bell notificationshomepageloginNewPostedit profile

Topic : Re: Is it uncompelling to continue the story with lower stakes? A big piece of criticism I've seen directed at the last season of Game of Thrones was the fact that they killed the Night - selfpublishingguru.com

10% popularity

My issue is that you seem to be suggesting that "everyone dies" is worse than "you only get to live if you agree with me", that doesn't necessarily follow, "better to die free than live as a slave" and all that. For this reason world conquering evil is potentially worse than world destroying evil, the stakes aren't automatically higher or lower but they are different.

But that doesn't actually answer your core question just the example you've given. There is a particular thing that people tend to forget about when writing "high stakes" adventure stories, the stakes for the individual protagonist(s) are almost always the same regardless of their goals or the pressures on them due to possible outcomes. That is to say that they can die, whether they fail or succeed in the process they aren't going to care what happens as a result. When more than their own life is on the line the personal stakes are higher even if the world doesn't hang in the balance. In this way the stakes can be shown to be the same for those involved or raised for them while being lowered for the world at large. As long as the characters and their personal motivations are compelling what hangs in the balance is window dressing.


Load Full (0)

Login to follow topic

More posts by @XinRu607

0 Comments

Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best

Back to top