how many horrible things can happen?

BrightSera · Jun 6, 2013

To my 2 MC before it gets ridiculous?

I do solemnly swear that everything happens for a reason and I do not pull them out of trouble by dropping a piano on the villain's head. *cross my heart, hope to die*

It's a contemporary romance, if that matters.

quicklime · Jun 6, 2013

BrightSera said:
To my 2 MC before it gets ridiculous?

I do solemnly swear that everything happens for a reason and I do not pull them out of trouble by dropping a piano on the villain's head. *cross my heart, hope to die*

It's a contemporary romance, if that matters.

ok, but here's the question: WHAT is the reason? Is it something reasonable, organic, plausible? Does one event set a chain in motion? Or is the reason things happen merely to give you another thirty pages of problems for the character? Either one is a reason, but the latter is generally a bad reason; things should remain within the realm of plausibility. You have some leeway of course, you're writing fiction, but you just used the "piano on head" example yourself, so you know there's a line....

where the line is is hard to answer in concrete terms, but if you go "really? wtf!" while YOU'RE writing it, you probably know you're in trouble.

Honest Bill · Jun 6, 2013

It depends on what you mean by 'happens to them' and 'for a reason'

I tend to prefer it when it's something cause by action rather than just something happening to them. Everything that goes wrong ought to be kickstarted by events earlier in the story, as opposed to just getting struck by a meteorite etc.

But as many as you like really. Depends on how long the story is, and it's better in my opinion, if the nature of all the bad things that happen is different and varied enough. Don't have her get kidnapped, and then him get kidnapped, and then, their dog get kidnapped... etc

Kerosene · Jun 6, 2013

How many stars are in the sky?

I typically try to cause tragedy in the worse places. But, it's a balancing act of where, when, and why. Mostly Why.

BrightSera · Jun 6, 2013

quicklime said:
ok, but here's the question: WHAT is the reason? Is it something reasonable, organic, plausible? I think so. Does one event set a chain in motion? This is what I started with, a traumatic event and what would happen after. Or is the reason things happen merely to give you another thirty pages of problems for the character? I have one scene that could come under that heading and I am working on either weaving in a good subplot to support it beforehand or cut it out entirely. Either one is a reason, but the latter is generally a bad reason; things should remain within the realm of plausibility. You have some leeway of course, you're writing fiction, but you just used the "piano on head" example yourself, so you know there's a line....

where the line is is hard to answer in concrete terms, but if you go "really? wtf!" while YOU'RE writing it, you probably know you're in trouble. Nothing has reached WTF levels, yet. LOL. On the other hand, I try to remind this is fiction and it's okay to take some liberties, but to only get my characters in trouble, not out of it (to quote that famous author I can't remember.)

Thanks for the responses, it really does help!

Russell Secord · Jun 6, 2013

The whole point of having a protagonist is to dangle pianos and rusty swords and crates of scorpions over her head. It's in the job description.

The whole point of causing trouble in a story is to teach a lesson. As long as there's something to learn from it, keep it. Too much is never enough.

lolchemist · Jun 6, 2013

Too much is TOO MUCH for me. I don't read books to be miserable, I read them to relax. If awful thing are happening to the MCs nonstop, not only will I stop reading, I will also leave a bad review.

This seems like one of those YMMW (your mileage may vary) situations but even if you the author are questioning the excessiveness, then some of it needs to be trimmed.

Persei · Jun 6, 2013

When they start turning into faux-drama: have no reason at all to happen and are solved rather stupidly, later.

You shouldn't be worried if the bad things aren't there just because. Even so, if you feel the need of trimming them down, take a week off and try reading your work with new eyes.

JoBird · Jun 6, 2013

BrightSera said:
To my 2 MC before it gets ridiculous?

I do solemnly swear that everything happens for a reason and I do not pull them out of trouble by dropping a piano on the villain's head. *cross my heart, hope to die*

It's a contemporary romance, if that matters.

I think it's largely about rising action and pacing. I don't mind bad things happening to characters, but it's nice to get a breather every now and then. A book that lost me due to a (imo) never-ending stream of bad things happening: Deadhouse Gates.

That's book 2 of Stephen Erickson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series. And because I couldn't get through book 2, I didn't make it to book 3, and so on.

A lot of people loved what Erickson did in that book. For me, the tragedy just grew to a point that made me uncomfortable to keep reading. And I've always suspected that it wasn't *just* the tragedy, but that maybe it was the relentless presentation of the tragedy.

benbenberi · Jun 6, 2013

"Too much" is a moving target. There are a lot of things that affect the definition for a given story.

1. What are the genre expectations?
2. What's the mood/tone of your story?
3. Do the horrible things happen for reasons organic to the story, or are they just piled on arbitrarily by the whim of a malign creator?
4. Do the characters have opportunities to avoid or prevent horrible things that they fail to avoid or prevent for reasons that make sense within the story? For reasons that make no real sense at all? Or are they just kittens sitting in front of the authorial bulldozer?
5. Will readers come away feeling like you have made something horrible happen to *them*? If so, is that what you want?

WormHeart · Jun 6, 2013

Read "Precious".

It's pretty relentless, and it did alright.

thelittleprince · Jun 6, 2013

A lot of it turns on your genre. I write MG fiction, and if I started having my characters dying/getting sick left right and centre, I might depress (and emotionally scar?) my audience

Paris Love · Jun 6, 2013

Three. Two little 'deaths' and an absolute sacrifice equating to either literal death or spiritual death.

Things like getting forclosed upon or getting in a car accident where no one is seriously injured, don't count. Those things just make the story more interesting.

The first little death is where your MCs have to make a choice between two bad decisions. In Disney's Beauty and the Beast, This would be the point where Belle has to decide to go search for her missing father, or stay and be forced to marry Gaston.

Belle's second little death is when she offers herself as the Beast's prisoner in exchange for her father's freedom. This was a sort of out of the frying pan, into the fire moment for her.

The third, and actual, death is when the Beast dies, but she realizes too late that she loves him. This is Belle's spiritual death.

The story has lots of interesting tension that could be described as "horrible things" happening to the characters, but the three deaths is standard in most romance novels.

Becky Black · Jun 7, 2013

It's very dependent on the type of story. A fast paced thriller could have a whole string of disastrous setbacks for the characters. A more gently paced story might only need one bad thing and it might not even seem that bad a thing objectively, but in context it's a catastrophe.

The main danger I think is not giving enough space for each disaster to play out before piling on another one. You've gotta milk the situation of its potential! Don't waste it.

And there should be an escalation, I think, preferably all linked to each other, the stakes getting higher each time. If they all have equal weight then it just seems like one bad thing after another, but episodic, not progressing. Like someone having a really bad week.

thepicpic · Jun 7, 2013

Seven. No more, no less. The Plot Police are watching...

Oh, right. Serious answer. Likes others have said, it's a 'how long's a piece of string?' question. I lack the experience and likely the wisdom of the fine people on this site, being only just past my very first drafted novel, but my rule of thumb so far is so long as there's no 'woe is me' BS, I'm good to go.

seun · Jun 7, 2013

lolchemist said:
Too much is TOO MUCH for me. I don't read books to be miserable, I read them to relax. If awful thing are happening to the MCs nonstop, not only will I stop reading, I will also leave a bad review.

That seems unfair. If books with awful things happening to the characters aren't to your taste, then that's obviously up to you, but if you're giving them negative reviews because they aren't for you, then that's not on.

Ken · Jun 7, 2013

WormHeart said:
Read "Precious".

It's pretty relentless, and it did alright.

... Candide too.

lolchemist · Jun 7, 2013

seun said:
That seems unfair. If books with awful things happening to the characters NONSTOP* aren't to your taste, then that's obviously up to you, but if you're giving them negative reviews because they aren't for you, then that's not on.

I think I'm well within my rights to give a book a horrible review if I open up a book labeled 'romance' (per the OP) and am bombarded with excessive misery and end up hating the book.

The whole 'for you' / 'not for you' thing is a whole different can of worms that has nothing to do with what I said. For example, if I hated the romance genre, read a romance book and ran to Amazon to cry about how much I hated this book because it was a romance, OF COURSE what you said would make sense, but a book that has copious amounts of misery in it, that hasn't been labeled as such (For example: A Boy Called It) is fair game.

The only exceptions I can think of where it would be unfair of me to review that book, would be if the romance book was named 'Horrible Things Happen' or if it had an accurate blurb regarding it's huge amount of sad contents or it's reputation preceded it.

*Also, I never said books where horrible things happen aren't to my taste. Objecting to the excessiveness is a completely different thing. A little bit of salt on food is good, an entire thing of salt on your food makes it inedible.

Marian Perera · Jun 7, 2013

If multiple horrible things happen to the protagonists, I'll expect them to be too busy dealing with traumas and consequences to enjoy happyfuntimes with each other.

I'm willing to suspend some disbelief when it comes to old-style romances like Sweet Savage Love, where the heroine can be abused, beaten, gang-raped, etc. but looks even more incredible after the assault and is always orgasmic with her One True Love. But the OP said this is a contemporary romance.

Also, if too many horrible things happen one after another, like a line of dominos falling, I tend to emotionally detach from the character and the story. In How Not to Write a Novel, that's the section called "Compassion Fatigue".

gothicangel · Jun 7, 2013

Depends on the genre. If I'm reading an historical adventure, I will put up with a lot more action, than in a romance.

Saying that though, I abandoned Ben Kane's Spartacus, because it was one action scene after another, with no pacing to give the reader a breather.

bearilou · Jun 7, 2013

It's too much when I, as the reader, can see the hand of the author directing events in order to heap more misery upon the mc either out of some sadistic glee, some misguided notion that they have to keep chasing their mc up into a tree just to throw rocks/set fire/blow up, or to up their wordcount, instead of the misery growing organically out of all the previous decision points put in front of the mc throughout the story.

seun · Jun 7, 2013

lolchemist said:
I think I'm well within my rights to give a book a horrible review if I open up a book labeled 'romance' (per the OP) and am bombarded with excessive misery and end up hating the book.

The whole 'for you' / 'not for you' thing is a whole different can of worms that has nothing to do with what I said. For example, if I hated the romance genre, read a romance book and ran to Amazon to cry about how much I hated this book because it was a romance, OF COURSE what you said would make sense, but a book that has copious amounts of misery in it, that hasn't been labeled as such (For example: A Boy Called It) is fair game.

You said nothing about a romance in the quote I responded to. As far as your post read, it suggested you'll leave a negative review if bad stuff happens to the characters all the time. There was no mention in what you said of the book's genre.

And while I think of it, it also seems strange to leave a review, negative or positive, of a book you haven't finished reading.

lolchemist · Jun 7, 2013

So next time if you're confused about what I'm referring to, you should probably ask for clarification. It is usually safe to assume that if I'm replying to an OP about the question they are asking about their particular book, my answer will be regarding their particular book.

And I am neither the first nor the last person to ever review a book without finishing it. But criticizing how I or others choose to review books really isn't the point of this thread.

Cathy C · Jun 7, 2013

BrightSera said:
To my 2 MC before it gets ridiculous?

I do solemnly swear that everything happens for a reason and I do not pull them out of trouble by dropping a piano on the villain's head. *cross my heart, hope to die*

It's a contemporary romance, if that matters.

To me, it depends on what you mean by "horrible". I tend to consider a book as the "crisis of the moment." Yes, good things can come out of it (and sort of must in the romance genre to achieve an HEA) but life can suck in real life because the crisis of the moment often leads to life biting back. The middle of my books tend to have those horrible things that happen when crisis distracts you---unpaid bills, elecricity shut off, wilted plants, missed parent/teacher meetings, catching colds or the flu because your immune system is beat up. Etc., etc.

So long as you have a character that notices it, in the text, it can work. For example, when the power goes off while your hero is in bed with the flu, it helps to have a friend or family member say, "Well, what did you expect? You've been distracted and haven't been eating right. Duh." Just like real life.

seun · Jun 7, 2013

lolchemist said:
So next time if you're confused about what I'm referring to, you should probably ask for clarification. It is usually safe to assume that if I'm replying to an OP about the question they are asking about their particular book, my answer will be regarding their particular book.

And I am neither the first nor the last person to ever review a book without finishing it. But criticizing how I or others choose to review books really isn't the point of this thread.

No confusion felt or criticism intended. I responded to your exact words and find leaving a review of a book (which is telling people what you thought of it, right? ) without finishing it to be strange.

how many horrible things can happen?

Neurotic Supernova

all out of fucks to give

practical experience, FTW

Your Pixie Queen

Neurotic Supernova

nearly perfect

Shooting stars.

Let it go

practical experience, FTW

Dual class author / nightguard

What's up with the Orlando Bloom?

Writing my way off the B Ark

May or may not be a potato.

Horror Man

Shooting stars.

starting over

Toughen up.

DenturePunk writer

Horror Man

Shooting stars.

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

Horror Man