# Changing the rules (and hidden rules)



## Jeko (Feb 6, 2014)

As we read/write a book, the story usually develops its own 'rules'; the things we use to gauge our expectations for the plot, characters and solutions to problems that arise. If we know the limitations of magic in the story, we may realize that our protagonist won't be able to succeed the way he wants to. If we understand the social mechanics of a particular group, we may ponder more accurately whether our antagonist will be able to get their support. If we are told the rules of a game, we can understand its outcome. The extent to which we introduce, demonstrate and use our story's rules will influence the way the reader experiences the story.

But we can also change the rules.

A good example is The Hunger Games (spoiler alert!). As the 'Games' begin we are lead to believe that only one tribute can survive, and we are given two people to root for - a good plot dynamic, making us constantly tense about what will happen to the two of them, knowing that what they are fighting for may be futile. 

But this is later altered by the antagonist; suddenly, both our characters may be able to survive. We get hope for them. With a change in feeling and purpose, the story goes through a plot twist.

It goes through another twist when this change is revoked, and at the very end - as only two of them are left - we are given an impossible dilemma. The escape that the characters make from it is then another rule-change, as their attempted double-sacrifice makes the antagonist allow them both to survive.

The clever thing is that while the rules keep changing, at least one of them doesn't. This is what I would term a 'hidden rule'; something we grow to understand but aren't told directly, which may influence other rule changes, making us unsure what rules exist and what rules don't - something that has applied all along. One 'hidden rule' of the Hunger Games is that the Capitol don't play by their own rules - they only do what's best for their survival and the entertainment of their people. They're liars in one respect, and though we should expect them to be anyway we can be deceived by the formality of the Games into thinking that we can map out the story for ourselves. Thus the plot twists make some readers drop the book in disbelief.


So, how do people use and manipulate their story's 'rules' to impact the reader? What do you tell/not tell the reader, and what twists to do you put into the plot?


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

I'm not a big fan of the "rule changes."

There was an old treatise about plots that states you should seek the advice of a five year old.  That age can spot obvious errors.  Like air ducts  "just big enough" for the hero.  Or villains that talk the lead to death giving him ample time to plot a counter attack.  

James Bond can duck several hundred rounds from numerous SMERSH Kalashnikovs, but he manages to return fire and kill an entire platoon with a .32 ACP Walther.

If I make a rule for my book--and there are plenty of them--then the lead suffers with the rest of the spear carriers.  He gets injured, he gets fired, and he does not fight for the winning side.

Suzanne Collins could have saved an entire forest of lumber had she broken her own rules and killed off all the teens.  The fan-boys would have cried for weeks, they could have still made a movie, and even guys like me would have found the ending original...


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 6, 2014)

Cadence said:


> ...
> But we can also change the rules.



There are rules you can change and then there are rules that you can change and end up having the Reader paying for a plane ticket so they can come burn down your house...



> A good example is The Hunger Games (spoiler alert!).



A rarer combination of words is unlikely to exist. 



> As the 'Games' begin we are lead to believe that only one tribute can survive, and we are given two people to root for - a good plot dynamic, making us constantly tense about what will happen to the two of them, knowing that what they are fighting for may be futile. But this is later altered by the antagonist; suddenly, both our characters may be able to survive. We get hope for them. With a change in feeling and purpose, the story goes through a plot twist....



You used the word "suddenly." Immediately, you should notice a problem.  

OK, follow me on this:

There's a _widely_ popular series of fantasy books out there that contains a particular subplot-line - There's a huge number of refugees attempting to escape certain death at the hands of a terrible foe. They run and run and run, have all sorts of interpersonal adventures along the way, refugee politics and "survival mode" gets tossed around, and they suffer and suffer and suffer... Finally, they're forced to cross a terrible desert and the situation looks bleak - They're either going to die from starvation and thirst or the terrible foe will catch them and kill them to death.

Suddenly, the entire army of refugees is rescued by a magic wagon...


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Suddenly, the entire army of refugees is rescued by a magic wagon...



I thought the sea parted and they just walked away.  Wagon?


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Suddenly, the entire army of refugees is rescued by a magic wagon...



I thought the sea parted and they just walked away.  Wagon?


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 6, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> I thought the sea parted and they just walked away.  Wagon?



A _magic_ wagon.

Well, more like a magic stagecoach, really. Run by a newly-revealed-to-the-reader secret magical consortium that.... aww, screw it. It was a _magic_ wagon, ok? 

Now, if they were carrying around a golden box that shot anti-Nazi lightning bolts out of it, I'm sure Lucas would have sued. I'm sure he wants to add a chinchilla farm to his ranch. You know, one of these days, some writer, somewhere, is going to get struck by lightning. That's how the big boys handle copyright infringement.

(To be honest, it was criminal.. Absolutely criminal. Someone should have sued him. He had a great storyline going with that refugee army, running from certain death into certain death... Great tension and drama had been built up, there. But, all the Reader got for their hard work was a magic wagon thrown in their face.)


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 6, 2014)

They call those "reversals" in dramatic theory, where the circumstances and expectations are turned on their head for effect. 

Suzanne Collins has an MFA degree in Dramatic Writing. No doubt she's studied reversals and knows how to use them. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 6, 2014)

Where do you think the phrase "on the wagon" came from??? LMAO


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> A _magic_ wagon.



I have a better one for you, even more fantastic.

An entire country is ruled by idiots who dress like circus clowns.  A spindly teenage girl who can't even pull it together enough to feed herself becomes a national treasure mercenary.  Being beloved, they give her the ultimate prize--they set her blouse on fire.

Makes "Easy Rider" look like Shakespeare, doesn't it?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 6, 2014)

I made a distinction in the thread that spawned this between internal rule changes (the characters changing the rules of the world) and external rule changes (the author challenging the rules of writing).  In my own writing, I don't believe I have a single internal rule change, other than the ones the characters effect themselves.  (A rule against weapons, for example, could be changed by a character creating his own weapon anyway.)

It's this fact that becomes the source of my external rule changes - my challenges to the accepted tropes of stories.  I made it a goal from the start to be as consistent and realistic in my story as possible.  The villains should be villainous.  Motivations should be consistent.  Every action by every person and group should be sensible; the reader should never be able to say, "But if that person had only done this..."

People die quite a bit in my story, but it's not because I like things "dark;" it's simply the nature of war and the consequences of the situation.  I feel I'd be cheating my readers if I gave characters, even beloved characters, an out simply because they're main characters.  The plot twists come from the fact that I stick to the internal rules so rigidly - something that seems rare in novels today.  The reader is kept engaged because they truly don't know what will happen.  There's no assurance that things will be alright, because that's not how war works, and that's not how my story works.

I should note that I don't consider a twist as a result of new information an internal rules change.  In Ender's Game, when (highlight to reveal spoiler) Ender discovers he's not playing a game, but killing actual living creatures, that's not a rules change.  The rules are as consistent as ever; it's merely our perspective that changes.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 6, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> Suzanne Collins could have saved an entire forest of lumber had she broken her own rules and killed off all the teens.  The fan-boys would have cried for weeks, they could have still made a movie, and even guys like me would have found the ending original...



Not only that, but the protagonist had a sister.  The following books in the series could have had the sister be the protagonist leading a rebellion.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Not only that, but the protagonist had a sister.  The following books in the series could have had the sister be the protagonist leading a rebellion.



Why, there you go!  A decent sequel--revenge!

Of course, now that the heroin addict is dead, I hope they find a movie "brother" for him, too.  Perhaps that's the new YA genre twist.  All sequels and prequels are relatives.  After all, it worked for Anakin Skywalker...

Nice scoop!  You have a fertile, yet twisted mind.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 6, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> Why, there you go!  A decent sequel--revenge!
> 
> Of course, now that the heroin addict is dead, I hope they find a movie "brother" for him, too.  Perhaps that's the new YA genre twist.  All sequels and prequels are relatives.  After all, it worked for Anakin Skywalker...
> 
> Nice scoop!  You have a fertile, yet twisted mind.



Revenge is a weak motivation (and an additional motivation will be needed to carry the book), but it is certainly a good hook.

All the fan  boys will get their visceral thrills watching the bad guys get their comeuppance for the Artemis-clone getting torn apart by mutant dogs.


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 6, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> I have a better one for you, even more fantastic.
> 
> An entire country is ruled by idiots who dress like circus clowns.  A spindly teenage girl who can't even pull it together enough to feed herself becomes a national treasure mercenary.  Being beloved, they give her the ultimate prize--they set her blouse on fire.



All you need is the final killing blow - "...and it was all a dream!" 



> Makes "Easy Rider" look like Shakespeare, doesn't it?



Wait... It wasn't?

(Wiki-Knightriderspic Remember this?  )

On "Changing the Rules" :


You can change some rules, mid-stride. But, you can't ask the Reader to invest a great deal of themselves into a certain Rule-set that you arbitrarily change and then expect them to like it. They just won't. All of the drama and energy that is built up by the Reader investing themselves in the work belongs entirely to the Reader. If you tell them all that is wasted, they'll hate you for putting them through that experience. It's just plain cruel and uncaring. And, where the writer doesn't know enough to realize how cruel and uncaring it is, it's just bad writing. (IMO)


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 6, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> They call those "reversals" in dramatic theory, where the circumstances and expectations are turned on their head for effect.
> 
> Suzanne Collins has an MFA degree in Dramatic Writing. No doubt she's studied reversals and knows how to use them. :encouragement:



She should have gone back and studied because her reversal in the Hunger Games was crap.  Her subsequent reversals didn't help either.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 6, 2014)

> There's a _widely popular series of fantasy books out there that contains a particular subplot-line - There's a huge number of refugees attempting to escape certain death at the hands of a terrible foe. They run and run and run, have all sorts of interpersonal adventures along the way, refugee politics and "survival mode" gets tossed around, and they suffer and suffer and suffer... Finally, they're forced to cross a terrible desert and the situation looks bleak - They're either going to die from starvation and thirst or the terrible foe will catch them and kill them to death.
> 
> Suddenly, the entire army of refugees is rescued by a magic wagon..._



That's a deus ex machina; the abuse of a writer's ability to change the rules or, usually, forget about them.



> You can change some rules, mid-stride. But, you can't ask the Reader to invest a great deal of themselves into a certain Rule-set that you arbitrarily change and then expect them to like it. They just won't. All of the drama and energy that is built up by the Reader investing themselves in the work belongs entirely to the Reader. If you tell them all that is wasted, they'll hate you for putting them through that experience. It's just plain cruel and uncaring. And, where the writer doesn't know enough to realize how cruel and uncaring it is, it's just bad writing.



I think Fight Club serves as another example, and so do many murder mysteries. Whenever the rules change in a book I'm reading, I tend to have a fight or flight reflex depending on how well it's done. If done badly, like you advocate, I remove the bookmark. If done well, I wrestle with the story until it reaches its conclusion, becoming more involved than ever.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 6, 2014)

> She should have gone back and studied because her reversal in the Hunger Games was crap. Her subsequent reversals didn't help either.



Could I ask that no-one else attacks THG in this thread? I think there's another thread for it anyway. 

I use THG as an example because of its commercial and critical success. What people think of it is irrelevant; its plot worked for a very large number of people. I'm sure the same can't be said for our WIPs.


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 6, 2014)

Cadence said:


> That's a deus ex machina; the abuse of a writer's ability to change the rules or, usually, forget about them.



No... It was a wagon. A friggin magic wagon, not some Greek heavy metal band...  (Though, honestly... That would have been waaay cooler.)




> I think Fight Club serves as another example, and so do many murder mysteries. Whenever the rules change in a book I'm reading, I tend to have a fight or flight reflex depending on how well it's done. If done badly, like you advocate, I remove the bookmark. If done well, I wrestle with the story until it reaches its conclusion, becoming more involved than ever.



(I like the "Remove the bookmark" quote.. I shall steal it.)

"Mysteries" have an audience that has certain expectations. One of those is the relatively gentle turning of tables. I'm not a huge mystery fan, but I think some of the appeal lies in becoming involved in the experience of the tables being turned, itself.

I agree - If I see an author pull a great trick out of their hat, I'm willing to put up with almost anything, just to hang around to see if they'll perform again. "Fight Club" had a great "gotcha" example to it and, once that reveal was done, it just didn't let up. It carried through and built upon that nice little twist instead of just letting it hang there. That was wonderful. (I'm a cretin, I know. But, I didn't read the book, just saw the movie... Shame on me.)


----------



## Jeko (Feb 6, 2014)

> I'm not a huge mystery fan, but I think some of the appeal lies in becoming involved in the experience of the tables being turned, itself.



Completely agree; I think the expectation also exists in other genres. The reader understands that the writer has the ability to mess with the story, and with them.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 6, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Revenge is a weak motivation (and an additional motivation will be needed to carry the book),



Really?_ Moby Dick, The Crucible, Carrie, Jaws, The Count of Monte Cristo, True Grit, A Time to Kill_, and I could go on. Revenge is a powerful motivation in fiction.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Revenge is a powerful motivation in fiction.



Ya' got that right.  Without revenge most of my cousins would be out of work, and even that's a maybe.  Take Bobbie, for example.  Breaking a knee with a bat is like Sharking 101.  Bobbie swings like a girl...


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 6, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Really?_ Moby Dick, The Crucible, Carrie, Jaws, The Count of Monte Cristo, True Grit, A Time to Kill_, and I could go on. Revenge is a powerful motivation in fiction.



None of those used just revenge as a motivator.

I was discussing this with a New York agent about a month ago.  He told me that revenge doesn't make a good motivator.  I believe the biggest problem with revenge is that there's no escalation.  Let's say you want revenge because your child was ritualistically killed by cultists.  Okay, where do you go with that motivation?  The action that caused your motivation is over and done with.  So, as you push against the current situation, the antagonist (or environment pushes back), then what?  What takes your protagonist's motivation to the next level?  Nothing.  You end up with  a flat, dead novel.


----------



## Nickleby (Feb 6, 2014)

The short answer is, writers break the rules when they can't think of a better solution. There's no excuse for painting yourself into a corner, because you built the house, you laid out the room, you picked out the paint, and you control the brush. Drawing a new door on the wall isn't a real answer. How lazy and/or stupid does someone have to be to get lost in a maze they themselves created?


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 6, 2014)

Nickleby said:


> Drawing a new door on the wall isn't a real answer.



I'm stealing that.  Just want to let you know.


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 6, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> None of those used just revenge as a motivator.
> 
> I was discussing this with a New York agent about a month ago.  He told me that revenge doesn't make a good motivator.  I believe the biggest problem with revenge is that there's no escalation.  Let's say you want revenge because your child was ritualistically killed by cultists.  Okay, where do you go with that motivation?  The action that caused your motivation is over and done with.  So, as you push against the current situation, the antagonist (or environment pushes back), then what?  What takes your protagonist's motivation to the next level?  Nothing.  You end up with  a flat, dead novel.



Moby Dick didn't use revenge as a motivator? Err... Read it again. Why was Ahab obsessed with Moby Dick? The initial motivator, as we understand it, for Ahab was revenge for Moby Dick taking his leg, amongst other things. However, it wasn't the revenge alone that fueled the high drama - It was obsession with revenge to such an extent as to completely dominate a man's soul. Indeed, Ahab even rebels against his religion in order to kill the White Whale.

So, what got escalated, here? Revenge? Not really. Killin' is killin'. But, obsession? Passion verging on insanity? A revenge so hot so as to damn an entire crew? No, the Revenge Theme was used very well in Moby Dick.

Edit- Note- The qualifier "just" was overlooked by this writer. It's OK, I can't read. I'm really a cat and can only read and write for thirty minutes after I've mainlined catnip. It all started back when I was a little kithtnpcp aoj'pou9-t-92htnn  ;lmds


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 6, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Moby Dick didn't use revenge as a motivator?



If you look really closely at my post, if you peer right at the post and focus on it, you should be able to read the word_ 'just' _as in 





> None of those used _just_ revenge as a motivator.


.  That's an entirely different statement than what you claimed I wrote.


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 7, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> If you look really closely at my post, if you peer right at the post and focus on it, you should be able to read the word_ 'just' _as in .  That's an entirely different statement than what you claimed I wrote.[/COLOR]



You're right. I apologize. I'll edit the post to reflect that.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 7, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> None of those used just revenge as a motivator.
> 
> I was discussing this with a New York agent about a month ago.  He told me that revenge doesn't make a good motivator.  I believe the biggest problem with revenge is that there's no escalation.  Let's say you want revenge because your child was ritualistically killed by cultists.  Okay, where do you go with that motivation?  The action that caused your motivation is over and done with.  So, as you push against the current situation, the antagonist (or environment pushes back), then what?  What takes your protagonist's motivation to the next level?  Nothing.  You end up with  a flat, dead novel.



No novel has just one motivation, but in each of the books I mentioned revenge was the driving force--the primary motivation--behind the development of the story. The Count of Monte Cristo is entirely about revenge. So to say revenge is a weak motivator is simply wrong. Where revenge stories "go with it" is usually into the side-effects of revenge, and the cost of revenge to the protagonist. Your original statement was that revenge is a weak motivator. It is not.



> I think Fight Club serves as another example, and so do many murder mysteries. Whenever the rules change in a book I'm reading, I tend to have a fight or flight reflex depending on how well it's done. If done badly, like you advocate, I remove the bookmark. If done well, I wrestle with the story until it reaches its conclusion, becoming more involved than ever.




That's really not the author changing the rules. It's the author letting the reader assume rules that do not actually exist within the story. Good mystery writers are masters of letting (not 'making') the reader believe one thing, and then showing what the reality actually is. Like stage magic, it's all about misdirection.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 7, 2014)

Terry D said:


> The Count of Monte Cristo is entirely about revenge.



While revenge is undeniably present, I believe the book is about the search for redemption/restoration.  In the beginning, the story is about revenge, but revenge is insufficient to keep the story going, so the story switches its primary motivation to being whether the count can find redemption/restoration.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 7, 2014)

Without the revenge angle the story would not exist. Everything else is a by-product of the protagonist's quest for revenge. But it's not worth arguing about any further.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Feb 7, 2014)

Before I get to my point....The Count without revenge?  Don't bogart that joint my friend.  

Ok, my question is relative to deus ex machina.  I tend to simplify so lets just drop the highfalutin Latin and call it 'here comes the calvary.'  

It has been ages since I read Lord of the Rings but I do remember that things more or less happened like in the Movies except in slightly different chronological order.  So would you or do you consider it a big pile of deus ex machina when Gandalf comes riding down the mountainside with his calvary at the end of 'Two Towers' and when those Neon Green Ghosty Guys that Aragon recruits join the battle at the end of 'The Return of the King?'  

If you vote NO...it's not deus ex machina then what you are saying is that the difference between cheap, black and white cowboy movie calvary deus ex machina and cool, acceptable, computer generated deus ex machina is a bit of foreshadowing.  

The two events I describe are IMHO the great flaw in J.R.R. Tolkein's masterpiece.  (The flaw in Peter Jackson's masterpiece was every scene that included Liv Tyler but that's a discussion for another bottle....I mean day)

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 7, 2014)

I don't think the rule change during the hunger games was unexpected. It was clear the two characters were going to survive the ordeal. 

But as far as rule changes in general go I am not sure what you mean. It sounds to me like you are using "rule change" in substitute for "plot twist".

Yeah I have a few plot twists going on in my WIPs. I have no idea how effective they are though.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 7, 2014)

Robdemanc said:


> I don't think the rule change during the hunger games was unexpected. It was clear the two characters were going to survive the ordeal.
> 
> But as far as rule changes in general go I am not sure what you mean. It sounds to me like you are using "rule change" in substitute for "plot twist".
> 
> Yeah I have a few plot twists going on in my WIPs. I have no idea how effective they are though.



I'd say a plot twist is different from a rule change.  Plot twists usually have some foreshadowing involved, with a trail of breadcrumbs already in place to back reference them.  A rule change breaks the all of the established concepts the author would have put in place before hand.

In THG, there was no precedent for the sudden alteration to the rules the author established at the beginning of the book (heavily, I might add).  I get why she did it, and clearly it was a successful change, but I never agreed with it.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 7, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> I'd say a plot twist is different from a rule change.  Plot twists usually have some foreshadowing involved, with a trail of breadcrumbs already in place to back reference them.  A rule change breaks the all of the established concepts the author would have put in place before hand.
> .



]You could describe it in terms of Chekhov's gun.  A plot twist shows the gun in Act 1.  A rule change does not.  That's why a rule change feels like a Deus ex Machina.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 7, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Before I get to my point....The Count without revenge? Don't bogart that joint my friend.




Its a good thing nobody actually said that, isn't it?



David Gordon Burke said:


> If you vote NO



For the record, I vote YES.  The book is the novel form of a Michael Bay movie - I've never been able to stay awake through it.  So, restricting my comments to the movie, it feels like Peter Jackson suddenly realized he had a budget and shot his wad at the end the way that fireworks shows shoot their wad at the end - finishing in a hurry.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 8, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> In THG, there was no precedent for the sudden alteration to the rules the author established at the beginning of the book (heavily, I might add).  I get why she did it, and clearly it was a successful change, but I never agreed with it.



I get what you're saying (about rule-changing requiring a precedent for it to be logical and plausible), and I agree: if the author is going to alter the logic of story-world, there should be some explanation for it.

In _THG, _I felt the explanation worked. The Game-Makers changed the rules, but not without precedent—they did it many times during the games. When Katniss was surviving fine without much turmoil, the Game-Makers threw fireballs at her to liven things up.

In my opinion, the author established early on that: the Capitol can change the game whenever and however they want. They rule with the Iron Fist. The rules belong to them. 

The contestants can't hide behind the rules of the game. The rules are only there to give an illusion of hope. The games are just a ritual televised execution to remind the districts who is in power. Rules need not apply.

This was the reality that Collins established: the reality that the games have no rules, even if they appear to for the viewing public. So any rule-changing within the games is still within the logic of the story-world. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 8, 2014)

In some instances, here on this site, I am reminded of a line from the Stephen King novel "It".

Bill looks at his college writing professor and asks "Why can't a story just be a story?"

I think that we writers, on occasion, get so wrapped up in the "finer art" of writing a story, that we forget that it is exactly what it says it is...a _story_.

We can do whatever the heck we want with that story. If we want to change the rules in the middle, we can. Some may like it, some may not. A whole lot of people sure didn't seem to mind it when it happened in THG.

I'm sure there will be those that feel I don't take the "craft" of writing seriously enough. That's all well and good. But I just want to spin a good yarn and let the story take me wherever it wants to go. If the story wants to throw a monkey wrench into things right in the middle...well..who am I to argue with it?

I'm just the fella getting the rush of writing it.


----------



## Caragula (Feb 8, 2014)

Interesting re: revenge as a motivator, the book I've written has it as a strong motivator, but the point of that is precisely what happens when you come face to face with the object of your revenge.  That's the interesting bit, when you realise your life is defined by the revenge, and you realise that.

Hopefully it's not crap as a result


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 8, 2014)

The rule change happened in The Running Man. Killian offered Ben Richards the chance to become a hunter instead of dying as a contestant.

The hunger games rule change was of a similar nature.  

And it was a plot twist because the entire plot of the hunger games related to the rules of the game. There was no other plot to the story. So it was a twist in the plot.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 8, 2014)

> That's really not the author changing the rules. It's the author letting the reader assume rules that do not actually exist within the story. Good mystery writers are masters of letting (not 'making') the reader believe one thing, and then showing what the reality actually is. Like stage magic, it's all about misdirection.



I agree; Chuck doesn't change anything but perception. I use 'rules' in a loose sense, meaning both what are rules and what the reader believes are rules; both can appear the same in the reader's head, so the writer can alter perception without altering truth, and can reveal deeper truth likewise.

The Hunger Games works to this effect; we learn to never trust the Capitol through the 'rules' they change.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 8, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I was discussing this with a New York agent about a month ago.  He told me that revenge doesn't make a good motivator.  I believe the biggest problem with revenge is that there's no escalation.  Let's say you want revenge because your child was ritualistically killed by cultists.  Okay, where do you go with that motivation?  The action that caused your motivation is over and done with.  So, as you push against the current situation, the antagonist (or environment pushes back), then what?  What takes your protagonist's motivation to the next level?  Nothing.  You end up with  a flat, dead novel.



I don't know if it had to be your way, but my novel plays out almost exactly like this.  Someone close to my protagonist is killed, and he's infuriated.  He's livid.  He wants to slaughter everyone associated with the group that did it.  But as time goes on, it just falls apart.  It's not worth it.  He doesn't like who he's become while looking for revenge, and he doesn't want to follow that route anymore.

Of course, it's worth noting that my protagonist is so broken by this point, he can barely muster up the energy for revenge (or anything else).  So, while my writing experience supports your idea, there are certainly many other factors at work.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 8, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I don't know if it had to be your way, but my novel plays out almost exactly like this.  Someone close to my protagonist is killed, and he's infuriated.  He's livid.  He wants to slaughter everyone associated with the group that did it.  But as time goes on, it just falls apart.  It's not worth it.  He doesn't like who he's become while looking for revenge, and he doesn't want to follow that route anymore.
> 
> Of course, it's worth noting that my protagonist is so broken by this point, he can barely muster up the energy for revenge (or anything else).  So, while my writing experience supports your idea, there are certainly many other factors at work.



What happens at the end of the first and second acts and at the midpoint of your story?  How do you increase tension as the story goes on?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 8, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> What happens at the end of the first and second acts and at the midpoint of your story?  How do you increase tension as the story goes on?



I had to look up the three-act structure, because I never consciously divided my story into acts.  Turns out my first act doesn't end until 60% of the way through my story; it's concluded by an unexpected revelation about the enemies (the story chronicles a war) that causes the protagonist to doubt his motivation for fighting.  The second act finishes at 80% with the incident I mentioned in my last post - the one that causes the protagonist to seek revenge.  The midpoint occurs at 70% (conveniently), when the protagonist is given new weapons and equipment that bring unexpected consequences and raise more questions.

I increase tension by steadily revealing more and more information about the world as the story progresses.  In the beginning, the protagonist is evacuated from his home country and drafted into an army in a different one.  He knows exactly as much as the readers do at that point.  By the end, he's learned a huge amount about both his friends and enemies, and he's able to finally take the war into his own hands and end it.  Throughout the story, both factions are in an arms race - one gets technology that seems unstoppable, then the other gets something even better.  However, as the stakes increase, the protagonist spirals downward.  War is traumatizing, and the real conflict comes from the protagonist reconciling his unwillingness to fight with the realization that he's the only one who can change things.

I like to think it works, but I guess the editors and publishers can decide that.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 8, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I increase tension by steadily revealing more and more information about the world as the story progresses.



I do the same thing, not only with the more dramatic aspects, but with seemingly minor observations.

For example, early in the tale my lead looks down at his own hands.  He states that they are the same hands and fingers he's always had, except that there feels like something is missing.  It was written that way as a slate of attributes that help reveal who he really is.

I refer to this process as "writing by artichoke."  BTW, he also has perfect teeth...


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 8, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I had to look up the three-act structure, because I never consciously divided my story into acts.  Turns out my first act doesn't end until 60% of the way through my story; it's concluded by an unexpected revelation about the enemies (the story chronicles a war) that causes the protagonist to doubt his motivation for fighting.  The second act finishes at 80% with the incident I mentioned in my last post - the one that causes the protagonist to seek revenge.  The midpoint occurs at 70% (conveniently), when the protagonist is given new weapons and equipment that bring unexpected consequences and raise more questions.
> 
> I increase tension by steadily revealing more and more information about the world as the story progresses.  In the beginning, the protagonist is evacuated from his home country and drafted into an army in a different one.  He knows exactly as much as the readers do at that point.  By the end, he's learned a huge amount about both his friends and enemies, and he's able to finally take the war into his own hands and end it.  Throughout the story, both factions are in an arms race - one gets technology that seems unstoppable, then the other gets something even better.  However, as the stakes increase, the protagonist spirals downward.  War is traumatizing, and the real conflict comes from the protagonist reconciling his unwillingness to fight with the realization that he's the only one who can change things.
> 
> I like to think it works, but I guess the editors and publishers can decide that.



Having the protagonist deciding to seek revenge does not sound like the end of the second act.  The second act ends in the climax (so, it might be where the protagonist finally succeeds in getting his revenge or where he finally turns his back on pursuing revenge).  Having the protagonist decide to pursue revenge might be the end of the first act or, maybe (and more likely given what little I know of your story, the midpoint.
All of which means that your story doesn't get moving, dramatically speaking, until 60% - 70% in to it.  Which means you are starting your story way too early.  You're going to have a hard time finding anyone who wants to stick with a book which doesn't get dramatically interesting until 60% - 70% in.

Writing a story is like designing a race car.  A writer can focus on making it pretty.  But, the writer needs to know the science of structure, just like the car designer needs to know the laws of physics, chemistry, and engineering.  The reader might not ever get a clear view of what lies under the "hood", but he's sure going to care.

- - - Updated - - -


----------

