Scenes That Aren't Scenes

Things that are important to the character (whether they seem to have an immediate bearing on the story or not) can help build the story. Sometimes it's just sloppy writing.

Obviously there's a theme with these "non-scenes" (MC's relationship with his father). They are probably there to help develop the character and (hopefully) have an impact on events later in the book. If they don't do either of those things... they might be unnecessary. Hard to say without reading it.

The writer could be just indulging. Or, as Aggy said, the not-scenes might be building towards something essential later on in the book.

The best way to tell is to keep reading. When you're done, ask the following questions.

Did the not-scenes inhibit or force the character to act a specific way in a crisis?
Did the not-scenes foreshadow the action?
Did the not-scenes give the reader information that allowed the reader to see the plot hook at the end before the main character saw it coming?

If the answer is "no" to all of those questions, the writer was probably indulging, or lazy or is going to use that info in the next book of the series (if there will be one).

I don't follow what the problem is. Surely they are scenes the same as any other scene.

It's not all 'happening' in a vaccum.

To deliver a soliloquy doesn't mean there isn't a 'scene'.

If a character comes to some kind of decision/resolution/conclusion, that's enough to make it a scene even though no outward action happens.

Scenes are followed by sequels. What you describe is probably that. Basic breakdown:

Scene has this structure - POV has a goal, POV works to achieve goal, something happens to prevent POV's goal (or achieve it).

Sequel has this structure - react to what's happened, think about what to do next, make a decision, act (which then becomes the next scene goal)

Sequels can be long or they can be one sentence.

I go into it a lot more here if you're curious.

Man, are you ever onto something with this one. One of the biggest traps of writing a novel or screenplay, and one of the biggest opportunities, relates to the content and construction of scenes. The two best rules of scene writing I've ever heard, ones that I teach in my writing workshops (hey, that'll make a good post, think I'll do that now...) are these:

1. Enter your scenes at the last possible moment. William Goldman said it first, in his book, "Adventures in the Screen Trade." Just as true for novelist.

2. Every scene should be conceived, built and executed around a MISSION that is specific to that scene and that scene only. What are you trying to accomplish with this scene? How does it relate to the spine of the story? Side trips away from the spine are always a bad thing, especially in time-sequential stories. Sure, every scene needs to illuminate character and contribute to thematic resonance, but this rule will set you free: know why the scene needs to be there, how it advances the plot, and then how it demonstrates character, and then do that and nothing else with the scene.

Hope this helps.

Just because a scene consists entirely of a character's thoughts doesn't make it something other than a scene. Being able to delve into a character's thoughts as well as their words and actions is the single great advantage books have over movies, IMO. Of course, if you can't figure out what purpose the thoughts serve in the story, then something may be amiss.

We're in raging agreement, then.

DwayneA said:

What's the point? Why does the author do this? What's the importance?

Click to expand...

It shows the character struggling with recent events, and with the character's dilemmas about what to do about it. This can demonstrate a great deal about the character. It shows what kinds of facts and memories and beliefs the character brings to bear on the dilemma. It shows the character's values, by showing the character's reasons for discounting some options and preferring others.

It can demonstrate the character's flaws and virtues. The character may take the easy way out of the dilemma, or the hard way; the courageous way or the cowardly way; the honest way or the dishonest way.

It can show important events from the character's past, because some of those events influence the character's current decisions.

It can foreshadow future events. The character may, for example, make certain assumptions about what might or might not happen in the future, about what allies and enemies might do or not do. The character may express doubts or fears, then act as if the feared thing won't happen. Once we know what the character expects or fears, we (as writers or readers) are on guard for those events.

That's all I can think of at the moment. What else?

By the way, I call these scenes Reaction Scenes or Dilemma Scenes (I can't decide which I like better). Writing teacher Dwight Swain (and also Jack Bickham and, until recently, Randy Ingermanson) call these scenes Sequels. I don't like the term because whenever I use it I always have to explain that I don't mean what people think I mean. Dilemma Scene expresses more accurately what I mean.

Dale

DwayneA said:

if it's easy to get into a character's head if the story is told in first person narrative, how do you do it in third person?

Click to expand...

You can get inside character's head in third person.




It's simple. It's easy.

The only difference is in first person you can only get into the head of the narrator. In third person, you can focus on one character (3rd limited), or a few (3rd limited, rotating) or a whole bunch (3rd omniscient).

Dwayne, you've been around the board for a while now, and POVs have been discussed all too often. Maybe you should dig up some of the old threads and study them instead of asking questions that have already been answered many times.

DwayneA said:

The book I'm currently reading is written in First Person Narrative where the protagonist is the narrator. All the action is through his own eyes.

Certain scenes in the book however don't look like scenes at all. In one, he talks about missing his father, painting his father's portrait, watching fathers and sons together. The scene is more of his thoughts.

What's the point? Why does the author do this? What's the importance?

Click to expand...

If the writer is any good, those bits of exposition will help you gain a crucial understanding of the character's motivation, and may be important to the plot later on in the book.

If the writer isn't any good, they're just wank.

Exposition is part of what makes literature unique and fascinating and different from, say, movies.

Personally I'd put it all in past tense. Also that's a whole lot of telling and no showing. But certainly it is exposition that develops a character.

Nice detail, Derek. The brother's "nickname" sums up the protagonist's feelings in just three words without needing the rest of the sentence. @=)