March 8, 2011

Does “Race to Nowhere” go anywhere?

I just saw a little news segment for a new documentary on education problems called Race to Nowhere. So I checked out its website.

I can’t comment on the film itself, because I haven’t seen it. And, to be totally honest, it doesn’t look entirely worth seeing; I’m not sure I’d learn much from it. From the promotional videos on the website, and what I just saw about it on the news, its main message seems to be: “Look, we’ve got a pretty serious and undeniable problem here. Students are suffering needlessly.”

Um, yeah. Great observation. Is this really surprising news?

Well, it’s a step, at least. You can’t address the problem if you don’t see the problem, and apparently a lot of people don’t. And the problem isn’t that students aren’t achieving enough, aren’t doing well enough on their tests, aren’t doing better at math than the Asians. The problem is that they’re suffering needlessly. Right?

It’s a step, but it’s still not the holy grail of the problem with schools. The main problem is, as I’ve stated before, the memorization of the material itself is useless. Until parents, educators, and students realize this, the problem will remain. You can put a band-aid on the wound by collectively lowering academic standards to create less stress, but the wound’s not going to heal until you have concrete answers for what your goals are with education (and not just the vague “I want to get into a good college so I can get a good job so I can be happy”). That is, you have to know why you are learning specific material. You can’t be taking a course simply for the credit. If you do that, the actual content is meaningless. That it can be horribly stressful is just a side effect. It’s like doing a documentary on how uncomfortable hospital outfits are instead of looking at the disease.

So… yes, school causes lots of stress, boo-hoo, it’s so hard. Get to the point. Take that final step of logic.

From what I can see from Race to Nowhere, it doesn’t get to the point. It might not necessarily be wrong or bad, but it looks incomplete.

By S P Hannifin, ago

Don’t start stories with memories

(Disclaimer: The following statements are just my own personal opinions.)

One of my fiction writing pet peeves, which I see mostly in works from novice authors (that is, I can’t remember seeing it in something actually published), is starting a story with a character doing something boring and remembering the necessary backstory for the sake of exposition. I can understand why writers might be naturally inclined to do it: it introduces the main character, exposes the necessary backstory, and shows how the character feels about or has reacted to the backstory, all in one fell swoop. (That said, I’ve never done this myself; I’ve always been weary of this sort of opening. Even with my childhood stories.)

The reason this annoys me: it’s boring and unrealistic.

Why is it boring? Remembering something is just such a non-action. It’s all internal, so when I’m reading the start of such a scene, I have to imagine something really boring before getting to the interesting part. Even if it’s just a few sentences, it’s boring and unneeded. Why not just cut to the chase?

Why is it unrealistic? Because real people very rarely just sit there and go through entire backstories in their heads. At least I don’t.

I wonder if some writers believe they can easily develop a character in this way. I’d argue: no, you can’t. One essential ingredient in getting to know a character is time. Obviously the character still has to make interesting and believable decisions, but I’m not going to care about a new character’s decisions or emotions on the first page. If you want me to feel something for the character as a reader, save it for later in the story, after I’ve gotten to know the character. Making something really dramatic happen to the character on the first page might still be interesting and might encourage me to keep reading, but it’s unlikely to make me actually care. So if you want me to care, save it.

The solution is simple: start the story with the backstory. Don’t make it a memory. Just start the story with the important events that happened first. Don’t be afraid to make big time jumps during the backstory or afterwards. It’s better to skip boring parts than to keep them just for the sake of time unity. In fact, if it’s a bit long and complicated, you can make the opening backstory very fairy-tale like, with much direct telling instead of elaborate dramatization. That can work nicely. Although the way Tolkein did it in The Lord of the Rings was a bit too informative for me; the shortened backstory they gave in the film was better.

By S P Hannifin, ago