Stagnant Locations? ACK!

Stacia Kane · Sep 22, 2006

Several times in the last few weeks I've seen agents/editors blogging about or discussing the issue of "stagnant locations" in novels. Like, don't have your characters just sitting in a room or car talking. Have them doing things. Have lots of subtext.

I confess, I'm flummoxed.

I've been an avid reader for more years than I care to count. I've been writing seriously for five or six. I've never noticed problems with characters sitting and talking.

My characters do lots of things (I love writing action sequences, so there's lots of danger and excitement etc.), but they do also spend quite a bit of time having dinner, or drinks, or just talking. The dialogue imparts lots of info. It shows character. It moves the scene forward (all this is IMO, of course).

I'm certainly not suggesting this is bad advice, or that said agents/editors don't know what they're talking about. Quite the opposite. But oh my...most of the books I read have scenes like this in there!

What should they be doing? Where should conversations take place?

Help! I feel like everything I thought I knew has disappeared!

Doug Johnson · Sep 22, 2006

I thought the best parts of the Da Vinci Code were the parts where they stood around talking, but they were talking about "the greatest conspiracy in human history."

Saw took place in one room, but if I remember correctly, there were two strangers in one room. If they didn't work together, they'd both die. If they did work together, only one would survive.

If your characters are just having drinks, it's boring. If there's more going on, it might not be.

LeeFlower · Sep 22, 2006

I'm not sure what exactly these agents and editors were referring to, but it sounds like they were saying to make sure characters have 'business' when they're talking.

'Business' is a theater term for stuff that characters do in the background while they (or someone else) is talking. Eating dinner is a perfect example. People don't just talk at the dinner table, they eat too. They pass each other things. If they're crazy psychics traveling the 'verse in rickety ships held together by nothing but duct tape and love, they grab things off other people's plates and pull labels off of soup cans. In a car, people don't just sit there. At least one person is going to be operating heavy machinery. Their passengers are probably playing with the radio, adjusting their seatbelts, changing CDs, etc.

Adding these details in is a good way to ground readers in the setting and situation so that your characters aren't just talking heads. It's also an excellent way to have long chunks of dialogue without saying 'said' five zillion times.

Kate Thornton · Sep 22, 2006

And if you can place the characters in settings that are not as static as a room, say in the woods, up the rickety staircase, down the well, in the front of the cable car, hanging out the train window, between the silk sheets, under the '56 Chevy in the cold garage, in front of the drugstore's mirror-like window - you get the picture - so much the better.

People do stuff and go places to do stuff - so should characters.

HConn · Sep 22, 2006

It's only static if the things they do don't matter to the story. If passing the salt doesn't have story significance, leave it out. If you end up with nothing physical in a scene, as if there's a conversation between people in iron lungs, think about how you'd dramatize things physically.

The other option is to make the talk really, really interesting, a la My Dinner with Andre.

Linda Adams · Sep 22, 2006

Actually, I've seen this in pieces I've critiqued. Often, someone will just plunk a character down in a setting somewhere, make a vague reference to the setting (i.e., he entered the bar), and then not do anything else with it. The character has no interaction with his surroundings whatsoever, and in some cases might even walk through furniture. In one story I critted, the character walked through the wall!

allion · Sep 22, 2006

Linda Adams said:
In one story I critted, the character walked through the wall!

But this could work in a paranormal, yes?

Karen
(being cheeky)

PeeDee · Sep 22, 2006

Well, there's always that nice Isaac Asimov fellow who wrote a couple of short stories and a book or two. Something I've always noticed is that he doesn't necessarily describe the action, he instead skips ahead 'till after the action has occured, and then discusses it in conversation between characters.

Terry Pratchett does this too. In Thud! for example, he doesn't describe the massive riot scene between the Dwarves and the Trolls with the coppers in the middle...he comes back after the scene, as the one copper has to explain what happened to the ruler of the city.

I think this is not only a good way to write, I think it's probably a very difficult way to write, too.

MattW · Sep 22, 2006

PeeDee said:
I think this is not only a good way to write, I think it's probably a very difficult way to write, too.

I favor this way too - better that a character says something than the author says something. You can actually have commentary or opinions on the events.

Useful if it's not mandatory to see the action, but the reader needs to know it took place.

PeeDee · Sep 22, 2006

MattW said:
Useful if it's not mandatory to see the action, but the reader needs to know it took place.

If I have to have a fight scene in my novel, then I generally skip it and discuss it after the fact, if at all possible. Obviously, if the big climax of your book happens to also be a fight scene, this isn't going to work. (or is it? It could, it could.)

It's something I learned from Asimov early on, and just recently spotted in Pratchett's writing...but even though I've been consciously aware of this style of writing for years, I find that it's still a lot of hard work to actually practice. Any time I do, though, I find myself with a stronger scene

Stacia Kane · Sep 23, 2006

Thanks everyone! I feel much better. I guess part of my problem is I'm not an outdoorsy person, so I've been viewing my characters as much the same.

I have some great ideas now--and since I always (try to) anchor my characters in their location I'm not so worried about the scenes where they are indoors.

Whew. I don't know why that freaked me out so much!

Elektra · Sep 24, 2006

December Quinn!

I've been having the same questions. Glad to know someone else is frightened by the taboo of "static locations".

arrowqueen · Sep 24, 2006

Do not leave your hero in the middle of a pond.

PeeDee · Sep 24, 2006

arrowqueen said:
Do not leave your hero in the middle of a pond.

Or if you do, make sure you have a story for it, and make sure it's interesting.

Stacia Kane · Sep 24, 2006

Elektra said:
December Quinn!

I've been having the same questions. Glad to know someone else is frightened by the taboo of "static locations".

It makes sense, since we share a brain.

But yeah...I'd never even heard of this before and never noticed it in books, so it totally freaked me out!

Elektra · Sep 24, 2006

I feel as if I should have a paintball gun fall through a time warp, and have Aphrodite start chasing Psyche around a la Vegas Bambi s. (http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1356380)

Aphrodite: Ha! Thought I was just going to have you sort some seeds, did you? *Bam* Fool of a girl!

Psyche: I promise, I'll never see your son again. Now give me back my clothes!

Stacia Kane · Sep 25, 2006

Elektra said:
I feel as if I should have a paintball gun fall through a time warp, and have Aphrodite start chasing Psyche around a la Vegas Bambi s. (http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1356380)

Aphrodite: Ha! Thought I was just going to have you sort some seeds, did you? *Bam* Fool of a girl!

Psyche: I promise, I'll never see your son again. Now give me back my clothes!

Lol!

I keep thinking mine should go jogging through a police shoot-out, before hopping into the car, getting into an accident with a serial killer, then being chased by said killer through a swamp.

expatbrat · Sep 25, 2006

Has any one noticed that a lot more characters are eating in current movies? Everyone is constantly chewing - I guess this is supose to make them look more interesting.

Not exactly book related, sorry.

Doctor Shifty · Sep 26, 2006

I remember seeing a documentary on the early days of soap operas and the narrator some capital out of the fact that most of the dialogue was carried out on the telephone. It was easy to set up small TV sets of a phone corner in each character's house, and all they had to do was pick up the thing and talk. No action, no nothing, just talking over the phone.

Oh, yeah, the ads for Persil etc between the talk.

PeeDee · Sep 26, 2006

expatbrat said:
Has any one noticed that a lot more characters are eating in current movies? Everyone is constantly chewing - I guess this is supose to make them look more interesting.

Not exactly book related, sorry.

No, I've noticed that too. I think it's supposed to make otherwise flat sounding dialogue come across as interesting and varied because it's being said around a mouthful of pasta. I'm not sure it entirely works, although admittedly, it does help a little.

Stagnant Locations? ACK!

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective

Doug Johnson

LeeFlower

Lurker Extraordinaire

Kate Thornton

Still Happy to be Here. Or Anywhere

HConn

Whore for genre

Linda Adams

Soldier, Storyteller

allion

Character assassin

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

MattW

Company Man

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective

Elektra

Don't Call Me Sweetheart

arrowqueen

RIP, our sarky besom

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective

Elektra

Don't Call Me Sweetheart

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective

expatbrat

Look what we made:

Doctor Shifty

Press Any Key

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?