wetranscripts | Entries tagged with red herring

Writing Excuses 18.34: Seventeen Years of Foreshadowing

From https://writingexcuses.com/18-34-seventeen-years-of-foreshadowing

Key points: How can you take what you're writing and lay good foreshadowing in it, how can you look back and edit to put good foreshadowing in, or how can you make what you've already written work? What are the foreshadowing tools? Use stuff that's already on the table. Take what you're already doing and make it intentional. Use both plot foreshadowing and emotional foreshadowing. Foreshadowing can be for red herrings, too! Use alpha readers to find out what needs more emphasis, where to hang a lantern. Foreshadowing leads to a reveal, so make sure the pieces are in place to justify the reveal. Do you have to put foreshadowing in your work? What does foreshadowing do for us? No, not necessarily deliberately. But character drives plot, which is a form of foreshadowing. Plot, worldbuilding, character, theme, it all can contain foreshadowing, so the story makes sense. When you explain a story you are writing to someone, you stop and say, I need to explain X. That's something to foreshadow in your writing! Genre, telling a story, plot beats, they all are kinds of foreshadowing. Plant Chekhov's gun on plenty of mantles, and fire them as needed.

[Season 18, Episode 34]

[Mary Robinette] This is Writing Excuses, Seventeen Years of Foreshadowing.

[DongWon] 15 minutes long.

[Erin] Because you're in a hurry.

[Howard] And we're not that smart.

[Mary Robinette] I'm Mary Robinette.

[DongWon] I'm DongWon.

[Erin] I'm Erin.

[Howard] And I'm Howard.

[Howard] Seventeen Years of Foreshadowing. In the previous episode, we talked about me ramping up to the finale of Schlock Mercenary, and the… I think it was Mary Robinette asked the question, "When did you know what the ending was going to be? When did you know you were going to have a big ending?" There's 17 years of foreshadowing going into the final three years of Schlock Mercenary. Because, even though I didn't know where I was going at the very beginning, I managed to make the early stuff work. That's part of what we want to talk about today is how to take what you're writing and lay good foreshadowing at the very beginning, how to look back at what you've done and edit so that there's good foreshadowing in it, and, when, like perhaps a web cartoonist, you don't have the luxury to go back and edit and put in the foreshadowing, you can make what you've already written work. So, I'm going to pose this to our august body of…

[Laughter]

[Howard] Of hosts. What are your favorite foreshadowing tools? How do you like to do it?

[Mary Robinette] My favorite stuff is actually using things that are already on the table. I very rarely will be writing and think, "Um. I need to put this in because I'm going to use it later. Let me foreshadow this plan that I'm going to do." I'm much more likely to hit a point where I need to use something and then look back at stuff that I've already laid down, grab one of those things, and then go back and tighten it or tweak it and maybe put it in one additional place. The closest I've come to really… It's probably not true, but the closest that I can think of that I've come to doing additional… I mean, intentional foreshadowing in the Glamorous Histories, I was like, "And then Jane uses…" And I said bracket. I was like, "And then Jane," and I said bracket, "uses a technique of glamour that is going to become very important and plot specific later…"

[Laughter]

[Mary Robinette] Then when I got to that point where I knew what that thing was, I came back and dropped it.

[Erin] I'd say I'm a pretty, like, instinctive whatever you call that type of writer these days, pantser or gardener or what have you. So, for me, a lot of times it's figuring out what have I… What's my subconscious already done, similarly, and then make it conscious. Take the things that I'm doing unintentionally and make them intentional. There's a story that I'm working on now that involves rhyming in it, which I promise is better than it sounds, and I realized that the rhymes were happening at random times in the story. I thought, "Well, what if they happened at moments… At specific types of emotional moments?" So I wanted to have these rhymes in the story, but could they be doing more? Then, that way, when you see the rhyme, the fifth or sixth time, even if you don't notice it on some level, you're going to see like that means that there's been a ramp up of emotion. So it's less the plot foreshadowing than an emotional one, but it's because I'm like, okay, if I'm going to do this thing, I might as well do it on purpose.

[Howard] I love that kind of micro-structuring. Absolutely love it. In the mixed mediums, cartooning is words plus pictures, there's even more of it available. The fact that you can cant the camera a little bit to the left or a little bit to the right, and, if when a particular speaker is on, you always skew the camera just a little bit in one direction… It doesn't have to be much, five or 6 degrees is enough. The reader probably won't notice, but the reader's subconscious is going to be on board with there is something about this character that weird, that's tilted. The rhyming, a purely prose version, that's neat.

[Mary Robinette] The other thing that I will sometimes do… I said that I rarely do foreshadowing intentionally, is that sometimes I will, when I'm writing my story stuff, I will foreshadow as a way of laying down a red herring. Because I want the reader to spot it and go, "Oh, oop. She's foreshadowing something that's coming up." Then I don't use it. Like, it's deliberately putting the gun on the mantle with no intention of using it. So I will do that sometimes. Because I… When I am reading and I spot something where the author has put something in, and it's very clearly foreshadowing, it can often make me frustrated, because I can… It reminds me that I'm reading in some ways.

[Howard] It can knock you out of the story because you see… You start seeing the narrative scaffolding and… You're not supposed to see the scaffolding, you're supposed to live in the house.

[Erin] One thing I find really interesting about foreshadowing is to me it's a received action. So, someone has to take up what you are putting down. So, like, sometimes you think you have put so much scaffolding, you're like, "How could anyone not notice it?" People read it and be like, "I did not notice that that one, there was doing all the work that you thought it was doing, because you understand the entire story." So one thing that I find really fun to do about foreshadowing is to do it, and then give the story to someone and say, like, "What did you actually get?" Then adjust from there. I find personally that I read more into things like as a reader, I tend to take the tiniest things and think that they're foreshadowing. So I write that way. It turns out that sometimes I actually need to hit a point harder than I think I needed to. So sometimes what I do is just go back and take a moment that I'm like this was the teeniest bit of foreshadowing and then like shine more of a light on it. Because, to me, it was big, but to the other people it was small. It sort of feels like when you have a crush on someone and everything they do, you think is really momentous, but they're not noticing because it's all in your head. It's the writing version of that.

[DongWon] I've been having this problem a lot, not necessarily the crush part, but I've been having this problem a lot in general, which is, I've been doing a lot of [TDRBG?] GMing. So I've been running [garbled] campaigns and things like that, and I keep doing this thing where when you're starting a campaign, all you're doing is foreshadowing, you're laying out a huge buffet of plot hooks really, which will be foreshadowing things later. Then my players keep looking at me and being like, "We don't know what we're supposed to do now." So I think I'm having that thing of sometimes you really need to hang a lantern in a way that feels very obvious to you, the writer, that won't necessarily feel as obvious to the reader, because he'll be presented with so much information. Right? So putting your finger on the scale to make sure that this thing is highlighted in a certain way is such a challenge to sort of put yourself in the audiences shoes so they're set up to receive that.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah. I think it's… It is that making sure that they notice it, but walking the line between not noticing it and being predictable.

[DongWon] Yup. Exactly.

[Mary Robinette] I think one of the things that happens to the creator is… The reason it's… Like, but it's so obvious, is because you know the end. You know all of the intentionality behind it. The reader does not.

[DongWon] Well, this is where you can hook into pattern recognition in your readers in a really useful way. This is kind of what Erin was talking about a little bit in just… You can set up these rhyming structures, because we've seen heist movies before. So we know when you're going to show the vault in a certain way, we have certain expectations of where that story's going to go. You can leverage these story beats, these tropes, whatever you want to call them, in a way that helps you emphasize the foreshadowing that you want, and then you can either subvert our expectations in terms of the red herring that Mary Robinette was talking about or you can fulfill them in satisfying ways, and then that'll feel, when the reader gets there, they'll be like, "Oh. They were telling me about this 50 pages ago. That's so satisfying." Right? So I think a lot of when you're starting a story, when you're in those early stages, and maybe you do or don't know where you want to go, but a lot of what you want to start doing is start laying out these early parts of different story patterns, and then figure out which ones you want to conclude, and pick up on, and which ones you want to like close the doors on as you go. Right? So, for me, sometimes thinking about those like little micro arcs, of like a character arc or a plot arc, can be really helpful in setting reader expectations and sort of priming the pump for them to get interested in what the eventual foreshadowing is going to result in.

[Howard] Well, the foreshadowing has to lead to a reveal. We will get to that reveal after our thing of the week.

[Mary Robinette] I want to tell you about Babel by R. F. Kuang. This book just blew me away. One of the… I listened to it in audio. I highly recommend the audio edition, which is narrated by Chris Lew Kum Hoi and Billie Fulford-Brown. It is a story of a group of young students in Victorian Oxford who are translation students. It's a story about colonialism. It's a story about patriarchy. It's a story about friendship and found family. The magic system is so exciting, because the power of magic comes in the tension between words that cannot be translated into another language… Or, they can be translated, but that the process of translating, you lose some essential meaning of that. It's just really, really delicious. One of the reasons I wanted to highlight it for you is that she does this beautiful thing where it's this group of friends in the way they interact and behave with each other in the beginning when everything is going well foreshadows the way they are going to interact and behave with each other when things go poorly at the end. It's just… It's lovely because it sets up an inevitability and also is not predictable. Because you are hoping that things will go a different way. It's a beautiful book. One of the reasons I recommend the narration, the audiobook, in particular, is because you get… There are footnotes which are part of the structure of the book. But the footnotes are read by native speakers of the languages, so you can hear how the words are actually intended to be said. So that's Babel by R. F. Kuang.

[Howard] When I was 10 years old, I found a mystery novel and I started reading it, and immediately realized there was highlighting and handwriting all over these pages. I asked my dad what was going on. He said, "Oh, that's one of the books that grandpa read." Like, why did he write in the book? "Well, your grandfather loved reading these mystery novels, and every time he saw something that was a clue, he would write notes about it. He would highlight it. Because he wanted to be able to solve the mystery before the detective did." So he was putting in this conscious effort. I want to go on the record right now and say that is not how my foreshadowing works.

[Chuckles]

[Howard] I write to the reveal. I don't write to you figuring out the reveal. I write to the reveal. So that when a thing happens, you look at it and you say, "Oh, of course that's what happens because there was this bit of foreshadowing." But, to use a silly example, if the camera has panned across gasoline dripping from the bottom of an automobile, then, well, there's going to be an explosion, and when you get the explosion, you're like, "Oh. Because there was gasoline and whatever." But there could also be no explosion because someone grabbed the fire extinguisher. It's… Whatever the reveal is, I want to have the pieces in place so that it feels justified. One of the only places I can remember consciously planning ahead for a big foreshadow was, and I think it was in book 15 or book 16, I had one of the characters talking about Fermi's Paradox. In a galactic society, where there's… The aliens have been around us for a thousand years, what does Fermi's Paradox even mean? Why is it even important? The answer is, well, um, galactic society should be a lot older. This galactic society is only about 40 or 50,000 years old. We are there other ones? What is happening? What is going on here? Having one character puzzling over that, and other people brushing it off, made for good comedy, but it also let me come around to, towards the end of Schlock Mercenary, coming up with my answer to Fermi's Paradox as a way to help drive the end of the story.

[DongWon] So you could have a plot load bearing academic concepts?

[Howard] Exactly. Exactly.

[Mary Robinette] As you were talking, as we've all been talking, it's actually occurred to me that we may be having some listeners out there going, "Oh, I'm not doing any of this." So, let me ask the question, do you have to put foreshadowing in? In your work? Then that leads to the follow-up question of what does foreshadowing actually do for us?

[DongWon] I want to say that, no, you don't have to do it in a conscious and deliberate way. But there is one aspect of this I want to touch on, and we haven't talked about much up until this point, which is one of my favorite modes of storytelling is what I think of as character as destiny. Where, I mean, this is… Game of Thrones is very famous for this, Fonda Lee's books do this incredibly well. There's a mode of storytelling that's very much about the plot is going to derive from these foibles or characteristics or essential aspects of who your characters are, and then how they're going to interact with each other. Right? Circe wants… Loves her children, loves her family, and therefore will do anything to defend them past the point of reason. Right? We know this fact about her. So that is a form of foreshadowing in certain ways for later events when she becomes completely unhinged. Right? Over the… Spoilers, I guess… Deaths of her children. Right? Those little things that character is destiny can operate as a form of foreshadowing. So I guess my answer to your question is, no, you don't have to have it explicitly in there in the way that we've been talking about in terms of like certain plot hooks, setting up certain plot beats later, but it will always kind of be there if you've written your characters well. Because your people… Your characters will make decisions that should make sense to the reader. Therefore, we will always have a certain satisfaction when they make choices that are true to the characters that we've met so far. That is, in itself, its own form of foreshadowing.

[Erin] Yeah, I think a lot of times we think of foreshadowing as such a plot…

[Yeah]

[Erin] Specific thing. Like… It's like a plot thing you need to do. But I actually think that all… I agree, like… Foreshadowing is kind of sense making. You help people make sense of the story. Sometimes you do that in a plot way and sometimes you do that in a worldbuilding way. Like, there is worldbuilding foreshadowing where in order for a thing to exist in your world at the end, it's probably good for people to understand that it is like… That there is something of that in the world earlier on. Otherwise, it feels like a deus ex machina, where it's like, "And then there were spaceships." You're like, "I thought we were in Lord of the Rings, so that was surprising to me." You need to somehow… Maybe there's wreckage of mechanics that people find along the way, and that's a foreshadowing of its own. But I really think that foreshadowing can be… Can, I think, lead people sometimes to put too much of it into the plot, and not enough in other places. Because one of the things I sometimes I find myself doing in stories is like I figured out how to make the plot make sense, but now the characters don't feel like they're in that plot.

[DongWon] Right.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah.

[Erin] The characters are just being dragged along by it. They're doing things to foreshadow the action, but their behavior hasn't been foreshadowed, so it doesn't seem true to the character. So I would sort of challenge folks to look for ways in which your story makes sense on every level, character, theme, world, as you move along, and not just think of foreshadowing as something that needs to move the action.

[Howard] For the discovery writer, it's useful to point out that at some level, foreshadowing is the inevitable outcome of the syntax of a narrative. If you have a narrative in which things happen one after the other, you can look at the things that happened earlier and they are foreshadowing for the things that happened later. At some level, that's all foreshadowing is. The larger foreshadowing, the example I gave of Fermi's Paradox, that's the case where I'm now working to an outline and I want to have something big happened. I wanted to be big and satisfying, so I have to do some advance planning. But if you're discovery writing, you can probably read back through your manuscript and find foreshadowing everywhere. Because it's a natural growth of the syntax of the narrative.

[Erin] I actually think humans are natural foreshadowers. But we do it in asides. When you're telling a friend a story about something that's happened to you, you will often pause midway through the story and go, "Okay, but to understand why I hate my boss, you've really got to think about like that time she broke the copier on purpose and I've never forgiven her." Do you know what I mean? We naturally foreshadow, we just don't do it in a very like artful way…

[Chuckles]

[Erin] Because we just stop and go like, "Now you need to know this thing." So, sometimes I find that if you actually talk about your storytelling to other people, you will find yourself explaining the story that you've been writing, and then you'll stop, and you'll be like, "Oh, wait, the thing I didn't explain is X." That's the thing that is really important to foreshadow. So, by doing it like artless Lee like to a friend over a drink, over coffee, you can actually figure out what you need to do more artfully on the page.

[DongWon] I would argue that one of the best storytelling podcast that's out there right now, it's a podcast that's very popular called Normal Gossip, which is people telling gossip stories to each other about normal people. It's not gossip about celebrities, it's gossip about somebody you know. It's the single most funny thing I've ever listened to in my life. But also, it's so useful because it's exactly the stuff that you're talking about. Where each story has to be so beautifully structured and crafted to get the right feeling and rhythm of storytelling out. I love this idea of that's… If we are always naturally foreshadowing because you want to communicate to the person that you're talking to what kind of story are we in? Is this funny? Is this sad? How is this character relevant? What kind… So often, it's like, well, I know that person's going to make some chaotic choices, because you're telling me a story about them. Right? Otherwise, this isn't going to resolve in an ordinary, normal way. We all know it's going to get crazy from here. So I think that's part of the joy of a certain kind of storytelling. So, just by the fact that you are telling a story, you are foreshadowing a certain kind of elements, a certain kind of plot beats. So, in some ways when we talk about foreshadowing as an official technique, it really is just turning the dial up a little bit on some of those features. It's intentionally ratcheting up what are already natural storytelling patterns that we all have, and that you're already doing if you're writing anything.

[Howard] When the next door neighbor's gas grill explodes, and somebody says, "Y'a know, this reminds me of a story," we are all paying attention. Because contextually, you've just foreshadowed something that I'm on board for. I want to start this last little bit by saying we're probably familiar with Chekhov's gun. I had people accuse me of using Chekhov's gun. "Howard, in Schlock Mercenary, there are so many mantles, and so many guns, and so many… We just expect there to be gunfire all over throughout the ending." Yeah, for my own part, I had lots and lots and lots of throwaway gags that I knew I could return to if I needed them in order to make something feel like it was inevitable.

[Howard] I have homework for you. Last week's homework, take one of your favorite things and write a new ending. Homework this week, take a throwaway gag from one of your favorite things. Something that was only a plot point in one episode or in one book or in one scene. Right… Outline a scene in which that turns out to have been foreshadowing for something of huge dramatic import.

[Mary Robinette] This has been Writing Excuses. You're out of excuses. Now go write.

[DongWon] This episode is made possible by our incredible Patreon supporters. To support this podcast and get exclusive access to Q&As, live streams, and bonus content, visit the link in our show notes or go to patreon.com/writingexcuses.

mbarker

Writing Excuses 18.12: The Long Shadow of Unanswered Questions

From https://writingexcuses.com/18-12-the-long-shadow-of-unanswered-questions/

Key Points: How do you postpone answering questions? First, we haven't gotten there yet. More specifically, you have to gather evidence first. Or you have an answer, but it's the wrong one. Or you have an answer, but there's more to uncover. Try-fail cycles! Yes-but, no-and! Plan your information arc, where are they gathering information, where is it revealed. Hide the real question! Cell phones and Google -- I don't know who to call, or I don't know how to ask the right question puts a speedbump in the way. Let the familiar become strange. Go ahead and tell us, and see what happens then. Give us some information that is satisfying and compelling, and build the trust that you will tell us about the other stuff later. Let another character ask the questions the reader wants to know. Use red herrings, things that seem connected but really aren't.

[Season 18, Episode 12]

[Mary Robinette] This is Writing Excuses.

[DongWon] The Long Shadow of Unanswered Questions.

[Erin] 15 minutes long.

[Dan] Because you're in a hurry.

[Howard] And we're not that smart.

[Mary Robinette] I'm Mary Robinette.

[DongWon] I'm DongWon.

[Erin] I'm Erin.

[Dan] I'm Dan.

[Howard] And I'm Howard.

[Mary Robinette] There are questions that we have that are unanswered. In our continuing exploration of tension, one of the favorite tricks for tension is questions that are unanswered. This can take a number of different forms. You classically see them in mysteries, but you also see them in romance, like, "Will they get together?" So, let's talk about some ways to avoid answering questions without it being super gimmicky.

[Chuckles]

[Mary Robinette] I have mentioned before my use of my small dog, or of my character's small dog to interrupt questions as… For people not on the video feed…

[Chuckles]

[Mary Robinette] Erin's cat is also providing a running commentary.

[DongWon] Which has completely prevented us from answering questions about unanswered questions.

[Erin] Her main unanswered question is, "Why no treats? I don't understand."

[Laughter]

[Howard] I think it's worth pointing out that when you write a book, when you're reading a book, fundamentally, information is being hidden from you because you haven't gotten to the end of the book yet. Just the ordering of the material is such that I'm not hiding the answer, I'm getting to it. We're getting there, we're just not there yet. You don't have to… The moment someone in the story or on the screen or on the page has the answer to the unanswered question, that is not necessarily the moment at which that answer would be revealed to anybody. Because the story unfolds at a pace at which that hasn't happened yet. So, I mean, that's the easiest tool.

[Dan] So, to be a little more granular about that, some specific things you can do to kind of stall that answer is you have to gather evidence first. Or you have an answer that turns out to be the wrong one. Or you come up with an answer that doesn't actually solve the mystery, it doesn't answer the main question, it just spends you off in a new direction, and then suddenly you have together more evidence and answer different questions.

[DongWon] Yeah, I mean, I think for a mystery type story, this is really the heart of the try-fail cycle. Right? The thing you are trying to do is gain more information. The way you as the author withhold that is you have your characters fail at that or get misleading information or only a piece of it. Right? I mean, this is, going back to another of Mary Robinette's favorite tools, the yes-but, no-and, you can apply that to yes, you now know this one piece of information, but there's a complication because that leads you down to a dead end. Right? So you can think about it in terms of… I think we often give try-fail cycles around action in terms of trying to rescue someone or trying to fix something. But you can apply that to information gathering, because when you're in a mystery, fundamentally, your main tool is the information that's in front of you right now.

[Erin] Yeah. I think the… One of the things I like to think about a lot when I'm writing is information arc as an additional type of arc in a story. Like, you have your character arc, maybe your plot arc, but where is information being gathered, it's where is it being revealed to the reader, and then maybe separately to the characters, really planning that out. Because I think where unanswered questions become annoying to readers is when it feels like you just didn't… You forgot you raised the question, or you just didn't bother getting around to answering it, versus that it was something intentional that you're doing about the way you give out information.

[Dan] Another great thing that I've seen done before is just kind of hiding what the real question actually is. We've used romance several times, which is another great source of tension. The first season of Bridgerton does this brilliantly. In a romance, we often expect the main question to be will these characters fall in love? Yes, clearly, by like episode three, that's answered. But there's more going on. Will they get married? Yeah, like by episode five, I think, they're married. But there's more going on. Ultimately, we realize the actual question that that season is asking is, will they be happy together? Will they resolve their other issues and have a happy life together? Which is just taking it much further than what we initially thought we were asking.

[DongWon] That kind of brings me to what I think is the greatest failure state of how information is released to the audience in a novel. One of the those things is when it's not connected to character. Right? I think one of the best ways to sort of appease an audience when you give them bad information or if they're not getting the answer that they wanted is making sure you're getting more information about who the character is and you're tying that process of trying to get more information into something revealing about who the character is. I'm thinking of like the game Hades, which is a fantastic game. It's a [rogue?] Like, so you're just… It's designed so that you will fail and die. Every time you die, you're rewarded with a little bit more story, as you get to interact with all the characters of this world. So the loop is, we're punishing you for the fact that you've failed, which you're supposed to do, and rewarding you by giving you character. So if you think about like how satisfying the loop in Hades is, think about that in terms of your reader going through the try-fail cycles of your book. Make sure that your rewarding them with something, even as the characters themselves are failing.

[Mary Robinette] That brings me to a great point that when we're talking about these questions, the unanswered questions, there are unanswered questions that the character has and there are also unanswered questions that the reader has. If you want to… I find that when you're trying to emotionally link the reader and the character, but if you give them both the same unanswered questions that that puts the character… The reader on the character's path. But sometimes you'll have a situation where the character knows an answer… This is my traumatic piece of back story… And the reader doesn't know the answer. So that… The reader tension is what is the character's traumatic back story? The character obviously knows it. So that's like… That's a way that you can ratchet the tension up by withholding something from the reader as long as the reader doesn't feel overtly manipulated. The I'll think about that later. That you have to have a reason for them to not think about it.

[Mary Robinette] Speaking of reasons to not think about the rest of that and how are we going to do it, I'm going to pose a question, which is, how are we going to keep people from feeling like they're overtly manipulated when they didn't get the answer that they want, and we're going to answer that after our break. Our thing of the week is Ted Lasso. It is currently a two season series. There is supposed to be a third season. I am eagerly awaiting it. It… On the surface, this is nothing that I would like. It is a show about soccer. I love this show so deeply, because it is a show about what happens when you make the kinder choice, ultimately. Because of that, and because of the way they are handling tension and tropes. It's as if they said, "What's a common TV trope? We're going to set that up, then we're going to subvert it by having the character make the kind and understanding response to it." It is funny. It is heartwarming. I care about soccer in ways that I have never cared about them. It has some of the best secondary and tertiary characters of anything that I've ever seen. Highly recommended. Ted Lasso. All of the seasons. If you're only going to watch one thing, that one thing should be Ted Lasso. Except DongWon will arm wrestle me about some other things. But…

[Chuckles]

[Mary Robinette] All right. So I posed a question before we went to break. That question was how do you interrupt a question… How do you withhold the question from the reader…

[Chuckles]

[Mary Robinette] And make them feel not overtly manipulated? That moment when someone's like…

[Howard] Yup.

[Mary Robinette] Here's a thing that everyone in the room knows, but the reader is not allowed to know it.

[Howard] 15 years ago or so, there was this up ending of the whole industry of writing and plotting things, because suddenly viewers, readers, listeners, whoever recognized that just about everybody had the sum of all human knowledge in the palms of their hands and could call just about anybody. So if there was a question that couldn't be answered by the people in the room, but they knew someone else had the answer, they would just call them. Screenwriters and writers of fiction and writers of everything had to find new ways to say, "Well, why wouldn't they just call them?" The first answer was terrible, and that's, "Oh, I've got no bars. I've got no signal." There are 10 minute YouTube videos of people in movies holding up their phones and having no signal, because the audience needed to be manipulated, because we needed to not have the answer right now. The right way to do it is illustrated in what happens when someone else's Google Fu is better than mine. I don't know how to ask the right question to get the answer from my phone. I don't know what the right question is. I don't know how to phrase this so I can find the answer. I don't know who to talk to who will have the answer, but maybe if I talk to somebody else, they can help me. That starts putting speedbumps in the… In between me and the answer to the question.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah. That was one of the things that I had to do in the Spare Man was… It is set in 2075 or 2074, I can't remember. Anyway. My own book. Whatever. Point being, everybody is constantly interconnected. So I had to come up with a reason to turn that off. It was fun, in some ways, because I made it a punitive thing that was being withheld from them. Because they were being falsely accused of a crime, so they were not allowed to connect to the Internet. But that also then allowed me to make it a strong character thing, because it then became a thing that had to be fixed. Also, the frustrations that go with I'm used to being able to just send a ping to my husband, and now I can't. Like, one of the things that I enjoyed was her constantly trying to contact him and not being able to. The reflex of it.

[Erin] I also think that communication devices, just that specific thing, as like the reason you can't get the answer, can also be a way to ratchet up that tension in kind of a similar way that if you're used to something, something is familiar and it goes to becoming unfamiliar, that's always I think a great source of tension in horror. The familiar becomes strange. So if you pick up your phone to Google something and instead your phone is doing something very odd, or you get a picture of a dead body, or something else that's both distracting… So, like, throw something shiny the reader's way. To distract them, for one thing, but also with something you thought was going to happen. You had an anticipation of getting the answer, then that was yanked away from you. That can provide new information and new questions that then the reader will fixate on instead of the one that you didn't answer in that moment.

[DongWon] I'm going to come out with a little bit of a chaotic answer to this, which is if you are really struggling how to figure out the key… How to keep your audience from feeling manipulated by withholding information, try just telling them the thing. Right? I think so often I see writers going through these back loops and just like contorting themselves to withhold information where I'm like, "No no no no. Just tell us what's going on!" It'll be more interesting if we, or even if your characters, know exactly what's happening and they still have to solve this problem. Right? I think one of the week parts of a mystery is sometimes knowing what happened doesn't actually change anything. To spoil Glass Onion a little bit, it has an aspect of this, where, like, the resolution of the mystery still leaves a really big unanswered question of like, "Well, what do we do about this?" In a way that is truly fascinating. Right? So I think sometimes if you find yourself stuck, and your like grinding on this question, try writing it from the perspective of just give them the information. Let their phone connect to the Internet. Let that person call person C and be like, "Hey, the killer is so-and-so." Then what does person C do? It doesn't mean they're going to survive. Right? It could make a much more interesting scenario for you and kick your book in an exciting new direction.

[Mary Robinette] I'm going to second that, that often I find that when I just let my character tell the other person the thing, that what actually happens is it just… It opens new questions and they're significantly more interesting questions.

[DongWon] Exactly.

[Mary Robinette] Which allows me to keep ramping that tension up.

[DongWon] If you're stuck, you might be asking the wrong questions, is really what I'm saying.

[Dan] So I see this a lot with doing chapter critiques and stuff at conferences and classes. We will be sitting around in like a writing group environment. We've read chapter one of seven different people's things. Especially with fantasy and science fiction, a lot of the questions are, "Well, I don't understand this. I don't understand X or Y thing about your story." I have to remind them, you usually don't in chapter one. There's worldbuilding, you have to give us time to settle into it. But what I find fascinating is that I usually don't get that question when the chapter is providing us a ton of other fascinating information. If you are giving us something that is satisfying and compelling and makes us… It's scratching that itch to know stuff, then those other kind of unanswered questions don't seem as pressing. Because part of that is the distraction that Erin talked about, you throw some shiny at us, but a lot of it is just you're building trust with your reader. You're giving them information, so then I know that you're going to give me this other information if I am patient and wait for it.

[Howard] It's super useful to anticipate the question that a reader might have and to give that question to another one of the characters. If one of the characters does a thing, and you know the readers are going to be like, "Wow, why did they do that thing?" Let another character ask that question. "Why did you do that?" The person who did it said, "You know what? That's a long painful story and we're not going to have that conversation right now. Right now we're busy running." Now I have acknowledged to the reader that there is information you don't have yet, you know who has the information, you know who isn't giving you the information, and everybody in the story to this point is behaving in character.

[Mary Robinette] I will flag though that you do need to make sure though that it is actually a long painful complicated story.

[Howard] Yes.

[Mary Robinette] Because the number of times I have seen someone say, "I'm not going to tell you that right now. We don't have time." And really, all they needed to say was like a five word sentence.

[Chuckles]

[yes]

[Mary Robinette] It's… Make sure that there is a legit reason. There was one other thing that I was going to say. What was that?

[Pause]

[DongWon] I guess we'll never know.

[Mary Robinette] Well, I guess I'm going to have to…

[Howard] I have to say none of us know and all of our cell phones work.

[Laughter]

[Mary Robinette] Oh, I know what… There was actually a thing. Red… I do want to just briefly touch on how to construct a good red herring. Because red herrings are one of the ways that you can… Are linked to the unanswered question, because they are the question… The line of questioning that pulls your detective down the wrong dark alley. In Glass Onion, it's one of the most blatant red herrings in the history of ever is wandering around in a bathrobe for much of the film. But what you're looking for is something that appears related to the story, that you feel like everyone else should be able to draw connections to whatever it is, and ultimately ends up not being connected. I have a red herring going on in Spare Man. The way I constructed that one… And I will attempt to discuss it without spoilers for the people who haven't read the book yet… Is basically, I did it was that I gave one of the characters a secret so they were clearly hiding something, which is obviously to the reader going to be related to the murder. But it had… That secret had nothing to do with the murder. So that's a real simple way to give… To insert a red herring is to give someone a secret, that's just not the right secret. Which then leads to more unanswered questions.

[Mary Robinette] And… Your unanswered question right now is what is our homework assignment?

[Dan] Well, as tempting as it is to just never answer that question, I will tell you. I will spoil the homework. What we want you to do is take a look at whatever you're working on right now, your work in progress, something that you're writing or creating, and figure out what questions you are asking to the reader. Sometimes that might be an overt mystery question, how does this thing work, where did this body come from, who did the thing? Sometimes it's worldbuilding questions. You've proposed some kinds of things about the way a technology or a magic or a society works. Figure out what those questions are. Write them down. So that you can decide later when and how or if to answer them.

[Mary Robinette] This has been Writing Excuses. You're out of excuses. Now go write.

mbarker

Writing Excuses 18.08: Building a Mystery

From https://writingexcuses.com/18-08-building-a-mystery/

Key Points: Types of mysteries? Cozy! Solving mysteries in your spare time? Straight up detective. Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot. With a final gathering, explanation, and fingering the murderer. Police procedural. The system, and how it works. Supernatural mysteries. Weird happenings, and puzzles. Noir! Voice and character make it. In the dark streets, in the rain... Mystery structure? Crime, investigation, twist, breakthrough, and conclusion. Also, red herrings. Act 2 try-fail cycles. Final clues are often out-of-left-field, accidentally revealed. Playing fair, so the reader and the detective have the same information.

[Season 18, Episode 8]

[Mary Robinette] This is Writing Excuses.

[DongWon] Building a Mystery.

[Erin] 15 minutes long.

[Dan] Because you're in a hurry.

[Howard] And we're not that smart.

[Mary Robinette] I'm Mary Robinette.

[DongWon] I'm DongWon.

[Erin] I'm Erin.

[Dan] I'm Dan.

[Howard] And I'm the Act 2 corpse.

[Laughter]

[Mary Robinette] So we're going to be talking about mysteries today. One of the things we promised you is that we were going to use the... Our deep dives as a way to look at different things. Over the course of the next couple of episodes, we're going to be talking about tension. But we're going to start by looking very specifically at mysteries. For the first half of this episode, we're going to talk about the different types of mysteries. Then, after our break, we're going to talk about some of the common tools. So. What are some of the different types of mysteries?

[pause]

[Mary Robinette] Great. Good answer.

[laughter]

[Dan] Yeah. We're all deer in the headlights. The first one that comes to my mind is the cozy mystery. Which is the... Kind of the Murder She Wrote ish genre of often an older lady who is solving a mystery in her spare time while doing something kind of charming or adorable. That's one of my favorites.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah.

[DongWon] I feel like they tend to be lower stakes, a little bit, like easier on the violence. I mean, people still will end up dead in these, but it's not like as hard hitting as like a Jack Reacher or something like that.

[Dan] Yeah.

[Howard] Oh... There's a whole rule set for cozies, where if the detective... If our POV person, who I'll call the detective, if they are ever actually threatened, then you've stepped out of the cozy. If they actually perform violence, get in a fight, then it stops being cozy and starts moving into something else. Yeah, Jack Reacher, I'm not sure what style that is. It's not quite... I think of it as the anti-cozy. Because we have... we are following one person who didn't set out to be a detective under these circumstances, but they are doing all of the cozy mystery-esque stumbling into things, but they're stumbling into it with elbows and fists and sharp edges.

[DongWon] It's like the reluctant detective kind of thing.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah.

[Erin] Yeah. One of the other things I love about cozies is that they can really be in any like area of interest. It's like are you interested in this hobby? Then there's probably like a cozy mystery for you. Be it bridge, gardening, mountain climbing. So I love that it gives people an opportunity to put the things that they love, their passions, into this really comfortable form and just work it all in there.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah.

[DongWon] I remember as a kid I read this whole series of cozy mysteries told from the POV of cats. This is still ongoing. One of my dear friends continues to edit these books. But the cat cozy mysteries is just one of these truly delightful weird corners of publishing.

[Mary Robinette] I have been contemplating having Elsie solve mysteries, but it feels like it's already been done.

[chuckles]

[Mary Robinette] So another type that you'll see is the straight up detective novel. Which is where the main character is a detective. Like Sherlock Holmes, Poirot. Where they're using their expertise to solve the mysteries. With Spare Man, I was actually splitting the difference, a little bit, because I have a detective, but I sideline him very fast. So my main character is using different expertise, but she is not a detective. So we are landing somewhere in between those two.

[DongWon] For me, the defining feature of these is the moment where the detective gathers everyone in a room and explains what happened and points a finger at the actual murderer. Right? I feel like this is just that really classic Poirot scene of like you have to use the little grey cells and he's going to tell you exactly what happened. That, to me, is just one of the most delightful sort of resolutions to a mystery in this very clean way. Yeah, it's just like the thing that makes them stand out in my head is this iconic figure standing in the front of the room telling you what happened.

[Dan] Yeah. Really great modern example of this is Knives Out which was leaning really hard into all of those tropes of detective, and, I think, very telling that when they got a sequel, it is about the detective rather than the other giant cast of really interesting people. He wasn't even necessarily the main character. But he got that big scene at the end, where he walks everybody through and then he points the finger. It's right back in the tradition of Agatha Christie and that sort of thing.

[Erin] I think something that Knives Out plays with a little bit of... is that I love that the detective is there like 50% of the time before, in this case it's after, but before a murder occurs. Which is hilarious to me because it's very like anticipatory a lot of the time. Like, I think I'm going to be killed tonight...

[chuckles]

[Erin] So instead of preventing that, I'm just going to invite a detective, so at least my murder is solved. It's such an interesting, like, very comfortable trope in a lot of ways. It makes the death feel less tense, I guess, because the person kind of knew it was coming and at least they prepped for it. Which is an interesting feeling that I enjoy in sort of a classic detective story.

[DongWon] That's great.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah. One of my other favorite classic detective mysteries is a series called Foyle's War. It's set during World War 2, he's a detective for the British government, or the British police force, and he has to go out and solve murders. So that actually trends us over into another style, which is called police procedural. Which is usually a large group of people working within the system, and they're using the system to solve the mystery. So, Foyle's War kind of sits between these, because he gets some help, but it is frequently him doing his detective thing because they are significantly understaffed because of World War 2.

[DongWon] I mean, Law and Order being the classic example of this. You can turn on daytime TV at any point and watch a procedural episode of somebody committed a crime, usually you'll see it in a cold open, somebody solves it, and you go through the whole arc of following. It's very fixated on process. It's very fixated on the machinations of how a police department functions. All the Michael Connelly novels kind of fall into this. Police procedural's like a very classic... Probably the most popular version of this through the 90s and early 2000s.

[Dan] Definitely.

[Howard] It's why I identified myself... Instead of saying I'm Howard, saying I'm the Act 2 corpse. Because in those police procedurals, it is very, very common with the structure that in Act 1, you've got 2 or 3 suspects, and one of them is looking really good. Then that really good suspect ends up as your corpse at the beginning of Act 2, or in the middle of Act 2, somewhere in there. To the point that when my family sits down and watches a new police procedural or something, someone will point at the screen and say, "Didn't do it. That's going to be our Act 2 corpse." It's like we're putting money down. It's fun.

[DongWon] Called shots.

[Dan] Yeah. Another genre that I think is important to mention, this is kind of two for one, supernatural mysteries. I think the kind of main example I want to throw out is Dr. Who. Dr. Who is often not even a murder mystery. This is not about solving a crime necessarily so much as solving a puzzle. The mystery is weird thing is happening. In Dr. Who's case, it could be supernatural or science fictional. But mysteries don't have to be about murder.

[Mary Robinette] That's right. Especially when you're talking about something like YA, where it's so often dealing with... Or middle grade, where you're often dealing with a theft. The Encyclopedia Brown books. Nancy Drew. All of those are dealing with a classic mystery structure, but there's no corpse. So, even for adults, it does not have to have a corpse.

[DongWon] One more category I wanted to hit is a classic one, which is the noir. This is taking elements of mystery, but really punching it up with voice and character right up front. This is Dashiell Hammett, this is Maltese Falcon, Chinatown. A mystery is core to what's going on, usually someone's dead or money's been stolen or an object's gone missing, but this is very much focused on a very moody, very dark tone. A very specific voice and pastiche. Noir is truly one of my favorite categories. It's a thing I delight in. I think Dashiell Hammett is one of the great writers of the 20th century. It's a real delight.

[Dan] Yeah.

[Mary Robinette] That, interestingly, was one of the challenges that I had working with Spare Man, because the novel, The Thin Man, which I was riffing on the Thin Man, the novel is noir but the films, which is the part that I was riffing on, are not. They're a different style, which is called a mystery comedy. So one of the challenges that I had was getting some of the trappings of noir, but keeping the tone light.

[DongWon] Which is great because the Spare Man feels... You can feel the noir roots in it, but you can also see how pushing the voice a little bit takes it out of the category and makes it something else. It just shows like how much it is about a particular way of saying things and a particular way of voicing a character and a perspective.

[Dan] At the risk...

[Mary Robinette] Well, that's...

[Dan] At the risk of leaning really heavily on Ryan Johnson, and this is going to lead us into our thing of the week, one of his first movies was called Brick.

[DongWon] What a [garbled]

[Dan] Which is a modern film noir. Watching that, and comparing Knives Out to Brick, you can see how important that tone is. The tone of it, the style, that kind of atmospheric focus really changes the flavor of the whole thing.

[Mary Robinette] Well, let's go ahead and take a pause. Then, when we come back, we're going to talk about the structural elements that all of these different forms of mystery have in common.

[DongWon] Our thing of the week this week is Ryan Johnson's newest movie, The Glass Onion, which is a sequel to Knives Out. It just came out last December on Netflix, and was truly one of my favorite things that I saw over the holidays. It is following on the world from Knives Out, it's the same detective, Benoit Blanc, returns, but tonally, it is doing something very different from Knives Out. Where Knives Out was riffing on sort of classic mystery structure at a remote house, at a remote manor, this is a much brighter, sort of pulpier, more contemporary story about a tech billionaire who invites his friend to an island for a murder mystery game, which then devolves into something far more dark and chaotic from there. It is, as... He does such interesting things with narrative structure and is very playful with the audience expectations. It is somebody who understands the mechanics of how to put together a mystery at the deepest levels. Watching him assemble this beautiful puzzle box is, for me, as somebody who likes to think about story and craft, just incredibly delicious and incredibly exciting. I can't recommend Glass Onion highly enough.

[Mary Robinette] So, now we're going to talk about structure. There are a lot of overlaps in the different genres of mystery. You'll see things that are both a cozy and a detective. All of these things. But they have two main things in common. There's the overall structure, there's a... Mystery has a specific structure. Then they all contain a puzzle. I'm going to talk about the structure that I was working with when I was working on The Spare Man. Then we can also talk about some of the additional tropes, because I'm not hitting all of the tropes when I talk about the structure. So, you have the crime. Then you have the investigation. Then there's a twist. Then you have a break through. Then you have the conclusion. These are the basic beats that you have to have in a mystery. There are some other beats that will commonly occur. You'll see red herrings. The crime is often preceded by the establishing of normal, but sometimes you begin with a cold open of a crime. So what are some of the things that you all think about when you are thinking about mystery and the structure of mystery?

[Howard] I look at the structure of... When I think of 3 acts, I think of Act 2 as driven largely by this iterative looping of try-fail cycles. For mystery writing, for me anyway, the try-fail cycle is the detective having a theory and proving it wrong, having a theory and proving it wrong, having a theory and it proves disastrously wrong. The Act 2 corpse. With each iteration, information is being dropped on the reader so that the reader has the opportunity to catch up with and maybe, if they're super clever and I want them to be right, they will be able to get the answer before the detective drops it in Act 3. But that whole try-fail cycle of iterative looping through theories is a key structure for me.

[Mary Robinette] When... Surprising no one, I'm going to mention the MICE Quotient... mysteries are classic inquiry stories. This iterative looping that Howard is talking about... In a mystery or an inquiry thread, you begin with a question, and it ends when the question is answered. So all of the road blocks in the middle are keeping you from answering those questions. That's that try-fail cycle, the iterative looping which is also where red herrings come from, because it draws the detective and the reader down the wrong path.

[Erin] One thing I think is really interesting in thinking about the differences between the types of mysteries is where that information is coming from, and how much of it is access to authority. So, in a cozy, there is usually no real authority figure. It is just a person acting on their own. Detective stories tend to bring in... like, I've done a few try-fail cycles on my own, but now I really need to get that autopsy report, other thing that like an authority brings. That is why the detectives tie to the police, even if it's tenuous, it's helpful in their moving things forward. In a police procedural, they have all of the access and sort of the authority of the state that they can use as they're making these try-fail cycles happen. So I think the structure is the same, but how these try-fail cycles happen is a lot different, depending on who's actually doing the investigating.

[Mary Robinette] That's a really interesting point about the authority of the detective. I am making notes. That's very smart.

[chuckles]

[Howard] Well, I often use that as part of the structure. Is that I'm... one of the fails in the try-fail cycle is not being able to do a thing because you're not the authority.

[Mary Robinette] Yeah.

[Dan] Yeah. A lot of what we're talking about, it strikes me, are basically impediments to success. Right? Why does the detective not solve this mystery in the first scene? Because there are impediments to their success. Sometimes that is access to authority or to key information. The detective requests the autopsy report or the bank account records or whatever very early on, but they don't get them until the end. A lot of that middle part is just treading water in an entertaining way, until we finally get that information. Sometimes it is the try-fail cycles like Howard was talking about of this theory doesn't pan out and this theory doesn't pan out and so on and so on. One thing that I see often is that the final clue that helps us solve the whole thing is discovered accidentally. The detective earns it by their dogged determination to never stop looking. But in the process of trying something else, something pops up and they say, "Oh, wait. Now I know exactly what's going on." It's because of this out-of-left-field clue... If the audience is paying attention, they can possibly put it together as well.

[Mary Robinette] A lot of times that out-of-left-field clue recontextualizes a piece of information that the detective had recieved earlier. Frequently, it's one that they had misunderstood, that is pointing them at the wrong person, or that had seemed otherwise irrelevant. This is... This gets into an area called playing fair. Which is that in a mystery, the detective and the reader are trying to solve it at the same time. So to play fair, the reader has to recieve all of the same information that the detective does. Often, you will have some things, like with Sherlock Holmes, which aren't actually playing fair in many ways, because Holmes has this encyclopedia of knowledge in his brain and will often, because he's not the POV character, will have noticed something that Watson does not. Like, "The shade of mud on his left cuff...

[Dan] Yeah.

[Mary Robinette] Indicated that he was bicycling through tarpits. Obviously. Elementary."

[DongWon] A little bit of a magic trick. Right? Because you're trying to make the audience feel like you've played fair with them. But you, as the author, obviously have way more information than the reader does. So how you reveal things and when you reveal it is sort of the prestige of the trick. Right?

[Mary Robinette] Yeah.

[Dan] Like, how are you revealing the information. One thing that I think about a lot in terms of the structure of this is you actually want the audience to solve the mystery before the detective does. You want them to do it as close as you can to the reveal, but immediately before it. There's a famous saying in film making that's like, "If you let the audience realize that one plus one equals two, they will love you forever." Right? Letting them feel slightly smarter than the thing that they are reading is going to really hook them. Now, if they figure it out like on page 10, it's way too early. So being able to time what information you reveal that let's them figure out who it is right before they come to the in-text revelation is a thing that is so satisfying to the reader as they're engaging with your mystery.

[Howard] I want to point out that that's not the same thing as sitting down to a familiar, but you haven't seen this episode, murder mystery show, and in the first ten minutes, realizing that person's the killer. I don't know why, I don't have enough clue... There's no way for me to know why other than the fact that these screenwriters, these directors, these actors consistently do certain things that are their own identifying tells for who the killer is. I don't know how I'm identifying that, but sometimes I'm right. That makes that delightful for me. Then, as the episode unfolds, and I see the clues, I'm even happier. That's my goal, is to make people happy when they read a thing.

[Mary Robinette] So we have so much more to talk about with mystery, however, we are doing a second mystery episode. In between, we're going to be talking to you about the tools of tension. So even though I can see everyone wanting, including me, to tell you more things about mystery, we're going to go ahead and wrap up here, and then move on to our homework assignment. In a couple... In seven more episodes, we're going to come back to talking about mystery with your new tool set.

[Mary Robinette] So, Dan, do you want to give us the homework assignment?

[Dan] Yeah. So, this is a pretty fun, pretty simple homework assignment. We want you to consume a mystery. Whether that is reading a book or watching a movie or TV show or something. Maybe seek one out that you haven't seen or read. Or try one of the genres we talked about in the beginning that you're not familiar with. We're going to be talking about mysteries for quite a while. So give yourself some ammunition to work with.

[Mary Robinette] This has been Writing Excuses. You're out of excuses. Now go write.

mbarker

Writing Excuses 17.31: Everyone Has an Agenda

From https://writingexcuses.com/2022/07/31/17-31-everyone-has-an-agenda/

Key points: Characters want something. Dialogue is like a series of reveals, with each character trying to move their agenda forward. Interrogation scenes are a stark contrast, with what's at stake, and the gamesmanship of trying to get information out of you, while you are trying to hide that information. Characters may not use the right tool to accomplish their objective! People are unreliable communicators. Sometimes one character will draw another character out. Mysteries tend to slowly unveil things in dialogue, with delays, distractions, and obfuscations galore.

[Season 17, Episode 31]

[Dan] This is Writing Excuses, Dialogue Masterclass Episode Four, Everyone Has an Agenda.

[Mary Robinette] 15 minutes long.

[Maurice] Because you're in a hurry.

[Howard] And we're not that smart.

[Dan] I'm Dan.

[Mary Robinette] I'm Mary Robinette.

[Maurice] I'm Maurice.

[Howard] And I'm Howard.

[Dan] So we are going to talk about agendas today. Characters want something. That's why they are in your story. How... What does this... Maurice, what does this have to do with dialogue?

[Maurice] So I've been loving some of the analogies that we've been having during the course of this conversation. So, the whole idea of like a series of reveals has been just fascinating to me. So, when I think of each person having an agenda, I mean we… Each conversation means something. There's either something I'm trying to figure out or there's something I'm trying to hide. Now it becomes a game of us trying to move those two agendas forward. So that's a lot of ways that I tend to view dialogue. Which is why my favorite dialogue scenes to write are actually interrogation scenes. Because that's when it becomes a really stark contrast, what's at stake and how are we going to go about this sort of gamesmanship of you're trying to get information out of me, I'm trying to hide it, and yet, get information out of you, too, that you're trying to hide. So in a nutshell, that's, for me, is at the heart of everyone having agenda.

[Mary Robinette] This is that thing that I was talking about in episode one about the idea of area of intention, that there is an authorial area of intention, and then your character has their own area of intention. As Maurice says, everyone has a reason for doing something. Like, sometimes you're saying a thing because you're trying to appear smart. Sometimes you're saying it to score points. Sometimes you're saying it to convey information. Sometimes you're saying it to woo someone. Sometimes it's come out of your mouth and you're like, "Oh, I wish I had not said that out loud." So thinking about why… What your character's objective was for why they said that thing. They may not use the right tool for accomplishing that objective. Which is part of what makes dialogue fun is that it is… Its own version of a try-fail cycle.

[Dan] Yeah. I do love that idea. We talk about unreliable narrators sometimes, but I think we also need to remember that people are just unreliable communicators. We are often very bad at saying what we mean, or saying it in a way that will make people angry or that will not make people angry. What I often find myself thinking… We talked last episode about big conversations with multiple people. Those are one of my favorite things to write. From an author intent point of view, often one of the reasons that I will have a character speak is as an author I need to remind you they're in the room.

[Chuckles]

[Dan] It's important to make sure that this character says something so that you don't forget that they're there. But the character needs their own motivation to speak.

[Mary Robinette] I'm here, I'm here!

[Laughter]

[Dan] They need to say something other than just, well, the author wants to make sure you didn't forget me. So, thinking about, well, what is their agenda? Making sure they have an agenda. Why are they in the conversation? Often, and I've been in these conversations before with friend groups and things like that, often I have no agenda in a conversation. Sometimes my only purpose in speaking is just to tell a joke to make people laugh. Maybe I'm bored. Maybe someone else is having a very meaningful conversation and I'm just stuck there awkwardly. Those are still motivations, even if they are not driving the story forward.

[Howard] I call some of those "look, I'm just happy to be here." What's fun about the "I'm just happy to be here" is often during the course of a conversation, there will be a reveal and "I'm just happy to be here" becomes "Wait. We're doing what?" Those… I mean, I've described it comedically. I'm reminded of… Oh, I can't remember the class and none of it's important. A passenger and a driver in a car, they're driving down the road and there is a fast food place up ahead. The passenger says, "I'm thirsty." What the passenger means is I like the milkshakes that they serve there and I want you to read my mind and let's go get milkshakes. But they haven't said that because even for themselves they don't… They haven't unpacked their own agenda. They just "I'm thirsty." "Yeah, we'll get something to drink when we get home." Then they're upset. Well, how come you didn't pull over? Well, because we didn't complete the conversation. Because the character had an intent that they didn't fully understand and which they didn't communicate.

[Mary Robinette] I'm going to push back on that slightly as an interpretation, and just say that this is an example of, and we'll talk about this later, about where conflict can come from when two people have different understandings of the conversation. There's an idea of high context culture and low context culture. High context culture is full of this kind of indirect communication. So instead of saying, "Will you pass me the salt?" you say, "Is there any salt?" The code is this means I don't need you to say, "Yes there is salt." What I need you to do is pass me the salt. So sometimes someone is saying something like that because what they're act… The encoded stuff is basically around I would like to stop for a milkshake, but I don't want to put you out if you don't also want to stop for a milkshake.

[Maurice] Yeah.

[Mary Robinette] So this is… This gets back into the thing we've already talked about, knowing their agenda and knowing the character.

[Dan] I have an agenda right now. Which is that we need to pause for our book of the week.

[Howard] Oh. I've got the book of the week. The book of the week is kind of a technical manual. It's by Nate Piekos. It's called The Essential Guide to Comic Book Lettering. Why on earth would I hand you what is a graphic designer's technical manual if you're a writer? Let me read a little blurb off the back, because they said it better than I can. "Well-crafted comic book lettering is the visual soundtrack that guides a reader's eye along the page with the mode of dialogue, intuitively placed balloons, and dynamic sound effects. But these elements are just the beginning. In this book, you'll also learn the unique grammatical traditions of mainstream comics." I'm going to stop there for just a moment. If you want to write comics and you don't know the syntax of comic book dialogue, your letterer is going to choke. Your artist is going to choke. The whole project grinds to a halt because the writer is a novelist and not a comic book writer. The book is so loaded with information. Now, as a comic book guy, I'm probably getting more out of it than non-graphic designer folks will, but if you're using, for instance, Photoshop and Illustrator to build your own book covers, there are going to be elements in here that you're going to love to have. So, it is the Essential Guide to Comic Book Lettering by Nate Piekos.

[Dan] Wonderful. Okay. So, Maurice, you had something you wanted to say before the break.

[Maurice] Oh, yeah. It's just something… Something actually my therapist told me once. I will use anything for applying to writing. But she was saying if people were clear communicators, she would be out of a job. It's just we rarely say what we feel when we feel it. So my application for that is just that, as I was listening to Howard talk earlier, is the whole idea of like when I… I tend to, as a person, make you work for it. You have to ask me directly. You have to… There's a lot of intentionality when I'm in a conversation with somebody. It drives my wife absolutely insane. But I realize that's a tick of mine. It's just like, oh, no, I'm not just going to casually say things. Everything is with intentionality. Then, if not, I will disappear in the room and not blink twice about it. I'm happy to disappear in a crowd. Which I know sounds counterintuitive for those who've actually met me and interacted with me. But I will happily disappear into that crowd unless someone draws me out of it. So I think about that a lot in terms of dialogue and my character interactions. So for that person in the room who disappears or who speaks just to remind people they're in the room, well, there are some people who are like, "No, no. I'm trying to avoid detection." So now what does this mean in terms of how you write dialogue or your main character trying to ferret out information they need?

[Dan] One good trick that you can use for that sort of situation is exactly what Mary Robinette did in our previous episode where I had not spoken in a while, so she asked me to talk about my own writing. Which is a way to draw people out if they are not speaking and you need a good character-based reason, that character intention, for them to be speaking. Have another character force them to…

[Mary Robinette] Or have them do something that Dan was talking about, like derailing things slightly. I… It's… It is… You can have them tell an inappropriate joke which can then introduce tension into the scene. You can have them say, "Does anyone want some tea?" And go and putter someplace, which can reveal character about them. It's like this is someone who's nurturing. This is someone who doesn't feel comfortable being not busy. There's a number of different things that you can do that can bring that character in. One of the things that… Going back to the authorial area of intention and character area of intention, that I will think about as a person, and then I will use that tool with my characters, that I will think, "What am I actually trying to accomplish here?" So, let's use, as an example, an apology. So an apology is a part of a conversation between two people. A character wants something when they apologize. There's a number of different things that that character can want. You can tell which one they want when you read that apology. You can tell, because you've read these bad apologies. You can tell when it's not an apology, they just want you to think nice things about them. You can tell when it's an apology, when they want to actually win the argument under the guise of pretending to apologize. You can tell it's an apology where they want to fix the problem that they have created and let you know that they are no longer a problem. All of those are different like areas of intention that inform the ways that they are constructing that apology. It's exposed in the language that they use. So the idea that everybody has an agenda, the reason that we want you to think about it is because it affects not just what your character says and how they say it, but also, like, the impact of it. Because if their agenda is one thing, I want people to think good things about me, and they do the apology that is not apology, the faux-pology, it's not going to fix the thing. People are not going to think good things. They're just going to get angrier. So that agenda item is a failure. Right? So they've got an agenda and what you've got there is then a try-fail cycle. So you… There's a thing they want to accomplish, they try something, and it fails. Which is part of why like understanding what your character's goal is is so important when you're constructing dialogue.

[Dan] Maurice, I have a question. I'm very intrigued by one of the lines in the outline you gave us that says slowly unveiling a mystery. What do you mean by that? How does that refer to this agenda dialogue conversation?

[Maurice] Well, I mean if the four of us are in a murder mystery, and someone's like, "Hey, who killed them?" And I go, "Oh, oh. My bad. I did that."

[Chuckles]

[Maurice] That kind of cuts the mystery pretty short.

[Laughter]

[Howard] That's a great micro fiction, though.

[Maurice] Right.

[Laughter]

[Maurice] My bad, I did that.

[Laughter]

[Howard] Who killed him? My bad, it was me.

[Laughter]

[Maurice] Right. Tada! So. I mean, again, it's just the problem in microcosm, it's like, all right, so, one of you being the detective, and I'm sitting there trying to hide this information. That now charges each one of our interactions. Right? So I'm going to be as indirect, I'm going to obfuscate, I'm going to allow for distraction as much as possible during any interchange that we have in order to hide the fact that my goal is I want to get away with this murder. Right? So that's kind of what I'm thinking about when I'm thinking about that question.

[Mary Robinette] That is so often my goal.

[Laughter]

[Dan] That is one of the lessons that I had to learn very early on with dialogue is, I would have two characters talking. One had information they didn't want to give up. But I, as the author, knew that this scene was the scene where they gave it up. Yeah. It just ended up being clunky. I won't tell you, I won't tell you, I won't tell you, okay, here it is. Making something like that feel natural is so difficult sometimes. You need to allow for distractions like you were saying, one character is trying to delay the conversation, the other character is asking probing questions, because you can't just say, "Hey, did you kill the guy?" You have to start asking other things. For that specific conversation, there's a really wonderful series of YouTube channels where they will actually show police interrogations. I find those to be really fascinating. In particular, there's one, and I can't remember the name of the channel, where they will do police interrogations for people who are… Who are claiming to be insane. They're clearly trying to set up an insanity plea. So there's commentary along with it, saying, well, this is what they're trying to accomplish by this sentence or by this behavior. And here's why it doesn't work.

[Chuckles]

[Dan] I love that kind of stuff.

[Mary Robinette] [garbled]

[Howard] I remember the first time I played How to Host a Murder. I was the killer, and my what's my motivation book, the first two pages were stuck together, and I didn't know that I was the killer.

[Laughter]

[Howard] I totally won that game because I lied so convincingly. At one point, they said, "Hey. You're a rock climber, you brought rope with you. Obviously, you swung to the balcony and committed the murder." I was like, "Don't be ridiculous. Yes, I'm a rock climber. I'm not Tarzan." Just making fun of what they were saying, even though, from the clues that were presented in the book, oh, he's totally the killer. I totally got away with it because I didn't know. I learned a lot from that. You want to lie convincingly, hide the facts from yourself.

[Laughter]

[Maurice] Right, right. I was actually just thinking… I love watching police interrogations. But there was one that was recorded… It was literally following the Indianapolis police detectives. It was a reality show, they followed them around. There was this… This was like one of my all-time favorite police interrogations. But it would almost never work on the page. Because it was basically, "Did you do it?" "No, I didn't do it." "Did you do it?" "No. I didn't do it." "Man, I know your mama." "All right, so here's what happened."

[Laughter]

[Maurice] I mean, it's like… Really, he dumped out because the detective said, "I know your mama." It's like… Oh. Okay.

[Dan] I have found the specific YouTube channel that I was thinking of that's all about criminal psychology. So, Howard, I've given you that link. You can include it in the liner notes for when we post this episode live.

[Howard] Okay.

[Mary Robinette] Which means that we are probably at that point where we should talk about homework.

[Dan] Absolutely.

[Mary Robinette] I have your homework. I want you to identify your character's area of intention. So go through and look at a scene with dialogue, and identify, just flag next to it, what is your character trying to accomplish when they say this? You should know what their area of intention is for the overall scene and also for each line of dialogue. When I say you should know, I want to be super clear that most of the time, this is stuff that you have internalized and you're doing it instinctively. This is something that you should know for the purposes of this exercise and, if you've ever got a scene where you can't get traction or it's not working, this is a tool that you can pull out. Identify their area of intention for the whole scene and also for each line of dialogue. Bonus, when I say your character, I do mean every character that is engaged in that dialogue.

[Dan] This is Writing Excuses. You are out of excuses. Now go write.

mbarker

Writing Excuses 17.4: The Gun on the Mantel is Actually a Fish

From https://writingexcuses.com/2022/01/23/17-4-the-gun-on-the-mantel-is-actually-a-fish/

Key Points: Red herrings help make the inevitable surprising. Aim for inevitable first, build surprise second. Deconstruct shows and books that have deliberate twists to them. Drop fish into your foreshadowing to keep us distracted. Use the tricks of a stage magician, give us other things to watch. Make the red herring story significant, while the actual foreshadowing is just a small thing on the side. Include clues to support multiple endings. Beware the sudden change, and unintentional storytelling without knowing where you are going. Ambiguity can be useful! Use your context to highlight the wrong thing. Use the character that everyone likes to point the reader in the wrong direction. Synonyms, homonyms, and other misdirection. Make sure you deliver in an enticing, wonderful way.

[Season 17, Episode 4]

[Howard] This is Writing Excuses, The Gun on the Mantel is Actually a Fish.

[Kaela] 15 minutes long.

[Sandra] Because you're in a hurry.

[Megan] And we're not that smart.

[pause]

[Howard] I'm Howard.

[Kaela] I'm Kaela.

[Sandra] I'm Sandra.

[Megan] And I'm Meg.

[chuckles]

[Howard] I was late with my line about who I am. Okay, last episode, we talked about foreshadowing. I described it as creating a thread which makes a surprise inevitable. This episode, we're talking about red herrings. This is where we create the thread which makes the inevitable surprising. As we said last week, aim for inevitable first, and then build the surprise second. Because if you fail at inevitable, you've got a deus ex machina and we're disappointed and bewildered and we feel llike we've been lied to. If you fail at surprise, we're like, "Oh, I saw that coming."

[Which, depending on...]

[Howard] I would much rather have the reader feel like they're smarter than me than feel like they're better than me.

[Laughter. Very true. Very, very true.]

[Howard] So. Red herrings. Let's talk… Some good examples of 'em? Where have you seen them done really well?

[Fish market. [Whisper] I'm kidding.]

[Laughter]

[Howard] Mmm. So tasty.

[Kaela] You just really went for that one, Meg.

[Laughter]

[Howard] Straight in.

[I was going to give a serious answer.]

[Sandra] I think it's useful to look at shows or books that have a deliberate twist to them. Where… A frequently used example of this is the Sixth Sense. Where you have this twist that I can see… The kid sees dead people. Oh, our protagonist is dead is the big twist at the end, and the surprise. And yet it is the surprise that makes you want to go back and rewatch the whole movie and see how absolutely clearly inevitable it was. It was absolutely there. So much there that there are many people who saw it coming from scene one. Some people were not surprised. So you go into the movie and you deconstruct and say where… How did they mislead the majority of the audience into believing that Bruce Willis was alive and interacting with the world? They put him in scene after scene after scene where there's another human in the scene who our brains fill in the blanks, because they are sitting opposite each other in chairs. We assume that there was a part where Bruce Willis knocked on the door and came in and was welcomed and invited to sit down. We don't see any of that. So the show uses the medium and the automatic back and fill that the medium asks of the audience to get us to back and fill something that absolutely wasn't there. So the show actually is getting the audience to create their own red herrings. Which is kind of a cool and interesting thing that that particular show does. So that's one of my examples and it's fascinating to go through and figure out where was I misled.

[Howard] Kaela.

[Kaela] Yeah. I think that's a really good example, particularly leaning into the strengths of your medium to accomplish that. I think one for books was Harry Potter, the first one. I think that was one of the best, like, at least… I mean, admittedly, I was young when I read it, but I still think it holds up really well. The way that they make you think that Snape is the one who's trying to steal the Sorcerer's Stone. Because, by all means, it seems completely reasonable. Snape was the one that was muttering a curse when Harry's broom bucks around and he nearly falls off. Snape seems to hate Harry for absolutely no reason. So you're like, "Yup, I believe he's a bad guy." And, like… There's the cut on his leg after everybody runs through the troll in the dungeon. So we have pieces of evidence that imply that it is him. But when we find out that it's Quirrell, we also suddenly remember that Quirrell was in all of the scenes, that Snape was muttering the counter curse, Quirrell got knocked over by Hermoine's fire stuff, and that broke his concentration for the curse. That Quirrell had run through the dungeon, Snape headed him off, and, like, they were there with Fluffy. Like, they… We forgot Quirrell was there because we were wrapped up with a very good and reasonable explanation of Snape.

[Yeah. And…]

[Howard] The… Oh, sorry. I was just going to say, what you've described here is a pattern that has a tool built right into it. Which is, any time you are laying a piece of foreshadowing, grab a fish and drop a fish next to it.

[Chuckles]

[Howard] Okay? You want to have a red herring in there with your foreshadowing, so that the audience can be misled.

[Sandra] Right. We can also take a… Learn things from stage magicians. Where there's the patter and the hands that are waving because he is moving something from the table in front of him into his pocket. He does this big gesture with his opposite hand and tells a joke because he knows that the audience can only pay attention to a limited number of things at a time. Then there's also that video with the passing the basketballs and the gorilla that dances through the middle of it. Nobody sees the gorilla because we're so busy paying attention to the balls. You can do the same things in what you are creating. You can teach them, and teacher audience, okay, pay attention to the ball. Your job is to count how many times the ball is passed. When, truthfully, you're hiding the gorilla in plain sight. Meg?

[Megan] Yeah. So the idea is to give your red herring story significance while making the actual foreshadowing something that's just happening to the side or… Like, a small joke in the conversation, where we're talking about the big important thing. A show that I think does this very well is The Newsroom by Aaron Sorkin. It has some of my favorite examples of long set up and payoffs for a joke in an episode. I'm going to tell you one that just happened now. The payoff won't be as good because I'm telling you the beginning and the ending right after.

[Howard] Go ahead.

[Megan] You need to imagine there's 40 minutes in between. But there's a news anchor, and he's complaining to his wardrobe assistant that, "Is there something wrong with the pants you give me? Because I keep trying to put them on, and both my legs end up in one side." The assistant's like, "You can't put your pants on, and you think there's something wrong with the pants?"

[Giggles]

[Megan] The A story of this episode is someone is here to do a hatchet job news article about the news agency. He used to date the main producer of the show before she dated the main character, the news anchor. So the reporter and the producer are having a huge argument. She is standing up for the news anchor. She's like, "You don't understand. He is a great man. I mean, he struggles with things, but he's a great man." As she says struggles with things, we see him hop into the scene, trying to put on his pants.

[Laughter]

[Megan] Then he falls over in the background. It's been a half hour since we mentioned the pants, but it just comes back at like the best moment. So… Check out The Newsroom by Aaron Sorkin.

[Howard] Yeah. That's the… As a professional humorist, that sort of thing is something that I use a lot. Sandra mentioned stage magic. In the second edition of X-treme Dungeon Mastery, we call attention to the way in which surprise, for a magician… The deception with a magician there should never be a reveal. They have red herrings, but they are never going to tell you how they perform the trick. Whereas as storytellers, the deception needs to be gentler. It can't be, as we mentioned last week, can't be animating Hans having a loving, kind, totally genuine expression of love while the music cues and the lighting all say this is a good boy for her to be interested in, when in fact, he's just making a play for the kingdom. That's deceptive. We want our reveal, for storytellers, the big payoff is in the reveal. For audiences of magicians, the big payoff is I was deceived and I don't know how. I use the example… We illustrated the example in the book of the trick knife. If the magician says, "Aha, see, this is where I switched out the actual knife for a knife with a collapsing blade. You didn't see it, though, did you? But, yeah, the knife just has collapsing blades. Stab, stab, stab." Big deal. In the movie Knives Out, we are told that there is a knife that has a collapsing blade, and in the very last scene, someone attempts to commit a murder with it, and we find out that they've grabbed the wrong knife, and it is delightful. Because we get to see the trick knife.

[Kaela] Knives Out is a master.

[Howard] I just realized… Oh. Go ahead.

[Kaela] I say, Knives Out is a master class in red herrings and guns on the walls and like, seriously, like, pick it apart.

[Howard] So, very, very many. On the subject of red herrings, I have the book of the week. It is And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie. I picked this one because it is arguably the place in which red herring cemented itself in the colloquial… The jargon for a distraction. The character Vera scolds everybody for being distracted, because in the verse that applies to one of the previous character's deaths, a red herring swallowed one, and then there were three. She's saying, "A red herring's swallowed one, that clearly means Armstrong was not dead. There was a distraction here." And Then There Were None is a fine book to read. It's short and it's very tightly woven.

[Megan] In my eighth grade English class, I disagreed with the ending. I remember meeting with my teacher afterwards, because she was talking about, like, it was inevitable. This is the only way it could end. I'm like, challenge accepted.

[Laughter]

[Megan] I wrote a different ending as to who the murderer was and what they were doing. I pointed out it could have happened this way. She's like, "Okay, Megan. It's not that deep. But good job."

[Laughter]

[Howard] Here's the thing. This is… I can't remember where I got this. I could be speaking out of class. But I have heard said that Agatha Christie often wrote these things three quarters of the way through without knowing who the murderer was herself, and then went back and made sure that the foreshadows in the red herrings all aligned and she had a proper ending in place. Which means if you… Depending on how much of the book you let yourself rewrite, yeah.

[Sandra] Yeah. Well, it's fascinating, the movie Clue, I don't know what year it was, but it's the Tim Curry movie Clue, which did an experiment that they actually filmed three different endings with three different murderers. Then they sent different endings to different theaters.

[Chuckles]

[Sandra] So, theoretically, you could go see the movie in multiple different theaters and get to see the three endings. Now, in the age of streaming, they just play all three endings one after each other.

[Howard] Yeah, they've concatenated the endings and they've given the third one, they're saying, "But this is what really happened."

[Sandra] Right. But the whole thing is written so that there are clues to support every single ending. Which is valuable as a writer to deconstruct, because the vital clue for one ending is a red herring for a different ending, and so you can pull that apart.

[Megan] So, the writers' strike of 2002 hit a lot of shows very hard. One of the shows it hit quite hard was the procedural Bones…

[Yes]

[Megan] Which is one of my favorite shows of all time. There is a recurring murderer in the third season. Which is rare for this show. Normally, we get our guy every time they show up. But there is a recurring murderer that is a cannibalistic cultist that eats people's faces. Like the Sith, there's always a master and an apprentice. At the very end of the season, it is revealed that someone on our team is the apprentice of the murder. Even though throughout about 90% of the season, this person has been making discovery after discovery, helping us track down the murderer. So you try and rewatch that season, and there is no clear moment when this character betrays us until you can see in the writers' room that… Well, or lack of a writers' room, I'm not entirely sure how the writers' strike wrapped up the season. But…

[Chuckles]

[Megan] They had to cut the season early, and about two episodes from the end, this character starts actively working against us. But it's clear to see that that was a decision made much later on in the season, and it doesn't logically follow. So what we have earlier aren't red herring, it's just unintentional storytelling before we knew where we were going. Because you can't go back… [Garbled]

[Howard] It was the writers' phone booth, not room, because…

[Yeah]

[Howard] Phoning it in. Because… That joke would have played better if I told it sooner. What other tools do we have for creating satisfying red herrings in order to make the inevitable surprising?

[Kaela] I think one of the things that… You have to use this carefully, but ambiguity is a very helpful tool when depicting things. Because ambiguity is the… Or almost an objectivity. Like, this is what happened. These are the facts of what happened. But a lot of storytelling is contextualizing what has happened. So, if you can show what happened and either just leave it there as if it's not important or touch on the… Like, use your context to put only one part of it in focus, without obscuring the view of the rest of what happened, you can use that ambiguity to your advantage to get people to look at the wrong thing or to pay attention to the wrong thing. That still makes sense, but you haven't hidden anything from them. You're just leaving it ambiguous or uncommented on.

[Howard] One of the things that I try to do is take the character who is the most charismatic, the character that everybody likes the most, and have that person look at the wrong thing. The right thing is someplace else, but the person we like is looking at the wrong thing. Now, obviously, you can't do this all the time, or you're just like, "Okay. Check everything in the room that he didn't look at. That's a possible clue. That list of things will thread to the answer." But, yeah, the audience is going to follow… They're going to follow the funny, they're going to follow the cool turns of phrase, the… When I write, I try and put the funny around the wrong thing enough of the time that people mislead themselves.

[Kaela] The power of misdirection. Like you were talking about with the magician's stuff, where you're shoving the context over here. That doesn't mean that you turn out the lights on everything else and you are deceiving them, but you're like, "Hey, look at this cool thing." I love using a trusted, likable character to do that. Where you're like, "Oh, I love this character. I appreciate this character." Or even "I trust this character, they're really smart." Then, you're like, "Oh, but they didn't have all of the picture either. They didn't tell me that this thing was the answer, but I thought it was."

[Chuckles]

[Howard] Sandra. Sorry.

[Sandra] A quick set of tools depending on what medium you're working in. If you're in a prose medium, you can use synonyms and homonyms carefully. That's a potential tool depending on what you're writing. Auditory, then you want things that sound the same but mean different things. Then visual mediums, you can do visual misdirection again. So it's all… Just another set of tools to think about. Meg?

[Megan] I want to kind of wrap this up by saying it's okay if the audience guesses what's coming, if you can deliver on it in a very enticing way. That's Chekhov's cauldron of hot lead is coming back. Because I had just assumed they were going to put on some red and orange lights when it's time to spill it, because we're in a small theater, we're inside. They set off fireworks inside the building.

[Gasp]

[Megan] There was just a fountain of real live sparks and fire on the stage. So I knew the scene was coming, and just didn't care. Then they delivered with an actual explosion. I was like, "Oh. I was wrong. Oh, my gosh." So, that was great. That was wonderful.

[Howard] The 1812 overture…

[Chuckles]

[Howard] Done by the high school, in which the sheriff is backstage firing his shotgun into a bucket.

[Laughter. Yeah.]

[Howard] Sandra, I think you got this week's homework. We could keep talking and talking and talking about this. We need to get people homework.

[Sandra] Yeah. The homework is, this is a paired episode with last week's episode. So, do the reverse of last week's homework. Instead of finding a thing in the beginning and writing a scene at the end, find something that is important at the end and find a place early where you can rewrite the scene to put that on the mantle in some way. Then, maybe, take some of the tricks and tools to magician misdirect so that it's there, but it is not the focus of attention. So…

[Howard] Outstanding. This has been Writing Excuses. You are out of excuses. Now go write.

mbarker.livejournal.com

Writing Excuses 6.26: Mystery Plotting

From http://www.writingexcuses.com/2011/11/27/writing-excuses-6-26-mystery-plotting/

Key Points: Mystery plots are when you don't know what's going to happen, and you're waiting for the revelation. How do you write a plot that is about finding out information? One trick is to bury the important information: for example, in the middle of a list. Add extra people and details to make it harder to see the important part for the trees. Start with the solution to the mystery, then work backwards, adding red herrings and other distractions. How could someone misperceive this? Break your information and clues into small chunks and reveal them slowly. Plan how to dole out the information, how to bury it, how to obscure it with other bits of information. Make your red herrings lead to something else, something extra. Separate learning a bit of information, realizing it is a clue, and realizing who it implicates into different scenes -- spread out the revelation.
( Whodunit? The answer is in the box! )
[Howard] Whichever. No, that's good. That's good. It's a puzzle box, and the answer to the puzzle is someone's soul is in this box. Now start building your way back to the beginning of the mystery so that the people who are trying to find out the actual contents of the box are deceived into thinking that it's anything but a soul right up until the very end.
[Brandon] That's very nice. Way to roll with our stupid comments, Howard. Well done.
[Howard] You called me Mister Brilliant, I had to execute.
[Brandon] This has been Writing Excuses. You're out of excuses, now go write.

Current Mood: ticklish

Profile

Writing Excuses Transcripts

April 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Syndicate

Page Summary

mbarker - Writing Excuses 18.34: Seventeen Years of Foreshadowing
mbarker - Writing Excuses 18.12: The Long Shadow of Unanswered Questions
mbarker - Writing Excuses 18.08: Building a Mystery
mbarker - Writing Excuses 17.31: Everyone Has an Agenda
mbarker - Writing Excuses 17.4: The Gun on the Mantel is Actually a Fish
mbarker.livejournal.com - Writing Excuses 6.26: Mystery Plotting

Style Credit

Base style: Patsy by sforzinda
Theme: Clay Deco by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 02:41 pm

Navigation

Writing Excuses Transcripts

Entries tagged with red herring

Writing Excuses 18.34: Seventeen Years of Foreshadowing

Writing Excuses 18.12: The Long Shadow of Unanswered Questions

Writing Excuses 18.08: Building a Mystery

Writing Excuses 17.31: Everyone Has an Agenda

Writing Excuses 17.4: The Gun on the Mantel is Actually a Fish

Writing Excuses 6.26: Mystery Plotting

Profile

April 2025

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags