Wednesday, January 29, 2014

The Curse of the Scarlet Pumpernickel!

As writers, we all know that we have to ramp up the action.  Find new and deadly ways to make life hell for our characters. But sometimes this can actually cause a problem almost as bad as a flat plot.

Today, I present to you the sad case of the Scarlet Pumpernickel. Yes, you read that correctly, Pumpernickel. I'm not refering to the classic play The Scarlet Pimpernel, I'm refering to the not quite as classic (but should be) tale by that great screen writer, Daffy Duck.

In this saga, Daffy, tired of being type cast in only comedic roles, presents his own script-- The Scarlet Pumpernickel.  As he's laying out his story, the producer keeps asking, "Then what happened?"  Each time it pushes Daffy to even more outlandish events that befall him, the hero.  After he's gone through every horrific thing he can think of, and being covered in a mountain of script pages, Daffy finally answers the "And then what happened?" question by answering that "the Scarlet Pumpernickle had no where else to go, except blow his brains out--which he did."

Daffy built himself into such a mess by piling more and more tragdies on his hero, that he had no way out. He just kept going and going until he had to "end it all" to end it all.

I do love Daffy Duck, but I never really want to emulate him.  And sadly, I have read books where, while the character didn't kill themselves at the end, the "then what happened" really got out of control.  In both cases, I stopped reading the books before it got to the end so I never did find out how the authors resolved it (but judging by the books--not well).

What put me off as a reader was the fact that the increasing tension was a sharp angle, instead of a more graduated incline leading to the big bad climax. I really almost felt like the author was next to me saying, "but wait!  it gets worse!"  I never had time to process what had happened. The characters never had time to process what happened. As readers we see and learn so much about how these characters respond to crises, and these authors--and Daffy--took that away. There need to be lulls inbetween the action. Drop in some character development, a bit of the world building, emotional arcs, to remind the reader these are "real" people, not crazed automotons that just race from one bad situation to the next.

From a writer's point of view, racing into the "and then what happened?!" pit causes you to hit the climax without steam.  You've had so much bad stuff happened that nothing you can throw at the reader is going to be enough to make their heart race.

So next time you're looking at ramping up the action, keep Daffy in mind, and ramp things up incrementally and with some good pacing.


8 comments:

  1. Interesting, so you want to put your hero/heroine through hell, put not so much that the only escape is death. How many hells would be acceptable? Of course in a paranormal story, death doesn't necessary mean escape, just another level of hell. I'll keep this in mind. I know you want to keep the reader interested. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL- good question, Mary! And true about paranormal or really most speculative fiction- dead isn't always dead ;).

      Thanks for coming by and commenting!

      Delete
  2. Great post Marie. I hate reading something that keeps throwing in obstacles just because the author is trying to ramp up the tension. I think the key is throwing in obstacles that are a natural part of the story and the character's arc.

    The other thing I sometimes find lacking is the character's response. If the obstacle is integrated with the story it should be part of the character's emotional arc. We should see both their physical (i.e. actions) and emotional reactions to setbacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent points, Cyndi! The obstacles really do need to fit the character and the world- I bet if we look at the ones who went off the rails, they didn't do that. And I agree about the response- often times that is far more telling than what the character just faced. Their reaction to it--and how it can change--is vital.

      Thanks for coming by and commenting!

      Delete
  3. I don't think I've seen this cartoon. I use Daffy as an example all the time, but it's for when people are selfish. "Mine! All mine!" is an appropriate description of how many people act. I had no idea that Daffy could provide other meaningful life lessons. Mary is right, too. How much hell is too much? How much too little? I guess figuring that all out is why we authors get paid the big bucks...at least some of us do... get paid I mean.

    Good post, Marie.
    Sharon
    You're right, characters must be tested, but not to the point that there is no reasonable within character way for them to react or prevail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must go find the cartoon, Sharon! LOL!! You-tube has some odd clips of it, out of sync a bit, and just the beginning and end. Tracking it down made me realize I miss Looney Tunes! But, I digress.... It is true we have to balance the obstacles so they fit and don't overwhelm, either the character or the reader. I've read books where I felt I just couldn't breathe (not in a good way ;)) because there was NEVER a lull.

      Thanks for coming by and commenting!

      Delete
  4. The Scarlet Pumpernickel is truly one of my FAVORITE cartoons --- a genuine classic! Thank you so much for that pleasant (and manic) trip down memory lane. Even better, thanks for using it as a teaching tool! I'm going to have Daffy Duck stuck in my head every time I approach my plotting notes! :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. EXCELLENT! It's one of my favorites too, Dani :). I think in part because it shows another part of Daffy. Maybe we should all keep little screen shots of him from that cartoon to keep us on track.

    Thanks for coming by and commenting!

    ReplyDelete