Post History
I believe you have to explain it, somehow. There is nothing worse than an unexplained major action that determines the outcome of the story, especially when the outcome is sad. It seems arbitrary a...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-19T22:13:48Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45895 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T12:09:54Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45895 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
I believe you have to explain it, somehow. There is nothing worse than an **unexplained** major action that determines the outcome of the story, _especially_ when the outcome is sad. It seems arbitrary and fickle. And no, you can't rely on the audience to be thinking and rationally analyzing clues. You have to slap them in the face with dialogue, or (better) give them a visceral moment of realization. Such a moment can be just insight into the character-trait driving the gaslighting. This doesn't have to be dialogue, it can be body language or the character looking at a picture, or making an indirect comment to another character. For example, your "Paragon" can "crack" and feel terrible or shed a tear at the MC's despair as she gives up. A colleague of the Paragon (or smartest person in the room) sees her and says, sotto voce, "You're saving her life. Hang on to that." The Paragon wipes her eyes and responds, "I don't know what you're talking about." Colleague nods. The Hero, an opposite reaction. The MC is forced to leave, when he gets that information, he says "Aw. That's terrible." Then when unwatched, smirks and whispers, "Stupid bitch." You don't need much, but IMO **nothing** is not an option.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-06-10T21:41:27Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 4