# swain



## EmmaSohan

Hi Jay, I know, the timing on this is wrong, but [long story].

A website presents Swain simply and clearly. If it had had "sometimes" instead of "always", it would have been by far the best advice I found yesterday in a day of searching.

Um, my books don't follow that pattern. I know, totally unpublished. My favorite books don't follow that pattern. When I pick up the books mostly like to follow the pattern, they don't, not exactly. Ignoring the prologue the Patterson book began with a woman who wanted to get out of jury duty. Since I knew she would end up in the jury, it was a false goal. (The mechanisms you propose assume the reader cares about the protagonist achieving the goal.)

Or your _A Chance Encounter_? The book begins with a clear goal -- she wants to get through the snow to work. There are obstacles, like drifting snow. But you end the chapter without mentioning the resolution. The story really starts with



> Nearly to the next intersection she hesitated, the weather momentarily forgotten. The door to the bookstore was open and a woman was leaving, an oddity, given the early hour and the weather.



Does that fit "A goal is what your POV character wants at the beginning of the Scene. The Goal must be specific and it must be clearly definable"? I am thinking no. That doesn't even change her goal.



> With a sigh of resignation, she resumed her journey. But something small fluttered downward from the books the woman held in her left hand.



Your character is mostly just perceiving. We can say she has the goal of knowing what's happening -- but it's a lot more important that the *reader *form that goal.

The second scene, for whatever good we can say about it, is not very goal-oriented. The key point is something they hear on the TV.

The closest to Swain in that second scene is the ending:



> Lying in bed, her last thought before sleep overcame her, was that she should resolve the issue. The question was, how?



But, unless you believe in Swain, it's not needed. Normal technique is that the reader will know that's the goal, so you don't have to mention it. Normally, the character would vacillate on that goal. (and that isn't one thought.)

Let me be clear. I think the start of your book is very creative. I agree with a lot of what you say here at WF and I'm glad you're here. And, to me, goal/obstacle/suspense/resolution is one of the basic techniques of writing. Just not the only one and not as important as that website (or apparently Swain) suggests.


----------



## EmmaSohan

And, while I'm at it. _The Fault in Our Stars_ begins with her wanting to stay home and watch TV. Her mother is the obstacle, she fails, and the plot pretty much starts with what happens when she goes out. So that's a goal that the *reader *does not care about.

In a published book, the main character has the goal of experiencing a dead woman's life. One obstacle is discovering what he life was. When she learns the dead woman tried heroin, her fear of trying heroin is an obstacle. When I was reading this, I HAD VERY DIFFERENT GOALS. This was an extremely tense moment for me, and I actually did not like that she achieved that goal.

If the main character wants to learn something, that can drive the plot. To keep the reader reading, it kind of has to be something the *reader *wants to learn.

So. There is a general focus on character when perhaps some focus should be on the reader. You have similarly said that we don't want the character feeling something, we want the reader feeling it.


----------



## Theglasshouse

I won't contradict you Emma but add to the discussion of your example of jury duty. 

Writing for me has to be a discovery process which you probably agree with. Because that is what many talented people claim. I am not against craft just against all the phonies in the industry advocating to buy their books. That being said I find his book confusing. The best craft book so far I have come across might be John Gardner for two reasons, he recommends in his book a composition book. Which I struggle with doing correctly applied to stories. Second he explains how to construct a story, without being nebulous. I took me a rereading to understand that values are what drive goals or what a person does have as a goal in real life. The person avoiding jury duty is an example of that. What swain gets right is that goal is desire+danger. A situation for a story can be inspired by real life or stories according to Gardner who's book I reread as notes on craft. The desire is what you value, maybe the person values independence, maybe what they value represents conflict and they will do anything to obtain it. No matter the cost. Thus that makes the goal swain alludes to but does not explain. I hope that adds to the discussion. Swain's book is for intermediate and advanced writers. You need to know the basics, I don't recommend it to beginners or people without knowledge on writing craft.

That being said, my advice is quoting a book since I have no easy time with grammar and composition.  But I plan to fix that in 2 months worth of time.


----------



## Kyle R

I believe Swain's structure (goal --> conflict --> disaster | reaction --> dilemma --> decision | repeat ...) works well as a template for plot-driven fiction.

I find, though, that it leaves little space for character exploration and development. Sure, you can "reveal" character _around_ the plot as it progresses in a linear fashion—but it's still just _plot-related_ character development.

Which is to say, I don't think it's the ideal structure for writing character-centric stories. For those, I find it's best to let the characters themselves pull the story along (and create their own structure as they go).

There's something magical about fiction that develops organically. It doesn't follow a repeating pattern, doesn't sit neatly in a square-shaped hole.

Sure, you can write page-turning fiction that adheres to Swain's structure, but doing so comes with a risk, in my opinion: with such a distinct pattern, you'll have to hide the seams extra well, or your reader will intuitively catch on. And once your reader begins to see the structure, you've lost the immersion that you were working so hard to gain. :grief:


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> I believe Swain's structure (goal --> conflict --> disaster | reaction --> dilemma --> decision | repeat ...) works well as a template for plot-driven fiction.



Can you remind me what plot-driven means?

Isn't the basic template for mystery this?   problem --> idea --> investigation --> gets information that gets closer to the resolution which provides --> idea

Mystery is plot-driven, right?


----------



## Bayview

Kyle R said:


> I believe Swain's structure (goal --> conflict --> disaster | reaction --> dilemma --> decision | repeat ...) works well as a template for plot-driven fiction.
> 
> I find, though, that it leaves little space for character exploration and development. Sure, you can "reveal" character _around_ the plot as it progresses in a linear fashion—but it's still just _plot-related_ character development.



That's an interesting distinction. I've never really found Swain's approach compelling, but my writing does tend to be really character-centred. Not exactly conclusive proof, but interesting...!


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Or your _A Chance Encounter_? The book begins with a clear goal --  she wants to get through the snow to work. There are obstacles, like  drifting snow. But you end the chapter without mentioning the  resolution. The story really starts with


The short term scene-goal Serves only to orient the reader, and it's really immaterial as to it being achieved. We know that she's on the street trying to go to work. That's her immediate objective. So when she sees the woman exit the bookstore the reader knows that something has interfered with the goal, and knows its importance to her. So it's more of a measuring stick to calibrate the reader's objective to hers. If we can do that, they will see the importance of her noticing the woman in the same way Delia does. Then, when she meets the man and gives him the card, that, too, interferes with the goal. But with that meeting, she has a new short-term scene goal, which is him, and trying to make him view her as someone he would like to know. In that she fails, utterly, and the scene ends in disaster for her. It's irrelevant if she gets to work or not (she does, and we learn about it in the next chapter), because nothing plot related happens there other than to realize that it provides something for her mother to comment on, to develop the subplot of her relationship with mom. That scene started by answering the three questions that gives the reader context: Where she is, who she is, and what's going on. Conflict/tension enters when the woman steps from the store. It rises when she drops the card and Delia picks it up. It raises further when the man enters, and peaks when he rejects her. The next chapter opens with the scene's sequel, and is the transition to scene two, where the tension escalates and her options begin to narrow.





> "Nearly to the next intersection she hesitated, the weather momentarily  forgotten. The door to the bookstore was open and a woman was leaving,  an oddity, given the early hour and the weather."
> 
> Does that fit "A goal is what your POV character wants at the beginning of the Scene.


The goal served only to orient the reader. This interferes with it, without having to tell the reader, in the voice of the narrator—which keeps the author off stage. As Sol Stein says,              “In sum, if you want to improve your chances of publication, keep your story visible on stage and yourself mum.”

In this case, the _reader_ recognizes it as an interruption to her progression toward her goal. And that's what is supposed to happen.





> "With a sigh of resignation, she resumed her journey. But something small  fluttered downward from the books the woman held in her left hand."
> 
> Your character is mostly just perceiving. We can say she has the goal of  knowing what's happening -- but it's a lot more important that the *reader *form that goal.


I think you misunderstand the role of the scene goal. It's not the focus of the scene. In fact, it's usually replaced, perhaps several times, as the situation changes. I call it the scene-goal because it's faster to type, and without a lot more explanation, calling it the short-term scene-goal wouldn't change anything. But As I said above, it serves only as a context device.





> The second scene, for whatever good we can say about it, is not very  goal-oriented. The key point is something they hear on the TV.


That's the second chapter, _not_ the second scene. Scene two only begins there. The opening to chapter two is the sequel to the first scene, where she thinks over what she might have  done, and tells her mother about it, which is short, only 600 words. In it, we learn a bit about her relationship with her mother—character development and subplot introduction. The sequel ends with her decision to put the subject aside and take care of things unrelated to the meeting with the woman.

The next scene begins with Delia's mother telling her that the woman she met is dead, so her short-term goal of writing fiction is interrupted, and she has a new one, to learn more about the woman. The chapter ends there, but not the scene. That continues, and the tension, introduced with her mother's announcement continues to rise, till the confrontation at the gravesite and its resolution into the sequel for that scene on the ride home.

I make no claim to write great scenes, remember only to know what publishers react to. So while the scene and the ones that follow are structured as a unit of tension, that, in and of itself, doesn't make it great writing.

The problem, as I see it, is that you're trying to make judgements as to the usefulness of the methodology without having delved into more than the surface elements, A book by someone like Dwight Swain, Jack Bickham, or Debra Dixon's goes into a _lot_ more detail. No way in hell can I do more than touch on the basics of scene structure in a post here.

Hope this clarifies


----------



## Jack of all trades

I don't have a problem with any book, blog, whatever being proposed as a *possible* aid. I have a HUGE problem with anything being presented as THE WAY. 

If Jay, or anyone else, wants to use Swain, fine. I don't see what's gained by arguing about that. I do, however, draw the line at being told I need to use it.


----------



## moderan

Huzzah.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Hi Jay. Thanks for answering. Prologue:

Rollins begins his book with something like "There was no escape." That doesn't fit Swain -- it's the exact opposite of a goal. Then the protagonist is running from the Incans, and we don't know why. Mystery, a standard technique.

I think you can fit that into Swain's plan, but . . . in my opinion the scene would have been three times better if Rollins had followed Swain's plan. Goal. Obstacles. Failure, something Swainish, new plan, obstacles, success.

The goal is for him to kill himself, which he succeeds at. That also doesn't follow Swain's plan. You can wave that off with no problem -- it was just the prologue. But . . . if he had read Swain he could have made that only a partial success, which would have worked better, in my opinion.

So, if you want to claim that Swain's plan is something author's can *sometimes *use, and a worthwhile way to think about some scenes, I'm on board.

But Rollins likes to create mystery, and that's a valid way to write. It made a better first sentence.

Anyway, I will leave you with two choices. You can stretch Swain's plan to fit that prologue. But Swain's plan only good advice if we say it didn't fit the prologue and we apply Swain's plan in a straightforward, obvious way.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> That doesn't fit Swain -- it's the exact opposite of a goal


How do you know? You're quoting a single line, without context, even so far as which of his novels it come from. Nowhere does anyone, in any book on writing technique, suggest presenting the scene goal as the first line of the story. I may be wrong, but based on what you say, you've read excerpts and condensations, but not the book, itself. If that's true, can you really comment on what he says in it? To quote from it, on page one, he says:




> Then why do so many people find it difficult to learn to write? They fall into traps that slow them down and hold them back. Eight traps, specifically:
> 1. They take an unrealistic view. 2. They hunt for magic secrets. 3. They try to learn the hard way. 4. They refuse to follow feeling. 5. They attempt to write by rules. 6. They don’t want to be wrong. 7. They bow down to the objective. 8. They fail to master technique. Every one of these traps is a major hazard. Therefore, before we get down to specific skills, let’s consider each in detail.



Look at point 5. Would someone who says that on page one expect people to follow any specific methodology? Of course not. Would they demand things be presented in a rigid order? Again no. I think you're  mistaking technique and tools for rules.

When he talks about the three things that a reader wants to see addressed early on entering a scene, for example, he's not telling you how you must do that, just that if you don't, the reader won't have the context to understand the details you provide. And given that the man made his living teaching writing, and that people paid a great deal of money to attend those classes, just maybe, the man has something useful to say.

No one says you have to write in any specific way. But there are some things that flat out won't work, and will result in instant rejection. Doesn't it make sense to learn what they are _before_ you dedicate a year or more  of your life writing, polishing, and becoming so emotionally committed to the story that any critique feels like someone is calling your children ugly?

I don't know about you, but I steal all my best ideas. I find knowledge a great substitute for genius. I learned a lot about the agent business, and what they're looking to see for example, From Donald Maass—things I'd not know had I not met him and read his book. Dwight Swain taught me the difference between POV and viewpoint, and how to place the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint. Debra Dixon taught me why, "Ella's mouth twisted in scorn when Jake Cassidy showed up drunk, again," can't be in Ella's viewpoint.

And so it goes. I'd written six novels, and thought I was a pretty good writer before I learned those things. Would I ever have leaned them had I not gone looking for the tricks of writing in the public library's fiction writing section? Maybe. But writing six novels didn't teach them. I work in the theory that learning what the experts think/suggest is useful to know isn't a guarantee of success, but it certainly can help. Robert Frost had some interesting views on that. “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up.”

By the way, you are one of the very few who ever discussed _any_ of the writing techniques recommended by the various teachers/editors/publishers. And you're probably the only on I've seen wnho opened a thread to discuss one. I may not always agree with you, but I give you a great deal of respect.


----------



## EmmaSohan

I said that the scene starting Rollins book would be three times as good if it followed Swain's plan, and _you're disagreeing with me_?

Admittedly, it was a Trojan Horse. I used the simple version of Swain found at the website I mentioned in OP. You would have had to, in a sense, accept that Swain could be followed in a simple way I could easily understand and apply.

Still, I was claiming that a simple understanding of Swain could help writers. You are noting that a correct understanding of Swain would not have led me to my revision.
Let me think if there is any way I can change your mind.


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> How do you know? You're quoting a single line, without context, even so far as which of his novels it come from. Nowhere does anyone, in any book on writing technique, suggest presenting the scene goal as the first line of the story. I may be wrong, but based on what you say, you've read excerpts and condensations, but not the book, itself. If that's true, can you really comment on what he says in it? To quote from it, on page one, he says:
> 
> 
> Look at point 5. Would someone who says that on page one expect people to follow any specific methodology? Of course not. Would they demand things be presented in a rigid order? Again no. I think you're  mistaking technique and tools for rules.
> 
> When he talks about the three things that a reader wants to see addressed early on entering a scene, for example, he's not telling you how you must do that, just that if you don't, the reader won't have the context to understand the details you provide. And given that the man made his living teaching writing, and that people paid a great deal of money to attend those classes, just maybe, the man has something useful to say.
> 
> No one says you have to write in any specific way. But there are some things that flat out won't work, and will result in instant rejection. Doesn't it make sense to learn what they are _before_ you dedicate a year or more  of your life writing, polishing, and becoming so emotionally committed to the story that any critique feels like someone is calling your children ugly?
> 
> I don't know about you, but I steal all my best ideas. I find knowledge a great substitute for genius. I learned a lot about the agent business, and what they're looking to see for example, From Donald Maass—things I'd not know had I not met him and read his book. Dwight Swain taught me the difference between POV and viewpoint, and how to place the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint. Debra Dixon taught me why, "Ella's mouth twisted in scorn when Jake Cassidy showed up drunk, again," can't be in Ella's viewpoint.
> 
> And so it goes. I'd written six novels, and thought I was a pretty good writer before I learned those things. Would I ever have leaned them had I not gone looking for the tricks of writing in the public library's fiction writing section? Maybe. But writing six novels didn't teach them. I work in the theory that learning what the experts think/suggest is useful to know isn't a guarantee of success, but it certainly can help. Robert Frost had some interesting views on that. “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up.”
> 
> By the way, you are one of the very few who ever discussed _any_ of the writing techniques recommended by the various teachers/editors/publishers. And you're probably the only on I've seen wnho opened a thread to discuss one. I may not always agree with you, but I give you a great deal of respect.



I agree with everything about this post (well, maybe not agree, but at least accept as a viable perspective) except the "No one says you have to write in any specific way. But there are some things that flat out won't work, and will result in instant rejection." part. I really don't see how you reconcile that with your quotation from Swain _or _your knowledge of reality. Unless you're talking about things that are obviously ridiculous (a novel written in seven different languages, none of which are translated, a novel written in invisible ink, or whatever), I'm struggling to think of a single "rule" that some author hasn't successfully broken.

If you wrote it as "there are some things that are unlikely to work and that I don't think authors should ever try" I'd be right there with you. Is there a reason you need to make the absolute statements?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Let me try again. In the first day of your book



The MC is out in a snowstorm
A woman drops a business card
The MC picks it up.
She gives it to a man.
The woman is reported dead in the evening news.

It seems to me there is a simple explanation: The snowstorm is very effective setting; the rest creates a mystery -- something the reader wants to learn. That's a standard technique, right? You handle the details of her death like an author thinking very carefully about mystery.

You have to construct a reason why she would be out in the snowstorm (trying to get to work) and why she would give that card to the man. That's normal plot behavior. If you let Swain keep you away from the best explanation, that's not good.

There are a few very short-term goals, and you seem to be saying there is nothing of the classic Swain. That, I am guessing, starts when the main character, at the end of the day, is in bed and decides to discover what happened. It can be delayed that long, right?

But, for keeping the reader reading, she could equally have decided to forget about the mystery. Because they reader would know that isn't going to happen. (Or, if she does, you have broken a rule that should never be broken, she said hard and fastly.) That would have been more typical (and more Swainish?), though you might not have wanted to go there.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> the rest creates a mystery -- something the reader wants to learn. That's a standard technique, right?


It's the first scene, not the first day. More happens on that day, in the opening of scene two.

But that aside, it seems you've taked a _lot_ of snow and squashing it into an iceball. After all, isn't the goal of all fiction to make the reader want to learn more?





> If you let Swain keep you away from the best explanation, that's not good.


Swain isn't keeping anyone from anything. He isn't providing a set of rules. Just the opposite. He analyzed _why_ some writers sell and others don't, to find common techniques. d in reality, he was continuing the work of the man who preceded him at the university. That's why the book is named _Techniques of the Selling Writer,  _not, _This is How You Must Write. _When it comes to structure he explains what readers need, where, and why. Take a look at the huge number of five and four star reviews for the book, and what people are saying. Of the 235 reviews, 188 of them are five star, the rest all four star. How many of us have our teachings so highly recommended? And the one that I think sums it up well is, "To the point and skips all the rules and regs that some think they must follow to write a novel." He's not telling people _how_ to write, he's explaining what works and why.





> There are a few very short-term goals, and you seem to be saying there is nothing of the classic Swain.


There are exactly as many as are needed. Specifically: Get to work; figure out what's happening across the street; see what the woman dropped; decide what to do with the card; try to generate interest in her on the part of the stranger; go to work. 

Such goals aren't a giant part of the plot, they provide context, so that when something happens to redirect the character's goal the reader knows that change has entered, because they recognize it happening. When we present a chronicle of events rather than the viewpoint of the protagonist, as _they_ view it, we're not aware of the goal in the same way, so when the author says something happens, the reader, not knowing the magnitude and direction of the character's emotional commitment to the goal, will have no real context for the action the character takes. The reader's knowledge of the character's intent for the immediate future calibrates our response to that of the protagonist. S/he is supposed to be our avatar, after all.

It also does something else important. When the author explains the progression of events as an outside observer, they know the nuance of meaning they _intend_ for the words. But the reader, who is not privy to the author's intent, places their own meaning to the wording. And that will vary from the author's, to an extent, depending on the reader's age, location, background/experience, and even gender. But by making the reader see the scene through the desires, preconceptions, and biases of the _protagonist_, we all view the action as the protagonist does. So if s/he misunderstands someone's intention we won't know it's a misunderstanding, and will believe what the character does—and be just as surprised as the character, and for the same reasons, when they learn the truth.





> But, for keeping the reader reading, she could equally have decided to forget about the mystery.


At the end of scene one there is no mystery, only a curious sequence of events. And in the sequel for that scene she does decide to push the events aside. Only as the second scene begins will she learn that there is a mystery: Is the dead woman the one she saw on the street, or a like named stranger? And if she is the same woman, was giving the man her business card in some way responsible for her death?. That uncertainty is what drives her to visit the funeral, and learn that it was the same person, and that the man she met is involved. The mystery will later deepen when she learns that the woman she met is not in that casket. But that comes in Chapter 4.


----------



## Pete_C

Some people have a natural ability to excel at certain things. For example, there are people I know who have a natural aptitude for all things musical. They can pretty much pick up any musical instrument and within a very short time they can play it well. I can play a few of the instruments they play, one quote well, but it takes me lots of effort and practice and whilst I can play it well I’ll never be able to play as well as they can.

Some people have an inherent ability to write well, to create compelling stories, to capture the attention of the reader and to create scenes and characters and plots that deliver intrigue and entertainment. For those who cannot do that, who want to write but struggle with the craft, Swain offers an option.

When reading anything written by someone who obediently follows Swain’s doctrine, the first you’ll notice is that their work feels stodgy and slow. It lacks that ‘zing’ that comes from creative and innovative thought. It feels too predictable and it lacks character.

Swain starts ‘Techniques’ by saying there are no rules, which is correct. However, he then goes on to set out rules which he insists must be fastidiously followed if you don’t want readers to walk away. What is interesting is that by reading between the lines, it becomes clear that Swain has aimed his book at those who either won’t or can’t think for themselves. There is so much repetition it is obvious that he is teaching by rote, and that’s not something you do with people who are free thinkers. It’s a method used for very young children or for those who struggle to assimilate ideas.

In defence of ‘Techniques’, for those who simply don’t understand how to create a story that flows and engages, it sets out some very basic ‘rules’ that allow anyone to write a story. It won’t be a great story and it won’t win a Pulitzer, but it’ll be as much of a story as a paint-by-numbers picture is art.

However, any person with an ability to weave engaging stories will kill their creativity by following Swain’s methods, because good writing simply cannot be formulaic. Swain comes from the world of pulp, but he wasn’t prominent in that world. His techniques and rules didn’t help him to rise to the top. Those writers that moved from pulp to best sellers didn’t follow his rules; they did what felt right and despite Swain’s warnings of editor’s spiking their work and readers turning away, they sold well.

Swain has identified some very basic structures, ones that anyone with a aptitude for story telling will instinctively know. However, there is so much more he doesn’t even touch upon.

Let me put it this way: adding a couple of anchovies to a beef stew gives it a richness that elevates it but without screaming ‘anchovies’. However, make it with nothing but anchovies and it won’t be a good beef stew.

‘Techniques’ is aimed at a very specific type of person and can allow them to create formulaic and readable stories where before they will have struggled. However, it doesn’t enable them to write great stories and if anything holds them back from understanding how to improve their craft.


----------



## Phil Istine

Pete_C said:


> Some people have an inherent ability to write well, to create compelling stories, to capture the attention of the reader and to create scenes and characters and plots that deliver intrigue and entertainment. For those who cannot do that, who want to write but struggle with the craft, Swain offers an option.



Thank you for this Pete.  You've nailed it for me and explained my slight confusion in words that I would struggle to muster myself.

I am at some point between the two extremes you mention, though I like to think that I'm closer to the inherent end of the scale and evolving ever closer to it.

Although Swain lays down valid groundwork, too much adherence would squeeze the creative life from me.  I'm still finding my voice so Swain is fine for back-to-basics, but there's so much more.


----------



## Theglasshouse

Ok I am going to be taking back some of my opinions in that I suggested swain is vague. I recommend people use the link below and buy the book if they want to learn more about Swain and Jack Bickham's theories. The author KM. Weiland explains it well. I bought that book, and hope this information helps people interested in his theories. Swain and Bickham's book is vague because of examples. But this book has a table of contents devoted to swain and Bickham. I hope this helps Jay Greenstein at least know his theory isn't vague. He just does not do a good job. The author has done the research on their theories. I like the explanations. To continue with the discussion I will post a sample of the book that I own. (table of contents: Options for Dilemmas in a Sequel The Three Phases of the Dilemma Options for Sequel Dilemmas Questions to Ask About Your Sequel Dilemmas Options for Decisions in a Sequel Long-Term Goal, Short-Term Decision Obvious Decision or Long-Shot Decision? To State the Decision or Not? Options for Sequel Decisions Questions to Ask About Your Sequel Decisions Sequel Decisions in Action Variations on Scene Structure Variations on the Scene Variations on the Sequel FAQs About Scene Structure Part 3: Sentence Structure Sentence Structure Motivation-Reaction Units)

Weiland, K.M. (2013-11-29). Structuring Your Novel: Essential Keys for Writing an Outstanding Story . PenForASword Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

http://lesedgertononwriting.blogspot.com/2010/04/scenes-and-sequels.html

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EJX08QA/?tag=writingforu06-20

http://theeditorsblog.net/2011/07/16/engage-readers-through-character-reaction/

There are a lot of links at the back of the book, be sure to pick it up, anyone. That is if you want to discuss this.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> When reading anything written by someone who obediently follows Swain’s doctrine


First, Swain offers no "doctrine." Remember, his book is not titled, _How Dwight Swain Thinks You Should Write_. It's an analysis and compendium of the techniques that successful writers use—an extension and refinement of the work of the man whose job he took at Oklahoma University. (I've forgotten his name, sorry...) . Are you really saying that what they feel necessary isn't worth learning? What you'll find in Swain's works is pretty much what you'll hear in any university course on writing fiction. Yes, you feel it's unnecessary for you, and that may be true, but what about the great majority of hopeful writers who cannot get a yes from a submission, and are part of that 99.9% who receive rejections? Certainly, there's no guarantee that learning the things they teach at the university will guarantee a writing career, but it seems to help a lot more than it hurts.

Sure, that approach isn't for you. I certainly won't argue that point. And I agree that "some" people have a natural ability to excel, and learn with less effort than the average bear. But is some greater than 5% of the whole, or less? If that or less, and we're not in the magic group are we doomed, or do we have to work harder and seek professional help? Given that greater than 99% of hopeful writers fail to achieve achieve acceptance for a submission (not success, but acceptance) what about the great mass of writers who will not notice the structure of a scene till it's pointed out? Shouldn't we advise them not to take steps to learn the things they don't yet know they need?

I don't suggest that people write like I do. Hell, with my sales, I don't need competition from people writing like me. But suggest learning the techniques taught at the university, the ones publishers say they want to see when they speak at conferences, and the ones recommended by the working pros? Hell yes!


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> First, Swain offers no "doctrine." Remember, his book is not titled, _How Dwight Swain Thinks You Should Write_. It's an analysis and compendium of the techniques that successful writers use—an extension and refinement of the work of the man whose job he took at Oklahoma University. (I've forgotten his name, sorry...) . Are you really saying that what they feel necessary isn't worth learning? What you'll find in Swain's works is pretty much what you'll hear in any university course on writing fiction. Yes, you feel it's unnecessary for you, and that may be true, but what about the great majority of hopeful writers who cannot get a yes from a submission, and are part of that 99.9% who receive rejections? Certainly, there's no guarantee that learning the things they teach at the university will guarantee a writing career, but it seems to help a lot more than it hurts.
> 
> Sure, that approach isn't for you. I certainly won't argue that point. And I agree that "some" people have a natural ability to excel, and learn with less effort than the average bear. But is some greater than 5% of the whole, or less? If that or less, and we're not in the magic group are we doomed, or do we have to work harder and seek professional help? Given that greater than 99% of hopeful writers fail to achieve achieve acceptance for a submission (not success, but acceptance) what about the great mass of writers who will not notice the structure of a scene till it's pointed out? Shouldn't we advise them not to take steps to learn the things they don't yet know they need?
> 
> I don't suggest that people write like I do. Hell, with my sales, I don't need competition from people writing like me. But suggest learning the techniques taught at the university, the ones publishers say they want to see when they speak at conferences, and the ones recommended by the working pros? Hell yes!



What proportion of the 99% of writers who can't get published have read lots of how-to books on writing, I wonder? What proportion of them have read Dwight Swain? What the hell's gone wrong with the system, if all these Swain-ites still have trouble getting published, even though they've done everything "right"?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Are you making me partially defend Swain? Is this a jiu-jitsu thing?

The standard format for a story is Goal (problem), Conflict (obstacles), Resolution (outcome). That puts a lot of space between the start and the end, which presumably is filled with shorter episodes of Goal/Conflict/Resolution.

Swain (the simple version) says that for the shorter episodes, the outcome should be failure. I don't like books with constant failure (dystopias?). I like partial successes building to a final success (mystery books). In any case, they happen.

Then it gets interesting to me. Swain talks about what happens before forming a new goal or as part of forming the new goal. There's one reaction to total failure (Reaction, Dilemma according to Swain), a different reaction to partial success (new opportunities and a continuation towards the same goal), and a third reaction to success (something happens to create a new goal, continue the journey).

Anyway, it seems useful to think of the structure for the middle of the book as Goal/Conflict/Resolution/Reaction.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> If you cannot properly care for any animal you wish as a pet, you should not take in a pet.


Now _that_ I can tell you, because I've read slush piles and talked to agents and editors when I had my manuscript critique service. The answer is that at least 75% have done no reading. That's the percentage of submissions the pros call unreadable. And it makes sense because in our schooling no one covers things like tag usage and scene structure and management. And since all their friends and classmates left school, like them, believing that writing is writing, and we have that taken care of. Of the remaining 25% all but three are seen as amateur, who is to tell the hopeful writer that they need more? .

But in the end, does it matter what percentage made an effort to learn? The question isn't how many "got it," it's what the knowledge can do for you. Our schooldays training is on writing to inform, while fiction's goal is to entertain, which places us in the position of the man who says, "No matter how hard I throw the damn egg down it _still_ breaks." No matter how diligently and sincerely you work on a problem, if you're trying to solve the wrong problem you aren't going to do it. Of the manuscripts I received, the words changed from story to story. The story changed. But the approach, in all but a very few, was presented as either a transcription of the storyteller before an audience, or a chronicle of events, written like a report. And that's pretty much what I saw in the samples from the slush pile.

But forget all that, too, and focus on one fact: If we want to write for publication, and do not take the time to learn what the publishers want to see in a well written story, we're wasting endless hours at the keyboard.

Yes, there are many who are writing just for fun. But the people they hope will enjoy their work have spent a lifetime reading books those publishers, so they expect a certain level of skill. We're talking about an investment of about $17 for either of Swain's books, $10 for Bickham's Scene and Structure, or Dixon's, GMC: Goal Motivation & Conflict, and $6 for the audio files of Swain's workshops on writing and character development. So for less than the cost of a dinner at a decent restaurant you have a respected book on the nuts-and-bolts issues of the profession. That's a fantastic bargain. And if you can find them in the local library system they're free.

The books won't make a writer of you. That's your job. But they will make  the techniques and tools available that seem to work for the pros. My view is that antyone unwilling to spend $10 to $20, and then invest a dozen hours in picking up the tricks of the trade isn't working to to achieve a writing career, they're just daydreaming of one.

Your mileage may differ.


----------



## EmmaSohan

> Never let your characters relax or feel comfortable in a scene. -- Bickham)



I will concede, even advocate, that one of the things authors can do is give the main character a goal that the reader cares about, put conflicts in the way, create suspense, and then have some resolution.

But that's all? Bickham talks like it is. And I know it's not. So he's kind of depressing to read. He talks about having too many characters, which is great advice that anyone could give, then says there should only be two. Which, in a way, is perfect for a personal conflict. But limiting, right?

He says there should essentially be only two outcomes. I have written the same for scenes involving suspense. Which is to say, he is a collection of generic advice, usually applying only to scenes with goal/conflict to produce suspense and the reader wanting to know the outcome. And of course, like Swain, talking about how the outcome leads to the goal for the next scene, and important contribution.

So he is also not going to fit your first day, Jay. The goal of getting to work is not important enough, and it doesn't lead to failure. The conflict with her mother has no real goal. The problem is, you have a different goal for those scenes. I am thinking that different goal might mean a different structure.

I can imagine Bickham being good advice for some writers. Yes, some writers have quick success after quick success, and it's boring and I have tried to talk them out of it. But relentless failure and disaster? Why can't something be nice to read because it's funny, or profound?


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> I will concede, even advocate, that one of the things authors can do is  give the main character a goal that the reader cares about, put  conflicts in the way, create suspense, and then have some resolution.
> 
> But that's all? Bickham talks like it is. And I know it's not.


The structure of a scene must involve rising tension. In general, someone wants something, and they can't get it, so they change tactics. But that doesn't work either. Because if it does, either the story is over, or you began the story in the wrong place. TIn a scene the protagonist is trying to control their environment but aren't having success. And each failure is more emotionally difficult than the last. That's true be the protagonist trying to get a job, a date, or defuse a bomb. It's also true if the protagonist isn't aware of the danger for most of the scene.

Take a scene from Alfred Hitchcock: Men are sitting around a table talking. Under the table, we learn of a bomb, attached to the underside of the table and actively counting down. The men are unaware of it, and are simply discussing things related to the plot. As the moments pass, for the reader, who knows of the bomb, and its steady countdown, tension steadily mounts. This kind of thing is most applicable to film, where the reader sees the countdown going on, though it works on the page, too. Of course, it looks like the men won't discover the bomb, and will die. But at the same time they're learning things that will help solve the story's problems, if the characters servive. According to Hitchcock, when you keep tension rising for that length of time, something must happen to prevent death. But that aside, every scene is a unit of tension. And every succeeding scene begins with more risk, and fewer options, so that the story, as a whole raises in tension. At the climax, we're usually at the point where the protagonist, if s/he has any sense, will be saying, "I'm out of here!" But of course there's some reason why quitting isn't an option. Perhaps someone they care for will suffer.

Every novel has a climax. And every scene helps in the progression toward it. Action films are easier to see that in, but you can see it in pretty much any successful novel.

Take a story with no conflict. A nice man meets, courst, and marries a nice lady. They get along, and have a pleasant life, with work and children as part of it. He's a salesman, and she's a stay-at home-mom. Who would want to read that? Most of us live it. But...change it a bit and make the husband have a secret life as covert counter-terrorism operative. Have the wife, bored with the lack of excitement in her life flirt with taking a lover. Do that and you have True Lies, and end up with the family's daughter clinging to a Harrier VTOL fighter plane her father is piloting and the audience cheering. Which story would you find more interesting?

The thing to remember is that if the tension doesn't increase the story will become boring. Think of a fight scene. If the characters simply exchange punches or sword strokes at the same level of intensity the reader will become bored and turn away. But continue raising tension for two long and you get into melodrama. So the ideal is to balance that, and is why most scenes end in disaster—or the kind of win that's worse than losing. This article talks about that.





> So he is also not going to fit your first day, Jay


We have a character, Delia, with a scene goal that has that is interrupted. Tension enters, then, and continues to build, till it climaxes with her loss of esteem and self-worth, and the scene ends, along with that chapter. That pretty much fits the definition of a scene per Swain, per Bickham, etc. Her first day is neither one scene nor one chapter. Later in the day, at home, the sequel takes place, as does the opening to scene two, which does not end till chapter three completes.





> The goal of getting to work is not important enough, and it doesn't lead to failure


Again, you're assigning a role to the scene goal that it _does not occupy._ It's a short term goal that serves two purposes. First, it provides context, and is part part of placing the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint by making us know what _we_ want. It calibrates our expectations to that of the protagonist so our reaction will match that of the protagonist when something interferes with that goal. And it's called a short term scene-goal because what interrupts it often changes the goal.

Take a simple story in which the short term goal is to go shopping That will mentally place us at the market when the protagonist is walking across a parking lot, so the author doesn't have to step in stage to explain, which would make the characters ask him/her who they are and why they're talking about them.  When the character takes a grocery cart and steps back, he bumps into a woman, who he  finds interesting. No one has to tell the reader that he has a new short term goal. Only the first one in the scene must be specified, and even then it should be incidental to the action.

Again, in that opening scene in _A Chance Encounter,_ the progression of short-term scene goals is:

• Get to work. When Delia sees the door the book shop open and sees the woman, the goal isn't dropped, but it is placed on the back burner as a new one takes its place.
• Figure out what's happening across the  street when she sees the woman. Holds till the card is dropped
• Investigate what the woman dropped.
• Decide what to do with the card she found.
• Try  to generate interest in her on the part of the passing stranger.
• Go to work.





> Why can't something be nice to read because it's funny, or profound?


For humor, things are going wrong all the time, and rising tension is most evident there. How many humor scenes have you read where something goes wrong, and no matter what the protagonist tries, it keeps on getting worse? The essence of humor is things going wrong and tension rising.

For profound, that's more the literary genre. And there, beauty of language, hidden meaning, interesting wording, vivid language, and that sort of thing are of equal importance with story. A character may walk into the room bound for a seat at the table, and the trip there may take three chapters worth of reflection, digression, philosophical meandering, and poetic references. Nothing wrong with that, and if that's the kind of writing you prefer more power to you. But that's a specialty genre, and unique.


----------



## Pete_C

Here's an interesting aside. Last week I spent four days at a publishing conference in Spain. During an evening bar session with a number of publishers I raised a question about the value of 'how to write' books. The consensus was quite interesting. Not one person said they would suggest to a writer, new or otherwise, that they read any of the many books that claim to offer guidance on fiction writing. Journalism, yes; non-fiction, yes; fiction, no, not a chance! 

A few did also add that they could pretty much tell within the first few paragraphs whether a writer had followed the guidance of one of any of the multiple 'approaches' that are touted by such books. It wasn't said in a good way.

The negativity generally centred on the fact that any fiction writing that lacks a degree of personality (whether literary quirks, tonal interest, constructional creativity or a singular element of voice that separated it from the general mass of submitted works) pretty much made the book unsaleable, in as much the volume of potential sales would not make it a viable option in today's market.

I went on to question whether any of the books did highlight element of structure that the publishers demanded. Luckily it was my round, because if I hadn't been buying the drinks I think they would have lynched me. The feedback was one hundred per cent indicative that none of those present, or their companies (as far as they were aware), wanted stories that were simply cleanly written, well presented and following certain conventions. They wanted something that challenged readers, that took risks, that broke boundaries, that had an original voice. Why? Because the rising tide of free or cheap self-published works that follow certain fiction-writing formulas has pushed the type of readers that pay good money for books to demand more than the average fayre.

In short, some of the leading publishers in EMEA know what they want, and it's not what Swain or any of the others suggest. They want better than that; much better. They want originality, creativity and a distinctive voice. That's what sells. Nothing else.

In reality, I'd trust them rather than those who obsess about a book written (poorly) by a pulp writer in the early 1980s.

Of course, this does mean that any poor writer who has been persuaded to either read and follow Swain's approach or has been guided by advice from anyone who champions Swain's approach has significantly less chance of being published than if they'd gone their own way, found their own voice and allowed their creativity to develop.

People are free to believe what they want about Swain and his thinking, but to foist it upon others is both unfair and unacceptable.


----------



## midnightpoet

I think I was that early 1980's "pulp writer" but at least I learned from my mistakes.  I think an original, creative voice is very important.  Advice is helpful, but you can't expect someone else to write your story for you.  Of course what do they mean by "challenging readers," "pushing boundries?" That's part of the process of hard work, research, and persistence that a writer needs to succeed.  I think the more experienced writers get frustrated and say "just write!" but I can't blame them


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> The structure of a scene must involve rising tension.



The structure can't be rising _interest_? How many readers want to be tense all of the time?

And just wrong. Let's say there are 20 good things you can accomplish in a scene. Tension is just one. Some people like gut-wrenching tension. But a scene without any tension has 19 other ways to be worth reading. Right? And rising? That would be great sometimes, but only for a Goal/Conflict/Resolution scene.

For example, my MC is a young girl on a quest. I can say she felt lonely. But that was so important I inserted a 1K scene just to "show" she was lonely, so the reader could feel and remember that. It would have been silly to avoid goals and tension in that scene, just as it would be silly to avoid humor or surprise or character development, but (1) tension was never the point, (2) the goals came and went, and (3) there certainly was no need for rising tension. (I think I used the scene structure of contrast.)


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> For profound, that's more the literary genre. And there, beauty of language, hidden meaning, interesting wording, vivid language, and that sort of thing are of equal importance with story. A character may walk into the room bound for a seat at the table, and the trip there may take three chapters worth of reflection, digression, philosophical meandering, and poetic references. Nothing wrong with that, and if that's the kind of writing you prefer more power to you. But that's a specialty genre, and unique.



Yesterday I was reading a Kellerman book, and he had a sentence I rated as profound. It was quite the surprise. (He writes somewhat formulaic detective novels.) It wasn't earthshakingly profound, but I enjoyed it. I'll take a chuckle too, humor doesn't have to be endless laughter.

So, sorry if I didn't communicate it right, but to me humor and profoundity can be small things added to a scene. Same for surprise or even tension, which might explain why I am reacting strongly to making tension sound vital to a scene as opposed to just one useful tool in our toolbox.


----------



## Phil Istine

Pete_C said:


> In short, some of the leading publishers in EMEA know what they want, and it's not what Swain or any of the others suggest. They want better than that; much better. They want originality, creativity and a distinctive voice. That's what sells. Nothing else.



This is a relief to hear because I can see myself developing a distinctive voice in time - and I have a vivid imagination.  I'm not saying that it's a voice they would want to hear, but no harm trying when the time is right.



> In reality, I'd trust them rather than those who obsess about a book written (poorly) by a pulp writer in the early 1980s.



I have read some more of that book since I last posted about it.  I'm sure that some parts could be useful, but it can become very hard to follow.  I'm not one for slinging out babies with bathwater so I will keep in mind the more digestible parts, but I do prefer to write freestyle most of the time.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> The structure can't be rising _interest_? How many readers want to be tense all of the time?


Sure...except that tension is what creates that interest. Take a scene where the protagonist takes a ride in a sailplane, for example. Done well the reader will feel that they are in the plane themselves, and that will create interest. One problem, though, while it is interesting, it's not moving the plot. It may develop character, true, but to use it for that we need to stop that plot till you finish. And if the reader doesn't ask, "Hey...what about..." If the story isn't engrossing enough to make them demand  that, it's not much of a story. In this case, it would be akin to a travelogue. And the reader paid for a novel, with a three act structure, leading to a climax.





> Tension is just one.


But it's the one readers feed on. Tension is the thing that provides "the problem, the thing the reader wants to help the protagonist solve. It provides the sense of urgency that makes them come back to the story after they put it down to get lunch. If it's just a series of interesting things...if the problem isn't acute enough that the reader doesn't _want_ to go to lunch, why come back?

One of the best comments I've ever received was from a man who read one of my shorts, and commented that his dogs are barking to be fed, because he read for an hour more than he wanted to. You don't want to interest your reader. You want to grab tham by the throat on page one and not let go till "The End." You want the reader saying, "Holy shit this is good!" not "I found it interesting."





> I can say she felt lonely. But that was so important I inserted a 1K  scene just to "show" she was lonely, so the reader could feel and  remember that.


You've set up a straw man, easy to demolish to prove a point. But where does it say that to establish that she's lonely you need four manuscript pages? Tell the reader she's lonely and what can the reader say but, "I see."? But make them feel loneliness for the same reason she does and they will weep. And to be made to feel, not know, is the reason the reader is with you. After all, if telling was enough, we could sell a book that has the synopsis of many stories, and make lots of money. Story _happens._ It's not talked about by an invisible someone, speaking in a monotone. That's for reports and history books.

That sig line I put at the end of my posts says it all. Our goal is to make the reader feel, and to care.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Of course, this does mean that any poor writer who has been persuaded to  either read and follow Swain's approach or has been guided by advice  from anyone who champions Swain's approach has significantly less chance  of being published than if they'd gone their own way, found their own  voice and allowed their creativity to develop.


Were that true, people who get a degree in literature or commercial fiction would stand less of a chance of publication than Joe Shmoe who sits down at the keyboard and says, "I think I'll write a novel." But that doesn't happen, based on the real world. Were it a useful method we would have people on this and other writing sites announcing, weekly, that they just sold a novel. But do they? No. Were it a useful method the top writers on the NYT best selling list would not, year after year be people who have training and mentoring in writing. 

Publishers are _not_ writers. They're business people. And acquiring editors aren't writers, either. They judge the finished product for market suitability. They don't analyze the writing to see if the author is using M/R Units, or scene goals. They just look at it as a consumer and ask themselves if, "Our readers will like this." It's up to the writer to structure the writing to make it readable, and have a strong viewpoint—which it won't have if the writer, like most of us when we leave our school days, thinks viewpoint is a matter of which personal pronouns we use. Publishers focus on style, not the nuts and bolts issues found in the book we're discussing Those they expect you to already know before you begin the story being queried. 

Jim Butcher, a _very_ popular sci-fi and fantasy writerhas this to say about becoming a success. On reading it you might be tempted to say that he achieved success by talking to publishers. I don't dispute that. But near the beginning of the article, he talks about finally learning enough craft to write decently. That matters a great deal because he learned that craft while working on a commercial fiction degree at Oklahoma University, _where Dwight Swain taught_.





> People are free to believe what they want about Swain and his thinking,  but to foist it upon others is both unfair and unacceptable.


Just as unfair as you demanding it be rejected because you don't like it.

But forget that, it's irrelevant. Remember the title of this thread. We're talking about Swain's book. And you've not said one word about where you believe he's wrong. You reject it on the basis of saying you talked to unnamed publishers about writing books in general. Why not talk about the actual text, and what Swain recommends.

For example, viewpoint. Here's a section where Swain talks about presenting a scene in the protagonist's viewpoint, something the majority of hopeful writes get wrong.





> By way of illustration, let’s go back to our scene at the mountain lake. Our focal character lies high on a rocky, wooded slope with a pair of binoculars. His purpose is to rescue an abused child whom he believes to be a prisoner in the camp below. The effect we seek to achieve at the moment is one that will excite such intense feelings of compassion and outrage in our focal character that he’ll be blinded to everything except the absolute and urgent necessity of going ahead with the rescue, regardless of personal peril.
> .....Note, now, how sharply this choice of effect limits us; how strongly it turns us away from most of the potential motivating stimuli laid out below. Meadow, bears, trout, truck, landscape—all must be abandoned, because they offer little chance for the specific kind of stimulus we need: a goad to compassion and to outrage.
> .....Is there anything that offers more potential? Of course: the child herself—the little blonde girl peering from the tent. She’ll be our motivating stimulus.
> .....How to highlight the point we want to make? —Well, suppose the child’s been beaten . . . punished for trying to run away, perhaps. Bring her up big in the binoculars, all anguished, tear-streaked face. And, since kids do cry for a variety of reasons and even our focal character knows it, maybe we should black one of her eyes—an ugly, swollen bruise, rich with blues and purples.
> .....Is the child sucking a thumb or a lollipop? Blowing her nose? Playing with a puppy? No. All such are extraneous, introduce possibly conflicting notes, and thus shatter the unity of the effect. So, we’ll avoid them.
> .....On the other hand, perhaps it would be worth while to give her a rag doll to clutch to her ragged breast. A _broken_ rag doll with the stuffing coming out, to draw a nasty parallel with her own condition and thus strengthen unity of effect.
> .....Then, on to description, phrased in terms to reflect your focal character’s attitudes, his mood. And here we come to an important point, already stated but worth beating on a bit.
> .....For all we know, this child is a brat, a hateful little monster. She received her black eye when she climbed to the roof of one of the camping trailers in direct defiance of her mother’s orders, then lost her balance and fell. In fact, she’d probably have fractured her stupid skull if she hadn’t landed on another youngster, breaking his arm. That’s why the pickup truck is bouncing along the road; the father had to take the other child to town to get the fracture set. Meanwhile, Little Miss Noxious has succeeded in floundering into the lake. It was the third time, and the rags she now wears are the only clothes her distracted maternal parent can find for her. Also, flailing in the water, the dear child lost the handsome new ten-dollar doll her father bought her for her birthday. So the rag doll is one she stole from the little girl of a poverty-stricken family down the line.
> .....Now all the above and more may be true. However, for our purposes here, the important thing is that the focal character doesn’t see it that way . . . and always, we describe in terms of his state of affairs and state of mind. So though our little darling be Miss Lucrezia Borgia, Jr., our story will present her with strong overtones of Little Eva.
> .....So how _does_ the focal character see her, maybe?
> .....
> .....Agnes’ face came into focus, then. The blonde hair was matted, the worn plaid dress in rags. She’d been crying too, apparently, for there were tear-streaks on her grime-smudged cheeks. Dark circles rimmed the great, frightened, little-girl eyes, and when she turned her head to the left a fraction, a bruise came into view, all ugly blues and purples, swelling shut the lids, as if she were a grown man slugged in a barroom brawl.
> .....Miller lay very still, his knuckles white on the glasses. . . .
> .....
> .....A motivating stimulus, and the start of the focal character’s reaction. One approach, out of an infinity of possible approaches. Each of us would do it differently—differently each minute, even—for each of us can only be himself as he is at this moment. Are all motivating stimuli this lengthily or this tightly drawn?
> .....Of course not; no more than all shots in a movie are close-ups. Thus, the scene on the lake might begin:


There's more, but this is a dfair usage sample, only. Notice that he gives no rules, demands no format or strictures. He only talks about issues that will influence both the reader's and the protagonist'sd emotions. Do you disagree, and favor a more external observer's description of a scene than presenting what matters to the protagonist? And if so, why? Let's discuss Swain's book, or at least a specific book, not writing books in general.


----------



## Pete_C

Jay Greenstein said:


> Were that true, people who get a degree in literature or commercial fiction would stand less of a chance of publication than Joe Shmoe who sits down at the keyboard and says, "I think I'll write a novel."



Never be so arrogant as to dismiss those without degrees in literature as 'Joe Shmoe'. It's disrespectful. 



Jay Greenstein said:


> Publishers are not writers. They're business people. And acquiring editors aren't writers, either. They judge the finished product for market suitability. They don't analyze the writing to see if the author is using M/R Units, or scene goals. They just look at it as a consumer and ask themselves if, "Our readers will like this." Publishers focus on style, not the nuts and bolts issues found in the book we're discussing Those they expect you to already know before you begin the story being queried.



Again, you're being a bit disrespectful to publishers here. Successful publishers have the ability to recognise whether a structure is original and creative or hackneyed and from one of the many 'better writing methods' out there. If I was looking for writers to deliver something creative and exciting, I wouldn't pick ones that were dependent upon a linear and formulaic approach. I'd prefer ones that thought for themselves! Also, you make an assumption that publishers, agents and editors aren't writers. Some are, some aren't.



Jay Greenstein said:


> Jim Butcher, a very popular sci-fi and fantasy writerhas this to say about becoming a success. On reading it you might be tempted to say that he achieved success by talking to publishers. I don't dispute that. But near the beginning of the article, he talks about finally learning enough craft to write decently. That matters a great deal because he learned that craft while working on a commercial fiction degree at Oklahoma University, where Dwight Swain taught.Just as unfair as you demanding it be rejected because you don't like it.



The linked text doesn't mention Swain, following linear methodology or reading blogs about how to write; not once. It does however underline the importance of tenacity. That aside, for someone who pontificates about the reader you clearly didn't read what I wrote, preferring to makes assumptions about it. I did not demand Swain's approach be rejected, but you read that because it serves your purpose to misquote. I have no personal beef with you nor will I shy away from a debate with anyone, but if they are going to use assumptions about what I said rather than reading the actual words, I can't see it progressing.



Jay Greenstein said:


> But forget that, it's irrelevant. Remember the title of this thread.



Swain



Jay Greenstein said:


> We're talking about Swain's book. And you've not said one word about where you believe he's wrong. You reject it on the basis of saying you talked to unnamed publishers about writing books in general. Why not talk about the actual text, and what Swain recommends.



I did talk about it in an earlier post. As a result of this debate I talked to other people in publishing, the ones whose requirements both Swain and yourself claim to understand, and found your assertations to be incorrect. For the benefit of other writers on WF I passed on that information in a post that was clearly marked as an 'aside' to the main thread. I did so because the point of the main thread is that Swain's approach should be advised 'sometimes' and not 'always'. Therefore it was on-topic. Your dislike of a different point of view is not enough for me to not post. 

Please do not presume to pick me up on my contribution to threads. You are just another member here; some might call you another Joe Shmoe, to use your vernacular, but I wouldn't be so disrespectful.


----------



## Bayview

I think any argument based on "the vast majority of Writer-Type-X has trouble getting published" needs to acknowledge that the vast majority of every type of writer has trouble getting published. There are thousands of new graduates of MFA and other writing programs each year... very few of them successfully publish. Add in the thousands of writers who closely study all the how-to books, Swain or otherwise, each year. Very few of them successfully publish. Do we have a breakdown of what proportion of the much-vaunted 99.9% of submissions that are rejected come from graduates of writing programs and/or how-to books? 

I accept that there are some writers out there who benefit from how-to books. I don't understand _why_, but I believe them when they say they do.

But how-to books, Swain or otherwise, and/or formal writing education are absolutely not essential for all writers. They may even be detrimental for some writers.

We're all coming at writing from different places, with different strengths and weaknesses and interests. Of course we're all going to have to take different paths to get to our goals. Swain and his how-to brethren are just one path.


----------



## EmmaSohan

So, there is a scene goal, there is conflict, then there is failure. But, you are saying, I hope intentionally, that the failure need not be to the scene goal.

In fact, the scene goal can be replaced. Other scene goals can be added. The conflict can be to the other goals.

It took me a long time to understand that. And I note for others that you said the proper name was short-term scene goal, but that's too long.

So, "We're sitting in McDonalds." could be a scene goal, though Bickham says I should state the goal ("We want to stop being hungry", which is too obvious to me).

That would make Swain/Bickham/that website a lot more flexible than I was imagining. Your chapter 1 still has a wimpy failure which does not lead to the goal of the next scene. What is the first scene goal for the next scene.?Doesn't it have a lot of conflict before any goal is stated?

***

The more you say your two chapters fit Swain, the more I think that most everything fits Swain. It seems, from your examples, that an author with no conflict would not fit Swain, and an author with constant quick success would not. Are there any other possibilities?


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Again, you're being a bit disrespectful to publishers here


In what way? You said you met with "publishers," at that bar. And publishers are business people, whose business is to sell stories. They aren't writers, and in general not editors, either. Remember, we're talking real publishers, who invest their own money into bringing a given book to market. Out of curiosity, though, I would be interested in knowing which convention it was, though, and the name of the publishers in the group.

That aside, if you really meant to say, acquiring editors who work for a publisher, their education doesn't include training in writing. They're usually English Majors who worked their way up to their position at a publishing house. 





> The linked text doesn't mention Swain, following linear methodology or reading blogs about how to write; not once.


Nor did you mention him, only the generic "books on writing" The text I linked to simply illustrated that a highly popular writer felt it necessary to acquire the craft of the writer, and that he acquired that education at a university that not only espouses the methods in Swain's books, he taught them _there_. So because you're, in effect, recommending that people not go to that school, it seems reasonable to offer a rebuttal by someone who went there.

And of course, there's also people like Jerry Pournell. He does agree with you—as do I—that most books on writing are lousy. I've not argued that point. In fact, it's why I so often suggest specific authors. But...we're not discussing books on writing, we're discussing one of two books, written by one person, Professor Dwight Swain. And being specific, Jerry  Pourelle, a past president of the SFWA and a four times NYT best seller (who is one of over 200 people who wrote glowing reviews for the book under discussion) says 





> "I have  little use for books on how to write, but Dwight Swaine's Techniques is  an exception. I don't know anyone in my racket who can't benefit from at  least one of the chapters in this work. It has been around a long time  because it talks about permanent factors.
> 
> I unhesitatingly recommend this book to anyone who wants to make a living at writing.


Kind of hard to dismiss that, I think. After all, the man agrees with you.





> During an evening bar session with a number of publishers I raised a question about the value of 'how to write' books.


Not really. "How to write' books" is a pretty broad subject, and unrelated to the subject of this thread. So it appears that, per yourself: you asked people—unidentified as to function with their company—at an unidentified "convention" about the generic, "books on writing," and are applying responses to that general comment to one specific book. I think may be applying a broad comment to too narrow an area.

I get it. You don't like Swain's Techniques of the Selling Writer. That's pretty obvious. But fair is fair. I gave you a specific example from _that_ book and asked you if you disagreed, and why. That would be discussing the methodology, not the man. After all, if the subject of the thread is one suggested approach to writing, and you disapprove, why not present the opposing view of how to handle that scene? Why not get the areas you do agree with out of the way and discuss those you don't. Perhaps we might discuss an area of the book you disagree with, Scene and sequel; M/R Units; Conflict and how to build it; Fiction Strategy, etc., and get a variety of viewpoints. Let's discuss where you think Swain, and those who recommend the same kind of approach are inaccurate.

That sounds like a lot more fun than, "Books on writing are bad...No they're not...yes they are," ad nausium. :lol:


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Do we have a breakdown of what proportion of the much-vaunted 99.9% of  submissions that are rejected come from graduates of writing programs  and/or how-to books?


No specifics, since the publishers don't keep that data. But given that the publishers say they view 75% of what's received as unreadable, I would doubt they're the ones from people who have taken meaningful steps toward acquiring knowledge through schooling, conferences, and study. Remember, we pretty much universally leave high school believing that writing is writing, and that we have that part taken care of. So why would the average hopeful writer even seek out texts on writing?

And that's born out by the manuscripts I received. At least 75% were written in the style we learn in school, author-centric and fact-based. The voice of an invisible narrator explained the story to the reader. They were equally divided between what amounted to a very detailed book report and a transcription of the author telling the story aloud.

Of the rest, they showed varying degrees of knowledge, but as a group, were heavily weighted toward the bottom 75%. And I can't blame them. Who's to tell us that the goal of fiction—to entertain—can't be achieved with report and essay-writing techniques we're given? Not the teachers, who learn their writing skills in the same classrooms. Not their classmates. And based on the writing, things like the structure of a scene on the page aren't something you simply discover by sitting at the keyboard, or reading fiction. After writing six (unsold) novels, I thought I'd improved dramatically. And to an extent, that was true, in areas other than structural. But as I learned after a professional evaluation, I had not the proverbial snowball in hell's chance of keeping an acquiring editor reading _to_ the end of the first page. All I'd managed to do was improve my nonfiction writing skills.

Learning that my characters were cardboard, that I was thinking/writing cinematically, that their behavior was plot and pop-psychology driven was devastating—so much so that I don't want anyone else to have to go through the same thing. The simple fact is that we cannot use the approach we learned in school for fiction because its objective is to inform, not entertain. But, it took us twelve years or more to achieve the level of knowledge we leave school with. Based on that, is reasonable to assume that we can discover and perfect, on our own, a set of skills of equal complexity?

I didn't save it, and really wish I did: Tor used to have a little message as part of their submissions page. In it, they pointed out that the odds of getting published do not represent a lottery, and if you take no steps to become knowledgeable in how to write for publication the actual odds of rejection are 100%. On the other hand, if you do learn, and perfect the skills needed, the odds are pretty good that you will be published. And to my mind, that matters more then statistics on rejection. Especially given that 86.7% of statistics are made up on the spot. :untroubled:


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> And to my mind, that matters more then statistics on rejection. Especially given that 86.7% of statistics are made up on the spot. :untroubled:



So does this mean you'll quit with the 99.9% stat?


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> So, there is a scene goal, there is conflict, then there is failure.  But, you are saying, I hope intentionally, that the failure need not be  to the scene goal.


Absolutely. The scene-goal is what's driving the protagonist in the moment that character calls now. So in fast-food example you give, assume that while she's eating, her short term goal is to finish lunch and head for someplace she absolutely has to be.

Why that matters is simple, but not obvious. Assume we're just following the character around and recording what happens to them, relying on the idea that this is an interesting person, doing interesting things. So after lunch, and perhaps conversation, she starts out, but on the way, she meets a friend who says, "I really need your help," and outlines their problem. Without knowing her goal we would accept the interruption without anything but curiosity. But view the same event with the knowledge of how important her goal is to _her_ and our reaction is very different, because now, we take her needs and imperatives into account as we decide what she _should_ do next were we at the controls. So now, we have an emotional reaction to the event that matches hers.

Look at it this way: Assume that someone comes running into the room and says, "Did you hear? Someone was hit by a car at the corner?" Compare your emotional reaction that, and how you would react were it to be, "Did you hear? Your mother was hit by a car at the corner?" Emotional involvement makes  _huge_ difference in the way we perceive events. So the more involved in the scene we can make the reader feel...





> That would make Swain/Bickham/that website a lot more flexible than I  was imagining. Your chapter 1 still has a wimpy failure which does not  lead to the goal of the next scene. What is the first scene goal for the  next scene.?


In chapter two we have the sequel to scene one, where she thinks back over what she did. I looked back at the story (which I should have done before this...sorry). The sequel for scene one takes place at the end of cjghapter one, when she thinks back over what happened and decides that the man she met would be better suited to the woman who dropped the card, because she had little going for her that a man would want.

Part of her problem is that she has a poor self image, because she used to be heavy, and felt worthless, and hasn't yet realized that with her changes in lifestyle and diet, she has become a beautiful woman. So her decision in chapter one, that she isn't worthy of the man, drives her mood as she enters chapter two, which begins with her conflict with mom over having given the card to the man,  an argument she can't win. Her goal going in is to share a little gossip and vent her frustration. Again, she knows emotional defeat because her mother is not only unreasonable, she's so damned frustrating that Delia has a new background goal, a subplot, that of getting out of her mothers house and out from under her thumb. 

Her short term goal after that, is to decompress (the scene's sequel) by working on a romance novel (I found that ifunny). Her goal is changed when Mom tells her that the woman she met is dead, to one of learning if the Gail Morton mentioned on the news as dying in a fall is the woman she met in the snow. And that holds till she discovers the man she met, at the funeral, which changes her goal to one of getting away before he murders her, too.


----------



## EmmaSohan

What about this? The book I was reading last night begins with a horrific (unmarked) prologue. Chapter 2 switches to something more ordinary. The horrific prologue hooked me and I wanted to read to find out what would happen. So I think the prologue was to get me through the slower start.

But, it wasn't _rising _tension. The prologue made Chapter 2 weaker, I think. (It was harder to care about a woman ending an affair when someone else's life was being completely ruined.) And if the author had really succeeded, I wouldn't be paying good attention to Chapter 2, I would be hurrying to the continuation of the prologue.

So is that using tension and goal/conflict to keep me reading, but actually making the story worse?


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Dunno. Link to it and I'll take a look. One thing to look at, though, is its sales ranking and the comments readers post.


----------



## Pete_C

Bayview said:


> I think any argument based on "the vast majority of Writer-Type-X has trouble getting published" needs to acknowledge that the vast majority of every type of writer has trouble getting published. There are thousands of new graduates of MFA and other writing programs each year... very few of them successfully publish. Add in the thousands of writers who closely study all the how-to books, Swain or otherwise, each year. Very few of them successfully publish. Do we have a breakdown of what proportion of the much-vaunted 99.9% of submissions that are rejected come from graduates of writing programs and/or how-to books?



I can only answer this based on my experience. Agents tend to start with cover letters and biogs. They're looking for something saleable and that includes someone with pedigree. Agents can survive off one or two big hitters; the rest of their stable is a punt. In publishing houses I've worked in, and that people I've known for years work in, it's common to never see a biog or cover letter. They're held back, because the goal is to make a judgement on the book itself. If a publisher gets something that works for them, they look more at the long game. 

Obviously, if the author is the Pope or a mass murderer, that has traction. The MSS will simply be rewritten if its poor quality, because fame trumps quality every time when looking at the bottom line.

For example, one of the famous best seller female authors known for raunchy novels has one title that people all recognise. It never made a penny for the publisher but established her as a major name. From that point on she made them serious cash, because they didn't need to market her again.

I'd say take the percentage of literature graduates who write, and that'll be the same percentage that get rejected. Certainly, in the EMEA region we don't really have degrees in fiction writing, because we come from a lyrical and storytelling tradition :-". As such, most publishers view such degrees as a bit of a cop-out, like sociology! 

Obviously, Jay is the expert in the US publishing market so you'll have to take his guesstimates as you find them.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Unless Jay has worked in publishing, and I don't recall him ever saying that he has, I'll take his guesstimates with a generous sprinkling of salt.


----------



## Pete_C

Jack of all trades said:


> Unless Jay has worked in publishing, and I don't recall him ever saying that he has, I'll take his guesstimates with a generous sprinkling of salt.


 I don't know if he has said as much, but he's pretty certain about what they want to publish so he must have an inside track, surely?


----------



## Terry D

*The only name that should be bandied about in this thread for discussion, is Swain. Thanks.*


----------



## Pete_C

I am the first to admit when I'm wrong, so here goes: I was wrong. I suggested that Swain published 'Techniques' in 1981, making it a mere 37 years out of step with modern literature. That was the date is became available in paperback. It was actually published in 1965. That actually switched on a light bulb in my head.

In 1965, there was a proliferation of magazines that solely dealt in the 'pulp' market. They paid for stories that matched a formula, that followed a definitive progressive arc of conflict/resolution. The stories were predominantly sci-fi, horror, westerns, war stories, hard romance (read softish porn), etc.; the emphasis was on sensationalism. The average populus did not read books, but they lapped up short lurid tales. The stories had to hold in the interest of the average man in the street and did so by delivering wave after wave of conflict, struggle, conflict, change, conflict, resolution. Depth, meaning and experimentation were no-nos. The sheer depth of such magazines meant that each fought for market share by being more lurid, more sensational and faster paced than its competitors. It was a mass market of stories to be read on the toilet / bus / quiet moment at work. For writers, anyone who followed the formula could get a paying spot.

In the 53 years since 'Techniques' was published, the typical reader has changed. Magazines have changed. Communications have changed. The world has changed.

Since 'Techniques' was published, people have protested against many things and changed the world creating empowerment for the masses. man walked on the moon. Disney created a worldwide empire, terrorism became an everyday issue, psychedelia happened, punk rock happened, hip hop and rap happened, women took positions of power, the twin towers were built and fell, a US president was brought down by the press, the Western world had several wars with the Middle Eastern world, AIDS appeared, the recreational use of drugs became not just acceptable but somewhat _de rigour_ in certain circles, an actor became president of the US, PCs and laptops appeared as did the first computer virus, the internet happened, mobile phones arrived, cloning and deep learning and the IoT happened, books and music and films went over-the-air, people no longer thought of fruit when the word Apple was used, things changed so significantly that it's almost laughable how people lived in 1965.

The pulp magazine market died. The demand for lurid formulaic short stories and novels died. The paying market for writing that followed a very defined structure shut down. Readers demanded more and they got more from those who were free to experiment and invent and kick against the pricks. The need to entertain through a sensational and lurid tale was no longer the way to earn money by writing.

Swain's 'Techniques' made some sense in 1965. It didn't make much sense in 1981. It makes no sense in 2018 where those who rise to the top will be innovative, fresh, exciting and challenging. Nobody pays for yesterday's restrictions any more.

Given the paying markets of the day when 'Techniques' was published, I can see a purpose, albeit one I don't agree was necessary. It also qualifies, to me, why it's utterly irrelevant for any serious writer today.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Jack of all trades said:


> Unless Jay has worked in publishing, and I don't recall him ever saying that he has, I'll take his guesstimates with a generous sprinkling of salt.


Work for a publisher? No. Read a publisher's slushpile? Yes. Meet with Agents like Noah Lukeman and Donald Maass? Yes. Own a manuscript critique service before I retired? Yes.

But that's just to clarify. The numbers I quote can be verified with any agent or publisher.

And again, forget that. Want to know if an agent thinks learning your craft matters? Here's an article from Novel Writing Help. Look at point 6. Ian Irvine, a respected novelist also suggests books on craft (not Swain, but he does recommend Don Maass's book, which I recommend when the writing is close to submission-ready. 

But the prize goes to a series of articles posted by Kristin Nelson, of the Nelson Agency. She has a series on Story Openings to Avoid that is pure gold. And, the first thing she talks about is the necessity of a writer knowing their craft. Seems to me that if the one who will be reading your submission says it's necessary, picking up a few of the tricks of the trade before submitting just might make sense.

I really don't make this stuff up. Really.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> The pulp magazine market died. The demand for lurid formulaic short stories and novels died.


I'm pretty sure you've never read one, because you dismiss the single most popular reading material of its time, as a whole, with words like "lurid." Do you really think an entire generation of readers were idiots, and that today's ficction reader has far more lofty tastes? They were the the paperback of the time, that's all. Have you not heard modern romance novels or sci-fi dismissed with the same disdain? Popular fiction is popular fiction. And given that they are the biggest market...

Assume that you're right, though, and that the techniques he espouses, and taught, work only for action/dialog dominated genres, like adventure, sci-fi, and romance, which probably accounts for greater than 80% of the market. What's the problem?





> Swain's 'Techniques' made some sense in 1965. It didn't make much sense in 1981


Some sense? Which part? And on what do you base the statement that it only made "some" sense? Can you support that it somehow stopped making sense in 1881, specifically, or within that decade, with references? That's a pretty serious indictment, after all.

The reason I mention it is that Jack Bickham, who taught with Swain, and ended up as his boss, and with the title, Honored Professor, released Scene and Structure, which espoused exactly the same techniques, in 1999. And he sold over forty novels over his career. So obviously the same techniques work for novels.  If everything being taught in 1965 stopped making sense in 1981, why would the school continue  teaching it today? Why would students enroll? And why would Oklahoma University teach their students only the techniques of pulp adventure?

The pulp magazines were mass market short story magazines. They didn't lower their standards for writing, because readers wouldn't accept that. The public's taste in stories has changed over the years, yes, and such things as wanting more dialog, making it relevant to todays social norms, and other things, has changed. But they're more a matter of style. The structure of a scene on the page has not change in hundreds of years. Swain didn't invent the techniques he mentioned, remember. Nor have viewpoint, character development, and the other nuts-and-bolts issues changed. The nonfiction style of writing we all learn in school has not, and is not, useful to writing fiction because it's goal is to inform, not entertain. And that has always been true.

But again, put that aside, because you're making a generalization. You say that Swain's book no longer makes sense, but don't mention _which_ of the things in it don't, and in what way. Why not discuss that? How about some examples of before 1981 and after? Maybe you could comment on how that fair usage sample on viewpoint no longer works, and present how protagonist focus and viewpoint are done today. Remember, in calling the book irrelevant you're disagreeing with the views of that book expressed by Kirkus, and people like K.M Weiland, a successful author, writer of books on writing, and more. And given that it was out of print until the university's press brought it back in 2012, you're also disagreeing with the views of 235 people who reviewed it with not one comment giving less than four stars. You would think that at least some of them would feel that it doesn't make sense? Wouldn't I be able to find an article on the Internet, by a successful writer/teacher/publisher voting against that book?

If you've not read the book, I have it in ePub format, and would be glad to share it with you, if you like.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> Dunno. Link to it and I'll take a look. One thing to look at, though, is its sales ranking and the comments readers post.



Terri Gerritsen. Ice Cold. I don't think the book matters. Isn't that a common technique? A really exciting mystery or something to keep me reading; then Chapter 2 is the normal start to a book? Again, the point is that whatever excitement would have been generated by that second chapter is eclipsed by the importance of the first chapter. I also might read the second chapter more quickly, trying to get to the more interesting information.

It defies the principle of rising tension and seems more useful for selling the book than making it enjoyable reading.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay Greenstein said:


> Work for a publisher? No. Read a publisher's slushpile? Yes.




How does one who does not work for a publishing company get access to a publisher's slush pile?

Nevermind. I don't want to be banned.


----------



## Pete_C

As someone who writes and works in publishing for a living, and always has done, I tend to know a lot of people in the same profession. People I went to University with, people I worked with, people who also write. Birds of a feather and all that. Until a couple of years ago I'd never heard of Swain or any of his competitors, nor met anyone who had recommended or even read a 'how to' book. Odd that so many people successfully earn a living without having heard of him, isn't it?

On our side of the pond, creative writing courses tend to be evening classes for elderly ladies who want to write poems about cats. So certainly the bulk of UK and EMEA writers of my generation and previous never read Swain or the others (I can't name them because I genuinely don't know who they are). I do on occasions work with younger writers (i.e. less than 50 year olds) and have never heard Swain or other similar names bandied about.

I only heard of Swain a few years ago, via the interweb, and bought 'Techniques' out of mild interest. I've already made my thoughts clear in this thread so won't repeat them.

Some people obviously adore Swain. Mind you, some people pay to have a lady dressed in leather feed them cat pooh. There's more out than in.

Jay, in response to your response, you've made a number of assumptions about myself and what I have and haven't read. These are incorrect. Additionally, I think all of the questions you ask are answered in my posts, so you could always read those in full if you care to.

Anyone else bored of Swain? I am, so that's all I have to say on his books, methodology and teachings.


----------



## bdcharles

^ Pete_C, what work do you do in publishing?



What? Trying to scam freebies? Moi?


----------



## sas

For the record, I have never written a poem about a cat.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Pete_C said:


> o that's all I have to say on his books, methodology and teachings.



Before you go, do you think Swain's description of scene structure is correct? I know you have said people should have a sensitivity to writing and that rotely following a formula will not lead to good writing. But that still leaves a problem of understanding scene structure, which I would like to do.

I found _another _book that begins with failure. Then there is conflict, which would have been more interesting if I didn't know about the upcoming failure. Then there is what would have been a really lovely ending to the scene, except I was already told the outcome. (Ice Cold, Chapter 2.)

Swain says this is bad scene structure, and I want to agree. Jay says it could be okay, ("How do you know?") but I don't know why he tolerates that. If Swain is well-known, why was the author allowed to write with that structure? If it was just to sell books, can we at least alert the reader about the poor writing?


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> Before you go, do you think Swain's description of scene structure is correct? I know you have said people should have a sensitivity to writing and that rotely following a formula will not lead to good writing. But that still leaves a problem of understanding scene structure, which I would like to do.



Hi, Emma.

For what it's worth, this thread from four years ago (Dramatic Fiction 101: The Scene) was actually your first exposure to Dwight Swain's scene structure (with a bit of Jack Bickham thrown in). I merely broke it down into simple steps. :read:

These days, I still use that approach in the planning phase—if I'm not sure how I want a scene to play out.

But if I _do _have an idea of what I want to happen—or if, while writing, a new idea appears that I like more—I'm not afraid to abandon the structure in favor of doing something else.

Sometimes you need a roadmap. Other times, it's fine to trust your gut. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> Hi, Emma.
> 
> For what it's worth, this thread from four years ago (Dramatic Fiction 101: The Scene) was actually your first exposure to Dwight Swain's scene structure (with a bit of Jack Bickham thrown in). I merely broke it down into simple steps. :read:
> 
> These days, I still use that approach in the planning phase—if I'm not sure how I want a scene to play out.
> 
> But if I _do _have an idea of what I want to happen—or if, while writing, a new idea appears that I like more—I'm not afraid to abandon the _Goal+Conflict+Climax_ structure in favor of doing something else.
> 
> Sometimes you need a roadmap. Other times, it's fine to trust your gut. :encouragement:



You are saying above (1) Swain has problems (you sometimes have to abandon his structure); (2) it's the best you know of (it's your default scene structure unless you go intuitive).

I agree.

Your past post departs from Swain, in that it discusses the possibility of success. That makes a huge difference.

Your post does not explicitly mention what I think of as Swain's contribution to scene structure: How the outcome (failure for Swain) leads to the next goal. 


I had the same disagreements then that I have now. For example, in my nascent understanding, there is a critical distinction between character goals (which can drive the plot) and reader goals (which can drive the reader to keep reading). I take it as obvious now the Goal can include a Problem (such as people being in the way).


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> You are saying above (1) Swain has problems (you sometimes have to abandon his structure); (2) it's the best you know of (it's your default scene structure unless you go intuitive).


Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying Swain's approach has "problems". To me, it's more that it's just "basic". Sometimes a writer might want more than basic.

Kind of like drawing a human body. Sometimes you want to start with the basics (head, torso, limbs), then fill in the details. Other times, though, you might decide, "Hell, I'm going to draw a person with wings, and four arms, and a serpent's head and ..." (Which is to say, sometimes you want to break the basic mold to do something different.) :encouragement:


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Swain says this is bad scene structure, and I want to agree. Jay says it could be okay,


I'm not sure where I said that. I did say that the scene goal is interrupted, which isn't failure, just a reason for the protagonist to take notice and action.

But you could begin with failure, I suppose. Say we open with the protagonist learning that s/he is to be audited by the IRS, that their spouse has cheated or wants a divorce, or any number of things. That would provide a scene goal.

My point is that the protagonist usually begins the scene in a condition that's known and accepted, and that doesn't have to be comfortable. S/he could be a slave, or dying. As the second volume of my Ring series opens the protagonist is dying of MS. She She has little control of her limbs, is bedridden, and resigned to death. So she she begins the scene with failure. As the first volume opens the protagonist has just been fired, and is destitute and on the street. But no situation is so bad that it cannot be made worse, so she soon is being tracked by men intent on rape. 

It depends on how you define failure, I suppose.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Deleted, because for unknown reasons, it posted twice, and deletion of a post isn't allowed.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

My reaction is very much like yours. The opening is a _huge_ info-dump, making it read like the intro to part two of a serialized novel. All of that backstory could have been given, painlessly, as incidental conversation and information that enriches the necessary lines. Added to that the editing is very poor.


I went back to one of her earlier novels, _The Surgeon._ It, too opens with an info-dump, but it’s presented in italics, as the ramblings of an unknown character—presumably to make us wonder who it is. But then, the story begins with action, interaction, and decent writing.

Truthfully, this reads as if it was written by a protégé or fan and approved with minimal editing or reading.


A single paragraph shows what I mean:




> Suddenly, he noticed a boy crossing toward the three girls, and he frowned. The boy was about fifteen, with a thatch of blond hair and legs that had already outgrown his trousers. Halfway across the schoolyard the boy paused, as though gathering up the courage to continue. Then his head lifted and he walked directly toward the girls. Toward Katie.


1. His noticing the boy “suddenly” accomplishes nothing, because pretty much everything we notice has a demarcation of before and after, which defines “suddenly.” Plus, who cares if it’s a sudden or a slow thing? His attention shifts to the boy  as a motivation to observe, decide, and act.  

2. He notices the boy and frowns. Why? It’s not mentioned, so the reader expects to learn why in the next line. Instead, we get a simple description that shows nothing to frown at. So the author has presented effect, the frown, without hinting at the cause. In reality, he's frowning because the boy talks to her, which comes later. And given that it is a schoolyard, that he’s on the opposite side, and that it's been reported as “swirling with energy,” there is no reason for him to notice one boy walking and assume that he's bent on the girls, because from the observer's  viewpoint.  it's just a boy  walking, destination unknown. This is a _major_ editing screw up.  And that pretty well invalidates this entire paragraph. It should have begun with the boy only a few feet away, noticeable, hesitating, and obviously wanting to talk to the girls. Added to that, the girls are standing, “heads bent together.” Given that, no way in hell can the protagonist, from a distance, tell who he wants to talk to until  they interact.

And why say, “_he_ noticed a boy crossing toward the three girls, and _he_ frowned.”? What purpose does the second “he” serve? Why specify that there are three girls, here, when that's been established. Drop the word three, and the second "he" and it reads just a bit faster, so the story moves a bit  faster. But this kind of thing is everywhere. This is very sloppy editing.


3. After we get the description of the boy we’re told he pauses as if “gathering up” his courage. What purpose does “up” serve? And what function does “to continue” serve. Isn’t it inherent in his stopping gathering courage, then going on? Those unneeded words serve only to slow the narrative.


4. In the last line, he walks directly toward girls standing head to head. Yet somehow, the observer knows which of the three he wants to talk to _from halfway across the schoolyard_. You might argue that he’s assuming it’s going to be her, because he’s fixated on her. But because the reader doesn’t yet know who he is as a personality, it’s always best not to assume the reader will know your intent for a line. As they say, “Mean what you say, and say what you mean.”


Once past this point she presents more a live scene, but still the editing is really poor and the prose bloated. I suspect that, were this her first submission, it would have been rejected before the end of page one because of the info dump.


----------



## Jack of all trades

I don't have time to dispute the entire post above mine, but will focus on one piece of it.

"Suddenly" can have value. King has used it, even though he is usually credited with saying that -ly adverbs should be avoided. It can give clues to character and personality. In other words, it can add depth to a character.

It can be used too much, and becomes empty of value. But that's true of anything and everything!

Swain's rules may help a clueless newbie, but stifle a more experienced writer. This is why "insert tab A into slot B" thinking is a bigger problem, in my opinion, than lack of knowledge of jargon or rules.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> "Suddenly" can have value. King has used it, even though he is usually credited with saying that -ly adverbs should be avoided.


Sure. But not like that because it adds nothing. It's not that it's an adverb, it's that the only thing it does in that sentence is slow it. Any difference between "suddenly" noticing someone walking, as against noticing someone walking is so small as to be negligible.  So all the word serves to do _in that sentence_ is to slow the narrative, just like all the other unnecessary words. Remember, one of the functions of adverbs in speech is to demonstrate. So we say, "Slowly he turned," as "Slooooly, he turned," to illustrate. And we would speak the word "suddenly, at speed, and a bit breathlessly, to illustrate. But on the page it's a word, no more, its function lost. Read the opening pages to_ Ice Cold_, then go back and read Gerritsen's earlier work and the differences will be glaringly obvious, which is probably why Emma disliked the story.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Sorry for not being clear. Rollins begins with saying there was no escape, and then describes the MC's efforts to get away from the Incans. Not every interesting conflict in that context. Worse, the scene could have been handled really well with a Swain structure -- trying to get away, realizing finally that he cannot, then choosing a new goal.

The second chapter of Ice Cold begins with a conflict between two people having an affair. That conflict would be more interesting if we were not first told the affair had already failed and they just didn't know it. The scene at the airport, where they do take steps to separate, would have been lovely, but it just came off as redundant.

I guess we could say these writers were intentionally writing badly so they could have an "interesting" first sentence. Otherwise, it seems like talented authors who could benefit from knowing Swain. That would be an argument against intuition being enough.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying Swain's approach has "problems". To me, it's more that it's just "basic". Sometimes a writer might want more than basic.
> 
> Kind of like drawing a human body. Sometimes you want to start with the basics (head, torso, limbs), then fill in the details. Other times, though, you might decide, "Hell, I'm going to draw a person with wings, and four arms, and a serpent's head and ..." (Which is to say, sometimes you want to break the basic mold to do something different.) :encouragement:



If your brakes worked 95% of the time, you would think they had a problem. The idea that the sun and stars travel around the earth would probably work all the time for you, but it's still conceptually wrong.

I can imagine a writer, writing the final climax, doing everything right for goal/conflict/resolution. And then assuming the ending was good. I usually don't like those endings. Do you? I mean, really, do you like the climactic resolutions? What worries me is the assumption.

Or, if told you that the basic structure for an ending was goal/conflict/pivot/resolution, you would sometimes follow this formula and sometimes not. Just like for goal/conflict/resolution. But your endings would be different. So we can still consider different formulas.

Firing one more shot at that target. Patterson and Kellerman have no trouble doing awesome moment, but most authors don't even seem to get it, and I don't think even Patterson and Kellerman are showing the expertise I routinely see for goal/conflict/resolution. So, if we discover the best way to do something, everyone's writing gets better.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> Sorry for not being clear. Rollins begins with saying there was no escape, and then describes the MC's efforts to get away from the Incans. Not every interesting conflict in that context. Worse, the scene could have been handled really well with a Swain structure -- trying to get away, realizing finally that he cannot, then choosing a new goal.
> 
> The second chapter of Ice Cold begins with a conflict between two people having an affair. That conflict would be more interesting if we were not first told the affair had already failed and they just didn't know it. The scene at the airport, where they do take steps to separate, would have been lovely, but it just came off as redundant.
> 
> I guess we could say these writers were intentionally writing badly so they could have an "interesting" first sentence. Otherwise, it seems like talented authors who could benefit from knowing Swain. That would be an argument against intuition being enough.



Tess Gerritsen is an international best seller. Whatever she's doing, people like it.

If we accept Jay's theory that her earlier books were better and she's just coasting on her reputation, then I don't think we can say that she needs to "know Swain" in order to write better, because she was capable of writing those good earlier books with the same or less knowledge of Swain that she has now.

I feel like you're coming at this backwards. You seem to be judging books based on how closely they comply to Swain's rules. Especially when looking at international best sellers, I think it would make more sense to judge Swain based on how closely he complies with the books' examples of effective writing. If the books don't comply with Swain, I'd say that's a problem with Swain, not with the books.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> ... if we discover the best way to do something, everyone's writing gets better.



I'm gathering that this is what you're seeking?

If so: K.M. Weiland is a writing coach who would probably say she knows "the best way" to write a story (her approach is an amalgam of methods, mixing the teachings of Dwight Swain [_Techniques of the Selling Writer_], Debra Dixon [_Goal, Motivation, Conflict_], Blake Snyder [_Save the Cat!_], and more).

Her method: Structure your story using Scenes and Sequels, like Swain. Use Deep POV. Structure your three acts, like Snyder. Have your plot serve as a physical expression of your theme (an approach that's commonly taught in screenwriting). Et cetera, and so forth.

It's a very analytical and (at times) quite a by-the-numbers approach—and it's definitely not for everyone.

(Pantsers and intuitive writers, for example, would probably loathe her methods. Or they'd at least argue that such a thought-heavy approach to writing is wholly unnecessary.)

Though, if that's the kind of formula you're looking for, she talks all about it on her website: http://helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R

Bayview said:


> Whatever she's doing, people like it.



I agree.

Plus, we can even reword that into a useful maxim: _Do whatever, as long as people like it._


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay Greenstein said:


> Sure. But not like that because it adds nothing. It's not that it's an adverb, it's that the only thing it does in that sentence is slow it. Any difference between "suddenly" noticing someone walking, as against noticing someone walking is so small as to be negligible.  So all the word serves to do _in that sentence_ is to slow the narrative, just like all the other unnecessary words. Remember, one of the functions of adverbs in speech is to demonstrate. So we say, "Slowly he turned," as "Slooooly, he turned," to illustrate. And we would speak the word "suddenly, at speed, and a bit breathlessly, to illustrate. But on the page it's a word, no more, its function lost. Read the opening pages to_ Ice Cold_, then go back and read Gerritsen's earlier work and the differences will be glaringly obvious, which is probably why Emma disliked the story.



I didn't say the problem was it being an adverb. I said it can have value.

The thing with what you said is you did not claim initially that the problem of using "suddenly" * in that sentence*. You gave a blanket decree that it shouldn't be used. I pointed out the problem of the blanket decree approach.

I hope that clears that up.


----------



## Bayview

Kyle R said:


> I'm gathering that this is what you're seeking?
> 
> If so: K.M. Weiland is a writing coach who would probably say she knows "the best way" to write a story (her approach is an amalgam of methods, mixing the teachings of Dwight Swain [_Techniques of the Selling Writer_], Debra Dixon [_Goal, Motivation, Conflict_], Blake Snyder [_Save the Cat!_], and more).
> 
> Her method: Structure your story using Scenes and Sequels, like Swain. Use Deep POV. Structure your three acts, like Snyder. Have your plot serve as a physical expression of your theme (an approach that's commonly taught in screenwriting). Et cetera, and so forth.
> 
> It's a very analytical and (at times) quite a by-the-numbers approach—and it's definitely not for everyone.
> 
> (Pantsers and intuitive writers, for example, would probably loathe her methods. Or they'd at least argue that such a thought-heavy approach to writing is wholly unnecessary.)
> 
> Though, if that's the kind of formula you're looking for, she talks all about it on her website: http://helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com :encouragement:



I agree that for some writers, this is a good approach.

But I'm definitely one of those who doesn't like it for myself, and I wouldn't like it as a reader, either! Can you imagine all the wonderful narrative voices we'd have missed out on if every author used Deep POV all the time?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> I agree.
> 
> Plus, we can even reword that into a useful maxim: _Do whatever, as long as people like it._



Did you really want to say this? Can I get you to change your mind?

If you and Bayview are saying we should not, for example, criticize Stephanie Meyer (_Twilight_) for anything, then you are her strongest supporters here. I might come in third for actively defending her. (Meyer buried her awesome moment in the middle of a paragraph! Ugh.)

At least Meyer does amazing things. When I tried to find things I thought Patterson did well (in the one book I had read), they were all present in the blurb. For Gerrittsen, I mostly criticized _one sentence_. No author is perfect. Fact.

If you are saying it's okay to make a book worse in order to increase sales, you have  lot of company. But then you can't complain when fewer people read books, right? I have clearly stated an interest in the book being as good a reading experience as possible.

And I am baffled why saying the outcome, before doing conflict/resolution, is not obviously a bad choice. Wouldn't that be the poster child for bad scene structure? Admittedly there are exceptions, but they don't apply here. And when I run the scene over in my mind, it is great without that first sentence and annoying with it. Why is that sentence there?


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> If you and Bayview are saying we should not, for example, criticize Stephanie Meyer (_Twilight_) for anything, then you are her strongest supporters here. I might come in third for actively defending her.



I've never read Twilight. I don't think I'd care for it. But a _hell_ of a lot of readers loved those books absolutely to death, and I'd be really, really happy if that many people loved one of my books so much. 

So what did she do right? How did she reach her readers so effectively?

Apparently it wasn't by following a bunch of writing rules.



> If you are saying it's okay to make a book worse in order to increase sales, you have  lot of company. But then you can't complain when fewer people read books, right? I have clearly stated an interest in the book being as good a reading experience as possible.



What does this even mean? What does "worse" mean in this context? Who is the company of people saying that books should be made worse in order to sell? And how do you possibly connect "increase sales" to "fewer people read books"?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> What does this even mean? What does "worse" mean in this context? Who is the company of people saying that books should be made worse in order to sell? And how do you possibly connect "increase sales" to "fewer people read books"?



I want to discuss this. But to stay on topic, the problem is that one sentence, which IMO ruins the scene. Again, this seems to be poster child for bad scene structure -- giving away the outcome at the start of the scene.

Why does it exist? There has to be some reason.

Perhaps no one involved in the production of the book noticed. But what does that say about their awareness of scene structure?

If the first chapter is treated as prologue, then that is essentially the first sentence of the book. It would be odd to claim that no one thought about it -- we all know that it was probably the second most examined sentence in the book.

As a bonus, that sentence doesn't take the perspective of the main character. ("They had come to the end of the affair, but neither of them would admit it.") Omniscient third person, right?

I suspect "She was the chosen one" also gives away too much of the scene. First paragraph, naturally. I think it confused me, actually.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> I want to discuss this. But to stay on topic, the problem is that one sentence, which IMO ruins the scene. Again, this seems to be poster child for bad scene structure -- giving away the outcome at the start of the scene.
> 
> Why does it exist? There has to be some reason.
> 
> Perhaps no one involved in the production of the book noticed. But what does that say about their awareness of scene structure?
> 
> If the first chapter is treated as prologue, then that is essentially the first sentence of the book. It would be odd to claim that no one thought about it -- we all know that it was probably the second most examined sentence in the book.
> 
> As a bonus, that sentence doesn't take the perspective of the main character. ("They had come to the end of the affair, but neither of them would admit it.") Omniscient third person, right?
> 
> I suspect "She was the chosen one" also gives away too much of the scene. First paragraph, naturally. I think it confused me, actually.



Sorry, can you clarify what scene you're talking about?


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> I have clearly stated an interest in the book being as good a reading experience as possible.



The tricky thing about fiction is that it's so subjective. Writing that one reader may love, another reader will probably hate.

All we can do is identify that which resonates with ourselves—and hope that others feel the same way.

Regarding scene structure, Swain's approach is certainly logical and chronological, establishing the character's motivation up front—which then forms a question in the reader's mind: will they succeed?

But it's not the _only_ way to do it. Sometimes you might want to switch things around for effect.

For example: instead of progressing toward the outcome of the scene, perhaps the writer wants the reader to know the outcome from the start, which then shifts the focus more onto discovering _how_ everything reached that point.

Or maybe you want to start with the conflict, progress to the outcome, then _rewind_ to show the initial goal—giving the reader a fun _ah-ha! _moment as they finally realize just what the heck the character was trying to accomplish this whole time.

There's so much that can be done in writing. It doesn't always have to fit into Swain's structure. As they say: the sky's the limit. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> Sorry, can you clarify what scene you're talking about?


The second chapter of _Ice Cold_ (the first chapter is a prologue) begins "They had come to the end of the affair, but neither of them would admit it. In other words, the scene starts with the outcome (with no spoiler alert).

Then they talk and interact. There is conflict -- she wants more from the relationship, he isn't giving.

"When I get back, let's go someplace warm together," she said. "Just for a weekend." She gave a reckless laugh. "Hell, let's forget the world and go away for a whole month."
He was silent.
"Or is that too much to ask?" she said softly.
He gave a weary sigh. "As much as we might like to forget the world, it's always here. And we'd have to return to it."
"We don't _have _to do anything."
The look he gave her was infinitely sad. "You don't really believe that, Maurra." He turned his gaze back to the road. "Neither do I."

I vote for poignant, except I have already been told the affair is over. So it was uninteresting at best. Or maybe I confused because I expected the story to more forward.

The scene as they separate would have been gorgeous, in my opinion, without the spoiler. With the spoiler, it was merely annoying. Including this abrupt change in direction.

He reached for her arm. "Maura, please. Let's not walk away from each other like this. You know I love you. I just need time to work this through."
"I think you've run out of time."

It's actually much better than that, I took out two good parts and just showed one.

I have now read this three times, and each time I like it more (minus that first sentence).  So how did that scene-wrecking first sentence get there? If you know only one thing about scene structure, it's not to put that sentence there.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> The second chapter of _Ice Cold_ (the first chapter is a prologue) begins "They had come to the end of the affair, but neither of them would admit it. In other words, the scene starts with the outcome (with no spoiler alert).
> 
> Then they talk and interact. There is conflict -- she wants more from the relationship, he isn't giving.
> 
> "When I get back, let's go someplace warm together," she said. "Just for a weekend." She gave a reckless laugh. "Hell, let's forget the world and go away for a whole month."
> He was silent.
> "Or is that too much to ask?" she said softly.
> He gave a weary sigh. "As much as we might like to forget the world, it's always here. And we'd have to return to it."
> "We don't _have _to do anything."
> The look he gave her was infinitely sad. "You don't really believe that, Maurra." He turned his gaze back to the road. "Neither do I."
> 
> I vote for poignant, except I have already been told the affair is over. So it was uninteresting at best. Or maybe I confused because I expected the story to more forward.
> 
> The scene as they separate would have been gorgeous, in my opinion, without the spoiler. With the spoiler, it was merely annoying. Including this abrupt change in direction.
> 
> He reached for her arm. "Maura, please. Let's not walk away from each other like this. You know I love you. I just need time to work this through."
> "I think you've run out of time."
> 
> It's actually much better than that, I took out two good parts and just showed one.
> 
> I have now read this three times, and each time I like it more (minus that first sentence).  So how did that scene-wrecking first sentence get there? If you know only one thing about scene structure, it's not to put that sentence there.



Oh, okay. I haven't read the scene or the book (or anything by the author, as far as I know) so I don't really feel like I can comment on the specifics.

But in general terms, and as Kyle mentioned above, "What happens" is only one of the questions a scene can answer, and I don't think it's generally one of the more interesting ones, at least to my taste. Now in this case it seems as if the scene transitions from neither of them admitting that the affair was over to at least one of them acknowledging it, so I'd see the opening line more as giving us the background on the relationship rather than saying what happens in the scene itself. But if the opening line truly _was_ a spoiler for the events of the scene, I can still see it being effective if the author wanted to reader to focus on a question other than the boring "what happens". "Why" and "how" tend to be the most interesting questions, at least for me!

I'm not going to go too far with defending a scene I haven't read, but based on your description of it, I can see the opening line as being an effective tool.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

EmmaSohan said:


> The second chapter of _Ice Cold_ (the first chapter is a prologue) begins "They had come to the end of the affair, but neither of them would admit it. In other words, the scene starts with the outcome (with no spoiler alert).
> 
> Then they talk and interact. There is conflict -- she wants more from the relationship, he isn't giving.
> 
> "When I get back, let's go someplace warm together," she said. "Just for a weekend." She gave a reckless laugh. "Hell, let's forget the world and go away for a whole month."
> He was silent.
> "Or is that too much to ask?" she said softly.
> He gave a weary sigh. "As much as we might like to forget the world, it's always here. And we'd have to return to it."
> "We don't _have _to do anything."
> The look he gave her was infinitely sad. "You don't really believe that, Maurra." He turned his gaze back to the road. "Neither do I."
> 
> I vote for poignant, except I have already been told the affair is over. So it was uninteresting at best. Or maybe I confused because I expected the story to more forward.
> 
> The scene as they separate would have been gorgeous, in my opinion, without the spoiler. With the spoiler, it was merely annoying. Including this abrupt change in direction.
> 
> He reached for her arm. "Maura, please. Let's not walk away from each other like this. You know I love you. I just need time to work this through."
> "I think you've run out of time."
> 
> It's actually much better than that, I took out two good parts and just showed one.
> 
> I have now read this three times, and each time I like it more (minus that first sentence).  So how did that scene-wrecking first sentence get there? If you know only one thing about scene structure, it's not to put that sentence there.


Look at her earlier books. This is different in style, word-choice, and approach. It's written in a fly-on-the-wall viewpoint, and analytically, which is not how her other books are written.

And the editing is terrible. more like something done by an English teacher than someone experienced in her genre at a publishing house. 

Look at, _I Know a Secret_, her latest on that series. It's told in first person, in a strong viewpoint, centered on the moment of the protagonist's "now." The language and approach are not the same as Ice Cold.
Switch to, _The Silent Girl_, the novel after Stone Cold. It begin much like _Ice Cold_, with someone watching a young girl. But this is a close viewpoint, which uses M/R units, (response shown in blue)in which the protagonist reacts to what's noticed: 





> She looks younger than the others, but perhaps that's because she's Asian and petite at seventeen, just a wisp of a girl. Her black hair is cropped as short as a boys, and her blue jeans are ragged and torn. Not a fashion statement I think, but a result of hard use and life on  the streets.


This is _not_ how Stone Cold is presented, but it does match the style of her other books.

In chapter two of _Ice Cold_ there is a line, Danial can't bring himself to choose, she thought.  No quotes, and no italics. But just above, a conversation is reported in italics and with no tags or quotation marks. I can think of no editor I've met who wouldn't react to that with a "Wait a minute..."

Say what you want about her writing being skilled and professional, and I'll agree. But stylistically, viewpoint, word choice and writing skill, _Ice Cold_ is _very_ different from her other writing, which, I think, is responsible for the initial comment about having read a book that had to be set aside. I can't agree that this is either written by her or edited professionally. And, related to the subject of this thread...as you can see from the example I gave, _I Know a Secret_ is written using M/R U techniques mentioned in Swain's book, but _Ice Cold_ is not. And that's the book that was discarded. Significant? 

Your mileage may differ.  :nevreness:


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> The tricky thing about fiction is that it's so subjective. Writing that one reader may love, another reader will probably hate.
> 
> All we can do is identify that which resonates with ourselves—and hope that others feel the same way.
> 
> Regarding scene structure, Swain's approach is certainly logical and chronological, establishing the character's motivation up front—which then forms a question in the reader's mind: will they succeed?
> 
> But it's not the _only_ way to do it. Sometimes you might want to switch things around for effect.
> 
> For example: instead of progressing toward the outcome of the scene, perhaps the writer wants the reader to know the outcome from the start, which then shifts the focus more onto discovering _how_ everything reached that point.
> 
> Or maybe you want to start with the conflict, progress to the outcome, then _rewind_ to show the initial goal—giving the reader a fun _ah-ha! _moment as they finally realize just what the heck the character was trying to accomplish this whole time.
> 
> There's so much that can be done in writing. It doesn't always have to fit into Swain's structure. As they say: the sky's the limit. :encouragement:



Three types of scenes:

1. When I want to producing a gut-wrenching scene, I pretty much follow goal/conflict/resolution, incorporating all of the other good advice that has been given to achieve this goal. No variations. The prologue to Excavation, IMO, is substantially improved simple by following Swain's structure.

2. All of my other scenes seem to have a tight structure. But they are not variations on goal/conflict/resolution -- they have a different structure to achieve a different writing goal. Without the goofy first line, the first scene of Chapter 2 of Ice Cold has a tight structure leading to a gorgeous ending.

3. Chapter 1 of Ice Cold has no structure I can see. When I focused on what I thought the author most wanted to accomplished, I ended up with a tight structure producing an effect I really liked, though it was not Swain's or the author's. 

So. I don't think the only possible structure is goal/conflict/resolution, I think that's just one structure. I don't think the other structures are simple variations on that.

Are there are other structures? I am still working on that.

I think authors can do structure intuitively, as Pete said. But not always. Friday night I was reading one of my scenes for probably the 20th time, and -- sensitized to this issue -- I thought _What is a final success doing in the middle of this scene?_ It was a painful edit, but the scene is better.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> I think authors can do structure intuitively, as Pete said. But not always. Friday night I was reading one of my scenes for probably the 20th time, and -- sensitized to this issue -- I thought _What is a final success doing in the middle of this scene?_ It was a painful edit, but the scene is better.



Or you may not be an intuitive author, yourself. So studying structure and whatever will work for you, and that's great.

But I honestly have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. I mean, I can intellectually work through your sentences, but there's absolutely no recognition of the ideas you're presenting, no resonance that connects to issues I have in my own writing.

I don't think one way's better than another way, across the board, but I definitely think one way's better than another way for the individual authors involved. I can't imagine writing the way you seem to write, and I imagine you can't imagine writing the way I write. But that's okay! We're not the same writer.


----------



## EmmaSohan

I need to explain/admit something about Swain scene structure.

To me, Jay's first scene doesn't follow Swain. Jayhas claimed that, with a deeper understanding of Swain, I would see how it does fit Swain.

I could bring up the first scene of Jurassic Park, or The Fault in Our Stars, or any number of scenes that I don't see as following Swain. I have not done so, because I assume Jay would say they follow Swain (with that deeper understanding).

But if all scenes can be seen as following Swain, his advice isn't needed. Or meaningful.

Anyway, when I have said that Swain or the simpler Goal/Conflict/Outcome has been useful, I mean a simple, obvious version. When I say that scenes do not follow Swain, I mean in a simple, obvious way.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> But if all scenes can be seen as following Swain, his advice isn't needed. Or meaningful.


You forget two things. First is the title of the book. He's talking about what we see from successful authors. And he's not saying "This is how you must write. He's saying, this is what I see in successful books., and here's why it seems to work. But he also says not to seek rules to write by. As I often say, you can choose not to use any tool you care to. But you can't use the tool you don't know exists. Knowledge doesn't limit or restrict, it expands your options.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Or you may not be an intuitive author, yourself.


If people can write intuitively, they would not spend twelve years in school practicing, and would have needed no instruction. Did anyone you know intuitively know the structure of a report or essay? They should have, were it an intuitive thing. In reality, and after twelve years of practice and perhaps decades of using our writing skills in life and on the job the skills we own _feel_ intuitive. But they're not.

And how much of that learning and practice was centered on writing fiction for the page? Obviously, when I went to school, during the stone age, things weren't the same. No one mentioned the words, "dialog tags." My teachers spent no time on managing dialog, opening and closing scenes, and how a scene on the page differs from one on stage. All I was taught was report writing skills, author-centric and fact-based and meant to inform clearly and concisely. They focused on the traditional "who, what, where, and when." Has that changed to the point where the student leaves school knowing that the goal of fiction is to entertain, and how that's accomplished? My kids weren't taught any fiction-writing tricks.

I'll agree that there are manty people who, through their own reading, have picked up a sense of pacing, and basic structure. But given the number of people who sit down to write, send it in, and garner a contract, I'm pretty sure intuition isn't enough.

Here's the thing. There are many writing sites on the Internet. And on them we find people saying, "This is what I think/do." And, "This is how I think you can improve this piece of writing." If we take the view that every approach is equally valid, and there is no need to change or modify our technique, then it's a matter of luck and heredity, and critiques are a waste of time. But if we _can_ learn from each other, without outside help, and need no formal education via books and teachers, then we're a classroom with no teacher—which doesn't seem the shortest path to reliable knowledge. If mentoring and outside advice helps, can we take the approach that a book on the subject by someone successful in the field isn't useful, or even a necessity?


----------



## Phil Istine

Whether one can use intuition or decides to take a more structured path, I find that Swain's oft-referred-to book loses much of its message in the padding.  As a book that refers to the construction of written works, I find this truly ironic.
I wouldn't say it's a waste of money, because I am learning things from it, but it could have been so much better.


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> I'll agree that there are many people who, through their own reading, have picked up a sense of pacing, and basic structure. But given the number of people who sit down to write, send it in, and garner a contract, I'm pretty sure intuition isn't enough.



Intuition doesn't seem to be enough _for some writers_. Studying how-to books doesn't seem to be enough for other writers.



> Here's the thing. There are many writing sites on the Internet. And on them we find people saying, "This is what I think/do." And, "This is how I think you can improve this piece of writing." If we take the view that every approach is equally valid, and there is no need to change or modify our technique, then it's a matter of luck and heredity, and critiques are a waste of time. But if we _can_ learn from each other, without outside help, and need no formal education via books and teachers, then we're a classroom with no teacher—which doesn't seem the shortest path to reliable knowledge. If mentoring and outside advice helps, can we take the approach that a book on the subject by someone successful in the field isn't useful, or even a necessity?



We keep coming back to the same thing, and I think this is the last time I'll bother (although I'm weak, so I may find myself sucked in again...): Most of what I learned about writing fiction I learned from reading fiction. High school English classes taught me a bit, but that was mostly based on using fiction as a guide. University literature classes taught me more, but again, these used _fiction_ as the guide. To me, the best "teacher", the best mentor and outside advice, comes from the great writers of fiction. And, no, they aren't giving their advice in a how-to book, they're doing it in their novels and I'm learning by example.

But I've learned a lot from editors, too. Experts in the field who look at _my specific pieces of writing_ and figure out how to make them better conform to _their specific publishing needs_. I know it's hard to get the advice of professional editors before you've reached a certain level of competence, and I think that's where critique sites come in to try to fill the gap. I think amateur critiques can be great and can be awful, but at least they're personalized to the piece of writing in question rather than being a broad set of "rules" that may or may not make sense for the writing in question.

It would be great if everyone could have a good writing teacher, one who helps the writer uncover their personal style and makes them aware of various tools without forcing them to use specific ones. But how-to books aren't writing teachers. There's no interactivity, no way for the advice given to be personalized to the needs and interests of the writer. Me saying that how-to books are of limited value (to me) doesn't mean that a real teacher wouldn't be excellent. It just means they aren't real teachers.

If, for whatever reason, a new author doesn't know what dialogue tags are or can't figure out how novels are different from plays, then, sure, that author should read some basic craft books. That new author may be someone who learns better from information being presented explicitly rather than by absorbing it implicitly, and that's fine.

Some authors may find that how-to books continue to be useful to them even as they get more confident in their craft, and that's great, too. But other authors won't.

Trust me, I've tried how-to books. If I were feeling more ambitious I'd upload a photo of my "writing" bookshelf, about two linear feet of how-to books. All of which I began reading with great enthusiasm and determination, then started to skim, then set down and never picked back up. They don't work _for me_. And I'm sure I'm not unique. I keep trying them. As I've mentioned before, I'm currently trying to force myself to read _Writing the Breakout Novel_, since that's kind of the stage I'm at in my writing career. My work gets published, I make a fair second-income from it, but I'm not hitting the bestseller lists and I'd certainly like to. The mid-list is boring, and shrinking. But I am having a _hell_ of a time finding anything useful in this book. Useful _to me_.

It just doesn't seem to fit the way writing works in my brain. 

Why are you so determined that there be a one-size-fits-all approach to writing?


----------



## Terry D

Jay Greenstein said:


> Here's the thing. There are many writing sites on the Internet. And on them we find people saying, "This is what I think/do." And, "This is how I think you can improve this piece of writing." If we take the view that every approach is equally valid, and there is no need to change or modify our technique, then it's a matter of luck and heredity, and critiques are a waste of time. But if we _can_ learn from each other, without outside help, and need no formal education via books and teachers, then we're a classroom with no teacher—which doesn't seem the shortest path to reliable knowledge. If mentoring and outside advice helps, can we take the approach that a book on the subject by someone successful in the field isn't useful, or even a necessity?



There are a number of assumptions here which are not at all accurate.* "If we take the view that every approach is equally valid."* No one is saying that every approach is equally valid _for every writer_. All I've seen said is that every approach can be valuable if it resonates with the individual. There is no, one-size-fits-all approach.

*"T**here is no need to change or modify our technique, then it's a matter of luck and heredity, and critiques are a waste of time."* This is pretty much the opposite of what the folks here seem to be saying. The vast majority (in fact I'd suggest 99.9%) of the people who come to sites like this are looking for way to 'to change, or modify their technique', that's why they are seeking critique. Perhaps they aren't interested in completely scrapping the way they structure their work, but they _are_ looking for feedback on what does and doesn't work within their writing. To my mind that is the greatest benefit of critique.

*"But if we can learn from each other, without outside help, and need no formal education via books and teachers, then we're a classroom with no teacher—which doesn't seem the shortest path to reliable knowledge." *I disagree. We become a university with hundreds of teachers, each with his or her own strengths and experience to share.

*"**If mentoring and outside advice helps, can we take the approach that a book on the subject by someone successful in the field isn't useful, or even a necessity?"* You can. And you are welcome to consider it a necessity for yourself. But, as has been shown in previous posts by writers both experienced and inexperienced, it is obviously not a necessity for everyone. Just because it works for some does not mean it works for all, or even most.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> You forget two things. First is the title of the book. He's talking about what we see from successful authors. And he's not saying "This is how you must write. He's saying, this is what I see in successful books., and here's why it seems to work. But he also says not to seek rules to write by. As I often say, you can choose not to use any tool you care to. But you can't use the tool you don't know exists. Knowledge doesn't limit or restrict, it expands your options.



You might be happy to know I have not forgotten either of those. I have consistently treated Swain's description of scene structure as a tool, and I have tried to argue that sometimes it works great (and usually it does not).

I have noted that when you talk about Swain's scene structure, you talk about selling the book to an agent and keeping the reader reading (whether the reader will actually enjoy that or not). You rarely claim it adds to a positive reading experience . You seem to lack the concept that I might put a book down and then eagerly pick it up again simply because the book is good. Or that I would realize a book is just a bunch of hooks, skip to the end, and quit. I think you would be aghast that I marked in my book where the reader should stop and go to sleep.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Some people like horses a lot. Horse books are written for them, and the discussion of horses bores me. Other people like romance, adrenalin rushes, gut wrenching tension, humor, or horror. I like emotions and growth.

But



> The antagonist escapes from prison, goes after the protagonist, she waits in her house for him, he breaks in, and they face each other across a large room, both with weapons in hand.
> The End



IMO, there is something fundamental to human beings to want to know what happens. We should not be saying that some people like resolutions and some don't and authors can choose to do either.

So, yes, we need to recognizes differences in what readers like. (Readers apparently differ in their desire/tolerance for detail and complexity.) But there also something fundamental about structure. There is a reason why we don't tell the punch line to a joke and then explain it. There is a reason why we don't give away the ending to a story or scene.

I think that's a useful distinction. For example, an author might not have any awesome moments. Fine. No criticism. But there is a somewhat tight structure for writing them, and as far as I know every step away from that structure makes them worse. I think it might be that way for a lot of structures and tools.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> The antagonist escapes from prison, goes after the protagonist, she waits in her house for him, he breaks in, and they face each other across a large room, both with weapons in hand.
> The End
> 
> IMO, there is something fundamental to human beings to want to know what happens. We should not be saying that some people like resolutions and some don't and authors can choose to do either.



Why not?  I'm of the belief that authors _can_ choose to do either (or something else altogether). That's the power of being an author: making your own creative choices.

For an example of a story that ends very much like the example you provided above, see the below clip (the ending scene to the film _The Grey_):

[video=youtube;UvZTPfPMYNA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvZTPfPMYNA[/video]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvZTPfPMYNA)

It, literally, ends without resolution, building up the conflict to the breaking point, then _cutting straight to black_.

Opinions will obviously vary, but to me, that ending was fantastic. It bucked the norm in terms of structure (and viewer expectations), and left the ending open-ended, for the viewer to fill in their own continuation.

Leaving the theater, people were certainly talking about it, either way. Reading it in prose form would have had much the same effect.

In my opinion, trying to narrow everything down to a workable formula can lead to a lot of insights along the way—but it can also lead to a lot of creative restrictions. Especially if we start believing that authors _must_ follow certain rules/structures, or else.

I believe when we start thinking that way, we've lost the point of creative writing in the first place.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay mentioned looking at a particular author's earlier books. Keep in mind that once an author has a recognized name, ghostwriting sometimes occurs. So don't assume that the current books are all written by a well known author.

Now I'm not saying all use ghostwriters. But some authors, or their agents or publishers, do hire ghostwriters.

For the unknown writer, there's fewer who are willing to ghostwrite. 

Just sayin'. All that glitters is not gold.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay Greenstein said:


> If people can write intuitively, they would not spend twelve years in school practicing, and would have needed no instruction. Did anyone you know intuitively know the structure of a report or essay? They should have, were it an intuitive thing. In reality, and after twelve years of practice and perhaps decades of using our writing skills in life and on the job the skills we own _feel_ intuitive. But they're not.
> 
> And how much of that learning and practice was centered on writing fiction for the page? Obviously, when I went to school, during the stone age, things weren't the same. No one mentioned the words, "dialog tags." My teachers spent no time on managing dialog, opening and closing scenes, and how a scene on the page differs from one on stage. All I was taught was report writing skills, author-centric and fact-based and meant to inform clearly and concisely. They focused on the traditional "who, what, where, and when." Has that changed to the point where the student leaves school knowing that the goal of fiction is to entertain, and how that's accomplished? My kids weren't taught any fiction-writing tricks.
> 
> I'll agree that there are manty people who, through their own reading, have picked up a sense of pacing, and basic structure. But given the number of people who sit down to write, send it in, and garner a contract, I'm pretty sure intuition isn't enough.
> 
> Here's the thing. There are many writing sites on the Internet. And on them we find people saying, "This is what I think/do." And, "This is how I think you can improve this piece of writing." If we take the view that every approach is equally valid, and there is no need to change or modify our technique, then it's a matter of luck and heredity, and critiques are a waste of time. But if we _can_ learn from each other, without outside help, and need no formal education via books and teachers, then we're a classroom with no teacher—which doesn't seem the shortest path to reliable knowledge. If mentoring and outside advice helps, can we take the approach that a book on the subject by someone successful in the field isn't useful, or even a necessity?



I don't know about your schools, but when I went to school only a small portion of the day was related to reading or writing. We learned things in math, science, arts, etc as well as spelling and grammar.

The "you didn't learn in school" message might be true for some. I've seen some grammar and spelling on this site that makes me wonder if those individuals paid attention in school. And a couple have advanced degrees in writing, too. So studying a subject doesn't guarantee learning it.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> Why not?  I'm of the belief that authors _can_ choose to do either (or something else altogether). That's the power of being an author: making your own creative choices.
> 
> For an example of a story that ends very much like the example you provided above, see the below clip [removed]
> 
> It, literally, ends without resolution, building up the conflict to the breaking point, then _cutting straight to black_.
> 
> Opinions will obviously vary, but to me, that ending was fantastic. It bucked the norm in terms of structure (and viewer expectations), and left the ending open-ended, for the viewer to fill in their own continuation.
> 
> Leaving the theater, people were certainly talking about it, either way. Reading it in prose form would have had much the same effect.
> 
> In my opinion, trying to narrow everything down to a workable formula can lead to a lot of insights along the way—but it can also lead to a lot of creative restrictions. Especially if we start believing that authors _must_ follow certain rules/structures, or else.
> 
> I believe when we start thinking that way, we've lost the point of creative writing in the first place.



Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. Suppose a beginning writer has, in the course of increasing suspense, created no way for the protagonist to live, but he doesn't want the protagonist to die. And he hears your advice: _It's okay to end the story there._ Did you really want to give that advice?

On your example, I think it's supposed to be obvious he dies. Everyone else in his party did; the other wolves aren't going to sit around and watch him fight the leader, they attack from behind. There apparently is a post-credit shot of him on the ground in front of the wolf. From Wikipedia:


> Surrounded by the pack and having the leader of the pack standing in front of him, he looks at his *wife's photo* in his wallet; it is then revealed that she was dying of a terminal illness (& hence his own futility earlier) and that *he has been trying to kill himself earlier* in the film but unable to do so. As the large, snarling alpha wolf approaches him, Ottway arms himself with a knife and shards of glass from small liquor bottles taped to his other hand. He recites the words "Once more into the fray. Into the *last good fight I'll ever know*. Live and *die on this day*. Live and die on this day." (bold added)



Leaving out the moment of resolution, but making it obvious, is interesting. _Pride & Prejudice_ leaves out Darcy's proposal of marriage, mentioning it in the next scene. That actually fits some treasured advice you gave me a year ago: "Sometimes it’s okay to leave the obvious unsaid."


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. Suppose a beginning writer has, in the course of increasing suspense, created no way for the protagonist to live, but he doesn't want the protagonist to die. And he hears your advice: _It's okay to end the story there._ Did you really want to give that advice?


My advice would be: end it the way you feel it should end. And if it doesn't work for readers, they'll let you know. Either way, you learn from it and further hone your skill-set.



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> On your example, I think it's supposed to be obvious he dies. Everyone else in his party did; the other wolves aren't going to sit around and watch him fight the leader, they attack from behind. There apparently is a post-credit shot of him on the ground in front of the wolf.


That's part of the fun of it. To you, it's obvious he died. To my wife, it was obvious he killed the wolves and got away.

The post-credit shot shows the alpha wolf lying on the ground, presumably injured and dying. It doesn't show the protagonist, though (so the question of his survival is still left, intentionally, in the air). All you're left with is the knowledge that the protagonist (whether he lived or died) apparently gave the wolf hell.



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> Leaving out the moment of resolution, but making it obvious, is interesting. _Pride & Prejudice_ leaves out Darcy's proposal of marriage, mentioning it in the next scene. That actually fits some treasured advice you gave me a year ago: "Sometimes it’s okay to leave the obvious unsaid."


I think it's an interesting approach, too.

Sometimes you can go too far in that direction, though, and leave so much unsaid that the reader gets confused. It's a tricky thing to balance out, but it can be worth it when you hit it just right. :encouragement:


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. Suppose a beginning writer has, in the course of increasing suspense, created no way for the protagonist to live, but he doesn't want the protagonist to die. And he hears your advice: _It's okay to end the story there._ Did you really want to give that advice?



So are we just talking about beginning writers? We're going to expect beginners to memorize a lot of rules, and then when they get better we'll tell them, oh, actually, those aren't rules at all?

This is a genuine question.

I used to ride horses when I was a kid, and then I took quite a while off, and then I went back to riding took it a bit more seriously, and I was _shocked_ by how much I had to unlearn. The instructor I had as a child taught me the things you teach someone who you don't think is going to be a serious rider - the easiest example is steering with the reins. My childhood instructor taught us that if you want to go left, you pull on the left rein. Simple and easy and good enough for a bunch of kids who were just going to be trotting around in a circle anyway.

But as an adult, my coach realized I wanted to really learn to ride. So she showed me that reins control the horse's head and neck, but not the rest of its body, and it's the body that actually controls the direction the horse moves in. It's quite possible for a horse to move left while its head is turned to the right. So good riders, real riders, steer with their weight and their seat and their legs much more than with the stupid reins. And I learned that lesson, intellectually, in about two minutes. But it took me _years_ to unlearn the muscle memory and the almost instinctive reaction to steer with the reins. It was a complete pain in the ass.

Kind of a long anecdote (sorry!) but I wonder if we're looking at something similar here. It's easy to tell people there's a formula to writing, easy to use those websites and programs that will tell you you're overusing the word "was" or whatever, easy to pretend that's all there is to it and there's no judgement required or personal style involved. And if the people aren't really serious about writing, maybe that's the best way for them to get a presentable story in a hurry. Maybe it's an easy fix. Maybe it's like steering with the reins. 

But do you meet a lot of new writers who say they aren't really serious about writing and just want to write something "good enough"? Most of the ones I meet say they're really serious and passionate and want to create something great. Now, probably most of the kids I started riding with thought they were future Olympians, and just like those kids, many writers will lose interest once something else comes along. But it seems to me to be a disservice to just assume that's the case.

So if I'm not misreading you and if you are suggesting this advice mostly for beginning writers... do you think it makes sense to teach them something they may well have to unlearn later on?


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. Suppose a beginning writer has, in the course of increasing suspense, created no way for the protagonist to live, *but he doesn't want the protagonist to die.* And he hears your advice: _It's okay to end the story there._ Did you really want to give that advice?



Then the writer has some rewriting to do to create a situation where the protagonist can live. Kyle's advice is about authors being free to make choices which don't necessarily fit expectations. The author has the choice of letting his characters live, die, or for the resolution to be ambiguous. Writing one's self into a situation like you describe is like experiencing the Kobiashi Maru simulation at the Star Fleet Academy. Sure, you can find yourself in a no-win scenario, but as the author, you are free to change the parameters.


----------



## Kyle R

Bayview said:


> ... I was _shocked_ by how much I had to unlearn.


This pretty much describes my writing progress over the past year.

Regarding the thread: trying to _unlearn_ much of Swain's teachings has been, ironically, part of that process. Which isn't to say that Swain deserves to be unlearned—but that, _for me_, I discovered that I work much better when not adhering to many of his concepts.

To each their own, though. I've heard from some writers for whom Swain's teachings were like the missing puzzle piece they'd been searching for.

One person's trash is another's treasure, and all that. :encouragement:


----------



## Jack of all trades

Bayview said:


> So are we just talking about beginning writers? We're going to expect beginners to memorize a lot of rules, and then when they get better we'll tell them, oh, actually, those aren't rules at all?
> 
> This is a genuine question.
> 
> I used to ride horses when I was a kid, and then I took quite a while off, and then I went back to riding took it a bit more seriously, and I was _shocked_ by how much I had to unlearn. The instructor I had as a child taught me the things you teach someone who you don't think is going to be a serious rider - the easiest example is steering with the reins. My childhood instructor taught us that if you want to go left, you pull on the left rein. Simple and easy and good enough for a bunch of kids who were just going to be trotting around in a circle anyway.
> 
> But as an adult, my coach realized I wanted to really learn to ride. So she showed me that reins control the horse's head and neck, but not the rest of its body, and it's the body that actually controls the direction the horse moves in. It's quite possible for a horse to move left while its head is turned to the right. So good riders, real riders, steer with their weight and their seat and their legs much more than with the stupid reins. And I learned that lesson, intellectually, in about two minutes. But it took me _years_ to unlearn the muscle memory and the almost instinctive reaction to steer with the reins. It was a complete pain in the ass.
> 
> Kind of a long anecdote (sorry!) but I wonder if we're looking at something similar here. It's easy to tell people there's a formula to writing, easy to use those websites and programs that will tell you you're overusing the word "was" or whatever, easy to pretend that's all there is to it and there's no judgement required or personal style involved. And if the people aren't really serious about writing, maybe that's the best way for them to get a presentable story in a hurry. Maybe it's an easy fix. Maybe it's like steering with the reins.
> 
> But do you meet a lot of new writers who say they aren't really serious about writing and just want to write something "good enough"? Most of the ones I meet say they're really serious and passionate and want to create something great. Now, probably most of the kids I started riding with thought they were future Olympians, and just like those kids, many writers will lose interest once something else comes along. But it seems to me to be a disservice to just assume that's the case.
> 
> So if I'm not misreading you and if you are suggesting this advice mostly for beginning writers... do you think it makes sense to teach them something they may well have to unlearn later on?



I've said this before and I'll say it again. One doesn't try to train a toddler for a marathon.

Using the horse riding example, steering with the reins is necessary for someone who doesn't have the body size and weight to use the body to steer the horse. It is also necessary for those with preconceived ideas who won't listen to anything that deviates.

We toddle, then learn to walk, then move to running. But we don't run from the beginning. The same is true of writing. Experienced writers sometimes forget how they began, or think they can save others from the early struggles. I think that's a mistake.

I do think there's multiple ways to learn to write. Swain may be a help to some. But the path is different for each of us, and we shouldn't assume we have THE roadmap.


----------



## Bayview

Jack of all trades said:


> I've said this before and I'll say it again. One doesn't try to train a toddler for a marathon.
> 
> Using the horse riding example, steering with the reins is necessary for someone who doesn't have the body size and weight to use the body to steer the horse. It is also necessary for those with preconceived ideas who won't listen to anything that deviates.



Can you give an example of something like this for writing? Something that a "weaker" writer might need to learn just in order to function, but that she will have to unlearn in order to excel?


----------



## Jack of all trades

Bayview said:


> Can you give an example of something like this for writing? Something that a "weaker" writer might need to learn just in order to function, but that she will have to unlearn in order to excel?



Not necessarily unlearn. I see it more as a progression, like the toddle, walk, run example.

A common piece of advice is to rip out anything that doesn't work perfectly the first time. I don't advocate that. At least not without saving the work that's to be removed. I saved everything, and it gave me confidence, because I could always go back and restore what I had. I still save my draft with a number at the end of the name, and save it as the next iteration before doing any major edits or adding the next section. But what constitutes "major" has changed over time. It's a natural progression, not something that needs to be unlearned.

I'm trying to think of an example of something I, personally, needed to "unlearn", that doesn't seem like a natural progression. I can't think of anything.

Maybe it's a matter of attitude, or how I look at things. I move on fairly easily because I don't waste time regretting the past. (The exception is having to do with relationships, but I'm learning to see how it applies there, too.) 

The path you took got you to where you are now. Going a different route would have gotten you to a different place. It might be better, but it might be worse. But even if, and that's a big "if", it would have gotten you to the same place, timing is everything. Too soon at the same place can be trouble, as can too late. But that's philosophy, not writing.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> To me, the best "teacher", the best mentor and outside advice, comes  from the great writers of fiction. And, no, they aren't giving their  advice in a how-to book, they're doing it in their novels and I'm  learning by example.


Makes no sense. If you read a great writer you learn how to write in a way that results in yes to submissions, but if that same great writer great writer _tells_ you how they do it, and what their decision-making process is, you learn less? Didn't you just reject the idea of mentoring?





> But I've learned a lot from editors, too.


But if that same editor writes a book on writing it's a waste of time reading it?  Michael Seidman, who was the editor in chief of Walker's crime fiction, and had experience in pretty much every genre over his career, write several books. How can he teach you about writing technique by editing your words, but not do it via his words on the same subject in a book? Maybe it's my engineering background, and nearly forty years of logic systems design, but this doesn't seem to make sense.

While I agree that you got there without such help, and applaud you for it, look at ten posted stories at random, here or on any writing site. What percentage of them don't read like either a transcription of someone telling the story at a campfire or podium, or a chronicle of events, interspersed with explanations from the author as to their significance? I just went to the Prose Writers Workshop and choose ten stories at random. Six were transcriptions of the storyteller's words. Three were chronicles of events. And one was a mixture. So it's pretty clear that you're unique in figuring it out with no help. Where are those ten to get hints on writing with more skill? From the other nine? They won't get it from their editor because you have to sell the manuscript to have one assigned. And quite frankly, while there are good freelance editors that a hopeful writer might hire, I've seen too many supposedly edited manuscripts that were checked for spelling and grammar, but it was obvious that the "editor" had never either learned their craft through study or worked for a publisher. And in any case, an editor points out the things you're too close to to notice, they don't teach you to write. If they could, they'd be making a lot more money by writing and selling their own work. Right?





> If, for whatever reason, a new author doesn't know what dialogue tags  are or can't figure out how novels are different from plays, then, sure,  that author should read some basic craft books.


Well, then we're not in disagreement over anything but what percentage can or can't figure it out without help. Do a random sample of the various prose forums, and see what percentage of them you think have figured it out so far. I think you may be surprised.





> Why are you so determined that there be a one-size-fits-all approach to writing?


When have I said that? Of more importance, where does Swain say that? He gives no set of rules. He analyzes things like the objective of a scene, and how they work together to keep the reader turning pages. And given that he was a professor at Oklahome University, whet you see in the book is what the university was teaching. He talks about the elements of a scene, and what they contribute, but not how you must write one.

It seems to me that you're talking about books on technique in general, and then applying that observation to the one book that is the subject of this thread. Have you read it? If so, where do you think what he says is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading? How about the excerpt I gave on viewpoint on page 4? I find it interesting that no one has said they disagree, or said pretty much anything. But how can we discuss the usefulness of a specific book without talking about what's in it? So, do you disagree with him on how to present a strong character viewpoint, and how to choose what to focus on?

If you've not read it, as I mentioned earlier, I have a copy of the book in epub format (and can convert it to mobi if necessary) that I would be glad to share with you.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> My advice would be: end it the way you feel it should end. And if it doesn't work for readers, they'll let you know. Either way, you learn from it and further hone your skill-set.



But how would this learning-from-feedback work? A writer writes a short story and gets a bad score, say 12. What does that writer learn?

Another judge gives a 12 and says that the events of the story weren't interesting. What does that writer learn?

A third judge gives a 12 and says that the writer shouldn't say the outcome of the story at the start of the story, but tries to make clear that criticism is just for that story.

At some point don't we have to say, "Don't give away the ending at the start"? To learn, doesn't the writer have to hear or discover some general principle that applies to the next story?

I don't know how to deal with the problem that perhaps 1% of the time the writer might want to give away parts of the outcome in advance. Perhaps there should be some caveat, or an awareness of some higher principles. But not communicating any principle, that doesn't seem helpful.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> Have you read it? If so, where do you think what he says is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading?


No, I have read other descriptions.

I love the idea of considering how the outcome leads to the next scene, and I like the support for letting the MC fail. But not all scenes end in failure. If you want to improve on Swain, consider the outcome of partial success and how that leads to the next scene. Then consider the outcome of success and how that leads to the next scene. These are basic things any author needs to deal with.

There are two ways to keep the reader reading (even though the reader might not be enjoying the book). Swain considers one -- to find out what happens when there is a goal/conflict. The other is what might be called mystery -- the reader doesn't understand what is happening. Your first scene in _A Chance Encounter_ is the second type, that's why it doesn't fit into Swain. Which is to say, Swain doesn't work well when the author has some intent for the scene other than an interesting goal/conflict/outcome.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> But how would this learning-from-feedback work? A writer writes a short story and gets a bad score, say 12. What does that writer learn?
> 
> Another judge gives a 12 and says that the events of the story weren't interesting. What does that writer learn?
> 
> A third judge gives a 12 and says that the writer shouldn't say the outcome of the story at the start of the story, but tries to make clear that criticism is just for that story.



You learn from each and every individual bit of feedback. Sometimes the feedback is helpful, and triggers an insight. Other times, the feedback doesn't work for you, and you graciously ignore it. Either way, it all tumbles down into that well of experience that you build upon—that cumulative effect that helps you develop a sense of tone, of rhythm, of good and bad.

When you read something, do you need to ask yourself, "Which principle does this follow?" in order to know if you like it?

Hopefully not. Hopefully, when you read something that moves you, it _moves you_, first and foremost. You don't have to run it through a mental filter before you allow yourself to be moved.

You simply _feel_ the impact of the words.

This is because your response comes from the intuitive, the emotional—and that's where your learning experiences as a writer go, as well. They tumble into this warm, gooey spot in your mind that _pings_ whenever you read (or write) something good. As if to say, "Yes. This is it. This is what I like."



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> At some point don't we have to say, "Don't give away the ending at the start"? To learn, doesn't the writer have to hear or discover some general principle that applies to the next story?
> 
> I don't know how to deal with the problem that perhaps 1% of the time the writer might want to give away parts of the outcome in advance. Perhaps there should be some caveat, or an awareness of some higher principles. But not communicating any principle, that doesn't seem helpful.



One can write a story by giving away the ending first. Why not? Just off the top of my head:
Four hours from now, George Thompson will lose his left arm to the swipe of a samurai blade. I know this, because it's my curse to know these kinds of things. George's injury—hell, it'll be horrific. A sloppy, ragged hack, right at the elbow. He'll stumble halfway across a parking lot before the blood loss finally gets him.

But right now, well. Right now he's busy falling in love with Angela Kemp—and I wish I could tell him to just keep doing _that_. Don't get out of that bed. Keep your fingers tangled in her hair. Keep your lips against hers, the sweet musk of her perfume filling your every breath.

Stay alive, George. Don't prove me right, once again.​
Whether or not such an approach is _good_ will depend on the story, on a case by case basis. For one story, it might feel clunky and not work. For another story, it might feel like the best thing since sliced bread.

My overall point: I believe a writer should feel confident enough to attempt such things, and not be scared to do so, simply because some principle or rule tells them not to.

It's amazing how one's creative options open up if they're not shackled into a box. :encouragement:


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> Makes no sense. If you read a great writer you learn how to write in a way that results in yes to submissions, but if that same great writer great writer _tells_ you how they do it, and what their decision-making process is, you learn less?



If a great writer wrote a how-to book, I'd probably check it out. But I'm not aware of any great writers who _have_ written how-to books. I think they're generally too busy writing great fiction.



> But if that same editor writes a book on writing it's a waste of time reading it?  Michael Seidman, who was the editor in chief of Walker's crime fiction, and had experience in pretty much every genre over his career, write several books. How can he teach you about writing technique by editing your words, but not do it via his words on the same subject in a book?



Because when an editor is working on _my words_, she's looking at a concrete example, in context, of my writing. How-to books can only offer very general, context-less advice. The advice that will improve my specific piece of writing (or address specific flaws in my style) won't apply to someone else whose writing doesn't have those issues. How-to books are, by design, likely to result in more generic writing. So, yeah, I can see how raising writing from "truly awful" to "generic" would be an improvement, but is "generic" really what most authors are shooting for?



> While I agree that you got there without such help, and applaud you for it, look at ten posted stories at random, here or on any writing site. What percentage of them don't read like either a transcription of someone telling the story at a campfire or podium, or a chronicle of events, interspersed with explanations from the author as to their significance? I just went to the Prose Writers Workshop and choose ten stories at random. Six were transcriptions of the storyteller's words. Three were chronicles of events. And one was a mixture. So it's pretty clear that you're unique in figuring it out with no help.



Well, no, far from unique. Lots of writers far more successful than I am have no formal training in writing.

And I don't really understand the criticism you're offering of the stories in in the workshop. To me, "transcriptions of the storyteller's words" sounds like a pretty reasonable definition of creative writing, as does "chronicles of events". I'm not saying those criticisms don't make sense to you or to those who think like you, but to someone who thinks like me, they're meaningless.

And, really, do we know how many of those writers have or have not studied Swain? His book has been out long enough and there are enough internet sites borrowing his ideas that there must be hundreds of thousands of writers who've been exposed to his ideas - why have these writers not all found success?



> Where are those ten to get hints on writing with more skill? From the other nine? They won't get it from their editor because you have to sell the manuscript to have one assigned. And quite frankly, while there are good freelance editors that a hopeful writer might hire, I've seen too many supposedly edited manuscripts that were checked for spelling and grammar, but it was obvious that the "editor" had never either learned their craft through study or worked for a publisher.



I agree, this is difficult. For me, and for those who think like me, the answer is to read all the fiction available and sink into it and internalize it and then try writing and then read some more and then go back to your old writing and realize how terrible it was and then write something better and read some more fiction and write some more and critique your old stuff and read some more fiction and... you get the picture.

For other people, whose brains work differently, how-to books may be the answer. Sure. But not for ALL people.



> And in any case, an editor points out the things you're too close to to notice, they don't teach you to write.



Well, they don't _explicitly_ teach you to write, no. But by pointing out the things you're too close to notice, they can certainly help you learn how to address those issues the next time you write something. I feel like this may be the crux of things. I learn best by doing, and you seem to learn best by direct instruction? If you're looking for direct instruction, editors won't help you. I see that.



> If they could, they'd be making a lot more money by writing and selling their own work. Right?



Whoa. This seems like... well, it seems like the criticism most often addressed to the writers of how-to books. That the books tend to be written by mid-listers or below, and if they could write successful fiction "they'd be making a lot more money by writing and selling their own work." If we're going to apply that analysis to editors, we should apply it to how-to authors as well, shouldn't we?



> It seems to me that you're talking about books on technique in general, and then applying that observation to the one book that is the subject of this thread. Have you read it? If so, where do you think what he says is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading? How about the excerpt I gave on viewpoint on page 4? I find it interesting that no one has said they disagree, or said pretty much anything. But how can we discuss the usefulness of a specific book without talking about what's in it? So, do you disagree with him on how to present a strong character viewpoint, and how to choose what to focus on?



I've read the book in the same way I've read most how-to books. I've read the first couple chapters diligently, then skimmed the rest because none of it seemed useful or relevant to me. (And I've told you several times that I've read the book. Possibly I'm just blurring into the "someone is wrong on the internet" scrum for you, but we've had this conversation a _lot_!). And the excerpt you gave on viewpoint meant nothing to me. I'm a good reader - law school graduate, able to read complicated contracts and legal doctrines, etc... but there's just nothing for me to grab hold of in works about writing technique. There's nothing that resonates, nothing I can connect to the way I'm thinking when I'm putting words on a page.

You have an engineering background, so I think it makes sense that you would apply an engineering mindset to creative writing. Build a structure, include the necessary elements for full functionality, etc. Fair enough. Carry on.

But it's not the way my brain works and, again, I'm not unique.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> But how would this learning-from-feedback work? A writer writes a short story and gets a bad score, say 12. What does that writer learn?
> 
> Another judge gives a 12 and says that the events of the story weren't interesting. What does that writer learn?
> 
> A third judge gives a 12 and says that the writer shouldn't say the outcome of the story at the start of the story, but tries to make clear that criticism is just for that story.
> 
> At some point don't we have to say, "Don't give away the ending at the start"? To learn, doesn't the writer have to hear or discover some general principle that applies to the next story?
> 
> I don't know how to deal with the problem that perhaps 1% of the time the writer might want to give away parts of the outcome in advance. Perhaps there should be some caveat, or an awareness of some higher principles. But not communicating any principle, that doesn't seem helpful.



Sounds like you are talking about the LM competition which is not designed to be a critique, only the judge's impression of the piece. There's still valuable feedback there, but it is not intended to be as in-depth as an actual critique. Here's one judge's impression of my very first LM entry from several years ago:



> I read this hoping for some kind of twist, and there was. Sure didn’t see that particular one coming. Funny! Even though well written and with Frankenstein in public domain (with the exception of the neck bolts), this work disappointed me in that the bulk was ready-made and so didn’t have the_ Wow! factor that it might have, had it been all your own. Plus, it’d be a mighty hard sell if you wanted to sub it. Next time, I’d really like to see you ‘let the dog off the chain,' as they say. We both know you’re capable of far better._


All generalities. No specific help or suggestions. But this is the single most helpful bit of advice I ever had about my flash fiction and it has served me pretty well. Why? Because it resonated with me. I didn't need anyone to tell me how to structure my work, or how to handle the resolution. It encouraged me to be me. Sometimes -- often -- that is enough.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Because when an editor is working on _my words_, she's looking at a concrete example, in context, of my writing.


But that editor is _not_ basing the response on personal likes/dislikes. That editor has a set of skills they worked hard for, and spent a lot of time honing. Surely you can't say there's no value to sitting down with an editor who says, "This is what I look for, and what I say needs fixing—and why."





> Well, no, far from unique. Lots of writers far more successful than I am have no formal training in writing.


Is lots ten or ten thousand? What percentage of the whole would you say are people who have read no books on writing, and taken no classes or workshops? And of more importance, how do you know? Do you research the background of each authors you read? How could you tell that this person did no research into what publishers look for and that one didn't? Words like "some" and "many" are indeterminate, and meaningless in this case.





> transcriptions of the storyteller's words" sounds like a pretty reasonable definition of creative writing


A storyteller performs, they make use of gesture, expression, body language, tone, cadence, and dozens of other tricks to add emotion to the bare words. How much of that does the reader get? Zero, because the page does not reproduce visual or audible performance. And the reader can't even guess at how you intend them to read a line because they can't tell what a given line will say until after it's read. And then, it's too late. So what's left? A storyteller's script minus the performance notes. And that cannot work because the reader is the performer.





> And, really, do we know how many of those writers have or have not studied Swain?


In general, it's because they're writing a transcription of themselves speaking, or a presentation that's no more than "This happened...then that happened, and after that...and let me tell you what that means."

How do I know? Because they're making the expected new writer mistakes. These are sincere, honest people, working hard to please their reader with the nonfiction writing skills we're given in our school days. They're missing the entire body of craft that publishers demand we use, and aren't aware that they are because our teachers never told us that the three R's are a set of general skills tailored to the needs of our future employers.





> the answer is to read all the fiction available and sink into it and  internalize it and then try writing and then read some more and then go  back to your old writing and realize how terrible it was and then write  something better and read some more fiction and write some more and  critique your old stuff and read some more fiction and... you get the  picture.


Try my favorite experiment, in regard to that: Ask ten friends to tell you what's different about the first paragraph of every chapter, of roughly half the fiction they read. If you're like most who try it you'll be lucky to find one who can tell you without looking. Yet we see it in half the books we've read from childhood. And if we miss something so damn obvious, how much more do we miss that's not obvious?

When you eat out, does that teach you the process used to create the meal? Does reading tell you why one phrasing was chosen over another, or what the purpose of including a given line was? No, because we see only the finished, and polished product. We can't tell what decisions the author had to make, and why. To create any product requires knowledge of the process. One of the reasons I wrote the article, Deconstructing Samantha, was to show the kind of things you don't get by reading fiction. If you can get the writer's intent, and thought processes by reading, that should be obvious no matter the skill of the writer. So see what percentage of the reasons you get right by reading. Might be that you get them all right. Most people don't.





> But by pointing out the things you're too close to notice, they can  certainly help you learn how to address those issues the next time you  write something.


Can't agree. First, because you cannot get to that editor till you're writing on a professional level. But assume you hire a competent editor: If if the editor says to tighten the section you have to first know what that means, and how to do it. If they say you need to get deeper into the protagonist's viewpoint and you believe that viewpoint is related to which personal pronouns you use how can they fix it?





> And the excerpt you gave on viewpoint meant nothing to me.


But that isn't what I asked. I asked if you think he's giving bad or good advice in that section. Remember, you're suggesting that most people need no book on writing, so it seems reasonable to ask why that section would be more harmful than good.

Remember, we're not talking about you, or me. We're talking about this one book, and if it will help the new writer significantly cut down the time to competence. And we cannot do that without discussing the actual book and where it succeeds or fails.


----------



## Jack of all trades

> But that editor is not basing the response on personal likes/dislikes. That editor has a set of skills they worked hard for, and spent a lot of time honing. Surely you can't say there's no value to sitting down with an editor who says, "This is what I look for, and what I say needs fixing—and why."



Balderdash.

Editors are people. People are not machines. No matter "objective" an editor tries to be, total objectivity and impartiality cannot be achieved. And what an editor likes today, he may hate tomorrow.

There was an experiment done once where short stories that had been published were resubmitted. The second time they were rejected. To find out if they had been rejected because they had been recognized, there was a follow-up. They had NOT been recognized. They were simply not liked the second time.

If there was certain standards that ensured publication, then surely already published stories would have met the criteria. But they didn't.

I'm not against editors. But the idea that they have pure motives and ideal standards is ludicrous. They are human, and therefore flawed, even when they have the best of intentions.


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> But that editor is _not_ basing the response on personal likes/dislikes. That editor has a set of skills they worked hard for, and spent a lot of time honing. Surely you can't say there's no value to sitting down with an editor who says, "This is what I look for, and what I say needs fixing—and why.



But most generic writing advice is, well... generic. "Set a vivid scene" is great advice, but then we get authors who spend way too much time building their scenes and I, at least, end up bored as a reader. An editor can say "you spent too much time setting this scene," or "I need a clearer picture of this scene" based on an individual piece of writing and that'll be really useful, but generic "this is what I look for" advice? Meh.



> Is lots ten or ten thousand?



Well, for the purpose of proving I'm not _unique_, I only need one!



> What percentage of the whole would you say are people who have read no books on writing, and taken no classes or workshops? And of more importance, how do you know? Do you research the background of each authors you read? How could you tell that this person did no research into what publishers look for and that one didn't? Words like "some" and "many" are indeterminate, and meaningless in this case.



I have no precise numbers on the backgrounds of every author I read, _just as you have no precise numbers on the new writers who have or haven't read Swain_. We're both making assumptions. I'm sure the number is non-zero in both directions.



> Try my favorite experiment, in regard to that: Ask ten friends to tell you what's different about the first paragraph of every chapter, of roughly half the fiction they read. If you're like most who try it you'll be lucky to find one who can tell you without looking. Yet we see it in half the books we've read from childhood. And if we miss something so damn obvious, how much more do we miss that's not obvious?



Do you mean a drop cap? The lack of indentation? I'm not going to ask ten friends something I can't answer myself! But if you're just looking at a formatting question, then I'm not really sure it's too relevant in terms of writing a manuscript.



> When you eat out, does that teach you the process used to create the meal? Does reading tell you why one phrasing was chosen over another, or what the purpose of including a given line was? No, because we see only the finished, and polished product. We can't tell what decisions the author had to make, and why. To create any product requires knowledge of the process.



_Just_ eating, without examining? No. But eating something, thinking about it, going home and trying to make something similar, tasting it, adjusting the recipe, discovering a new flavour and deciding I like that better than the original anyway, etc... yeah. That's absolutely one way to learn to cook.

And, honestly, I don't want my writing to be exactly like someone else's anyway. I don't want to follow a recipe.

Lots of good cooks follow recipes. But I don't think many great cooks do.



> Can't agree. First, because you cannot get to that editor till you're writing on a professional level.



But obviously even people writing on a professional level can still improve. I'd damn well better still be improving, because I'm not close to satisfied with what I'm producing so far. So I learn from my editors. You're right that this isn't open to everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable learning for those who can get it.



> If if the editor says to tighten the section you have to first know what that means, and how to do it. If they say you need to get deeper into the protagonist's viewpoint and you believe that viewpoint is related to which personal pronouns you use how can they fix it?



Well, yes. I can do those things. So... ?



> But that isn't what I asked. I asked if you think he's giving bad or good advice in that section. Remember, you're suggesting that most people need no book on writing, so it seems reasonable to ask why that section would be more harmful than good.



I can't say if it's bad or good advice because it's meaningless _to me_. It might be good advice for someone else, it might be bad advice for someone else. And I'm not suggesting that _most_ people need no book on writing. I'm suggesting that _some_ people need no book on writing. I honestly have no idea what proportion of people that would be. 



> Remember, we're not talking about you, or me. We're talking about this one book, *and if it will help the new writer significantly cut down the time to competence*. And we cannot do that without discussing the actual book and where it succeeds or fails.



Can you just change the bolded part to "and it will help _some new writers_ significantly cut down the time to competence"? And then I could agree that it's probably good for some writers but for others it will be meaningless and possibly discouraging, and you could agree to that, and we could both agree that everyone comes to writing from different places and different competencies and there's no universally correct way to learn to write and, indeed, no universally correct way to write, period, and we could all live happily ever after?


----------



## Xenization

Honestly, this is a bit of a roundabout discussion because, in all honesty, all Swain did was point out the obvious that anyone who reads with a little awareness and insight would notice so... roundabout!


----------



## Kyle R

Jay Greenstein said:
			
		

> We're talking about this one book, and if it will help the new writer significantly cut down the time to competence. And we cannot do that without discussing the actual book and where it succeeds or fails.


For me, the strength of Swain's book lies in the insights related to POV. Motivation-Reaction Units felt like a magical, secret formula the first time I read about them. I spent an awkward period of time trying to force them into my prose in a formulaic matter, and if you asked me during that time, I would've said that I wish I'd never learned such a thing.

But fast-forward a few years and I've now internalized the MRU concept, and I must admit that it's helped my writing.

It wasn't _all_ I needed to know, though. Other _How-To_ authors helped fill in some of the gaps that Swain's teaching left behind, like Debra Dixon with her _Goal, Motivation, Conflict_, and Jill Nelson, with her _Rivet your Readers with Deep POV_.  Those three, combined with a lot of trial and error, got me to a point where I now feel I can hammer conflict comfortably from any POV.

So, for that part of Swain's _Techniques_, I'm grateful.

Regarding his Scene/Sequel approach, though—I tried to adopt the structure for a long time. Wrote many trunked manuscripts using it. I eventually concluded that it wasn't for me. It's logical, and I can see how it can work well—but the stories I wrote _without_ it were structured much more engagingly (and creatively), and the process of writing was much more enjoyable without it, as well.

So, for me, that part of Swain's teachings was a bit of a time-waster. I had to go through a lot of writing with it before finally concluding that it wasn't for me. :encouragement:



Bayview said:


> I don't want to follow a recipe.
> 
> Lots of good cooks follow recipes. But I don't think many great cooks do.



Well said.



			
				Bayview said:
			
		

> Can you just change the bolded part to "and it will help _some new writers_ significantly cut down the time to competence"? And then I could agree that it's probably good for some writers but for others it will be meaningless and possibly discouraging, and you could agree to that, and we could both agree that everyone comes to writing from different places and different competencies and there's no universally correct way to learn to write and, indeed, no universally correct way to write, period, and we could all live happily ever after?


Not a chance. Writers thrive on conflict. It's in the blood.

This conversation can _only_ be resolved from you both drawing swords and squaring off at the edge of a cliff.


----------



## Terry D

“You can’t learn to write in college. It’s a very bad place for writers because the teachers always think they know more than you do—and they don’t. They have prejudices. They may like Henry James, but what if you don’t want to write like Henry James? They may like John Irving, for instance, who’s the bore of all time. A lot of the people whose work they’ve taught in the schools for the last thirty years, I can’t understand why people read them and why they are taught. The library, on the other hand, has no biases. The information is all there for you to interpret. You don’t have someone telling you what to think. You discover it for yourself.” 
― Ray Bradbury


----------



## Matchu

...


----------



## Theglasshouse

I think craft elements rather than theory is more helpful even though for some swain will be a worthy approach. But you can also start with conflict.

For writers who want all the theory in front of them or what I sometimes see called a shortcut I sort of agree it doesn't exist. I often wished it did. Theory can be confusing. I, for example, think I am weak in writing conflict. So I am learning more about it. Supposedly one of the best ways to start a story is with conflict. Craft as in elements of the craft so I can get started writing on any story project. 

This is just my own opinion. I have tried reputable university class textbooks(from Florida State) and as Terry made me think somewhat these were useless and made me lose years of progress (wasting money on books that don't talk in depth on the elements of the craft).


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Editors are people. People are not machines.


Were that true your neighbor could edit as well as a pro working for a days wages at a real publishing house. An editor is a trained professional, who probably began as an English major, then worked under the direction of skilled editors till they learned and matured in their profession. They are not hired off the street. And these are amazing people, with unique abilities. When your manuscript comes back from the first-pass editing each page will be filled with incisive and accurate comments on what can be improved.





> No matter "objective" an editor tries to be, total objectivity and impartiality cannot be achieved


You're quibbling over semantics. They are professionals, and they are not guessing. Publishers stand or fall on the skills of those editors, as well as the skill of the writer. So they expect professional work in them, just as they demand professional levels of skill in the writer.





> There was an experiment done once where short stories that had been  published were resubmitted. The second time they were rejected. To find  out if they had been rejected because they had been recognized, there  was a follow-up. They had NOT been recognized. They were simply not  liked the second time.


You're missing the most important point, and the reason that game was invalid.

First is the question of which story. A successful writer has a much higher probability of yes than someone with no fan base. So if they submitted a good story, rather then a great one, they fight the problem that publishers have lots of "good" writers. So taking a name they don't know, and that has no existing fans, as against one of their current stable of writers isn't going to happen. Surprisingly, publishers do show some loyalty.

Next, there is no way of telling, from that rejection, if it was even read. Magazines, especially, close the gates when they havbe enough stories for the foreseeable future, and simply reject everything. That's a fact of life. Was that story rejected because of that? You can't tell.

Then there's the question of what kind of story the publisher was then seeking, and how many of those on the desk met that criteria. It's a lot harder to get a yes when you have only two in the competition than when there's twenty.

And finally, there is no way of knowing if the story came close or was rejected immediately. And that matters.





> I'm not against editors. But the idea that they have pure motives and ideal standards is ludicrous.


Were you right, publication would be a lottery, and the kind of writing you find in a magazine would change as the editors came and went. Have you read the New Yorker? Playboy? You don't think they have standards as to the way stories are presented?


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> But most generic writing advice is, well... generic. "Set a vivid scene" is great advice,


Are we talking about most writing advice or about Dwight Swain?





> Well, for the purpose of proving I'm not _unique_, I only need one!


No. You made a statement that, if true; if a significant number of people, are able to achieve success without outside advice it matters a great deal, given that those reading this thread might well be deciding that since many people do it, they need nothing but what reading and the techniques we learned in school give us. But if the number is tiny... This discussion isn't just us. There have been 110 replies in the thread, but 2700 _views_. So there are people looking at what we say, and making decisions based on this discussion.

My view is that there is no guarantee that reading _any_ book will make you a pro. That's our task, after all. And no book is perfect. Techniques of the Selling Writer is far from it. It's dense, and at times really a dry read—the kind of thing you expect in a textbook. And he has a habit of wandering, so it's not nearly as tightly organized as it could be. But that aside, it is the single best book on the nuts and bolts issues of writing fiction. I've found no other that clarifies what viewpoint is, and why it matters as well. That excerpt I posted on page four of this thread is part of a larger chapter that should be required reading for any hopeful writer.

Far too many books on writing have the author saying, "Here, read this chapter of my book and then I'll tell you why it's so great." Swain never does that. He covers style not at all, and leaves that to people like Sol Stein, and Donald Maass. His goal is to make the prospective writer understand the reader, and what they respond to. Here's something he places at the beginning of the book that I found demonstrated both  his approach, and why a book like that if both valuable and necessary.





> _Reality and the writer
> _
> .....Can you learn to write stories? Yes.
> .....Can you learn to write well enough to sell an occasional piece?
> .....Again yes, in most cases.
> .....Can you learn to write well enough to sell consistently to _Redbook_ or _Playboy_ or Random House or Gold Medal?
> .....Now that’s another matter, and one upon which undue confusion centers.
> .....Writing is, in its way, very much like tennis.
> .....It’s no trick at all to learn to play tennis—if you don’t mind losing every game.
> .....Given time and perseverance, you probably can even work yourself up to where Squaw Hollow rates you as above-average competition.
> .....Beyond that, however, the going gets rough. Reach the nationals, win status as champion or finalist, and you know your performance bespeaks talent as well as sweat.
> .....So it is with writing. To get stories of a sort set down on paper; to become known as a “leading Squaw Hollow writer,” demands little more than self-discipline.
> .....Continued work and study often will carry you into _American Girl_ or _Men’s Digest_ or _Real Confessions_ or _Scholastic Newstime._ But the higher you climb toward big name and big money, the steeper and rougher your road becomes.
> .....At the top, it’s very rough indeed. If you get there; if you place consistently at _Post_ or McCall’s or Doubleday, you know it’s because you have talent in quantity; and innate ability that sets you apart from the competition.
> .....Now this doesn’t seem at all strange to me. The same principle applies when you strive for success as attorney or salesman or racing driver.
> .....Further, whatever the field, no realist expects advance guarantees of triumph. You can’t know for sure how well you’ll do until you try. Not even a Ben Hogan, a Sam Snead, or an Arnold Palmer made a hole-in-one his first time on the links. To win success, you first must master the skills involved. A pre-med student isn’t called on to perform brain surgery.
> .....Good—that is, salable—stories presuppose that you know how to write, how to plot, how to characterize, how to intrigue readers; how to make skilled use of a hundred tools.
> .....A book like this one shows you these basic tricks and techniques.
> .....What you do with those devices, however; how well you use them, is a thing that must ever and always depend on you: your intelligence, your sensitivity, your drive, your facility with language.
> .....Your talent.
> .....But before you shrug and turn aside, remember just one point: In writing, more than in almost any other field, initiative is the key. Ernest Hemingway had to write a first line and a first story too. So did John Steinbeck and Edna Ferber, Faith Baldwin and Pearl Buck and Frank Yerby and Erle Stanley Gardner. Each followed the same path. Each linked desire to knowledge, then took his chances.
> .....Try it yourself. You may prove more able than you think





> Do you mean a drop cap? The lack of indentation? I'm not going to ask ten friends something I can't answer myself!


Seriously? If it were a drop cap in half the books we read no one would miss that. But what's the difference? If they can't tell they can't tell. And you already knew that damn few use dropped caps today. So you peeked, right? I'll admit that I had to look when someone posed the question to me. And I'd been seeing it for over forty years by then.





> _Just_ eating, without examining? No. But eating something,  thinking about it, going home and trying to make something similar,  tasting it, adjusting the recipe, discovering a new flavour and deciding  I like that better than the original anyway, etc... yeah. That's  absolutely one way to learn to cook


Assume you're right. Would that teach you care and use of the chefs knife? No. Would eating something topped with Bearnaise sauce give you even a hint of how to make it? Will eating Cajun food teach you how to prepare the trinity? Hell no. For that you need the process. No way in hell can you become a chef and be hired as one, without either working under one or going to school. But that applies to engineering, medicine, and pretty much every other profession. Did our schooling and reading newspapers teach us journalism? No. We've been watching TV and film all our lives. Does that teach us to write a screenplay, or direct? Of course not.

So what are the odds that with nothing more then reading fiction and the writing skills we learn in school we know how to please an acquiring editor whose job depends on how much our book makes from sales? I don't rate them all that high. And I'm damn glad that doctors don't have the option. When I was younger I tried to bluff my way in to the profession, figuring that I'd been seeing doctors all my life, and as a teenager I hung around a drug store, and even worked in one.

It didn't work out, though, because of bad luck. My first four patients died right there in the office. No sooner then had I put the blood pressure cuff around their neck and pumped it up that they had some sort of an attack and died, right in front of me.





> But obviously even people writing on a professional level can still improve.


Sure. So what? The question is if writing fiction, uniquely, is best done without even the training editors get, or if this particular book will help or hurt their progression toward that first contract.





> Well, yes. I can do those things. So... ?


So, do you think the beginning writer can match that, based on the real world writing you see posted all around you? Remember, we're not talking about how we did. Though the question does arise: had you the time and money when you were in a position to get a degree in fiction, would that have lengthened or shortened your time to a contract? My view is that I wish I had known, before I spent years writing six unsold novels, and getting better and better at my nonfiction writing skills, that there was another set of writing skills unique to fiction.


----------



## Terry D

Bayview said:


> If a great writer wrote a how-to book, I'd probably check it out. But I'm not aware of any great writers who _have_ written how-to books. I think they're generally too busy writing great fiction.



In the fear of opening a can of worms about the definition of a 'great' writer, I'm going to go with three I know of who are all bestselling, prolific, and award winning: Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, and Lawrence Block.

King's book, _On Writing_, is part autobiography and part instructional. He makes it very clear that his opinions are just that -- techniques which work for him -- even though they are frequently phrased as 'must do' (for instance the oft debated removal of all 'ly' adverbs). It's a terrific insight into the process of one of the most successful writers in history.

Bradbury's, _Zen and the Art of Writing_ is a collection of essays about writing. They make great reading, but are technique-free. Ray focuses more on fostering imagination, motivation, and creating a willingness to take risks and abandon rules.

Block has written a number of books about writing, and for years wrote a fiction writing column for _Writer's Digest_. Again, he stresses finding one's own way, but shares his journey as a writer all the way from writing soft-core porn novels at the rate of two per month, to writing such best sellers as _Eight Million Ways to Die_, _A Walk Among the Tombstones_, and _When the Sacred Ginmill Closes_. Some of his writing books include: _Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_, _Spider Spin Me a Web_, and _Writing the Novel from Plot to Print_.

I'll warn you right now, however, none of the above would I consider a 'how-to' book. They are more 'how-do-I' books. All three writers talk about their own process, and what they experienced, rather than trying to proscribe any sort of methodology.


----------



## Bayview

Terry D said:


> In the fear of opening a can of worms about the definition of a 'great' writer, I'm going to go with three I know of who are all bestselling, prolific, and award winning: Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, and Lawrence Block.
> 
> King's book, _On Writing_, is part autobiography and part instructional. He makes it very clear that his opinions are just that -- techniques which work for him -- even though they are frequently phrased as 'must do' (for instance the oft debated removal of all 'ly' adverbs). It's a terrific insight into the process of one of the most successful writers in history.
> 
> Bradbury's, _Zen and the Art of Writing_ is a collection of essays about writing. They make great reading, but are technique-free. Ray focuses more on fostering imagination, motivation, and creating a willingness to take risks and abandon rules.
> 
> Block has written a number of books about writing, and for years wrote a fiction writing column for _Writer's Digest_. Again, he stresses finding one's own way, but shares his journey as a writer all the way from writing soft-core porn novels at the rate of two per month, to writing such best sellers as _Eight Million Ways to Die_, _A Walk Among the Tombstones_, and _When the Sacred Ginmill Closes_. Some of his writing books include: _Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_, _Spider Spin Me a Web_, and _Writing the Novel from Plot to Print_.
> 
> I'll warn you right now, however, none of the above would I consider a 'how-to' book. They are more 'how-do-I' books. All three writers talk about their own process, and what they experienced, rather than trying to proscribe any sort of methodology.



Yeah, I've read On Writing, but I wasn't counting it as a how-to, as you said.

The other two? I've not heard of Lawrence Block, but maybe I'll check out some of his fiction and see if I want to learn more!


----------



## EmmaSohan

I've been thinking about endings after the big resolution. I'm happy with my endings, and I think none of the advice I ever read was useful, so I will concede that it is possible to write well without any external learning.

But I just read a great book that IMO had a lame ending. It made me want to give advice.

And really, the last thrilling climax/resolution I wrote was kind of hit and miss. I wrote something, I was not happy with it but thought it was the best I could do, and then it was really a couple of accidents that made it better. I don't like accidents.

So  still think we should discuss advice and how to give it.


----------



## EmmaSohan

> Solution? Give Hero strong motivation, both outside and in. That is, let circumstance or the villain trap him so that he can’t run.
> Then, in addition, make what’s at stake symbolic of Hero’s whole pattern of being, his style of life. For if the internal issue is vital enough, he’s left with no choice but to fight on, regardless of the odds against him, or forfeit his *status as a man*.
> Exhibit A: *Heroine is in dire peril*. If Hero backs down, she’ll die for sure.
> That’s _external _motivation.
> In addition, Heroine has often expressed her doubt that Hero is capable of really loving anyone. He knows that if he abandons her to her fate, he’ll automatically prove her right and thus damn himself forever in his own eyes.
> That’s _internal _motivation.
> Put the two together, and you create a character who’ll *fight, fight,fight*.



Hi Jay. I think Swain irritates everyone by stating everything as an absolute. Then, I have to agree with what others have said -- he's giving directions for writing pulp fiction.

If, in the final conflict, the so-called Hero is tied to the railroad tracks and has to be rescued by someone else, he's not really the Hero. So, no offense taken, this is a really sexist view of Heroine. More generally, Swain is assuming the main character is a man and has the traditional difficulties and motivations of men, and that the readers will resonate to that.

I think this could have been good advice. Authors have to find some reason why characters are in the fight with their lives in danger. Swain then talks about the importance of internal motivations. Nice point, right?


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay Greenstein said:


> Were that true your neighbor could edit as well as a pro working for a days wages at a real publishing house. An editor is a trained professional, who probably began as an English major, then worked under the direction of skilled editors till they learned and matured in their profession. They are not hired off the street. And these are amazing people, with unique abilities. When your manuscript comes back from the first-pass editing each page will be filled with incisive and accurate comments on what can be improved.You're quibbling over semantics. They are professionals, and they are not guessing. Publishers stand or fall on the skills of those editors, as well as the skill of the writer. So they expect professional work in them, just as they demand professional levels of skill in the writer.You're missing the most important point, and the reason that game was invalid.
> 
> First is the question of which story. A successful writer has a much higher probability of yes than someone with no fan base. So if they submitted a good story, rather then a great one, they fight the problem that publishers have lots of "good" writers. So taking a name they don't know, and that has no existing fans, as against one of their current stable of writers isn't going to happen. Surprisingly, publishers do show some loyalty.
> 
> Next, there is no way of telling, from that rejection, if it was even read. Magazines, especially, close the gates when they havbe enough stories for the foreseeable future, and simply reject everything. That's a fact of life. Was that story rejected because of that? You can't tell.
> 
> Then there's the question of what kind of story the publisher was then seeking, and how many of those on the desk met that criteria. It's a lot harder to get a yes when you have only two in the competition than when there's twenty.
> 
> And finally, there is no way of knowing if the story came close or was rejected immediately. And that matters.Were you right, publication would be a lottery, and the kind of writing you find in a magazine would change as the editors came and went. Have you read the New Yorker? Playboy? You don't think they have standards as to the way stories are presented?



The New Yorker was the publication in the experiment. The rejection specified the story didn't meet their standards, but the story had already been published by the New Yorker.

I am not quibbling over semantics. Editors are people, not gods. They aren't perfect. And some might be terrible. Every profession has a wide range of capabilities among its members. Doctors, lawyers and editors included.

I have run across a couple of people who are editors that I don't trust. I also know one person who's not an editor that I do trust. Only a fool trusts based on title and not on demonstrated abilities.

You seem to see things more black and white than I do. That makes continuing this conversation kind of pointless.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> So  still think we should discuss advice and how to give it.



Giving advice implies the giver _knows_ more about the subject than the recipient. Unless someone has serious writing credentials giving advice is dangerous ground to tread. Discussion is fine, and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but there are only a handful of people here who I would consider equipped to actually give advice to anyone.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> Giving advice implies the giver _knows_ more about the subject than the recipient. Unless someone has serious writing credentials giving advice is dangerous ground to tread. Discussion is fine, and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but there are only a handful of people here who I would consider equipped to actually give advice to anyone.



I tried to explain this on the other thread. Some people are actually *able to evaluate* advice. They can think about it. They can try it and see if they like it. For example, they could test my advice on awesome moments.

Others *cannot*. Right, they would have to just trust advice, so credentials would be important.

One problem is, well, you mention King. The first paragraph of his rant against adverbs contains _usually_, _usually_, _not_, _seriously_, _usually_, _clearly_, and _not._ We can laugh about that, but it means that either he does not know what an adverb is (yet he is giving advice) or *King did not think* whether his advice applied to his own books (or the very paragraph he was writing.)

Which is to day, it's easy to give advice, feel very confident, but not check it. How can people follow Swain and advocate that every scene end with failure? Yes, someone could try to write that way, but it doesn't fit murder mysteries, and probably not most quest stories.

And there's *a lot of copying*. When people say the same old thing as everyone else, they get overconfident and don't check. Really, it's like goal/conflict/resolution has drawn way too much attention.

For example, it is like Terry did not think about what he said, because it doesn't work well for beta-readers. Today, I listened to two criticisms from a beta-reader, rejected one, and accepted the other. My beta reader wasn't claiming to know more than me, contrary to Terry's post. He had no credentials, and blindly following his advice would have been dangerous. But I could think about and evaluate what he was saying.

Surely some readers at WF can think about advice and evaluate it.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> I tried to explain this on the other thread. Some people are actually *able to evaluate* advice. They can think about it. They can try it and see if they like it. For example, they could test my advice on awesome moments.
> 
> Others *cannot*. Right, they would have to just trust advice, so credentials would be important.
> 
> One problem is, well, you mention King. The first paragraph of his rant against adverbs contains _usually_, _usually_, _not_, _seriously_, _usually_, _clearly_, and _not._ We can laugh about that, but it means that either he does not know what an adverb is (yet he is giving advice) or *King did not think* whether his advice applied to his own books (or the very paragraph he was writing.)
> 
> Which is to day, it's easy to give advice, feel very confident, but not check it. How can people follow Swain and advocate that every scene end with failure? Yes, someone could try to write that way, but it doesn't fit murder mysteries, and probably not most quest stories.
> 
> And there's *a lot of copying*. When people say the same old thing as everyone else, they get overconfident and don't check. Really, it's like goal/conflict/resolution has drawn way too much attention.
> 
> For example, it is like Terry did not think about what he said, because it doesn't work well for beta-readers. Today, I listened to two criticisms from a beta-reader, rejected one, and accepted the other. My beta reader wasn't claiming to know more than me, contrary to Terry's post. He had no credentials, and blindly following his advice would have been dangerous. But I could think about and evaluate what he was saying.
> 
> Surely some readers at WF can think about advice and evaluate it.


  You don't know the difference between 'advice' and 'opinion'. Unless your beta is a published author, all you are getting is opinion, or suggestion. I've read enough of your 'advice' to know it is not coming from a position of knowledge or experience -- hence, opinion. It's not wise to take swimming advice from a drowning sailor.


----------



## Annoying kid

I don't agree that all scenes before the ultimate climax should end in disaster in order for their to be rising tension. I don't agree that a scene that ends in victory - meaning the goals of the scene were successfully met, means it's story over. 

The reader cannot come to expect failure same as they cannot expect success, because if they do, the value of failure and the impact of disaster is cheapened to that of a mere attention grabbing trick, no different to how success becomes cheap if that's all the character knows. Which is what Swain seems to think it is. The reader needs to believe the hero or protagonist _can_ win outright in a scene.  Especially over long books and especially if the characters themselves believe they can win (otherwise you get Scrappy Doo). It's perfectly valid to stop the rising tension/danger mid story, as Lord of The Rings did by having the characters rest at Rivendell, or at Tom Bombadil's in order to put across alot of worldbuilding information as it was in that case, or sell the hero as triumphant and inspiring (Like Superman the Movie, note the scene doesn't end with him dropping the helicopter on people as he rescues Lois Lane - the scene ends wrapped up in a nice little bow). The purpose was to put the idea forward that this is a character used to neatly saving the day, so what happens when he doesn't and can't later on. He's more strongly affected by it than if he was more grimdark like Man of Steel, where it was disaster after disaster at the end of every scene, so where he kisses Lois amongst all the destruction, people are laughing or stunned at how out of place it is, or when he screams after killing one guy after killing like 50,000 in mass destruction. 

Where was the disaster after Superman took Lois flying and dropped her off and said goodnight? Oh right, it wasn't there. It was a simple charming scene. Swain seems to believe stories should be without charm, without triumph, and without glory, until maybe the very end. But I know I don't want to read a one note series of fails until then.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

EmmaSohan said:


> More generally, Swain is assuming the main character is a man and has the traditional difficulties and motivations of men, and that the readers will resonate to that.


Can't see that. Pretty much all published stories have a three act structure. In them the protagonist, who has a predictable life, be it bad or good, has some unexpected event, the inciting incident, knock them out of their comfort zone and force them to try to regain it. It may take a drunkard's walk, and go in many different directions, but in the course of the walk the protagonist will, grow and change, until they appear to have gained stability (and usually a better one as a reward for being steadfast) in their life. That's true be it adventure, space-opera, romance, or pretty much any other genre.

Things keep going wrong. Thats a given. Were that not true what would the reader have to worry about? That matters because readers feed on the protagonist's misfortune, be that the planet being attacked or a problem getting a date. And as scene follows scene, like all stories, options narrow as risk increases, till it's all or nothing, with nothing looking like it's going to win and we come to the black moment. And _that's_ true in most stories. In adventure/sci-fi/etc. it usually looks like the protagonist, no matter their gender, will die. In romance, which is more than 50% of what's sold, it looks like happily ever after is going down the drain. Were our protagonist to have any sense they would say, "Screw this, it's not worth it," and run. But of course, we make that impossible.

And at the climax our protagonist, about to lose it all, and driven by necessity, may reach deep inside form strength unsuspected, may change and do something that previously they were unwilling to do, or take advantage of something unexpected, and snatch victory from, as they say, the jaws of defeat. And that turn of fortune brings the audience to their feet, cheering. The protagonist may have saved the planet, found true love, caught the criminal, or whatever the goal was. But after that there's only the denouement, where our staunch protagonist learns what the prize is.

So Swain isn't talking only about adventure stories, In fact, he is far from the first to talk about the inciting incident, three act structure, and the race to the climax. That's been a part of storytelling since the day the first storyteller said, "Once upon a time." 

All Swain did was to build on the work of others and analyze why certain stories seemed to work better than others, and write about it.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Jack of all trades said:


> The New Yorker was the publication in the experiment. The rejection specified the story didn't meet their standards, but the story had already been published by the New Yorker.


That experiment has been run many times over the years. Did they go to the editors who rejected it and ask why? Unless they did it's not valid, because  everything that arrived that day may have rejected because they were full, or a dozen other reasons. Plus, we don't know who the author is, or if the story actually did appear in the magazine. But assume it was. We have no idea of it the initial acceptance was in competition with weak or strong stories, was seen as a, "Hell, this is great, it's a yes," or "Mmm...it's okay, I guess." Nor do we know _when_ it was accepted. It was on the web, which probably means it was older. So it could have been from the fifties, and no longer seen as relevant. 

Or, given that publishers check nowadays, it's entirely possible that they typed the name of the story, or a line or two from it, and got back the fact that it was plagiarized work. 

I don't know if this is the one you meant, but the story isn't identified as anything but one that had made it to the magazine at some time in the past. So it may well have been one they accepted on a slow day. No way to tell. In fact, no way to tell if the query wasn't written poorly and so the story was never read. When a query comes in stating that the writer is a newbie, and given that the odds of it being something great are pretty poor, they're often rejected without a read.

In short, that experiment had way too many variables to take seriously.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Where was the disaster after Superman took Lois flying and dropped her off and said goodnight? Oh right, it wasn't there.


A scene in film and on stage is related to scenery, or a time period. On the page the word scene means something very different.

One of the problems we face when we come to writing for the page is that we have many preconceptions shaped by our long association with film and stage play and none with the needs of fiction. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses. Film's strength is that we can place the reader on the scene visually. It's a medium where, in the time between eyeblinks, we note a thousand things in parallel (plus the aural landscape), where on the page they must be noted one-at-a-time. On the screen we can see the actors demonstrating emotion in a way  they've spent years perfecting. On the page it must be spelled out. So, different techniques for fiction the page are mandated _by the medium_. And if you are not aware of the differences, and of how others resolved those differences, you're not all that likely to fall into them, especially when your thinking is influenced by what you have always thought of is how a scene is structured for film.

And that brings us back to Swain's book.


----------



## Annoying kid

Jay Greenstein said:


> A scene in film and on stage is related to scenery, or a time period. On the page the word scene means something very different.
> 
> One of the problems we face when we come to writing for the page is that we have many preconceptions shaped by our long association with film and stage play and none with the needs of fiction. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses. Film's strength is that we can place the reader on the scene visually. It's a medium where, in the time between eyeblinks, we note a thousand things in parallel (plus the aural landscape), where on the page they must be noted one-at-a-time. On the screen we can see the actors demonstrating emotion in a way  they've spent years perfecting. On the page it must be spelled out. So, different techniques for fiction the page are mandated _by the medium_. And if you are not aware of the differences, and of how others resolved those differences, you're not all that likely to fall into them, especially when your thinking is influenced by what you have always thought of is how a scene is structured for film.
> 
> And that brings us back to Swain's book.



I can place the reader in the scene visually just fine. I'm a graphic novelist. But that's also page based storytelling, so I don't know how that fits in the above paradigm. 

Even if you want to make that argument, I mentioned LotR, (book version)  and Rivendell. Alot of what goes on there is just sitting and talking. There's scenes even before the Council starts, which clearly don't have any disasters in it. There's alot of travelling scenes in high fantasy that don't have any disasters. The last disaster was Frodo being stabbed, and the next disaster is when they get repelled from Mount Caradras by Saruman. So are you saying the entire Rivendell section was just the sequel and All the travelling to Caradras was one scene that ends when the mountain repels them, then the next scene ends when Gandalf dies in Moria? 

Because if so, you're just taking the disaster points in a story - which all stories have, and arbitrarily calling that the end of a scene. That doesn't exclude the possibility of success in between those points of disaster.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> Can't see that. Pretty much all published stories have a three act structure. In them the protagonist, who has a predictable life, be it bad or good, has some unexpected event, the inciting incident, knock them out of their comfort zone and force them to try to regain it.



Um, no. In the genre I write in, books often start with a pre-existing problem. My main character is pregnant, has a bad leg. I really don't see why you don't generalize to include that.



Jay Greenstein said:


> It may take a drunkard's walk, and go in many different directions, but in the course of the walk the protagonist will, grow and change, until they appear to have gained stability (and usually a better one as a reward for being steadfast) in their life. That's true be it adventure, space-opera, romance, or pretty much any other genre.



That's true for every book, right? No one needs to read Swain to have some growth.



Jay Greenstein said:


> Things keep going wrong. Thats a given.



That's true of everyone's life.



Jay Greenstein said:


> Were that not true what would the reader have to worry about?



There is often an overarching goal or problem, and the MC makes progress towards that. There can be a lot of successes towards that goal or solving that problem, which I have been calling partial successes.



Jay Greenstein said:


> That matters because readers feed on the protagonist's misfortune, be that the planet being attacked or a problem getting a date. And as scene follows scene, like all stories, options narrow as risk increases, till it's all or nothing, with nothing looking like it's going to win and we come to the black moment. And _that's_ true in most stories.



In the book I was reading today, were looking bad for the MC, then he noticed he might run out of gas before he got to his destination while out in a boat in a hurricane. I thought that additional obstacle was silly. Then they did something to further increase his internal motivation and I put the book down and thought _ridiculous_.I lost interest, and I was getting angry. That was during the climax. There was a previous failure that really had nothing to do with plot or character, so I resented that too, though it made me think of Swain.


So, no. Occasionally you say things that are true of all books, and hence cannot be advice. Something you (or Swain) says something that just seems to work for a particular genre or type of reader. In the quote I gave you Swain telling me about my male main character, which did not fit, and what my character wanted (which did not fit).



Jay Greenstein said:


> And at the climax our protagonist, about to lose it all, and driven by necessity, may reach deep inside form strength unsuspected, may change and do something that previously they were unwilling to do, or take advantage of something unexpected, and snatch victory from, as they say, the jaws of defeat. And that turn of fortune brings the audience to their feet, cheering. The protagonist may have saved the planet, found true love, caught the criminal, or whatever the goal was.



Isn't the final triumph the most boring part of the book? Is that your reading experience, really liking the ending just because the hero triumphed? My favorite endings involve success and then something great happens after that. Or  before. But I admit, the heigtening conflict and difficulty also tends to be boring.



Jay Greenstein said:


> But after that there's only the denouement, where our staunch protagonist learns what the prize is.
> 
> So Swain isn't talking only about adventure stories, In fact, he is far from the first to talk about the inciting incident, three act structure, and the race to the climax. That's been a part of storytelling since the day the first storyteller said, "Once upon a time."
> 
> All Swain did was to build on the work of others and analyze why certain stories seemed to work better than others, and write about it.



I wish he had thought more about if his scene structure applied to actual books. I don't particular like romances precisely because there is (mostly) no progress towards a goal, just failures until a sudden success.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Annoying kid said:


> I can place the reader in the scene visually just fine. I'm a graphic novelist. But that's also page based storytelling, so I don't know how that fits in the above paradigm.
> 
> Even if you want to make that argument, I mentioned LotR, (book version)  and Rivendell.


The Hobbit was released in 1937, LOTR in 1954-55. At the time the style of the writing was that of an earlier era. Were it queried today it's  not all that likely it would be accepted. today. Quite frankly, when I read the books in about 1966 I had a hard time staying interested, and only finished it by bypassing page after dreary page of setting info-dumps. So I'm not certain you can use it as an example of how to write today.

But still, in outline, it was, "We fought them and we lost...run!" That was followed by, "We fought them and we lost again...run!"  That's repeated until the final book when it's, "We fought them and this time we won. Let's go home."


----------



## Kevin

_Quite frankly, when I read the books in about 1966 I had a hard time staying interested, and only finished it by bypassing page after dreary page of setting info-dumps_. -how unpleasant for you. I sometimes wonder at the lack of pleasure others are able to... enjoy. Evidently, your experience was not shared by enough that the books remain popular. Despite the dreary, long-winded, descriptions people love them. I found them not an easy read, but highly engaging. I couldn't put them down. I think I loved every word.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Um, no. In the genre I write in, books often start with a pre-existing  problem. My main character is pregnant, has a bad leg. I really don't  see why you don't generalize to include that.


An example of books selling in that genre that begin that way?





> Isn't the final triumph the most boring part of the book?


I think they call it the climax for a reason.





> Is that your reading experience, really liking the ending just because the hero triumphed?


I think you're confusing writing and structure. Stories, in almost all cases, progress toward the climax in the way I've already mentioned. And with some exceptions, always have. You'll find that in pretty much any book or class on writing.

We open a book knowing something will go wrong. But when you go to a sporting event you know someone will win. That's a given So what? You still go (or at least watch). The recent Olympics are a perfect example. It's how the game is played, and the uncertainty that makes it good or bad. The same with writing. Cinderella—a story where someone deserving is held back by things not in their control is helped by a kindly outsider—is published in some form every day. There are, after all, only about seven basic plots. And nearly every romance ends with at least the promise of a happily ever after. So what? Romance makes up more than 50% of book sales.

People buy good writing. But...as Sol Stein observed: “Readers don’t notice point-of-view errors. They simply sense that the writing is bad.”  So while the writing makes the difference, at the same time the writer must know how to present a strong character viewpoint, how to balance a scene between boredom and melodrama, and all the other issues that make up the tricks of the trade, And how much time did our English teachers spend on how best to present viewpoint in fiction?


> I wish he had thought more about if his scene structure applied to actual books


When they were running, the summer fiction workshops at Oklahoma University had a student list that read like a who's who of American fiction. And Swain taught classes at them, and taught at the university, as did Jack Bickham. And when Mr. Swain went on tour with his all-day workshops, he used to fill auditoriums. Today, teaching those same techniques, the university is producing writers like Jim Butcher, So I suspect that Swain may have been a bit more general in application than you think. But if you're more satisfied with your methodology in a given area than what he suggests, and sales are decent, who am, or anyone, to suggest you change?

By the way, thank you. In all the years I've been visiting writers sites—and that dates back to when the Internet had no pictures or what we call web pages—this is nearly the only thread on any form of instruction. Most of the few I've seen devolved into flame-wars, quickly. That this thread has continued for so long without that is a graphic demonstration that balancedt moderation has created a really admirable _community_ of writers. And so far, there have been 3,268 views of the thread.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> An example of books selling in that genre that begin that way?



In Y/A, there seems to be a well-accepted plot structure where the MC begins with problems. The main character might not know these are problems, but the reader does. A standard trope is the "perfect" boyfriend where the reader can see the relationship isn't working. That's usually a sideline. So, in one book (_North of Beautiful_), she has a large birthmark, her father is verbally abusive to the whole family, she wants to go to college as far away from home as possible (false goal), and she isn't telling her perfect boyfriend about her early-entrance plans (signs of problems).

Another story begins with a dinner scene, and as we move around the table, we discover that the father is manic and it's a totally dysfunctional family. In another book (Shark), the problem is that his best friend committed suicide in front of him. Another book (_Speak_) begins with everyone shunning her and she doesn't talk.

Now, there is a really easy way to describe these books -- the MC has a problem. Or problems. You can try to jam them into some other structure. I admit that. You can call an ant a mammal as far as I know and I will concede the argument, I never win. I'm saying it's not at all useful to jam them into some other structure. It's useful to think of them as problem books.

And you don't have to jam and pretzel, you can just generalize what you said. You said "... the protagonist, who has a predictable life, be it bad or good, has some unexpected event, the inciting incident, knock them out of their comfort zone and force them to try to regain it." Why can't you say something more general?

You could say, for example, "Something occurs, or exists, to create an interesting story." (Good luck filling those auditoriums, though.)

My memory is that we go a long way in _The Firm_ before he is knocked out of his comfort zone. In _The Racketeer_, nothing happens to knock him out of his comfort zone.

Ah, another complaint: In those "problems book", the goal is never to return to the comfort zone. The problem (which the reader sees, but not the character), is that the character is stuck in his/her comfort zone.

And, if I have not said this before, you do not differentiate character goals from reader goals. I do not fill auditoriums, or sell books. I do think about things, and you have to differentiate those, it's nonnegotiable.

Of course, the publisher can help you out by adding a much-hated "prologue" to the book. Those usually subtract from the reading experience, but I have already acknowledged that you focus on selling the book, and they presumably are good for that.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jay Greenstein said:


> ... The protagonist, who has a predictable life, be it bad or good, has some unexpected event, the inciting incident, knock them out of their comfort zone.



Jurassic Park begins with someone dying. The people bringing him in for treatment say he was run over by a machine; the doctor can see he was attacked. Then a girl is attacked. They can't explain it. She draws a picture. It doesn't fit any animal in existence. Someone eventually says it looks like a dinosaur.

The main character has not been knocked out of his comfort zone, none of the primary characters have even appeared in the story. If the main character is Alan Grant, he spends a long time inside his comfort zone (though being attacked by T. Rex takes him out).

The reader, who has a predictable life, is taken out of his comfort zone by the initial events. But I prefer to think of this as being an interesting start to a story. I agree that some stories start the way you describe. Do you count an experienced homicide detective being told of a crime as being knocked out of his comfort zone?

Again, it is difficult for me to imagine how someone could see that as being  good description of how most books start.


----------



## Terry D

Jay Greenstein said:


> The Hobbit was released in 1937, LOTR in 1954-55. At the time the style of the writing was that of an earlier era. Were it queried today it's  not all that likely it would be accepted. today. Quite frankly, when I read the books in about 1966 I had a hard time staying interested, and only finished it by bypassing page after dreary page of setting info-dumps. So I'm not certain you can use it as an example of how to write today.
> 
> But still, in outline, it was, "We fought them and we lost...run!" That was followed by, "We fought them and we lost again...run!"  That's repeated until the final book when it's, "We fought them and this time we won. Let's go home."



I agree that writing styles change and techniques evolve over time. But Swain wrote formulaic, pulp fiction during the same time span you just covered in talking about LOTR. _Techniques_ was written in the early 60's. More than half a century ago. Isn't it possible today's young writers and editors might find his advice archaic and out-of-date? If you find information of value in it fine, but, it's not unreasonable to hear that many people find it rather mummified.


----------



## Kyle R

Annoying kid said:


> Swain seems to believe stories should be without charm, without triumph, and without glory, until maybe the very end. But I know I don't want to read a one note series of fails until then.


I agree with your overall point—a story can feel pretty repetitive if it's just a stream of disaster, reaction, disaster, reaction, et cetera.

Though, to be fair to Swain, he does say in _Techniques_ that the Goal/Conflict/Disaster structure is just a "basic approach" for beginning writers, and he acknowledges that, as you get more experience, you'll be able to branch out and try new things.

"What I offer here is merely a beginning. It's a basic approach; a springboard to help launch you into fiction.

Once you've mastered the elements of the form, experience and study of published copy will teach you how to vary it in terms of your own taste and judgment." — Dwight Swain, _Techniques of the Selling Writer_​, pp. 92-93​
The problem (in my opinion) is when people miss that disclaimer, and take Swain's structure as the be-all, end-all approach. All that does is shackle one's creativity into a three-step box. :grief:


----------



## Annoying kid

Jay Greenstein said:


> The Hobbit was released in 1937, LOTR in 1954-55. At the time the style of the writing was that of an earlier era. Were it queried today it's  not all that likely it would be accepted. today. Quite frankly, when I read the books in about 1966 I had a hard time staying interested, and only finished it by bypassing page after dreary page of setting info-dumps. So I'm not certain you can use it as an example of how to write today.
> 
> But still, in outline, it was, "We fought them and we lost...run!" That was followed by, "We fought them and we lost again...run!"  That's repeated until the final book when it's, "We fought them and this time we won. Let's go home."



Wasn't this Swain book written in 1965? 

High fantasy writers know that people won't be able to finish it in one, or even a couple of sittings. The books are too big. It's about immersion into another world. And while there are disasters of increasing severity, they certainly aren't at the end of every scene. Why would you even expect a pulp fiction writer's rules to be able to cover those 500 page behemoths? It's commonly understood that high fantasy books are a slow burn. 

Frankly I don't see how one can have their main character fail 24/7 and have every scene they're featured in end in a disaster if you want them to come off as...what's the world for it..hmm yeah, *competent.*


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> I agree with your overall point—a story can feel pretty repetitive if it's just a stream of disaster, reaction, disaster, reaction, et cetera.
> 
> Though, to be fair to Swain, he does say in _Techniques_ that the Goal/Conflict/Disaster structure is just a "basic approach" for beginning writers, and he acknowledges that, as you get more experience, you'll be able to branch out and try new things.
> "What I offer here is merely a beginning. It's a basic approach; a springboard to help launch you into fiction.
> 
> Once you've mastered the elements of the form, experience and study of published copy will teach you how to vary it in terms of your own taste and judgment." — Dwight Swain, _Techniques of the Selling Writer_​, pp. 92-93​
> The problem (in my opinion) is when people miss that disclaimer, and take Swain's structure as the be-all, end-all approach. All that does is shackle one's creativity into a three-step box. :grief:



Well, you are saying people miss the disclaimer in a short paragraph on page 92? Could that be Swain's fault? I have him using the word "must" more than 200 times. Most are not riling, but some are.

And what does that mean? Sometimes Swain's structure is wrong? When? Why? Why can't the beginning writer learn that?

And then, for the murder mystery, it's kind of always wrong, there has to be partial successes. Did Swain say to always state the goal, or was that Bickham? Surelly that is not good advice.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, you are saying people miss the disclaimer in a short paragraph on page 92? Could that be Swain's fault? I have him using the word "must" more than 200 times. Most are not riling, but some are.
> 
> And what does that mean? Sometimes Swain's structure is wrong? When? Why? Why can't the beginning writer learn that?
> 
> And then, for the murder mystery, it's kind of always wrong, there has to be partial successes. Did Swain say to always state the goal, or was that Bickham? Surelly that is not good advice.



This is my problem in general with technique books, those who write them usually speak in absolute terms; "You need to do this..." "This is how scenes must be structured..." "Remove all 'ly' adverbs..." and I understand why, to make their book more readable. Nothing would be more boring than listening to Stephen King say, "I might be a good idea if you paid attention to how 'ly' adverbs weaken your sentences. Now everyone uses some adverbs, but too many can be a distraction because..." They try to make the book engaging. But the new writer picks up the book and tries to apply what is being taught to every situation and every style, then they get confounded when someone else has success doing something different, or when they are told a piece they have written seems formulaic.

If you are looking for that magic bullet to being a selling writer, you aren't going to find it in how-to books. You can glean some information from them, and some folks will find that useful, but don't obsess about finding some as yet undiscovered wisdom about writing. Every technique you need is on display in the pages of the books you love to read. The page hides nothing. There's no hidden clock-work mechanism built into the paper that changes the ink into something it is not. Letters make words, words make sentences, sentences make paragraphs, paragraphs make scenes, scenes make chapters, and chapters make books. How it is done is all right there. How is Kafka different from Patterson? Read both and see. Why do Steinbeck's scenes work better for you than Tolkien's? Compare _Of Mice and Men_ to LOTR and figure it out. 

Analyzing advice is, in my opinion, a waste of time.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> And what does that mean? Sometimes Swain's structure is wrong? When? Why?
> ...
> And then, for the murder mystery, it's kind of always wrong...


You keep using the word "wrong"—which, to me, is a term that shouldn't apply to fiction. It implies that fiction is binary in nature ("correct", or "incorrect"), which I believe is an unhelpful way of approaching the craft.

I find it's healthier (and more productive) to consider Swain's advice (or any writer's advice) as suggestion, first and foremost. Suggestion to be considered, or suggestion to be ignored. It's your call, as you're the writer. You're the creator of the work.

As Mr. Wendig says in one of his own writing guides (a guide that focuses more on intuition and _big-picture_ thinking, rather than _small-picture_ nuts and bolts):

"A story is not a thing given over to concrete rules. As I am wont to say again and again: _This shit ain’t math_."
— Chuck Wendig, _Damn Fine Story_​


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> You keep using the word "wrong"—which, to me, is a term that shouldn't apply to fiction. It implies that fiction is binary in nature ("correct", or "incorrect"), which I believe is an unhelpful way of approaching the craft.
> 
> I find it's healthier (and more productive) to consider Swain's advice (or any writer's advice) as suggestion, first and foremost. Suggestion to be considered, or suggestion to be ignored. It's your call, as you're the writer. You're the creator of the work.
> 
> As Mr. Wendig says in one of his own writing guides (a guide that focuses more on intuition and _big-picture_ thinking, rather than _small-picture_ nuts and bolts):
> "A story is not a thing given over to concrete rules. As I am wont to say again and again: _This shit ain’t math_."
> — Chuck Wendig, _Damn Fine Story_​



The standard format for a murder mystery is that the main character investigates something, finds out some useful information, which leads to an investigation of something else. I only read one murder mystery where the main character learned nothing the whole book. Then in the final scene someone tried to kill her, he monologued everything before trying to kill her. (And then she survived.) Perfect Swain. I was angry and upset.

So, Swain's scene structure does not fit 99+% of murder mysteries, and IMO the remaining .1% should not have been published. His advice is horrible, convention-breaking, and mysterious. = wrong.

And the solution is so simple -- say a scene can end with failure, partial success, or success. Then talk about how to react and transition to the next scene. That's a nice contribution.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> And the solution is so simple -- say a scene can end with failure, partial success, or success. Then talk about how to react and transition to the next scene. That's a nice contribution.



And fourteen pages later we come full-circle back to what Kyle said in the fourth response to the OP:



> There's something magical about fiction that develops organically. It doesn't follow a repeating pattern, doesn't sit neatly in a square-shaped hole.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Frankly I don't see how one can have their main character fail 24/7 and  have every scene they're featured in end in a disaster if you want them  to come off as...what's the world for it..hmm yeah, *competent.*


That's because you don't understand what's meant by failure, when discussing a scene. In every profession, there are meanings for common words that are not the same as those in daily use. A scene on the page and one in film are very different things. When a thief says, "The ice is hot," for example, the meaning is far from talking about a form of water.

One of the articles I wrote for my publishing house's newsletter, Batman Is My Role Model addressed that, and might clarify.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Then in the final scene someone tried to kill her, he monologued  everything before trying to kill her. (And then she survived.) Perfect  Swain.


would you point out in which chapter he advocates that? I can't seem to find the word monolog, or explaining, or anywhere he advocates telling.

But that aside, there's a really good explanation of why talking heads such as you describe in that book are a scene killer, in David Mamet's letter to the staff of a program he was directing.


----------



## Annoying kid

Jay Greenstein said:


> That's because you don't understand what's meant by failure, when discussing a scene.



Despite the article outright stating what is meant? [-(



Disaster: A Disaster is a failure to let your POV character reach his Goal. Don’t give him the Goal! Winning is boring! When a Scene ends in victory, your reader feels no reason to turn the page. If things are going well, your reader might as well go to bed. No! Make something awful happen. Hang your POV character off a cliff and your reader will turn the page to see what happens next.
https://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/writing-the-perfect-scene/

If something "awful" happens at the scene's end everytime your protagonist tries to accomplish something, than he or she is just a blundering inept fool.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> If something "awful" happens at the scene's end everytime your  protagonist tries to accomplish something, than he or she is just a  blundering inept fool.


Unfortunately, you're disagreeing with pretty much publishers, teachers of fiction, and many more. So since your view is so much in opposition to the publishing industry, I have to ask a question: Has the approach worked for you? You've pointed to no examples in the bookstores. And I can't find any examples of the result of applying your theory. So perhaps you will post something that demonstrates the approach?


----------



## Annoying kid

Jay Greenstein said:


> Unfortunately, you're disagreeing with pretty much publishers, teachers of fiction, and many more. So since your view is so much in opposition to the publishing industry, I have to ask a question: Has the approach worked for you? You've pointed to no examples in the bookstores. And I can't find any examples of the result of applying your theory. So perhaps you will post something that demonstrates the approach?



I've already proven that high fantasy books don't follow this structure. And having my protagonist be competent works just fine. Who wants to identify with a bumbler?


----------



## Jack of all trades

Harry Potter. Definitely in bookstores. Would you consider him a bumbler? 

He struck me as being rather capable and talented in the early books. Those are the ones I enjoyed most.

In the later books, he bumbled more and more. He made poor decisions for no reason other than it needed to be that way to keep the story moving in a particular direction. He seemed to have less magical ability, too.  And I enjoyed those books less and less.

I agree with Annoying kid on this point. A competent MC is better than a bumbler. 


When something bad does happen, it can be external, and not through the fault of the MC. 

But having something bad happen at the end of every scene is repetitive and boring. My opinion.


----------



## Kyle R

For what it's worth, the 2013 film _Gravity_ was just basically one long string of scene disasters, from the opening scene to the last (only in the final scene did the protagonist finally achieve her goal). For that kind of story (I'd call it a Survival Thriller), a Swain-ian kind of progression makes a lot of sense.

Though I do agree that, for other kinds of stories, a constant stream of failures would probably feel out of place. A Romantic Comedy, for example, often has the characters riding on a wave of success and feelings of fulfillment during the second act (even if it's only temporary).

Blake Snyder (from _Save the Cat!_) had a different approach: he suggested alternating the tone of each successive scene to give the story a balance of highs and lows. Negative, Positive, Negative, Positive. Or, in Swain terms: Failure, Success, Failure, Success ...

Personally, I think as long as your scenes have interesting conflict that moves the story forward, you can end them anyway you like. As long as you end them engagingly in some way, so the reader wants to keep reading. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D

Jay Greenstein said:


> Unfortunately, you're disagreeing with pretty much publishers, teachers of fiction, and many more. So since your view is so much in opposition to the publishing industry, I have to ask a question: Has the approach worked for you? You've pointed to no examples in the bookstores. And I can't find any examples of the result of applying your theory. So perhaps you will post something that demonstrates the approach?



Just about any thriller, or mystery I've ever read. Or horror, or mainstream literary novel, or romance, or... well, you get my point.

It's quite common for scenes to end with a success. Take this example: In Stephen King's, _The Stand_, Nick Andros and Tom Cullen stop in a small town to try and find Pepto Bismol to sooth Tom's aching stomach. While rummaging through a drug store, Nick meets a teen age girl, Julie Laurie, who flirts with him, is rebuffed and eventually gets a rifle and starts shooting at Nick and Tom. The two men eventually escape back on the road. The scene ends with them escaping -- an unqualified success (unless you want to consider that Tom's unrelieved stomach ache is a disaster). The questions of who Mother Abigail is, who The Dark Man is, and how the inevitable conflict between good and evil will be resolved are still open, and that's why readers will keep turning pages. It's absurd to believe readers will stop reading just because a scene ends with something positive happening. We are talking about novels here, not Saturday afternoon cliff-hanger movies from the 40's.

Since just about every book published has a mix of scenes ending with successes and failures between its opening pages and its denouement, it is safe to say those authors aren't disagreeing with publishers and agents. Don't believe me? That's okay. I'll leave it to interested readers to pick up any book on their shelf and read the ends of 3, 5 or 10 scenes. How do they end? Now look at another book, and another. What are your favorite authors telling you?


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Annoying kid said:


> I've already proven that high fantasy books don't follow this structure.


No, you've stated your opinion that they don't, and pointed to scenes that aren't scenes, and misunderstood what the term disaster means in fiction writing.





> And having my protagonist be competent works just fine.


Then why not post a sample of how well it works, or a link to your book on Amazon?

Anything less is an opinion. Certainly, you're entitled to hold any view you care to. But since you say it works, surely a demonstration would make sense. Show us where the people who teach fiction are wrong. Give an outline of one of your scenes so we can see how you introduce tension, manage it, and then end the scene without the protagonist having to face failure.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Terry D said:


> While rummaging through a drug store, Nick meets a teen age girl, Julie  Laurie, who flirts with him, is rebuffed and eventually gets a rifle  and starts shooting at Nick and Tom. The two men eventually escape back  on the road. The scene ends with them escaping


So, the boy's short term goal is to make progress with the girl. But she rejects him, creating tension. He persists, but nothing works, and things get worse and worse, till he and dad must run to escape death, ending the scene. That pretty well fits the definition of the scene. His living through attempted murder isn't success, it's survival.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Jay Greenstein said:


> So, the boy's short term goal is to make progress with the girl. But she rejects him, creating tension. He persists, but nothing works, and things get worse and worse, till he and dad must run to escape death, ending the scene. That pretty well fits the definition of the scene. His living through attempted murder isn't success, it's survival.




Surviving certainly isn't failure! If it were me, I'd count it as success.


----------



## Terry D

Jay Greenstein said:


> So, the boy's short term goal is to make progress with the girl. But she rejects him, creating tension. He persists, but nothing works, and things get worse and worse, till he and dad must run to escape death, ending the scene. That pretty well fits the definition of the scene. His living through attempted murder isn't success, it's survival.



Now you are just splitting semantic hairs. Survival is success for that scene, and even if you quibble about that, it certainly isn't 'disaster', or 'failure'.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

> Surviving certainly isn't failure! If it were me, I'd count it as success.


Again, you misunderstand. The failure was to achieve the desired goal. The boy didn't flirt with the girl in hopes of surviving, so doing so is irrelevant, other than that the story didn't end there because he died. It's his attempt to make the girl like him that both failed, and caused the dire situation. So he failed to accomplish his objective and had to withdraw in defeat. Like it or not that is the definition of a scene and it did end in failure. You can't redefine the terms and aims for your own convenience, And as I said, you are not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with pretty much every book on writing. That's your right, of course. And maybe it will help you achieve publication. If so, more power to you


----------



## Bayview

Jay Greenstein said:


> Again, you misunderstand. The failure was to achieve the desired goal. The boy didn't flirt with the girl in hopes of surviving, so doing so is irrelevant, other than that the story didn't end there because he died. It's his attempt to make the girl like him that both failed, and caused the dire situation. So he failed to accomplish his objective and had to withdraw in defeat. Like it or not that is the definition of a scene and it did end in failure. You can't redefine the terms and aims for your own convenience, And as I said, you are not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with pretty much every book on writing. That's your right, of course. And maybe it will help you achieve publication. If so, more power to you



Have you read that scene? It's been a few years for me, but I don't think the boy had any interest in making the girl like him. The girl was flirting with HIM, as a I recall, and his rejection of her (because he was interested in surviving) was what triggered her outburst. As I recall.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Terry D said:


> Take this example: In Stephen King's, _The Stand_, Nick Andros and Tom Cullen stop in a small town to try and find Pepto Bismol to sooth Tom's aching stomach. While rummaging through a drug store, Nick meets a teen age girl, Julie Laurie, who flirts with him, is rebuffed and eventually gets a rifle and starts shooting at Nick and Tom. The two men eventually escape back on the road. The scene ends with them escaping -- an unqualified success (unless you want to consider that Tom's unrelieved stomach ache is a disaster).





Bayview said:


> Have you read that scene? It's been a few years for me, but I don't think the boy had any interest in making the girl like him. The girl was flirting with HIM, as a I recall, and his rejection of her (because he was interested in surviving) was what triggered her outburst. As I recall.






Jay Greenstein said:


> So, the boy's short term goal is to make progress with the girl. But she rejects him, creating tension. He persists, but nothing works, and things get worse and worse, till he and dad must run to escape death, ending the scene. That pretty well fits the definition of the scene. His living through attempted murder isn't success, it's survival.



I haven't read the book, but there's two votes for the girl flirting with the boy versus your recollection that it was the other way around.



Jay Greenstein said:


> Again, you misunderstand. The failure was to achieve the desired goal. The boy didn't flirt with the girl in hopes of surviving, so doing so is irrelevant, other than that the story didn't end there because he died. It's his attempt to make the girl like him that both failed, and caused the dire situation. So he failed to accomplish his objective and had to withdraw in defeat. Like it or not that is the definition of a scene and it did end in failure.



Even if a boy flirts with a girl and is rebuffed, I'm sure his goal will change to survival the minute shots get fired. 


What about mysteries? 

The typical mystery sets up something that must be discovered, usually the murderer. Throughout the book, the MC discovers clues that point to the murderer. Each clue gained is a success, as it gets the MC closer to the ultimate goal.

Or do you consider each clue a failure because the murderer hasn't been revealed or caught?


----------



## Kevin

I call it a failure. They went there to get pepto bismol-  they ran into an issue and fled for their lives- no pepto bismol. Goal not achieved. M-0-0-N.


----------



## Terry D

Jay Greenstein said:


> Again, you misunderstand. The failure was to achieve the desired goal. The boy didn't flirt with the girl in hopes of surviving, so doing so is irrelevant, other than that the story didn't end there because he died. It's his attempt to make the girl like him that both failed, and caused the dire situation. So he failed to accomplish his objective and had to withdraw in defeat. Like it or not that is the definition of a scene and it did end in failure. You can't redefine the terms and aims for your own convenience, And as I said, you are not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with pretty much every book on writing. That's your right, of course. And maybe it will help you achieve publication. If so, more power to you



You are commenting on, and painfully twisting, a brief description of a scene you haven't even read. 'The boy', Nick Andros, didn't try to make the girl like him -- she came on to him --, and he didn't die (at least not at that point in the book). He did not 'withdraw in defeat' -- he bicycled away joyfully leaving her behind. The girl was never his objective. The scene ended with Nick and Tom surviving a near miss with a psychopath. That's pretty much the definition of success.

I'm not disagreeing with "pretty much every book on writing", I'm disagreeing with your narrow interpretation of them. I've read many books on writing and I've never read one which espoused ending every scene with a failure. None. 

As another example: Last night I read two scenes from the book I am currently reading, a bestselling thriller by an author who has written a string of bestsellers. In the first scene two people are trying to get into a dead man's apartment to look for a clue to his death. The entire scene is their attempts to get past the police cordon and building security. The scene goal is to get into the apartment. They succeed and the author spends some time describing the apartment and finishes with one of them making an unexpected discovery about the dead man. Not one bit of failure in the whole scene. They succeeded in making progress toward the ultimate goal of the book. In the second scene another character who is also trying to solve the murder in his own way, ends up arrested. A failure, of course. My point is, as long as the overarching goal of the book is not achieved, there can be a mix of successes and failures at the scene level. It is the balance between those successes and failures which drives the book forward.

Oh, BTW, there's no maybe about it, I've been published for more than 30 years. Not a lot, but I don't submit a lot.


----------

