讲故事与叙事2016davidbrin.com
我们最爱的叙事套路：一个满是白痴的世界
Our Favorite Narrative Cliche: A World Filled with Idiots (2013)
导读
这篇文章讨论一种常见叙事套路：把故事世界写成“充满白痴”，用人物或机构的愚蠢来制造冲突和推进情节。对写作者来说，它值得读，因为这会逼我们检查：角色的失误是否有可信动机，还是作者在偷懒降智。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
不要靠让角色集体犯蠢来推进情节；关键转折应来自可信的性格、信息差或利益冲突。
- 02
让对立阵营都做出既聪明又愚蠢的行动，比简单划分聪明人和笨蛋更能制造张力。
- 03
写好“聪明角色”需要更多功课：给他合理的判断、专业能力和受限的信息，而不是只贴标签。
- 04
善用共情与“内群体/外群体”心理，让读者理解甚至站到看似反派的一方，但别把复杂世界简化成一群白痴。
- 05
警惕把反派或愚蠢简单等同于“组织/权威”；检查你的设定是否只是刻板印象。
HN 评论精选
多阵营各有高光与失误，能制造持续张力和悬念。
作者谈到的点，也解释了《权力的游戏》为什么受欢迎：每个阵营都会做出极蠢和极聪明的行动，没有哪个主角明显是好人或注定会赢，这让人一直紧张，也更有娱乐性。
lettergram查看英文原文
I think what the author touches on, is the same reason Game of Thrones is so popular. In game of thrones every faction does exceedingly stupid and brilliant actions. There are no protagonists (besides maybe the mother of dragons - who burns people alive), who are ever clearly going to be good people or even win. It makes you always sit on the edge of your seat and makes the whole story much more entertaining
“降智”常是作者偷懒，写好聪明角色成本很高。
我想把因果关系反过来：小说里的人和系统显得愚蠢，是因为写作者大多懒惰，而不是真蠢；写一个聪明角色很费功夫，多数作者不愿下这个功夫。盖伊·加夫里尔·凯是我喜欢的少数作者之一，因为他的角色有能力。
bsder查看英文原文
I'd like to reverse the cause-effect relationship here to posit: People and systems are depicted in fiction as stupid because writers, by and large, are stupid people. In reality, the problem isn't that writers are stupid but that writers are lazy--unfortunately the result is effectively the same. Writing a smart character takes a great deal of work. Most authors simply will not put in that work. Guy Gavriel Kay is one of the few authors I like simply because his characters are competent.
用共情让读者站队，可以揭示“谁才是白痴”，但别把复杂世界简化成刻板分组。
按约瑟夫·坎贝尔的说法，人会认同内群体、排斥外群体；好故事要让读者把主角或反派主角当成朋友般情感投入。以《复仇的傻瓜》为例，影片让观众认同书呆子群体，包括 Lamar，从而让不接受同性恋的大群体显得像“白痴”，这正说明世界充满白痴。评论还反驳“反派与组织关联”的说法，举《绿野仙踪》说明组织化反派与无辜群体可以并存。
zappo2938查看英文原文
To Joseph Campbell people identify with an in group and an out group. Have you ever empathized and cheered for a villain? Where in the psychology does that come from? A good story requires identifying with the protagonist or villain protagonist as a friend or someone we become emotionally wrapped in. Some stories we identify with the out group that we aren't in. First two movies that come to mind are the early Stars Wars and really to make this point is Revenge of the Nerds. The story of Revenge of the Nerds was really needed at the time. Keep in mind at the time that movie was released gays were still hated, much more than today and yes there seems to be people in today's government who vocally hate gays. The movie causes us to identify with the nerds, to see how we might fit in as an individual, and to see how Lamar with his effeminate javelin throw is a member of our in group, our team. Any larger community that doesn't accept gays are a bunch of idiots and there is a time and still large communities in the United States that don't. In that case the world is filled with idiots. > The "we're in this together" spirit of films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s later gave way to a reflex shared by left and right, that villainy is associated with organization. That's not true. First movie that comes into my mind is the Wizard of Oz from 1939. The witch with her obedient monkeys and the wizard are the antagonists. The Munchkins were not idiots or enemies in the film. They were hard working people who wanted to get through the day and take care of the their families (maybe not that exactly). They needed someone who was brave, smart, and compassionate, to help them face a problem. That is what the hero does. "Society never works". This completely misrepresents what Joseph Campbell was explaining about these stories. He would say most people need to conform because they need at the top of Maslow's pyramid to belong but society only works if someone with a new and different idea to solve a problem for that era and time stands alone against the grain of all the people who submit to the status quo because their need to belong. It's not that society are idiots. It's that most people need to conform. Also, society won't work if people didn't conform. Society doesn't need everybody to be a hero but only a few.
同类还值得读
Pixar in a Box：可汗学院的皮克斯讲故事课
Pixar in a Box – Khan Academy
这篇是 Khan Academy 与 Pixar 合作的“Pixar in a Box”项目介绍，用计算机图形和动画制作来讲解数学概念。
讲故事与叙事2015 · 753 分 · 65 评4 条写作要点编辑精选皮克斯的讲故事法则
Pixar's Rules of Storytelling (2013)
这是皮克斯动画工作室流传甚广的 22 条讲故事法则清单，从“从前有个___，每天___，有一天___”的骨架，到如何重写自己讨厌的作品。
讲故事与叙事2018 · 513 分 · 74 评4 条写作要点编辑精选皮克斯通过可汗学院提供免费在线讲故事课程
Pixar offers free online lessons in storytelling via Khan Academy
这篇报道介绍皮克斯与可汗学院合作的免费在线课程《讲故事的艺术》，把皮克斯内部的故事创作方法公开给普通学习者。
讲故事与叙事2017 · 503 分 · 93 评4 条写作要点编辑精选用皮克斯的故事公式说服投资人
Use Pixar's story formula to win over investors
这篇文章借用皮克斯的故事公式（以《海底总动员》为例）来示范如何给投资人讲创业路演故事：先讲目标、再讲障碍、最后讲改变。
讲故事与叙事2021 · 439 分 · 188 评4 条写作要点编辑精选贝索斯如何把叙事变成亚马逊的竞争优势
Jeff Bezos Turned Narrative into Amazon's Competitive Advantage
这篇讲杰夫·贝索斯如何把“六页叙事备忘录”变成亚马逊的管理与竞争优势：用可独立阅读的叙述性文档替代口头汇报和 PowerPoint。
讲故事与叙事2019 · 435 分 · 181 评4 条写作要点编辑精选