Do I have to show my characters making up after an argument, or can it be implied when we see them on good terms again?
Is it okay to have two characters who had an argument to patch things up offscreen, or do readers explicitly need to see how they made up?
None of the two characters in question are the protagonist, and the argument itself has little to no bearing on the plot. It basically served as a means for one of the characters to reveal how they felt about themselves. It wasn't even so much an argument as the two characters discussing something and one of the speaking out of turn because they touched upon a topic very sensitive for that character.
I personally don't think this is something that needs too much attention, as all it takes to resolve the issue is for one character to apologize, and therefore readers can just assume after a while that the characters made amends, but I wanted to hear other people's thoughts on the matter.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/35460. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
If the argument is a minor one, and the characters are people you'd expect to generally get along (good friends, parent/child etc.), you can safely skip the making up. In long-term relationships of any sort, it is natural that minor arguments occur, and then get resolved. It's not a big issue, it might as well get resolved off-screen. If resolving the argument adds nothing to the story, it definitely should be resolved off-screen. A reader would assume that they argued, someone apologised, or just forgave, no big deal.
If, on the other hand, the argument was over a major issue, or one of the people arguing crossed a line with what he said or did, the apology cannot be just assumed.
For example, a very disappointing instance in Star Trek - Deep Space 9 was in season 6: at the start of the season, one of the main characters cheats on his girlfriend, abandoned his duties, and allowed the Bad Guys to do a series of Bad Things. Eventually he remembers what he should be doing and saves the day, but then the reconciliation happens off-screen. Literally: the character and his girlfriend go into a closed room, and next time we see them, they emerge reconciled. The viewers hated it, the actors hated it. It only happened because the writers first wrote the character's temporary betrayal, and then couldn't figure out what to do next. Since you're not writing a TV show, you can do better.
0 comment threads
It depends. In these matters, it always depends. It it advances or enriches the story, leave it in; if not, leave it out. There is no general rule that says such and such a thing always advances the story or such and such a thing never advances the story. It is always about the role it plays in the context of a specific story.
I'd frankly be more worried about whether the argument itself will feel contrived or boring if it is being used to tell us something about a secondary character that does not matter much to the main story. If you don't feel the need to finish a story arc, you should seriously question whether you needed to start the story arc.
If the argument matters enough to be in the story, then presumably the resolution of the argument matters enough to at least be mentioned in the story. You could, of course, accomplish this simply by saying "Tom and Mary made up later after he apologized and she made his favorite dessert for supper."
But if you are working in a narrative mode that allows you to say things like that (horrors! telling!) then you could reveal the information you want to reveal about Mary in the same way. "Mary never felt confident in public speaking after an unfortunate incident in the grade two play that involved three lines of poetry and a desperate need to pee."
0 comment threads
0 comment threads