Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Story Structure with 101 Dalmations

My birthday was this past week (32.  Yikes!)  Here is a picture of me celebrating

Remember how two weeks ago I said I had half a post written?  Yeah... this isn't it.  That post died a tragic death.  Instead of trying to give it CPR, I've decided to talk about the strong plot structure of The 101 Dalmatians, by Dodie Smith.

The book starts fairly slowly, introducing Pongo and Missis and their family.  Cruella deVille appears like a storm rumbling in the background; there, but not really involved -yet.  The heroes are more worried about their domestic problems.  Missus has too many puppies and their humans have to find another nursing dog to help her.  They find the half-starved Perdita, a dog who tells our (canine) heroes that her pups were stolen. Our heroes are sorry for her and do their best to help, but the crisis hasn't really hit home yet.  The inciting incident is when Pongo and Missis own pups are taken.

Now, at this point in a story, it would be easy to let the heroes wallow in despair.  The worst has happened, right?  Dodie Smith has her heroes take an active role, though.  They send out a message and pick up a possible lead, only to face their first set-back.  This isn't a world of talking animals.  They can't tell their humans where the pups are; they have to undertake the rescue themselves.  I like how Dodie uses the whole `animals in a people world' as an obstruction for her heroes.  She even uses the well-meaning owners of Pongo and Missis to set up the next obstacle.  The humans advertise for their missing dogs.  Pongo and Missis have to leave the main roads or risk getting taken home before they can accomplish their mission.

See, the obstacles don't have to come from the villains.  Sometimes they come from good people who have different ideas about how to accomplish a goal, or through communication breakdowns.  Or both. 

Another thing Dodie Smith does that really helps the story is give the heroes what they're after, while still causing problems for them.  She doesn't drag the search out for the whole book; halfway through, Pongo and Missis find their missing children, BUT the kids are not alone.  Ninety-eight other puppies are with them, and all are going to be killed if Pongo and Missis don't save them.  Talk about raising the stakes!  At first Pongo thinks they have about a month to plan the rescue, but -well, remember what I said before about allies who can accidentally add to the problem?  The fact that Pongo and Missus' owners are advertising for their lost dogs leads Cruella to decide her dog napping operation is too hot.  The parents have to rescue their and every other puppy that night, without any time to prepare. 

I'm not going to go through the rest of the book.  For one thing, this post is getting a little long.  I do think as far as stakes go, this book does an excellent job.  Nothing is settled until the end, but the heroes don't get stuck in a Gilligan plot either.  (The sort where the audience begins to ask `how are the heroes going to fail this time' instead of wondering whether they'll succeed.)  It's important to let your heroes have some success at least by the half-way point, even if reaching one goal just shows how much they still have to accomplish.  

So what do you all think?  Ever bog out on a story because the heroes set out to do something and still haven't gotten anywhere three books later?  Know any good examples where the heroes accomplish enough going along to keep you reading?  

13 comments:

  1. The story I bailed on would be The Wheel of Time. Just when the heroes solved the World is Too Cold problem, we got the problem of The World is Too Hot. Jordan kept it up for three books. I was done on the 6th book of the series.

    Plenty of examples about just enough success to keep going--Nicole Lukien's novel that I just reviewed worked out this way. I especially loved how the heroes thought everything would be worked out if they could only reach this one person ... but that turned out to be when hell totally broke loose. And Lukien did a bait and switch on me--I was sure one character was a villain, but he was EXACTLY the opposite.

    It was really well done and deserves to be a big seller.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yikes! I never got very far in Wheel of Time, but I heard Jordan kind of forgot his plot somewhere in there. I admit I got a little tired, in the Warlord of Mars trilogy, of watching John Carter almost rescue his beloved Deja Thoris only to have her snatched away, yet again so he had to chase her, yet again. (I'm not knocking Barrows. He laid a lot of the foundations for Space Opera, but `Warlord of Mars' drags a bit in the middle because, even though he's making important allies and stuff, it feels like he's not making any progress.)

    I remember when you reviewed Lukien you said she's great with characterization, and the book really surprised you. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. A belated happy Birthday! Just think... next year, you'll be old enough to be an adult even if you were a Hobbit. {SMILE, wink}

    As for stories that bog or not, I'm sure I've read plenty of examples of both, but I'm pretty much blanking. The last two stories that threatened to bog for me were both for other reasons. I didn't like where Cousin Kate by Georgette Heyer was going, but pushed myself to finish because Mom had lent me a much-loved copy I din't want to hang to on for too long. Gateway by Sharon Shinn threatened to bog, but didn't quite. It's far from my favorite. The main obstacle was the heroine's willful insistence that the bad guy can't be that bad when he seems so nice. It actually worked for much of the book, but... feeling that way even after her boyfriend had been injured in a police attack done under standing orders of the bad guy was a Bit Much. {wry look}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks. :)

    I've never really gotten in to Georgette Heyer myself. I think her style is such that you either love or hate her work. I do know how that goes though, when you really have to finish a book because it's borrowed.

    Ah, the whole willful blindness thing. I can see how that would be annoying -and how it's tempting to write. I had a character once who refused to admit magic stuff was happening even when it was obvious. I tried to make it clear she was just being stubborn, but I'll never know if it worked or not because the book became a Trunk Novel. (People who have never sailed, don't live near the water, and don't care about boats shouldn't try to write long ocean voyages.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everyone likes all Georgette Heyer, even if they like some if it. Mom loves her historical romances, and is fine with her less romantic historicals, but she isn't interested in her murder mysteries. Judging from how many of Heyer's murder mysteries are in print - even if large print editions - some people love them. I suspect some who do don't care for her romances. {Smile}

      Yes, willful blindness was a real problem in Gateway. For a little over half the book, I felt it worked, but after that, I felt it crossed the line between naivety and stupidity. I don't mind reading about naive characters, but they shouldn't be too stupid. {Smile}

      Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

      Delete
    2. I maybe didn't give Hayer enough of a chance but I have so many things to read I don't know if I'll ever rectify that or not. :)

      Delete
    3. I know the feeling. I doubt I'll get around to everything I consider reading. I just thought you shoudl know that Heyer did write more than one sort of thing, so she can easily be better on a second or third try. {Smile}

      Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

      Delete
  5. I shouldn't have said `don't care about boats.' That's not strictly true -I've loved whenever I've had a chance to ride in one (whitewater rafting is especially awesome.) I just don't get excited about the technical terms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see the problem of writing about a long ocean voyage without a lot of nautical terms. I've seen it done, but you need the characters to be passengers who are neitehr interested in that, nor in hanging out with the sailors and folks who are interested int he nautical stuff. I also helps to have as much of the action as feasible happen in one or another port along the way, instead of on the ship proper. {Smile}

      Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

      Delete
    2. I don't know that I couldn't have worked it out -it was more a case of being too aware of my lack and getting intimidated by it.

      Delete
    3. That's happened to me a few times. If whta I'm writing isn't what I wish it was, I get discouraged. Yes, even if what I'm writing has merits, just not the ones I was aiming for. {resigned Smile}

      Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

      Delete
    4. It is nice when you can see that there's something good in your work, even when it's not what you're aiming for -and even if you're still really discouraged about the story itself. I know in my case, even though the book wasn't publishable it showed that I could write an entire story in first person. (The previous time I'd tried, I ended up having third person sections in the middle.)

      Delete
  6. It helps to see some good in my work at any time. It's still frustrating when it doesn't match "the vision in my head." I know what I want it to be, and this is just not it... {rueful smile}

    Getting a story written entirely in first person is an accomplishment. Changing viewpoint is much more limited, and trickier even where it's possible. I'm glad to hear you pulled it off. I hope the next time went/goes even better than that one. {SMILE}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete