Saturday, November 07, 2009

"LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD" WITH CHARACTER ARCS


Character arcs are overused today, and I blame that excess on all the how-to-write books that are on the shelves nowadays. Most of the books take a simple, boring premise and shamelessly try to pump it up by character arcs.

I don't know how the people who write these books sleep at night. They've ruined a whole generation of writers by convincing them that story is less important than character embellishments. They obscure the simple fact that writing is about story. The story can and should have character conflict (like "The Odd Couple")...it can even be about character arcs (like "Twelve Angry Men")...but there's gotta be a story, and it's gotta be a really good one. You have to watch out because obsessing over character arcs can distract you from the fact that your basic story sucks.


Well, I've said all that in previous posts. What I want to talk about here is how misapplied character arcs can subvert a story that already works. "Little Red Riding Hood," for example. The original story...which has no character arcs at all...is wonderful. It's evocative and magical, and manages to dig deep into the human psyche. Not only that, it's told with great economy. Would that story be improved by adding character arcs? Let's outline a rewrite and see....

Since we're rewriting for character arcs, it'll be necessary to firm up Riding Hood's personality at the outset, so the reader'll be able to understand how she evolves during the course of the story. For that, we'll need a sequence to establish her carelessness, and show how this worries her parents. Maybe we add a few farm animals and see how vexed they are when Riding Hood neglects to feed them.

Of course we want people to like Riding Hood in spite of her flaw so we'll need some incident to set that up, too. We can forget the economy that characterized the original...our story will take a while to get off the ground.



When her mother finally gets around to sending her to Grandma's house and orders her to not to talk to strangers, we'll need to see Riding Hood's disdain for what she thinks is her mother's paranoia. Remember that we want the reader to like Riding Hood, so that disdain will have to be carefully expressed. We'll see the worried look on the mother's face as Riding hood disappears into the forest. To tie up the father's role, maybe he joins the mother and puts a comforting arm around her shoulders.



Since the arc is so important we'll need Riding hood to mutter to herself in a disgruntled fashion while walking through the forest. Maybe we should give her a pet dog so she'll have someone to voice her thoughts to. Of course we'll need to establish their relationship. We'll also need some time to establish the dog's personality, and what it thinks of what Red is saying. And...oh, yes...we may need to get rid of the dog later so we should also take time to establish that it likes to chase squirrels, and is prone to get lost in the forest.



Aaaargh! All these arc helpers are going to need time to play out. That's okay, we can buy time by eliminating details that added texture to the original story, like the "What big eyes you have" litany at the end. Character arcs are voracious eaters of time. You end up cutting the guts out of a good story just to shoehorn all the arcs and extra characters in.


Well, that's all I have space for here. You can tell from what's here already that the arcs drastically slowed down the story, gave too much attention to minor characters, trivialized atmospheric elements, and drained the story of the deep psychological/archetypal resonances of the original.



I love the story of Little Red Riding Hood. Her walk to Grandma's house is the most famous walk in Western fiction. What a pity that it can be rendered so banal by modern storytelling technique.



Good writers know they're home free when what they've written is so primal that it lends itself to satire, as in the Tex Avery remake of Little Red Riding Hood shown above. Think about the woman on the ice flow in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," or the orphan who asks for more gruel in "Oliver Twist." These are tragic figures but you can't deny that they inspire humor. Can you say the same about the arc rewrite we just did?






Would the rewritten, formula version inspire countless puppet shows, as the Brothers Grimm version did?



Could you get a Betty Boop cartoon out of it?



Would it inspire funny drawings like the one (above)?




35 comments:

Pseudonym said...

Probably the best film version of Little Red Riding Hood is a little film you may have heard of called Psycho.

Spoilers follow

It follows the story extremely closely, even to the point of the wolf dressing up as a woman. But even more crucially, it breaks just about every Syd Field rule, including character arcs. It even kills off most of the protagonists.

Amanda H. said...

Funny you should mention Little Red Riding Hood, I read over the summer some of the early versions were much more...um, erotic.
I think in the Charles Perrault version (might be the same with the Grimm version) Little Red Riding Hood actually takes her clothes off and gets into bed with the wolf, thinking its her grandma, and then the "Oh what big eyes you have!" conversation starts.

5 said...

I like story arcs, but only after the main characters have been established. Imo, it works well in comic books and other continuing story formats, not so much in one-shot stories like Red Riding Hood.

Kris said...

Hi Eddie,

I think part of what makes the original primal version so great is it inspires so many different interpretations. There are probably fifty DIFFERENT character arcs someone could come up with that fit within the original simple story, while also coming up with satirical versions like the cartoons you pointed out.

It's hard to say which one is a better story because fairy tales are so bare-bones, the adaptations are all very different. A red riding hood story with character arcs might make a better novel or feature film, while a simpler angle makes a better 6-minute cartoon or puppet show. Sometimes maybe a very simple arc is good, like Riding Hood starts gullible but learns her lesson and gets tricky by the end of the picture. That's still an arc, the character still learns something and changes!

I agree not every story needs one, though. Lots of good TV shows and movies have a story where no one learns any lessons and no one changes.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Kris: In my opinion it's a mistake to take a story like Riding Hood that can be told in a few paragraphs, and stretch it out into a feature. Loading it with character arc filler might aid in the stretching, but a feature story that needs that kind of help is one that probably shouldn't be made in the first place. Your comment didn't exactly advocate doing this, I'm just using what you wrote to make another point.

Lots of classic characters don't have arcs: The Lone Ranger, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Odysseus, Oliver Twist...it would be a long list. It's possible to have very strong characters without character arcs.

Amanda: Amazing, but it does certainly does explain the big eyes line.

Brian: But does it really work in comic books? I know it's done frequently, and sells a lot of comics, but is it really a good idea? Maybe. I'm not sure.

Pseudo: True, so true. Psycho broke a lot of rules!

chrisallison said...

Haha, funny picture at the top: "Sit Down and Write that Bestselling Novel".

I think formulas and academic approaches are so popular today because everyone that knows some basic story "theory" feels they can discuss, critique, and throw in their two cents about any story. This is the kinda stuff that leads to the critical discussion of modern feature films focusing around academic concerns depth of the characters and tight storytelling rather than what I'd think a kid would be more concerned about like imagination. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Phantom Tollbooth, et. al were less about constructed pathos and payoffs, and more about a weird journey.

Formulas give generic rules. I think studying entertainment is much harder because there are no rules. That's why it's so hard and probably more intimidating for noncreatives to take a risk on.

It's frustrating to hear people academically critique work, as if when asked for feedback they feel the need to just say SOMETHING. This was a great example, because it shows the formulaic, academic approach underemphasizes the most important part: the entertainment. Sometimes something obscure drives the story. Classic structure doesn't work for every story. Kudos

David said...

Nothing is more sure to result in failure than the person who sits down with the goal of "writing a best-selling novel" or "writing a hit movie/tv show" or "writing the best animated film ever" , "creating the next Bugs Bunny", etc.

This isn't how it works and those types of "how-to" books prey on people who don't know this. They think it can be reduced down to a formula. "Follow this plan and results are guaranteed."

Nope.


----

thomas said...

Character arcs serve to sanitize a story, and take any ambiguity out.
Thanks for the post.

JohnK said...

Hi Eddie,

great article! Very funny and true.

I hate character arcs and filler too for the most part. I wouldn't equate "character arcs" with "character conflict"though. I don't know how you can have a story without conflict.

Doesn't Red conflict with the Wolf? And the huntsman and wolf certainly don't get along.

You might be giving these phony writers some ammunition by equating the 2 things.

One thing I really hate about modern storytelling is how much time they waste explaining everyone's personality origins. If you have good personalities they don't need to be explained. You're right. Just get to the story - what we paid our 10 bucks for.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Chris: True, so true! Character arcs are fine when they fit, but they're no substitute for entertainment and imagination.

John: A good point. I didn't mean to confuse character conflict with character arcs, which as you say is a different thing. I love stories like "The Odd Couple" where character conflict is everything. I write that kind of thing myself.

The problem with tackling subjects like this in a small space is that there's no room to develop an argument or make fine distinctions.

mike fontanelli said...

Was the Wolf abused as a cub? Did he have an alcoholic Mommy Wolf who wouldn't let him watch Lassie? That would explain his predilection for dressing up in women's clothing, and his deep-seated hatred of matriarch figures (Grandma) and female children. I think half the film's running time should be devoted to the wolf's backstory, minutely dissecting how he became a misogynist.

Does the story have an obligatory "female-empowering moment" (F.E.M.) where Red Riding Hood breaks free of the shackles of male-dominated Western society and becomes a lesbian?

Eddie, I see a 4 1/2 hour screenplay on the horizon. I think you're onto something here...

talkingtj said...

currently both marvel and dc comics are shelling out major bucks to young writers to come up with these long intertwined story arcs that run through the companies entire line of comics. its manipulative, absurd and offensive! the thinking behind it might be that "fanboys" have a tremendous amount of disposable income and will follow any half assed "storyline" these jokers will come up with. most of these "stories" make no sense and the outcomes challange nothing firmly established.if a character dies-wait a couple of years or months, they will be back. i find the whole thing very cynical and so do not waste my money. ive been a comic book fan my whole life and now cannot enjoy my #1 hobby. its no major loss for me, i will survive(cue muzak)but i feel bad for the younger fan just coming into the fray. at $3 to $4 a pop for a single issue, shelling out major cabbage in order to follow a lame and inspid company wide storyline is a sin and a crime.both companies will no longer accept submissions from writers who havent cracked the new york times bestsellers list, its an industry created by amauter writers and artist, this story arc mentality is everywhere and it kills any fun or enjoyment a fan or casual thrill seeker might have. it always goes back to that same corporate goose stepping thinking, if it worked once, it will work over and over and over and over and over and over....

talkingtj said...

sorry i forgot to mention director neil jordans 1980's epic "in the company of wolves" for my money, one of the best adaptations of the little red riding hood story.

Anonymous said...

Eddie, you sound like David Mamet!

Red Riding Hood is my favourite fairy tale, and I agree with this post, but I still enjoy finding subtext in fairy tales and simple stories and therefor actually would like to see a feature length red riding hood story. I almost always enjoy them. To me, the story is about puberty. The red cloak is symbolic of menstruation. The wolf is a a great villain but also represents predatory males. In some versions of the story, red riding hood kills the wolf through her own cunning, without any woodsman. There's a million different versions, none of them any more true than the others.

I love finding subtext in simple stories.

5 said...

But does it really work in comic books? I know it's done frequently, and sells a lot of comics, but is it really a good idea? Maybe. I'm not sure.

It works because sometimes it's really entertaining. The Amazing Spiderman and The Avengers had some great story arcs in the early '70s...And imo, the Death in the Family story arc in Batman from the '80s was more interesting than most one shot stories.

Technically, any continuing story is a story arc.

Think about it this way. How many WB cartoons featured Wile E Coyote chasing Road Runner? Put those together and they create a huge story arc. Not really deep stuff, but still, it's a story arc. I really don't need deep, complex stories anyway, as long as it's entertaining.

If you want more complex characters, The Lord of the Rings, and The Godfather I and II are great story arcs.

Trevor Thompson said...

Jorge:

I agree that you could read into the story that it's about puberty but menstruation??? THAT'S where your mind goes?

Why not lust? Why can't the red represent lust?

At the end of the day, though, I think it's a mistake to take a story that was designed to be short and make it long. It's unnecessary and it encourages laziness.

How hard is it to come up with a new story? I don't have a problem with it. Honestly, Syd Field... only SEVEN stories? That's just dumb.

- trevor.

Anonymous said...

"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings."

- Kubrick

Khaki Hat said...

I have to admit, I didn't even finish reading; such heresy makes my brain hurt.

Anonymous said...

The red hood ABSOLUTELY represents blood. From violence AND menstruation. The forest is like the world at large, the terrifying sexuality of adulthood and predatory men.

In the original story, red riding hood gets into bed with the wolf and takes her clothes off!

From wikipedia:

"Charles Perrault explained the 'moral' at the end so that no doubt is left to his intended meaning:

From this story one learns that children, especially young lasses, pretty, courteous and well-bred, do very wrong to listen to strangers, And it is not an unheard thing if the Wolf is thereby provided with his dinner. I say Wolf, for all wolves are not of the same sort; there is one kind with an amenable disposition — neither noisy, nor hateful, nor angry, but tame, obliging and gentle, following the young maids in the streets, even into their homes. Alas! Who does not know that these gentle wolves are of all such creatures the most dangerous!

In this version the tale has been adapted for late 17th century French salon culture, an entirely different audience from what it had before, and has become a harsh morality tale warning women of the advances of men."

David Germain said...

One thing I really hate about modern storytelling is how much time they waste explaining everyone's personality origins. If you have good personalities they don't need to be explained. You're right. Just get to the story - what we paid our 10 bucks for.

I hate that too. Not only does it unnecessarily waste time, it's not true to life either. When we first meet a person, we don't learn his/her entire life story right away. We befriend them first and THEN gradually over time find out things about either their personalities or something in their past that has affected their personalities. We do this simply by spending time with them. That's how it should be with characters in movies, tv shows, books, etc. We'd have a much better chance of making that all important connection that way, the kind that make us say, "not only am I entertained by this character, he/she feels like a member of my family".

Excellent post as usual, Uncle Eddie.

Amanda H. said...

Well, Trevor, red (as in the riding hood) represents lust as well as menstruation if you extrapolate it. In the collection of childrens' literature I read over the summer (I think it was Norton Anthology of Childrens' Literature) it had different interpretations of the color red in the story. Hell, there was one version of "Little Red Riding Hood" where her hood was golden. I don't have the book anymore so I don't know the interpretation of it. :/

Anonymous said...

Great points! I have mixed feelings about "The Dark Knight" but one of the things I liked about the Joker is how he had several completely different and contradictory childhood stories to explain why he was so messed up.

What do you think of the "Heroes Journey" archetypes? They seem to be a crutch for a lot of tv writers.

Are you familiar with tvtropes.org ? It's a fascinating resource although a bit overrun by anime fanboys and devotees of shows like Fairly Odd parents, the somewhat negative article on Ren and Stimpy reflects this

Hans Flagon said...

What's my motivation?

Bitter Animator said...

Often, character origins can work against a story. For example, if you set up a family man who turns psycho and decides to murder a priest, you could have a hard time making that switch believable. The more you try to explain it and justify it, the more that act of setting out to murder a priest could seem just a bit off.

But open a story with a man trying to murder a priest and it's no problem. There is no switch.

We accept a character for who he or she is the first moment we meet them.

Like Halloween and the remake. Did anyone ever have a problem accepting Michael Myers as a crazy killer? Did adding a backstory in the remake make that better? Not at all. It brings up more questions than it answers.

3awashi thani said...

lately my story writing method, is to look at what movies are doing these days and *not* do that.
i use the term writing loosly i usually just skip to thumbnailing....
but now i'm going to be all self consious about this stuff @_@
http://warrioru.blogspot.com/2009/08/harv-second.html
what do you think? does it suck bad ?

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.xbox360achievements.org/forum/member.php?u=255206]mexitil online ordering[/url]
[url=http://blogcastrepository.com/members/menosan.aspx]Menosan pharmacy[/url]

lastangelman said...

I had the temerity to actually ask for my money back at a second run theater on fifty cent Tuesday after seeing "Hoodwinked" (one of the worst CGI-3D animated movies). Instead of getting threatened or laughed at, they agreed and gave me not only my money back but a free pass to see any movie showing BUT Hoodwinked (when management actually saw how bad it was, she said she expected refunds). Now those jokers are actually making a sequel? Who's making money off this crap? Are people really entertained?

Steven M. said...

That rewrite was so awful, I think I'm goning to puke.

(Seriously though, character arcs are a waste of time and money.)

Steven M. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Talking: True, so true.

Jorge: Riding Hood is not only my favorite fairy tale, it's my new favorite story. I'd need a whole post to explain why.

Mike: Haw!

Sharp: Profound! I'm going to put that on an index card and tack it to my bulletin board. Thanks!

Anon: I looked up Tvtropes. Thanks!

3awashi: Nice stuff. The stories need something, but you're clearly on the road to figuring it out.

Bitter: Good point!

Last: Haw! I got my money back for a different film. You can actually do that!

Anon: All I saw was an ad.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Valeria said...

Hello, I'm having a little trouble trying to find the autor of the red riding hood walking next to the wolf behind the trees.
If you could tell that be wonderful!
Thank you!

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Valeria: Yikes! I can't remember the source. Too bad. It's an interesting image.

Unknown said...

I never thought of character arcs as a flaw until I read this blog, I enjoyed the insight!

Any luck finding the source of the image that has red walk with the wolf behind the trees? As children, our grandmother would tell us the story of Red Riding hood in front of the fireplace; very fond memories. I'd like to find the source of that illustration and send it my sister as a birthday present.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

J. Chunn: Hmmm. I don't think I ever knew the origin of the picture you mentioned. It looks like something from the 1990s.