Writing Right with Dmitri: Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch...
Created | Updated Jun 19, 2016
Writing Right with Dmitri: Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch...
Do you remember those old Westerns? There would be a lot of action out on the range, and then they'd say, 'Meanwhile, back at the ranch…' It was a clumsy way of keeping simultaneous action going.
We've come a long way since then.
How many time travel stories have you read or watched? Stop and count them. (We'll wait.)
Did you mention…
- The Time Machine by HG Wells?
- Time and Again by Jack Finney?
- 11/22/63 by Stephen King?
If you mentioned those novels, you'll have noticed something. They're pretty linear. The reader keeps eyeballs squarely on the protagonist, and only figures out what's been changed in the timeline when he, the protagonist, notices. Not many headaches there.
What about film and TV?
Did you think of…
- Back to the Future?
- Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?
- Doctor Who?
- Once Upon a Time?
Okay, you may not think of the television series Once Upon a Time as a time-travel series, but in a way, it is. The action takes place in different space/time frames, usually the 'real world' (how real is Maine [portrayed by Vancouver], anyway?) and a 'fairy-tale world' such as the Enchanted Forest, Wonderland, or even Neverland. The actors are engaged in a great deal of mental time travel because they're usually playing their RL and fairy-tale counterparts at two different times in their lives. It gets…er, complicated. But somehow, we always manage to follow the story.
Which was part of my point. I have two of them:
- Modern fiction writing and consumption (i.e., reading or watching) has increased the level of complexity of the public's understanding of narrative.
- This increased complexity has made us more aware of causation, which should in theory make us cleverer.
I make that second point cautiously. I hesitate to claim that humans are getting any smarter. I really do. Something usually comes along to disabuse us of that notion. (Such as, say, US presidential campaigns.) Still, reading, watching, and paying attention to these complex, multilayered narratives is pretty good for the brain, I suspect. I'll bet there's even neuroscience to back that up.
What does that mean for the writer? The following, I believe:
- You need to learn to write more complex story lines. The reader will see you coming a mile away if you don't look sharp.
- On the other hand, the reader is better able to keep up with your ideas, so that's a plus.
- You need to work harder at your technique in order to make your story clear. Keeping tangled skeins of narrative straight is tricky, and depends on good writing. And it's not natural: you have to work at it.
- With this improved palette of techniques, and more tuned-in readership, you should be able to present more complex narratives with deeper ideas. I say should: you'll still have to work at it. There is still mental laziness abroad.
Don't believe the writing's getting better? Take this challenge, I dare you. Go back and read a random page of a novel by Charlotte Yonge. Then pick up the latest paperback from your shelf. Compare. Try to note at least three differences in the way the authors tell a tale. What have you learned?
So, yeah. We can do it better than in the horse-and-buggy days. That's not to knock Dickens – but it is to say that if Dickens were around today, he'd be picking up new techniques as well. Heck, he'd probably be designing a new series for Bryan Fuller about now.
So have fun out there. And remember: the reader/viewer will probably be able to follow your narrative, so get out the flowchart, and hide a few Easter eggs.
As always, experiments gratefully accepted by the h2g2 Post.
Writing Right with Dmitri Archive
