Plot point impacts

I think I'd have to see some examples to be able to help you. Maybe make a post with that first scene in SYW?

I'd suggest showing the relationship between them so the reader can see it's close and important to your MC. It can be as simple as a card, a gift, phone call or whatever and from the teacher and how your MC reacts to it. Or a full-blown scene if that fits the story. I can't be more specific without knowing the story.

As for when to kill the teacher...whenever it will have the most dramatic impact on the story. If his death is the breaking point for your MC, and that's the final straw in her abandoning her faith, then it would probably come later in the story. You'd want enough time to show the gradual disillusionment of your MC. If his death is the trigger that sends her into a tailspin and makes her question everything she believes, then earlier.

Don't look at it as a spectacular visual scene. Look at it as an event that will emotionally affect your MC in a fundamental way and change her life. When is the right moment for that to happen?

ProtoMatic said:

My questions are as follows.

Any ideas on how I can establish the relationship with the teacher the first few "scenes"? (without saying it out loud, of course)

and

Would it be more powerful to kill the teacher before or after the first "mission"? (Would it be the moment she started doubting her faith, and then the incident on the mission would solidify the doubt, or vice versa?) Though either scenario will be spectacular, I'm sort of leaning towards killing him after, because I think that will be the more "epic" moment, but it's not as naratively interesting. However, doing it before will make more sense, but it's not as "visually" pleasing.. I got a decitionmaking disorder, I know, but I can't help it!

Click to expand...

My first reaction would be to kill the teacher just before the story begins and open with her learning of/reacting to his death. Then show her relationship with the teacher in a series of memories that are woven in with the present action. Some of those memories would be flashbacks; others would be as brief as a single sentence.

But... That's the story I get in my head based on your brief description. It's quite possible, even quite likely, that your story is completely different. Which way works depends on what story you want to tell.

What's the main plotline of your story? Is it an action plot about how MC defeats the enemy and saves the world? Is it a character plot about how MC grows and learns to question the black-and-white absolutes? Is it something else? Yes, all of those things may be in there, but which is the main one? The thing is, your main plotline determines your ending, and your ending determines what your beginning needs to be.

Without knowing much about the rituals involved in the faith system, it's kind of hard to say but if I were writing such a story I think I'd build up the faith system by showing your MC involved in whatever rituals they have that give the impression the leader is looked upon as immortal or whatever, showing the MC's awe of the leader and letting us in on the mind set of the group as a whole that reinforces that belief. Setting it up like that will cause the reader to identify with the MC and the belief system so that when you kill off the leader they will suffer the same shock as the MC.
Linnea

I had to do this is in my current MS. My MC is the King's closest advisor, and I had to show that in one chapter without actually having it mentioned prior. What I did was establish a dialogue with both characters, where The King and my MC were sharing their thoughts on a variety of issues, but ultimately showing the reader the level of friendship between the two men.

I’m a firm believer of show-not-tell. Even if I fall victim to tell-not-show far too often. (This is something I have to catch in the editing process).

IMHO, you can do this the same why I tried, with a scene of dialogue. Maybe it works, maybe not.

Hope that helps.

I would say, use a flashback of a formative moment in the MC's life, early in the novel, to show the student's relationship with the teacher. If the scene has conflict, so much the better.

And, I would lean towards killing the teacher after the first mission. It's really a theoretical question...is the teacher's death the reason for the "quest"? Or, does the MC embark on this quest and then begin to doubt him/herself because of the teacher's death?

I like killing the teacher after the first mission because it is unexpected. We are very accustomed to reading "hero's journey" stories where all of the obstacles are external. It's a nice and slightly unexpected twist to have one of the obstacles be internal. But that's just my opinion.

I kind of like the idea of presenting the relationship in the form of a scene or two of training and teaching, where we have an insight into the MC's thoughts about the new knowledge and the wise Master. Maybe something similar to a wax on/wax off scene from The Karate Kid.

Also, I think it would be really dramatic and faith-destroying for the MC to return from a failed mission to find out the Master died while she was away. Leads the MC to all sorts of questions and emotions that you can work off of:

-Why wasn't I there?
-How could he die?
-How could he leave me?
-I can't be the "one."
-I can't do this, not without him.
-I'm a failure.
-I killed him.
-[In the words of the King of Siam, "Etc. etc. etc."]

I say this because it sounds like the story is about the loss and rebuilding of Individual Faith. So, to me, the climax of that scene isn't the death, but what comes of it. The total destruction of character and esteem, trust and faith. Belief.

It's way better to come back from that than the MC's motivation being a death. (In the end everybody dies--except those characters that are immortal, obviously--but it seems a more poignant theme to work on faith, than to fight death.)

Oh dear. Are you writing a movie or a novel?

Well, writing a novel and writing a script are two different animals.

You talk of cuts, "visual impacts", and refer a "watcher/reader". You can't write a novel the same way you would write a script. What looks good on screen, and what creates good images in a reader's mind, are rarely the same things.

Do you read at all?

And of course, there's nothing wrong with writing scripts...

All right then.

Willowmound said:

Well, writing a novel and writing a script are two different animals.

You talk of cuts, "visual impacts", and refer a "watcher/reader". You can't write a novel the same way you would write a script. What looks good on screen, and what creates good images in a reader's mind, are rarely the same things.

Click to expand...

I've heard several novel writers on the forum refer to their work as 'visual'. I write like that too. I need to see scenes in my mind's eye before putting them on paper. Occassionally that means playing music evocative of the scene. I think it works as that visual perception is frequent in comments I receive from readers.
Linnea

I do that too. It's not what I was talking about.

'Any ideas on how I can establish the relationship with the teacher the first few "scenes"? (without saying it out loud, of course)' ~ fairly easy, i think: start off with a training excercise. a bit more complex would be to have her in the midst of a competition and her turn is called up. this satisfies those who want to start off with some kind of action, and it's the perfect opportunity to put in subtext, which is great for eliminating a lot of overt telling, and you can use a bit of dialogue, too. the tone of the dialogue is very important to establishing their relationship and characterization.

'Would it be more powerful to kill the teacher before or after the first "mission"? (Would it be the moment she started doubting her faith, and then the incident on the mission would solidify the doubt, or vice versa?) Though either scenario will be spectacular, I'm sort of leaning towards killing him after, because I think that will be the more "epic" moment, but it's not as naratively interesting. However, doing it before will make more sense, but it's not as "visually" pleasing.. I got a decitionmaking disorder, I know, but I can't help it!' ~ it doesn't matter either way, imo, as both have dramatic elements worth exploiting. since you mentioned 'first mission,' then offhand i'd say after the mission is over. then again, generally speaking you find the mentor in the hero's journey killed right before the main climactic scene unless i'm mistaken. that's why i say that since there appears to be many missions, it probably doesn't matter.

'I would say, use a flashback of a formative moment in the MC's life, early in the novel, to show the student's relationship with the teacher. If the scene has conflict, so much the better.' ~ here, and this is all subjective of course, i'd save this flashback for immediately after the mentor dies and have it be germaine to her emotions. for example, some wise bullshit about death he told her on the porch as rain pooled around the body of the mongrel (dead in the mud) she'd been feeding. an attempt to connect that with the ending is a good thing. using a flashback 'early on' merely to establish a relationship and/or characterization from ten years ago is moot for all intents and purposes, imo, unless there is a reason why we need *more* relationship/characterization. you can completely eliminate the entire point of a flashback in your opening scene with a single line of dialogue that goes, 'why, master, thank you. hard to believe you're the same man who used to beat me for dropping a grain of rice.' so that makes the use of an 'early on' flashback good for nothing but author excess. if you haven't established their relationship by the time of a flashback, you haven't done your job ~ that relationship should be obvious from the very first scene. i'd avoid a flashback unless you're also telegraphing what's to come in the climax (in this case). just my opinion.

'I think constricting a story to a specific medium is a limitation, not a strength.' ~ you will likely fail then. i had the same question willow had about it being a novel or a script. a reader doesn't want to read a prosey script any more than a producer wants to read a lopsided adaptation what doesn't fit generally into the step process if it's to be a mainstream project. it really sounds to me, and excuse my bluntness, that you're being a selfish writer by seeing the movie version and just writing that down with no consideration as to how the reader will accept it as evidenced in this continual flashback idea. then, when the reader asks what the hell you're doing, it's their fault for not 'getting it.' is there a reason for all these flashbacks? i mean is there really a need for them that you can't accomplish without the quasi-experimental aspect? i'm sure it'd be fun to watch, but it sounds rather annoying to read: i'm afraid it sounds like a monumental waste of my reading time to slog through just because you don't want to adhere to any one 'medium' and learn to write effectively. montages work in 'rocky' movies, but if your name isn't jerry bruckheimer, you definitely should get *a lot* of feedback before relying too heavily on this scattershot opening scene that 1) removes all mystery and 2) sounds as if effective writing is totally being ignored, i.e. all style, little substance. ('but, preyer, 'kung fu' used flashbacks all the time!' great. when this story is made into an hourlong drama for commercial television, i'll cede the point.)

'Like I said. I'm creating a story. A good story won't be bound to a specific medium. Granted, the story is told in slightly different ways for a novel and a movie (and computer game, tv series, stage play or cartoon) but the fundamental story remains the same.' ~ actually, an effective story will be bound by the medium's conventions, yes indeedy. movies and novels are told 'slightly different'? imo, if you believe there's only a slight difference, you're either naive or deluding yourself. there's a very good reason why producers don't have the novel author write the screenplay as a rule. it's why a few agents almost specialize in writers who are good at book-to-screenplay adaptations.

'What I do is I create a story-foundation which can easily be written into different formats right from the start.' ~ who doesn't? sorry, but i think this statement perfectly illustrates egotism borne from ignorance and pure, unadulterated newbie-ism. playwriting, screenwriting, journalism, novel writing, etc., are are individual crafts in their own right. even novelists aren't necessarily good short story writers and vice versa. every single idea we all have can be adapted to any other medium (though it's best done by someone practiced in that medium usually). whether or not that adaptation is successful, well....

basically, conventional wisdom is don't confuse a script with a novel. too, don't think that it's easy as all that just to knock out a script version of your novel. for that matter, folk shouldn't think that screenwriting is a lower form of the written word and it's based on a forumla anyway, so anyone can do it.

'(Granted, it's a lot more work, but it ensures that the story is water-proof, because I have to see it from many different angles while in the creative process.)' ~ it sounds more muddy than water-proof to me. how is your approach ensuring anything, let alone making sure your reader's experience is the best it can be? i honestly believe there are writers out there who writes the movie in their head into a novel form believing some producer will see it and say, 'hey, let's buy the rights to this book! the script is practically already written out for us, right down to the camera angles!' then the writer wonders why their story, which isn't a bad idea, doesn't work as neither a novel nor a screenplay.

there's certainly a great amount of information you can take from screenwriting and apply to novels, but you have to know where to draw the line, too. you never hear of a novelist talking about beats, and rarely about Act I, II and III. by the same token, you're not likely to get far as a screenwriter without knowing what purpose Act I, II and II serve. same story told differently, and hardly in 'slightly different' ways. what's important to a novelist to see on screen doesn't necessarily mean squat to a screenwriter.

back to the point and to reiterate, i don't see the benefit of multiple flashbacks just to show characterization/relationship other than showing off some gimmicky montage sequences a director may someday get a chuckle out of then proceed directly to doing the movie exactly the way he wants. i guess what i'm saying is once you start directing a novel as were it a movie, that's obvious to the reader, is rather annoying to read imo, and doesn't move the story further when conciseness is one of the keys. flashbacks and prologues divide the writing community right down the middle, but i think most of the reasonable anti-flashback/prologuers will admit that if it's appropriate and moves the story along, okay, go for it, but make sure you're not abusing them.

killing the mentor is standard hero's journey fare. having him actually live is being different. if you wanted to be different, just have him leave for his own quest.

as an aside, i'd argue that the premise is flawed in that training doesn't encompass the real world, unless the 'chosen one' is never meant to leave the temple or whatever, and that in order to accomplish a mission she'll have to have some social skillz, knowledge of culture other than her own and on a practical level, and basically knowing how not to get run over by an ox cart because she's standing in the middle of the street staring at a flagpole. here's basically what i get out of it: 'you can kill anyone in the world with ease. now that we've completely isolated you from as much diverse human contact as we could, please go out into the real world and do a job for us regardless of how unprepared you are because we're too short-sighted to consider this possibility in the 22 years you've been here training to kill, because, you know, if you can kill people you can go anywhere and do anything.' it's hard to imagine her having a healthy, normal relationship with anyone let alone her mentor. i know, by keeping her isolated, the loss of her mentor is greater... i guess. i don't know, though, it strains my suspension of disbelief to think all she's done for 22 years is train to beat the snot out of people. i mean, does it really take that long? couldn't they have slipped in some field trips? lessons on table manners? how to act like a lady when she's not assassinating people? at least teach her to dance? i like the idea of her destroying her own faith as an act of rebellion then trying to find it again once she feels the regret for her deeds. anyway....

you raise someone up like that and you'd probably have a very angry, resentful person who just happens to barely keep herself composed due to discipline (and not wanting to be beaten). hell, she should KILL her mentor, the bastard! then feel sorry for it later, but, yeah, this guy's ruined her life basically by feeding her a bunch of cultist horse hockey and not giving her any life options... which would be one (shady) motivation for her isolation, but also the fastest and easiest way for her to want to get away once she finds out how life can be, i think. at any rate, the point to consider the motivations. the nice thing about a novel is you can elaborate almost as much as you want as opposed to a script where time's ticking away. still, even with the extra freedom in a novel you can't drone on endlessly.

sorry if i seemed mean, proto, not my intention, but being a guy who gets a reality check pretty often keeps one humble. that's why i say stick with writing a novel or a script ~ you can't really kill two birds with one stone and make either as effective as they need to be.

i see scenes 'visually,' too. i've had many comments on how 'visual' my scenes are and how 'i can see them like they were a movie.' those are good comments. however, those are individual scenes and that's my style and *not* a part of the storytelling. if i imagined a movie and timed it out to be an hour and forty-five minutes, then write down only what's in that 'movie,' it would be a sad novel to be sure. and probably a pretty lousy movie. then to jam together a lousy movie and a crappy novel and expect gold is holding a pretty high opinion of my abilities.

When a movie is made from a novel, it may be a good movie, but it rarely pleases people who loved the novel. There are several reasons for that, but one is that movies and novels have different strengths and weaknesses as media. There are things it's very easy to do with a camera but hard to do with words. And there are things easy with words and hard with a camera.

A camera can pan across a scene and convey a tremendous amount of setting information in a few seconds. The same amount of information would take paragraphs, if not pages, in a novel. To avoid a tedious block of narrative description, the novel has to hint at the setting with only a few quick details.

In a novel, a few words of internalization can reveal a character's emotions in all their full complexity. On the other hand, actors spend years practicing expressions and directors spend hours designing camera angles and lighting to set up that one shot to convey a certain emotion. Then they're lucky if the basic emotion comes through, never mind any complexity.

These are a couple of the most obvious examples of the difference; there are many more. I have to agree with preyer. If you don't commit fully to writing a novel as a novel, it's unlikely to be successful enough to catch the attention of the moviemakers.

even as a script, you write it as a spec and you don't tell the director what camera angles you think needs shot. a good director has his own vision and hardly needs us telling him how to do his job. i think a lot of folk have the idea that they write a script and it's bought and expect to see that exactly on screen. the shooting script can be a lot different from the spec script and there's usually nothing the spec writer can do about it.

there's a guy in the scriptwriting forum, nmstephens, who wrote a script, it got bought, then somehow wound up being 'hellraiser seven: deader.' well, he didn't set out to write a 'hellraiser' script, but they needed one, used his and, if i'm correct, had another screenwriter turn it into the 'hellraiser' script. so, you can sell your spec script about enuit whaling practices and find out it's been turned into a porno, 'eskimo pie: a whale of a good time.' (yes, i realize inuits aren't synonymous with eskimos, get off my back, ishmael.)

'but, preyer, i saw this japanese movie--!' stop right there. different cultures have their own storytelling methods. it may not seem that way a lot of time because the differences are subtle. however, i pretty much assure you that any action flick from the early seventies will have the hero die because it follows a particular kind of japanese storytelling method.

'but, preyer, i've seen plenty of movies that go against the grain, aren't very commercial and doesn't fit into the mold!' maybe. consider who's in the movie and who directed it. if you've got enough clout you can do your pet projects to a certain degree, or if you're the female lead in a blockbuster movie franchise and complain about not getting any challenging roles, you can star in 'marie antoinette' in hopes that that'll shut you up long enough to squeeze out another cardboard performance in a money-maker. some movies are made for money, some for critical acclaim, some for appeasement. none are ever made exactly how the spec script is written. once you sign over the rights to the movie, you have no control over it.

that's why it's utterly, completely, 100% pointless to think that you can write movie direction into a novel. i've no problem with blocking a scene to see what the MC sees, for example the MC hiding under a bed and only able to see the killer's shoes, but when it gets to the point of suggesting fade ins and star wipes and complicated camera withdraws from inside the moving train to a panoramic vista, yeah, i'll have a problem with that in my fiction.

i think some people have a problem with wanting to have their stories made into movies, but not actually wanting to be a screenwriter because it's 'boring' or 'too forumula' or 'i can't be as prosey as i want to be.' so they settle on novels under the falsehood that they can tell the *exact* same story in the *exact* same manner and there's really not much difference between the two aside from some 'minour' changes. if you want creative control, don't write scripts, lol. but, then the same novelist starts writing in angles and direction and it becomes all very manipulative and stilted because the writer isn't quite sure what they want to believe, holding on to the idea they can do both in one thing, and screw the reader out of letting them do their share of the work by letting them imagine the scene the way they want. (as an aside, while in your spec script you don't want to tell the director how to do his job, there are some tricks to 'help' him see it your way, so i'm told.)

fennel, you put it nicely about novels attracting the attention of moviemakers. a novel is supposed to attract the attention of the reader, *scripts* are for attracting moviemakers.