Entry tags:

authenticity, reviews

"Plot Driven" is how we genre types are supposed to write, meaning, I suppose, that stuff happens in our stories which is not just an externalisation of the protagonist's inner turmoil. This is traditionally presented in opposition to "Character Driven", where the characters drive the literati-approved plot. 

I'll always argue that this is a false antithesis, since good rip-roaring plots are generally constructed from the actions of battling characters, allowing that some of these characters can be natural or historical forces.  The right characters give you the right plot - which is the basis of Stephen King's approach, by the way.

However, I think when people use these terms in earnest, e.g. in literary submission guidelines, "Plot Driven" really means, "Pulling stuff out of your arse because you think it's cool." Look, the hero has bumped into bandits but a band of marauding goblins eats them all...

If so, then let's start using a new more accurate term: "Drama Driven." This is where arbitrary shit happens because the writers thinks it's dramatic, or will test the characters in some way. I've noticed that stories become Drama Driven most often when the writers have wandered into a genre with which they are not really familiar. Like the bewildered cargo cult islanders creating bamboo radio masts to summon back the good-laden Dakotas, the poor writers assemble elements they think look the part, and - no doubt - dismiss any niggles in the name of character development.

Strangely, the most likely place to encounter a Drama Driven plot is in the output from the good old BBC. (I'm not sure why this should be... perhaps a preponderance of wannabe luvvies and English Lit types in the commissioning department?).

In the lamentable case of the recent "39 Steps" retread, we have:

• A spy plays the innocent to the extent of putting the mission in danger. ("I love the character development here, man.")
• An intelligence station comprising of three blokes, none of whom think to muster  up a spare gun when the hero speeds off ahead to tackle the bad guys ("Hey, this is really dramatic. Hero and girl go it alone... We can't give him a gun because, like, she has to be the only one capable of plugging her uncle.")
• A U-Boat which can only surface for 3 minutes. ("Cool ticking clock, man!")
• In the pistol fight, the Germans - supposedly professionals - did not behave like men under fire, and did not really hit anything.
• Germans left for dead with no attempt at clean up, and nobody making sure they are dead. ("Hey, this isn't like Bourne Identity.")
• Arbitrary and pointless double twist fake tragic romantic ending. WTF was she up to? Where was the operational benefit? ("Good spy thrillers have twists that leave you guessing....")
• Traitor was obvious, but somehow the pros needed the amateur to set them straight.

And then there's the historicism. One of the few justifications for redoing a classic is to put it more firmly in its historical context, one of the things that made the Fry and Laurie "Jeeves and Wooster" so compelling. In this case, the version achieved a Wikipedia-level accuracy; events leading up to WWI, Suffragettes, casual sexism, and the Empire. However, it utterly failed to achieve past-as-foreign-country.

• Biplane used to strafe the hero was a late WWI plane, with the capability of shooting through the propeller not available until the war was well underway. For 1900s charm, it should have been some appalling pusher plane, puttering along while somebody blazed away with a rifle.
• Female lead should have been softly curvy and pale all over, not skinny and tanned (they got this wrong with The Tudors as well, as far as I can gather from the trailers).
• Hero was too tanned below the neckline. As I understand it, gentlemen do not strip off under the African sun.
• Female lead  went into hero's room in her pyjamas, but didn't ask if he was shocked until she propositioned him.
• Her brother seemed unconcerned about her "honour".

It's not that these would have spoiled it for the less informed viewer, rather that they are all missed opportunities. Each represents a moment when the viewer could have glimpsed the temporal gulf between them and the characters.

Ho hum.