Why I think Jerry McGuire is a Stupid Movie!

So I'm juding contest entries again. Yes, after vowing a month or so back that I wouldn't judge another contest for a year or three.

Interesting thing, though.

I read the first entry, made an occasional comment about being confused or why is heroine doing this, but that's about it. On the other three entires, I made a few grammatical tweaks. One chicka had an obsession with using sem-colons. Incorrectly.

But compared to past entries judged, I hardly made any comments on the entries. As I read, my focus was "do I want to keep reading this?" I didn't care about grammar or other mechanical issues. What mattered to me was if the story and characters were engaging.

I realized that if the story and characters WERE engaging, then I didn't care so much about other craft aspects. I was able to turn off my mental editor.

A few weeks ago I went up to Fredricksburg to have lunch with two of my critique partners. What a time of refreshing! So on the way home, I was telling the CP who traveled with me who I shall call Dawn (that her real name is Dawn is irrelvant) all about the best romance I've read all year.

Here's the clincher. It really didn't have much of a plot. Cute meet. Hilarious! Absurd which made it so compelling. The two leads disliked each other yet had a physical attraction/awareness/interest despite their dislike of one another. But there really wasn't much of a plot...until about 1/3 (maybe half) the way into the story. Even at that, the plot wasn't complicated.

I didn't care. Why?

Because I was so captivated by the lead characters and their, well, boredom with the routine of their lives that I understood why they were drawn to each other despite their reciprocated dislike. Being around each other added zest to their routines, brought peace to their troubles, and gave them hope for a better future. They completed each other.

Unlike the stupid Jerry McGuire movie. See, Jerry's problem was that he didn't like being alone so he clung to people becuase he couldn't stand being alone. Well, he never learned contentment in being alone. He realized his problem and realized the only time he felt "complete" was when he was with the heroine whose name I don't remember. But was he complete or was he co-dependant?

If he truly loved her and wasn't using her to fill that void, then he would have shown he could live without her. Or at least learn to be content in his solitude. But he didn't. He reached rock-bottom and the only way he could climb out was to cling to her. Thus the "romantic" you-complete me speech...which was really a "I'm alone and the thought of being alone for the rest of my life scares me so since I know you love me then I'm gonna come here and say what I think you'll find romantic so you'll marry me becuase when you do I won't have to face my fear of being alone."

Bridget Jones's Diary handled this same issue with a healthier ending. She could have lived with out him and been okay, but she wanted to be with Darcy because she didn't need him to survive. They were equals in the relationship. Jerry McGuire was still the relationship leech he was at the beginning of the movie, only by the end he knew it. Did he ever really mature, ever become a self-sufficient funtioning adult who didn't need another person in his life for him to survive? I didn't see that when I watched the movie. Maybe I fell asleep during that moment.

(Let me pause for a moment and say I loved Cuba Gooding, Jr, in the movie!)

M. Scott Peck's book, THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED, has an insightful chapter on Love, on falling in love, and on co-dependency. I kinda wish more romance authors and rom-comedy screenwriters would read it.

So anyhoo...in this best romance I've read in 2010, both leads truly realized they completed the other. They gave to the other, instead of taking from the other.

Romance thread...A++
Plot...C

But I didn't care. I loved the story! Which made me think about those contest entries. The first one wasn't engaging but wasn't bad either. Lots of potential. The second one was average-written, certainly not ready for an editor, but I couldn't stop reading because the author made me care about the characters. The fourth was...lemme say "unique." She had a good story there. Deep underneath her myriad of sermons. The third entry was better written then the others, but I felt like the author was trying too hard to adhere to writing "rules." Her writing seemed stifled.

I think entering contests and trying to do what all your contest judges (and your CPs) tell you will cause this. Not that I'm anti-contesting. It's a useful tool to help an author on her journey to publication.

However....

That rule-stifled entry reminded me of another book I read this year. Not overly complicated plot but satisfying read (minus the ending which had to be one of the least romantic proposal scenes I've ever read compared to the romance thread in the middle of the book). As I was reading the novel, I'd occasionally think: "This author seems like she's trying too hard to adhere to the writing rules. This scene doesn't seem natural to the characters. This ending hook feels forced becuase the author wanted the next scene's opening hook to be thus."

Yes, if I had to describe that book in one word, it'd be "forced."

So that got me thinking. How does one learn to know when to adhere to writing rules and when to step outside them? And beyond that, even if one does learn it, how does one manage contest judges and critique partners who haven't learned it's okay to break the rules?

One of my other CPs who I'll call Maggie (even though her real name is Maggie) recently went to a Margie Lawson master class. Wow! Just listening to Maggie tell about what she'd learned in her pre-attending-class homework was envy-inducing. I suspect she's learned the answers to my previous paragraph questions.

She's been empowered.

I wanna be empowed too.