#dev used helping hand

[thefictiontree]

Movie Rec: The Pledge (2001)

(IMDB, Roger Ebert)

Content Warning: Child Murder (Off-Screen), Child Endangerment, Infrequent Bloody Violence, Domestic Abuse (Off-Screen)

Hello once more, tumblbuds! Dev here. I have decided to make use of the “Movie Recommendation” tag! I hope from here on out to illuminate some good, effective movies (and the occasional instructive failure) that made particular impressions on me over the years.

This one is for you fans of mystery and despair. Not at all for the emotionally faint-of-heart, The Pledge (dir. Sean Penn) is a solemn but gripping character study/murder mystery based on the novel by Friedrich Dürrenmatt (I have not read the novel but would very much like to if the film is any indication). The novel’s full title, Das Versprechen: Requiem auf den Kriminalroman (The Pledge: Requiem for the Detective Novel), is telling. Dürrenmatt originally conceived of the story of a veteran cop investigating a brutal child murder for the film Es geschah am hellichten Tag (It Happened in Broad Daylight), but he was unsatisfied with the neatly tied up, conventional ending demanded by the studio (and by genre convention in general). He later reworked his screenplay into a novel and left it with uniquely tragic ending that is anything but neat (see ‘Read More’ for spoilers). The Pledge takes after the novel, providing not only a memorable ending but also a very convincing, complex central character played with great subtlety by an aging Jack Nicholson. 

On the eve of his retirement, veteran detective Jerry Black (Nicholson) investigates one final crime scene—the bloody remains of a very young girl found in the snow. After agreeing to perform the unpleasant task of informing the next of kin, Black pledges to find the girl’s killer on the command of the grieving mother (Patricia Clarkson). The final hunt of his career turns to a personal obsession after the initial prime suspect’s suicide leads Black’s former coworkers to close the case. After becoming convinced by his own meticulous, unofficial investigation into similar crimes that he is pursuing a serial killer (a theory soundly rejected by his former colleagues), Black takes more drastic measures. Abandoning any notion of a quiet retirement, Black buys and takes up residence in a gas station located at a point roughly in the middle of the various murders he attributes to the mysterious killer. As he lies in wait, watching for a black station wagon spotted leaving of the crime scenes, he finds the time to befriend down-on-her-luck waitress Lori (Robin Wright) and Lori’s cute-as-a-button daughter who, incidentally, perfectly fits Black’s proposed victim profile. His newfound human connection seems to temper his obsession, but just as he and Lori become close, a local man (Tom Noonan) strongly arouses Black’s suspicions, driving him to confront what matters most to him in these final years of life. 

The film is first and foremost a lesson in un-explicated storytelling, a film analogue to objective third person perspective, perhaps. A tightly constructed, tense character drama, the film never wastes time in explanation—the action is allowed to play out for the audience to judge and interpret. Some actions are far less ambiguous than others (it is quite clear in context why Black spends an exorbitant sum purchasing a run-down convenience store in the middle of nowhere, for example) but some of the greatest tension in the film derives from the ambiguous actions. What is Black’s real reason for taking the desperate Lori into his home and protection? Is he cold-hearted enough to use Lori’s daughter as bait for his trap or does he truly care about them (and are these possibilities mutually exclusive in his mind)?

Spoilers Lie Beyond

Black’s restlessness in retirement, his misplaced search for fulfillment, is dramatically treated as his tragic flaw. That same quality that drives him to respond to the scene of a grisly murder instead of enjoying his retirement party in the film’s opening scene ultimately destroys any chance he had of ending his life with contentment and dignity. He ignores the tangible fulfillment of human love, fully known to him for perhaps the first time in his life, in favor of the mere shadow of a killer that no one but him believes to exist. The universe punishes him for his brash refusal of so great a gift. His horribly misguided use of Lori’s young daughter is not as disastrous as it could have been—the daughter is safe, unaware of any danger—but it is all for naught. Black’s hypothetical killer does not reveal himself that day (and never will again, as it turns out), destroying his colleagues’ last shreds of faith in him, shattering his last raison d’être, and leaving him an utterly broken man. There is a tinge of deus ex machina about the killers anonymous, accidental demise en route to Black’s trap, though in a somewhat inverted sense—the gods intervened to punish, not to save. This bitter ending is incredibly effective, however, at driving home the tragedy of Black’s final emptiness. In one sense, he absolutely fulfilled the titular pledge—he was right all along, and his actions directly lead to the killer’s death. The moral scale of the universe may have been balanced but at the cost of his sanity. 

The film disappoints me in only one aspect: the unfortunate romantic subplot, that old and tired parasite that infects so many otherwise good films (still looking at you, As Good As It Gets). The deeply human, symbiotic relationship between Jerry and Lori (Robin Wright) was perfectly effectivebefore the audience was forced to imagine 63-year old Nicholson doing to do with 35-year-old Wright, and the added romantic dimension to their relationship does not, for me, in any way add to the weight of Black’s betrayal at the film’s climax. That being said, one unfortunate scene does not destroy this otherwise compelling, slowly simmering psychological drama. It should be praised for Nicholson’s performance, the overall quality of narrative execution, the boldness of Black’s final, devastating fate, and last but not least for the excruciatingly long interrogation sequence that plays a major role in the early development of the plot. Very rarely have police brutality and racism (issues as unfortunately poignant today as they were 14 years ago) been so vividly and painfully brought to life on film. My favorite thing about this movie is its willingness to sit quietly and observe. This technique, combined with the already bleak and pessimistic story, creates a very stark audience experience that carries within it elusive whips of love and happiness that only highlight the tragedy of Black’s descent into purposeless oblivion.

[thefictiontree]

Masterpost: Physics with Professor Feynman

Hi, tumblbuds!

I want to draw your attention to a rather wonderful free online research resource for all you writers who want to know more about science but don’t know where to start, or for you students looking for extra resources. Richard Feynman’s Lectures on Physics have held a unique position in science pedagogy since their initial publication in 1963. A comprehensive overview of mankind’s understanding of the physical world written with Feynman’s characteristic accessibility, humor, and reverence, the Lectures span three volumes covering everything from the basic definition of the atom to Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity. 

Volume I Volume 2   Volume 3  

Full and fair warning: while the Lectures are not a full, technical curriculum on par with getting a bachelor’s degree, they were written with lower-division college students in mind and many if not most of the entries rely on varying levels of mathematical knowledge, or at least a level of comfort following along with mathematical notation as it is being simultaneously explained in prose. The Lectures do generally progress in order, and it is not recommended that you flip to the middle of Volume III with an expectation of full understanding without having read at least some ‘prep knowledge’ lectures in the relevant subject area. Not ALL lectures reference math, however, and with the less-technically-minded reader in mind certain subsets of the Lectures were excerpted and published as Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces. The Six Easy Pieces cover many conceptual fundamentals of physics in an accessible way while the Six Not-So-Easy Pieces deal entirely with Einstein’s Relativity. These twelve lectures are more or less completely understandable without foreknowledge, mathematical or otherwise, and are a good place to start (though the second set may come fully only with some re-reading). I have included the aforementioned subsets below:

Six Easy Pieces

Volume I Chapter 1: Atoms in Motion 

Volume I Chapter 2: Basic Physics  

Volume I Chapter 3: The Relation of Physics to Other Sciences

Volume I Chapter 4: Conservation of Energy 

Volume I Chapter 7: The Theory of Gravitation 

Volume I Chapter 37: Quantum Behavior

Six Not-So-Easy Pieces

Volume I Chapter 11: Vectors

Volume I Chapter 52: Symmetry in Physical Laws  

Volume I Chapter 15: The Special Theory of Relativity  

Volume I Chapter 16: Relativistic Energy and Momentum  

Volume I Chapter 17: Space-Time  

Volume II Chapter 42: Curved Space 

Richard Feynman’s larger-that-life personality only partially comes out in his writing, and for those of you who are interested in watching some of his famous lectures, a decent repository exists on YouTube. I have linked some such videos below:

The Character of Physical Law

Much of the information presented here overlaps with the Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces.

Part 1: The Law of Gravitation  

Part 2: The Relation of Mathematics and Physics 

Part 3: The Great Conservation Principles  

Part 4: Symmetry in Physical Law  

Part 5: The Distinction of Past and Future  

Part 6: Probability and Uncertainty  

Part 7: Seeking New Laws 

Quantum Electrodynamics 

This lecture series is based on Feynman’s highly acclaimed accessible, if somewhat difficult, overview of Quantum Electrodynamics that fundamental physicist Anthony Zee described as neither a “typical popular physics book” nor a textbook, but “a rare hybrid.”

Part 1: Photons—Corpuscles of Light  

Part 2: Fits of Reflection and Transmission  

Part 3: Electrons and Their Interactions  

Part 4: New Queries  

While Kip Thorne’s recent work on the film Interstellar is a particularly extreme (and great) example, the success of the movie is one indicator of many that the market exists for accurate, interesting science married with good artistry and storytelling. One rather interesting approach to this marriage I found in the work of James Kakalios, a physics professor at the University of Minnesota who has received acclaim for his classes and published novel on the “Physics of Superheroes.” In a behind-the-scenes featurette on the DVD of Watchmen (for the production of which he was head science consultant) Kakalios describes his approach to scientifically “accurate” superhero stories as centered on a single ‘miracle exception.’ If we allow for a single physical impossibility such as super-strength or the power of flight, etc., we can then, Kakalios reasons, work out otherwise realistic physical/scientific ramifications of the situation, creating a close approximation to ‘scientific accuracy’ in superheroes. Such a thought exercise might be interesting or useful for any kind of fantastical writing, I think, from the flight abilities of a dragon to a wormhole superhighway. Feynman’s Lectures certainly provide a wide enough breadth of subject matter to be applicable in a variety of such exercises. 

I hope some of you will find these works enjoyable or at the very least useful research tools. Feynman had a particular knack for conveying even the most difficult concepts to a general audience without sacrificing scientific truth or comprehensibility. To all of you who have wondered about the physical ramifications of Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle or what Einstein meant when he described a curvature of spacetime, this is as good a place as any (and a better place than most) to dive in. I hope you enjoy.

- Dev

[thefictiontree]

I'm about to start writing my novel, but I'm stuck on one thing- trying to decide whether to write in first or third person! My novel is set in a dystopian world, and my point of view will change between three or four characters. Can you describe the difference between the two, the ups and downs, and which one is good for what kind of writing? Thanks!

Hey, there! You got it, let’s talk about points of view!

First person: Personal Mode

First person uses “I,” “me,” “my” to make a character into a narrator, as if they are telling the reader the story themselves.

Intimate view of the character: First person lets you show a lot about one character, from their perspective.

Unique voice: Especially when working with multiple perspectives, first person allows you to develop a number of unique voices and narrative styles for each one. This can be especially useful if you’re working with a unique narrator—telling a super-bloody zombie apocalypse story from the point of view of a five year old makes for a very different story than if it were told in third person or by an older narrator.

Narrator consistency: First person lets you play with things like unreliable narrators. Even if your multiple perspectives are all accurately relaying events, they may be inconsistent with each other as each character tells their own interpretations of events, which can leave room for reader interpretation.

Voice fails: If your first person voices aren’t distinct or consistent enough, you run the risk of them blending together and all sounding alike. First person is a different beast than third in that first person essentially reads like 100% dialogue, as one person is actively telling the story.

Action limitations: First person limits you to what your character can see and hear for themselves. You can’t take the narration away from your first person narrators to showcase something else without doing it with a) one of your other narrators or b) killing the first person narrative entirely. You’re afforded a lot of freedom within the one character, but you sacrifice your ability to see the rest of the world for it.

Multiple witness accounts: Especially when working with multiple first person storytellers, you run the risk of having too many people tell the same story. If you can, avoid having everyone go over the same events (doubling back)—covering the same ground three times doesn’t necessarily make for a more interesting story, just a longer one.

Second Person: Interactive Mode

I know this wasn’t part of the question, but as long as we’re talking about POV: Second person is when you use “you,” “your,” “yours” to put the reader in the story.

Starring you: Second person puts the reader in a participating role in the story. This can be pretty neat, but is hard to do for long stretches of time. There isn’t a lot of fiction written from second person because it can be very hard to pull off.

Hey, reader!: A use for second person can be in the form of interacting with your readers in the narrative. Lemony Snicket and Tolkien both did this by addressing the reader directly (“you”), making this not necessarily a POV choice but a stylistic one.

There are a few different kinds of third person. Let’s break ‘em down.

Third Person Limited: Standard Mode

Default mode: Third person limited is a pretty common method of storytelling. If you’re not sure what to do, sticking with third limited is generally safe and effective.

Freedom of information: Third person frees you from having to stick so tightly to one character. You can explore things the (current) main character cannot see without jarring the reader out of the story’s default narrative style.

Dramatic tension: By limiting your perspective to one character (or one at a time, at least), you can heighten the tension in the story by hiding information from them. First person gives your readers a front-row seat to your character’s every thought. Using third person allows you to hide information from the reader that, when done right, can be a good source of foreshadowing and tension.

Impersonality: Third person isn’t as intimate and introspective as first person can be. Third person can still explore a character’s thoughts and feelings, but will have to break into the narrative to do it in the same way that dialogue does in order to show it directly.

Third Person Omniscient: God Mode

I know everything: An omniscient narrator can relay information that is happening to any character, not just the (current, as in your case) main character. You as the writer can be flexible with how much information you give about any character, since you have the freedom to give all, some, or none of it. Some writers are liberal with sharing every character’s mindset, and others are more judicious about what they reveal. It’s up to you and your story.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Not being tied to one character at a time allows you to explore and show things that are happening outside the main characters’ scope.

Let me tell you all of the things: Just because you can show everything, doesn’t mean you have to. If it doesn’t belong in the story, if it doesn’t need to be said, then don’t say it. If you’re determined to show every single thing leading up to the climax, you run the risk of bogging down the story with unimportant details and side stories, no matter how cool they are. And, similar to first person, if you offer too many interpretations of one event, the event’s impact may get muddled behind all the different tellings.

Third Person Objective: Camera Mode

Action!: An objective narrator doesn’t relay thoughts or feelings from any of the characters. This narrator is a spectator without any stake in the story.

What do you think?: Because objective doesn’t spend any time mulling over the characters’ opinions and feelings, readers are forced to come to their own conclusions about the story. If you are writing a story where you want the readers to form opinions on their own, objective can be a great way to make them do it.

I am a movie camera: Objective narrators don’t give us any information about thoughts or feelings, relying solely on what happens rather than why it happens. Because of this, objective can make it harder to showcase your characters’ inner thoughts and feelings.

Your job is harder: Because objective is objective, you as the writer don’t have a lot of wiggle room when interpreting events. Your job is now completely to tell it like it is, and nothing else—all the interpretation is now on the reader’s part. This can be good for exploring serious themes without getting “preachy,” but removes a lot of your freedom to interpret your own story.

There’s no wrong decision when deciding what POV to use unless you aren't consistent within the story. Try them all out and decide which you like best!

-Headless and Dev

[thefictiontree]

Hello! In my young adult novel, I have two characters who've been best friends since middle school and later go on to slowly fall in love with one another. This, however, happens long after a huge, shaky patch in their friendship due to some major secrets they've been keeping from each other (for highly justifiable reasons). Any tips on how to develop a slowburn romance from their friendship after it heals?

Whenever you write romance, it’s good to keep in mind that no two relationships develop or grow the same way. There might be a dramatic formula for romance as far as narrative and plot (beginning/middle/end), but there’s no magic combination of vocabulary and plot points that will make the romance 100% perfect. And that’s ok! Every romance is different, what will make it work is the execution.

Reconciliation will be an important part of it, especially at the beginning. The nature of the secrets will probably also play into how this reconciliation goes—if either of them were hiding dealbreaking secrets, they will need to spend some time figuring out how to move past them, weighing whether or not it would be worth it to move past them, etc. If there are lingering trust issues as a result of whatever happened with their secrets, that may also affect how their relationship develops—is there a period of time where they still feel they can’t believe what the other says? What happens to help them repair the trust?

Considering that this is a YA novel and that these two characters have known each other since middle school, keep in mind that people change an awful lot between middle school and young adulthood!  There might be a period of “getting to (re)know you” similar to how two strangers might meet, especially if they haven’t had contact in a while or if a lot of things have changed. Depending again on their secrets, they may need to approach each other as strangers before they can move on with a relationship as friends or romantic partners. You might want to spend a little time developing your characters’ mindsets as they move through the stages of familiarity to intimacy, the better to get inside their heads for any given moment in their relationship. Are they still hesitant about something? At what point does that hesitation go away?

-Headless and Dev

[thefictiontree]

My villain takes people's souls, and I really want his motivation to be that he takes souls because he can, because he likes it, but I'm afraid that this will come across as "I'm evil because I'm evil", how do avoid this problem?

The first point we’ll make is that evil for evil’s sake isn’t an automatic fail for a villain! It’s perfectly fine for a villain to be motivated by evil.

That said, the way to avoid evil for evil’s sake is to establish motivation for the villain outside of “I like it.” Why does he like it? What does it do for him? Without this piece of characterization, the villain is just enjoying souls because.

Additionally/alternatively, your villain’s motivation might be that he’s powerful and he likes power. Power going to his head can be a strong motivator in and of itself.

-Headless and Dev