Over the past month, I’ve been finishing — as in, putting the final, no really, the final! — touches on my book. It’s been a huge pain because of the narrative structure I’ve adopted this go round. Lots of flashbacks means lots of moving parts. Change one thing, you have to change many things. Very annoying.
Anyway, because of my present circumstances (to recap: annoyed), I’ve been paying more attention even than usual to storytelling and editing. Which prompts two observations: first, J.K. Rowling should have edited her books. If another one of her characters “pants”, I’m going to assume Hermione or Gilderoy is trapped in a low-budget pr0n film (ick). And second, the opening twenty or so minutes of the Star Trek reboot is a model of narrative economy. Like the much-praised, and deservedly so, montage in Up (No, I’m not crying. But hang on a sec, okay? I have something caught in my eye.), the scenes, starting from when the lights go down until Kirk and crew begin their adventures on the Enterprise, are incredibly taut. The number of characters and story lines introduced (though they couldn’t wedge Scotty in until later) is admirable. I haven’t done that well with my book, I’m afraid. But then again, my budget was smaller than J.J. Abrams’s.
The Edge of the American West 
50 comments
January 2, 2012 at 9:59 am
ari
Also, “Sabotage”? Still a very good song. And I’ve come to think of the Beastie Boys as underrated.
January 2, 2012 at 10:11 am
ari
Ugh, I hadn’t watched that montage in awhile. I can’t believe they decorated the nursery before the baby’s birth. Didn’t they know any Jews?!?!
January 2, 2012 at 10:32 am
Vance Maverick
Hey, congratulations! Are you ready to declare victory?
January 2, 2012 at 10:44 am
ari
Not just yet. I think the prologue is now pretty much where it needs to be (in large part thanks to our co-bloggers, Eric and Kathy). But the epilogue still needs a lot of work. I’ve got two more weeks, and I’m going to use that time to finish what I’ve started.
January 2, 2012 at 10:55 am
Vance Maverick
All right, I won’t go decorating the nursery, as it were, just yet then. Carry on, and buon lavoro.
January 2, 2012 at 11:21 am
Josh
Like the much-praised, and deservedly so, montage in Up
The montage *is* excellent, but I’m convinced that it only works because it’s animated. If it had been done live-action, it would have come across as mawkish and cliched.
January 2, 2012 at 11:26 am
Western Dave
It’s true J.K. Rowling doesn’t write great descriptive sentences (compared to someone like Lloyd Alexander). But she’s a great plotter. Re-reading the series with my daughter, I’ve noticed that early books that previously seemed bloated to me actually have very little wasted plot. For example, the deluminator makes it’s first appearance in book 1, chapter 1.
January 2, 2012 at 11:31 am
ari
I think that’s right, Josh.
As for you, Dave, I’m not so sure. There’s a lot of wasted effort in the Harry Potter books, and a lot of absurd nonsense (oh, you’ve put Mad Eye Moody in a dungeony thing throughout the whole book, have you? sure, sure, why not. there had to be some explanation for how Harry’s name ended up in the goblet, for how the goblet became a portkey, etc. So why not choose a really convoluted one?) that makes no sense upon close inspection. That said, I’ve loved reading the books to both of my kids, and I do agree that they’re terrific stories, so I don’t want to take this critique too far.
January 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Anderson
Hell, I didn’t just cry watching Up: I cried at the beginning of the Trek reboot too. I’m turning into a huge cinema crybaby in my middle age.
… My take on Rowling is that she illustrates the “fancy” half of Coleridge’s imagination vs. fancy. She’s super-clever and inventive.
January 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm
silbey
Rowling seems to me to suffer from Stephen King syndrome: once you get big and bestselling enough, editors are afraid to demand substantial cuts, and thus the works grow exponentially. I note that the first HP book was 320 pages, while the fourth was 752 and the fifth was 870!?
The reverse of this may explain why my books are getting shorter.
(Oh, and the theater in which I saw Up was very dusty. Very dusty, indeed.)
January 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Anderson
I note that the first HP book was 320 pages, while the fourth was 752 and the fifth was 870!?
Yah, but there was plenty of stuff to cut in King’s megatomes, whereas not so much in Rowling.
(Bear in mind too that, printed as YA books, the words/page ratio in Rowling is relatively low; the books aren’t really that long.)
My fav, # 5, was a long one. People who cut their teeth on Tolkien don’t mind long books per se.
January 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Anna
Professor Kelman, your references to Harry Potter brighten my day. As it happens, I have actually noticed how often J.K. Rowling describes characters as ‘panting’ after running a lot (usually because Harry has an idea and runs off without explaining anything, and Ron and Hermione just have to run after him). However, I never connected the thought to a low-budget pornographic film, and I fear I will from now on be scarred every time I re-read the books. Thanks.
January 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm
silbey
Yah, but there was plenty of stuff to cut in King’s megatomes, whereas not so much in Rowling.
Hah! There was much that could have been cut (Rita Skeeter to start with). But, in any case, Stephen King also does not agree with me.
January 2, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Main Street Muse
I agree with Josh that the Up montage with live actors would be mawkish.
But to me (parent of three young children AKA someone who’s seen far too much G-rated crap), the Up montage is one of the most lovely and surprising bits of moviemaking ever created – what G rated movie opens with a prologue of infertility, death and grief? Done well, no less?! Without words?
The worst part of Harry Potter is the mawkish ending of book 7. Though my son loved every word….
[Feeling the need to bring back Pee-Wee’s Word of the Day, which, of course, is mawkish.]
Good luck with the book….
January 2, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Western Dave
@Silbey Rita Skeeter is not cuttable. In Book 4 her reporting lays the groundwork for why people wouldn’t believe Dumbledore and Harry (there’s a seemingly toss-away line about an article she published saying Dumbledore was losing touch with reality) and the fact that she’s an animagus helps lay the groundwork for Harry using her in book 5 and of course, she’s the key plot device in Book 7 for finding out about Dumbledore’s past. Which is not to say that Rowling has a great command of descriptive adjectives. The Skeeter character (and the Daily Prophet more generally) both help explain one of the central problems of the books, why doesn’t everyone just resist Voldemort from day 1.
January 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm
silbey
The Skeeter character (and the Daily Prophet more generally) both help explain one of the central problems of the books, why doesn’t everyone just resist Voldemort from day 1.
That the character is used for that purpose is not the same thing as a character being *required* for that purpose.
January 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Western Dave
Silbey, perhaps I’m being dense, but which is preferable in a book that is plot driven? To me it’s a push as long as the characters are relatively fully realized and acting out of motivations that make sense to them. I mean, if she were a brilliant adult novelist I suppose she could have had 5 or 6 front pages from the Daily Prophet in every book but I don’t think that would work in a YA novel (or at all).
January 2, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Ben
For example, the deluminator makes its first appearance in book 1, chapter 1
Magical deeds are afoot, dear readers! Magical darkness a *must*
January 2, 2012 at 4:54 pm
silbey
@Western Dave:
The problem with Rita (among other things) is that she’s one of the times that Rowling introduces one character too many. Rowling already has enough people for the “no one believes that Voldemort is coming back” function, including the Minister of Magic and Percy Weasley. The latter is especially interesting, because Rowling has set up an interesting intra-family squabble with Percy and then (poof!) he essentially disappears for several books (except for bits of exposition about him) only to miraculously reappear and reunite with the family in the last book. What could have been a solid bit of family tension becomes a cardboard facsimile of one. Give Rita’s role to Percy (in some modified form) and the dramatic tension is ratcheted even higher.
January 2, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Western Dave
I’ll buy it Silbey. But Percy not speaking to the family for two years is something that happens in lots of families (including mine and one of my best friends) along with a weird reconciliation driven by outside factors. That whole plot felt very true to me. I like the number of characters in the book (so long as they are fleshed out). I enjoyed people like Skeeter, Ludo Bagman, Slughorn, and the other extraneous characters who populated the book because they were so fully realized (perhaps to excess but that’s an excess I can live with, ymmv).
January 2, 2012 at 7:35 pm
silbey
Fair enough.
January 2, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Pauly Shore
I thought it was insensitive of Rowling not to have any Jewish characters at Hogwarts.
January 2, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Western Dave
Anthony Goldstein? Granted a minor one but at least mentioned. Damn, I know these books too well.
January 2, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Vance Maverick
Please don’t feed the troll.
I’ve been trying to articulate why a sequence that would be soppy with live-action images can work with animation. Part of it, at least, is that a quick montage like this requires highly legible images, which generally require stylized poses, tableaux, expressions, etc. — all features that are somewhat against the grain of good actors’ work, but in animation, come with the territory.
January 2, 2012 at 9:35 pm
eric
Up is just very sad. Even at the end, which they try with might and main to make happy.
Also, it’s very difficult to figure out when it takes place, exactly.
January 2, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Josh
I’ve been trying to articulate why a sequence that would be soppy with live-action images can work with animation. Part of it, at least, is that a quick montage like this requires highly legible images, which generally require stylized poses, tableaux, expressions, etc. — all features that are somewhat against the grain of good actors’ work, but in animation, come with the territory.
I think this is part of it; I think another part is the way it plays against our expectations of animation. (In the same way that sitcoms can go for pathos, and be very affecting, in a way that would be, again, mawkish and cliched in a drama. [Scrubs and MASH being two examples that spring immediately to mind.]) I’d be interested in the audience reaction to the opening montage in countries/cultures that have more of a tradition of dramatic/adult animation than the U.S.
January 3, 2012 at 9:47 am
big bad wolf
i think pretty much every pixar picture would be unbearably mawkish if it were a live action film. that doesn’t mean i don’t enjoy them, but i have been baffled by the, to me, extravagant praise of the pixar pictures as films.
now, the teariness i attribute, as anderson does, to middle age. i’m not the flinty eyed disdainer of my youth.
harry potter is too long. most series are. i think the dynamic works both ways—it is not just that the eidtor can’t cut the author, but that the audience wants more and bigger. if a book is fat, it must be good. most lawyers think this way too, which is why most legal briefs are unreadable.
January 3, 2012 at 10:04 am
Main Street Muse
Sharing an article on one of the very best things that the Harry Potter books have to offer: http://lat.ms/uRUku7
WRT to the Up montage, it’s simply excellent filmmaking, not just excellent use of animation or expert combination of legible images, stylized poses and tableaux.
And it beautifully visualizes the complexities of marriage, which is a completely unexpected story to find within the traditional format of a children’s movie.
What other montages have been so memorable (live or animated)? The only one that comes to my mind right now is the training montage in the original Rocky, but that montage is less of a well-told story and more of a technique to take the audience from one point to another. (hard to believe he trained in converse sneaks…)
January 3, 2012 at 10:26 am
Anderson
Rita Skeeter is amusing in her own right, and plays a larger role in the books than in the films; her biography of Voldemort is important, but barely attended to in the Deathly Hallows film (despite their splitting it into two movies).
[Insert grumbling about dumb-ass combat scenes b/t Voldemort and Harry in 2d half of # 7 film, which would be followed by complaint about Rowling’s turning magic wands into Star Wars blasters.]
January 3, 2012 at 10:32 am
Vance Maverick
MSM, to insist on “simply excellent filmmaking” reads like an attempt to stop discussion of the elements of that filmmaking. And I for one find the baptism sequence in The Godfather pretty memorable.
January 3, 2012 at 11:17 am
Main Street Muse
To Vance, I’m not stopping the discussion of the elements that make the Up sequence great. But it remains one of the most skilled assemblages of the elements filmmakers use to tell stories. Why do you think that sequence works as well as it does?
Film uses light, shadow, composition, movement, actors, location, sounds, music, and words, making it the most powerful storytelling medium. It surrounds us with multiple ways to touch our mind and soul. Most importantly, great films show (but do not tell) the story.
Another reason film is so powerful a narrative tool is that the order it creates out of life eliminates chaos and provides only essential details (when done right). That’s what the Up sequence does so well. And you can see that also in the powerful Godfather sequence as it shows us both the cleansing of sin and the baptism by fire. Both the infant and the Godfather emerged as new beings after that baptism.
[Though not a montage, there’s also a wonderful, wordless 47-second sequence in The Searchers that sets up Ethan’s relationship to his sister-in-law – also an outstanding piece of filmmaking: http://bit.ly/ygQuir.%5D
January 3, 2012 at 11:50 am
Vance Maverick
Well, I’m not the big advocate of this sequence here. But to continue my thought from above, Pixar has a visual style which efficiently communicates action and basic expression — a tool well adapted for this use, where what you want from each shot is the equivalent of a short clear sentence. The price is that the style can’t really communicate more. In the baptism sequence, the shots in the church are considerably richer — Pacino’s face and voice, say, are freighted with ambiguity.
(Confession: when I first saw the sequence, I thought of miscarriage rather than infertility, but then realized that my cue, the blotches on her dress, was too ghoulish for a mainstream movie, let alone one for kids.)
January 3, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Western Dave
Learning a ton here. And my department chair just told me that there is a good chance I will be teaching either History of Film or History of New Media (Photography to the Internet) as an elective for HS seniors. Anybody want to offer ideas on readings? Contact off list at dsalmanson at thingie sch dot org.
January 3, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Vance Maverick
a tool well adapted for this use, where what you want from each shot is the equivalent of a short clear sentence
To ramble on a bit, this is one of those sequences enacting the passage of time. (Somebody must have catalogued the variants — the breakfast table in Citizen Kane, etc.) Each scene (here, roughly each shot) is a brief stopping point in the life story. I’m saying that animation, maybe specifically the style and capacities of Pixar, created an opportunity which this script seizes.
January 3, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Main Street Muse
To Vance…
I think the Up couple had a miscarriage and then infertility – otherwise why no children? And the Godfather sequence really showcases how lighting and composition can affect emotional impact of the shot and sequence. Church sequences are lit with warm light, like paintings you’d find in an Italian museum. Gun sequences are coldly lit (almost bluish). Even the color of the light has an impact on the storytelling. With the Godfather, Coppola is a master filmmaker at the height of his career.
[Which sequence are you not a fan of? The Searchers or Up?]
To Western Dave, I don’t think I’ve ever read a history of cinema. But I’ll bet Amazon has tons of titles to peruse.
January 3, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Vance Maverick
Really, they’re all good — I was just disclaiming any worked-out explanation of the Up sequence.
January 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Jackmormon
Rita Skeeter and the Daily Prophet are basically stand-ins for the Daily Mail and paparazzi journalism generally, no? I enjoyed them as satirical figures. If I recall correctly, they show up when the mood in the books becomes darker and more political, which made Rita’s malevolent focus on Harry’s celebrity seem even more twisted.
Towards the middle of the Harry Potter series, Rowling made a detour into some social satire. She couldn’t sustain that broad view and still finish up the series, so the final books are almost mystically detached from the present-tense of the war. (The second-to-last book focuses on the revelations from the Pensieve; the last book spends most of the time lost in the woods.) I give the lady serious credit for finishing a massive series under terrible, terrible scrutiny, but I like the middle books best.
January 3, 2012 at 7:52 pm
TF Smith
Western Dave –
Might want to take a look at Bruce Chadwick’s “The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film” – film history, historical memory, and US history all in one, and if your school goes by the California state social science standards, it would come after the 11th grade US history requirement, which fits neatly.
Best,
January 4, 2012 at 9:09 am
sleepyirv
While all of this may be true, it does not make any bit of Star Trek less boring or Harry Potter less interesting. Getting the mechanics of art is nice and all but it’s not only thing. Think of the strong technique shown in when you get a family portrait taken.
January 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Robert Halford
To comment 1, how can the Beastie Boys be underrated? They are like the perfectly rated object of perfection in ratings. Is there anyone sane who underrates Paul’s Boutique, overrates License to Ill, or believes that Check Your Head is anything other than what it is (a pretty good, not Paul’s Boutique album)?
January 4, 2012 at 3:09 pm
erubin
I liked the Beastie Boys until I noticed that all their songs sound just like Sabotage. Now I think they’re overrated (same goes for Weezer while I’m at it). Even Green Day (which strikes me as the epitome of overrated mainstream bands) tries new things with their music occasionally.
Anyway, this thread has been a real gem, as I got to witness a bunch of stuffy academics argue the finer points of Harry Potter, Star Trek, and Up.
Sorry no one seems to have shown much anticipation for your new book, Ari.
January 4, 2012 at 3:23 pm
ari
Sorry no one seems to have shown much anticipation for your new book, Ari.
People here have their priorities straight is all, I’m afraid.
January 4, 2012 at 3:59 pm
David
Christ, I trudged through all that about HP, the Beastie Boys, Up, and how to critique film-making and no-one asked what the book is about… Did I miss something?
Ari – what’s the book about?
January 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm
ari
It’s about the Sand Creek massacre, David. The book is set up as a braided narrative that intertwines the modern story of memorializing Sand Creek with the Civil-War-era story of the massacre itself. The lead character is a depressed old man who becomes reacquainted with the joy of life when a young, orphaned wizard shows up on his front porch and transports them to a land far away in the British Highlands. As I said above, I’m nearly done with my final edits, but I still can’t decide if the boy’s pet should be a talking dog or a magical owl. It’s the details the make the thing, you know.
January 4, 2012 at 9:14 pm
kevin
Owl! Owl!
January 4, 2012 at 10:56 pm
andrew
The opening of Moonrise is pretty memorable. I’m blanking on some other great montages I’ve seen in old (pre-1960s) films, which I suppose could be used as evidence that they aren’t actually memorable.
I haven’t seen Up, but the start of that montage struck me as mawkish even as animated. I found it very affecting overall, but to me it feels like the power of the subject matter as much as the artistry. I mean it’s all professionally done, but I don’t feel like it’s actually that fantastic visually.
January 5, 2012 at 8:58 am
David
That was very funny.
January 5, 2012 at 9:09 am
ari
You find the massacre of defenseless Native people funny? That’s just sick.
January 8, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Claudia Oney
please please please stop with all the jumps in books. It drives readers crazy. I am sure your book is wonderful but perhaps writers could find some balance with the jumping using flashbacks etc.
January 8, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Vance Maverick
Claudia, give yourself more credit. Think on classic novels you’ve read, and you’ll see you’ve leaped giant narrative chasms with ease. I know I’ve always been surprised to open up the beginning of War and Peace again, to find myself in the midst of a discussion, in French, of political developments in Italy. Of course it can be done badly, but with Ari we’re in good hands. (I can say this without risk of embarassing him because I know he’s hard at work making the jumps effective even as we speak.)