When you embark on a defined character or a story, you constantly have to allow for its alternative.
What do I mean by that?
-Famously, a sci-fi writer will always leave the door open for an alternative explanation (the worst one being "-and then he woke up.").
-A joke is based on ambiguous premises that can lead to two intepretations, with the punch-line being the unexpected one.
-Emotional scenes -could be humorous, tragic or sentimental ones- work as releases from narration of a more understated, banal, factual nature.
-A "one-dimentional" character will need a foil to stand in (usually more rational) contrast and underline his main characteristic: Sancho Panza and Don Quijote, Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes, etc.
Check "The Great Gatsby", Palahniuk's doppelgangers, Frasier's dad, "Twin Peaks"'s sheriff, "Monk"'s (supercutie :-)) Nathalie and "Monk"'s cops duo (yes, they actually resort to that trick twice!), Superman and Lois Lane, Mulder and Scully, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Hulk and Bruce Banner, Dracula and Van Helsing, "The Magus", "Bad Day At Black Rock", "Great Expectations", "Heart Of Darkness", "Yes Prime Minister", Wooster and Jeeves, Peggy at the start of "Mad Men", Dexter's voice-over monologues, Dirty Harry and all the cops who "don't play by the rules" etc.
Usual gimmick here: the new-character-in-town or child/innocent figure to whom everything has to be explained/presented by a figure of authority/knowledge -cf. "Due South", "Northern Exposure", "The Road", "Lord Of The Rings", "Star Wars", etc.
On a slight aside, just as Homer Simpson works best in conjunction with Lisa, it is often claimed that rock bands excel due to the artistic/personal tension between the two main creative forces at their core: Pink Floyd, the Beatles, Husker Du, Bauhaus, Japan, the Rolling Stones, the Who, Siouxsie, the Police, the Ramones, Fleetwood Mac etc. The fact that, once they split up, the resulting spin-off bands or solo acts hardly ever match their previous output has to be significant.
...like every good system, it's about dynamics.
Remember that a scenario is primarily -rather than a would-be "good story"- a homogenous system where all elements have to work in conjunction with each other.
Now we get to another dimension when this necessary balancing act is jettisoned and we enter the realm of unnerving, hallucinatory "trips" such as the ones usually served by Cormac McCarthy ("Blood Meridian") or Bret Easton Ellis ("Glamorama")* where it could be argued that the whole world has gone mad. There is no sane, stabilising reference anymore and this may make for a pretty uncomfortable experience to some readers -"Finnegan's Wake", anyone? Burroughs, probably.
-"Alice In Wonderland" doesn't qualify for that status since the protagonist travels from and back to the real, sane world and constantly expresses bewilderment at what she experiences.
-On the other end, Kubrick gets there with "2001" by abolishing all known references, explanations and even dialogue for the final, 20+ minute, part of the movie: viz the fantastical adventure undertaken by his astronaut through dimensions.
*or Irvine Welsh ("Trainspotting") to some extent ...but not quite (if I remember correctly, there is one -originally- healthy character whose descent into drugs actually underpins the drama). With Welsh, the overloading effect is rather achieved by his use of language: the Scottish spelling and expressions that tend to throw the (non-Scottish) reader. ...A case for "A Clockwork Orange" as well, then.
...I obviously don't need to dwell on my interest in these tricks, heh heh.
Any comment: loig7san "at" gmail "dot" com
