Narrative Structure & Iron Man

The other day I was watching Iron Man again (the first time since I picked up the DVD) and while it lacks the visceral punch of the latest Batman epic, it is a great movie.

***SPOILER ALERT - if you haven't seen this movie yet, cease & desist now and go BUY IT. Seriously.***

I really enjoy the very beginning - you know, where Robert Downey Jr. (aka Tony Stark) is riding in the Humvee with the soldiers, blaring AC/DC's Back In Black, and charming the soldiers with small talk. Great opening, and then absolute chaos as they come under attack. Stark flees the vehicle and is summarily knocked out by shrapnel from one of his own missiles.

Fade to black...

About five minutes have passed in the movie, and then we are suddenly in full-on flashback mode. We're given the lowdown on Stark, a bit of characterization, and then the lead-up to the attack. I didn't have a stopwatch on me, but I would guess it is probably 15 minutes before we get back to "present day".

This is akin to starting a story with a page or two of action, then two chapters of backstory. Such a story would never get sold (though I wonder what the novelization of Iron Man looked like).

We've all heard the advice about avoiding flashbacks so close to the beginning of a story. It's a bit of a catch-22, as we need to start as close as possible to the action (the inciting element that kicks the whole thing off) if not in the very middle of the carnage. So what you end up with is the need to work in backstory elements over the first few chapters, piecemeal, so as not to scare the reader away.

So why is it that Hollywood, or the visual medium in general, can get away with this? This mechanism is especially popular on TV with action shows - Alias was notorious in it's use, and I've recently seen both Chuck (Love that show) and the new Christian Slater vehicle (My Own Worst Enemy) employ this technique - by showing the hero in some impossible predicament, jumping back a day or more, and then working forward to that moment in time, all the while keeping the viewer in suspense.

I have some theories on this. One is that TV and even movies can be consumed much faster than a book, or even a short story. The viewer does not have to wait as long to get resolution, to see how the seemingly at-odds elements tie together, and therefore it becomes a bit of added suspense. Also, by their very nature, the visual mediums can not get as in-depth on descriptions - characterization and setting can be shown in the sweep and pan of a camera - so they can skip to the point. In summary, it's all about speed.

But does that make it right? Does it make it good storytelling? I don't know. I think it's still a high-wire act to attempt, regardless of medium. And sometimes it comes off great - the detour in Iron Man affords us a chance to see Stark as he is - smug, smart, self-assured, womanizing, and most importantly, unaffected or uncaring of his actions upon the world. Which then sets up the great character change that first starts in the dark cave, with the car battery wired to his chest.

But I still won't be attempting this manuever in my writing.

NaNoWriMo 2008

Another November 1st, another year of NaNoWriMo.

I've been planning on participating since the end of last year's NaNo. I even had some lofty plans about outlining and doing preparation. But, funny story there...

The good news is that I didn't procrastinate in favor of other, non-writing, activities. Rather, I was polishing up a batch of short stories for submission, and never found the time. Oops.

I had a rough idea on what I wanted to write about - the premise anyway. But I was hoping to do some outlining. Now, I'm just going where my keyboard takes me.

If I can get ahead of my wordcount goal for the day, I'll carve out some time to map out where I am going. We'll see - after Day 1 I had 1668 words... the target is 1667. :D

As of this morning, I've got another 600 words, so am feeling pretty good so far.