back in the cradle and filled a glass with cold water. A drink always cleared his head at times like these. It didn't even have to be scotch on the rocks. Anything would do, as long as it was cold.

Click to expand...

Unless the action says something important about character or plot, it doesn't need to be there, and you don't need to be worrying about how to describe it. If it does say something important, then you say it in the way that conveys the information you need to convey (in the first example, the man is stunned by the news about the money; in the second, Mark is the kind of guy who has little rituals that help him keep it together) in the subtlest manner you can pull off.

IdiotsRUs said:

If you need to show who's doing what (and sometimes you really do), at least make it interesting. It doesn't stand out as stage direction as much that way, but as a part of the story you're telling.

Click to expand...

This, too.

As for getting into/out of a scene, try writing the into and out of, write the whole scene and then see if you can't enter the scene later and leave it earlier without altering what's essential(and cut those directions, and tighten up your scene in the process. Win win!). I've found the rule of thumb 'enter the scene as late as possible and leave it as early as possible' very helpful in keeping things tight.

Click to expand...

Good advice.

No, you are not the only person who has that problem. With my guys it's stand up, sit down, kneel, get up, blah, blah, blah. They're bobbing up and down all the hell over the place. They also get onto and off of horses. Up, down, all around.

I think the important part in that situation is the manner of the character's entry. Is he/she belligerent, surprised, exasperated, stoned, etc. Where the character ends up doesn't really matter and will probably be implied by how he/she is behaving.

For example, if a dude walks in with a bone to pick, he's probably not going to take a seat and be nice. He'll be pointing fingers and getting in people's faces. On the other hand, if someone quietly slips in, you might assume that they found the back wall or the corner.

And you can always insert a bit of stage direction with the action. If the angry character is pacing around the room, well, he's pacing. That's all you need. The quiet character might raise her hand to speak. If I read that, I would assume she's sitting.

It depends on how mundane the action is in my opinion. If it's something that's really relevant, I think you should explain it. If you're writing a story about a mechanic who fixes cars, then taking us step by step through him fixing something might not be such a bad idea if you really want to get the reader into the head of the character, but stuff like getting a glass of water, going upstairs, leaving the room? Unless this is a book where people can summon a glass of water, teleport, or fly through the ceiling, everyone kind of assumes that the person who got water got up, went to the kitchen, got a glass, poured the water or went to the faucet, and came back.

Little Ming said:

RE: Entering and exiting scene

Definitely, I try to start the scenes late and end them early when I can.

But my problem is when a scene is already going on and my POV character is already in the scene and another character comes in or leaves. If someone is coming in I feel like I have to position them somehow, where they enter from, where they are standing, where they take a seat, how the other characters react to their entrance. I really, really want to just write "Character walked into the room." But I feel that is insufficient.

The same is true when a character leaves the scene. I want to write "Character exited the room." But that seems weird to me too.

Grrrrr.....

Click to expand...

I'm assuming that the character entering the room is important or they wouldn't be there? You don't need to include every detail, you the author see it, and POV helps a lot with what you put into a scene--does your POV character see the person come in? Are they surprised by the person suddenly being there?

Is their exit important?

Only include what the POV character can see, hear, feel, smell etc. that might help a bit.

It is awkward, trying to give the characters something to do so they aren't having a static conversation, but forcing in movements- the getting a drink is a classic- will also make the scene feel static. Unless that's the effect you want of course.

Please never ever have a character do anything for "a beat." Paul paused for a beat, then smiled. Barf.

Nothing screams stage direction like the language of stage direction.

Even when I was scriptwriting for a living, I hated the issue of stage directions. Because much of what we want to convey isn't actually our job - it's the job of the directors and actors... Although I have to say I wasn't writing for the stage and I'm assuming there would be a difference between that medium and film/TV anyway.

In relation to TV, obviously the character having a drink of water would only be in the directions for a reason - as many commentators here have already stated. But if it's so important as to be included, he/she wouldn't simply drink it anyway - they would sip, down, gulp...

Also, in my experience, a scriptwriter would never use 'feelings' in their stage directions. As in, Suzie has a drink of water because her throat 'feels' dry.
This is because you cannot see what's going on in someone's head or body on the screen and also because it is the Actor's job to interpret how the character feels.

For example, you would never write 'Suzie feels sad'... Instead, you would write something along the lines of 'a tear springs in Suzie's eye'... Thus allowing the Actor to put his slant on things.

When it comes to characters entering or leaving a room, to be included they need to be doing so for a reason - do they storm in/out, creep in/out unseen by the others, are they entering/exiting to interrupt events? If their entry/exit doesn't serve the scene, you would just start/finish the scene with them all in the same room.

Hope that makes sense.

Suzie x

suzie said:

For example, you would never write 'Suzie feels sad'...

Click to expand...

Nor would a director walk out on stage and tell the audience that the actor who is about to appear feels sad. It's the actor's job to convey that to the audience. The script is written accordingly.

Likewise, nor should the writer of fiction come forward and tell the reader that the character feels sad. It's the character's job to convey that to the reader. Write the character's behavior and dialogue accordingly.

caw

suzie said:

For example, you would never write 'Suzie feels sad'... Instead, you would write something along the lines of 'a tear springs in Suzie's eye'

Click to expand...

A lot of stage directions are even vaguer than that. Stage directions should be objective. A novel can get away with pushing the meaning a little more, such as in Suzie's example.