Limyaael

[info]illidanstr @ 07:53 pm: .. why are the popular story strictures a good thing?
I beg of you (or *someone*, at least) to answer this:

Why are the tried and true methods of story strictures a GOOD thing?

I was reading Jim Butcher's description of stuff (dramatic reversal, resolution, etcetera), only to face an unconscious mental scream:

"ARGH! THOSE ARE THE ANNOYING THINGS THAT DRIVE ME CRAZY IN BOOKS!"

If I know someone's going to fail at something because it's helpful to the plotline, it tends to deep-six my enjoyment (or immersion) into a book. Ditto if I know there's a "good" and "bad" choice, in the sense that one brings Universal Love and Redemption and the other would cement their status as a failed failure left failing behind. My biggest issue was with this:

"The result of the conflict is *always* a SETBACK of one kind or another (also thought of as the SCENE ANSWER)--at least, until you get to the end of the book."

ARGH! Can someone give me some kind of reason why any of these rules could ever be anything but terrible?

Reply

From:
Identity URL: 
Username:
Password:
Don't have an account? Create one now.
Subject:
No HTML allowed in subject
  
Message:
 
Powered by InsaneJournal