), I don't undo the good stuff that happened in the first book so I can reinvent the wheel. I know lots of writers do that, and obviously it works for them, but it's also the main reason why I'd put a sequel down.At first I was OK with it. I'm a writer after all. Torturing characters is what I do. But last night I got fed up. Turned the TV off and walked away. I'm not interested anymore. I'm going to make up my own happy ending for him and find something else to watch.
And it made me wonder--how do we find that line? One side of the line is keeping the reader turning the pages while supper boils over on the stove, and the other side is lobbing the book into the trash as we turn our attention back to cooking.
I'm sure the line is different for most people, but I think most people have an expectation about watching a character they love suffer. I'm a happy ending kind of gal, but I'll take a sad ending as long as there is something to show for my time. For a sad ending, the world has to change in some way because of this story, or what was the point of telling it? There are some very powerful stories about futility, but they are few and far between.
And for me, there is a tipping point on the suffering scale--you make the character miserable enough, and the ending had better make me want to dance. So what makes you give up on a character before the story is finished?
Of course, in a story/ novel this is a whole lot easier than in a tv show since tv shows are about milking ratings as long as possible, so generally character arcs can't be well planned and what works keeps being used.
I've been watching the first season of Dollhouse on netflicks, and I am frustrated with the story. At first I thought it was a really interesting concept, and I was curious as to where it would go. But after watching several episodes of the MC Echo stuck in this seemingly hopeless situation with little opportunity for character growth, and the little hint of character growth seems to get slammed down by the evil people running the Dollhouse. I am about ready to give up on it.
My point is that reader/audiences like to see a character grow and develop, and when a character gets stagnated for any reason, it is frustrating or boring.
I don't mind characters being tortured just let them grow and develop from it and give me the sense that the story is moving forward, so that I have hope.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited October 09, 2010).]
My sister however, will abandon a story if she gets to a point where she can't take the negative story line any longer. An example was the time she read the Harry Potter series. (I'd warn you this is a spoiler, but I'm pretty sure anyone who wants to read/see it, has, and anyone that hasn't yet, won't.) She got all the way to the fifth book, to the very end where Sirius Black dies, and when she read that, she put the book down and refused to go any further. She said there was nothing that could justify the loss of her favorite character in that way, and she has no interest in finding out how the books--or the movies--end.
It's worth mentioning that this took place 7 years ago when she was 17, and she still holds a grudge against J.K. Rowling. I think she and I are opposite extreems. She will not read further if her favorite characters are harmed, while I'll continue reading no matter what an author does to them. My favorite book on the planet is Kate Chopin's The Awakening. And the main character in that novel spends the entire story finding out that she doesn't fit into her own life, until she gets to point that she can't go on living it. And yet it is the most beautiful, poignant book I've ever read.
So I think it depends on the person. I can understand your frustration. There have been a few television shows that I can't believe they won't just let the story die already (anyone else watch True Blood? I just wanted Maryanne to die already last season!) But I stick with it just to see where it finally goes. Although if it's a character I don't really like, or a plot line I don't believe, I get bored and move on.
quote:
I wonder if it isn't the torturing that is bothering you but the fact that the character is now stagnant. It sounds like he had an interesting evolution and now he is stuck.
Exactly.
I'm talking about Logan Echolls from Veronica Mars. I'm watching it on netflix also. An amazing character. Maybe part of the problem is that his character was too big for his place in the show. The writers had to keep slamming him down because it's not the Logan Echolls show, it's the Veronica Mars show.
That's happened to me in my writing before. I've had characters I never dreamed would be important become important enough to get their own book. I love it when that happens, but I think these writers were afraid of it.
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited October 09, 2010).]
quote:
Dish Network stops airing the channel your favorite tortured character appears on - thus you have no choice or you have to pay more money and switch to Direct TV - thus becoming a tortured character yourself.
Poor philocinemas. Which TV show is this?
In the past, before they started using "story arcs," things had to return to the status quo by the end of the episode (example: if the MC fell in love, the love interest had to die or break the MC's heart or leave in some other way by the end of the episode, so the MC would be unchanged for the next episode).
I think the reason they did this was so that they could show reruns (and/or sindications) of the show in any order they wanted.
Now that they use story arcs so much, that isn't possible, but there is still an episodic aspect to some series because once the story arc is resolved, the character may go back to a kind of status quo.
Also, there's what I call the Fugitive Factor. The writers of the television show, THE FUGITIVE, decided to finally let the one-armed-man get caught and Dr. Kimble exonerated. However, when they did that, they discovered that no one wanted to watch the reruns any more. The tension was gone.
So they've learned that they can't really resolve whatever tension in the series is keeping people interested. They can tease and pretend to resolve it, but they have to have it turn out to be a dream or a misunderstanding or something to restore the unresolved status quo.
I quit watching HEROES because they kept messing with the "resolutions," so I can relate to your frustration about the tortured character.
quote:
Poor philocinemas. Which TV show is this?
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited October 09, 2010).]
When I write a sequel to a novel (which makes it sound like I've done it more than once. I haven't, but I've daydreamed about it lots and lots ), I don't undo the good stuff that happened in the first book so I can reinvent the wheel. I know lots of writers do that, and obviously it works for them, but it's also the main reason why I'd put a sequel down.
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited October 09, 2010).]
A lot of series these days are what I like to call Dazzle shows - where they bombard you with the latest concepts of science and technology, and about 85% of the population will believe what ever is being said, though most of it isn't as refined or doesn't even exist. The sex and violence shows are at an all time high right now also - most of the cable networks (Hbo, Sho, Stars - even TNT, Fox, TBS, comedy net) seem to be pushing this.
Don't get me wrong - I enjoy it - but the reason they're pushing the boundaries is because everything has been done to death in the normal spectrum. That's why all the remakes of old classics also.
You'll know when they've completely run out of ideas when someday you see them remaking I love lucy or leave it to beaver.
@Trish - My daughter never forgave Rowling either for killing off Black - he was her favorite character also. Personally my only quib with the HP series was the whole ron/hermione thing. It really gave a feel that rowling was just trying to give the girl to the secondary character. It didn't feel believable to me, but that's just my opinion - you would think harry would of thought of ginny as more of a sister than Hermione who was there beside him through thick and thin -
but as a writer it makes perfect sense to me - it allows a unique set of kids for the next generation of books - and everyone knows it's only a matter of time before she writes a new set or gets someone else to do it. It's far to big of a cash cow to let go of. She wouldn't have made such a stink about the HP fan fic encyclopedia if she wasn't planing out whats coming next.
I think it's funny how many people on HP fan fic site wanted Draco and hermione to get together. It's funny how you can break down outcomes -
1)Girl and hero fall in love
2)Girl and sidekick fall in love
3)Girl and redeemed antagonist fall in love
4)Girl falls in love with someone else who dies
a)re-falls in love with one of the above.
b)never loves the same again
5)Was already in love with antagonist.
6)Girl dies after one of the above outcomes
7)Girl dies never knowing love.
note: you'll notice I didn't specify - boy, girl, monster or alien that she falls in love with.
The only good thing about when tv starts to get boring. Leaves you with far more time to read and write 
W.