Writing the believable

mum23 · Sep 25, 2007

I have always been led to believe that when writing a novel, the content has to be believable. ie; if you are hanging from a cliff, an areoplane could not hover close to you so you could jump on.
Now, I have just watched the latest bruce Willis film and up until a certain point, the storyline was great. Then they have to throw in the completly un believeable scenes that totally destroy the film. Only in Hollywood as they say!

She_wulf · Sep 25, 2007

mum23 said:
I have always been led to believe that when writing a novel, the content has to be believable. ie; if you are hanging from a cliff, an areoplane could not hover close to you so you could jump on.
Now, I have just watched the latest bruce Willis film and up until a certain point, the storyline was great. Then they have to throw in the completly un believeable scenes that totally destroy the film. Only in Hollywood as they say!

I agree. I just finished a book (one of four read in the last two weeks) that, despite the suspense genre, could really happen if...

The things that drew me into the story was the way the MC reacted. The thought process was entirely logical. There was no..."What a dip-sh__! She should just go to the police!" No throwing popcorn at the proverbial screen, no "Ppppbbbffft! That was stupid."

The MC witnessed a crime that was set up to make it look like they'd done it. In reaction, they had to empty their bank account, couldn't go back to the house for their car, went on the lamb and within two days was being chased away from gas stations for looking like a homeless person. There was no hotel-hopping, no car chases, no outwitting the cops, just run, tuck, and hide. Hunger, fear, body stress from exposure, all the things that would really happen. It made for an excellent story.

jdparadise · Sep 25, 2007

Mum, the trick is a simple one. Are you writing realism, or are you writing fantasy?

I loved the most recent Die Hard, despite the fact that it had only the most tenuous connections to reality--but it knew that. It knew that by this point McClain is as much an icon as he is a human being.

The trailer moment--the killing the helicopter with a car--is so over the top, so implausible, that it transcends humanity and realism and goes straight into superheroland. But since the movie's called Die Hard and we know McClain is the unkillable American superhero, that's all right.

I also submit that that moment doesn't work at all without McClain taking that moment with the kid right after. If they'd just gone on running without a breath, it becomes silly. The kid's line is perfect right there--and McClain's rejoinder is an even better topper, if I'm recalling it correctly. It's a comedy moment where they acknowledge how utterly improbable it is that they would have pulled off what they just pulled off. If they'd accepted it as the everyday, I would have rolled my eyes, I think.

preyer · Sep 25, 2007

suspension of disbelief only goes so far. lightsabres, jumping from a dam 300 feet into the water without so much as twisting your ankle, a hero's sword that never breaks, bends or loses its edge, a twenty hour day of running, fighting, drinking, fighting, falling out of airplanes, fighting, *then* at the end of the day gives the girl the best sexual experience of her life, whatever, we'll buy into it. but, you can't plug your atari 2600 into the wall and break into the NASA database (don't know why you would want to, but...).

we really do buy into a bunch of ridiculously impossible things for the sake of being entertained then become indignant when a small detail is amiss. 'hey, that's not what that thing is called on a hot air balloon!' like it really frickin' matters right after the hero has just drop-kicked a rabid bull.

preyer · Sep 25, 2007

from the trailer, the kid said something like, 'you just shot a helicoptor with a car!'

'i was out of bullets.'

as i recall. it's a throwback to 80's action flicks, to be sure, where after the hero dispatches a bad guy he's got to have a 'clever' line. it was usually something lame like, 'you're fired,' then torching the guy. there was a simpsons episode where bart kills itchy and scratchy robots with the flashbulb of a camera, would go, 'say cheese,' before downing one, and at the end commented, 'with a cool dry wit like that i could be an action hero.'

Ken Schneider · Sep 25, 2007

Well it depends on the genre, now doesn't it.

I agree if you're talking something comtemporary

PeeDee · Sep 25, 2007

Personally, I'm happier at the end of the day if my story -- fantasy, or science fiction, or horror, or whatever else have you -- holds up logically under scrutiny. I think I've done a better job.

I still enjoy the Hollywood movie, such as things like Die Hard, but I would have no interest in writing that.

mum23 · Sep 25, 2007

preyer said:
suspension of disbelief only goes so far. lightsabres, jumping from a dam 300 feet into the water without so much as twisting your ankle, a hero's sword that never breaks, bends or loses its edge, a twenty hour day of running, fighting, drinking, fighting, falling out of airplanes, fighting, *then* at the end of the day gives the girl the best sexual experience of her life, whatever, we'll buy into it. but, you can't plug your atari 2600 into the wall and break into the NASA database (don't know why you would want to, but...).

we really do buy into a bunch of ridiculously impossible things for the sake of being entertained then become indignant when a small detail is amiss. 'hey, that's not what that thing is called on a hot air balloon!' like it really frickin' matters right after the hero has just drop-kicked a rabid bull.

I must be too picky. But then there is the fact I don't like any Bruce willis film.

RickN · Sep 25, 2007

One of my editing reminders deals with every decision point -- did the character make a plausible choice? If there was a better/more logical/more rational choice, what reason did the character have for not making that choice?

The normal reaction after getting beaten by a biker gang is to go to the cops. If you don't, you better have a good reason. If someone's chasing you with a gun, the normal reaction is to run away, so if you grab a trash-can lid and run at the gunman to go mano-a-mano -- you better have a good reason.

I frequently catch points after my first draft where I, the writer, knows something that my character doesn't know, yet the character stills acts on that information.

a_sharp · Sep 25, 2007

The thriller genre is full of such stuff. Sheldon Leonard, Clive Cussler, Robert Ludlum, and a bunch of others have built success upon success pushing belief.

They get away with it by creating extraordinary characters with backgrounds of limit-defying behavior. Jason Bourne an impossibility? Maybe, maybe not, but man, does it sell. Making it work is hard to do and requires a willing reader. Borderline fantasy? Yeah, but these writers make the charts time and again.

mum23 · Sep 25, 2007

a_sharp said:
The thriller genre is full of such stuff. Sheldon Leonard, Clive Cussler, Robert Ludlum, and a bunch of others have built success upon success pushing belief.

They get away with it by creating extraordinary characters with backgrounds of limit-defying behavior. Jason Bourne an impossibility? Maybe, maybe not, but man, does it sell. Making it work is hard to do and requires a willing reader. Borderline fantasy? Yeah, but these writers make the charts time and again.

But jason Bourne is believable. The day After Tomorrow was believable. Terminator, was believable because Arnie was playing a Robot.
Comparing the latest Die Hard movie, to let's say, Enemy of the State. Similar topics, Goverment Issues, but the later was/is more believable. It doesn't make it any less of a better film. It didn't need the un believable stunts. Sometimes they just go too far over the top and for me, it spoils it.

roger · Sep 25, 2007

Your novel creates its own universe. As long as the story remains consistent with that, it should be okay. I'm not just referring to fantasy or sci-fi novels. But there could be elements of melodrama within a contemporary-set urban novel. The story could stealthily expand what is allowable by incrementally pushing the boundaries.

jdparadise · Sep 25, 2007

Well, I can't say what should and shouldn't spoil movies for you, obviously, mum. I'd suggest that they're really different genres of films/books/whatever, much like Conan is very different from George Martin's work. One is romanticized and escapist; the other is grittier and more realistic. There's nothing wrong with either, IMO; it's just what one prefers.

The one I'm a stickler on is -internal- consistency. If Bruce Willis can kill a helicopter with a car, then he shouldn't be stymied by a locked door. If Conan can lift a tree, he shouldn't be flummoxed by an unopenable pickle jar. As long as the stories are consistent in that manner, they work for me...

FennelGiraffe · Sep 25, 2007

mum23 said:
I have always been led to believe that when writing a novel, the content has to be believable. ... I have just watched the latest bruce Willis film.

A movie is NOT a novel! Different standards apply.

jdparadise said:
Mum, the trick is a simple one. Are you writing realism, or are you writing fantasy?

Even if you're writing fantasy, events need to be believable within the rules of your fantasy world.

Wraith · Sep 25, 2007

FennelGiraffe said:
Even if you're writing fantasy, events need to be believable within the rules of your fantasy world.

True. But I have to add that the atmosphere/emotion is very important to make something believable - even far-fetched scenarios can get better that way. If you get inside your character's head so much that you actually feel how it's like to hang one-handed over the abyss and to climb back on (classical scene), you can make something out of it. You can do almost anything, and the reader won't notice. While flat characters are unbelievable even when they say 'hello'.

Of course, there are also things like narrow escapes that defy the laws of nature and common sense and of everything else, but even those can be ok. It's all about the writing. But on the whole, I think breaking your own rules is generally the worst case of shattering the whole suspension of disbelief thing.

maestrowork · Sep 25, 2007

Well, I think with thrillers you're allowed certain implausibility. Personally I can't suspend my disbelief if the situations are too outrageous. But within reasons, I could probably roll my eyes and move on -- IF and only IF the story is engaging enough. These outlandish things usually are not enough to make or break the story for me. I mean, in Dan Brown's Angels & Demons, there are so many outlandish things (without giving too many spoilers... for example, a prototype plane that flies from Boston to Switzerland in 1 hour -- okay, where can I sign up?) but it was still an enjoyable read for me. It should still be plausible within the context of the story: 1 hour flight is possible if they DO have that technology (it is, after all, a techno-thriller what with anti-matter bombs, etc.) but if he had said "we flew across the Atlantic in 5 minutes" then it would have been a complete deal breaker (this isn't Star Trek).

I was just watching Shook 'Em Up and it was ridiculous! BUT. The movie was done in a tongue-in-cheek, cartoonish action thriller way, so I was able to suspend my disbelief. However, if they had done the same thing in, say, Children of Men (which is a SF set in a not-so-distant future), I would have walked out of the theater. So it depends on the context.

For example, I almost threw the movie (if I could) against the wall at the end of Bourne Ultimatum. That totally wasn't realistic to me, and it pissed me off because the Bourne series was supposed to be more realistic (and not outlandish like James Bond) and they pulled those last stunts that, to me, completely negated their believability. Bourne might have been a super agent, but he was not a super human. That was what blew it for me.

a_sharp · Sep 25, 2007

In response to Mum's OP, I have to agree with pdparadise that consistency is the key. If you strive for a high concept book, you have to create characters with extraordinary talents who do big things that have far-reaching consequences. Finding the balance for credibility in that is a tough task that many writers mangle regardless of experience. Ludlum was a case in point--to be kind, his late-life books missed the mark.

My original experience of the Bourne books was 1980, 1986, and 1990 when they came out, and I ate them up then. (I stopped reading Ludlum soon afterward.) But that was me 15-25 years ago. Since then I have changed, the media have changed, technology has changed, readers and movie audiences have changed. And it seems nowadays that over-the-top is necessary to sell product. That's the Hollywood perception anyway, and I think it's infected the New York publishing establishment as well.

If you really aspire to blockbuster status, or what Donald Maass calls a breakout book, there's plenty of guidance on the bookshelves. But striking that credibility balance is tricky stuff, and I think rare for first and even second book attempts. The masters have both glorified and abused it.

Caveat emptor.

nevada · Sep 25, 2007

I have a certain willingness to suspend my disbelief but not when it comes to common sense things. For example, since everyone is talking about the last die hard movie, (which I walked out of by the way. don't do that very often) I was willing to go along with the car and helicopter bit. But they'd already lost me. When? When about 8 or 9 hackers on teh FBI watch list are blown to bit in exactly the same way and the FBI has no clue. THe reason why it's called a "watch list" is because the people on the list are being "watched." So the minute one of them dies, an FBI computer says Ping. And if several more then die in exactly the same manner, the computer says PING PING PING PING. And yet they had no clue until Bruce Willis shows up. That destroyed it for me. Not the car and helicopter.

And to me, the same thing goes in novels. I'm willing to go along with the outlandish if it's plausible. But when someone witnesses a brutal murder and doesnt call the police for no reason, then I'm out. Normal, every day people call the police when they run across dead bodies. And very often, in suspense novels, normal every day people don't. Why? Because otherwise the plot won't work and then I'm out. In romance genre circles those people, usually women, have their own abbreviation: TSTL Too Stupid To Live. If, in a novel or a movie, someone acts TSTL I'm out.

sneakers145 · Sep 25, 2007

nevada said:
And to me, the same thing goes in novels. I'm willing to go along with the outlandish if it's plausible. But when someone witnesses a brutal murder and doesnt call the police for no reason, then I'm out. Normal, every day people call the police when they run across dead bodies. And very often, in suspense novels, normal every day people don't. Why? Because otherwise the plot won't work and then I'm out. In romance genre circles those people, usually women, have their own abbreviation: TSTL Too Stupid To Live. If, in a novel or a movie, someone acts TSTL I'm out.

I can't stand those stupid people. And whiny women who wear dress heels and can never, ever outrun a bad guy. Or they stick her in a room in a house and she's too stupid to try to pry the hinges off the door. Or kick at it to see if it's hollow core. Or kick through the sheetrock, for pete's sake. Now sure, the bad guy may have reinforced everything and the hinges are on the outside, but make her try, at least, to look like she's explored every angle!

And yes, they should call the police unless they have a compelling reason not to. Currently my MC thinks she'd be the prime suspect if she called the cops (who found a body). But she also believes that the dead person isn't who they think it is, so she's wrestling with whether to call or not. She didn't do it, but will they jail her?

nevada · Sep 25, 2007

Sneakers, I wasnt actually addressing your plot point directly. lol I'm sure, and it sounds like it, that your character has every reason to not call the police. It was just an example I grabbed out of the air.

Speaking of hinges, I once saw a movie (only briefly) where a guy is after a woman and she locks herself in the bathroom, putting a chair underneath the door knob to brace the door. Only Problem is the hinges are on the outside which means the door opens out, towards the bad guy. Who actually does decide to take the pins out of the hinges to get the door to open. Nobody realized that the door opened out? Or did they figure we were too stupid to figure that out? Stuff like that drives me NUTS.

sneakers145 · Sep 25, 2007

nevada said:
Sneakers, I wasnt actually addressing your plot point directly. lol I'm sure, and it sounds like it, that your character has every reason to not call the police. It was just an example I grabbed out of the air. .

I didn't think you were.

I was just sayin...

And she hasn't told me (or any other characters) what's going on or what she thinks is going on and hasn't called the cops yet. So I'm wasting time here while she figures out what to do. Then I hope she tells me. My other character is in need of a shower and lunch...

wayndom · Sep 29, 2007

mum23 said:
I have always been led to believe that when writing a novel, the content has to be believable. ie; if you are hanging from a cliff, an areoplane could not hover close to you so you could jump on.
Now, I have just watched the latest bruce Willis film and up until a certain point, the storyline was great. Then they have to throw in the completly un believeable scenes that totally destroy the film. Only in Hollywood as they say!

Umm...I don't believe the latest Bruce Willis film is based on a novel, and even if it was, lots of screenwriters don't play by the same rules as novelists. Mainly, they don't have as much respect for their audience's intelligence. I was invited to co-write a screenplay from an unpublished novel of mine, and it was an unforgettable experience, no matter how hard I tried.

The person who invited me is a small-time writer/director who's claim to fame was a thriller screenplay he wrote many years ago. I saw the movie made from it, and read two more of his screenplays, and what stood out the most to me was his use of "easy outs," which is to say, narrative techniques without any thought behind them.

For example, his work almost always has a moment where the MC discovers a horrible killing, notifies the police, and is immediately arrested for the crime, without a trace of evidence suggesting he did it. I recognize it as a standard plot device -- hero is wrongly accused of crime -- but this guy never bothers to figure out a reasonable cause for the hero to be arrested, and it never rings true, and in fact, comes off as stupid.

He also thinks nothing of giving his villains supernatural abilities, like the ability to simply appear in a victim's car or home, without any explanation of how he even knows where the victim lives, let alone how he got into her house or car.

It's the kind of lazy, self-indulgent writing I hate, and I can't imagine how anyone can do it unless they think the movie-going audience has a collective IQ of 50.

The reason this kind of crap goes on is that Hollywood is run by hucksters who know how to sweet-talk investors and blow smoke up people's asses, but know nothing about writing or storytelling. Same's true (perhaps even more so) of TV.

When David Chase first pitched the Sopranos to Fox, the executives (1) wanted to know, "Does Tony have to see a psychiatrist?" and (2) wanted the cast to consist entirely of beautiful people. Thank gawd for HBO...

Actually, a season or two into the Sopranos, Fox put on its own Mafia show, I think it was called The Family or some such. All the actors were movie-star beautiful. The show lasted about a half-season.

At least book publishers still leave the editorial decisions to editors...

wayndom · Sep 29, 2007

sneakers145 said:
I can't stand those stupid people. And whiny women who wear dress heels and can never, ever outrun a bad guy. Or they stick her in a room in a house and she's too stupid to try to pry the hinges off the door. Or kick at it to see if it's hollow core. Or kick through the sheetrock, for pete's sake. Now sure, the bad guy may have reinforced everything and the hinges are on the outside, but make her try, at least, to look like she's explored every angle!

EXACTLY! Not only to avoid the appearance of stupidity, but because it makes the story better. Example: Panic Room. Jodie Foster's character was tough and resourceful, which made the movie more realistic and more satisfying.

Wolvel · Sep 29, 2007

Anything can be believable as long as it fits into the world you have created in your book.

JoniBGoode · Sep 30, 2007

sneakers145 said:
I can't stand those stupid people. And whiny women who wear dress heels and can never, ever outrun a bad guy. Or they stick her in a room in a house and she's too stupid to try to pry the hinges off the door.

And WHERE is the cell phone? Because you know anybody wearing Jimmy Choo shoes can afford a cell phone. So, why don't they just call their butler to come let them out?

I believe that the targeted market for action flicks is males aged 14 to 18. What they want is great scenes of really cool stuff blowing up and people getting killed in gory ways. (Like a video game, but with live actors.) The plot is just an excuse to deliver that.

I've noticed a trend at my local theater of the audience laughing at the more improbable scenes (like the car "killing" the helicopter, and any scene involving Tom Cruise running at hyperspeed.) It's taken the "things blowing up" genre to a new type of entertainment, where the more unlikely it is, the better.

To echo what everyone else has said: A movie is not a novel. A screenplay is about 120 pages, mostly dialogue. It contains much less plot and charactarization than a novel, by definition.

Click to expand...

Writing the believable

mum23

She_wulf

that's me

jdparadise

Talker of Good Games

preyer

excessively spartan

preyer

excessively spartan

Ken Schneider

Absolute sagebrush

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?

mum23

RickN

a_sharp

Somebody give me an A

mum23

roger

jdparadise

Talker of Good Games

FennelGiraffe

It's green they say

Wraith

The demon in your inkwell.

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray

a_sharp

Somebody give me an A

nevada

sneakers145

nevada

sneakers145

wayndom

wayndom

Wolvel

Write the Damn Book!

JoniBGoode