Robert McKee said, “Story is character.” That’s certainly what I believe. Without strong, compelling characters you have no story. In television this is also true, but because it’s a visual medium we tend to take in everything at once–the characters appearance and body language are instanteous, as opposed to having to be built in words. So sometimes television writers rely on the visuals more than the internals, and usually that works because we expect it.
On the recommendation of my friends in the Kiss of Death chapter of RWA, I bought season one of CRIMINAL MINDS. It sounded like it was right up my alley. FBI profilers tackling tough cases. It focused on the psychology of criminals, which I love.
I WANTED to love this show. I didn’t. The first six or seven episodes were all plot. There was little depth of character. I knew nothing about the characters personally. They were all stereotypes–the aggressive female, the genius “geek”, the quirky computer chick, the unsmiling team leader. Can you say two-dimensional?
So why did I watch the show? Well, sort of like walking into a bad movie, I’d PAID for DVD and I couldn’t stand the thought of not watching it. And, to be honest, the plot hooked me. I WAS interested in the crimes and how they played out and the psychology of the criminals. Unfortunately, I knew a lot about criminal profiling and psychology because I’ve read numerous books on the subject for research. Nothing was really new, though they were well-put together. Well-plotted.
Plotting schmotting.
I wanted to know WHY these seven FBI agents joined the FBI. I wanted to know why Elle is aggressive and why Hotch never smiles. For too long, the writers of the show focused on the external story and gave us NOTHING of the internal thoughts or motivations or conflicts of the main characters. (They had a subplot with Gideon coming back to active duty after losing FBI agents on the job, but it could have been so much more powerful if he’d been conflicted about the whole thing.)
This was brought home to me when I watched a deleted scene from one of the early episodes where Hotch’s wife is in labor and he is away in the field. It was short but powerful AND THEY CUT IT!! It would have showed SO much character in such a short segment, but THEY CUT IT.
But a friend of mine told me they get rid of Elle in season two (I can’t stand her, so that’s was a good thing) and that they work more on character as the season goes on. Okay. So I gave it time. It was one of the middle episodes that I noticed a change.
It was a scene between Hotch, the leader, and a “natural born killer.” The killer had tied up an undercover FBI agent and left him, and Hotch wanted to find him before it was too late. Hotch nailed the profile and went head-to-head with him in interrogation. For the first time, I thought the anger and tension was real. The killer had tortured all these men, but when he had to kill a woman, he did it quick and painless. Hotch figured out that he’d been abused by his father, but his mother hadn’t hurt him. Hotch played on that, “understanding” how the killer could kill, and finally the killer said something like, “You understand. I couldn’t have been anything else.” And Hotch says, “There’s just one thing. Some of us become killers. And some of us grow up to stop them.”
Wow. Totally powerful. So much insight into Hotch as a character in one powerful scene. Why couldn’t they have had more of that up front?
Obviously, it hasn’t hurt the show. It’s done pretty well. And now I’m hooked. Each episode they’re revealing more about the characters which is putting the cases into context and giving the show depth. It just took awhile to find their comfort zone.
They’re lucky viewers gave them the time.
When I started watching CSI years ago, they had much more characterization at the beginning of the show. Warrick’s gambling problem. Katherine’s ex-husband and her conflicts about being a working mom. There’s was depth of character even with the plot-heavy show. CRIMINAL MINDS had none of that at the beginning.
Romance writers don’t have the same luxury. All plot with no characterization would kill our careers. It’s ironic that male thriller writers often get away with plot-only stories. (Not all, there are some who do a great job with character, but there’s a far higher percentage who do “plots only” and that’s probably because of their male target audience, but that’s a subject for another blog . . . )
Anyway, as a writer I can’t have two hundred pages of solid “plot” without showing characterization. But as a romantic suspense writer, the plot is a convention of the genre–I need a strong external conflict and story to sustain the suspense element. It’s a balancing act.
Television has taught me a lot, however. Pacing, showing, getting in and out of scenes quickly. But what CRIMINAL MINDS taught me is that while character is STILL important, television viewers are far more forgiving than readers. I know I am. Maybe it’s because television is passive and reading is active.
That said, I recently read a book that had all-plot at the beginning and I thought I was going to hate it. I gave it some time, found that the characters (once the writer slowed down) did have depth and were interesting and conflicted. The book ended up being really good. But if I didn’t have to read this book for a contest I’m judging, I wouldn’t have gotten past the first couple chapters.
Have you read a book recently or watched a show where you pushed through even though the beginning was too slow, too fast, not enough characterization, too much plot, or anything else that’s a personal pet peeve . . . and then been pleasantly surprised that you loved it when it was over?
No related posts.
Delurking here…
I don’t know if I’m more forgiving in my TV viewing. Then I remember that I watch Grey’s Anatomy, and realize that yes, I probably can forgive a lot for a pretty face or good acting by or characterization of only a few members of the cast (i.e., Bailey or Christina).
Anvil-dropping thy name is Grey’s Anatomy. Could they be anymore unsubtle with their patient/doctor similarities or metaphors?
I have sort of gone off the show, though (especially with its recent three-parter, which I’m just not interested in; cliff-hangers turn me off and “three-parter” is sure to mean at least 2 cliff-hanger episodes), and replaced it with Supernatural, which I just discovered. I stayed away because horror is not something I can watch, so I watch the episodes half the time hiding behind something (I watched Buffy this way too).
I also didn’t really know what to expect with Supernatural, especially with there being only 2 regulars; most other shows I watch usually have quite the ensemble. But it works for them. I haven’t seen all the episodes and am watching them out of order, but I like what I see because underneath all the demon fighting (it’s almost like they live in an alternate universe America where there are all these evil creatures), it’s about the brothers’ relationship. They banter, fight, hurt each other and really love each other.
I won’t say the writing is as tight as it usually was on Buffy, for example, but it has its moments and overall is just great to watch (though, plot-wise, I’m sure I miss quite a bit because I have to turn away when things get scary or gory). I like the way the brothers’ relationship is developing; there’s built in tension because they’re so different in certain ways, and there are Daddy Issues (apparently all the best demon hunters have them), but ultimately would do anything for each other — that’s the kind of bonds I like.
I really wanted to like Studio 60 after Sports Night and the first few seasons of The West Wing, but I guess it’s not to be. I really liked Steven Webber’s character, but everyone else was… not consistently or well written enough for me.
I should maybe remember that it took Buffy into its second season to really hit its stride, IMO, but with the affection I have for this show (and Angel and Firefly), I’m probably quite biased when I think that even in its uneven first season Buffy showed a lot of potential, much more so than Studio 60 is showing, for example.
On the other hand, I’m really looking forward to Tim Minear’s Drive, which I know very little about, except that it stars Nathan Fillion (Firefly’s Mal Reynolds) and Amy Acker (Angel’s Fred/Illyria). And Tim worked with Joss on I think all three shows, mostly on Firefly, so I’m expecting the writing to be very, very good. But Tim doesn’t have the greatest luck with Fox, and this show has already been cancelled once, but I’ll be watching anyway.
As for books, I tend to stay away from plot-driven ones. I can’t recall the last one I read that was mostly plot that I liked or even finished. Currently, I’m sort of struggling to get through Libba Bray’s A Great and Terrible Beauty, which I’d heard mostly good things about (and I was seduced into buying it by the pretty cover and interesting premise). I think it’s the present tense that’s the problem for me… and I’m not sure yet about the characters in the story.
I’m totally addicted to House. The show follows a predictible formula, but House’s character is phenomenal and the plot provides a vehicle for it to shine!
I’ll stick through anything for the characters, but I have zero patience or “sticktoitness” to anything that’s plot only. For me to slow down enough to view or read, writers of anything have to hook me fast and they have to do it through the characters.:lol:
Sarah
I can’t believe I forgot about House (not that my previous post needs to be any longer
– see why I mostly lurk). It’s probably the only show I’m currently addicted to that isn’t in imminent danger of being cancelled (I don’t think the ratings are great for Supernatural and I think Veronica Mars is struggling a bit still). I watch House like I watch Supernatural – for the characters (especially House himself, and House and Wilson’s relationship) rather than the medical mystery. I wish the writers wouldn’t bring in Big Bads like Volger or Tritter, who was pretty much Volger take two, because I don’t particularly want House to change, and it’s not really believable to think that the writers would throw him in jail or take away his license; it’s like putting your main character in harm’s way – the likelihood of them actually dying is very little, unless we’re talking Buffy.
Unfortunately I don’t tend to “push through” on anything unsatisfactory in the entertainment field. I don’t have much free time so the little I do have is precious. I don’t hesitate to throw books at walls and leave movie theaters in the middle (or if I’m with friends, take a much needed nap…I slept during Hannibal Rising).
Do I miss out on some gems? Sure. But I miss out on even more stinkers. Life is too short to watch bad movies or read bad books.
Em, I love, love, love SUPERNATURAL. My two older daughters started watching it and I caught one episode, thought it was good, then bought the first season on DVD. I love the two main characters, and even though the plots are somewhat predictable, the stories are good enough to keep it going. I’ve already seen an improvement from the first few episodes to the middle of season one.
Sarah, LOL on HOUSE! HOUSE is a show I absolutely hate but can’t stop watching. I don’t seek it out, but I’ve caught most of the old episodes in reruns. House himself annoys me to no end, but I’m drawn to it. I have the new TV Guide (just because of an article about CRIMINAL MINDS) and in it there’s a hint of what’s going to happen in HOUSE which I think will help his character immensely.
Kimber, that’s the hard part. To relate this to new authors, what if their first couple books are mediocre, but they find their stride and their books start getting better–most people won’t give new authors a second chance, but WILL give their old favorites multiple chances before dumping them. Quitting a TV show is the same thing, but most TV shows have the marketing behind them and it’s less of a time commitment. So like with CRIMINAL MINDS, I was drawn to the plot because the characters were two-dimensional, but now that the show has found its stride it’s getting better. Authors don’t get that chance. And you’re right–there’s too many good books to waste time with stinkers.
Personally I give novels by new authors more of a chance. I figure that they will only get better so my acceptance level is lower. I am secretly hoping to find a new author to put on my autobuy list.
But if the author’s first attempt doesn’t appeal to me at all, then yes, I don’t tend to buy the second attempt. The fact that the novel was published means that the publisher felt there was a readership out there. I, however, am just not that readership. No biggey. The author should concentrate on the readers that are.
An interesting article, thanks. I find that a lot of shows follow this formula. They start off fumbling, either ignoring character or worse, handling character in a clumsy fashion. Not subscribing to HBO, I watched Sex in the City one episode after another via Netflix. After about three or four episodes, I turned to my wife and said, “I can see the formula for this series. We may as well stop now.” But I was totally wrong. The way they explored those characters and let them grow, fall, and otherwise change was wonderful. They just needed a half dozen episodes to work out the kinks.
I just started into the 3rd season of Monk on DVD. The first episode of the first season literally put me to sleep, and it’s actually pretty hard to put me to sleep. But then I got the flu and watched the entire second season in a week. I’m thoroughly addicted now. One of the interesting relationships is between Monk and the police captain. It has really deepened into a loving male friendship that you didn’t notice at the start. At the beginning the show was more just about Monk’s peculiarities.
Kimber, I can usually decided based on genre and voice whether I’ll like an author, even if a particular book didn’t appeal to me. And you’re right, not every book is for everyone. Doesn’t make them bad books!
Michael, I have yet to watch SEX IN THE CITY, I may have to get it. But maybe you’re right, that it takes a half dozen or so episodes to work on the kinks and have the actors comfortable in their roles. it was about episode 8 that CRIMINAL MINDS turned for me.
Heather, I haven’t seen MONK yet. It’s one of those, I always meant to, but . . . that time thing. After I’m done with SUPERNATURAL and CRIMINAL MINDS, I have the first couple seasons of BUFFY to watch. Okay, yes, I saw most of these when they came out, but now I have a teen-age and pre-teen daughter to watch them with!!
Allison, Numb3rs was like this for me — I started watching it on DVD, and I liked the plots, the filming was wonderful, but I wondered more about the characters early on. As a die hard Northern Exposure fan, I wanted Rob Morrow and his excellent cast too give me that quirky depth right away, and it didn’t happen right off. Although to be fair, they get into characterization within the first season, much faster it sounds like, than Criminal Minds. I definitely will keep watching the show, and I hope they won’t disappoint me down the line. I’m hoping RM is the kind of actor you can count on taking good character roles.
LOST I think has done the reverse — they started with charater, slowly revealing plot (maybe too slowly) and it’s interesting to see that work, the plot grows over time, though the characters don’t necessarily deepen which is why I’m wondering if the current season will be my last.
I love David Baldacci’s books, which are largely plot, some nods to character, but I think the books would be better, richer, if he explored the character relationships. Still, I read him for plot, because he does it so very well, and there’s a lot to be learnedd from it.
There are probably others, but I have to get to work… LOL
Sam
I watch Criminal Minds now and then since I like Thomas Gibson and Mandy patinkin is generally brilliant, but I haven’t gotten caught up in the show yet, mostly for the reasons you mentioned. The lack of characterization. I don’t feel like I know these particular investigators or what makes them tick. I guess I need to watch more and look for the good eps. It’s the same way with me for CSI NY. Love Gary Sinise but rarely see any scenes that couldn’t be plugged into any crime show. I want more on character, why this guy is here in this case and how it touches his life. I always thought it was wrong to have such a gifted actor like Sinise and then give him cookie cutter stuff to do. Occasionally they throw us a bone, usually scenes about his late wife or Danny’s background with his brother and the gang, and it’s powerful, butnot often enough for me.
Maybe it comes from growing up on soap operas where it’s character first then whatever silly plot device they’re playing around with at the time, but I love a good character driven show. Give me some angst, lots of background, a character pushed to his limits or chasing his dream and I’m happy. The one that works best for me now is “The Dead Zone,” the much overlooked adaptation of the Stephen King novel. I don’t especially care if the overarching story of battling Stillson ever finishes, but I hang on every scene as Johnny wrestles with his responsibility from what he sees — the whole reluctant hero thing, tries to live a normal life, and my heart breaks with every interaction with his beloved Sara.
I don’t have a bunch of time for TV these days. Too often, I get hooked on some show and then never get to watch it (Medium for example and Alias). So, most of the shows your talking about are ones I’ve seen one, maybe two episodes.
On the topic, however, I’m with Poirot on this one. It’s the CHARACTER that matters. If the characters don’t reel me in, the book isn’t one I’ll finish.
Example of that? Sadly enough, Julie Smith’s books. I read “The Axeman’s Jazz” and LOVED it. Then, her character stopped being very interesting in the sequels. My opinion, but it wasn’t the PLOTS that lost me.
Sam, I LOVED LOST in season one, liked it in season two, watched the first two episodes of season three and was scratching my head. What had happened? You’re right–characterization was brilliant, but they then started going against the character they set up, IMO. Nonetheless, I’ll get it on DVD. I keep meaning to check out Numb3rs.
Thanks, Alison, I’ll go check out the blog. I’m still only 2/3rds of the way through season one. You’re right–the team dynamic works for them. But I wish they spent more time on character development.
Anon, I LOVED the series THE DEAD ZONE and watched it for 2-3 seasons, but they kept taking it off the air and messing with the schedule and I didn’t get back into it. Definitely a well-done show and I might have to get it if it ever comes out on DVD. My husband and I still can’t believe he’s the geek from 80s . . .
I read one Julie Smith book. My mom has several of them. I’ll have to see if she has the one you mention, Jennifer. I LOVED Alias, BTW, until that whole Rambaldi thing. Ugh. But the first 2 seasons were great.