VanderMeer's Wonderbook, Chapter Four: Narrative Design (Continued)
It makes sense that, following the sections on cutting and inter-cutting scenes, the next section would discuss the question of what scenes can be dismissed entirely in a narrative, relegating important information to summary or other forms of description. It can be quite useful for a writer to recognize that not every moment in a story needs to be shown, and that even a seemingly important or climactic scene can, at times, be removed in a way that improves the work overall.
Of course, to remove an important scene, a writer needs to be able to make that absence work for the reader. If a story sets up a confrontation between two individuals and then simply skips it, that can easily be jarring enough to derail the reader's momentum. For instance, if we return to the example story that was in the post on inter-cutting, imagine if the scene cut with the woman chasing and finally catching up to the teen girl she thinks stole her phone. Now, the scene cuts away, and when we next see the mother, she is in another setting. This may seem like it does not work, but what if she pulls out "her" phone and is made aware she stole it? In that case, the information that she stole the phone hitting her is the climax, and the reader is given a different focus. But, if the scene were dropped and the issue never raised again, many readers would be confused or lost. Their needs to be a resolution the action, but that does not need to be shown in the story.
I would also suggest that, one can cut a scene and then reinsert it later, out of order, if needed. This can be done easily, even in a story that is totally linear, if one considers putting the event into the voice of character's who were present. For instance, if one is telling a story about a battle and the main character is knocked unconscious in the middle and does not know what happens. When he wakes up, informing him of the events is not a priority, and the plot progresses without his learning what has happened, but later, he has an opportunity to find out from another soldier in his platoon. Why would one do such a thing? In this example, admittedly, their is not a great deal of reason for it, but that need not be the case. It could be thematically meaningful for the scene to be depicted, but the reader needs to be in the dark about the specifics in order to make the story work. Such choices can feel manipulative, of course, if done wrong, but can work in the right context.
Not including a scene is also a way to build certain kinds of tension and expectations for the reader. For example, not seeing the crime occur in a mystery can add to the suspense. Watching the detective character piece together the events from the clues can work incredibly well. It is one of the keys, I think, to the popularity of Sherlock Holmes. In the stories, we get to see him figure out what has happened, but we don't yet know the facts. We may see the crime scene itself, and we can ask ourselves what we observe in that scene that might be useful in solving the crime. The reader is waiting for that moment, and by not showing the crime, the reader's experience matches that of the detective, without any added knowledge.
The key questions, to my mind, are what information the scene contains that must be conveyed, how else that can be shared, and what expectations are being played with by removing the scene in question. It can be that a scene seems major, but by excluding it, the reader is made to shift their focus. For example, if a story is about two character's having a huge fight, and the climax is one beating the other physically, but the focus of the story is psychological, it may work for the scene to be left out. The reader is not given entry into that moment and has to guess at what happened that made things turn so violent. The scene itself would provide too much detail, and by leaving it out, the reader is given a space to enter.
Another reason for leaving scenes out of a story, which is also about allowing the reader to come in to the story, is best described by Stephen King, who commented that he does not like to show what a monster looks because it will never be as scary as what the reader already imagined. What the reader imagines will always be more powerful in such cases. This is not only true of things that are scary, but also of other traits as well. If you wish the reader to see something as beautiful, it can work better if the details are not too explicit, as each of us has our own standard of beauty, and is able to imagine something that fits that standard specifically.
Much of this, of course, overlaps with previous topics of discourse, particularly in terms of exposition and the questions surrounding that. The question of what needs to be in a scene versus what can be summarized is deeply connected. However, the point is to look from another angle, to consider the question of what it would mean to the story to remove a particular scene. In particular, it is useful to consider what a scene does in a story, in particular, what impact does it have upon the reader. The information can always be conveyed, but the specifics of the scene can convey subtext, emotion, thematic imagery, etc. By moving the information out from a scene, it becomes possible to consider whether their is a better set of meanings to focus upon.
The goal, when leaving out a scene, has to be to do so in a way that enhances the story. Even if it is merely a result of the writer preferring not to include certain kinds of scenes, or not feeling confident writing them, the choices must be made to benefit the story. In many cases, this means considering if that particular scene is adding depth, if it justifies its word count to the reader(though that may sound a bit mercenary). But, it is also worth remembering that even a scene that does work might be cut in a way that makes the story even more powerful. Consider that leaving things out can create mystery and give the reader an opportunity to fill in the gaps. Writer's don't get credit for what they leave out, but that does not mean it can't be the most important decision about a piece of writing.
Of course, to remove an important scene, a writer needs to be able to make that absence work for the reader. If a story sets up a confrontation between two individuals and then simply skips it, that can easily be jarring enough to derail the reader's momentum. For instance, if we return to the example story that was in the post on inter-cutting, imagine if the scene cut with the woman chasing and finally catching up to the teen girl she thinks stole her phone. Now, the scene cuts away, and when we next see the mother, she is in another setting. This may seem like it does not work, but what if she pulls out "her" phone and is made aware she stole it? In that case, the information that she stole the phone hitting her is the climax, and the reader is given a different focus. But, if the scene were dropped and the issue never raised again, many readers would be confused or lost. Their needs to be a resolution the action, but that does not need to be shown in the story.
I would also suggest that, one can cut a scene and then reinsert it later, out of order, if needed. This can be done easily, even in a story that is totally linear, if one considers putting the event into the voice of character's who were present. For instance, if one is telling a story about a battle and the main character is knocked unconscious in the middle and does not know what happens. When he wakes up, informing him of the events is not a priority, and the plot progresses without his learning what has happened, but later, he has an opportunity to find out from another soldier in his platoon. Why would one do such a thing? In this example, admittedly, their is not a great deal of reason for it, but that need not be the case. It could be thematically meaningful for the scene to be depicted, but the reader needs to be in the dark about the specifics in order to make the story work. Such choices can feel manipulative, of course, if done wrong, but can work in the right context.
Not including a scene is also a way to build certain kinds of tension and expectations for the reader. For example, not seeing the crime occur in a mystery can add to the suspense. Watching the detective character piece together the events from the clues can work incredibly well. It is one of the keys, I think, to the popularity of Sherlock Holmes. In the stories, we get to see him figure out what has happened, but we don't yet know the facts. We may see the crime scene itself, and we can ask ourselves what we observe in that scene that might be useful in solving the crime. The reader is waiting for that moment, and by not showing the crime, the reader's experience matches that of the detective, without any added knowledge.
The key questions, to my mind, are what information the scene contains that must be conveyed, how else that can be shared, and what expectations are being played with by removing the scene in question. It can be that a scene seems major, but by excluding it, the reader is made to shift their focus. For example, if a story is about two character's having a huge fight, and the climax is one beating the other physically, but the focus of the story is psychological, it may work for the scene to be left out. The reader is not given entry into that moment and has to guess at what happened that made things turn so violent. The scene itself would provide too much detail, and by leaving it out, the reader is given a space to enter.
Another reason for leaving scenes out of a story, which is also about allowing the reader to come in to the story, is best described by Stephen King, who commented that he does not like to show what a monster looks because it will never be as scary as what the reader already imagined. What the reader imagines will always be more powerful in such cases. This is not only true of things that are scary, but also of other traits as well. If you wish the reader to see something as beautiful, it can work better if the details are not too explicit, as each of us has our own standard of beauty, and is able to imagine something that fits that standard specifically.
Much of this, of course, overlaps with previous topics of discourse, particularly in terms of exposition and the questions surrounding that. The question of what needs to be in a scene versus what can be summarized is deeply connected. However, the point is to look from another angle, to consider the question of what it would mean to the story to remove a particular scene. In particular, it is useful to consider what a scene does in a story, in particular, what impact does it have upon the reader. The information can always be conveyed, but the specifics of the scene can convey subtext, emotion, thematic imagery, etc. By moving the information out from a scene, it becomes possible to consider whether their is a better set of meanings to focus upon.
The goal, when leaving out a scene, has to be to do so in a way that enhances the story. Even if it is merely a result of the writer preferring not to include certain kinds of scenes, or not feeling confident writing them, the choices must be made to benefit the story. In many cases, this means considering if that particular scene is adding depth, if it justifies its word count to the reader(though that may sound a bit mercenary). But, it is also worth remembering that even a scene that does work might be cut in a way that makes the story even more powerful. Consider that leaving things out can create mystery and give the reader an opportunity to fill in the gaps. Writer's don't get credit for what they leave out, but that does not mean it can't be the most important decision about a piece of writing.
Comments
Post a Comment