But tell us why
Sep. 7th, 2023 02:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI have been thinking about time travel
and whatever reasons characters have to 'protect' the timeline
and I think that when writers agree completely with one side of an argument
the story is worse.
Like they forget they have to explain or even make an argument, it's so water is wet to them,
so you end up with arbitrary rules based in a culturally religiously and every other ly specific mindset
that just doesnt see they've given all the good lines to the other guy.
If they have to figure something out they'll remember to explain it to the audience.
Lit class said story is thesis antithesis synthesis
like you have two positions arguing and coming to a new truth
so the truth that is obvious to the author needs to be the synthesis, not either of the starting points.
But in a multi season show they'll arrive there at the first point they believe they'll get cancelled.
Then any new characters will be making new arguments but the desired truth doesnt change.
No synthesis.
That's tricky.
But it's like saying you get the characters to be who you want them to be at the first cancel point so no character development after first season. You just have to have an assortment of ways to have your protagonists wander off model for the course of a season. Big ticket ones like fear and the seven deadlies are a good start. Then they gradually conquer those tendencies in themselves whilst also circling back to the writer's idea of true. They have to present an argument to themselves, to get back on course.
Man vs man, man vs self, thesis antithesis synthesis edition.
This annoyance brought to you by
the timeline is sacred
and other defences of the status quo that never articulate why it is the only thing worth defending.
The bad guys so often have a point because the bad guys are the ones trying to change things
since the good guys circle back to their most iconic state so often.
... mind you that includes Gotham being Gotham, so iconic and desireable arent the same
but lets face it, in any other city Bruce Wayne would have fixed it by now, inventing enough problems a billionaire can't fix them without punching is a whole argument about the nature of people in itself...
So writers need to include
why are we defending this exact this
and
why aren't our tools working yet
and
how are these tools going to work
and
why is this guy opposing it
and then
move everyone along a bit
to a better everything.
... usually they remember to level up the tool kit, I guess...
and whatever reasons characters have to 'protect' the timeline
and I think that when writers agree completely with one side of an argument
the story is worse.
Like they forget they have to explain or even make an argument, it's so water is wet to them,
so you end up with arbitrary rules based in a culturally religiously and every other ly specific mindset
that just doesnt see they've given all the good lines to the other guy.
If they have to figure something out they'll remember to explain it to the audience.
Lit class said story is thesis antithesis synthesis
like you have two positions arguing and coming to a new truth
so the truth that is obvious to the author needs to be the synthesis, not either of the starting points.
But in a multi season show they'll arrive there at the first point they believe they'll get cancelled.
Then any new characters will be making new arguments but the desired truth doesnt change.
No synthesis.
That's tricky.
But it's like saying you get the characters to be who you want them to be at the first cancel point so no character development after first season. You just have to have an assortment of ways to have your protagonists wander off model for the course of a season. Big ticket ones like fear and the seven deadlies are a good start. Then they gradually conquer those tendencies in themselves whilst also circling back to the writer's idea of true. They have to present an argument to themselves, to get back on course.
Man vs man, man vs self, thesis antithesis synthesis edition.
This annoyance brought to you by
the timeline is sacred
and other defences of the status quo that never articulate why it is the only thing worth defending.
The bad guys so often have a point because the bad guys are the ones trying to change things
since the good guys circle back to their most iconic state so often.
... mind you that includes Gotham being Gotham, so iconic and desireable arent the same
but lets face it, in any other city Bruce Wayne would have fixed it by now, inventing enough problems a billionaire can't fix them without punching is a whole argument about the nature of people in itself...
So writers need to include
why are we defending this exact this
and
why aren't our tools working yet
and
how are these tools going to work
and
why is this guy opposing it
and then
move everyone along a bit
to a better everything.
... usually they remember to level up the tool kit, I guess...
no subject
Date: 2023-09-08 06:37 am (UTC)the timeline is sacred
and other defences of the status quo that never articulate why it is the only thing worth defending.
Yepppp