So, one of my professors has asked me to lead a workshop over the subject of writing suspense, both in prose and on the screen. It is a two day event, with day one covering prose, and day two screenwriting. He has invited me to do so, because, according to him, I write suspense in a very unconventional way, which I have always been aware of, but I’ve never thought it was noteworthy. He feels differently. As such, I figured I could get some practice in formulating my thoughts on the subject, by leading a discussion of suspense here. I have about a month till the workshop, so this will allow me to refine my idea of what suspense should be, while expanding it at the same time. Here I am not really going to break down into the workshop. Instead I am essentially going to post my thesis on the issue. What follows is a roughdraft of how I’m going to open the workshop. Keep in mind that I was literally asked to do this like two hours ago, and I through his draft together in like a half hour. So it is not perfect. Yet.
–---
When you are taking any kind of writing class ever, the topic of suspense comes up, and one of the things you always hear about is Hitchcock and his bomb. For those who are unfamiliar, Hitchcock declared that there is a difference between “suspense” and “surprise,” and the easy way to illustrate this is with an anecdote. I’ll let Hitchcock take it from here.
We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"
This has long been the motto of writing for suspense, and for good reason. It really is much more effective for that scene. But, that is the catch, for me. While it builds the suspense masterfully for that scene, what does it do for your narrative on the whole? I would be inclined to say that, unless this is the climax of your story, it weakens it. Suspense within a scene is fantastic and necessary, but tight suspense all throughout the narrative is difficult to achieve, and that is because of higher focus on suspense within a scene.
Before I continue, I ask that you think about your latest experience with horror, be it book, movie, or game. Would you say that, by the end, it was as suspenseful as it was in the beginning? Most of the time, no. By the end of the experience, you have already seen the creator’s hand, and know what to expect. The jump scares become predictable. The monster loses its terror. Movies like Halloween have a great first half, because that suspense is still there, but, by the end, there is no more suspense. You know Jaime Lee-Curtis is going to triumph, because she has to. You know where Michael Meyers is, because now, he is the bomb. Is there suspense to be found as he chases her throughout the house? Sure. But is it as effective as when he is stalking her throughout town earlier that day? Or when he surprises the friend in her car? No.
When you show the audience the bomb, you are revealing your hand, and you are putting the audience in a superior position, which lessens the control you have over them, and the impact you can deliver. (I have a whole theory on audience superiority which I will share later.) In the context of one scene, surprise might be weaker than suspense, that is not the case for an overall narrative. Smartly using surprise near the beginning of your story is the best way to create suspense. Once the audience understands that anything can happen at any time, they create the suspense for you. They will be on edge for the entire story, just so long as you keep methodically pushing down on the gas pedal.
However, this does not mean that everything should be a surprise. No, that would be bad writing, and doing so will undo the suspense, as the audience will just begin to expect the unexpected. No matter what the medium, the audience likes being one step ahead of the story, it makes them feel safe, and it helps lessen the tension built up by the suspense. Use that to their advantage. Let them come to expect something, but then do something different. Surprise them in the beginning to get them on edge, and then show them the bomb later on, but don’t have it explode. Yet.
That is another way that I differ in my view on suspense than most others. Horror movies especially like to throw in jump scares to relieve the audience of their tension. To put them at ease. Generally right before throwing another jump scare at them. It is a common, aggravating practice. What is the point of building suspense, ratcheting up the tension in my audience, if I am just going to give them a breather? I want them to be uncomfortable. I want them to squirm as the story continues. That is something classic horror, like “The Exorcist” excels at. The tension builds all the way through—there is an omnipresent sense of unease that permeates throughout the film and the novel. William Peter Blatty does not let the audience get to higher ground; he forces them to wade through it all. He starts with a surprise: the death of Dennings, and then he shows you the bomb (possessed Regan) very, very early, but it does not detonate until the end, and that’s why it is considered the scariest film of all time by many people. If you were to ask one of those people why it scares them so much, they would not be able to articulate a reason, but it lies in that never ending unease. Both Blatty’s novel and screenplay are master classes in and of themselves, that I could never dream to touch on, and any one who is interested in horror should study them religiously.
Horror master Stephen King is always rather successful in this regard. A Novel “IT” is a fantastic example of extended suspense. King opens with the shocking death of Georgie and then never takes his foot off the gas pedal. The tension just builds and builds and builds throughout the novel until at last our heroes, those who have survived anyway, come out victorious. The film is a master class in what not to do. It ignores everything King does right for standard horror movie clichés. King and his son Joe Hill, are the only remaining old guard of what true horror is.
Even more today than even a couple decades ago, people go to see horror films for a fun time. Sure, some people do honestly get scared by today’s crop, but for the majority, it’s just a laugh. Even the best horror movie of the last few year, “The Cabin in the Woods,” lacks any true terror. It’s more of a fun deconstruction of horror. The last truly great horror film was 2005’s “The Descent,” and it’s another film that did not adhere to Hitchcock’s bomb example. At least, not in a standard way. The majority of horror films and even novels today are a roller coaster ride with a lot of sections where you’re just rolling along. There is no overarching sense of unease anymore. When people choose to experience horror, they should not leave cheery. They should be emotionally drained and broken. They should never want to see the movie again. But they will anyway.
Suspense is not a tool to be taken lightly. If you are going to use it, you must commit. You must not worry about the audience growing too uncomfortable. If that thought even crosses your mind, you should not be writing in the genre. If you want to only develop one scene with a lot of suspense, do as Hitchcock did. It’s a great method, and the majority of genres it is all you need. But if you’re writing horror or thriller, or even a mystery, you have to go beyond.
This is not a new concept, many before have had the same idea and used it. However, it is not one that I have ever seen taught. And that’s why I was asked here today. By the end of the day, after we get through all the exercises and awkward sharing, all of you will hopefully have grown in the way you use suspense.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So yeah, that’s the gist of my theory.
To really break it down:
Surprise over suspense early, use the bomb in an unexpected way, never give the audience a break.
Thoughts my lovelies?