Suspension of Tension...

[seawasp]

A post by Raymond Daley on his experiences reading GCA prompted me to a realization which I'd sort of had, but which hadn't fully gelled until now. Namely, that there is another phenomenon which determines reading enjoyment (at least of adventure-focused fiction, which a lot of SF/F is) in addition to WSOD (Willing Suspension of Disbelief): Suspension of Tension, or the willingness to accept that the characters are in peril. The two are of course related, but they are not identical and it is quite possible to have one fail with the other intact.

I write my stories from the basic proposition that, in the long run, good triumphs, evil fails. This carries with it the very strong implication that the heroes can't die, or at least will very rarely do so, and if they DO die it will be towards the end of their adventures and in a sequence of tremendous import. For Mr. Daley -- and I have no doubt many others -- this weakens the tension, perhaps to the point that there is no suspense left, no Suspension of Tension remains, and thus they have no connection with the events in the novel because, to them, the entire sequence of events holds no emotional weight any more.

For me, this isn't a problem. I can watch, for example, an episode of the Six Million Dollar Man, knowing not only that the hero's going to survive, but even remembering HOW he gets out of his predicament, and still feel the tension. But this is very similar to the WSOD -- Willing Suspension of Disbelief -- in that the reader or viewer must accept some postulate. In the case of WSOD, you have to accept that what you're viewing is a world of some sort and that the story you're following makes sense within that world. For some people, the WSOD is almost unbreakable if the label "SF" or "Fantasy" is applied; anything, no matter how ridiculous, is explained by the fact that it's "science fiction" or "fantasy". For others, the world has to be self-consistent. For still others, it has to make sense in even more restrictive ways.

Similarly for Suspension of Tension: the viewer has to accept that there is a risk or danger for the character. For some people -- such as myself -- the important thing is whether the CHARACTER believes they are in danger, and we only ask that the solutions for their problems not be pulled entirely out of left field, but at least allow me to look back and say "oh, THAT was what that meant". For others, it requires that they believe honestly that the characters might die at any moment -- that no character is sacred -- or they can't invest it with any tension.

For the latter group, nothing I write is likely to work, at least if they realize that I'm writing positive-slanted adventure fiction. That will signal to them that the main characters are almost certainly going to come through,and break the Suspension of Tension.

Just a little observation I found interesting today.

Comments

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

To which I say this: The Epic of Gilgamesh would have been a whole lot less epic if he didn't have a degree of script immunity. Same goes for Beowulf, Roland, Achilles and the rest of the heroic archetypes. They wouldn't *be* heroic archetypes otherwise.

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

I am in the same camp you are I think. I know I'm reading a story, and that the Protagonists will win the day, but THEY don't know that, so it keeps it real enough as I root for them against the Big Bad.

When they LOSE like at the end of Empire Strikes Back, it can be quite powerful.

[aardy.livejournal.com]

Minor nitpick: Since it's not intended to stand alone, I'd classify Empire Strikes Back as a situation of "Heroes Setback; Villains Up" (to use the relevant Torg terminology), rather than an actual *loss*, unlike some of the bleak fiction out there that ends with a final victory for the antagonist of the piece.

I think that someone who comes into any fiction story--particularly a speculative, adventure fiction story, given how the overwhelming supermajority of those stories turn out--truly expecting there to be a very real possibility that the protagonist will fail in the end, and who looks down his nose at stories will tend to be someone who has a very bleak outlook on life in general.

Those stories that do end with protagonist failure need to be few and far between for the twist to continue to have any power to it, and need to be written *very* deftly to carry off the twist successfully.

This sounds a lot to me like someone reading a Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes mystery with the expectation that any given story could/should end with master detective unable to solve the mystery. Sure, there are a (very) few stories where that's the ending (and there are slightly more where the detective solves the mystery but the antagonist suffers no consequences for it), but when it's done it's done for effect and done very sparingly so that it doesn't lose its power, but that is so far from the norm that if people out there seriously believe that every mystery story must contain a bona fide risk that the detective won't solve the mystery by the end, then I think that's one of the few times a strong case could be made that they're Reading It Wrong.

That said, perhaps it's not so much presence/absence of risk, but rather believability of risk. A story where the protagonist *says* he thinks there's a real chance he might fail, but where not only is the outcome not in doubt, but the character is so hyper-capable that the entire story consists of knocking down strawmen with no consequences until the story ends in the hero's favor (such as your standard Mary Sue story) is just as unenjoyable to read, in general, as a story where the antagonists have the upper hand from the get-go, the protagonist suffers for it for the entire story, and then fails to accomplish anything at the end. On the one hand, there's no actual conflict driving the story. On the other, while there's a chance of failure, there's no similar chance for *success*. And either way, the problem is that the author didn't pick a path somewhere in the middle.

I Like Knowing the Good Guys will Win

[tamahori]

I mean the world is a depressing place, so I like to know the stories I'm reading will have an upbeat ending. I don't want to read depressing books where everything ends up sad and horrible (which is why I'm never reading another book by Ben Elton). If I want to get depressed by what I'm reading, I can read the news.

Sure, the characters need to face trials and problems, and it's good when they really have to fight to get a win, especially against very competent villains, but I want to know that and the end, the good guys will win, and everything will end up, more or less, happily ever after.

I guess it's just a style difference between me and Mr Daley in what we read.

-- Brett

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

Tension can be delivered in a lot of ways, even if you're sure the protagonist will win in the end.

What might the protagonist need to sacrifice in order to win? A limb? Love? Sanity? Innocence? Maybe in order to win the protagonist needs to become someone we will no longer like?

Make us tense by putting something precious on the altar. Make us cheer when, like the ram in the thicket, something else can be offered up instead.

[gary-jordan.livejournal.com]

I don't know. If you're capable of executing a willing suspension of disbelief in the first place, shouldn't you get the tension suspenders with them?

I'm a re-reader. I re-watch movies as well, even mysteries and detective movies. I've read everything Bujold has written, and I still enjoy Mirror Dance, knowing that, although Miles gets killed early and thoroughly, He'll Be Back. It doesn't ruin the "tension" for me.

I know some people aren't like me at all. They feel that once they've read a book or seen a movie, what would be the point of reading/seeing it again? That attitude apparently carries over to "What's the point of reading a story where I know the ending? (i.e. the good guys win and the hero lives.)

Be consoled that They Aren't Your Fans?

[xander-opal.livejournal.com]

It also makes for rather memorable moments. "Now I have a knife," is the first that comes to mind, though is slightly tangential to the subject.

Perhaps a more accurate depiction is the things Harry Dresden has sacrificed-- his burned hand, and also what he gave up at the climax of Changes, which was worse in many ways than any physical loss.

[jamesandbluejay.livejournal.com]

I find the thought of deliberately creating a tome with the express purpose of deepsixing my good guy to be obnoxious and a whole other bunch of adjectives describing icky feelings (where's my thesaurus when I need one?). The only exceptions would be where the hero is trying to solve the wrong problem and inadvertently fixes the right one completely by accident, or the bad guy isn't really that bad so the hero would have done something terrible by defeating him/her. But it has to be an uphill battle either way, with snow on the ledge and snow snakes lurking around every corner.

Now I'm going to be worried about it every time I put fingers to keyboard--does the story accomplish tension? Back in my earlier days I couldn't stand to let anything bad happen to my characters. I've matured a little, I hope. Now, I just watch my muse and if she's biting her nails, I figure maybe I'm being threatening enough.

(sigh) I liked it better back in the old days when I could say, 'put pen to paper,' and let the ink flow where it may. Which means I'm wandering again. That's my way.

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

But I like the hero to win in the end. It might take them 3 or more books to win but I like that at the end they will win. I don't like the books where they lose. I don't see the point in sacrificing characters just to satisfy some arbitrary body count either. That kind of thing doesn't actually sit well with me and I've stopped reading authors who do that. :P

So I like how you write. Different people have different expectations and as someone else said. Just be glad they aren't your fans.

[green-ogre.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure this statement will make sense.

I like you writing because of the people working together for "good" and your main characters are heroes. While reading CGA it came across as what I think of 50/60's style sci-fi tale.

[saladin-count0.livejournal.com]

you said: the hero will win IN THE END
that´s the point
i know he can lose this battle
bad things can happen to him/her
there is no need for someone/the hero to die to have tension

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

On reflection I think that it is cheap to kill characters to build tension. It can be done so many other ways and doesn't require killing them. Killing of characters just seems to me the lazy way to build tension.

[gary-jordan.livejournal.com]

On another hand, another author (David Weber) points out that if only the bad guys die or suffer defeats or take casualties, what you have is MilPorn. He hasn't killed Honor Harrington (yet), but he has shot off an arm and poked out an eye, twice (same eye). He's killed her best friend, her beloved armsmen, her entire extended family save a handfull, her Grayson Maid and her lover... over the course of multiple books.

The good guys will win. We know this. Doesn't mean that Bad Things don't Happen to Good People.

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

Well ok, yes perhaps I should have said the gratuitous killing of characters just to show that they are vulnerable. That seems to be what the person Ryk is responding to wants. He seems to feel that if characters aren't being killed off then there is no sense of tension. And I don't agree with that in principle at least for adventure stories. Now in a war I do expect characters I like to die because that is part of that genre. I don't like them dieing but I expect to see it.

And I don't mind bad things happening to characters but the author doesn't need to be pointlessly cruel about it either. I stopped reading one author because I felt like she just tortured her character every book for the entire book and I want to read adventure not watch a character I'm trying to connect with get pointlessly tortured all book. :p

[e-t-1.livejournal.com]

And it also depends on what your writing. Sometimes, with some genre, you just can't please everyone. In GCA, your storytelling in an area that hasn't had much in the way of recent (last 20 years or more) exposure, specifically, your Space-opera. At least, not in Novel form, maybe in Graphic Novels or Comics or RPG's or Game stories, but not in this form, not that much. Some story "formula sets" might work well for one type, but maybe not in this.

At least to those who don't like it as much.

[lexomatic.livejournal.com]

WSOD, WSOT -- I wonder if this is the sort of thing that college Lit Departments study? What are the possible dynamics of a story, the possible psychological reaction-characteristics of a reader, and the distribution of those characteristics across a population?

If those factors could be systematized, perhaps stories could be labeled -- more USDA nutrition than ESRB video game. Not "has rayguns" but "protagonist is an antihero," "outcome is seriously in doubt," "cliffhanger," "unreliable narrator," or "a lot of erudite banter." If you liked a combination of ingredients in one recipe, it doesn't guarantee you'll like every recipe using it -- but if you discover you're allergic to nuts, that's directly actionable.

Having a list of story ingredients would help because many readers aren't sufficiently self-analytic to identify *why* they liked/disliked a story. (Anyone who's spent any time on rec.arts.sf.written will have noticed this phenomenon.) Similarly, authors probably shouldn't be the ones compiling the labels; not because they'd be gaming the system, but because they may not understand their own writing talent.

(Of course, analysis based on traits is unfashionable nowadays. Pandora has its "music DNA" system, but the recommendation engines of Amazon and Netflix rely on statistical inference.)