I just saw a collection of tweets/posts expressing why it’s important to consider the function of a space (and from a variety of perspectives).
Form over function – Imgur album
Month: February 2022
Form vs. Function
There is a modernist design principle, originally about architecture, that “form follows function”: in other words, the intended use of a building/garment/piece of furniture/etc. will determine its structure and design. Whether you agree with this maxim or not, it is worth considering both aspects when either designing or critiquing.
I was reminded of this after recently listening to several podcasts discussing “ring composition” in the Harry Potter novels. In brief, this sort of structure1 includes connections/parallels/echoes between scenes/characters/chapters/etc. over the course of a work, e.g. in the diagram below.
The structure can be applied at many levels, from an overview like the above, to looking at repeated pieces of dialogue within a book. While I find John Granger (the literary researcher who first analysed this structure within the Harry Potter series) to be over-zealous in his the-author-can-do-no-wrong fanboying, I can’t argue with the sheer weight of parallels and echoes that crop up when one starts looking.
Something about ring composition resonates with the reader, making a story feel more satisfying and “complete”, but I worry that an author can over-do it.
Some time ago I wrote about people having different takes on a character, and how over time these takes can diverge. Besides the issue I mentioned there (filling-in-the-blanks of unspecified traits/backstory), a long series has an additional challenge: at some point (hopefully), the overarching plot will come to a conclusion. Assuming the writer(s) approach isn’t just “try to get renewed for another series/book/film”, they should have some idea of what that conclusion is. If they’re heavily focused on plot and/or structure—weaving a complicated ring composition, for example—then they’ll have a very detailed idea of the conclusion.
But what if the characters don’t cooperate?
One way to categorise writers is whether they are plot-focused or character-focused. Neither is right or wrong; to complete a story requires focusing on both (eventually). It’s common for writers to be surprised at how their characters develop, and this can be an issue when characters need to behave in a particular way in order to achieve the required plot/theme/structure. A character-focused writer will probably explore what their characters do, then figure out how to make the rest work around that. A plot (or structure) focused writer will nudge2 their characters in the “right” direction.
A common (though by no means universal) criticism I’ve seen of the later Harry Potter books is of out-of-character behaviour. While, as I’ve said, everyone will have a slightly different take on what is in-character, I suspect that, with a 7-book series released over a 10-year period, this was probably inevitable. I do wonder, though, if response would have been more favourable if the author hadn’t been quite so pedantic about structure.
Thoughts?
1 Ring Composition (AKA Chiastic structure) is rather similar to the more well-known Hero’s Journey (which could be considered a specific type of ring); both were identified by looking at common structure across a wide range of stories, from ancient myths to modern films.
2 What counts as a nudge, and what counts as hammering-a-square-peg-into-a-round-hole I leave as an exercise to the reader.
Thought Attempts 