Save The Cat Paradox

writing
#21

Thinking about this more … I think what would really turn readers/viewers off about the “kill the dog” moment is if they sense that the author felt it was okay to do that. So maybe:

  • If you truly do feel like it wasn’t wrong to kill the dog, make sure you get the why of that across to the audience. (This might be what you’re going for with the “benefit of everyone”, or maybe not, maybe that’s just a mitigating factor.) And I guess, make sure you represent the alternate viewpoint too.
  • If you agree with what most people’s initial reaction would be, that killing the dog was a reprehensible act, then make sure you don’t make it seem like the author is okay with it (even if the MC is).

I guess your position might be more nuanced, but I think the idea holds that you don’t want the audience to get the wrong idea – you want to communicate your position (possibly through other characters).

Note I thought of this going over some feedback on a story of my own, where I may have overly-excused the IC’s behaviour in some spots, especially from the MC’s POV. Writing the draft, I fell a little in love with the IC myself, blinding me to some of the terrible things she did (though strangely, not in the scenes that were from her POV!). I hope I’m not wrong in applying the same concept to your character.

#22

no, you’re right. While I’ve been working very hard to address these things, I think I’m also holding on to something that sets up a joke that unfortunately makes the MC look callous, and I’m just going to change that…

#23

Woosh! …aaaaaaanndd necro’d.

I think the essence of save the cat or kick the dog moments is potential and expectation. If a character has a save the cat scene, it’s really saying ‘hey, this character has the potential to be good, and we expect him/her to do the good thing when things get more serious.’ A kick the dog has the opposite effect. ‘Hey, this character has the potential to be really bad and we expect him to do bad when sh-t goes down.’

But you’re not limited to just these two approaches. Their utility lies in hooking the audience to be curious about the future or how things turn out. You can have a horrible MC and not lose the audience.

Alex DeLarge is despicable, but we have a few characteristics to latch on to as audience members until the event comes that really puts us on his side. I suppose one could argue that his intolerance for disrupting and disparaging a beautifully-performed aria is his save the cat, but that moment is easily forgotten after the atrocities that follow. So how effective is his save the cat then? We’re really on his side only when it turns out that he’s up against an even bigger evil, a classic anti-hero technique (I know OP is not working with anti-heroes here, but it’s an illustration of my point). Alex inadvertently becomes someone who can do something good against a bigger evil, despite him being bad. Potential. Curiosity.

(On a side note, A Clockwork Orange probably only works if you think the injustice of the state’s kind of violence is equal to or worse than the injustice of Alex’s kind of violence.)

Scrooge is an interesting case. I’d argue he doesn’t satisfy any of the Michael Hauge requirements, but we’re still hooked by curiosity and potential. In this case Marley presents Scrooge with a test of sorts. Scrooge will either change for the good or get his comeuppance. The potential satisfaction of either of those paths is enough to keep audiences curious how it turns out.

1 Like
#24

This was like a self necro. Haven’t seen you in three years!

I like this interpretation of STC. I like the focus on “potential”, since that’s the trick to most drama.

As for Scrooge, I think it’s a bit hard for us to judge this story, since we know it before we can even read. And, of course, we know that he’s going to pass the tests…

2 Likes
#25

I just finished reading a great page-turning novel (Social Creature) whose MC’s appeal (I think) is entirely based on the audience empathizing with her anxieties, fears, and desires, and the seductive opportunity for a different life that the IC presents to her. No save-the-cat moment that I can think of – though, as with the Hero’s Journey, it’s always possible stretch the meaning of the metaphor to fit all kinds of things into it. I’m not sure how useful that is is for writing though.

2 Likes
#26

I would say that rather than do a good deed, have the character explain in a moment why he believes a certain way. Have this philosophy be understandable, probably even shared by the audience. Something which will let the audience empathize with the character. It may be to accomplish something despicable, but the audience empathizes with the frustration or conflict he or she is in.

#27

I was in a class with David Farland last summer and he told of the problem in Liar Liar when they had set the MC/Pro up as a Liar and a jerk–They finished up the movie, but early audiences did not like the guy at all.

So they had to film a new scene at the beginning–where a dog rushes out at him and he pets the dog.

David Farland said if you look at that scene you can see is much lower quality because they had to film it last minute. But that was enough to make a likeable jerk. At least he’s nice to animals. As Jassnip said…

#28

I’m sure this is why the book sells