Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

    Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
    He doesn't worry about tying these situations to a plot. But then he says, "Sooner or later every story comes out somewhere.- What does he mean by that? Does he mean a plot magically establishes itself?
    -- The purpose of that section of King's book is to explain why he doesn't like to outline the plot of his stories before he writes.

    To get across his point, King refers to stories like they are fossils in the ground. He says, the writer's job is to use the tools in his toolbox to get as much of each one out of the ground intact as possible.

    King believes plotting is equivalent to a jackhammer. He says, plot is a good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice. (I think King just called me dull.) King says the story that results from plotting is apt to feel artificial and labored.

    King says he's able to lean heavily on intuition because his books tend to be based on situations. He puts his characters in some sort of predicament and then watch them try to work themselves free.

    King says his job isn't to help them work their way free, or manipulate them to safety -- those are jobs which require the noisy jackhammer of plot -- but to watch what happens and then write it down.

    King says, "Why worry about the ending anyway? Why be such a control freak?"

    jonpiper, to answer your question "What does he mean by, 'Sooner or later every story comes out somewhere,'" King is implying that the ending of the story will evolve organically, naturally from its characters and situations sooner or later.

    Whereas, King believes if the story was plotted the end result would be artificial and labored.

    Centos believes King's book passage was not about outlining. I believe otherwise and posted accordingly.

    There are key words that King used i.e., spontaneity, artificial, watch what happens, etc. that I always hear in the outline, or not outline debates from those writers explaining why they don't like to outline.

    King articulated why he doesn't like to plot out his story. This is what's best for him to deliver a powerful story.

    As a writer striving to write a clear, strong and compelling screenplay, you (general writer) must decide what's the best way for you in accomplishing that: outlining, or not outlining.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

      Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
      Keep in mind, there are hundreds of Gurus. You're doing a blanket condemnation of "a lot of these Gurus" because some have written a DO NOT use list like the one you presented on page 55 of the thread I linked to.
      If it doesn't apply to a specific "guru" then don't apply it to him/her.

      Non-problem solved.
      STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

        No book can tell you how to write a script. If they could then the highest paid and busiest screenwriters would be Robert McKee, Syd Field, and John Truby. But they're not. They can't write a great morality play about greed, or the actioned packed adventure movie, of the thriller with that great twist ending. They can't tell you what events to choose for your through line, what they can do is talk about through lines in general. Well, through lines turn and have moments where they shape questions and reverse situations, and there's always a moment where the hero falls on real hard times. They can't tell you how to give the reader the chills when they read that moment, or how to make the reader say 'Hmmm...' after your first act climax has shaped the dramatic argument that will play out in ACT 1, they don't know better than you and I on how to make a DMQ work or how to make the reader fall in love with the hero. They can talk about hero's they have fallen in love with and discuss similarities, discuss craftsmanship.

        As far as the pacing tent poles of it all, i.i. here, ACT 1 climax there, mid point reversal 50% through, etc...

        They are there as guidelines. But really, if I am on page 30 of your script and you have yet to show the craftsmanship of setting of that central argument, then what the hell did I just spend 30 pages on? If you set-up the hero in the setting and start peeling away at his/her exterior, I am going to need an impactful event real soon. Something that shows me that circumstances that will definitely challenge what I read of this hero so far are looming. What is going to happen? If I do not get that event in the first 15 - 20 minutes of story then I get bored and so does the rest of the reading and movie watching world. And please no one quote me some art house film that has no plot and no one saw.

        Act 2 is extremely long, 60 pages in a long time for the reader to teeter-totter over the same argument. A story needs something to break up ACT 2. It needs an escalator. Something that escalates the conflict. Could be the intro of a new character, a reveal that a friend to the hero is really enemy, something that changes things up. Escalation is key.

        At the end of ACT 2 you need a moment where the hero looks defeated (upward ending), or looks like the hero apparently won (anti-hero). This puts your story at the opposite charge you intend to land on. A story needs this moment. If you're not here by a certain time you will have a loose story that doesn't move fast enough.

        Really, the 3 ACT structure is a b!tch. Its not easy. It forces you to move that story forward. No time to waste. Amateurs waste time and their events for their through line are not great. Mediocre events and mediocre writing. You can tell right away if the writer did their homework on a script. Right away.

        90% of the querying world is sending pages out there that have no shot, I mean none. They are a 350 pound coach potato knocking on the door of their local NFL team asking the coaches to take a look at him for QB.

        It's not because all these people write 'in' the 3 Act structure. It's because 'none' of them can write in the 3 Act structure.

        Anyone who has the natural flow and progression a story must take at the speed it must take it, then God bless you. You are a natural.

        People need a cookie cutter pacing chart. Not a cookie cutter idea, not a cookie cutter hero, not a cookie cutter plot. But a cookie cutter pacing chart can help. It will help you get to where you need to be in the story.

        Your story starts cold and it ends piping hot (hopefully). In between is a lot of temperature changes. You can handle those without a cookie cutter pacing chart, then great. So far no amateur script I read, where the amateur was a tout against 3 act structure, was any good at all.

        Writers that can write outside the 3 act structure do so not because it's 'cool' to be anti-structure. They do it because they know all the notes and arrangements to a traditional pacing structure. Know it like the back of their hand. Now they start to play with the notes, tweaking them. Playing with the arrangements. If you are an amateur you can't do that. Can't like you mentally and physically can't do it. Not that you're not allowed.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

          Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
          To me, it sounds like he's saying he doesn't force plot on character. He's not making up events for the sake of excitement or difficulty. People are their worst enemies in life, same is so in story.
          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
          -- The purpose of that section of King's book is to explain why he doesn't like to outline the plot of his stories before he writes.

          King says his job isn't to help them work their way free, or manipulate them to safety -- those are jobs which require the noisy jackhammer of plot -- but to watch what happens and then write it down.

          King says, "Why worry about the ending anyway? Why be such a control freak?"

          jonpiper, to answer your question "What does he mean by, 'Sooner or later every story comes out somewhere,'" King is implying that the ending of the story will evolve organically, naturally from its characters and situations sooner or later.

          Whereas, King believes if the story was plotted the end result would be artificial and labored.

          Centos believes King's book passage was not about outlining. I believe otherwise and posted accordingly.

          There are key words that King used i.e., spontaneity, artificial, watch what happens, etc. that I always hear in the outline, or not outline debates from those writers explaining why they don't like to outline.

          King articulated why he doesn't like to plot out his story. This is what's best for him to deliver a powerful story.
          Then it sounds like King is simply saying that a plot will always evolve without his having to plot out the story beforehand. Even though he doesn't worry about an ending or pathway to the end, or even a rough outline, his story will have a plot.

          Or am I wrong? Is he saying that a story does not even need a plot?
          Last edited by jonpiper; 01-08-2017, 10:02 AM. Reason: add a comma.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

            Don't forget he is a novelist which allows for a lot more exploration during writing. I think in a script if you have an idea of what the dramatic argument will be, you don't need to know exactly how the argument plays out from the start.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

              Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
              Is he saying that a story does not even need a plot?
              story isn't inherent to plot. but plot is inherent to story. did i say that right? *i think i mixed it up. either way. a good story can exist w/o plot.
              Last edited by bjamin; 01-08-2017, 05:32 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                Don't forget he is a novelist which allows for a lot more exploration during writing. I think in a script if you have an idea of what the dramatic argument will be, you don't need to know exactly how the argument plays out from the start.
                Why? Can't you rewrite as the plot and characters develop and possibly move in different directions than what you first planned? How is this process different in a script vs a novel? It really doesn't matter how you get there -- it's what you end up with that counts.
                STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                  Novels have lots of tangents to the main plot. Scripts are more streamlined stories. But you can rewrite as you go. You can do anything as long as it produces results.

                  Edited to add:

                  Also, remember that a writer can tell you what he/she does habitual wise during a script. Doesn't mean that habit will produce for you. What you should take notices of is what the habits produce. Things like character depth, escalating conflicts, major revelations or reversals. You need to get that deep into your story too, the excavation of the fossil habit may not do it for you.
                  Last edited by Cyfress; 01-09-2017, 06:57 AM. Reason: To ADD

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                    Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                    Novels have lots of tangents to the main plot. Scripts are more streamlined stories. But you can rewrite as you go. You can do anything as long as it produces results.
                    But all the tangents in the world mean nothing if you end up with a screenplay at the end. That's my point. Words don't cost anything.

                    Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
                    Edited to add:

                    Also, remember that a writer can tell you what he/she does habitual wise during a script. Doesn't mean that habit will produce for you. What you should take notices of is what the habits produce. Things like character depth, escalating conflicts, major revelations or reversals. You need to get that deep into your story too, the excavation of the fossil habit may not do it for you.
                    And it may. And a mechanical approach where all (or most all) of the major development is strictly superimposed from the beginning may make unreadable drek.

                    I -- personally -- like working it out WHILE writing (which can be a form of development), instead of trying to figure it all out in advance.

                    Again, whatever process that works. It's the result that counts.
                    Last edited by Centos; 01-09-2017, 07:03 PM. Reason: Left out a "that"
                    STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                      Who said all the development is super imposed in the 3 act structure? You're talking about people getting married to concepts and writing that doesn't work. That has nothing to do with 3 Act structure. There ain't a single working writer out there that outlines who doesn't have great ideas come to them during the actual writing time. Getting married to ideas is a maturity issue. If you are not addressing an obvious story problem, that has nothing to do with your method of creating the story. It means you don't feel like addressing or fail to recognize the problem. That's an instinct or a work ethic problem.

                      It's all in the rewriting. That first draft is to get something to work from. The real work begins after. Do you have the nose for story? And the talent? Do you know how to foreshadow correctly? Can you build character depth while moving the story along? A plot complication may mean one thing to an amateur and can mean something different to a seasoned writer. That's why people who can't sell scripts can write books in how to. Because it takes more than knowing terms, labels, and pacing charts. You have to know how to go into the lab and recreate the human experience.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                        Originally posted by bjamin View Post
                        a good story can exist w/o plot.
                        I'm not convinced that is true. There are thousands of movies I haven't seen and novels I haven't read, but I've seen and read many and cannot think of a good story that doesn't have a plot.
                        Last edited by jonpiper; 01-10-2017, 05:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                          Plot is a direct result of the hero's plan of action where he/she is actively pursuing a very attractive want (that has been foreshadowed effectively in ACT 1. Without a plot, the hero has no plan of action. Without plan of action, your hero is not active. If the hero is not active, then what exactly are they doing?

                          You ever write a first draft, then while reading that draft you come up with story ideas that totally take the story in a new direction and really change things? Only you don't do it because it would mean changing a lot of stuff and you wouldn't even have all the new scenes you would need to complete the change, so you just decide against it. Or you hear advice from someone that rings true, but would require a ton of rewriting to implement so you ignore it.

                          You are building a map to a place that does not exist, making the reader feel like they are the trailblazer, going through things for a first time, not knowing which way the story/direction will turn.

                          I like it when King says that he always loves when he comes up with a good story turn in the middle of writing because if it is something he didn't see coming from the start, he knows the reader won't see it either. a la Shawshank Redemption. He didn't have that ending when he started writing, I'd bet on it.

                          Edited to Add:

                          Centos, just think about it this way. For all the amateurs writing out there with a total disregard for the 3 Act Structure and just letting the pacing of the story unfold as fast or slow as it wants and not worry about hitting any predetermined beats, you do realize that 99% of all that work is complete, unreadable dreck. But I would never say that original pacing tempos and non linear stories produce nothing but confusing, disjointed stories. It's just that the writers trying to pull it off can't. Same said for your criticisms of the three act structure. The mechanical writing is not because they executed the 3 act structure pacing paradigm, its because they didn't.
                          Last edited by Cyfress; 01-10-2017, 09:09 PM. Reason: Add

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                            Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                            I'm not convinced that is true. There are thousands of movies I haven't seen and novels I haven't read, but I've seen and read many and cannot think of a good story that doesn't have a plot.

                            here's a list of some flicks you can check out... https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...without%20plot

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                              Originally posted by bjamin View Post
                              a good story can exist w/o plot.
                              Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                              I'm not convinced that is true. There are thousands of movies I haven't seen and novels I haven't read, but I've seen and read many and cannot think of a good story that doesn't have a plot.
                              Originally posted by bjamin View Post
                              here's a list of some flicks you can check out... https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...without%20plot
                              You googled "movies without a plot". I agree that movies without a plot are made. Some are even good. Try googling "stories without a plot".

                              Can you find any good stories that lack a plot?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Stephen King "On Writing" -- no plot

                                Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                                You googled "movies without a plot". I agree that movies without a plot are made. Some are even good. Try googling "stories without a plot".

                                Can you find any good stories that lack a plot?
                                true, i was speaking in terms of film. but isn't a movie a story told using moving pics? either way, the only book that comes to mind is slaughterhouse 5. but i could be wrong. *just thought of = does 'catcher in the rye' have a plot?
                                Last edited by bjamin; 01-11-2017, 10:45 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X