Innovation: Difference between revisions

}}{{quote|“''Major innovation comes, most of all, from the unexplored no-man’s land between the disciplines.''” — {{author|Norbert Wiener}}, quoted by {{author|James Burke}}}}

Every story can be boiled down this: once upon a time there was a problem. It got resolved. It may be triumphant or tragic, but there must be an ''outcome''. Storytellers who don’t get to grips with this fundament — who allow something other than ''resolution of the problem'' to drive their narrative — write unsatisfying books.<ref>This is why some people find the ''Lord of the Rings'' saga so [[tedious]]: all that delving into the history, mythology and language of elves is very clever — and yes, it may document the resolution of a whole raft of ''other'' problems, but it still has almost nothing to do do with the immediate problem of the Hobbits’ quest, beyond providing deep historical context. And as for the Hobbit folk songs, just shoot me. Hold your letters. </ref> To not resolve the problem — ''eventually'': we all love a bit of [[will-they-won’t-they suspense]] as we go — is literally what it means to not satisfy.

The flip side to the perils of [[complexity]] and [[normal accident]] theory, is convexity of ''benefit''. Innovation, benefit, boon, fiesta ''is just as hard to predict as catastrophe''. But just as likely, if the people you have spotting weights in the gymnasium of disaster are experienced, clever, imaginative, [[problem solving]] people.  

When telling a story, do not overlook the importance of that suspense element. This is what converts the story from a matter of basic arithmetic to a towering rollercoaster of a tour-de-force. A problem whose solution is clear to all from the outset is — ''not a problem''. Patrons will not pay to see a movie without some ''jeopardy'': an ebb and flow of fortunes, some heart-in-mouth moments culminating in a grand set-piece involving ninja-level [[swordcraft]].