Evoking a Genuine Emotional Response from the Reader

[Caveat Lector]

Generally speaking, I think most of us can agree that if what we're writing manages to invoke an emotional response from our readers, then it means we must be doing something right. However, it's also important to know the difference between genuinely creating a strong story that invokes a wide variety of emotions in the reader versus going for cheap, forced manipulation to jerk tears at the cost of the story's integrity. How do you achieve the former and avoid the latter?

I would say that a good story makes you care about the characters by developing them as characters. A tragic back story or event needs to have a purpose for being there and not just be "sad" for the sake of being "sad". Having a character randomly die for no real reason integral to the story doesn't make me cry--it just makes me angry. Sometimes it makes me weepy, but then I later realize "yeah, I was just played".

I would also suggest, don't focus on making the reader cry. Just focus on writing the scene and let it play out. Let the characters' emotions carry you. Then go back and decide how much is necessary, and how much is too much. Sometimes, less is more.

What would some of your suggestions be? What do you think works in invoking a genuine emotional response from a reader and what doesn't? When was the last time you read or watched something that really moved you, and when did you last read or watch something that you could tell was trying to force the reader/watcher to cry and instead just made you roll your eyes and groan?

[Sapphi]

Oh, goody! This topic is relevant to my interests.

I would say that a good story makes you care about the characters by developing them as characters. A tragic back story or event needs to have a purpose for being there and not just be "sad" for the sake of being "sad".

This is actually a general principle of good writing, no matter what emotion you want to evoke: everything must have a purpose for "being there". Think Chekhov's Gun. You want every scene to be crucial to the story somehow. You want to weave the threads of your story so tightly that removal of ANY scene would put an ugly snag in the picture of the tapestry.

What do you think works in invoking a genuine emotional response from a reader and what doesn't?

Well, I've thought a bit about this, so my apologies in advance if this gets long...

One thing I've noticed is that different people have differing levels of emotional sensitivity, and that this seems to be tied in some way to how logically-minded they are. I would call myself a sensitive person, in that it's fairly easy to make me cry most of the time if you know how to do it. I would also say that I'm probably not a rational thinker by default - I think I can be if I need to be, but I don't think it's my default mode of operation. Because of that, I'm pretty good at suspending disbelief when I want to; I don't get too hung up on the implausibility of an event in the story if the feelings ring true. This is why my science fiction leanings are towards space opera rather than hard SF.

Galaxy Express 999 is a highly romanticized science fiction anime from the 70s which features steam engines flying through space and other such absurdities. It's one of my favorite shows because of its poignant thoughts. The scientific implausibilities don't distract me from the "real point" of the show. However, I watched a few episodes with a more logical friend and he was too distracted by those implausibilities to sit back and let the show work its emotional magic.

Him: "Um, how is Tetsuro OPENING A WINDOW IN SPACE?!"
Me: "Come on, that's not important!"

I don't think this is a hard and fast rule - I made the same person shed a tear with a story I wrote which featured talking cats and robots falling in love. But I think it's definitely a hurdle to overcome. As far as making your readers cry, I'm probably "easy mode"; it might be a good idea to try to make elements of your story less contrived or implausible in order to minimize distractions for pickier readers. (I don't think that this is always the route to take, though. Not everybody can appreciate romanticism, but there are a great many people who can and will. And just as highly emotional people should be challenged to think logically, highly logical people should be confronted with shameless romanticism from time to time. Makes 'em well-rounded! )

I also wanted to note that as far as stories go, even if your execution is poor, I'm quite likely to forgive that and shed some tears simply over the idea you are conveying. I watched a certain other 70s anime with my friend which killed off a beloved character. We were then treated to a swell of sad, romantic music and a drawn-out, melodramatic montage of still scenes of the character.

Me: *sobbing my eyes out*
Him: (dry-eyed) "This isn't sad! It just feels forced. It's like they're trying to make me cry."

The thing is, I recognized that it was a cheesy attempt to play up emotion as well. I simply did not care, because the idea of the character's death - the idea of the montage - was terribly sad. In a sense, I was able to see what I think the director wanted me to see, rather than what was actually presented to me. In fact, in some cases, I would even go so far as to say that I see what I want to see - the director or artist or author may not have intended for a scene to have a certain special meaning, but I apply that meaning, and it makes the scene more tragic for me. Then I cry and nobody else understands why it's so sad... and I can't explain it to them without bringing them into the complex world full of thoughts spilling into other thoughts that is my silly mind... *cough* Aaaanyway...

The above is not to say that execution doesn't matter, but to further point out that the business of getting tears out of people is only partially in our control as creators. I think that because of this, your suggestion to just focus on the scene rather than actively trying to wring tears out of people is a good one. Where a ham-fisted "AUDIENCE CRIES NOW!" is too crude for most people to appreciate, a subtle prick can catch them off guard and produce just the effect you want.

Another principle, one that everyone should already know from TVTropes, is the concept of Emotional Torque. Essentially, with a story crafted with the intention of making somebody cry, you want to slowly build the tension up to the point of that release. The release cannot be as satisfying, or in many cases cannot happen at all, if you don't create the tension first. Telling somebody "Lucy's parents died in a fire" and expecting them to cry when you haven't created the proper tension first is like telling somebody only the punch-line to a very long joke and expecting them to laugh. Just like the punch line of the joke isn't funny without the tension of the setup, the fact that Lucy's parents died in a fire isn't sad without the proper setup. We must see them in action before we can feel badly that they are now out of it.

When was the last time you read or watched something that really moved you

Actually, I just watched something that put tears down my face yesterday.
I encourage everybody to watch it; it's really beautiful.
It's this:



My thoughts about The Tree and the Cat as a good example of a work which evokes an emotional response:

The whole mood of the cartoon is already very melancholy, what with the lonely tree and the poor cat getting abandoned. You can see that it feels hurt and confused by the way it looks around and then begins to wash itself, trying to feel some consolation. So the tension has already begun. (The music is lovely too!)

When I watched this I began to cry when I saw that the tree was doing things for the cat which it would not do for the other creatures. The irony of it, the idea of the "inevitability of attachment", the beauty of "not for them, but for you"; all these things mixed together were very moving. The thought of two lonely souls being lonely together is really wonderful, isn't it?

To be honest, while watching this, I predicted the ending would go something like this: The old, eternal tree would grow to love the transient cat, and then the cat would die. The tree would be very sorrowful, but would have been happy to have known the sorrow that could only have been caused by friendship. I was taken off-guard by the real ending!

But the real ending made me cry harder. First, I cried because I felt sorry for the tree. Then because I felt sorry for the cat! How happy the tree felt when it made a friend, and now the cat was going to live the stoic life. I felt pity on the cat for making such a tragic mistake. And I also thought, "This is a tree and a cat, but we also participate in this foolishness all the time, don't we?" I saw myself in both the tree and the cat.

Then the moral of the story came, and I experienced a strange mix of comfort and more tears at the appropriateness and kindness of the message. "Don't withdraw from others, because at that point your existence ceases to be significant." It hit close to home for me, and might not do the same for everyone, but I think there are many people like me to whom this story might speak.

and when did you last read or watch something that you could tell was trying to force the reader/watcher to cry and instead just made you roll your eyes and groan?

I'll have to think about this one. I know I get this feeling when I see "Disney death", but that's likely due to the fact that I watched our Disney VHS films a gazillion times as a child and the trope got stale for me fast.

[arachni42]

One thought I had was that it's actually good to be as familiar with those "cheap tricks" as possible -- understand how they're used, why they're used, where they came from, and why they feel cheap at the end. (Some didn't used to be cheap, but have become so by being so common, e.g. Big "NO!" Others lack purpose, which is usually the biggest factor IMO.)

It helps to get the audience to have an overall investment in the characters... although quite a lot can be accomplished even in individual scenes if done well. Well-done movies often have scenes that work well even as standalones, and I think this can be applied to other writing, as well. The emotional goal doesn't have to be sadness, either; it can be more complicated. The most recent movie scene I saw that made an impression like that was this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v38lu0Bi0Kk

It's a brief scene, yet you get a real sense of the relationship between the characters, even without having seen the rest of the movie. Even though it's only a couple minutes long, there is a buildup... a conflict leading to emotions that get more intense throughout the scene. You can see how the frustrations rise and the POV of the different characters, and at the end there is some kind of change, a sort of mini-resolution. I've learned that without a change --of character relationships, perspectives, situations, etc -- the scene can feel unsatisfying when it ends.

If you're writing something and struggling with that sense of purpose (or lack thereof), try thinking about what changes as a result.

I enjoyed The Tree and the Cat, BTW.

As far as feeling forced, I really hated the anime Rumbling Hearts because all the things causing drama seemed really, really needless. (I have not played the VN, BTW, so I can't comment on that.) It definitely gave me that angry feeling. ^_^

[Doctor Fright]

Evoke*!

[Caveat Lector]

Got it!

[trooper6]

Context, context, context.

Some people will be emotionally triggered by anything having to do with 9/11...while I often get irritated. Some people are always sentimental over animals and children, others hate children and animals and will take glee in their suffering. Some people will weep over noble self sacrifice while others will think people sacrificing themselves is just stupid. So you can't be all things to all people. Which leads me to...genre.

There are different genres and different genres have different genre conventions. What might be "cheap" in one genre may be "perfect" in another genre. What I mean by this is that it is important to understand the genre that you are creating. The ideal consumer of a particular genre comes into the genre accepting certain genre conventions and forms of emotional investment. So in that genre you write for that ideal audience member. Now you can do it poorly, but that is a different topic.

So. Let's take the "women's weepy" (i.e. melodrama) film genre of the 1940s/1950s...exemplified by director Douglas Sirk's "Imitation of Life." That film has a certain style of acting, writing, direction, and scoring that some people might find "cheap." And if you don't care about women's issues or women's lives...then you just may be irritated. But I watch "Imitation of Life" and come to the genre openly...accepting the genre and its conventions...and yeah, that movie makes me cry like crazy. Now, there are melodramas that I don't think to melodrama well...and that will make me roll my eyes...but a melodrama that does melodrama well, will make me cry like a baby. Of course, the techniques of melodrama wouldn't work in a "realist" sort of film or an action film.

Film scholar Tania Modleski wrote an interesting article called "Clint Eastwood and Male Weepies" all about what she calls the male weepy (male melodrama)...which are often sports movies that give certain types of stoic identified men a space to cry: Field of Dreams, Rudy, Remember the Titans, etc. These films have their own conventions. If you don't care about these conventions, you'll find them cheap. If you do, if you go into these film embracing the grenre, then the good ones will make you cry some manly tears...while the cheap ones will make you roll your eyes.

I, for example, really really dislike romantic comedies. I tend to find them neither romantic nor comedic. Generally, I just find them sexist and offensive. I recognize that "When Harry Met Sally" and "Pretty Woman" are considered great and "From Justin to Kelly" and "Simply Irresistible" are considered awful. And I can see that--the former are definitely of higher quality than the latter. But I am not moved by the genre as a whole. There have been some romantic comedies that have appealed to me...but they are by no means part of the mainstream of that genre (Harold and Maude!) So I'm not the ideal audience member for romantic comedies...so don't think about me when making one (unless you want to target me, in which case...that would be awesome!).

Actions films? They have certain things that make them work emotionally. Horror films have other things that make them work emotionally.

So...I think it is important to be very aware of the genre contract you are entering into with your audience and then do that as well as possible within the context of that genre and that audience.

So...last thing that made me cry? Hm. It could have been any number of things. I'm pretty sure it was Game of Thrones. The season finale had a number of moments that got me teary. But one particular moment I can think of was when Yara/Asha declared that she was going to get the best 50 Killers of Iron Islands and save her brother. That gets me. Because loyalty and devotion and sacrifice are things that tend to get me. As for making me roll my eyes and groan? Well, one thing that will always pull me out of an emotionally sad scene is if the music is too abrupt and too loud and too heavy handed in the vibrato-laden swelling violins. I hate that. I roll my eyes as the supposedly "funny" things in Two and a Half Men whenever I am unfortunate enough to catch it on television. I roll my eyes at many of the "cute" anime girls...who I just find irritating. But I recognize that many people are drawn in by those strings, many people thing Two and a Half Men is funny, many people think Lin Min Mae was attractive. That just would never happen with me. But those things aren't really aimed at me either.

[destiny_921]

Well, based on the feedback I've received on my writings online and RL over the years as I matured as did my writing... apparently I've made people cry, think, laugh, immerse themselves in the story.etc. I'm not quite sure how to describe how I do it, but I'll do my best in explaining so. So do bear with me.

The key factors, in my opinion, for me is this: relatibility and details.

By having the reader be able to relate, to understand - in some way, connects the lines between fiction and reality. Realizing the predicament of the character as he/she had been through it before, understand the feeling of the character - it immerses them more fully into the story, the setting.

For example:

It was pouring again.

A wistful sigh escaped me as I stared out the window that reflected my gloomy mood. It had been raining cats and dogs for days, and it seemed as if there was no end to it. No end to the darkness.

No end to the darkness that was my loneliness creeping into me. I had no family, no friends - only acquaintances.

Relatives?

I scoffed at the thought. They had simply vanished after the death of my parents a year ago. Taking me to the town's orphanage and leaving me there, saying that they would return in a couple of weeks as they had to tie up some loose ends before being able to come back for me - I had eagerly lapped up their words.

How naive I had been...

Many would be able to relate to this. Such as people who had been abandoned, lost their parents or are just lonely. Even people who had been deceived or lied to would be able to relate, allowing them to sympathize with the character.

Language is also an absolutely vital element, as even the way you phrase your sentences can affect how a reader feels. If I were to write the above example like this,

It was raining again.

I stared out at the window gloomily at the pouring weather with a wistful sigh...

It would be a bit more..jarring. So, what's the difference?

In the first example, I went for a "gradually-immersive" tone by drawing more attention to the emotional aspect rather than the subject (that is "I"). The second example draws more attention to the subject - it's as if I'm stating the obvious first before inputting the emotional aspect second.

Another thing that is equally important is this: paint with details. Please. Not too much, not too little.

I could have written my example as plain and simple sentences:

It was raining.

I was alone again. I sighed..

But would it have the same effect as example one or two? No. It's dull. I simply do not care and am not intrigued to find out more. End of.

Also ensure that you have reasons behind what the character did, how the world became like this and that.etc,.etc. Besides that, try writing based on personal experiences. It can bring out the raw-ness and intensity in the story.

(+)Relatibility, purpose, details, good plot, good storyline, in-depth development
(-)Lack of the above, bad plot, bad storyline, too much cliches and no originality

Something that really moved me..reading-wise, last was Jodi Picoult's Lone Wolf. The thing I love about her books is that she really, truly makes you think "What would I do if that was me?", "What would I do if that happened?" and the like.

Video-wise, definitely Wong Fu's works..here's one of them.