# Theory of Writing



## EmmaSohan

The dominant theory of writing (true?) is starting with some problem (conflict, issue). This hooks the reader. The climax+resolution then shows the resolution.

The middle of the book is then filled with smaller versions of this -- some problem, which is resolved (or not), then the next problem arises.

And then we can have variations, such as having two problems or having the initial problem escalate or change.

How much does this model influence our approach to writing? Using this model, we make the problem as important as possible. We want the reader to care about the characters so the reader cares about the resolution. Jay has suggested making it seem almost impossible that the protagonist will succeed in the final conflict. We try to hook the reader as quickly and strongly as possible.


----------



## EmmaSohan

In fact, it's hard to even say what a different theory of writing would be.

I have been playing with the idea that there are a lot of different things we can do, as writers, to make reading a scene (or book) enjoyable. The kitchen sink theory? One is resolution and another is suspense. So the conflict-resolution idea works, but it's just one source of enjoyment. And obviously humor, and I suppose dramatic irony and saying something insightful or profound. There is the surprise and awesome moment. Some people like horror. Someone said characters are everything. I think the list is even larger, but I don't know all of it.

Does the reader read because reading is enjoyable or because the reader is hooked? Actually, finding out that the girl has been kidnapped by the psychopathic serial killer could be really stressful. And when she is saved, that could just be relief, not enjoyment. Or, since we kind of know she will be saved, how does _any _of that model work?

It's an important topic. I think the dominant model works for some readers . . . but the theory that everyone wants to read about horses works for some readers. It doesn't work for me as a reader.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

I gotta say, I come at a story from a much different perspective.  For me the story and its conflict are really just a backdrop for my characters to play in front of.  The story is more like the sets and props in a stage play.  Sure, I create a storyline with plenty of conflict, but that's just something to keep my characters busy while they entertain the reader.  

Sometimes the conflict is nothing more than friction between the characters.


----------



## RhythmOvPain

Johnstone and L'Amour like protagonists who thrive under pressure and nullify the conflict with expertise.

Some authors shun the idea of putting a main character in an impossible scenario because the point of their main character's existence is to resolve whatever conflict propels the story.

It depends on the writer's mentality and intentions I suppose.


----------



## Pete_C

As soon as any writer subscribes to a 'theory' of structure, they limit their creativity. Yes, some genres have an almost formulaic structure and you'll find hundreds of published works that follow it. However, the odds are that a classic - as accepted by the readers of that genre and not by writers with a point to make - often don't follow that structure. That's what makes them stand alone.

I tend to work towards a story the reader can experience, in terms of mood, emotion, conflict and enjoyment. All of these elements are dispensable, so long as the story remains of interest to a reader.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Does the reader read because reading is enjoyable or because the reader is hooked? Actually, finding out that the girl has been kidnapped by the psychopathic serial killer could be really stressful. And when she is saved, that could just be relief, not enjoyment. Or, since we kind of know she will be saved, how does _any _of that model work?



Fiction is read for enjoyment. Often it is enjoyment mixed with other things, like history (historic romances, historic fiction, alternate history, etc), or science (science fiction). Readers may be interested in horses and therefore like to read fiction with horses in it, or they may be interested in the military and read military fiction, but the driving force is always the pleasure of reading. The book's theme, or setting, or characters must resonate with a reader, or there can be no 'hook'. The hook is the pleasure. When you read that opening line, or paragraph, or scene and say to yourself, "I like this," or "Just one more page..." You are doing that because the reading is enjoyable. Enjoying what you are reading and being hooked are the same thing.


----------



## JustRob

I suspect that hooking a reader is psychologically similar to many forms of advertising in that one convinces them that they have a deficiency that they didn't know about previously. That hook may have very little to do with the subsequent story though. There's little difference between being told that one may have bad breath, body odour, yellowing teeth, receding hair or a visible panty line and being implicitly told that one doesn't know why a character was killed in the opening paragraph of a story or who did it. Both in writing and in advertising the product and the need for it may be presented to the consumer simultaneously as they probably didn't have such a need beforehand. If there is a fundamental need for conflict in writing it is probably more the conflict caused by ignorance, meaning lack of specific knowledge in this case, in the reader's mind than any experienced by characters within the story. My angel said that she couldn't see any point in watching the film _Titanic_ because one already knows that the ship sinks and any side stories are just that. The promoters didn't create the need in her mind because it was presented as the story of the ship, which she didn't feel the need to be told.

Similarly the resolution provided by a story may simply be resolution of the conflicts created within the reader's own mind rather than any experienced by characters within the story itself. It is obviously easier to expect the reader to associate themselves with a particular character and share in that individual's conflict so that one can forget about the reader and assume that their experiences mirror the character's. Personally I am more interested in manipulating the reader's experience, which is why I see beta reading as an important aid. In particular I like beta readers who write comments as they read, rather than after reading substantial amounts, so that their state of mind can be assessed at many points throughout the story. A story may only be a means to guide a reader's mind towards a particular state, so feedback from real readers is essential. I find it odd that experienced writers will warn against creating stereotypical characters but often seem to have stereotypical readers in mind when giving advice.

Maybe I can't contribute to this thread properly because I'm possibly not in tune with the assumed premises about the theory of reading, which must precede any theory of writing. For example, since Coleridge coined the term "suspension of disbelief" it has been bounced between being an aspect of the principles of reading and of writing. The most that can be said is that there is an implicit contract between the reader and writer which incorporates such concepts and a reader will only truly enjoy reading a work written according to the terms of the contract that they assume to exist. Of course, just like the stories, such contracts are potentially fictional and maybe even an intentional device for creating conflict within a reader's mind. So, ultimately can we even have factual constraints on writing fictional stories or is the fictional aspect itself boundless?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> Fiction is read for enjoyment. Often it is enjoyment mixed with other things, like history (historic romances, historic fiction, alternate history, etc), or science (science fiction). Readers may be interested in horses and therefore like to read fiction with horses in it, or they may be interested in the military and read military fiction, but the driving force is always the pleasure of reading. The book's theme, or setting, or characters must resonate with a reader, or there can be no 'hook'. The hook is the pleasure. When you read that opening line, or paragraph, or scene and say to yourself, "I like this," or "Just one more page..." You are doing that because the reading is enjoyable. Enjoying what you are reading and being hooked are the same thing.



Except for our usual terminology arguments, you seem to be agreeing with me?! We are both saying that writers should write books that are enjoyable to read, readers should read books because they are enjoyable to read, and there are a lot of different reasons for a book to be enjoyable. I might someday want to list all of those ways and talk about how to achieve them.

"Just one more page" is not necessarily enjoyable. I would like to know if the coral reefs are going to die, but there's nothing enjoyable about that desire (as JustRob notes). I have been caught up in reading a book, and only when I set it down for a moment do I realize that I am not enjoying the book. For example, to me Patterson creates interesting "conflicts" that I want to know the answer to, but there is nothing enjoyable in reading the actual book and I can improve the quality of my life by just reading the end. The ending is not enjoyable but reading it satisfies that itch to know.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Ralph Rotten said:


> I gotta say, I come at a story from a much different perspective.  For me the story and its conflict are really just a backdrop for my characters to play in front of.  The story is more like the sets and props in a stage play.  Sure, I create a storyline with plenty of conflict, but that's just something to keep my characters busy while they entertain the reader.
> 
> Sometimes the conflict is nothing more than friction between the characters.



I agree. Well, In Mr. Mercedes, King started with a character who is soon killed off when someone drives into a crowd. The point was to create horror, and creating a character was to increase the horror. That's making the reader care. But I wrote a book for the characters and their interaction, then added action scenes so that they would have something to do. So the various conflicts played the secondary role.

And right, I suggested adding a conflict between characters just for interest, not for any plot purposes or that there would be a winner.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Except for our usual terminology arguments, you seem to be agreeing with me?! We are both saying that writers should write books that are enjoyable to read, readers should read books because they are enjoyable to read, and there are a lot of different reasons for a book to be enjoyable. I might someday want to list all of those ways and talk about how to achieve them.



I don't always disagree with you, sometimes you are right :-D



> "Just one more page" is not necessarily enjoyable. I would like to know if the coral reefs are going to die, but there's nothing enjoyable about that desire (as JustRob notes). I have been caught up in reading a book, and only when I set it down for a moment do I realize that I am not enjoying the book. For example, to me Patterson creates interesting "conflicts" that I want to know the answer to, but there is nothing enjoyable in reading the actual book and I can improve the quality of my life by just reading the end. The ending is not enjoyable but reading it satisfies that itch to know.



Perhaps 'rewarding' would be a better word than 'enjoyable'? I don't know. I don't want start splitting semantic hairs. If you have an interest in the death of coral reefs, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume you might enjoy reading a work of fiction about endangered coral reefs? I'd suggest that enjoyment and interest are two sides of the same coin. Most people who pick up a novel do so because they enjoy reading, but, if the plot, or style, or characters cease to interest them, then they might put the book down, or, as you suggest, skip to the end. They stopped enjoying it. If you read through to the end, then, on some level, you enjoyed the book. Enjoyment = Pleasure. And isn't scratching an itch usually a pleasure?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> I don't always disagree with you, sometimes you are right :-D



I am? Is this a trap?:-D



Terry D said:


> Perhaps 'rewarding' would be a better word than 'enjoyable'? I don't know. I don't want start splitting semantic hairs. If you have an interest in the death of coral reefs, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume you might enjoy reading a work of fiction about endangered coral reefs? I'd suggest that enjoyment and interest are two sides of the same coin. Most people who pick up a novel do so because they enjoy reading, but, if the plot, or style, or characters cease to interest them, then they might put the book down, or, as you suggest, skip to the end. They stopped enjoying it. If you read through to the end, then, on some level, you enjoyed the book. Enjoyment = Pleasure. And isn't scratching an itch usually a pleasure?



Well, if you got poison ivy on you, the scratching of your itch might be pleasurable. But you would probably try to avoid poison ivy in the future. And if books were the same way, you might avoid them too.

I read about the man running for his life (why?) and killing himself (why?) to preserve a crucial secret (what?) And a CAT scan on his body 400 years later causes him to sit up (why) and sprays gold all over the walls (why?). About page 50 I realized I wasn't actually enjoying the book. It was how the author resolved these issues, it was chaotic or something.

So, no -- just because someone keeps reading a book doesn't mean they enjoy it. Wouldn't books be more enjoyable if the chapter ended with a resolution of the current issue so the person could set down the book and go to sleep if that was needed?


----------



## Ralph Rotten

You said something earlier about why people read books.
When you step back and look at entertainment as a whole, people don;t just want to be entertained; they want their guts in a knot, they want to grit their teeth and feel that burn of anticipation.  I say this because I see it in other venues.  As an example; talk radio.  Many people live with their head in the echo chamber of conservative talk radio because it embroils them, gives them a fire in their belly, makes them feel something besides boredom.

We also see this fire in the belly desire in gambling.  Gamblers are not just about winning; they are addicted to the gut wreching stress of the risk.  For some people, gambling is that thing that makes them feel different.

And in reading, people want that emotional attachment, they want their guts in a knot, they want to feel anything but the boredom they feel all day.  They want you to light that fire in their soul.  emotionally speaking, writing, talk radio, and gambling all trigger the same emotional responses; they're the same drug by another name.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Ralph Rotten said:


> You said something earlier about why people read books.
> When you step back and look at entertainment as a whole, people don;t just want to be entertained; they want their guts in a knot, they want to grit their teeth and feel that burn of anticipation.  I say this because I see it in other venues.  As an example; talk radio.  Many people live with their head in the echo chamber of conservative talk radio because it embroils them, gives them a fire in their belly, makes them feel something besides boredom.
> 
> We also see this fire in the belly desire in gambling.  Gamblers are not just about winning; they are addicted to the gut wreching stress of the risk.  For some people, gambling is that thing that makes them feel different.
> 
> And in reading, people want that emotional attachment, they want their guts in a knot, they want to feel anything but the boredom they feel all day.  They want you to light that fire in their soul.  emotionally speaking, writing, talk radio, and gambling all trigger the same emotional responses; they're the same drug by another name.



Revolutionary? People don't read a book for the resolution, they read it for the suspense? The purpose of suspense isn't just to make the resolution more enjoyable?

That explains something to me. I was trying to help someone at WF. I focused on how the conflicts were resolved. I should have noticed -- the conflicts were immediately resolved! So it was mostly a happy story with small moments of tenseness.

If that was true, authors might end their book with something gut-wrenching, like that perhaps some velociraptors escaped to the mainland.


----------



## EmmaSohan

I can get excited by fixing a scene or understanding something new about grammar, so I don't really need any more excitement in my life.

But I regret the triviality of most interactions with other people. And I love reading books about the real person inside that brain. Coincidence? Maybe not.

So your idea is huge. What if there were people who felt like they had no real successes in their daily life and maybe even felt powerless. Could we write books for them? (Spoiler alert: We do)


----------



## Garvan

*Humans Need/Want Stories*

To add to the discussion as to why we read - humans are hardwired for stories - we all want to be told a story. It is how we learn best when information is presented in the form of a story - 


> It turns out that your mind was evolutionarily hardwired long before birth to think in specific story terms… Evolutionary biologists confirm that 100,000 years of reliance on stories have evolutionarily hardwired a predisposition into human brains to think in story terms. We are programmed to prefer stories and to think in story structure.





> The reason story seems simplistic is because it comes naturally to every human. Through the ages the human brain has evolved to process information by turning it into a story form conducive to understanding. The result is that story comes as naturally to us as learning to speak and understand language. This is how we “interpret” the facts, or “make sense of a situation.” The fact is the human brain is hardwired to take in information and process it through a story structure!





> The "human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor," says Jonathan Haidt. Certainly, we use logic inside stories better than we do outside. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby have shown that the Wason Selection Test can be solved by fewer than 10% as a logic puzzle, but by 70-90% when presented as a story involving detection of social-rule cheating. Such social-rule monitoring was evolutionarily crucial because as Alison Gopnik notes “other people are the most important part of our environment.” In our ultra-social species, social acceptance matters as much as food. Indeed violating social rules can exclude you from group benefits, including shared food.



 It is how we interact best - 



> In his book, Story Proof: the science behind the startling power of story, Hendall Haven unveils research and studies that validate “stories are more efficient and effective structural vehicles when used to motivate, or teach and communicate factually, conceptual, and tacit information (attitudes, beliefs, values, and cultural expectations). Stories belong as the bedrock of management, leadership, education, outreach, and general communication efforts.”It turns out that your mind was evolutionarily hardwired long before birth to think in specific story terms…
> 
> Evolutionary biologists confirm that 100,000 years of reliance on stories have evolutionarily hardwired a predisposition into human brains to think in story terms. We are programmed to prefer stories and to think in story structure.Unconscious portions of our human brains process raw sensory input and pass it to intermediate processing areas of the brain. These areas… are the exact areas that are activated when humans create stories.
> 
> The output of these regions is fed to the conscious mind for consideration. In other words, the brain converts raw experience into story form and then considers, ponders, remembers, and acts on the self-created story, not the actual input experience![/QUOTE
> 
> ]We even "link" up with the person telling us the story emotionally -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we tell stories to others that have helped us shape our thinking and way of life, we can have the same effect on them too. The brains of the person telling a story and listening to it, can synchronize, says Uri Hasson from Princeton: “...the volunteers understood her story, and their brains synchronized. When she had activity in her insula, an emotional brain region, the listeners did too. When her frontal cortex lit up, so did theirs. By simply telling a story, the woman could plant ideas, thoughts and emotions into the listeners’ brains.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't even half of it - because we are hardwired to listen to stories and because stories have played such an important part in our understanding of the world around us our brains reward us for listening and engaging with a story. Your brain releases endorphins, dopamine and serotonin when you are presented with a resolution to a story - which is why we say an ending was "satisfying" because it was, it made us feel better, satisfied - or a character you are emotionally connected to escapes death or defeats the bad guy or whatever the events are.
> 
> Add to this the fact that we are actually not ourselves when we are fully engaged with a story - MRI's have been done to people viewing movies and they literally disconnect with who they are - they become the person that they are most attracted to on screen. Because the corresponding parts of our brains light up when reading or hearing certain things this experience can feel real to the viewer or reader as often we have a "visual" movie running through our heads as we read.
> 
> Which is why you keep reading even when you don't like the story is because your brain is hacked by a good writer, one who is engaging your brain and rewarding it through the high of emotions - tension and release - adrenaline and endorphins. You are literally "hooked" on the story.
> 
> This leads to the original question about the Theory of Writing - the "traditional" story arc - I can't find the article right now but there was a study done that showed that the common arc of storytelling (set up, build to climax and resolution) makes us feel good. It makes our brain release happy hormones and we feel contented and or alternatively gripped by the adrenaline of a tense moment. Either way, we have created a system that most engages us and holds us captured often "against" our will; the inability to put a book down even if we need to sleep or eat or do other everyday things as an example.
> 
> We literally can't help ourselves when it comes to being told a story - all that has happened is that our brains have decided that they prefer the format of novels and books over either more verbal or visual formats.
Click to expand...


----------



## EmmaSohan

Hi Garvan. Welcome to WF, and thanks, I like thinking about science.

The story in my mind is that the researcher found a story with a good ending, then tested people, and found out that their brains released endorphins and serotonin during that ending. That suggests that they liked the good ending. But isn't that just circular? I think I could write an ending they don't like. The hero has to fight the bad guy with swords, the hero would normally win but it's raining and the bad guy has much better traction, then the bad guy gets struck by lightning.

I think I can write stories where the readers don't identify with the main character, and stories that are simple boring.


----------



## Garvan

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi Garvan. Welcome to WF, and thanks, I like thinking about science.
> 
> The story in my mind is that the researcher found a story with a good ending, then tested people, and found out that their brains released endorphins and serotonin during that ending. That suggests that they liked the good ending. But isn't that just circular? I think I could write an ending they don't like. The hero has to fight the bad guy with swords, the hero would normally win but it's raining and the bad guy has much better traction, then the bad guy gets struck by lightning.
> 
> I think I can write stories where the readers don't identify with the main character, and stories that are simple boring.



But why write a story that your readers won't like? Isn't that sort of... defeating the point of wanting to write?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> But why write a story that your readers won't like? Isn't that sort of... defeating the point of wanting to write?



From a publisher or agent's point of view, the goal is to sell books. When that conflicts with the goal of the reader enjoying a book, my impression is that enjoyment is easily jettisoned.

People are not naturally good story tellers. So the question becomes what advice to give writers about writing. (And I think readers.)

Now, you can imagine the author creating conflict, so the reader reads the book (whether or not the reader enjoys that). And then a resolution of the conflict, which the reader in theory will enjoy (though the publisher at this point might not care). That would be classic advice; it was the assumption of your description of the scientific research. But how important is that?

When I try to think of classic short stories that might have been used in that research, none of them really fit the conflict/resolution model.

Hence the question of if and how people enjoy reading books.


----------



## Terry D

Unless you are and editor, or a student, reading fiction is not a mandatory activity. So if someone chooses to pick up a book and read it to completion they are doing so because they enjoy it (or at the very least,_ find the act of reading satisfying_). Satisfaction, enjoyment, curiosity, it's all basically the same thing.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> Unless you are and editor, or a student, reading fiction is not a mandatory activity. So if someone chooses to pick up a book and read it to completion they are doing so because they enjoy it (or at the very least,_ find the act of reading satisfying_). Satisfaction, enjoyment, curiosity, it's all basically the same thing.



You are simplifying rather than looking at the world.

The people of Hawaii showed a strong interest in some news they received this weekend. It was fascinating. It was gut wrenching, apparently much more than any of our feeble stories. And yet . . . no one wants to do it again. I'm pretty sure they are upset that it happened even once.

Yes, a compulsion to wash hands is in some twisted way satisfying. But not really. I will start watching a TV show, get hooked, watch the whole thing, and when I am done I will sometimes hate the show and myself. Satisfied? Not really.

Or we can talk books. Some books begin with a mystery. I, normal human being except probably with a compulsion to analyze everything, will keep reading. The hook is in my upper lip. But, actually, it's impossible for me to learn anything about the characters when I have no idea what's happening. in fact, there is nothing enjoyable about reading when I don't know what's happening. Putting down that book is like not scratching my poison ivy. it's like not eating that next cookie -- it's impossibly annoying. But am I actually enjoying reading the book? No.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> You are simplifying rather than looking at the world.



It is simple, you are over complicating the discussion.



> The people of Hawaii showed a strong interest in some news they received this weekend. It was fascinating. It was gut wrenching, apparently much more than any of our feeble stories. And yet . . . no one wants to do it again. I'm pretty sure they are upset that it happened even once.



This has absolutely nothing to do with reading fiction.



> Yes, a compulsion to wash hands is in some twisted way satisfying. But not really. I will start watching a TV show, get hooked, watch the whole thing, and when I am done I will sometimes hate the show and myself. Satisfied? Not really.



Again, nothing to do with the topic at hand. Are you comparing reading to a mental disorder? We should be talking about typical readers here. I'm sure 99.9% of those who pick up a novel do so because they enjoy reading, not because of some OCD compulsion.



> Or we can talk books. Some books begin with a mystery. I, normal human being except probably with a compulsion to analyze everything, will keep reading. The hook is in my upper lip. But, actually, it's impossible for me to learn anything about the characters when I have no idea what's happening. in fact, there is nothing enjoyable about reading when I don't know what's happening. Putting down that book is like not scratching my poison ivy. it's like not eating that next cookie -- it's impossibly annoying. But am I actually enjoying reading the book? No.



If you are not enjoying the book, yet you refuse to put it down, then it is satisfying some other drive, or you have a problem we aren't going to fix here.


----------



## Garvan

EmmaSohan said:


> From a publisher or agent's point of view, the goal is to sell books. When that conflicts with the goal of the reader enjoying a book, my impression is that enjoyment is easily jettisoned.
> 
> People are not naturally good story tellers. So the question becomes what advice to give writers about writing. (And I think readers.)
> 
> Now, you can imagine the author creating conflict, so the reader reads the book (whether or not the reader enjoys that). And then a resolution of the conflict, which the reader in theory will enjoy (though the publisher at this point might not care). That would be classic advice; it was the assumption of your description of the scientific research. But how important is that?
> 
> When I try to think of classic short stories that might have been used in that research, none of them really fit the conflict/resolution model.
> 
> Hence the question of if and how people enjoy reading books.



I am not quite sure what you mean... I know I think little of the publishing world but simple business logic says that it is in their best interests to publish books that their market wants to and will enjoy reading. Otherwise, they are going out of business! What assumption did I make? People like things to be resolved, people like being told stories - they didn't say good stories or ones that publishers don't like, they just said that when told a story they (the readers) engage with x happens to their brains and what people find most engaging is the classic format of beginning, middle, end conflict and resolution. Not really much I can assume from that. 



EmmaSohan said:


> You are simplifying rather than looking at the world.
> 
> The people of Hawaii showed a strong interest in some news they received this weekend. It was fascinating. It was gut wrenching, apparently much more than any of our feeble stories. And yet . . . no one wants to do it again. I'm pretty sure they are upset that it happened even once.
> 
> Yes, a compulsion to wash hands is in some twisted way satisfying. But not really. I will start watching a TV show, get hooked, watch the whole thing, and when I am done I will sometimes hate the show and myself. Satisfied? Not really.
> 
> Or we can talk books. Some books begin with a mystery. I, normal human being except probably with a compulsion to analyze everything, will keep reading. The hook is in my upper lip. But, actually, it's impossible for me to learn anything about the characters when I have no idea what's happening. in fact, there is nothing enjoyable about reading when I don't know what's happening. Putting down that book is like not scratching my poison ivy. it's like not eating that next cookie -- it's impossibly annoying. But am I actually enjoying reading the book? No.



I am with Terry-D on this one... Most people read the books they like reading, most people like reading and if you don't like reading then... not really much that can be done about that. Maybe you are reading the wrong books?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> What assumption did I make? People like things to be resolved, ...



That's a plausible assumption, with I think at least a 2000 year history.

But deus ex machina endings actually aren't that satisfying, even though they resolve. Basically showing that the assumption is wrong.

And Sam noted that an ending relying on dumb luck was close to deus ex machina. If the whole point is resolution, then an author might be advised to make it look impossible for the protagonist to succeed. But once is seems impossible, then dumb luck and deur ex machina can become the only resolutions.

When I try to think of a *classic *that does not follow the pleasing resolution formula, I come up with . . . every one of them. When I try to think of a classic short story . . . same. When I think of my favorite books . . . same.

I read a *murder mystery* where the protagonist checks out clues and makes investigations, and at the almost end of the book, has made zero progress. Then the murderer tried to kill her and monologued the whole crime. It was quite disappointing. Meanwhile, I find it a boring cliche that (because it is not good enough any more to find the psychopathic serial killer) the protagonist's life is in danger once the killer is found.

Or, to mention another genre, the last paragraph of a* horror book *will often undo the resolution.

No one doubts that the people of Hawaii were happy with the resolution of their problem. It's amazing that people can care about what happens to a fictional character in a fictional world. It's amazing that they can still care the second time they watch the movie or see the book.

But if you look at actual literature, mere resolution doesn't seem that powerful or important. So I ask you to reconsider that assumption.


----------



## Garvan

Ah... the satisfyingness of deus ex machina endings is a personal opinion - lots of people will think they are fine. Same for horror novels - I am sure that all the fans of horror would be horrified at what you have said. 

I think that you have miss read me - by "classic" I mean the Begining, Middle, End arc that all works (whether you like the endings or not) follow. That is the Classic story structure which has been around for thousands of years if not more. 

Also, what do you mean all of them? I can list any number that follow that pattern... classic and otherwise.


----------



## EmmaSohan

In the Middle of the Fault in Our Stars, Gus discovers his cancer has returned. In the "Classic Story Structure", this is a conflict (or problem). We would root for him in his fight against this cancer, there would be successes and setbacks, and then he would triumph (or fail).

In reality (and I urge everyone to actually look at books), the author makes it as clear as possible that Gus is going to die. There are no triumphs or failures, there is merely a person getting weaker and dying. It is, at the point, a book *about *someone dying. The book itself has what you might call coherence, but it's rarely if ever a book about triumphs and failures. It's a book about two people.

That's my favorite book. In my top three is 13 Reasons Why, which charts a girls fall into suicidal depression. Resolution? We are told ON PAGE 7 that she committed suicide. So it's a story *about *her fall. It's also a story *about *him reading what she left.

The first half of The Tyrants daughter is about her trying to adjust to America. The second half would fit conflict/resolution -- her mother is trying to regain control of their country -- except we aren't told that's happening until it's over.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Jurrassic Park has this interminably long ending of snarling velociraptors and a boy trying to get the operating system back on line. I think that is the thrilling conclusion, and if you don't look closely, it seems to fit the Classic Story Structure.

The readers also are not given this problem until late in the book. Upon success, the book immediately switches to another problem, one that is more interesting.

Really, the resolution is that the island is destroyed. And in the final ending, the book unresolves -- we learn that the velociraptors have escaped to the mainland.

I haven't used the word "about" yet. It's a book *about *trying to do something amazing without respect for the chaos of living creatures. It's a nice book for that.

So, the Classic Story Structure misleads us in trying to understand the enjoyment. And it can easily mislead authors who are trying to produce enjoyment.


----------



## EmmaSohan

The antagonist has escaped from prison and is headed to the protagonist to kill her. She is waiting. In the final scene, they both have there weapons aimed. The book ends there.

Now, we can imagine a reader saying, _Damn, I would about to enjoy that ending. It would have been enjoyable if he had died, or she died, or whatever._

In really, it was REALLY ANNOYING. This is really a good example of the importance of the Classic Story Structure -- readers like resolution. But it demonstrates that a lack of resolution is really annoying. It is not a moment of quietude preceding some glorious pleasure at the end.

So, that resolution is just relief from annoyance. As Terry suggested, like scratching an itch. The author annoys the reader, then releases the reader from the torment. Then creates another.

Of course, if you like gut-wrenching tension, then you can enjoy the worry. And the resolution might be boring -- you might actually prefer the resolution to be undone. Or, since you aren't particularly going to like the ending anyway, Deus ex machina might be fine.

 But that isn't quite Classic Story Structure. As again Terry alluded, it more fits the dog story model -- people like to read about dogs, or experience adrenaline, and the genre-appropriate story does that.


----------



## Garvan

What?

Lord of the Rings

Corean Chronicles

Death Gate Cycle

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Pride and Prejudice

The Odyssey 

The Cat Who Walks Through Walls

Duncton Chronicles

The Three Musketeers 

Any of the Nic Costa series

Any of the Dirk Pitt series

Any of the Allen Quatermain series 

Any of the Joe Leaphorn and Jim Chee series

Hell even Three Men In A Boat all have the arc - including many that you listed.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> In reality (and I urge everyone to actually look at books), the author makes it as clear as possible that Gus is going to die. There are no triumphs or failures, there is merely a person getting weaker and dying. It is, at the point, a book *about *someone dying. The book itself has what you might call coherence, but it's rarely if ever a book about triumphs and failures. It's a book about two people.



If this is all you see in your favorite book, then you really aren't thinking about it very deeply. The characters having cancer and Gus dying are not the book's main theme. That's just the situation the characters are faced with. The book is about two people trying to live as normal a life as possible in spite of their illnesses -- OMG! What? Characters struggling against an obstacle? That can't be true. That would be a conflict! By the way, that's not my interpretation of the book -- it is what the author, John Green, has repeatedly said the book is about. But I'm betting you know that already.



EmmaSohan said:


> Jurrassic Park has this interminably long ending of snarling velociraptors and a boy trying to get the operating system back on line. I think that is the thrilling conclusion, and if you don't look closely, it seems to fit the Classic Story Structure.
> 
> The readers also are not given this problem until late in the book. Upon success, the book immediately switches to another problem, one that is more interesting.
> 
> Really, the resolution is that the island is destroyed. And in the final ending, the book unresolves -- we learn that the velociraptors have escaped to the mainland.
> 
> I haven't used the word "about" yet. It's a book *about *trying to do something amazing without respect for the chaos of living creatures. It's a nice book for that.
> 
> So, the Classic Story Structure misleads us in trying to understand the enjoyment. And it can easily mislead authors who are trying to produce enjoyment.



Yes, the theme of the book is mankind's hubris in the face of nature, but its plot -- its story -- is about trying to survive against the product of that hubris. There's nothing left "unresolved" at the end. The main characters -- most of them anyway -- do survive and get off the island. That resolves the plot of that book. Sure, the book ends with an opening for future conflict, but the story of those characters, in their current situation, is resolved. Beginning, middle, end.



EmmaSohan said:


> So, that resolution is just relief from annoyance. As Terry suggested, like scratching an itch. The author annoys the reader, then releases the reader from the torment. Then creates another.



You are misquoting me again. My "scratching an itch" comment was regarding reading, not the resolution of the book. My point was, and remains, that as long as a reader continues to read a book they are getting some sort of satisfaction out of it. Even if that satisfaction is just seeing the task through to completion, doing so satisfies some want, or need within the reader -- even if it's as superficial as scratching an itch.



> Of course, if you like gut-wrenching tension, then you can enjoy the worry. And the resolution might be boring -- you might actually prefer the resolution to be undone. Or, since you aren't particularly going to like the ending anyway, Deus ex machina might be fine.
> 
> But that isn't quite Classic Story Structure. As again Terry alluded, it more fits the dog story model -- people like to read about dogs, or experience adrenaline, and the genre-appropriate story does that.



This is far too general to address with any degree of specificity. I can't think of any books where the resolution is "undone". Some are left somewhat open-ended, or ambiguous, but every book I've ever read has some sort of resolution that works for that book. Resolutions aren't always perfect, and sometimes they are downright unsatisfying, but that doesn't mean the story is not resolved. Stephen King has a reputation for having a problem with writing completely satisfying endings to his books, but that doesn't mean they aren't resolved. 

And I never said anything about a "dog story model". I did say that people often like to read fiction that has plot-points, settings, or characters that reflect things they are interested in in 'real-life'.


----------



## EmmaSohan

How much are we screwed by this old-fashioned simplistic model?

In one book, the protagonists is being replaced by a newer technology, so he volunteers to do a task in one day or he doesn't get paid. We get the normal skillful handling of this conflict/resolution situation. (Everyone is watching, including a young boy. It looks like he won't finish in time, but he works faster. It still looks like he won't finish in time, so he works impossibly fast.)

 Then he succeeds. Successful resolution. End of story? Happy reader?

No, he has a problem. Not an Deus ex machina problem, not a dumb luck problem, but a problem he and everyone else -- including the reader -- should have seen coming. That's a lesson on planning ahead, and now the story has become important. (He just dug a perfectly square hole and there's no way to get his steam shovel out of the hole.)

Then that's quickly solved. (The steam shovel becomes the heating system for the new school.)

You can jam that into conflict/resolution. There was a conflict that Mike and his steam shovel were out-of-date. And the solution is them being happy in new roles. But . . .

That was never _given _as a problem. That was setting. The reader was _never _reading to have that conflict resolved.

Which is a lot to get to my point. If you resolve a problem that the reader didn't even know was a problem, perhaps that will give you a really good ending. (_The Last Question_ would be another example.)


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> What?
> 
> ... all have the arc - including many that you listed.



Thanks! I haven't read any. What is the arc in _The Odyssey_? I know the cyclops story. And I will look at the _Three Musketeers_. What is the arc in that, according to Classic story structure?

Doesn't _Pride and Prejudice_ have a kick-ass pivot? (To mention something from post-Classical story structure.) Then the actual resolution is boring? I don't even remember it.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> If this is all you see in your favorite book, then you really aren't thinking about it very deeply. The characters having cancer and Gus dying are not the book's main theme. That's just the situation the characters are faced with. The book is about two people trying to live as normal a life as possible in spite of their illnesses -- OMG! What? Characters struggling against an obstacle? That can't be true. That would be a conflict! By the way, that's not my interpretation of the book -- it is what the author, John Green, has repeatedly said the book is about. But I'm betting you know that already.



The idea of Classic story conflict is this: The writer creates a conflict, then the reader reads to find out how the conflict is resolved. That works really well. It's, um, pretty simple.

No one is reading _The Fault in Our Stars_ to find out if they can lead a normal life. And no reader sees that as a conflict. So you can't justify that as being Classic story conflict. Do you really think that got resolved? I have no idea how. You are making things much more complicated than they need to be.


----------



## Garvan

The Odyssey... the classic kind - set up, conflict, resolution. You have your hero (Homer) who needs to get home. To do that he must face and overcome x obstacles to once again be with his family. This is a classic arc of conflict, resolution. 

Same with Pride and Prejudice there was a conflict created between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy over the course of the book this is resolved as both overcome their own inner conflicts because this is a story that has more conflicts that use outer forces pressed against the character. Thereselves are the source of the conflict. In the end this is resolved. 

Not sure what you mean about the ending being boring? Mr. Darcy's speech is just one of the best things ever!


----------



## EmmaSohan

Thanks. So the climax is when Ulysses gets home? Or when he gets together with his family?

I will look at _Three Musketeers_. What's the arc on that?


----------



## Garvan

EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks. So the climax is when Ulysses gets home? Or when he gets together with his family?
> 
> I will look at _Three Musketeers_. What's the arc on that?



You will just have to read The Odyssey and see... 

The conflict of the Three Musketeers is one of personal morals vs. societal pressure, it is about finding your way in the world. It is also about good vs. bad about the joy of life vs. oppression. It is about desire vs. love, politics vs law.... read it. It is a great tale with more than enough conflicts to keep anyone happy.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> You will just have to read The Odyssey and see...
> 
> The conflict of the Three Musketeers is one of personal morals vs. societal pressure, it is about finding your way in the world. It is also about good vs. bad about the joy of life vs. oppression. It is about desire vs. love, politics vs law.... read it. It is a great tale with more than enough conflicts to keep anyone happy.



The book sounds great. But . . . you are saying there is a "set up, build to climax and resolution" for politics vs. law? That's hard for me to imagine. What you said:




> This leads to the original question about the Theory of Writing - the "traditional" story arc - I can't find the article right now but there was a study done that showed that the common arc of storytelling (set up, build to climax and resolution) makes us feel good. It makes our brain release happy hormones and we feel contented and or alternatively gripped by the adrenaline of a tense moment. Either way, we have created a system that most engages us and holds us captured often "against" our will; the inability to put a book down even if we need to sleep or eat or do other everyday things as an example.



I can't imagine law versus politics keeping me up past my bedtime. Or maybe your ideas have changed?


----------



## Garvan

EmmaSohan said:


> The book sounds great. But . . . you are saying there is a "set up, build to climax and resolution" for politics vs. law? That's hard for me to imagine. What you said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine law versus politics keeping me up past my bedtime. Or maybe your ideas have changed?



I have not changed my mind. Read the book and see for yourself!


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> No one is reading _The Fault in Our Stars_ to find out if they can lead a normal life. And no reader sees that as a conflict. So you can't justify that as being Classic story conflict. Do you really think that got resolved? I have no idea how. You are making things much more complicated than they need to be.



To me, the conflict in _The Fault in Our Stars_ is the same as the conflict in most Romances: the protagonist is living an incorrect life, and the antagonist (who is always the Love Interest in a Romance) comes along, challenging the protagonist to grow and change.

As the relationship evolves between the two characters, the conflict rises (the love interest continues to challenge the protagonist's incorrect lifestyle and/or beliefs), until, eventually, the protagonist finally comes around to seeing the world (and/or herself) through the Love Interest's eyes.

This is usually the mid-point, or the 3/4 mark, and it's a high point where both characters traditionally share their first kiss, or make love for the first time.

After that high point, there has to be a downward plot turn (as a tragedy follows a "frown" arc, where the character starts low, rises high, then goes low again). Augustus admitting that his cancer has returned is what begins that downward turn.

The resolution is Hazel coming to terms with the way Augustus (the Love Interest/Antagonist) changed her. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> The idea of Classic story conflict is this: The writer creates a conflict, then the reader reads to find out how the conflict is resolved. That works really well. It's, um, pretty simple.



Right. And virtually all novels have conflict and resolution. Thanks for agreeing with me.



> No one is reading _The Fault in Our Stars_ to find out if they can lead a normal life. And no reader sees that as a conflict. So you can't justify that as being Classic story conflict. Do you really think that got resolved? I have no idea how. You are making things much more complicated than they need to be.



So now you can speak for all readers? Wow, that's impressive. The only problem is, you are wrong. But I'm done trying to explain fundamental fiction writing to you.


----------



## EmmaSohan

I feel like I've fallen into a rabbit hole. In _Dust_, the protagonist is called to the scene of a murder. She then tries to help kill the murderer. The reader reads on to see how the murderer is and if she catches him. The drive to read on can be very powerful.

Is that not obvious? Did Garvan not describe that perfectly?

So, there is an extremely obvious technique that we should all know about, and everyone here uses. And then you can't recognize when it isn't being used? It's like your calling a tiger and elephant and using the fact that the tiger has a trunk to show you are right. (Trunk being a technical term for any nose.)

I'm not sure that Hazel is an "incorrect character" Or, everyone is, but some books deliberately and distinctly portray the main character as having some flaw, and she is not portrayed that way. I cannot believe anyone reads that book with a compulsion to find out if her character gets corrected.

The reader, believe it or not, reads a romance book to see if the two characters end up together. I honestly cannot understand why that isn't obvious. Actually, the two characters get together at the _end _and then there's just epilogue.  Not half-way through and then there's a downward arc. (Yes, they die at the end of Romeo and Juliet, but Wikipedia has not fallen into this rabbit hole and they call it a tragedy: _*Romeo and Juliet* is a tragedy)
_
Her father is abusive. Or manic. That's made clear at the start of the book. People in the real world call those problems, or issues. Not conflicts or trunks. A thesaurus had like 30-50 listings for _conflict_; _problem _was not one of them.

Okay, returning to the real world.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Standard writing theory leads us astray for writing good endings (thrilling climaxes/resolutions). The _Iliad _has a great resolution, one of the best ever. Is that because the reader is invested in the conflict and happy to see it satisfactorily resolved?

No, not really. The Greek triumph was very clever. It's a metaphor to last forever. That's why it was a great ending. 

The standard reading theory implies that any resolution will be good. Since this obviously isn't true, we improve our resolutions by increasing the stakes (so the resolution is more powerful), and making the positive resolution seem unlikely. Exactly what our theory predicts we should do.

And all that works a little. Those are all good techniques, and any resolution is happy. But the test is Deus ex machina. Those endings resolve the conflict but have nothing good by themselves. And those endings are okay. But nothing special.

Or, look at the books you are reading. _Mr. Mercedes_, by King, is a good book. I liked it. The thrilling climax was the worst part of the book for me. It broke one of the basic rules for having a good ending. But I'm not sure how King expected to succeed. King did the setup perfectly -- huge stakes, seems likely that the tragedy would occur.

One problem is that I knew the antagonist would fail. That's a fatal flaw of every ending, IF YOU BUY INTO THE STANDARD THEORY OF WRITING.

In reality, if you increase the stakes, make things look dark, and then have a happy resolution, that's great. Now you need to sit down and rewrite so that your ending so it's good. It's like anything else in writing. There are techniques. If Luke Skywalker had succeeded by dumb luck, it still would have been a good ending. But the actual movie had a great ending. Learn to take that next step.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> I'm not sure that Hazel is an "incorrect character" Or, everyone is, but some books deliberately and distinctly portray the main character as having some flaw, and she is not portrayed that way.



I believe we all have incorrect ways of thinking; things that we, by the grace of whatever powers that be, should be lucky enough to learn to correct. You do. I do. Hazel Grace does.

Hazel states her incorrect way of thinking pretty clearly, in my opinion, on page 99:

"I'm like. Like. I'm like a grenade, Mom. I’m a grenade and at some point I'm going to blow up and I would like to minimize the casualties, okay?"
...
"I'm a grenade," I said again. "I just want to stay away from people and read books and think and be with you guys because there's nothing I can do about hurting you; you're too invested, so just please let me do that, okay? I'm not depressed. I don't need to get out more. And I can't be a regular teenager, because I'm a grenade."​
Hazel believes she can't be a regular teenager—and feels she has to avoid getting close to anyone because of her illness and (eventual) passing.

Luckily for her, her insight arrives in the form of Augustus Waters, who makes a pretty strong case that Hazel can (and deserves) to see herself as more than just a ticking bomb meant to push everyone away.



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> The reader, believe it or not, reads a romance book to see if the two characters end up together. I honestly cannot understand why that isn't obvious.



John Green is a pretty cerebral author. Hazel's speech (quoted above) was, in my opinion, not written by accident—it was Mr. Green saying, "Here's where Hazel is wrong. And I'm going to throw Augustus Waters at her to prove it."

To assume that he wrote _The Fault in Our Stars_ with simply the goal of writing a romance "to see if the two characters end up together" would be to dismiss all the effort and messages of hope and optimism that Mr. Green clearly inserted into his work.

I understand that it might seem a bit annoying (or disheartening) for some readers to recognize the artificiality of _plotting_ that may exist in a story that we love. It could almost feel like it takes away from the story itself, when we start to see the seams where everything was welded together.

To me, though, it's opposite. I get excited when I see conventional plot techniques applied in fresh and emotionally riveting ways. It's a testament to Mr. Green and his skill as a writer. :encouragement:


----------



## Garvan

I think what Emma is getting caught up on is the question of what makes a Quality ending or Quality resolution. Which sadly has no answer only that we know what is good when we see it... or at least most of us do. Others have no taste whatsoever. 

You should read The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for the full exploration of this subject of Quality.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> Standard writing theory leads us astray for writing good endings (thrilling climaxes/resolutions).



Hogwash. I don't know what "standard writing theory" is. Never heard of it. Just another made-up bit of jargon to keep people confused. I understand story structure -- which is what we are really talking about here -- and I understand that the typical story arc is used for virtually all books, but that arc is quite pliable and can be bent into unique shapes, all the good ones, however, still have the main concepts: characters, settings, conflict, rising and falling 'action', climax and resolution.  You can't write a readable story without them.



> The standard reading theory implies that any resolution will be good. Since this obviously isn't true, we improve our resolutions by increasing the stakes (so the resolution is more powerful), and making the positive resolution seem unlikely. Exactly what our theory predicts we should do.
> 
> And all that works a little. Those are all good techniques, and any resolution is happy. But the test is Deus ex machina. Those endings resolve the conflict but have nothing good by themselves. And those endings are okay. But nothing special.
> 
> Or, look at the books you are reading. _Mr. Mercedes_, by King, is a good book. I liked it. The thrilling climax was the worst part of the book for me. It broke one of the basic rules for having a good ending. But I'm not sure how King expected to succeed. King did the setup perfectly -- huge stakes, seems likely that the tragedy would occur.
> 
> One problem is that I knew the antagonist would fail. That's a fatal flaw of every ending, IF YOU BUY INTO THE STANDARD THEORY OF WRITING.
> 
> In reality, if you increase the stakes, make things look dark, and then have a happy resolution, that's great. Now you need to sit down and rewrite so that your ending so it's good. It's like anything else in writing. There are techniques. If Luke Skywalker had succeeded by dumb luck, it still would have been a good ending. But the actual movie had a great ending. Learn to take that next step.




There is no "standard reading theory", and there is no "standard theory of writing". If there is, point me to where it is written. If you don't like the way books end, stop reading. No loss.


----------



## moderan

This stuff kills me. It's just so awkward and in-the-box. I second the Robert Pirsig rec.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle, you came to WF a few years ago and said the stakes should be *death*. Or symbolic death at least. That was a little depressing, but I followed that advice, increased the stakes in once of my scenes, and liked the result.

Now you're saying the issue is that she needs to learn something to lead a perhaps happier life? By your standards, that's wimpy. Why aren't you telling Green to have something more interesting than that? Like, for example, death, it's already in his book.

#2, If there's a good hook, the author should put it as early in the book as possible, right? You're talking about page 99.

#3. In the "traditional story arc", the reader cannot put down the book until the thrilling climax and resolution.  Is it when she kisses Gus? That's too near the middle of the book. It's not keeping anyone awake at night.

The "traditional story arc" is a real technique. In a Patterson book, we find out somewhere around page 1 that the protagonists is trying to put the brutal murdering mob boss in jail. We read the book to see if he will succeed. He does, near the end.

By your description (and mine), _The Fault In Our Stars_ is nothing like that. No one is helped by trying to jam those two into the  the same box, especially if we want to understand how they work and how to improve them.

II you want to say that one thing a reader can enjoy in a book is watching a character learn and grow, then of course I'll all on board.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> Hogwash. I don't know what "standard writing theory" is. Never heard of it. Just another made-up bit of jargon to keep people confused. I understand story structure -- which is what we are really talking about here -- and I understand that the typical story arc is used for virtually all books, but that arc is quite pliable and can be bent into unique shapes, all the good ones, however, still have the main concepts: characters, settings, conflict, rising and falling 'action', climax and resolution.  You can't write a readable story without them.



Bullseye! That's it. Most people would add an explanation of why that formula works; Garvan did a nice job on that.

What did you want to call it? Garvan called it the "traditional" story arc. You said things were simple, so I would like to call it the Simple Writing Theory. Okay? Of course, you might want to call it The Only Writing Theory.

But there are other theories. You can think of a book as a collection of stories tied together by some overarching theme. It is trivial to show that every good book follows that format, with little or no bending needed. It even does a nice job on Forrest Gump and Don Quixote or the ending to Jurassic Park. It does poorly on Deus ex machina problems/conflicts, so it's probably not any better than The Simple but Only Writing Theory.


----------



## Garvan

Oh *! I give up! If you are just going to be going around the same imaginary bush I am leaving this discussion.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> Oh *! I give up! If you are just going to be going around the same imaginary bush I am leaving this discussion.



Argh, I didn't know I had a deadline.



Garvan said:


> I am not quite sure what you mean... I know I think little of the publishing world but simple business logic says that it is in their best interests to publish books that their market wants to and will enjoy reading. Otherwise, they are going out of business!



Picoult had, or would have had, a marvelous scene. The doormat wife finally realizes her husband is having an affair. She has an impromptu yard sale of his things and sells _everything he owns_. It's the pivot for the book.

That scene is then moved to the start, as a prologue. There, it's cute but has no meaning -- we don't know who the characters are or why she is doing what she is doing.

They did not destroy the best scene in their book to enhance reading experience, they did it to help sell the book. A prologue can be good -- Bishop has an excellent one. For the most part, they are more likely to spoil the reading experience than add to it. That's pretty much acknowledged at WF.

My impression is that any blurb described in the book has the same function -- it is likely to spoil the reading experience. I once listed all the things I found great in a James Patterson book, and when I looked, I discovered _they were all in the blurb_. I swear I did not enjoy reading that book, no matter what Terry says. I kept expecting more, or better. I wanted to find out about the grisly murder scene, which was one of the more disappointing resolutions ever. (Emma's rule of reading: If you don't like the middle, you probably won't like the end.)

So, no, publishing is pretty much like every other industry. They want to make money. They want to convince you that you will enjoy the book before you read it. That's critical. What happens after you read it might have some marginal value.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> Oh *! I give up! If you are just going to be going around the same imaginary bush I am leaving this discussion.



Yes, but you are running in both directions. If the conflict produces gut wrenching stress, and the resolution is a wonderful endorphin-filled experience, what happens the second time someone reads a book? They enjoy the other stuff, right? And that means, the absence of what Terry lists as the essential parts of any good book . . . aren't that important. In a book worth rereading.

(Garvan's current tag includes:  “I can't imagine a man really enjoying a book and reading it only once.” ― C.S. Lewis)


----------



## Theglasshouse

There is one book I like that I discovered recently that explains craft or what is needed to build a story. Maybe there is no theory of writing. It gets too philosophical. It's the components to write a story that is the craft Emma Sohan as Terry was trying to explain. If you practice writing you start with trail and error. Even after craft starts, but craft gets too philosophical without exercises (example being Jack Bickham). That is my opinion.

Supposedly exercises are a good way to learn quoted from john Gardner. But I don't like his exercises in his own book on craft. I won't mention the book I use since each writer is on their own quest. Maybe I will post it in the hints and tips area later. But if asked, I can heartily give it a good word of mouth for writing and an introduction to craft. Good craft books are as rare as diamonds. I have it, and will look for a ebook copy and will own it on paperback. I like the book since it explains what john Gardner talks about. Such as psychic  distance, motivation, show and tell, conflict, and so on since I don't want to list everything. It gives definitions of each with exercises. She graduated from northwestern, best book I have bought. Since people usually are bored at the beginning of a story I plan to use it also to help gain an audience by practicing the exercises for brainstorming ideas of the elements. Currently own it on kindle, but I can't use it since kindle limits the data I save as highlights. I cant print it.

Right now because of dyslexia and needing to write with a good sense of grammar I have bigger concerns.

I posted it in the writer's resource section for those interested. (it's currently in the approval process)


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> Kyle, you came to WF a few years ago and said the stakes should be *death*. Or symbolic death at least. That was a little depressing, but I followed that advice, increased the stakes in once of my scenes, and liked the result.
> 
> Now you're saying the issue is that she needs to learn something to lead a perhaps happier life? By your standards, that's wimpy. Why aren't you telling Green to have something more interesting than that? Like, for example, death, it's already in his book.



Well, just to be technical, I joined WF in 2006—nearly twelve years ago. (Yikes! Makes me feel old. :grief

And that post was made four years ago . . . though I still do agree with the basic advice of it, which was to make the stakes feel like life or death, whether they be physical, professional, or emotional.

In this case, I'd say Hazel's illness has put her on track to suffer an emotional death. She's developed a cynical, almost nihilistic viewpoint, and Augustus is the antidote. 

Notice how, during their first meeting, Augustus openly expresses that he fears _oblivion_, while Hazel counters by saying: "Everything that we did and built and wrote and thought and discovered will be forgotten and all of this”—I gestured encompassingly—“will have been for naught."

This, again, is Green clearly highlighting Hazel's incorrect way of thinking—her belief, at the beginning of the story, that nothing matters and it's all pointless. This is her core philosophy at this point, and it's the near polar opposite of Augustus' way of thinking, and that's why he's the antagonist.

He exists, as a character, to throw sand in the face of Hazel's wrong way of thinking, to prove to her that it isn't just "all for naught". :encouragement:


----------



## Garvan

1. If you don't like reading (which is pretty much my only impression from this thread) stop reading? 

2. You are not thinking. Sorry but you are not, you are arguing an imagined issue based on the fact that you have not loved every book you have ever picked up. My opinion? You need to understand that there are levels to writing - some people do it well, others do not. The quality of the book has nothing to do with the quality of arc it is structured on and you have obviously never read a good book. 

3. - 





EmmaSohan said:


> Yes, but you are running in both directions. If the conflict produces gut wrenching stress, and the resolution is a wonderful endorphin-filled experience, what happens the second time someone reads a book? They enjoy the other stuff, right? And that means, the absence of what Terry lists as the essential parts of any good book . . . aren't that important. In a book worth rereading.



If the book is good enough the same again. You are just more aware of it, you feel in your bones the anticipation for the next moment because it was a moment you enjoyed and then it arrives and you just feel... delight. Your reveal in it and squirm in your chair because you have reached one of the best bits and then it is past and you feel sad for a moment but because you have read it before you know there is another moment you love and you just can't wait to read that bit. 

And yes after three reads or more you start to notice other things that add it that delight, the authors sub-plots, the use of language to enhance the moment and you love the story even more because now you get to a little peek behind the curtain and it stuns you. 

And honestly Emma - if you have never felt that when reading this whole discussion is two things - 1. sad because how can anyone live without that feeling? and 2. pointless because nothing I or anyone can say to make you understand that feeling. 

Because in the end that is what this discussion is about - you want to know how to get that feeling in your work and well... that depends on how good a writer you are because it doesn't come from any one point or moment or formula it comes from skill and dedication to the art of writing.


----------



## ppsage

I feel like this sort of discussion turns people into generic response units: it doesn't take enough account of human variety. A good part of any art is paddling around on that pond trusting to intuition. different strokes for different folks, to wear out the mrtaphor.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> 1. If you don't like reading (which is pretty much my only impression from this thread) stop reading?



I think most people have taken this advice.

I don't blame them. I wish it was different. And oddly, once on a vacation I just got books from like the supermarket, read about five of them, and quit reading for years.

How many books have you read this year?


----------



## EmmaSohan

ppsage said:


> I feel like this sort of discussion turns people into generic response units: it doesn't take enough account of human variety. A good part of any art is paddling around on that pond trusting to intuition. different strokes for different folks, to wear out the mrtaphor.



right, hoping for the muse, doing one's best, getting a feeling of what is quality and what is not, trying to move in the direction of getting better.

And hopefully not having any erroneous preconceptions. Like, perhaps, that all you have to do to have a good ending is resolve the major conflict. You could spend a lot of time trying to enhance the conflict if you happened to have read standard advice.

To think you aren't influenced by preconceptions is, I think, naive. To think you don't have any is probably naive too. Doing the math, it makes sense to at least understand your preconceptions. It's a lot easier to get out of the box when you know its there.

And of course, your preconceptions might be right, but I don't know how you answer that question without thinking about them.


----------



## Garvan

EmmaSohan said:


> I think most people have taken this advice.
> 
> *I don't blame them.* I wish it was different. And oddly, once on a vacation I just got books from like the supermarket, read about five of them, and quit reading for years.
> 
> How many books have you read this year?



Ok... so if you don't like books (which is what you have pretty much admitted to) why are you writing? If I may ask... 

Not sure how many books I have read this year has to do with this discussion but... Three... although it has been a slow month, the start of a new year is always busy.


----------



## EmmaSohan

I'm calm now, sorry.

To Kyle and everyone. In a Patterson book, we learn on the second page that an FBI agent is trying to catch a mob boss. The point is, we can all predict what happens. The reader has to care. (The FBI agent is the protagonist). The conflict is made as important as possible ("The guy was bad, terror-level bad.") There are ups and downs, leading to a final climax (pages 387-407). The importance is escalated to include the agent's life. After the resolution (page 408, leaving the mob boss to die). the following is what we would happily call epilogue.

Can we make that pattern fit other books? Yes, Terry has shown that we can, although he points out that we have to bend things. The problem is, that means bending things out of recognition. The problem you mention (Hazel thinking her actions will ultimately not make a difference, say in a billion years) is not emotional death, it's a somewhat philosophical point. I like how Hazel has answered it, so I'm not even rooting for her to change. There's no escalation, there's no final conflict for this problem, and no resolution.

If you put those two into the same category, I'm not sure you have anything you can say about that category. And then the category isn't useful for anything.

Hazel has a problem: She has cancer. Yes, we can call that a conflict, but that is bending things out of recognition in my opinion. Anyway, I think readers don't keep reading to find out if she is cured. Surely there is no climax and no resolution. But -- the book explores that problem. You could even call it a fundamental theme for the book. We agreed that books could do interesting things, and that's one of the things a book can do. So it's a totally different class.

Garvan, I am glad you are a reader, it helps me to know that. I started this thread because I wanted to think about this issue. I'm close to an answer, and you helped with that. I'll put it up and then you (and everyone else) can attack or agree or whatever. Which speech by Mr. Bennet did you like?


----------



## bookmasta

EmmaSohan said:


> The dominant theory of writing (true?) is starting with some problem (conflict, issue). This hooks the reader. The climax+resolution then shows the resolution.
> 
> The middle of the book is then filled with smaller versions of this -- some problem, which is resolved (or not), then the next problem arises.
> 
> And then we can have variations, such as having two problems or having the initial problem escalate or change.
> 
> How much does this model influence our approach to writing? Using this model, we make the problem as important as possible. We want the reader to care about the characters so the reader cares about the resolution. Jay has suggested making it seem almost impossible that the protagonist will succeed in the final conflict. We try to hook the reader as quickly and strongly as possible.



I don't think talking about writing theory in this sense is productive. Talking in generalized terms about the act of writing and actually engaging in the act of writing are two completely different states with two different perspectives. Theory in this view may mirror the other to some degree, but I don't believe that it's a reflection that proves to add much of anything of worth. In other words, you basically have the general outline and structure of every novel and story ever written, but what is just as important is the style and manner of the prose that an author tells their story thru. So, I would focus more on the skill and style of how authors apply different conventions and how each uses their own definitive voices to write the stories in the unique ways that they do. That is the side of writing theory I would focus on.


----------



## Garvan

EmmaSohan said:


> To Kyle and everyone. In a Patterson book, we learn on the second page that an FBI agent is trying to catch a mob boss. The point is, we can all predict what happens. The reader has to care. (The FBI agent is the protagonist). The conflict is made as important as possible ("The guy was bad, terror-level bad.") There are ups and downs, leading to a final climax (pages 387-407). The importance is escalated to include the agent's life. After the resolution (page 408, leaving the mob boss to die). the following is what we would happily call epilogue.
> 
> Can we make that pattern fit other books? Yes, Terry has shown that we can, although he points out that we have to bend things. The problem is, that means bending things out of recognition. The problem you mention (Hazel thinking her actions will ultimately not make a difference, say in a billion years) is not emotional death, it's a somewhat philosophical point. I like how Hazel has answered it, so I'm not even rooting for her to change. There's no escalation, there's no final conflict for this problem, and no resolution.
> 
> If you put those two into the same category, I'm not sure you have anything you can say about that category. And then the category isn't useful for anything.
> 
> Hazel has a problem: She has cancer. Yes, we can call that a conflict, but that is bending things out of recognition in my opinion. Anyway, I think readers don't keep reading to find out if she is cured. Surely there is no climax and no resolution. But -- the book explores that problem. You could even call it a fundamental theme for the book. We agreed that books could do interesting things, and that's one of the things a book can do. So it's a totally different class.



Emma I am sorry to do this as I have been trying to avoid saying it (I hate to poo-poo anyone's taste in books as it just ends badly)... but those books (all of) Patterson and Fault in Our Stars are bad books. Pointing to two very badly written things and saying "Look it doesn't work" is sort of not going to get anyone anywhere. The fact that they aren't conclusively showing you the shape of the traditional arc has more to do with writer error than arc error.

And predictability has little to do with the Arc either and everything to do with writer error. Because if you are a good writer then whatever story you are telling should feel new and bright. Also, you are not factoring in what KIND of books you are reading - Patterson, for example, isn't trying to not be predictable. In fact, his is a class of writing that depends on the predictability of his books as his intended audience expects x to happen in x amount of time with x conclusion. So he gives it to them and he sells. He is a commercial writer. Not a bad thing if you want to make money but it isn't exactly going to win you any praise for your literary stylings either. So... there isn't any point in bemoaning his work as it is what it is. 

Ok... I wasn't wanting to add to this but here we go. Story Arcs come in layers. First off there is the Universal Arc that all books have - Conflict - Resolution. This is something that all GOOD stories have regardless of theme, subject or genre. 

Then there are the other SIX arc's (they are real and can be calculated their reality is not up for discussion.) This covers the six main story types - 

A steady, ongoing rise in emotional valence - like in a rags-to-riches story (Alice’s Adventures Underground by Lewis Carroll).

A steady ongoing fall in emotional valence - like in a tragedy (Romeo and Juliet). 

A fall then a rise, such as the man-in-a-hole story, discussed by Vonnegut. 

A rise then a fall, (the Greek myth of Icarus).

Rise-fall-rise, (Cinderella). 

Fall-rise-fall, (Oedipus.)

(Read more here - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...the-six-basic-emotional-arcs-of-storytelling/)

So... now the issue becomes more complex because writing is complex. You now have your Basic/Traditional Arc - this starts the ball rolling. To that, you then decide what story you want to tell - this then dictates which one of the six arcs your story is going to follow whether you like it or not. Once those bones are added to your story you now add your plot arc, character arcs, sub-plots and surprise twists and you end up (if you are a good writer) with something that is complex, and emotive and explores many issues but still has this familiar arc to it because that is the nature of writing. 

Now... the two examples you keep on trotting out - even they have two of the aforementioned arcs (it pains me to say it) but they are badly written so trying to use them as examples of any sort is bound to fail to prove anything. 

So can we now please separate this issue into two different subjects - the provable shape of stories and writer error?


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> To Kyle ...
> 
> The problem you mention (Hazel thinking her actions will ultimately not make a difference, say in a billion years) is not emotional death, it's a somewhat philosophical point. I like how Hazel has answered it, so I'm not even rooting for her to change. There's no escalation, there's no final conflict for this problem, and no resolution.



See, to me, the entire story is an escalation of this conflict:

Hazel believes that *everything is pointless*.
Augustus believes that *everything has meaning*.

^ Conflict.

In contemporary Romances, the Love Interest generally takes the role of the Antagonist. Their character antagonizes the protagonist—by challenging their way of thinking and/or living.

It's not an External Conflict, like _The Lord of the Rings_ ("Carry the ring to Mordor and destroy it—but watch out for bad guys along the way!").

Rather, _The Fault in Our Stars_ is built upon an _Internal_ Conflict: (Girl suffering from terminal disease believes that she's best off withering away and dying with as few emotional casualties as possible—but a boy comes along who believes she should do the opposite: to live, to adventure, and to love.)

That's the conflict of the story.



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> Hazel has a problem: She has cancer.


Hazel's problem isn't her cancer. Hazel's problem is that her cancer has made her give up on life. Augustus is the antagonist—he's there to, quite literally, _antagonize_ her with his opposing viewpoint.

*Antagonize* (as defined by Merriam-Webster):_ to act in opposition to

-----

_That's how I view _​The Fault in Our Stars_, anyway. If that perspective doesn't work for you, that's okay. There's no requirement that says we all have to view fiction through the same lens. That's part of what makes writing (and reading) so great. :encouragement:


----------



## bookmasta

Kyle R said:


> See, to me, the entire story is an escalation of this conflict:
> 
> Hazel believes that *everything is pointless*.
> Augustus believes that *everything has meaning*.
> 
> ^ Conflict.
> 
> In contemporary Romances, the Love Interest generally takes the role of the Antagonist. Their character antagonizes the protagonist—by challenging their way of thinking and/or living.
> 
> It's not an External Conflict, like _The Lord of the Rings_ ("Carry the ring to Mordor and destroy it—but watch out for bad guys along the way!").
> 
> Rather, _The Fault in Our Stars_ is built upon an _Internal_ Conflict: (Girl suffering from terminal disease believes that she's best off withering away and dying with as few emotional casualties as possible—but a boy comes along who believes she should do the opposite: to live, to adventure, and to love.)
> 
> That's the conflict of the story.
> 
> 
> Hazel's problem isn't her cancer. Hazel's problem is that her cancer has made her give up on life. Augustus is the antagonist—he's there to, quite literally, _antagonize_ her with his opposing viewpoint.
> 
> *Antagonize* (as defined by Merriam-Webster):_ to act in opposition to
> 
> -----
> 
> _That's how I view _​The Fault in Our Stars_, anyway. If that perspective doesn't work for you, that's okay. There's no requirement that says we all have to view fiction through the same lens. That's part of what makes writing (and reading) so great. :encouragement:



Just wanted to comment I write in YA fiction and for me, my plots are flipped. If anything, the love interest is antagonized by the protagonist, and the pressure my characters face is typically both external and internal. Something interesting to note is that John Green is very repetitious, of the four of his five novels I've read, he has written all of those plots with the same formula as he wrote The Fault in our Stars. The novels 13 Reasons Why, The Beginning of Everything, and Every Day are also novels that come to my mind that hallow a similar formula. There are other works popular YA though like the Spectacular Now that have those roles flipped similar to the pattern I occupy.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> What did you want to call it? Garvan called it the "traditional" story arc. You said things were simple, so I would like to call it the Simple Writing Theory. Okay? Of course, you might want to call it The Only Writing Theory.



I don't need to label it as anything. The idea that stories have structure, that then consist of characters, settings, situations, conflict and resolution works for me. You can call it what you want, but understand that you are misleading new writers by insinuating that there is some deep complex 'theory' behind writing that Emma has to show them.


----------



## EmmaSohan

bookmasta said:


> I don't think talking about writing theory in this sense is productive. Talking in generalized terms about the act of writing and actually engaging in the act of writing are two completely different states with two different perspectives. Theory in this view may mirror the other to some degree, but I don't believe that it's a reflection that proves to add much of anything of worth. In other words, you basically have the general outline and structure of every novel and story ever written, but what is just as important is the style and manner of the prose that an author tells their story thru. So, I would focus more on the skill and style of how authors apply different conventions and how each uses their own definitive voices to write the stories in the unique ways that they do. That is the side of writing theory I would focus on.



I had a climax/resolution scene I was content with, except it didn't fit a line in the epilogue, so I tried rewriting the scene, and I liked it better.  All good.

Then I thought, _what is the principle here_?

The ending in _Mr. Mercedes_ is a textbook example of writing a good climax/resolution. I realized that as I read it. Looking back at it now, it breaks my principle. And if I was a content editor, I would advise King to rewrite that ending, and whatever good reason he had for breaking that rule, it wasn't good enough.

So, if you want to give advice, you need principles. If you are going to read advice, you are learning principles which you might internalize and then you should care about whether that principle is right or not. King left the protagonist out of the climax/resolution, which is an unlikely mistake. But the more general principle might be useful. Or maybe it's intuitive to most authors.

My feelings always come first, I try to entice my muse, and happily accept luck. The error part of trial-and error comes naturally to me. But the principles help me too.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> The ending in _Mr. Mercedes_ is a textbook example of writing a good climax/resolution. I realized that as I read it. Looking back at it now, it breaks my principle. And if I was a content editor, I would advise King to rewrite that ending, and whatever good reason he had for breaking that rule, it wasn't good enough.



King broke no rules at the end of Mr. Mercedes; because there are no rules for writing the climax/resolution of a novel. You might have certain expectations, but turning reader expectations upside down usually results in pretty damned good writing. Maybe your 'principle' is wrong? Maybe the whole idea of trying to make writing fit into some cookie-cutter 'theory' is a bad one? That's why it's called "creative writing".



> So, if you want to give advice, you need principles. If you are going to read advice, you are learning principles which you might internalize and then you should care about whether that principle is right or not. King left the protagonist out of the climax/resolution, which is an unlikely mistake.



Again, King made no "mistake" at the end of Mr. Mercedes. He just added one more obstacle to overcome. 



> But the more general principle might be useful.



The principle that applies is the one that says, "Write your stories your way. Tell a good one and readers will follow."



> Or maybe it's intuitive to most authors.



That's what many of us have been trying to tell you from the start.


----------



## Garvan

What principles? It is not like a moral view or outlook... it is a factual reality of story structure.


----------



## bookmasta

EmmaSohan said:


> I had a climax/resolution scene I was content with, except it didn't fit a line in the epilogue, so I tried rewriting the scene, and I liked it better.  All good.
> 
> Then I thought, _what is the principle here_?
> 
> The ending in _Mr. Mercedes_ is a textbook example of writing a good climax/resolution. I realized that as I read it. Looking back at it now, it breaks my principle. And if I was a content editor, I would advise King to rewrite that ending, and whatever good reason he had for breaking that rule, it wasn't good enough.
> 
> So, if you want to give advice, you need principles. If you are going to read advice, you are learning principles which you might internalize and then you should care about whether that principle is right or not. King left the protagonist out of the climax/resolution, which is an unlikely mistake. But the more general principle might be useful. Or maybe it's intuitive to most authors.
> 
> My feelings always come first, I try to entice my muse, and happily accept luck. The error part of trial-and error comes naturally to me. But the principles help me too.



So you're getting at some underlying principle that should always be met in the resolution of the plot of a work? And if a work does not meet that principle, then its resolution should be tailored to fit such? Is that what you're trying to connect back to adhering to one particular theory for how a plot should be structured, so that its entirety follows a certain principle? What is the principle exactly?

From the entirety of my experience, I've found direction in knowing what to write and create does come not from theory and outlining structure, but rather from a personal intuition developed from the sum of a writer's experience doing just that, writing.


----------



## EmmaSohan

bookmasta said:


> So you're getting at some underlying principle that should always be met in the resolution of the plot of a work? And if a work does not meet that principle, then its resolution should be tailored to fit such? Is that what you're trying to connect back to adhering to one particular theory for how a plot should be structured, so that its entirety follows a certain principle? What is the principle exactly?
> 
> From the entirety of my experience, I've found direction in knowing what to write and create does come not from theory and outlining structure, but rather from a personal intuition developed from the sum of a writer's experience doing just that, writing.



It's hard to find rules that work all the time, in writing or probably anywhere. Like I said, feelings come first. I tell people that if they find themselves breaking a rule, they should check (or double check and I have at least one triple-check rule).

Here,  we are probably close to a rule. If you are planning on leaving James Bond out of the final climactic scene, and that seems right to your intuition, you should probably ignore your intuition.  They worked hard to get Obi-wan Kenobi inside a single-pilot jet fighter and he wasn't even the protagonist!

But you can see Terry claiming it's okay and noting, like me, how well King's ending fit the well-known principles. King does construct rules/principles, and one of his is that when a scene isn't coming together, eliminate a few characters. Perhaps he followed that principle. So once you know principles, then I think you tend to use them.


----------



## RhythmOvPain

EmmaSohan said:


> It's hard to find rules that work all the time, in writing or probably anywhere. Like I said, feelings come first. I tell people that if they find themselves breaking a rule, they should check (or double check and I have at least one triple-check rule).
> 
> Here,  we are probably close to a rule. If you are planning on leaving James Bond out of the final climactic scene, and that seems right to your intuition, you should probably ignore your intuition.  They worked hard to get Obi-wan Kenobi inside a single-pilot jet fighter and he wasn't even the protagonist!
> 
> But you can see Terry claiming it's okay and noting, like me, how well King's ending fit the well-known principles. King does construct rules/principles, and one of his is that when a scene isn't coming together, eliminate a few characters. Perhaps he followed that principle. So once you know principles, then I think you tend to use them.



There are SO MANY authors who don't subscribe to the same constrictions as others.

I'm sometimes overwhelmed by the differences we have at conveying different information in written script. I see writers take liberties all the time, and I see writers stay true to the art as much as possible.

The story being told can not be quantified in the same algorithm as the writing style. We're talking about two different topics here.

How a writer conveys their message is the ultimate goal of the author IMO.

Some people just want the message to speak for itself. They use wacky principal-braking formatting and weird grammar/punctuation to throw the reader outside of their element. This creates dynamic in the story.

They create absurd plot twists, surprise endings, awkward experiences, comeuppances; whatever have you to add dynamic to the story.

Everyone wants to be different, but there are only two ways you technically CAN be different:

Impact and delivery.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> It's hard to find rules that work all the time, in writing or probably anywhere. Like I said, feelings come first. I tell people that if they find themselves breaking a rule, they should check (or double check and I have at least one triple-check rule).
> 
> Here,  we are probably close to a rule. If you are planning on leaving James Bond out of the final climactic scene, and that seems right to your intuition, you should probably ignore your intuition.  They worked hard to get Obi-wan Kenobi inside a single-pilot jet fighter and he wasn't even the protagonist!
> 
> But you can see Terry claiming it's okay and noting, like me, how well King's ending fit the well-known principles. King does construct rules/principles, and one of his is that when a scene isn't coming together, eliminate a few characters. Perhaps he followed that principle. So once you know principles, then I think you tend to use them.



Just stop already. You don't know anything about how King thinks as he writes. If you'd ever read anything by him about his writing methodology you would know that he doesn't "construct rules/principles" he just tells the story as it comes to him. You obviously don't know enough about writing to be dissecting the work of good writers and trying to pass your observations on to others. Unless, of course, you have some extensive publishing credits, or an academic background of which I'm not aware.

And, please, seriously, if you want to quote me, use my words not your interpretation of them. I find that very rude, insulting, and you are usually completely wrong in your interpretation.


----------



## Garvan

Terry D said:


> You obviously don't know enough about writing to be dissecting the work of good writers and trying to pass your observations on to others.



However, while I agree that there is a lack of understanding about writing, writing theory, and how to properly analyze writing, one does not learn ABOUT any of those things without DOING and talking about them.


----------



## RhythmOvPain

Garvan said:


> However, while I agree that there is a lack of understanding about writing, writing theory, and how to properly analyze writing, one does not learn ABOUT any of those things without DOING and talking about them.



Eh, I learn way more from reading than I do applying bruh.


----------



## Terry D

Garvan said:


> However, while I agree that there is a lack of understanding about writing, writing theory, and how to properly analyze writing, one does not learn ABOUT any of those things without DOING and talking about them.



Discussing is one thing. Pontificating about contrived 'rules' and 'principles' and assuming one knows what's going on in another writer's mind are quite different.


----------



## Garvan

RhythmOvPain said:


> Eh, I learn way more from reading than I do applying bruh.



So have I, however, I am not so close-minded as to not understand that not all people learn the same way. And I am no-ones "Bruh" - you can address me as Garvan if you feel the need to address me at all. 



Terry D said:


> Discussing is one thing. Pontificating about contrived 'rules' and 'principles' and assuming one knows what's going on in another writer's mind are quite different.



But I think that is a sign of a lack of knowledge and is something to be talked through as obviously something isn't right and a piece of understanding is missing. And I know from past experiences in situations like this closing the discussion down never imparts knowledge - it stops it as people then stop asking and then where will we be? In a world filled with people with no understanding. 

So really, sure she can't assume to know what the author was thinking but neither can you so... really neither of you are in the right in any sense.


----------



## Terry D

Garvan said:


> So really, sure she can't assume to know what the author was thinking but neither can you so... really neither of you are in the right in any sense.



No, I can't. That's why I base what I say about a writer's method on what that writer has written and said about it. So I'm not making any assumptions. King has gone on the record a number of times explaining his writing process and it has nothing to do with creating 'rules' and 'principles' as he writes.


----------



## Garvan

Terry D said:


> No, I can't. That's why I base what I say about a writer's method on what that writer has written and said about it. So I'm not making any assumptions. King has gone on the record a number of times explaining his writing process and it has nothing to do with creating 'rules' and 'principles' as he writes.



Was he asked? One can be a Pantser AND still, understand and use one of the many plot arcs or a writing principle. They are not mutually exclusive... so has anyone actually specifically asked? Has he specifically said? How can you actually know if he hasn't actually made the statement - "I do not use" because as I said saying "I do not plot" is not the same thing at all.


----------



## EmmaSohan

The thing is, in the case of King, I gave my *evidence*. King wrote that he was having trouble with a story, he thought about it for a week, and his solution was to eliminate a lot of characters. It was a bomb, I don't remember if it was metaphorical or real.

He said a *principle:* Sometimes it helps to eliminate characters. (Which implies -- sometimes there are too many characters.) He got it from how he solved a particular problem in his writing.

That's not mind reading. It's evidence and conclusion. I don't see how that conclusion can possibly be wrong.

I speculated that perhaps this was what happened in King's _Mr. Mercedes_. Terry correctly mentioned a principle by which removing the protagonist might be good. ("Again, King made no 'mistake' at the end of Mr. Mercedes. He just added one more obstacle to overcome.") And yet, exactly how big is the club for authors who have left the protagonist out of the final climactic scene? Do it have enough members to elect a vice-president?

And then I pointed out how that principle could have explained his odd choice. Because I don't know how King got there otherwise. Why is that not an interesting problem to solve?

Terry: 


> Stephen King has a reputation for having a problem with writing completely satisfying endings to his books, but that doesn't mean they aren't resolved.




Actually, the resolution to Mr. Mercedes did everything right for increasing the enjoyment of a satisfactory resolution. Tension, suspense, escalating the mistakes, personalizing the tragedy, making success seem unlikely. He's great at that; these are all easy to find as writing advice. But there's just more to an ending than a happy resolution. It does matter how the problem gets resolved. ("Johnstone and L'Amour like protagonists who thrive under pressure and nullify the conflict with expertise.") And who resolves it.


----------



## Terry D

Garvan said:


> Was he asked? One can be a Pantser AND still, understand and use one of the many plot arcs or a writing principle. They are not mutually exclusive... so has anyone actually specifically asked? Has he specifically said? How can you actually know if he hasn't actually made the statement - "I do not use" because as I said saying "I do not plot" is not the same thing at all.





EmmaSohan said:


> The thing is, in the case of King, I gave my *evidence*. King wrote that he was having trouble with a story, he thought about it for a week, and his solution was to eliminate a lot of characters. It was a bomb, I don't remember if it was metaphorical or real.
> 
> He said a *principle:* Sometimes it helps to eliminate characters. (Which implies -- sometimes there are too many characters.) He got it from how he solved a particular problem in his writing.
> 
> That's not mind reading. It's evidence and conclusion. I don't see how that conclusion can possibly be wrong.
> 
> I speculated that perhaps this was what happened in King's _Mr. Mercedes_. Terry correctly mentioned a principle by which removing the protagonist might be good. ("Again, King made no 'mistake' at the end of Mr. Mercedes. He just added one more obstacle to overcome.") And yet, exactly how big is the club for authors who have left the protagonist out of the final climactic scene? Do it have enough members to elect a vice-president?
> 
> And then I pointed out how that principle could have explained his odd choice. Because I don't know how King got there otherwise. Why is that not an interesting problem to solve?
> 
> Terry:
> 
> Actually, the resolution to Mr. Mercedes did everything right for increasing the enjoyment of a satisfactory resolution. Tension, suspense, escalating the mistakes, personalizing the tragedy, making success seem unlikely. He's great at that; these are all easy to find as writing advice. But there's just more to an ending than a happy resolution. It does matter how the problem gets resolved. ("Johnstone and L'Amour like protagonists who thrive under pressure and nullify the conflict with expertise.") And who resolves it.



Quibble much? I don't have time to waste on tick-tack shit any longer.


----------



## bookmasta

Terry D said:


> Just stop already. You don't know anything about how King thinks as he writes. If you'd ever read anything by him about his writing methodology you would know that he doesn't "construct rules/principles" he just tells the story as it comes to him. You obviously don't know enough about writing to be dissecting the work of good writers and trying to pass your observations on to others. Unless, of course, you have some extensive publishing credits, or an academic background of which I'm not aware.
> 
> And, please, seriously, if you want to quote me, use my words not your interpretation of them. I find that very rude, insulting, and you are usually completely wrong in your interpretation.



One thing I do know of King, among others, is that the man writes 2,000 words a day, regardless of how he feels.


----------



## Garvan

Terry D said:


> Quibble much? I don't have time to waste on tick-tack shit any longer.



Quibbling is an important part of getting anything right...and writing tops that list. 

And you still haven't answered me about King.


----------



## Garvan

EmmaSohan said:


> He said a *principle:* Sometimes it helps to eliminate characters. (Which implies -- sometimes there are too many characters.) He got it from how he solved a particular problem in his writing.



Not sure that, that is a principle... Of anything really, more like a prompt to get you thinking outside of the box.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> Not sure that, that is a principle... Of anything really, more like a prompt to get you thinking outside of the box.



There is a question about how many characters should be in a book. I don't think there's a pat answer, or a right answer. But I do see authors simplifying the number of characters, and I see the possible value. It's hard to be intuitive about that (or almost anything) without first realizing it's an issue. Right? King has a lot of experience, but it took him a solid week to realize he had too many characters.

It's a general _something _-- instead of finding something that works and then being happy, he beneralized enought to have something that might help him the next time.

Or, he thought about it only when he wrote his book. He doesn't matter, the question is if it helps, when you find something that solves a problem, to think about it in a more general way to try to help your next book. Anyway, I do that.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Kyle R said:


> Hazel's problem isn't her cancer.



Everyone agreed that writer's have aways of making their books enjoying (or interesting or worthwhile). But what are they?

When I read that the main character's father is manic, I am not anticipating a climax with the problem being resolved. I"m expecting to learn about what it's like to be the child of a manic father. Same for the character with the birthmark and emotionally abusive father. (And not for the vampire hunter in the book I am currently either reading or setting down.)

I don't see why reading about a problem can't be one of the things on that list.

And then, _The Fault in Our Stars_ reads perfectly as a story about what is like to have cancer. The first scene after setting, the dialogue on page 7, makes Hazel seem like a normal teenager who cannot be a normal teenager because she has cancer. And scene after scene seems to be exactly the same, including the kiss and sex scenes.


----------



## Garvan

What list Emma? You keep referencing things that I have no-one about! What are you talking about? 

There is no question about how many characters should be in a book... There really isn't. You are now looking for questions that aren't.


----------



## Kyle R

EmmaSohan said:


> Everyone agreed that writer's have aways of making their books enjoying (or interesting or worthwhile). But what are they?
> ...
> _The Fault in Our Stars_ reads perfectly as . . .


I'm sure we can talk shop (or wax philosophical) all day long, but I found this response from the author to be particularly precise and enlightening:

"I wanted to argue that a good life need not be a long one." — John Green

:encouragement:


----------



## Pete_C

I have been writing for too many years with some degree of success. Here's the thing: I know nothing of arcs or principles or theories. Not only do I know nothing about them, I don't care to spend time finding out. Allow me to explain.

I've never had an issue with moles. In all of my 56-ish years on the planet I've never been bothered by moles until last year when I moved to an old farm. Then I came across moles. Trapping moles is legendary in its degree of difficulty. To ensure I was successful I read all the theories and principles. I followed their advice. Those offering advice told me in no uncertain terms that the reason trapping moles was difficult was because much of the other advice was wrong. Only their advice would yield results. Every time I followed the 'rules' I trapped nothing. The molehills kept forming and my other half insisted I spent good beer money of mole experts. Eventually I discarded all advice and started to learn about moles. Knowing more about them enabled me to come up with a method that felt right. Here's the weird thing: I even expected it to be successful. It was.

Rules, principles, arcs, criteria, etc. aren't worth anything. If you perfect your craft you will 'know' if something will or will not work. I've written pieces that follow the prescribed theories and those which flaunt the rules. Some have sold and some haven't. The real point is that I 'knew' which would sell and which wouldn't, because some felt right and others didn't. I once had a plot that turned conflict into more conflict with no resolution of any kind. However, I knew it would work. I was asked to produce something similar and I couldn't. I don't know why, but it never felt right so I didn't pursue it. 

As soon as you base anything on theories or rules or conventions or arcs that's a sure sign that you lack confidence in your work, and if you lack confidence in it you'll never control it by adding limitations. That's a sign that you should identify the elements you don't feel are right and change them.

Trust yourself as a writer, and if you can't or don't trust yourself then put in more time and practice. Don't look for the answer in the works or words of others. You won't find it there.


----------



## bdcharles

Pete_C said:


> I've never had an issue with moles. In all of my 56-ish years on the planet I've never been bothered by moles until last year when I moved to an old farm. Then I came across moles. Trapping moles is legendary in its degree of difficulty. To ensure I was successful I read all the theories and principles. I followed their advice. Those offering advice told me in no uncertain terms that the reason trapping moles was difficult was because much of the other advice was wrong. Only their advice would yield results. Every time I followed the 'rules' I trapped nothing. The molehills kept forming and my other half insisted I spent good beer money of mole experts. Eventually I discarded all advice and started to learn about moles. Knowing more about them enabled me to come up with a method that felt right. Here's the weird thing: I even expected it to be successful. It was.



Anyone else think there's totally a story in this? Warring experts engage in low skulduggery in the battle for rural author's tunnels. Who will find the legendary Great Entrance? Will Pete_C resort to poison? Where will a nibbling nose surface next? Subterranean mole drama _Under the Dark Hills_ asks all this and more...


----------



## Terry D

Garvan said:


> Quibbling is an important part of getting anything right...and writing tops that list.
> 
> And you still haven't answered me about King.



No one learns to write by quibbling about semantics. If you are interested in King's writing process, find out about it the same way I did; read his book, _On Writing_ and read interviews he's given. They are easy to find.


----------



## Garvan

Terry D said:


> No one learns to write by quibbling about semantics. If you are interested in King's writing process, find out about it the same way I did; read his book, _On Writing_ and read interviews he's given. They are easy to find.



I am as interested in Kings writing as I am interested in being shot in the foot. My point was that you were just as much in the presumptive wrong as Emma was. You assumed that he didn't use any arc's or writing principles while she did assume that, when in fact neither statement can be proven with actual comments from the author in question. 

Semantics matter in writing. They are the difference between good and great.


----------



## Terry D

Garvan said:


> I am as interested in Kings writing as I am interested in being shot in the foot. My point was that you were just as much in the presumptive wrong as Emma was. You assumed that he didn't use any arc's or writing principles while she did assume that, when in fact neither statement can be proven with actual comments from the author in question.



You aren't interested in his writings, but you want to know what he has to say? Sorry. Not interested in playing Catch 22.



> Semantics matter in writing. They are the difference between good and great.



Who ever went from good to great as a writer by fretting over what an 'unresolution' is, or by arguing the definitions of 'enjoyment' vs 'hook'?


----------



## EmmaSohan

Garvan said:


> What list Emma? You keep referencing things that I have no-one about! What are you talking about?
> 
> There is no question about how many characters should be in a book... There really isn't. You are now looking for questions that aren't.



I started this thread with the claim that we have techniques for making a book enjoyable. Terry seemed to agree with me. In my astonishment I checked to see if this could really be true, and he said yes. ("I don't always disagree with you, sometimes you are right"). That's what I meant by "list".

I think we do not pay enough attention to these.

For one item on the list, I would say that authors tell a story about problems, like a high schooler is pregnant or she has an obsessive-compulsive boyfriend. I enjoy reading about that, when it is done well. I am not necessarily interested in who wins or the outcom, in contrast to the problem of the kidnapped child where I just want to know the outcome.

Next. We can disagree about the notion that there is a problem with too many characters and a writer might try to reduce the number of characters. That's how we learn, right? If you told me that most of the people here had never even thought about this issue, I would not be surprised. King and I could be wrong, and certainly there might be a better way of saying the idea of minimizing characters, I would love a better way of saying things.


----------



## Terry D

EmmaSohan said:


> I started this thread with the claim that we have techniques for making a book enjoyable. Terry seemed to agree with me. In my astonishment I checked to see if this could really be true, and he said yes. ("I don't always disagree with you, sometimes you are right"). That's what I meant by "list".




This is what I agreed with:




> Except for our usual terminology arguments, you seem to be agreeing with me?! We are both saying that writers should write books that are enjoyable to read, readers should read books because they are enjoyable to read, and there are a lot of different reasons for a book to be enjoyable.




As for actually trying to list all the ways to make a book enjoyable? That list would be as long as the list of enjoyable books. Each is enjoyable in its own way. It cannot be codified.

Where did King ever say he chose to minimize characters? I'd be interested in reading his take on that.


----------



## Kyle R

I'm not sure if it's the same passage Emma is referring to, but King did talk about the time he had to kill off some characters to solve his plot problems (_On Writing, _pp. 202-205):

For weeks I got exactly nowhere in my thinking—it all just seemed too hard, too fucking complex. I had run out too many plotlines, and they were in danger of becoming snarled. I circled the problem again and again, beat my fists on it, knocked my head against it . . . and then one day when I was thinking of nothing much at all, the answer came to me. It arrived whole and complete—gift-wrapped, you could say— in a single bright flash. I ran home and jotted it down on paper, the only time I’ve done such a thing, because I was ter- rified of forgetting.

What I saw was that the America in which _The Stand_ took place might have been depopulated by the plague, but the world of my story had become dangerously overcrowded—a veritable Calcutta. The solution to where I was stuck, I saw, could be pretty much the same as the situation that got me going—an explosion instead of a plague, but still one quick, hard slash of the Gordian knot. I would send the survivors west from Boulder to Las Vegas on a redemptive quest— they would go at once, with no supplies and no plan, like Biblical characters seeking a vision or to know the will of God. In Vegas they would meet Randall Flagg, and good guys and bad guys alike would be forced to make their stand.

At one moment I had none of this; at the next I had all of it. If there is any one thing I love about writing more than the rest, it’s that sudden flash of insight when you see how every- thing connects. I have heard it called “thinking above the curve,” and it’s that; I’ve heard it called “the over-logic,” and it’s that, too. Whatever you call it, I wrote my page or two of notes in a frenzy of excitement and spent the next two or three days turning my solution over in my mind, looking for flaws and holes (also working out the actual narrative flow, which involved two supporting characters placing a bomb in a major character’s closet), but that was mostly out of a sense of this-is-too-good-to-be-true unbelief. Too good or not, I knew it was true at the moment of revelation: that bomb in Nick Andros’s closet was going to solve all my narrative problems. It did, too.

The rest of the book ran itself off in nine weeks.

...

The real source of my malaise, I decided, had been that in the wake of the plague, my Boulder characters—the good guys—were starting up the same old technological deathtrip. The first hesitant CB broadcasts, beckoning people to Boulder, would soon lead to TV; infomercials and 900 numbers would be back in no time. Same deal with the power plants. It certainly didn’t take my Boulder folks long to decide that seeking the will of the God who spared them was a lot less important than getting the refrigerators and air conditioners up and running again. In Vegas, Randall Flagg and his friends were learning how to fly jets and bombers as well as getting the lights back on, but that was okay—to be expected—because they were the bad guys.

What had stopped me was realizing, on some level of my mind, that the good guys and bad guys were starting to look perilously alike, and what got me going again was realizing the good guys were worshipping an electronic golden calf and needed a wake-up call. A bomb in the closet would do just fine.​
Yes, King decided that eliminating some characters would fix his plot. Though I wouldn't put that into the category of a universal rule. That was just his solution for this single story. For another story, the solution could very well be the opposite: to add more characters. Or even something completely different.

To me, the lesson from that passage wasn't "Kill off characters if your plot is giving you problems! This is a universal solution!" but rather: "If you've got narrative problems, think through your story and a solution will eventually come to you." :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D

Thanks, Kyle. I'd forgotten that passage from _On Writing_. King has never been shy about a large cast of characters though.


----------



## Darkkin

Theory is all well and good, it helps us, as writers, to understand the craft, but theory without practical application amounts to jackshit.  As intriguing as discussions can be and are, theory can only take one so far. Reading is the passive part of the learning curve, doing (practice) is the active, screaming plunge to the other side.  :encouragement:   Theory gives a writer bones, freshly excavated and unassembled, it shows us shapes, all sorts of species.  Practice puts the bones into context and through active engagement, interaction with those bones we learn what our beast is, it gains an identity.  Like discussions on politics and philosophy there is no end to the permutations of conversations that can be held.  As Buzz Lightyear said, 'To infinity and beyond.' 

 As a reader, a writer, I think one really needs to actually, actively write, (Unlike the rare professor, who drones about theory, but never applies the inert information.), both creatively and technically, (e.g. critique, editing, non-fiction, research), before any true understanding of writing theories and its historical archetypes really take on a tangible meaning.  Without practice, they are just empty words.  It is the practice in the preaching, it keeps writers grounded, and illustrates the process.  (_​On Writing_ is within easy reach on my table, alongside Joseph Campbell, and oddly enough Stephen Fry...Yes, the man preaches, but so too, does he practice.)

The reason it is a Theory of Writing, because there is no hard and fast way, no instant fix of do this and it will make your writing good.  Yes, Theory A may work for Writer Q, but it could prove disasterous for Writer Phi.  Genres will have breed standards and there are many recipes, (archetypes) that work because they appeal to a reader's appreciation of the familiar.  Like a good cookie recipe, it is tasty and comforting, classic definition of why a book is labelled as 'good'.  Ask an everyday reader why they liked a book and they probably will not give you a detailed litany.  'Good' writing can be quantified as writing that resonates with a reader.  It is why recipe writers are bestsellers, that mysterious balance between archetypial elements and practice.

Theory, bones of a work in progress...

I like theories because they make sense of things, but what I love us seeing elements of an inert theory come together in an active process.  Like watching a Big Bang moment.  That instant when drafts and bones (theory) fuse in a seamless whole,viable body of work. 

As Professor Henry Jones, Jr. once said, 'If you want to be a good archaeologist, you need to get out of the library.'

Just some thoughts.

- D.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Terry D said:


> Where did King ever say he chose to minimize characters? I'd be interested in reading his take on that.



As Kyle noted, he did not. Worse, King showed little insight or attempted insight, so I was wrong about that. "The real source of my malaise, I decided, had been that in the wake of the plague . . ." So that's about the specific book. He then gives general advice about theme, if you want to give him credit for that, but he doesn't define theme.

So I was wrong.

Here's a pretty good discussion: https://jamigold.com/2014/10/ask-jami-how-many-characters-is-too-many/ "A good rule of thumb might be:Include as many characters as needed to tell the story and evoke the proper style and scope—and no more."

The book I am currently reading has too many office characters and I cannot keep them straight. In one story the protagonist seven sidekicks, all with distinct personalities, and it worked! But they had one-dimensional personalities, and even that probably wouldn't have worked except they had names to go with their personalities. So there was no memory load -- when you read about Grumpy you knew he was grumpy, and you didn't even have to be told once.


----------



## Terry D

I tend to have a lot of characters in my novels, but readers have never complained. I think the trick is to figure out how each character contributes to the story and then give them as much development as they need to do that job. If you find that you have created a character who doesn't really contribute to the forward movement of the story, then cut them -- in spite of how much you may like him/her.


----------



## Writer-1

I think when it comes to telling a story, the writer should try to (metaphorically) put the reader or audience member into the driver's seat and take them to places they never thought of going before. We, as writers, are responsible for getting an emotional response from the reader because that's what makes a story great. A few personal examples:

When I read the book "Alex Cross' Trial" by James Patterson, I had to read it 30 pages at a time because I would get so riled up about something happening in the story that I had to stop and collect myself again. Also, when I read the screenplay for the movie "Signs", I remember feeling the same fear in my stomach as I did when I first watched the film. So getting an emotional response is part of it.

Another part of it is having a story that makes logical sense. "A Few Good Men" is a great example. Imagine if someone decided to drop an alien invasion right in the middle of it. It would've taken away from the film and make no sense, right? 

To wrap this up, I read somewhere that you only need four things to tell a great story: Relatability, Novelty, Tension, and Fluency. In other words, it has to be as original as possible. There has to be some form of conflict, whether it be internal or external. It's gotta be told clearly, so that anybody can understand it. And it has to be relatable, so that the audience understands why a character makes a certain choice at a certain time.

I hope this was helpful.


----------



## Jing Joy

Just reading this post has been helpful!


----------



## Theglasshouse

What are the opinions on keeping a notebook and a journal? I did my research and plan on relying on my memory to trigger the imagination. It of course it is easier said than done for a beginner in nonfiction so I visited blogs. I googled online and found books that specialize in this subject. They give you prompts and lists of things to write to trigger the imagination which is not elusive. Writers need to imagine by imo observing the world around them, reading, and writing their pasts and forgotten memory. Which then become metaphors of a truth. When these are incorporated in a story. These are your feelings and hide part of your life experiences. Writing your experiences into a story then is a metaphor for what is figuratively disguised.

Reading helps like imitation of writing does and it's mechanics. I wish besides a reader copying what they liked of the writer's work what simple advice can be used to write a story. Borrowing or reinventing something such as a theme is nice. But it is something I have wanted to do often. I plan to see how I can react to a story when I read it. How I feel in regards to it. It's something that requires looking around to find opinions of more experienced writers than just myself and maybe others.


----------



## badgerjelly

The most basic of rules. The writer wants to have this effect:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwnbcxBuzI


----------



## Jan1989

As a working book editor, I've seen a lot of manuscripts. Most are bad and most have the same mistakes. The same with art. I see the same mistakes over and over. I have gotten phone calls from beginning authors over the years and they have troubling understanding how to actually do the things I tell them. For the past 2,000 years, every story has a purpose. What I'm seeing are people who want to make it up as they go along and people who have the internet and access to how-to books and not use either. I have a script editor friend in Hollywood who tells me he sees the same thing.

There are formulas. For those who think they restrict you in any way, you should stop reading here. Those formulas represent a guide to how to build your story. You are still responsible for creating interesting dialogue and scenes. So, like a TV show, there are individual scenes that lead into each other as the story is told. Watch a TV show, count the number of scene changes.

Speaking as a reader. If I pick up a book and it doesn't grab me in the first 6 pages, I put it back. If I pick up another book and suddenly find myself on page 21, I might buy it.

The same is true with the manuscripts I get. If the author doesn't grab me by page 6, he won't on page 300.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Jan1989 said:


> Speaking as a reader. If I pick up a book and it doesn't grab me in the first 6 pages, I put it back. If I pick up another book and suddenly find myself on page 21, I might buy it.
> 
> The same is true with the manuscripts I get. If the author doesn't grab me by page 6, he won't on page 300.



Truth. Nowadays it is easy to read those first 30 pages before deciding if you wanna pay for the book.
A writer has to polish those first 10 pages.

But truthfully, I see a lotta writers fail before they even get to the first 10 pages.
If the hook/blurb isn't tight, doesn't make the reader say "Oooh, that sounds interesting.." then they will never get to the sample pages.
I imagine the same goes for editors/agents.


----------



## Jan1989

Editors and Literary Agents are readers. We don't just read at work 

The cover blurb has to be right and the book has to be right/interesting/enjoyable. There are ways to make that happen.


----------



## Drain_Fields

This is mainly true for books, but look at, say TV shows. Frequently TV shows are more about character exploration, and conflicts come and go. 

There are also books that break with this format. The World War Z book, for example, is a fictional documentary post-zombie apocalypse. The movie turned it into a run of the mill plotline, which lost some of the originality of the book imo.


----------



## VRanger

Ralph Rotten said:


> But truthfully, I see a lotta writers fail before they even get to the first 10 pages.



I used to be a regular in the Amazon Top Reviewers Forum. (Of course, a couple of years ago they dumped all their forums).

It was a violation of Amazon Terms of Service to spam in the forums. That didn't stop people, and typically what we got in TRF was amateur writers wanting to pick up reviews for their fantastic and revolutionary new novel. Most members would just report their post and the Amazon mods would nuke it. If I had time, I would actually go check it out. It often didn't take long. I've seen horrific grammar errors_ *in the first sentence*_.

Over the course of ten years of participation there, and sampling hundreds of first works, I found exactly three authors who were worth reading. One reason I kept doing it is when I did find a good one, I very much enjoyed their work. One was Paul Draker, and another one was Breeana Puttroff. The third was a gentleman who'd written a weight loss book (If I Can Lose It). His writing was barely average, his editing was terrible, but his advice helped me lose 30 pounds. 

My experience was when I went back and told one of these folks that there should not be a horrific grammar error in the first sentence if they ever wanted to be taken seriously, they did not react to the news well.


----------



## Cephus

vranger said:


> I used to be a regular in the Amazon Top Reviewers Forum. (Of course, a couple of years ago they dumped all their forums).
> 
> It was a violation of Amazon Terms of Service to spam in the forums. That didn't stop people, and typically what we got in TRF was amateur writers wanting to pick up reviews for their fantastic and revolutionary new novel. Most members would just report their post and the Amazon mods would nuke it. If I had time, I would actually go check it out. It often didn't take long. I've seen horrific grammar errors_ *in the first sentence*_.
> 
> Over the course of ten years of participation there, and sampling hundreds of first works, I found exactly three authors who were worth reading. One reason I kept doing it is when I did find a good one, I very much enjoyed their work. One was Paul Draker, and another one was Breeana Puttroff. The third was a gentleman who'd written a weight loss book (If I Can Lose It). His writing was barely average, his editing was terrible, but his advice helped me lose 30 pounds.
> 
> My experience was when I went back and told one of these folks that there should not be a horrific grammar error in the first sentence if they ever wanted to be taken seriously, they did not react to the news well.



That's pretty common unfortunately. I mean, I only come here or other writing forums because my regular group doesn't really talk much. They're all pro and semi-pro authors and they have too much to do writing to actually sit down and have much of a conversation. I realized very quickly why none of them bother with public writing forums. They tend to cater to people who, let's just say, aren't very good. That's a real shame because a lot of these people could use the help of professionals. That's another problem, a lot of these people who could desperately use the help of people who know what they're talking about, don't actually want the help of people who know what they're talking about. I have other friends who are published authors who used to hang out on Reddit in their writing subreddit and try to help. They've all given up because many amateurs get mad when they are told that they are doing things wrong. They aren't looking for help, they don't want to improve, they just want validation and celebration that they're bothering to try at all.

It's really why I don't critique people's work on forums anymore. I don't really have time because I am beta reading a lot of manuscripts that are going to get published, but for amateurs, it seems like a waste of time. They don't seem to have a goal in mind. They don't want to get better, they don't want to put in the hard work and they just want to be famous, even if their skills are, shall we say, lacking. Far too many of them are the "I want to have written" variety, not the "I want to write" kind. Far too many want to hear "you're doing perfect!" instead of "here's what you need to work on." What's the point?


----------



## VRanger

Cephus said:


> That's a real shame because a lot of these people could use the help of professionals.



Could, but won't.

I once wrote a post with a list of about twenty skills essential to writing something worthy for another human being to gamble their time to read. I wish I had a copy of that post, because I'm too lazy to recreate it. LOL

I understand the urge to stand over a creative work and growl. Luckly, I came to understand just how fully that urge is fueled by ignorance.

I don't try to be an example, but I can only recount my own experience. Step one was to write a lot of stories. Some were OK, and some needed a lot of improvement. The only advantages I had were that I did have some imagination, a semi-talent for making them interesting, and a desire to improve if possible.

I wrote a lot more. I studied an enormous amount of material on what made good writing and what made for mistakes. I edited work to conform to that advice, and then thankfully, I learned where to ignore a lot of that advice. LOL But as I said in my intro, I always want to learn more. I'm not sure anyone has yet written the perfect book. Once someone does, they can stop learning. That's not me.


----------



## KristinJenae

This is an interesting discussion! I think it's important for writers to master the conventions of the genre (here speaking of fiction) before breaking them. While growing up, I wrote a lot of novels with this exact plot format. Since I was a kid, in middle school and high school teachers enforced that dominant theory. Once I got to college, I had enough writing skills to make strategic decisions on when to break convention. My current novel is a collection of short stories surrounding the life of a single character, because I believe our lives (or plots) are not a continuous string of cause and effect, but rather a collection of experiences/stories that are interwoven and affect each other in a bunch of invisible ways. Hopefully that makes sense.

Now that I'm talking (er, typing) about it, I'm realizing that maybe I use that dominant theory within the short stories themselves. Hm, I think I need to see if that's a recurring pattern in my stories and how it affects the stories I tell...once again, great discussion post!


----------



## VRanger

KristinJenae said:


> This is an interesting discussion! I think it's important for writers to master the conventions of the genre (here speaking of fiction) before breaking them. While growing up, I wrote a lot of novels with this exact plot format. Since I was a kid, in middle school and high school teachers enforced that dominant theory. Once I got to college, I had enough writing skills to make strategic decisions on when to break convention. My current novel is a collection of short stories surrounding the life of a single character, because I believe our lives (or plots) are not a continuous string of cause and effect, but rather a collection of experiences/stories that are interwoven and affect each other in a bunch of invisible ways. Hopefully that makes sense.
> 
> Now that I'm talking (er, typing) about it, I'm realizing that maybe I use that dominant theory within the short stories themselves. Hm, I think I need to see if that's a recurring pattern in my stories and how it affects the stories I tell...once again, great discussion post!



Your post reminds me of a horrible "redux" of Robinson Crusoe you can find, if you are monumentally unlucky, on Amazon. When Defoe wrote Robinson Crusoe, he told a story like you or I might, with, at times, various experiences related as they came to mind.

This idiot sorted Robinsoe Crusoe into his idea of "chronological order". Yes, some 21st Century dufus decided he'd reedit Robinson Crusoe because, evidently, it didn't make sense to him.


----------

