Yesterday Jeremy and I were talking about cliff hangers. As a rule I hate cliff hangers. I like chapters because they provide a natural stopping place that makes it easier to stop reading and also makes it easier to find your spot when you pick up again. Cliff hangers, in general, are designed to make you keep reading. When I set a book down in the middle I almost always pick it up again. My putting the book down isn't an insult to the book's excitement or pacing it just means I have a life and things I need to do, other than read (which is sometimes a pity). I decided I hate cliff hangers so much because I feel like the author is manipulating me into challenging my own will power. And too often works. Perhaps if I wasn't so easily swayed by cliff hangers I would hate them less....
Anyway, the overall point to this is I feel like cliff hangers are manipulative (in general) where other writing tactics such as having well developed and engrossing characters or a compelling plot are more about influencing you to keep reading. Influencing isn't nearly so repugnant as manipulating! It's a good thing. I mean what would any form of art be, without the motive of influencing the viewer?
I realized that my hatred of talking myself up and resumes, etc along with being a form of defense might also go back to my hatred of manipulation. I feel like people talk about resumes as a form of manipulation. I don't like that.
But why do I hate manipulation so much anyway. I mean sure it isn't great but why does it offend me? Sometimes I wish I could think of a single childhood experience that would explain the way I am...
No comments:
Post a Comment