6.0 KiB
cryptotheism • Oct 16, 2023
[!question] Anonymous asked: i love your takeaway from the JJ Abrams Mystery Box was "it's because what's in the mystery box is developed/good/exists. you wouldn't get it."
It only works if you set up several conflicting theories as to what is in the mystery box that are all equally plausible. The audience has to feasibly be able to reach the "correct" answer, but they can never be sure. That's intrigue! Otherwise, all you're doing is telling the audience that a really deep and well written story is happening just off screen I promise.
One of the writers of LOST came to speak at my school once. He told the crowd "I could totally tell you guys what the island is but I'm not gonna" And the crowd went nuts. That shit made me so mad. It has been a decade since that show went off the air. If you had an actually narratively satisfying answer for that question, you would have said it by now. Or better, you would have put it in the damn show.
The "Jopperbeasts aren't real, they're just a story" setup doesn't work if the episode always ends with the characters killing a real Jopperbeast."
Theres that story J.J. tells, about how he bought a home magic kit with a mystery box, and he loved the feeling of speculating on what might be in the box.
I agree! I think mystery can be an excellent narrative force! I love engaging with a world through speculation. But the thing about an at-home-magic kit is its a real thing that exists within the context of the real world. There's only a set amount of objects that can realistically be in there. You're not going to get a live cat, or an egg sandwich, or the country of Poland in that thing. The speculation has bounds. You can realistically guess the "correct answer."
Mystery boxes are done well when the box is opened, and you go "of course! I never would have guessed! But the pieces were all there in front of me!"
gallusrostromegalus • Oct 19, 2023
When I'm writing there's a related rule of thumb I use that I call "The Agatha Christie Principle". The rule is simple:
Anything I rely on later in the plot must be on the page somewhere before I use it. The earlier it appears in the story, the better.
IDK enough about Ms. Christie herself to know if she ever talked about it, but part of the reason she was so insanely popular as an author is that she played fair with readers. The details that allow Poirot and Miss Marple are shown to the reader when they are shown to the detectives, if not even earlier, so the reader has an edge on them! By the time we get to the famous Accusing Parlor scene, the reader has all the details that the detective will use to solve the mystery.
In that sense, the mystery in the box is not the mystery, the mystery is the connections between the evidence the detective has made.
And this relates to the Mystery Box in that the evidence itself is like the outside dimensions of the box. It gives you hints as to the shape and size of the thing inside, and raises the stakes of the guessing game. In fact, the more evidence you can provide and the more you can tell the reader about the contents of the box before the reveal, the better, because it gives them that exciting tip-of-the-tongue-I-KNOW-I-know-this! Feeling. Like how impact force is more powerful when concentrated to a small point, the emotional impact of the reveal hits so much harder when the reveal itself is only a TINY detail.
So as a writer, there's three steps to executing the mystery box well.
1. Know DAMN WELL what the actual reveal is FIRST.
IIRC, part of the reason that LOST fell apart the way it did was that nobody writing the show actually had a solid, coherent explanation of that the hell was actually going on. So they contradicted themselves every other episode and dropped plot lines they hoped the watchers would just forget, and they lost the tension of the guessing game.
Then you write the story backwards from the reveal by adding your obscuring factors like red herrings and bad witness accounts and the linear nature of time etc, to it. That way, when the reader reads the story forwards, they get to see the obfuscation come off in what looks like a very natural way, and you don't contradict yourself.
So step one is to decide on what is actually in the box, and what the box itself looks like.
Step 2: Abandon the fear of being known and not being the smartest guy in the room, and accept the love of being known. Publish, and do not retroactively edit. That's the devil talking.
This is where I think JJ fails. It's hard and frightening actually, to be a creative person and meet someone who can see right through the shiny exterior of your work and makes comments on the mechanics within, sometimes pointing out parts you didn't know you put in there. You feel extremely seen.
"Fuckor" I think the kids call it.
But listen to me.
That person who sees behind the curtain and stands there talking about the mechanisms of the Oz machine? That person loves your Oz Machine. They would not be studying it this hard if they didn't. In a parasocial sort of way, that person loves you, and the discussion of how you foreshadowed that bit and made that literary reference is a love letter to you.
Yes, this person is probably smarter than you, but what a privilege, to be adored by such a divine and enlightened being.
It's okay if the readers guess the reveal. That means you did the explanation right and they're not disappointed at how 'simple' the mystery is- they're delighted to be in on the joke with you. It's okay if you follow a trope- there's a reason it's a popular trope in the first place. We like it. We like singing and playing along with you, author.
I may have gotten off topic but you get my point. Your story should contain its own spoilers, because the audience is reading the story for those spoilers.