How do you start a story in media res, but ensure that your audience is fully invested in that character? It’s a bit of a trick. My recent short story attempts that. A young woman is brought out of cryogenic stasis at the same time a serial killer is murdering someone right next to her. James Scott Bell says a character can be relatable just because they are thrust into danger, and indeed I am relying on that, attempting to use the power of description to immerse the reader in her plight and feel overwhelmed as she is. But I want to examine a case study of another story that begins in media res, with a very investible character. The 2001 film Gladiator. Here’s a rough timeline of the scene, just to impress how jam packed it is with action to start. I am starting the timer when it cuts to Maximus and the bird. 0:38 massive army gathering 2:25 headless horseman 2:36 German horde appears 3:52 Romans gear up for battle 5:33 Signal to begin battle 6:11 Devastation on the German horde 7:28 hand-to-hand combat 7:46 Fully immersed with Maximus So we’re talking a jam packed, suspense filled, in media res opening where within a minute we know there’s going to be a battle and within 5 it is delivered. Why do we care about Maximus. Well let’s look and what the film makers show us. Let’s look at his traits. Introspective - he studies a lone bird in the devastated landscape Respected - soldiers greet him, look up to him Humane - Brief connection with one soldier, showing solidarity Leader - Gives orders with ease, stirring speech to Calvary Philosophical - Response to “people should know when they’re conquered” Ritualistic - rubs dirt on hands Worthy - dog follows him Humorous - joke to Calvary These are all why we like Maximus and are invested in him, and care about him as he plunges into the battle. what other ways have you seen in media res openings effective at showing an investible character?
I think that all beginnings—in medias res or otherwise—rely on making a connection between main character and reader. How that is achieved... well, if there'd be a formula I'd sell it I personally like the approach of showing a character's inner conflict. His actions and his (expression, inner voice) don't mesh, i.e. (example pulled out of my hair) a person hates cold showers with a passion, but doesn't mind shivering for hours in sleety rain. Then you can have an external conflict, the battle in 'Gladiator', as well as making the reader wonder who this person is whose head they are thrust in. It won't be clear cut.
Thank you! That was bugging the hell out of me. I couldn't even read the post, I was just thinking "There's supposed to be an S!!&%#$!!" (Sorry, been celebrating a bit too much I think)
Fixed. We can't have that On topic, you want to share how you make your own characters relatable within the first few sentences/minutes?
Oh man, come on, I was drunk as a skunk! Is that what the tread is about? Ok, I'll see if I can come up with something (as if my characters are immediately relatable! ) Give me a bit.
For my money, one of the most memorable & immediately investable character introductions in cinema (at least during the 1990s) was Blade's in his debut film. From the first second he appears on screen the audience can't help but root for him. Why? Because he relieves our fears. Blood-soaked vampires terrify us, but they cower and scurry from him. He's a perfectly timed, perfectly introduced power fantasy.
About Gladiator, I think part of the reason Maximus is so relatable is because the movie was written with Stoicism in mind. In fact the Richard Harris character is Marcus Aurelius, the most famous Stoic of all. I saw a video recently relating the ways the Stoic philosophy is used all throughout the movie, and Maximus embodies it deeply. My username is a variation on Stoic, and I have deeply studied and practice it myself, it's amazing stuff. But I don't want to write a manifesto (I do, but I'll resist the temptation ). Stoicism makes for likable characters because a Stoic is resilient, unflappable under pressure, can think when others are losing their heads, and remains humble. Among many other admirable traits. I'll let this guy do the talking—he put a lot more time and effort into making the video than I can do right here and now: Well that was strange. I've never heard all this about Impulses. That part sounds totally un-Stoic to me, because impulses would include the vices as well as virtues, But aside from that, it all sounds quite sound. A big chunk of the beginning of the video explains why the character is likeable and works well for a story.
It means you are not trying to fight your impulses. If you have them you accept you have them and act accordingly. If you don't, you don't and you act accordingly. Their philosophy doesn't rely on austerity or deprivation. Stoics don't care to prove themselves to others, furthermore how others label them. The point is to go with the flow in a general sense. The high level of stoicism is not to have impulses, because you simply don't have them, but not because you fight against them. I believe that it's somewhat relevant to Buddhism. Now, to the OP! I liked how Harry Potter started. - Two mysterious figures appear out of thin air that have magical powers. - These figures are distraught about something that is related to the protagonist. - The protagonist so far is oblivious and vulnerable. - We meet the protagonist and he is the underdog. - The protagonist is weird because weird occurrences happen around him. - Tables turn and the protagonist turns out to be a very important figure for the magical world, but still uncertain why. - At last, a very strong figure steps in and takes the weak protagonist by the hand and sets things straight for him. In all actuality, he saves him from a horrible, boring, meaningless life. Long story short, the protagonist is introduced as a third world individual that had a complete switch of fortune. In this new world he is a hero, rich and famous. It intrigues you to see how he will react to all this. You read about him eating sweets or drinking butterbeer and whatnot and you kinda feel glad he's enjoying himself for a change, because he had it rough in the muggle world. Moreover, it contains a childishness in a good sense, like being able to enjoy Christmas, value your friends and get into adventures with their backing, explore, etc, having the abundance that every child dreamed of having as they were growing up and I believe that this is the key point of success in this first novel. Joan Rolling gave the reader what he/ she always dreamed of having as a child. She filled all the missing pieces and restored justice for the reader.
This will probably sound pretty nerdy but I feel like Doom 2016 had one of the greatest introductions I've seen in a game. The slayer's principles were demonstrated so quickly. I wish I could watch it for the first time again... If you look at the youtube comments you'll see why I find it relevant.
Could you summarise them? I'm asking because not everyone will click the link, and I for one don't know Doom as you probably do
Sure. He wakes up from stasis in a Mars base to find it overrun by demons through a scientific endeavour gone wrong, as is the usual with Doom's beautiful lack of a storyline. The director of the whole thing attempts to reason with him. The slayer looks down at a dead body whilst it's being suggested that the experiment was for the betterment of mankind and punches the intercom, dismissing the justification/attempted negotiation and ending the communication. It just does so much in 40 seconds.... I'll quote some of the YT comments. Hell, there's even an analysis of it too.
I think the Doom example works for a couple of reasons. One, is it has a instantly hateable bad guy (even if a complete trope), which is one way to help us connect with the character, giving us a common foe to unite against. That helps bring the connection. But even more than that, it's extremely primal, animalistic, with just a touch of humanity, that is fearsome and admirable at the same time. Good example!
Considering it within the bounds of gaming, Doom is pretty self-aware in my opinion and works in outright dismissal to the usual cliches. In the sense of this topic and comparing it to all other art forms I do agree though.
The disembodied voices, the megalomania, the monsters, the justifications... all seems very much like Bioshock. I'm not a huge gamer, and it wouldn't surprise me if Bioshock borrowed those elements from somewhere else.
Doom was the original FPS. Other FPS games were initially called doom clones, but I won't derail this any further.
No harm in getting a bit off topic, imo! so is it a case of “I like Shakespeare, but there’s so many cliches”?
Your analysis is pretty and all. It just has one problem. Gladiator does not start in Mideus Res. How do I know? Look what the central plot of the movie is and involves and what the part you cited is. The scene you're citing is about the conquest of the Germanic tribes. The rest of the movie has zero to do with the conquest Germanic tribes. What you just described is an exposition. It's a very high energy and exciting one, but it's one none the less. You can actually cut that entire battle out of the movie, and the movie would still make sense. Sure, there are some events that happened outside the main plot, like him going to war and leaving his family and becoming a general. But those points are all independent of the main conflict. That's how absolutely not in Mideus Res that movie is. The plot actually begins when the emperor visits. That is not in Mideus Res. A better example would be Sherlock Holmes being visited by someone who then tells him about a murder. That's an example because crucial plot points have already happened before the story begins. Mainly, the actual murder. The trick to starting a story in Medius Res is that the story has to start at the beginning of... something. In the case of Sherlock Holmes, the story begins when Holmes becomes involved with the case. A lot of comic books start in medius res and they start when the action becomes the most intense. For example, you might see the superhero locked in mortal combat against his trusted sidekick. This is done to give a "WTF" moment to the reader, so he's immediately turning pages to find out what in the world could have put them at odds. That example is beginning the story when it the super hero and his sidekick crossed a point of no return. Whatever was getting between them had now caused them to lash out in violence. Again, it's the beginning of something.
@Kallisto you had me nodding along until your last paragraph. I agree with you, not truly in medias res.
I think in a way since in Doom 2016 (and the rest of the series for the most part, exception being 3) Doom Guy is a blank slate that doesn't talk. Unless ripping and tearing is some kind of physical language that we have yet to decipher. So, lack of speech really only leaves us to fill in the blanks that he doesn't. Works great narratively, and ok at best visually/audioly. It's more about what's on the inside, than what's on the outside of a character that makes them stand out. Even so, there will be readers that will not really care for your characters, no matter how charismatic and charming you make them (Or not in the case of rage murder boner Doom Slayer), cause not everyone is going to be interested in them. It happens, so spend time fleshing out your character(s) in your notes as you write them on the page to get a better feel for them.
No, it didn't. BioShock was the spiritual successor of System Shock, not Doom 3. You could argue that System Shock could have drawn influence from the original Doom, but definitely not Doom 3, as System Shock predates it by about a decade. Regardless, BioShock was more inspired by many classic dystopian novels at the time and the general aesthetic could have derived from the classic film Metropolis but that's hard to prove as so many things draw inspiration from Metropolis (including C3PO and even Batman: Mask of the Phantasm), that its look has become a cliche. Overall, Doom 3 really isn't all that ground breaking. It's a good game, don't get me wrong. It's visuals were impressive at the time, but it didn't really go on to inspire too many other games.
How to balance starting too soon (too much backstory) and starting too late (too little backstory) is at the core of the delicate art of story telling. You have to satisfy those readers who need a chapter warm up and those who are "If the first sentence doesn't grip me, I'm gone!" I'd say the start is where you have to pay very close attention to pacing each paragraph, even each sentence. You start with action (peril, conflict, motion etc) but slip in enough glimpses of the world and the backstory so both classes of readers are saying "Ok, I can work with this writer." Some thoughts 1. Character is of a very relatable type. Heroic warrior, caring parent, wise mentor. Something readers can put into a box and say, yeap, I like stories where this person is the MC. 2. The conflict is relatable. Underdog trying to make it against the corrupt goons, poor guy fighting against rich guys etc. This way your readers will have some backstory they fill in based on what they have already read in other stories (or based on our almost innate understanding of protostories). Then as you fill in details they update their view or strengthen it. At the same time, something has to be mysterious - the setting, the opponent, something, so the reader is going, "Ah, I wonder what is the twist here?"
