Finally writing the courtroom scenes, which my entire story has been leading up to! I've got the lead prosecutor heading into the courthouse, being questioned by media figures, and she heads inside and... the next thing in my mind is going in medias res and simply beginning the next scene with trial dialogue (at this point they're examining witnesses, by the way). But that would require either some exposition (breaking the "show, don't tell" rule of thumb) or using an ugly line break to begin a new scene. I don't really wanna do that, so how can I make her arrival into the court more realistic? Basically I'm asking, what might the filler stuff consist of, which comes in between her entry to the building and the examination of witnesses? Should I describe, for instance, the arrival of the defense team and the judge and such? And what might be said from the judge to begin today's proceedings?
I suspect this would vary between jurisdictions, so you might want to specify which judicial system and date you're considering. If it's the modern day, then I would suggest attending a court session or two.
There's no reason to show all kinds of boring stuff happening just because that's how it happens in real life. As somebody said once, a story is life with the boring parts cut out. If you're going to force readers to sit through the dull part of a court case, you'd better have a damn good dramatic reason for it. Otherwise skip it. This makes no sense. You don't show everything, you move fluidly back and forth between showing and telling. Each serves its purpose, and you don't want to lock readers into just one. Also, even if you were going to show the trial (a show trial? ), that doesn't mean you need to show every excruciating moment of it. Have some mercy on the poor readers! Nothing wrong with using a scene break. They're one of your tools as a writer, and you want to use them when they're appropriate. But you probably wouldn't need one. Unless you were planning to do a moment-by-moment breakdown of everything that happens from the moment someone wakes up to when they're seated in court and the trial begins.
Yeah... you're right, I know. My problem is more that I can't figure out how to transition. Even with switching to telling just for a paragraph or so, the problem is more that I don't know what to tell. The chapter begins, there's the prosecutor, she's shouldering her way through a crowd, she gets recognized and ambushed by global media who ask tons of questions, she answers a few, then turns to the doors and goes inside. In my mind, the next thing is a key prosecutorial witness being called to the stand to be examined by the prosecutor, then cross-examined by the defense. I don't imagine she just goes into the doors and launches into a courtroom monologue, so what do I need to know in order to properly transition this?
For something like that your best bet might be to write it up as best you can and then post it in the workshop for critique. None of us know why it's important to see the prosecutor doing what you just described before the trial, why that needs to be included. But the standard way to cut through the boring stuff with telling is something like— She shouldered her way through the crowd, getting recognized and ambushed by global media who asked tons of questions. She answered a few, then pushed through the big double doors into the courtroom. When the time for her deposition arrived, she stepped up to the little wooden box thing and (blah blah blah) That's meant to be just a normal paragraph break, not a double break, and no need for a * * * or anything similar. A paragraph break plus a 'When (whatever) happened...' is enough. In fact sometimes you can get away without even a paragraph break. Words like when are extremely valuable. And I know nothing about courtroom etiquette and protocol, or terminolgy, so I just had fun with it. Replace with proper wordage.
I asked my mom, who is a fan of courtroom dramas, if she could offer any details. Between your general writing advice and her details, I came up with this: Today would be the beginning of the end for the trial; Kimberly would call her key witnesses to the stand to be examined. She walked into the courtroom and set her binders and folders down upon the prosecutor’s table. As she seated herself, the defense team – led by famous New York lawyer Robert Winland – entered. Behind them, the former president William Martin entered, his face rough and unshaven, his iconic suits having long since been traded for a grey jumpsuit with the letters “ICC” printed across the back. “All rise,” said the bailiff as the judge, the Honorable Russell Simmons, entered and took his seat at the bench. “Please be seated,” Simmons ordered. The bailiff read off the case introduction and details. The judge then announced the start of the examination phase of the trial. The jury waited with anticipation. Kimberly tapped a finger on the table impatiently, eager to begin her examination. “The prosecution calls to the stand Mister Craig Lewis,” stated Judge Simmons. Craig Lewis, the former Secretary of Defense – himself facing charges for his own crimes – walked to the stand, wearing a grey jumpsuit much like Martin’s, and was seated. Kimberly Jensen rose from her seat, straightened her suit, and confidently approached the stand. And then I get into the questions and such, the juicy stuff!
That reads like a lot of boring stuff to me, and it's hard to see how it's important enough to take up valuable page space. Unless you're writing specifically for people who love highly detailed courtroom scenes in great detail. I would remove everything before: And I would seriously question why the trial needs to be shown or told at all. Maybe just say what the results of it are? Or does important dramatic information come across in it that can't be expressed in a less boring way?
The trial is literally what my story is about, though? It's all been leading up to this. It's a war crimes trial which comes after ~84K words of dramatic first-hand written testimonies from witnesses describing a plethora of horrible pain and suffering. The book so far is composed of these written testimonies, and essentially thus far represents the discovery and deposition phase. A more conventional writing style is used for the final three chapters. Now we get the damning evidence proving that the defendant is responsible for all that pain and suffering. This is where the examinations reveal juicy details diving further into the events we read about; new evidence, new details, new context provided that changes perceptions, and this leads to an outcome which has a direct impact on the aforementioned war. The story ends with the nation moving on as best as they can in the aftermath.
These transcripts may help. https://www.icc-cpi.int/case-transcripts But if I may add - looking at your questions on the forum, I get the distinct impression you are focussing on details that won't interest the reader.
I should give the disclaimer that I have a problem with courtroom dramas and military stories if they remain formalistic throughout (or even for much of the time). It's why I can't stand the Dune remake. I kept thinking "Ok, I get it, we need to see them in parade-ground mode, in their uniforms, standing at attention all the time, and speaking formally, but that's going to stop, and then we get to see them as actual people right?" Nope! It just went on and on. So my advice is probably completely off the mark. I still think you need to stick to important things, whatever kind of scene it is. A story is not a blow-by-blow account of everything people do from the moment they wake up till they go to bed that night. I can't imagine how shuffling binders is important to anything.
80% of the questions I ask are merely for my own sake so I know things and can figure out the internal logic behind the story - it's not actually stuff worked directly into the story. For instance, I might need to know where a certain base is in relation to a target to make sure it's actually possible, but that doesn't mean I put every last detail into the writing. It's just that my writing is very reality-based, I don't have much room for making things up; people who know more than me could otherwise rip the plot apart thread by thread if I don't get the background stuff right. That said, thank you for the link - it should prove helpful, if I can find any documents in English, haha!
Yeah, you, uh... are not describing my story at all. I get where you're coming from, it just doesn't seem related to me. My story is very humanistic, empathetic, emotional, and it does not include "everything from wake up to bedtime".
American courts are staggeringly slow (I assume most courts are but I've only seen a few Americans). Unless you're writing a true Court procedural for true Legal buffs, this is one of the few times where I would ENCOURAGE NOT doing a lot of real research and just watch a few episodes of a tv drama Law and Order is the standard, but I would say "the Practice" (one of my favorite shows) is better. But even the most 'realistic' fictional court shows cuts out about 99% of the real life boring court procedures because.... wait for it..... IT'S BORING!!!!!!!! Like mind numbingly, want to slit your own throat, please god let's cut to the chase, level boring. All courts are different depending on the State, Jurisdiction and even the Judge. But based on the information shared about TC'S WIP I'm guessing it is not about the day in the life of a real life court room. If you just want to open on court here is a simple sample: Have the character(s) enter and take their seats. Have the judge enter and then the bailiff says "All rise, Civil (or Criminal) Court now in session, the honorable Judge John Smith presiding" Judge could ask both sides if they're ready, and then plaintiff/prosecuting can begin by calling their first witness. I mean there is a A LOT you can add to that opening but that's kind of the barebones standard.
This is basically what I did above, yeah. I didn't even do the whole bailiff introductory speech thing, I truncated that. I think what I wrote above is nice and doesn't contain too much detail; it establishes the scene and characters.
I suggest you read the transcripts of the Nuremberg trials as well, here: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp They ARE fascinating to read - where reality is more gripping than fiction. It may give you some ideas.
Now this is definitely more on-the-nose to my story and could actually help give me ideas for what the defense might say, thanks a lot! Definitely would spice things up to have good arguments back and forth.
