I would definitely be interested in a post on why you think suspense is overrated! My current theory is that for a relatively short piece (e.g. a 50 minute play in theatre, which i have most experience with) you can make up for a lack of suspense with other things if you're clever about it, but that it's hard to sustain to make a longer piece work (and not get boring) without some form of suspense (not necessarily obvious 'will the world explode' type suspense). In my head it's kind of like constructing a building or something, where for a small building it is possible to do without certain standard structural features if you make up for it by reinforcing others, but for a big building you need the standard structural features to keep it sound. I'm very curious to hear your alternate theory though cos I like how you think about narrative stuff!
Yes! Consider how much more strongly I feel about the question "will Miles continue to be Admiral Naismith" than "will the Cetagandans invade Barrayar." I know the second won't happen. But I also know Bujold will absolutely destroy Miles emotionally at the slightest provocation.
Of course publishing seems not to get this. At any rate I've more than once been rejected for "stakes don't elevate in the last act" when I had the dilemma, "MC lives under religious oppression or loses her family forever." Like how the heck is "everyone might die" bigger than that?
Stop Raising The Stakes
Writers sometimes do write stories in which the heroes fail to save the world:
(spoilers, obviously)
Qe. Fgenatrybir
Qba'g Ybbx Hc
Gur Raq bs Rinatryvba
Svany Snagnfl IV
Nep gur Ynq VV
Sybbq (Fgrcura Onkgre)
Xabjvat
Png'f Penqyr (Xheg Ibaarthg)
Gur Ynfg Onggyr (P.F. Yrjvf)
Qvabfnhef (NOP GI frevrf svanyr)
I would definitely be interested in a post on why you think suspense is overrated! My current theory is that for a relatively short piece (e.g. a 50 minute play in theatre, which i have most experience with) you can make up for a lack of suspense with other things if you're clever about it, but that it's hard to sustain to make a longer piece work (and not get boring) without some form of suspense (not necessarily obvious 'will the world explode' type suspense). In my head it's kind of like constructing a building or something, where for a small building it is possible to do without certain standard structural features if you make up for it by reinforcing others, but for a big building you need the standard structural features to keep it sound. I'm very curious to hear your alternate theory though cos I like how you think about narrative stuff!
Yes! Consider how much more strongly I feel about the question "will Miles continue to be Admiral Naismith" than "will the Cetagandans invade Barrayar." I know the second won't happen. But I also know Bujold will absolutely destroy Miles emotionally at the slightest provocation.
Of course publishing seems not to get this. At any rate I've more than once been rejected for "stakes don't elevate in the last act" when I had the dilemma, "MC lives under religious oppression or loses her family forever." Like how the heck is "everyone might die" bigger than that?