Tag Archives: plotting

Plotting problem #2

A story is told of Wild Bill Hickok in his later, declining years. Wild Bill had given up on law enforcement after accidentally killing a friend while stopping a riot (it’s believed his eyesight was failing). He’d tried stage acting with Buffalo Bill Cody, but couldn’t bear it. He was subsisting as a professional gambler, spending his days in saloons and (occasionally) his nights in jail for vagrancy.

Admirers surrounded him in the saloons, and he’d regale them with stories. Tall tales about his days as an Indian scout. He’d describe a situation where he was alone on a hill, wounded, his horse dead, nearly out of ammunition, surrounded by thousands of Indians charging on horseback.

“What did you do, Wild Bill?” a wide-eyed audience member would ask.

“I got killed,” he would answer. And everyone would laugh and somebody would buy him a drink.

This illustrates Problem Number Two in story plotting, in my personal sequence.

I think it was last week that I wrote here about plotting problems. I referred to a difficulty I’ve mentioned often – that of the author’s (and by the author’s I mean mainly my) difficulty in testing our characters to the extremes. This is Problem Number One.

Since then, Plotting Problem Number Two has occurred to me. It’s the problem Wild Bill solved with his joke:

You have succeeded in inventing a horrible problem for your hero to solve.

Now, how do you resolve it?

Let me make a revelation – writers are not necessarily more resourceful in real life than the average member of the population. Indeed, I’m not sure most of us are in the upper percentile. If I wanted a non-literary problem solved in real life, I think an author would be one of my last choices for a resource person. I suspect a successful businessman might be optimal.

In general, however, as storytellers, what we do is cheat.

Fortunately, we have the advantage of being in control of time, in our small created worlds.

“I could get my hero out of this corner if he had a Swiss Army Knife,” I decide after pondering the problem for a while.

As the almighty author of the story, I can then go back a few pages and insert a scene to provide him with that Swiss Army Knife. I might show him putting on his coat and feeling its weight in his pocket. Perhaps he thinks then that he never uses the thing and it’s wearing on the fabric. He ponders unburdening himself of it, but he’s in a hurry.

Voila! He now has the knife when he needs it.

(The brilliant William Goldman has a laugh at such a situation in the clip from “The Princess Bride” above.)

But my Swiss Army Knife is a very simple example. Not very creative.

The sneakier you can be, the better.

Suppose he doesn’t need a pocket knife. Suppose he finds out he’s been poisoned. He tries to induce vomiting with a finger down his throat, but he can’t make it work.

Ah, but you, the sneaky author, can go back and add a scene in the first part of the story where the hero’s landlady forces a Tupperware bowl of her onion soup on him. He throws it into the back seat of his car, meaning to discard it. Because she always does this, and he hates onion soup.

But now he crawls to his car, finds the container of soup, and slurps it down. And it tastes so disgusting to him that he’s enabled to empty his stomach, thus saving his life.

I remember a story I read years ago. I think it was one of Bill Pronzini’s Nameless Detective stories. A couple characters in this particular story comment about how badly the detective hero dresses – they particularly criticize the cheap polyester ties he wears.

Later in the story, the detective discovers his girlfriend, who struggles with depression, has hanged herself with one of his ties.

The author inserts a break in the story at this point, to let us despair along with his character.

Then we have a scene (spoiler alert) where he’s talking to the doctor who treated the woman. The doctor says what saved her life was the cheap polyester tie, which stretched so much that it slowed her asphyxiation.

Nice trick, neatly executed.

The cruel art of writing


Gülfer ERGİN gulfergin_01
Unsplash License.

I suppose the book suffered by comparison with all the great novels I’ve been reading lately. MacDonald, Kaminsky, Kellerman, Hurwitz. Books from authors who know how to hook me and reel me in, feeding my addiction like a pusher. I’ve been going through some personal drama recently, and I discovered that, for all its vaunted capacity to zombify us, the internet failed to provide me the genuine distraction I required. Only the ancient, beloved magic of a really good book could make me lose myself and forget idle care for a while.

So I saw a mystery being offered free in a promotional deal. Looked interesting, and I had nothing to lose downloading it.

And I really started rooting for this author. Unlike so many new authors I see these days, he actually knew how to spell. His usage was correct. His grammar was right. I greatly wanted this guy to succeed.

I held out through about 40% of the book. I really gave him a chance.

But he bored me.

The plot was promising – the reliable old trope of a man falsely accused of murder, hiding from the law, trying to discover the true culprit. There was plenty of potential for peril.

But I didn’t feel the danger as the story was being told. And I thought the hero was acting like an idiot. I just couldn’t care much after a while.

I hope the author gets it together. He can write a sentence. All he needs is to learn plotting.

Plotting. That’s one of those topics where, as the preachers say, I point a finger at someone else and find my four other fingers pointing back at me.

I don’t consider myself a very good plotter myself.

Maybe it’s soft-heartedness. I posted on Facebook a while back that “The true villain of every story is the author.” Plotting comes down to torturing your characters. Every bad thing that happens to them was thought up by you. Giving them a break is bad for the story, a betrayal of the reader.

Or maybe there’s something else I haven’t learned yet. Some holy grail of plotting still hovering outside my ken.

Monk Day

Today is Thursday. That’s Monk Day for me.

As you know (always a dangerous phrase in a story, but this is real life, where you can get away with lots of nonsense), I am currently a free-lance translator. I work from home, setting my own hours – something less ideal than it sounds. I either work quite long hours, or sit around worrying about not working.

But that’s beside the point. The point is that I work in a manner pleasing to myself – usually in sweat clothes on my sofa (sometimes, for exercise, in an easy chair), with the TV on. I have a current TV routine. The H & I Network runs mystery marathons in nine-hour blocks, five days a week. Thursday is Monk Day. Nonstop Tony Shalhoub as an obsessive-compulsive police consultant, whose frailty enables him to see things others miss, even as he barely functions as an adult.

This is a character I identify with.

But that’s not exactly my point either.

I’ve had multiple opportunities to view the two-part pilot episode, and the plotting impresses me a lot. I think it’s a very good example of exemplary character plotting.

We have our “hero,” Adrian Monk, who is afraid, essentially, of everything. He has a long list of phobias, but chief among them is his fear of dirt and germs. He keeps his personal space immaculate and meticulously organized, and can’t even shake hands without wiping down immediately with a towelette. He has a nurse/personal assistant who serves as his mediator with the world.  Her name is Sharona (she is replaced in the third season, but that doesn’t matter here), and she’s more or less his opposite – she’s an earthy New Jersey girl with a blousy style and considerable street smarts. They annoy each other immensely, but each also provides the other with things they need. In spite of themselves, they care for one another – non-romantically.

So in the pilot episodes, the writers set up a perfectly splendid dilemma for Monk. Sharona is kidnapped by a murderer, who drags her off as a hostage – into the sewers of San Francisco.

This constitutes an existential crisis for Monk. His whole life (and his survival, in his own mind) depends on keeping clean. But now he has to climb down into a sewer, where he must encounter sewage, or possibly lose Sharona.

This is splendid character plotting. Monk’s choice is not only agonizing (in a comic way), but it’s germane to the character established in the story. He is tested at his weakest point. He’s forced to leave his comfort zone, to do what he believes he can’t do. His choice to follow into the sewer (you knew he’d do that, didn’t you?) is in actuality an act of faith.

Dramatically, it’s far superior to the more famous “Sophie’s Choice.” Sophie’s choice achieved drama purely through its extremity, but revealed nothing about her character and taught her (and the reader) nothing but despair. The author who counsels despair is like the debater who ends the argument with a punch in the face. It’s effective, but nothing is learned.

Monk is good for you. Good for me, anyway.