# The Magical Midpoint



## Kyle R

For a lot of novelists, the middle of the novel presents the most creative challenges. You've come up with a catchy opening, and you've got a spectacular climax in mind. So, how to fill out that great, vast middle ground? 

What many authors don't realize is that screenwriters have known the answer to this problem for decades. It's been called the tentpole, the belt-loop, the hook, the turn. Whatever crazy names are given to it, it's hard to deny the significance of the *midpoint *of your story.







Novice writers can go astray by forcing their reader to meander through an uneventful middle in order to "pick back up" again in the third act, the climax part of the story. This is often called a "sagging middle".

Then you'll have writers who are aware of the midpoint "sag", and attempt to defeat it by filling the second act of their story with random acts of conflict. The hero is closing in on his way to victory but you've still got 40,000 words to write? 
_
I've got it! _thinks Mr. Writer, _I'll just make random catastrophes happen to my hero along the way!
_
While such an approach would be arguably better than a middle where no conflict happens at all, it's still not the ideal way of handling a plot. A second act filled with episodic conflicts can begin to feel not only monotonous, but predictable.

So, what to do with that soft mid-section?

There are a few tried-and-true methods the professionals use when plotting out their midpoints. Sometimes, more than one method is used. But always something _significant _happens here.

*Method: The Reversal*

This is one of the most common techniques used at the middle of stories and screenplays to avoid the saggy middle. Here, the story takes a drastic turn at the midpoint, spinning everything in a new direction.

If things are going good, here's a good place to flip it and make everything go wrong.

Example of a classic reversal: in Ridley Scott's 1979 film _Alien_, the crew is celebrating the return-to-health of one of its members, Kane, after an alien parasite fell off his face.

The mood is light and smiles and laughs are all around as the crew sit down for a meal, happy and ready to return home. But the uneventful dinner is turned serious when Kane goes into mouth-foaming convulsions, and an alien creature bursts through his chest, killing him. The creature escapes into another part of the ship. A man-killing monster is now loose on board.

It's a huge reversal, spinning the story in a completely new direction.
*

Method: A Countdown Begins
*
The introduction of a time clock is a classic and well-known approach to elevating reader tension and tightening a sagging middle. With the introduction of a countdown, the characters take on a new sense of urgency, one that filters into the reader as well.

Example of a classic countdown: in James Cameron's 1997 film _Titanic_, a countdown begins right after the big midpoint event—the giant ship has struck an iceberg! While listening to the architect of the ship explain that the majestic boat "will sink", the Captain desperately asks, "How much time?"

"An hour. Two at most," is the grim response he gets.

The result? The audience is hooked and riveted. That magical midpoint has done it again!

*Method: Story lines Collide*

Another method of giving the midpoint an extra pop is to combine two parallel story lines in one dramatic moment. Up until this point, the narrative has been juggling two (or more) protagonists in seemingly unrelated plot lines. The midpoint is the perfect opportunity to slam them together, throwing the characters headlong into a thickening plot, and the reader headlong into a gripping story development.

Example of a classic midpoint where two story lines collide: in Ridley Scott's 2000 film _Gladiator_, there are two story lines running alternately through the second quarter of the film: 

1) Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) rising to power as the villain in Rome
2) Maximus (Russell Crowe) rising to power as a gladiator in the outer districts

At the midpoint of the movie, the A and B stories collide when Maximus is brought to Rome to fight in front of Commodus at the Colosseum. 


*Method: The Stakes are Raised*

What seemed like a normal smash-and-grab has now turned into something far more serious and risky. The stakes are dramatically raised at this midpoint beat, giving the story new weight and momentum.

Example of a classic midpoint where the stakes are raised: in Robert Zemeckis' 1985 film _Back to the Future_, Marty has travelled back in time to 1955 and encounters the younger versions of his parents. At the midpoint of the film the stakes are dramatically raised when Doc tells Marty he has to avoid interacting with anyone due to the risk of altering the future. 

_Doc asks, " Marty, who else did you interact with today, besides me?" 

Marty replies, "Well, nobody, really. I just sort of bumped into my parents." 

Doc's eyebrows shoot up and he yells out, "Great Scott! Let me see that picture again!" 

We see the family photograph from Marty's wallet, and the head of Marty's brother has been erased from existence! _

The stakes have been raised to the ceiling now, as what was originally just a time-travelling film has now turned into a matter of life and death, not just for Marty's family, but for Marty himself, as well.


When using these methods, remember there is always the possibility of combining several at once, or layering them together in consecutive scenes.

What other Midpoint methods can you think of to tighten a sagging middle? Which ones do you most prefer to read? To write?

Don't let your midsection go soft. Craft an unforgettable midpoint. Your readers will thank you. :encouragement:


----------



## Gavrushka

A great post, as always. 

The slight issue I now have is, having just concluded the first novel that I intend to publish, I'm looking at my reflection in the mirror. - Have I a paunch? Does my middle warm my kneecaps?

You describe a tent, but is it not possible to have a lean-to also?


----------



## Sam

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I think trying to shore up the middle section of your novel with a gimmick, for want of a better term, can do more harm than good. I've read novels where this sudden 'twist', as you call it, happened towards the middle and most of the time it was a cheap attempt at shock tactics. You should strive to make the middle interesting without the need for a formula or method.


----------



## Tettsuo

*This is not a knock against pantsers!*

I think most midpoint problems stem from poor planning.

Personally, I think every chapter should have a climax and resolution of some kind.  From the first chapter onward, the story should constantly build, creating a steady increase in tension overall.  The final climax being the highest point (hopefully at the end of your story).

Most of my drag comes in at those transition chapters, where the characters are coming down from a mini-climax and moving towards the next situation.  That in-between place that requires me to organically build the characters by creating, addressing and/or resolving micro conflicts stung together by the overarching tensions.  Things I didn't plan and must create on the spot (pantsing basically).


----------



## Gavrushka

Tettsuo said:


> *This is not a knock against pantsers!*



I had thought that too, but let it slide. - I think the thing is, a pantser can't have midpoint blues as he/she will not have a clue when they've reached halfway.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

Sam said:


> You should strive to make the middle interesting without the need for a formula or method.



I think I agree with this.  Until recently, I never even considered three-act structures or five-act structures or any of that.  I just told the story I wanted to tell, and it's trickier to break up my novel as a result.  I do have six distinct parts - "acts," if you will - but they don't really follow the traditional structure.

*Introduction:* The story world is revealed.
*Rebellion:* The protagonist's backlash against the world.
*Recovery:* The protagonist coming to terms with the world.
*Initiative:* The protagonist using the world to his advantage.
*Descent:* The world fighting back against the protagonist.
*Finale:* The conflicts resolved.

I know those are incredibly vague, but more accurate description would take too long.  However, you can see it doesn't quite fit into either the three- or five-act models.  (If anything, it's two five-act models crammed together.)  Still, because things are dynamic throughout, there's no real lull that needs to be gimmicked out.  Furthermore, because the plot is intended to work as a whole, there's no way I can break it into two stories without ending the first in an blatant sequel hook.

I feel if you're struggling to fill the middle of your book, you don't truly know the story you're trying to tell.  Well-designed characters should grow all by themselves, without any contrivances on the part of the author.  Well-made plots should unfold naturally, without any devices forced in.

And if you still are left with no middle, just join the parts you do have! If this means speeding up plot or character development, so much the better.  I think nearly every reader would prefer development that's too quick rather than development that's too slow, and a pace that's too quick over a pace that's too slow.  If you have to err at all, err on the side of brevity.


----------



## Robdemanc

Great to see Alien being used in another example! Thanks!


----------



## FleshEater

Very interesting post, Kyle. Unintentionally I used the "Countdown" method in my novel. Though, as I said, it was unintentional due to my ignorance of this method, but it seemed very appropriate at the time of writing it. Perhaps it's from all the media I've digested in my 29 years playing with my subconscious.


----------



## Tettsuo

Gavrushka said:


> I had thought that too, but let it slide. - I think the thing is, a pantser can't have midpoint blues as he/she will not have a clue when they've reached halfway.


I can't knock pantsers because I'm part pantser myself!  I've come to terms with it.  Just because I plan out the key points in the story, doesn't mean I'm not flying by the seat of my pants to get to those points.


----------



## Justin Rocket

As I see  it, the protagonist is on a sine wave.  

There are a lot of ideas captured in this image, but the most relevant for the purposes of this thread concerns the plot points (where the slopes of the curves equals 0).  One error many new writers make is to have a really bad problem  hit the protagonist at the inciting incident (the first place m = 1) and then the protagonist runs off to fix it or deal with it (ex. "John learns he has cancer", "Lord Farfegnugen discovers dragons have taken up residence in his gold mine", etc.)  In actuality, the damage caused by the inciting incident is far more extensive.  It is often more destructive than even the protagonist first recognizes. That is because it is aimed at the protagonist's way of life.  The protagonist comes to realize that his entire global paradigm is proven deficient.  Everything that it is based on (that the protagonist may not realize that it is based on) such as fear, guilt, self-deception, etc. is brought out into the light.  The blue sine curve in the image represents that, after the inciting incident, the protagonist *keeps falling *as he has the rude awakening that his old way of doing things is insufficient.

The turn around (the slope equals 0) at the midpoint happens primarily because the protagonist has lost his old way of life, his old ideas of social reality, his flawed self-image, his old models of what is good.  He may come to realize that his old friends like him only for his money.  Having lost everything, he is ready to be baptized into a new life - to reincarnate into a new person.  The turn around occurs because the protagonist's ideas of what is valuable (and thus how he's keeping score)  have changed.
This is often a baptism of fire.  The protagonist makes this change at the same point that the enemy is launching an attack and the enemy is at its strongest.  The protagonist finds himself unarmed and defenseless and, to survive and move forward, he must make a leap of faith in his new paradigm.

This is A way of looking at plot.  There are many such views and a writer should strive to not only know several, but to be able to switch views quickly and combine them at the drop of a hat


----------



## Kyle R

Hi, Justin. I like the sine wave way of looking at it. And I agree, all the external conflict is really there to nudge the protagonist toward resolving his or her _internal _conflict.

The first trick is weaving the two together (outer conflict_ + _inner arc). The second trick is making the seams invisible so the reader doesn't realize everything was deliberately crafted.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Sam said:


> You should strive to make the middle interesting without the need for a formula or method.



Forgive my ignorance, but, shouldn't that statement apply to the entire novel/story you are writing?

This is one of the things that kinda bother me about writing. It seems like there is a specific "formula" that must be followed. But then, at some other point, people say that it's sometimes better to break the formula. Some say (and from what I have read on this site, it's the majority) it's ok to be different and not follow all of the rules. But then, I am also told that a novel has to follow a "formula" (it must contain this this and this...and the characters must develop like this, and you must follow the Act 1, Act 2 Act 3..blah blah blah) for there to be any chance of success.

It's enough to drive a man to drink.

So which is it?


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Gavrushka said:


> I had thought that too, but let it slide. - I think the thing is, a pantser can't have midpoint blues as he/she will not have a clue when they've reached halfway.



Well said. I have a pretty good idea where the "middle" of my novel is. But that's only because of having looked back and realized it later.


----------



## Sam

T.S.Bpwman said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but, shouldn't that statement apply to the entire novel/story you are writing?



Yes, but I was talking in the context of the original poster's advice for 'sagging' middles.


----------



## Gavrushka

Sometimes, when I read threads like this, I feel uncomfortable with the amount of technical knowledge others possess. I can't help but think I am missing something, and I wonder if that lessens the impact of the words I write. Elsewhere, someone rolled off the words for a short and long sentence and here we have solutions for a problem I never knew existed! - I didn't even know what a story arc was until a few weeks ago!

I know it is hard to answer this one objectively, but am I missing a trick by just writing, listening to advice and raising the literary bar that way? - Yes, I've invested a lot of time in grammar but are the words I write poorer for standing on the periphery of this additional layer of knowledge?


----------



## Sam

You don't need to know what a story arc is to write a story. Too many writers get bogged down in technicality when there is no need for it. I've never written to a formula or an arc in my life and I've been twice accepted for traditional publishing. Don't over-complicate the process. Writing was not meant to be reduced to a mathematical formula. Do you think any reader will care if the character doesn't go through a five-stage journey? They want a story; they don't care how it is created.


----------



## Justin Rocket

T.S.Bpwman said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but, shouldn't that statement apply to the entire novel/story you are writing?
> 
> This is one of the things that kinda bother me about writing. It seems like there is a specific "formula" that must be followed. But then, at some other point, people say that it's sometimes better to break the formula. Some say (and from what I have read on this site, it's the majority) it's ok to be different and not follow all of the rules. But then, I am also told that a novel has to follow a "formula" (it must contain this this and this...and the characters must develop like this, and you must follow the Act 1, Act 2 Act 3..blah blah blah) for there to be any chance of success.
> 
> It's enough to drive a man to drink.
> 
> So which is it?



The rules of writing are actually heuristics.  Think of any complex system.  There are rules of thumb which are followed to design and maintain them.  For example, in plumbing, drain pipes always angle away from the residence.  Can that rule of thumb beviolated?  Yes, but, before you do so, you should be aware of the heuristic and why it exists so that you understand the pros and cons when you violate  it.
There's a big difference between understanding the heuristic really well and violating it and being ignorant of the heuristic and violating it.


----------



## Gavrushka

Sam said:
			
		

> You don't need to know what a story arc is to write a story. Too many writers get bogged down in technicality when there is no need for it. I've never written to a formula or an arc in my life and I've been twice accepted for traditional publishing. Don't over-complicate the process. Writing was not meant to be reduced to a mathematical formula. Do you think any reader will care if the character doesn't go through a five-stage journey? They want a story; they don't care how it is created.



Yes, I think this is how I feel too and I sometimes feel that people are looking for a formula for success within a textbook* when they should be looking for it in the words they write and how readers reacted to those words.


*I know it's not one or the other, but more a question of emphasis. Writing for me isn't maths or science, but is little more than creativity best expressed within the framework of good grammar and impeccable spelling.


----------



## Sam

> The rules of writing are actually heuristics.  Think of any complex  system.  There are rules of thumb which are followed to design and  maintain them.  For example, in plumbing, drain pipes always angle away  from the residence.  Can that rule of thumb beviolated?  Yes, but,  before you do so, you should be aware of the heuristic and why it exists  so that you understand the pros and cons when you violate  it.
> There's a big difference between understanding the heuristic really well  and violating it and being ignorant of the heuristic and violating it.



Why would any plumber of sane mind (and I was one) have a fall in a drain pipe _towards _a house? Common sense would surely dictate that water must flow _away _from the residence. In almost a decade of plumbing I have never seen, or heard of, a drain pipe doing anything other than falling away from a house. To violate that rule would be an act of idiocy.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Gavrushka said:


> Sometimes, when I read threads like this, I feel uncomfortable with the amount of technical knowledge others possess. I can't help but think I am missing something, and I wonder if that lessens the impact of the words I write. Elsewhere, someone rolled off the words for a short and long sentence and here we have solutions for a problem I never knew existed! - I didn't even know what a story arc was until a few weeks ago!
> 
> I know it is hard to answer this one objectively, but am I missing a trick by just writing, listening to advice and raising the literary bar that way? - Yes, I've invested a lot of time in grammar but are the words I write poorer for standing on the periphery of this additional layer of knowledge?



Some people pick up a deep, intuitive grasp of the technical aspects through reading an awful lot of novels.  That's a hit or miss approach which can take a very long time and a lot of work.  Worse, you may not know when you understand the technical aspects well enough (which is why many professional authors describe the first novel they wrote as 'unpublishable').   A more direct and aggressive approach is a systematic scholarly study of what has worked in the past.  Another way to describe this is a study of the technical aspects of writing.  This is what I recommend.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Sam said:


> Why would any plumber of sane mind (and I was one) have a fall in a drain pipe _towards _a house? Common sense would surely dictate that water must flow _away _from the residence. In almost a decade of plumbing I have never seen, or heard of, a drain pipe doing anything other than falling away from a house. To violate that rule would be an act of idiocy.



A need to ignore that heuristic might occur because the path the pipe should follow (away from the house) is obstructed.


----------



## Sam

If we follow that law, we can have a fall in the sewage pipes towards the house. Does that sound practical? 

You remove the obstruction.


----------



## Gavrushka

Justin Rocket said:


> Some people pick up a deep, intuitive grasp of the technical aspects through reading an awful lot of novels.  That's a hit or miss approach which can take a very long time and a lot of work.  Worse, you may not know when you understand the technical aspects well enough (which is why many professional authors describe the first novel they wrote as 'unpublishable').   A more direct and aggressive approach is a systematic scholarly study of what has worked in the past.  Another way to describe this is a study of the technical aspects of writing.  This is what I recommend.



My first three novels were unpublishable, and the fourth lies on the cusp. - I had huge fun writing them and, in due course, I'll have almost as much fun rewriting them in a benign fashion. 

I will concede the journey to today has lasted over four years, and the first three of those were a meandering affair. Around a year ago, it did start to click into place, but I'll concede I'll be clicking for some time to come. - Yes, diverse reading does help too. I do tend to gravitate towards authors I can learn from now too.

But no, I'm not going to change my approach now. Perhaps it would have made more sense to adapt this strategy four years ago, but I doubt it now.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Sam said:


> If we follow that law, we can have a fall in the sewage pipes towards the house. Does that sound practical?
> 
> You remove the obstruction.



We're getting off topic, so this is the last post I'll make on plumbing.  

Sometimes it isn't practical to remove the obstruction.


----------



## Kevin

Plumbing....you're talking about 'fall'- the use of gravity to direct water flow (in this case the disposal of wastewater) Okay, using fall, there are times when some sort of extra 'machine' (is this the right term?) is used...as when the structure is built on a plot (of land) below the 'proper' level might require a pump('sump'-pump) to levitate the wastewater to a position where it can fall to the desired connection. So an absolute rule is broken or... modified  using a creative contrivance, though eventually the rule is again followed.


----------



## N J Xkey

I suspect this is the type of thing one "learns through doing". I have never been any good at following formulas for anything, my husband watches me aghast as I merrily chuck ingredients in to a bowl whilst the scales sit neglected in the cupboard. I snigger at his obsessive need to get everything exact down to the last gram. He is meticulous with measuring and following instructions, I chuck things in and mix them together until they "look right". We both produce lovely dishes. 

I am a pantser, totally and utterly. Down to each individual scene. Oh, I've tried, I sit there with pen and paper and attempt to plan a scene in advance - nothing happens. Every time I start a scene I know only the beginning and the end, it's not until I start actually typing that the middle presents itself. It may seem haphazard but (for me at least) this is when the magic happens. Just last week I wrote a scene in which I needed a bit-part character in order to prompt the others into action. As soon as I gave the character a name she started doing things I hadn't anticipated, but ultimately ended up not only resolving the problem of how to get from A to B within the scene but nicely tied up a story thread that was dangling. In a macro sense, I am writing the entire novel this way. I know where I am, I know where I need to get to, I know roughly the main incidents that will happen along the way,  but if I sit around trying to apply a  formula I will end up never writing the damn thing. 

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But for me it's the only way to actually get it written. At the very least, I will have a body of work to try and rewrite into a saleable structure rather than a story that exists only in my head. I have several protagonists and several realms, trying to write it in a cohesive way is pretty challenging but I'm forging ahead, learning as much as I can about the craft en route. I'm winging it, essentially. I figure that I can always apply formulae if needed in the rewrite. I could be entirely wrong, but we learn from our mistakes


----------



## Justin Rocket

Rewriting, which is what a lot of pantsers have faith in to fix structural mistakes, is a lot of work.

I sometimes find that solutions to tricky problems emerge as I'm writing (the pantser way).  Sometimes, the solution emerges through analysis and my knowledge of the science of structure (the planner way).  Often, I benefit from both working together (my subconscious knows the science of structure and is better able to resolve problems).  A writer can only benefit by mastering all the tools available to him.


----------



## N J Xkey

I think you've just hit the nail on the head right there. Both working together is the ultimate goal. A bit like driving a guess. I think about turning right, I don't think about all the technical details required to do this (slowing down, indicating, changing gear, turning the wheel) I just DO them because they are innate. But I wasn't born knowing how to drive, I worked and worked and failed (three times!) before it became instinct. Yes, I think the best writing comes from consciously letting the words flow whilst having enough acquired skill and knowledge that one is in fact applying technical knowledge without even realising it at the time. Sometimes people look at my work and say things like "oh, I love how you've built the suspense up here, or, you've used a clever device there" - I nod and smile but I didn't actually notice when writing it, or do it intentionally.


----------



## Sam

We don't rewrite. We edit. 

Humongous difference.


----------



## Gavrushka

Is there a full list of tools? And do all writers employ them all?

This thread was about certain techniques that can be used to address a specific problem. - I'd not known there was a potential issue until I'd read the solutions!

I can accept that when a writer faces an issue, he may turn to the technical handbook.

And the other thing, doesn't technical advice sometimes conflict? I.E. different tools offer different solutions. I'd be wary of learning too much, and maybe that is my own intellectual limitations.

Of course, I may think differently when I confront an issue that can't be solved by a thread on Writingforums. (The best tool any of us has, in my opinion!)


----------



## Kyle R

I like to think of learning about plot structure and story beats as similar to learning about musical scales and chord progressions.

You don't need to know either to be good in either field (writing or music), but there's a reason why both are taught to those trying to enter the field at a professional level.

There's very little hinderance to a musician from learning a C Major chord, or a I-IV-V progression. Similarly, I feel there is very little hinderance to a writer to learn what distinguishes an "inciting incident" from an "act break", or learning which part of the story the protagonist usually suffers a death of something in his/her life (either physically, or metaphorically), and _why _it's considered effective at that certain part of the story.

I think the argument thrown against those who study story structure sounds like, "I don't want to waste my time studying some formula!" It's a logical resistance, but I don't think of story structure as formula. I think a better term is "theory." 

Just as it's easy for a musician to say, "I don't want to waste my time studying some scales!" And that's a logical argument as well. You can become a good musician either way (study or winging it).

I became a good guitarist by playing by ear and making it up along the way. A few years in, I met a professional guitarist who made some suggestions to a chord progression I was fingerpicking at the time. He suggested a "Minor Seventh" chord. I told him I didn't know what that was. He showed me, I tried it in my progression, and it sounded _perfect_.

Sometimes, structured learning can be applied to great benefit. 

A lot of resistance to structured learning comes from, in my opinion, two different beliefs:

1) That learning structure theory will hinder or harm one's creativity.

2) That learning structure theory will take too much time and effort.

Going back to the music analogy, a good way to view it is to ask yourself if getting lessons from a professional musician would help or hinder/harm your development as a musician.

For some people, it would (harm or hinder). They are likely the same people who are against learning writing theory as well. For others, professional instruction would benefit their development. They are likely the ones who like learning writing theory.

People's minds work different ways. Some flourish within a set of boundaries and guidelines. Others wilt in such environments, and flourish when they are allowed to color outside the lines.

Just the way I look at it. :encouragement:


----------



## Gavrushka

*deleted* (Think there's an invisible Kyle post listed in the 'what's new' but didn't appear to exist. - Just appeared)


----------



## Kyle R

Gavrushka said:


> Is there a full list of tools?



There are a lot of books on the various tenets of story structuring. At some point they all begin to overlap and describe the same beats and concepts. 

At that point in my studies I usually think, "Okay, if all these different professionals are mentioning this same plot point, maybe I should start to pay attention..."

But, again, it depends on the individual. I'm one of those "likes to learn all the technical aspects" people. There are others who are most happy (and productive) by going with their instincts.


----------



## Gavrushka

KyleColorado said:


> There are a lot of books on the various tenets of story structuring. At some point they all begin to overlap and describe the same beats and concepts.
> 
> At that point in my studies I usually think, "Okay, if all these different professionals are mentioning this same plot point, maybe I should start to pay attention..."



So you change how you write according to the advice given by the multiple sources, or you use the techniques employed when you encounter a problem? The first option worries me, whereas the second seems more than reasonable.

AND if you're employing them in the planning stage, as your response suggests, I assume many of these techniques would not apply to pantsers.


----------



## Kyle R

Gavrushka said:


> So you change how you write according to the advice given by the multiple sources, or you use the techniques employed when you encounter a problem? The first option worries me, whereas the second seems more than reasonable.
> 
> AND if you're employing them in the planning stage, as your response suggests, I assume many of these techniques would not apply to pantsers.



I'd say it's made me more aware of my story structures. My writing itself hasn't changed (as far as I know), but the amount of effort I put into structuring my stories has. 

I think one approach pantsers can use (if they wish to) is to take story structure into account _after_ they've written the first draft. Especially if, for example, your beta readers complain about a dull or dragging *midpoint*.  You can think, "okay, maybe I can improve that section a bit. And, hey, there are some methods for doing so, too!"

You don't _have_​ to use any of this. But, it's there if needed, I say. :encouragement:


----------



## Gavrushka

Yes, in this I'll not argue. - If a beta reader has an issue, I will listen and adapt. That is, after all, what they are there for. - IF I don't know how to deal with the issue they have mentioned, I'll seek out one of your threads, or PM you! 

*edit* Just one thing - My first draft, apart from grammar edits and minor tweaks, is more or less the finished article, story-wise. - Is it assume pansters vomit out a speculative first draft and then attempt to meld it into something palatable?


----------



## Sam

So much confusion and misinformation abounds about pantsing. Pantsers do not automatically create rubbish when they start to write. They do not need to take ten drafts to get something right. They do not lose the ability to write because they don't use a plan. Why can't people understand that?


----------



## Justin Rocket

Sam said:


> Pantsers do not automatically create rubbish when they start to write. They do not need to take ten drafts to get something right. They do not lose the ability to write because they don't use a plan. Why can't people understand that?



*No one* in this thread said that all pantsers create rubbish when they start to write.
Likewise, not all planners are going to create cookie cutter content when they start to write.
However, some pantsers do create rubbish when they start to write.    Some do need to take ten drafts to get something right.  Some do lose their ability to write because they don't use a plan.
Likewise, some planners do beat the life out of whatever they are planning.


----------



## Kyle R

Gavrushka said:


> *edit* Just one thing - My first draft, apart from grammar edits and minor tweaks, is more or less the finished article, story-wise. - Is it assume pansters vomit out a speculative first draft and then attempt to meld it into something palatable?





			
				Sam said:
			
		

> So much confusion and misinformation abounds about pantsing. Pantsers do not automatically create rubbish when they start to write. They do not need to take ten drafts to get something right. They do not lose the ability to write because they don't use a plan. Why can't people understand that?



Oh, I don't assume that pantsers have structure problems any more than non-pantsers. I think _both_ types of writers are equally vulnerable to structural problems. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the term "plot hole" to describe such a common occurrence. 

Mostly, I posted this because there are methods for revising one's plot problems if needed. Some people don't need them. I think it's great when that's the case.

Sometimes people _do_ need help with their structure, though, whether they wrote it by pantsing or plotting. Structural problems can surface regardless of how the work was created.


----------



## Terry D

Justin Rocket said:


> *No one* in this thread said that all pantsers create rubbish when they start to write.
> Likewise, not all planners are going to create cookie cutter content when they start to write.
> However, some pantsers do create rubbish when they start to write.    Some do need to take ten drafts to get something right.  Some do lose their ability to write because they don't use a plan.
> Likewise, some planners do beat the life out of whatever they are planning.



Gavrushka's question in post #36 brought the topic up, and I've seen it assumed many times in these forums that pansters require multiple rewrites to produce an acceptable story. Sam was obviously commenting on that question and its attached assumption. Personally I can't write a book completely by the seat of my pants (short stories are easy, however). I create a loose sequence of scenes descriptions for about half my book and then pants the rest. The thought of creating a detailed structure focusing on beats and 'sine waves' would kill the joy of creation _for me_.


----------



## Sam

I too have seen that standpoint voiced on several occasions. As Terry said, I was referring to presupposed assumption that pantsers need to draft and re-draft.


----------



## Deleted member 49710

Uh--don't planners have to revise, too?

I'm a pantser. I like it. I don't care if it's not efficient... though in fact it's quite efficient because outlining does me no good at all and is therefore, for me, a total waste of time. 

Anyway, thanks to Kyle for yet another helpful and thought-provoking post.


----------



## Justin Rocket

I've seen the assumption that planners (and planning) creates cookie-cutter content.
I've seen resistance to planning because, allegedly, it doesn't create true art.

As I've said before, I think a novelist can only benefit by learning all the tools available to him/her.


----------



## Justin Rocket

KyleColorado said:


> Oh, I don't assume that pantsers have structure problems any more than non-pantsers. I think _both_ types of writers are equally vulnerable to structural problems. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the term "plot hole" to describe such a common occurrence.



I agree that anyone can have problems with plot and structure.  Its a good idea to catch these problems as early as possible (because the amount of work required to fix them increases the further in the writing process one gets before fixing them).


----------



## Gamer_2k4

everyone said:
			
		

> pantser
> pantser
> pantsing
> pantser



I know where the word comes from, but is this actual writing terminology, or just something this forum uses?


----------



## Justin Rocket

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I know where the word comes from, but is this actual writing terminology, or just something this forum uses?



While I doubt you'll find the word in a dictionary, "pantser" is common in the industry
https://www.google.com/search?q=pan...7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Sam said:


> Yes, but I was talking in the context of the original poster's advice for 'sagging' middles.



Fair enough.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Gavrushka said:


> Sometimes, when I read threads like this, I feel uncomfortable with the amount of technical knowledge others possess. I can't help but think I am missing something, and I wonder if that lessens the impact of the words I write. Elsewhere, someone rolled off the words for a short and long sentence and here we have solutions for a problem I never knew existed! - I didn't even know what a story arc was until a few weeks ago!
> 
> I know it is hard to answer this one objectively, but am I missing a trick by just writing, listening to advice and raising the literary bar that way? - Yes, I've invested a lot of time in grammar but are the words I write poorer for standing on the periphery of this additional layer of knowledge?



I feel the same way, Gav.

I'm a smart guy, but I feel like an imbecile half the time when I am on this site. Then again, there are a few who probably think I really AM.

I write based on what I like to read. I don't know the "rules". I'm not technically sound. I don't want a bunch of rules and formulas getting in my way and making me over think things because that will have two effects on my writing. One, it will frustrate me, and two, being frustrated with it will make me stop doing it.

So I will continue to "just write". When someone reviews it and makes suggestions, I'll listen and implement them whenever possible.


----------



## Justin Rocket

T.S.Bpwman said:


> So I will continue to "just write". When someone reviews it and makes suggestions, I'll listen and implement them whenever possible.



That's fine, but a person who depends on writing for a living can't "just write' hoping for the best.  They have to aggressively go after making their work as good as they can.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

Justin Rocket said:


> That's fine, but a person who depends on writing for a living can't "just write' hoping for the best.  They have to aggressively go after making their work as good as they can.



Agreed, but that doesn't mean they need to follow a predefined format.  The five-act structure and the hero's path and all that are simply there to help guide new writers.  They're by no means the only (or best) ways of telling a story; they're simply the ways that give you the least chance of screwing up.  They're a template.

In life, there's a formula for success.  You grow up, you keep your nose clean, you get good grades in high school and college, and you settle into a career that can prepare you for retirement.  Will this work for most? Absolutely.  Is this often considered the best way of doing it? Probably.  But how many people have nonetheless experienced huge success without following that model?  For every CEO with three degrees from Harvard and decades of industry experience, there's another CEO who dropped out of college and did things their own way.

Writing is like that as well.  Do many successful stories follow similar patterns? Sure.  But telling someone to "aggressively go after making their work as good as they can" by following some rigid structure is foolishness.  At the end, it really is as simple as "just writing."


----------



## Terry D

Justin Rocket said:


> They have to aggressively go after making their work as good as they can.



Which doesn't necessarily include the study of structure, planning (outlining), or anything other than reading and sitting in a chair and writing (Chair optional).


----------



## Justin Rocket

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Agreed, but that doesn't mean they need to follow a predefined format.



I agree.  As someone who wants to become a professional writer,  I have and I will continue to experiment with different techniques to see which ones work best for me.  Some have worked poorly for me (such as Dramatica) while some have been very helpful (such as Snowflake).  Other writers will have different results.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> The five-act structure and the hero's path and all that are simply there to help guide new writers.



Not just new writers.  Many Hollywood writers use the Hero's Journey.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> Do many successful stories follow similar patterns? Sure.  But telling someone to "aggressively go after making their work as good as they can" by following some rigid structure is foolishness.



If someone stops experimenting with different techniques as soon as they find one that works for them, they aren't aggressively going after making their work as good as they can.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

Justin Rocket said:


> Not just new writers.  Many Hollywood writers use the Hero's Journey.



Which may be the reason I don't watch movies anymore.  Every single one feels the same to me.



Justin Rocket said:


> If someone stops experimenting with different techniques as soon as they find one that works for them, they aren't aggressively going after making their work as good as they can.



I don't believe I ever said to stop experimenting.  To me, "just write" means you continue whatever research and exposure you're already doing, but without needing any requirements to be met (like a particular structure) before you try to put words on paper.  In time, you'll find what works for you and use that to hone your writing into the best it can be.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Which may be the reason I don't watch movies anymore.  Every single one feels the same to me.



Did you like Star Wars?  Aladdin?  Alien?  Back to the Future?  Cocoon?  Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?  Dune?  Finding Nemo?  Indiana Jones?  Karate Kid?  The Lion King?  Mulan?  etc.  All of these used either the Hero's Journey or the Heroine's Journey or both.





Gamer_2k4 said:


> I don't believe I ever said to stop experimenting.  To me, "just write" means you continue whatever research and exposure you're already doing, but without needing any requirements to be met (like a particular structure) before you try to put words on paper.  In time, you'll find what works for you and use that to hone your writing into the best it can be.



That's fine.  Its what I'd argue a person should do (oddly, it is, itself, a requirement).  Most people would understand "just write" to mean "just put the pen to paper and see where it takes you, do nothing else" which is something I don't think a professional writer, or someone wanting to become a professional writer, should do.


----------



## Bishop

N J Xkey said:


> Just last week I wrote a scene in which I needed a bit-part character in order to prompt the others into action. As soon as I gave the character a name she started doing things I hadn't anticipated, but ultimately ended up not only resolving the problem of how to get from A to B within the scene but nicely tied up a story thread that was dangling.



This.

This happens to me a lot, and frankly, it's my favorite part of this craft. I feel like a lot of times, my role as the writer is like that of the owner of a set wind-up toys. I take my characters and wind up their keys, and set them on the floor, watching what they do. It results in--what I think--are very well fleshed out characters who act on and react to their situations and each other in a real way. 

I dislike planning much with my novels, because it detracts from this in my writing. My current project started with a pair of characters that I was going to make secretly sinister, but they didn't act that way. As I wrote them, they shocked me with their optimism and genuine natures. As it went on, I made them allies rather than saboteurs for a few reasons, the biggest of which was just that their personalities came out that way.

Yes, it changed where I thought the novel was going to go. I had to think up a new villain, but that's okay. I like the new one better and think the overall plot will be infinitely more interesting.

Bishop


----------



## FleshEater

Sam said:


> You don't need to know what a story arc is to write a story. Too many writers get bogged down in technicality when there is no need for it. I've never written to a formula or an arc in my life and I've been twice accepted for traditional publishing. Don't over-complicate the process. Writing was not meant to be reduced to a mathematical formula. Do you think any reader will care if the character doesn't go through a five-stage journey? They want a story; they don't care how it is created.



I know this is late in the game, but I wanted to add my two cents here.

In my life I've learned how to skateboard, play guitar/bass, paint, draw, and am currently learning how to write. What I've learned is the more knowledge, or in this case technical jargon, you cram into your brain the less art that comes through. Rules are great as guidelines, but sometimes they can stifle creativity for fear of failing. Does anyone think Stephen King knew anything about writing, or about story arcs when he wrote Carrie? I doubt it, other than he knew what to do to tell a good story. And I don't care how much technical B.S. you know, if you can't tell a story well, no one will want to read it. It always comes back to telling a story well, in a way that someone would want to read it.

Faulkner is considered a great writer. I tried reading Absalom! Absalom! and it sucked. His technical writing ability couldn't make up for his terrible ability to tell that story well, and in an interesting way.


----------



## Justin Rocket

FleshEater said:


> What I've learned is the more knowledge, or in this case technical jargon, you cram into your brain the less art that comes through.




I cannot possibly disagree more.  I may not have ever learned to skateboard or play guitar, but I've lead systems architecture for multi-million dollar projects.  My experience has been that the more knowledge a person has, the more options a person is aware of, the more they can constructively react to obstacles.


----------



## Leyline

I actually pay every single one of my bills by writing. I also sell writing at pro rates. 

I don't outline. I laugh at this how to crap. None of it works for me. I sit down and write. That's all. 

I don't demand anyone do it my way, but don't say you can't make a living doing it this way.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Justin Rocket said:


> That's fine, but a person who depends on writing for a living can't "just write' hoping for the best.  They have to aggressively go after making their work as good as they can.



Oh, don't get me wrong. I want my work to be as good as it can be. But I am not going to sacrifice my creativity in the _initial _process by letting myself get bogged down.

When I go back to edit, I will look harder at some of the technical aspects of what I have done and still need to do.

But, if I stick with my formula of writing what I like to read, and having read as many fictional stories as I have during my hiatus from writing, I should be in relatively good shape.


----------



## FleshEater

Justin Rocket said:


> I cannot possibly disagree more.  I may not have ever learned to skateboard or play guitar, but I've lead systems architecture for multi-million dollar projects.  My experience has been that the more knowledge a person has, the more options a person is aware of, the more they can constructively react to obstacles.



And you're entitled to your opinion. 

However, I'm not sure how much creative freedom there is in architecture. So perhaps you'll discover something different someday after many endeavors in the creative arts. Or, my opinion is based solely on my obsessive character. Who knows? All I know is that I tell stories the best I can. Worrying about structure and rules are for other writers. Look at any guide to writing. I'll use King's On Writing as an example. Not even he uses half the information in that book in his own writing.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Leyline said:


> I actually pay every single one of my bills by writing. I also sell writing at pro rates.
> 
> I don't outline. I laugh at this how to crap. None of it works for me. I sit down and write. That's all.
> 
> I don't demand anyone do it my way, but don't say you can't make a living doing it this way.



I don't really see myself being a full time writer. I think I can spin a good yarn, but I don't know if my work would be marketable to the masses. Not only that, but, unlike a lot of writers I talk to, I am not brimming over with ideas. They are hard to come by for me. The novel I am working on now started with just a few lines of dialogue that had been floating around in my head for several years. Other than that idea, I only have 3 or so more that have come along. And none of those was very workable.

I would really love to be able to make my living as a writer, but I won't worry about that until I actually sell an awful lot of books.

But, that doesn't mean I won't try my best to make my work as good as it can be.

For now, that means I "sit down and write".


----------



## Justin Rocket

Leyline said:


> I actually pay every single one of my bills by writing.



Where can I see some of your traditionally published fiction?


----------



## Gavrushka

Leyline said:


> I actually pay every single one of my bills by writing. I also sell writing at pro rates.
> 
> I don't outline. I laugh at this how to crap. None of it works for me. I sit down and write. That's all.
> 
> I don't demand anyone do it my way, but don't say you can't make a living doing it this way.



I think this is the most inspirational comment I've read on WF. It's 6:30am in the morning, and this day has already been filed away as a good one.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Justin Rocket said:


> Where can I see some of your traditionally published fiction?



Is that a requirement?

You only said "make a living" which it appears Leyline is doing.


----------



## Justin Rocket

T.S.Bpwman said:


> Is that a requirement?
> 
> You only said "make a living" which it appears Leyline is doing.



Is what a requirement?  That he be traditionally published in fiction?  We're discussing fiction in this thread.  If he's making his living writing essays or news articles, but doesn't use outlines when writing fiction, that seems relevant.  That seems pretty obvious to me.


----------



## Gavrushka

I think Leyline's comments were an important counter to the premise that technical emphasis improves writing. It adds value to the thread by suggesting answers to creative problems do not need to be sought in text books (by those so minded).


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Justin Rocket said:


> Is what a requirement?  That he be traditionally published in fiction?  We're discussing fiction in this thread.  If he's making his living writing essays or news articles, but doesn't use outlines when writing fiction, that seems relevant.  That seems pretty obvious to me.



Perhaps "obvious" to you. Not so much to me.

What does traditional publishing have to do with whether or not he's paying his bills with his writing? Perhaps he's self published and sold quite a few books to go along with the articles/essays.

And yes, we were discussing fiction. However, it's not like any of the threads I've started here have stayed 100% on topic with every post. 

Fiction or non fiction, his writing is paying the bills. Good on him.

Fiction or non fiction, he just "sits down" and writes. If it works for him (and pays the bills), again, good on him.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Gavrushka said:


> I think Leyline's comments were an important counter to the premise that technical emphasis improves writing. It adds value to the thread by suggesting answers to creative problems do not need to be sought in text books (by those so minded).



As stated earlier here, you can be as technically sound as it gets. But if you can't _tell_ _a good story_ all the technical ability in the world isn't going to help you all that much as far as keeping a reader's attention.

If I ran to open a textbook every time I ran into an obstacle while writing Side Worlds, I wouldn't have gotten very far in writing it.

It's because I don't know the technical aspects of the art of writing that I take pride in having found ways around or through the obstacles.


----------



## Kevin

> _tell_ _a good story_


 - Is it possible that that too could be broken down into elements and...formulated? 'Blasphemy", I know...


----------



## Mr mitchell

I thought I give my opinion on this subject. But firstly, I want to give thanks to Kyle for creating this thread. But as people like Sam and Justin has said, though having different views on things that us writers will just write. But some will, I guess like to plan their pieces of work and that whenever a novel, a short story but in my case, a novella. The midpoint is important to any story but each and every writer will have their own way of getting there. Some may use a formula or in Sam's word, "Gimmick". I just tend to write and when it comes to the midpoint of my story I would like my main character the lead the middle, which then it be more interesting for me to see where we go into a story. 

That is only mine opinion and others may or may not agree with it - that's fine with me.


----------



## Kyle R

Well said, Mr. Mitchell. :encouragement:

Although, I still am not a fan of the term "formula" or "gimmick." Probably because it's often used in a condescending manner. 

Learning structure, in my opinion, doesn't have to hamper creativity. More so, it's learning what story elements have proven the most successful over time (not just in terms of money, but in terms of reader popularity). 

Similar to songwriting. There are elements in the most popular and successful songs that recur, like the verse, the chorus (or "hook"), and the bridge. In most cases, the verse comes before the chorus, and both come before the bridge.

Sure, you can switch it around and have the bridge before the chorus, and the chorus before the verse, but there's a chance your song will sound "off" to listeners because of it, though they may not be able to explain why. Switch it around to the most commonly taught order, and watch their reactions improve.

I view story structure in the same way. You don't have to know it to create a great story, I definitely agree with that. But sometimes a story simply isn't working. In a lot of cases, it's because there's something missing or out of place in the structure. 

I agree with Mr. Bell's assertion:

_You, the writer, have a story you want to tell. You feel it, see it, populate it with characters. But turning all that raw material into a novel isn’t simply a matter of putting it into words on a page or screen. You have to “translate” it into a form that readers can relate to.
_
_That’s what structure does. And if you ignore it or mess with it, you risk frustrating—or worse, losing—readers. — *James Scott Bell*_


----------



## Justin Rocket

There are times when I write by the seat of my pants (often when I'm new to my story and am learning how two or more characters act).  There are times when I write almost completely by the seat of my pants except for a few plot points (often when I'm writing a scene less than 1501 words).  There are times when I write somewhere between  plotting and pantsing (such as when I'm writing scenes longer than 1500 words).  There are times when I do almost pure plotting (often when I'm laying out a novel's main plot)

As I've always said, a writer should learn all the tools of his craft.


----------



## Kevin

> Although, I still am not a fan of the term "formula" or "gimmick." Probably because it's often used in a condescending manner


 Yes, but PC wordage and prejudice aside, what do we call it then? You can toss out_ gimmick_ because that's not it all.  But there are patterns, however varied, and certain options work; others don't. 


> Learning structure,


 Patterns, _formulas, _like chemistry or cooking, however complicated but there are things, like knowing what will happen if you serve vinegar and baking soda. If one could learn those patterns prior to mixing... It's not how I do it. I have exploded dishes to prove it. And I've probably wasted a lot of time and ingredients because I didn't know what I was doing. Is there a better way? Is it possible to teach?


----------



## Leyline

Gavrushka said:


> I think this is the most inspirational comment I've read on WF. It's 6:30am in the morning, and this day has already been filed away as a good one.



There's actually nothing wrong with studying how-to books. If that's helpful to an individual, go for it. There's nothing wrong with outlining extensively, creating detailed character biographies, making flowcharts, etc. Again, if it helps then _embrace_ it. 

But that isn't for everyone. I've tried it and it has always been a waste of effort. Sitting down and writing is the only thing that works for me. I started writing when I learned how to write. I only learned to write for that purpose: to tell my own stories. I learned to write by rote copying the stories from _The Hugo Winners Vol. 1 and 2_ Doubleday Book Club edition that my Mother taught me to read with. I learned the mechanics of storytelling by reading other people's stories and writing my own: that's where I learned about story structure, plot movement, narrative drive, character development, plot twists and all the other aspects of story telling used to engage a reader. I learned from masters, men and women that in childhood I considered to be at least semi-divine: Eric Frank Russell, Clifford Simak, Robert Heinlein, Jack Vance, C.L. Moore, Ursula Le Guin, Fritz Leiber, Ted Sturgeon, R.A. Lafferty and dozens more. They wrote stories that, even today, kids are still finding hidden away in library stacks, book shelves, boxes in attics and basements and tables at yard sales. 

And this is not uncommon. I know a _lot_ of writers -- from rank beginners to those who've hit the bestseller lists, and every stage between. Some of them are prep and outline people, some of them just sit down and write. But what I've noticed is that not one of them does it exactly the same. Everyone has their own process. The important thing is to find that process.

I've found mine, and I won't be told I'm doing it wrong.


----------



## Justin Rocket

what do we call it then? [/quote]

I prefer structure, architecture, principles, or design.



> _formulas, _like chemistry



I dislike _formula_ because it implies a falsehood - that learning structure leads to all your stories being the same.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Leyline said:


> Sitting down and writing is the only thing that works for me.



In your post you tell us that you didn't just write.  You read a lot of quality authors and you studied them very deeply.  I posted earlier that it is possible (albeit lengthy and hit-or-miss) to learn structure by reading an awful lot of stories.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

KyleColorado said:


> I think one approach pantsers can use (if they wish to) is to take story structure into account _after_ they've written the first draft. Especially if, for example, your beta readers complain about a dull or dragging *midpoint*.



That is exactly the way I would do it. 

As I said before, if, when I get the last word typed and all of the editing done, several people do reviews and complain about it being slow in the middle, then I will take a look at it. If I can't figure out a good way to speed things up, then I'll dig around in some of the textbooks and find something.

But I would do that as a last resort.

Look, I was a _horrible_ student in school. Especially in English classes (which some can probably tell occasionally), which I failed miserably. All of the technical stuff bored me to tears, and I simply couldn't force myself to pay much attention to them. Because of that, in my adulthood, I simply don't _know_ the rules of writing. Nor do I much care to learn them. Besides, if it bored me to tears back then, it sure isn't going to be a whole lot different now. I liken trying to pick up a how to or a textbook as something similar to me trying to read Clan of the Cave Bear. That was an abject disaster.

 I get excitement from writing. It makes me happy. I do not, in any way, want to turn it into a chore. If that means I have to go back to fix a few things here and there, that's fine.


----------



## ppsage

> There are a few tried-and-true methods the professionals use when plotting out their midpoints. Sometimes, more than one method is used. But always something _significant happens here._


 I have been troubled in this thread by the implication that this technique applies equally to the writing of novels. All these, very salient, examples come from the cinema. I've just listened to an Alice Munro story (free on itunes at _New Yorker: Fiction_) where the crossing deal is used to stunning effect. TV shows and movies and stories, I see it. But novels? ............ So I went to my bookshelves to remind myself, and tried to check. Admittedly, there aren't a tremendous number of novels there anymore, and mostly a bit older and fairly literary. Faulkner, Twain, Heinlein, Asimov, Herbert, Wallace, Berry, Kerouac, Erdrich, Rushdie, Updike, Joyce, _Ross MacDonald,_ Silko, Russo, Stephenson, Grass..... Uris. Michener. ....... God. .................. I wasn't very successful in divining critical tent poles. Lots of candidates, forests of poles; they use them all over the place; first chapter, last chapter--beginning, middle, end. Even in the Lew Archer books, which are my concession to the lure of the genre hack, it's tent-pole city.  It sort of seemed to me that this analysis is far too reductive to be a good fit. I think it might simplify beyond recognition, what's actually going on in these works?


----------



## Justin Rocket

ppsage said:


> I have been troubled in this thread by the implication that this technique applies equally to the writing of novels.



Which technique specifically? 



ppsage said:


> I wasn't very successful in divining critical tent poles.



What kind of critical tent poles specifically 



> It sort of seemed to me that this analysis is far too reductive to be a good fit.



what analysis specifically?


----------



## Terry D

The structured processes used by some writers to work through difficult places in their writing aren't 'gimmicks', or formulas, they are simply techniques which work for those writers who are wired in such a way that methodology works for them. Others are not wired that way. What's the big deal? I see these technique threads go sideways all the time, and it is always for the same reason; someone will make a unilateral statement saying that writers "should" do this, or "must" do that. The implication being that if you don't learn this way, or study this technique, you will not be as accomplished, or successful as you could be. That's a pile of bull-processed grass. The most accomplished and successful writers are those who relentlessly pursue the tools which work for them. And, no, we don't need to try every method on the market to find out which those are. 

I've read Kyle's work and he's a damned fine writer. His chosen techniques obviously work for him, and they will undoubtedly work for others, so thanks for sharing, Kyle. I've read Leyline's work and he's a damned fine writer too. What he does most definitely works for him, and will work for many more as well. My own choices are closer to the non-structured end of the spectrum and I'll let my work speak for itself. When asked, I'll share what I do because others might find it useful. No way in Hell will I tell anyone that my way is the best, or is even what they "should" do. I may be an arrogant old fart, but even I don't suffer from that level of hubris. As I said earlier in this thread, there are only two things I believe all writers should do: read extensively, and write as much as possible. Nothing else really matters.


----------



## ppsage

Justin Rocket said:


> Which technique specifically?* Techniques, perhaps, to be technical. The ones for propping, as outlined in the OP .*
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of critical tent poles specifically?  *By critical, I mean those specifically holding up the sag. The OP defines the available sorts adequately.*
> 
> 
> 
> what analysis specifically? *The one presented in the OP. If there's others, I'm afraid I missed them. Sorry to make so many remote allusions.*


----------



## Kyle R

ppsage said:


> I have been troubled in this thread by the implication that this technique applies equally to the writing of novels. All these, very salient, examples come from the cinema. [...] TV shows and movies and stories, I see it. But novels? [...] So I went to my bookshelves to remind myself, and tried to check. Admittedly, there aren't a tremendous number of novels there anymore, and mostly a bit older and fairly literary.[...] It sort of seemed to me that this analysis is far too reductive to be a good fit. I think it might simplify beyond recognition, what's actually going on in these works?



I think you bring up an excellent distinction, pp.

A lot of the tenets I talk about originate from film structure and screenwriting, that's true. I don't, though, believe that the methods are of less value because of it. To the contrary—I think screenwriters have been learning the structural part of story-writing far better than novelists have.

And I think it's time for novelists to catch up.

There's a reason why film and television shows are the dominant mediums of entertainment, and in my opinion that has to do with structure. People tune in, or open their wallets to purchase theatre tickets, because they know and expect they will be treated to a crafted emotional experience.

Novels are still lagging behind because, in my opinion, a lot of authors are ignorant of story-structure, and as a result their writing can be hit-or-miss. 

On Amazon you'll see reviews saying a book "started great, then got really boring" or vice versa. I believe authors can benefit from understanding the techniques of the professionals (the film and television screenwriters) of the most popular mediums in the world.

Does that mean I think writers should follow a cookie-cutter formula? Definitely not! Nor do I think novelists should strive to be screenwriters. I do, though, think there are insights and knowledge to be gleaned, valuable techniques of the craft that novelists can learn and apply to their own stories (if they wish).

Some of the recent best-selling authors have experience writing for the film and television industry. No doubt their understanding of structure has helped their novel careers.

Do I think any of this is necessary? Not at all! Like Leyline and Terry and others have pointed out, there are many writers who have found what works for them. As well, the literary giants of the past certainly didn't need them either.

But I believe, in today's and tomorrow's publishing world, we'll see novelists dipping their toes more in more into screenwriting waters, and applying more structural approaches to their written works.

Just my perspective on it, though! :encouragement:


----------



## Sam

KyleColorado said:


> There's a reason why film and television shows are the dominant mediums of entertainment, and in my opinion that has to do with structure. People tune in, or open their wallets to purchase theatre tickets, because they know and expect they will be treated to a crafted emotional experience.



A slight correction is required here. The biggest entertainment industry in the world is video games -- and by a country mile. I'm not a hard-core gamer by any stretch, but I do know, for instance, that _GTA5 _amassed one billion dollars in three days of sales. No television show or film comes even close to that.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Sam said:


> A slight correction is required here. The biggest entertainment industry in the world is video games -- and by a country mile. I'm not a hard-core gamer by any stretch, but I do know, for instance, that _GTA5 _amassed one billion dollars in three days of sales. No television show or film comes even close to that.




It looks to me like there is a really high standard deviation in video profits.  When comparing the 10th highest grossing film of 2013 (Star Trek) vs. the 10th most profitable video game of 2013 (The Last of Us), Star Trek wins by a large margin.


----------



## Kevin

A billion in three days...for a teenage/adolescent's fantasy of a street hoodlum/thug/gangster/prison escapee mentality drive'm, crash'm, smash'm-em up game? Wow. And absolutely no redeeming qualities...except it's fun.


----------



## Sam

Justin Rocket said:


> It looks to me like there is a really high standard deviation in video profits.  When comparing the 10th highest grossing film of 2013 (Star Trek) vs. the 10th most profitable video game of 2013 (The Last of Us), Star Trek wins by a large margin.



Compare the #1 grossing film of 2013 (_The Hunger Games, _$422,000,000) to the #1 grossing game of 2013 (_Grand Theft Auto 5, _$1,400,000,000) and you'll find a even greater margin of almost a billion dollars in revenue.

Your _Star Trek _movie grossed $228,000,000 in 2013. _The Last of Us _grossed $140,000,000. Not quite the disparity that we see in the #1 grossing film and video game of 2013.


----------



## Kyle R

Video games are definitely kicking down the door when it comes to profits. With games smashing records like _GTA V_ did, things might be changing (and fast!).

_Avatar 2_'s (2016) opening weekend will likely top $1 billion, if patterns continue. But, by then, we might see video game releases topping $2 billion! :grief:

I don't really know about the structure of video games though, or how that can be applied to novel writing. At least with screenwriting, the techniques used for structuring stories are easily transferable to novels. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman

I think that something to keep in mind, also, with the video game vs. movie release question isa the price disparity between the two mediums.

While it costs something like 10 bucks to see a movie (I'm not sure since it's been a long time since I have gone to a theater), it costs 60 bucks to buy the game. If I did the math correctly, that would be 23 million people buying the game and 42.2 million people seeing the movie.

Comparing the two can be difficult. However, if you are speaking of nothing but pure profits, then video games are clearly way ahead.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Sam said:


> Compare the #1 grossing film of 2013 (_The Hunger Games, _$422,000,000) to the #1 grossing game of 2013 (_Grand Theft Auto 5, _$1,400,000,000) and you'll find a even greater margin of almost a billion dollars in revenue.
> 
> Your _Star Trek _movie grossed $228,000,000 in 2013. _The Last of Us _grossed $140,000,000. Not quite the disparity that we see in the #1 grossing film and video game of 2013.



But, when comparing the two industries, the difference between the two first place titles is irrelevant.  The SUM of all titles in the two industries is what is important.
Comparing just the two first place titles is very misleading.


----------



## Jeko

> As I've always said, a writer should learn all the tools of his craft.



If they did that, there'd be no time for telling the story. Everyone here has only scratched the surface of these 'tools'.

As soon as you have a character, a goal and an obstacle to that goal, you can tell a story. To tell it better, a writer should then focus on improving his creativity and craftsmanship based on how he wants to steer his progress, getting a better understanding of the craft and improving within the craft.

Thinking you have to learn _all _the tools is a sure-fire way of ruining your career. Discover what works for you and use it, and keep learning things to broaden your horizons. The incredible diversity of artistry is enough to cover up the fact that you don't know the 'longwordhere' method, because 1) you may be able tell your story successfully without it and 2) nobody cares.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Cadence said:


> If they did that, there'd be no time for telling the story. Everyone here has only scratched the surface of these 'tools'.
> 
> As soon as you have a character, a goal and an obstacle to that goal, you can tell a story. To tell it better, a writer should then focus on improving his creativity and craftsmanship based on how he wants to steer his progress, getting a better understanding of the craft and improving within the craft.
> 
> Thinking you have to learn _all _the tools is a sure-fire way of ruining your career. Discover what works for you and use it, and keep learning things to broaden your horizons. The incredible diversity of artistry is enough to cover up the fact that you don't know the 'longwordhere' method, because 1) you may be able tell your story successfully without it and 2) nobody cares.



Obviously, time is a constraint.  The writer should pursue mastering all the tools of his craft.  He will not ever obtain that which he pursues, but he should maintain a teachable attitude.


----------



## Terry D

Justin Rocket said:


> Obviously, time is a constraint.  The writer should pursue mastering all the tools of his craft.  He will not ever obtain that which he pursues, but he should maintain a teachable attitude.



Bull. Maybe you need to do that to get better, but not all writers do. Snowflakes and sinewaves are not going to improve my ability to tell a story. I've never read where a bestselling author attributes his/her success to a software program, or any 'technique'. Use them if you wish, but be ready to be ignored when you try to tell everyone else that they should do it also.


----------



## Folcro

Sam said:


> Compare the #1 grossing film of 2013 (_The Hunger Games, _$422,000,000) to the #1 grossing game of 2013 (_Grand Theft Auto 5, _$1,400,000,000) and you'll find a even greater margin of almost a billion dollars in revenue.
> 
> Your _Star Trek _movie grossed $228,000,000 in 2013. _The Last of Us _grossed $140,000,000. Not quite the disparity that we see in the #1 grossing film and video game of 2013.



From a strictly monetary standpoint, this is true, but in terms of sheer number of people, that stat can be deceiving. Most movies get most of their profits from theaters, a ticket for which is a fraction of what it costs to purchase a brand new mainstream console game.

I don't think it has to do with how shows are structured that make them more popular, in as much as the ease with which a show or movie is watched, the time it takes, compared to reading a novel.


----------



## ppsage

When I find myself exposed to a situation where we’re trying to enunciate the ways to become a writer and the relative value of those ways, making allowance for temperament, and when impasses of opinion threaten progress, I have developed a simple meditation for myself which I’ve personally found fairly beneficial. I find a list of ‘successful’ authors and google them up and see how they did it. I did this last night with that list of novelists I’d found on my shelf.

(Faulkner, Twain, Heinlein, Asimov, Herbert, Wallace, Berry, Kerouac, Erdrich, Rushdie, Updike, Joyce, Ross MacDonald, Silko, Russo, Stephenson, Grass..... Uris. Michener. ....... God. ............)

This is an admittedly bogus list. That’s part of the point. It doesn’t matter that much who’s on the list, if it’s at all representative. And the differences will be instructive. In the past I’ve done it in considerable detail for an edition of Tin House and for a horror anthology.

The first thing I look for is creative writing higher education and continuing association with higher education in some writing capacity. This is often a majority. It’s not one on my list, but it’s the strongest minority. If combined with journalism experience it’s pretty close to half. These are two traditional routes to authorship, and I think they demonstrate the value of some form of education. If the list in question has many old timers, nineteenth or early twentieth century, journalism gets more important, than university association. Then for quite a spell, academia becomes a stronger seat of literature production.

There’s basically no screen writers on this list, except persons who did that after becoming successful. But I think in today’s society, screenwriting is overtaking journalism as a place to learn writing. A good number on the list started writing as undergrads and never graduated, but they had some formal study and practice. I think access to this opportunity is lessening, in today’s society.

It’s not surprising to me that many people in today’s society are eager to study writing somewhat formally from the sorts of resources Kyle points out. It’s not the way grandpa did it, in a classroom soaking up Tolstoy while deciphering _Aspects of the Novel,_ and trying to memorize Aristotle’s unities. But there’s plenty of overlap and, for many seekers, definite benefit.

There’s nobody on my list with zero academic training and zero on the job training. There’s no strictly Abe Lincoln types, studying and figuring out, on their own, by firelight. But plenty of them did make a considerable part of their progress doing just that. I don’t know how many authors of any stripe, even here at WF, which maybe tends to self-select for the more autodidact, are *without any taint* of formal study or academic exposure, in their writing development. Some probably. Not too many.

I think every successful writer of creative fiction, whatever the background or starting impetus, has much solitary work to do, figuring out their personal approach and style. In the end, it’s not the same as the collective and normative work of journalism or screenwriting, it’s not just about tools.

I do not personally find that this sort of thread is ordering me to work a certain way or demeaning any approach I might choose to follow. I don’t object to being reminded of the ideas they tout, I, for instance, am quite familiar with saggy middles. Not sure there’s a tent pole for my problem. That some might wax a touch over-evangelical about the beneficent effects mostly makes me smile at the enthusiasm and wait for their realization of the task ahead. In the end, everybody will either sit down and write, or they won’t. If they do, it will be from a place where nothing around here interferes much at all.


----------



## Jeko

> The writer should pursue mastering all the tools of his craft.



If you were the first person on Earth, you would be able to tell me a story. You wouldn't have any 'tools' but the ones in your brain, but you would be able to tell me a story.

These 'tools' you speak of, ad nauseam, are only the product of our inherent ability to tell stories; deciphered guides on how to use that brain that can do all this stuff anyway. Evan Marshall created the Marshall Plan from the resources in his head - he didn't make a 'tool', but only rearranged the tools he was already familiar with for people to see them in a different way. This goes for every 'tool' that people either use or don't use. Aside from the rules and constructs of language and communication, the resources required for storytelling are available in the mind of anyone who picks up a pen or keyboard. They have always been; there is nothing new under the sun. The way the art of storytelling has developed has shaped the way we tell stories, but our ability has always been there; hence, our ability is not the result of tools, but the existence of them. The tools are in our heads. Everything helps us use and learn to use these tools, but they're not made by other writers. They have always existed, and have been and will be manipulated by humanity's psychological and cultural changes throughout history.

So you're right. A writer should master all their tools. But since they're all in his or her head, it's not designs or diagrams they need to master. It's their self, using whatever help they can get. This may include guides and plans made by other writers, and it may not. The beautiful thing is that every writer is different.

That's my slant on it, anyway. To refocus, the advice on midpoints is great, and the success of a midpoint can be obtained with or without this advice, depending on the writer and how they work and learn best. I for one find this sort of thing useful to look at, meditate on briefly, and not think about as I write.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Cadence said:


> If you were the first person on Earth, you would be able to tell me a story. You wouldn't have any 'tools' but the ones in your brain, but you would be able to tell me a story.
> 
> These 'tools' you speak of, ad nauseam, are only the product of our inherent ability to tell stories; deciphered guides on how to use that brain that can do all this stuff anyway. Evan Marshall created the Marshall Plan from the resources in his head - he didn't make a 'tool', but only rearranged the tools he was already familiar with for people to see them in a different way. This goes for every 'tool' that people either use or don't use. Aside from the rules and constructs of language and communication, the resources required for storytelling are available in the mind of anyone who picks up a pen or keyboard. They have always been; there is nothing new under the sun. The way the art of storytelling has developed has shaped the way we tell stories, but our ability has always been there; hence, our ability is not the result of tools, but the existence of them. The tools are in our heads. Everything helps us use and learn to use these tools, but they're not made by other writers. They have always existed, and have been and will be manipulated by humanity's psychological and cultural changes throughout history.
> 
> So you're right. A writer should master all their tools. But since they're all in his or her head, it's not designs or diagrams they need to master. It's their self, using whatever help they can get. This may include guides and plans made by other writers, and it may not. The beautiful thing is that every writer is different.
> 
> That's my slant on it, anyway. To refocus, the advice on midpoints is great, and the success of a midpoint can be obtained with or without this advice, depending on the writer and how they work and learn best. I for one find this sort of thing useful to look at, meditate on briefly, and not think about as I write.




My comments are restricted to professional writers, not to children or cave men, but to people who compete in the market place with one another to sell their stories.  Outside of that environment, a person can create a bad story (one which doesn't keep the listener's interest) and there's little consequence.  

The science of story structure has developed for tens of thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousands of years) by examining which stories work and which ones don't.  That analysis has created tools which story writers can use to create better stories.  I can give you two story openings.  One of them will work and one won't.  Why?  Because there are principles of story craft which the one which doesn't work violates.  I don't care how much of a special snowflake a writer thinks he is.  He can't polish a turd.


----------



## Bishop

Justin Rocket said:


> I can give you two story openings.  One of them will work and one won't.  Why?  Because there are principles of story craft which the one which doesn't work violates.  I don't care how much of a special snowflake a writer thinks he is.  He can't polish a turd.



I agree with a lot of what you say, but there's proof that this isn't necessarily true. That proof lies in the fact that poorly written dinosaur erotica sells books. So on some level, they work--at least for the goal of being professional. After all, one of the main definitions of a professional is payment for the skill. For a less obscure example, look at the 50 shades books. Did the author use rules? I'm not sure, honestly, but a vast amount of people thought that it worked enough that they paid for it.

Why? It satisfies an itch. A reader must read. Whether its for erotica purposes, or just a good story, the consumer consumes, whether rules are followed or not. The consumer--your audience--does not know these rules. He does not judge you on them, and he does not care about them. He cares about the level of entertainment the work brings him. Story structure is used and ignored on a daily basis. It's made and remade everyday by people who think they know what works and what doesn't. I know. I got a a degree in English and every professor claimed the had, or they knew which of the story structures is the one that so-and-so was thinking of when they wrote their big masterpiece. But by the sixth time I studied Hamlet, I learned for myself that whether or not Bill followed a certain set of rules or structure, all he wanted was to fill the theater, and show an audience what he wanted to show them.

The audience was none the wiser, and he got paid. Shakespeare got to get paid, son.

My point is: What works and what doesn't is rarely decided by the author or the scholars who look at structure.

PS: In all fairness, I must credit "Shakespeare got to get paid, son." to Marriedtothesea, the webcomic.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Bishop said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say, but there's proof that this isn't necessarily true. That proof lies in the fact that poorly written dinosaur erotica sells books. So on some level, they work--at least for the goal of being professional. After all, one of the main definitions of a professional is payment for the skill. For a less obscure example, look at the 50 shades books. Did the author use rules? I'm not sure, honestly, but a vast amount of people thought that it worked enough that they paid for it.
> 
> Why? It satisfies an itch. A reader must read. Whether its for erotica purposes, or just a good story, the consumer consumes, whether rules are followed or not. The consumer--your audience--does not know these rules. He does not judge you on them, and he does not care about them. He cares about the level of entertainment the work brings him. Story structure is used and ignored on a daily basis. It's made and remade everyday by people who think they know what works and what doesn't. I know. I got a a degree in English and every professor claimed the had, or they knew which of the story structures is the one that so-and-so was thinking of when they wrote their big masterpiece. But by the sixth time I studied Hamlet, I learned for myself that whether or not Bill followed a certain set of rules or structure, all he wanted was to fill the theater, and show an audience what he wanted to show them.
> 
> The audience was none the wiser, and he got paid. Shakespeare got to get paid, son.
> 
> My point is: What works and what doesn't is rarely decided by the author or the scholars who look at structure.
> 
> PS: In all fairness, I must credit "Shakespeare got to get paid, son." to Marriedtothesea, the webcomic.



I've defined a bad story as one which fails to keep the reader's interest.  With that consideration, dinosaur erotica porn is not bad stories if the writer's intended readers were dinosaur fetishists.  The writer followed the rules.


----------



## Bishop

Justin Rocket said:


> I've defined a bad story as one which fails to keep the reader's interest.  With that consideration, dinosaur erotica porn is not bad stories if the writer's intended readers were dinosaur fetishists.  The writer followed the rules.



When it comes to dinosaur erotica, I'm fairly certain the writer had no idea what the rules were. Or that there were rules. Because rule number one really should be "no dinosaur erotica."


----------



## Folcro

Bishop said:


> Because rule number one really should be "no dinosaur erotica."



I'm offended!


----------



## Justin Rocket

Bishop said:


> When it comes to dinosaur erotica, I'm fairly certain the writer had no idea what the rules were. Or that there were rules. Because rule number one really should be "no dinosaur erotica."



Dinosaurs need their porn, too!  No wonder they went extinct.


----------



## Bishop

Justin Rocket said:


> Dinosaurs need their porn, too!  No wonder they went extinct.




...that does make a lot of sense.

O.O Poor T-rexes...


----------



## ppsage

I would actually say, for the techniques suggested in this specific thread, which are basically plot devices, the theater work of Shakespeare makes the case nicely. His plays are actually almost formulaic, in terms of plot development. A few different schemes and a handful of devices and he trots them out there time after time. If you're strictly a story guy, the Bard's maybe not your pot of joe; his originality and genius was all in the lingo, and how it illuminated the psychology.


----------



## Bishop

ppsage said:


> I would actually say, for the techniques suggested in this specific thread, which are basically plot devices, the theater work of Shakespeare makes the case nicely. His plays are actually almost formulaic, in terms of plot development. A few different schemes and a handful of devices and he trots them out there time after time. If you're strictly a story guy, the Bard's maybe not your pot of joe; his originality and genius was all in the lingo, and how it illuminated the psychology.



There's a case to be made both ways here. Bill was a student of his craft, and wrote a lot to please certain types of people in his works. Theater was somewhat frowned upon by much of the upper class in those days, so he had to write within some unique parameters. He also had a wide audience to please, and had to craft his characters carefully to avoid upsetting the range of people who saw his plays.

My personal favorite is MacBeth, for many many reasons, but a close second is Titus Andronicus. The sheer brutality of that particular play was something of genius. While his structure does conform to many of the invisible rules suggested, I doubt he was doing this intentionally. The messages between his plays differed radically and he fit the play to match, which is why Titus and MacBeth are so different from both one another and from, say, Twelfth Night. The rules he went for were as I said before--pleasing the crowds. He wrote to the theater-goer, so that his message could be conveyed to both the people in the pit and those on the third floor of the risers. All while trying to make bank.

Even still, most of that is conjecture as we really can't know for sure with ole Bill.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Bishop said:


> While his structure does conform to many of the invisible rules suggested, I doubt he was doing this intentionally.



Why he adhered to the rules is of less significance than that he did adhere to the rules and, thereby, became famous and made bank.


----------



## Kyle R

I'm not entirely sure, but I remember reading that Shakespeare structured his plays based on his study of the Roman playwright, Terence, who used a five act structure.

If true, then the *midpoint* turning scene (or scenes) in a Terence/Shakespeare play would occur in the *third act*.

Act 1 | Act 2 | *Act 3* | Act 4 | Act 5

Just thinking out loud here! I'm not too versed in playwriting, though. :cower:


----------



## Bishop

Justin Rocket said:


> Why he adhered to the rules is of less significance than that he did adhere to the rules and, thereby, became famous and made bank.



But we're talking about a learned set of rules. A set of rules most writers don't know about and many ignore. While I agree there is a lot about structure of a story that can be learned and that most of it leads to generally better writing, I know that people will, inevitably, ignore it. A person's technique of "just writing" versus "writing with rules" can be entirely subconscious to the writer, and is definitely subconscious to most readers. The success and recognition come whether or not those rules are there, but instead whether or not people will consume it. Same today as it was in 1599.


----------



## Jeko

> That analysis has created tools which story writers can use to create better stories.



Or worse stories. Or no stories at all, because they're stuck on a Waiting-for-Godot-esque loop of repeating themselves.

I have all the tools I need to tell a story, and the more external 'tools' I bring into the project, the less of myself gets into it. I'm that sort of writer, I'm afraid. I can't treat my characters as human beings unless I'm treating them as human beings; most 'tools' I come across fail to allow me to do that.

Just as a saw can help a man build a chair, it can also help him cut his head off. The latter is less desirable.


----------



## Pluralized

I'd just like to pop in and say thanks, Kyle - the original post was quite helpful. As someone who's never really considered "tentpoles," nor "sagging middles," I'm given some useful techniques and much to think about in terms of story crafting. Some of my favorite stories have a discernible middle, and some are just a long, rambling mess. I love them equally.

I like the guitar analogy - it's great to teach yourself, jam out, and some people have Absolute Pitch. That doesn't mean much when you're trying to construct something resembling a song with parts. To each and every, their own.


----------



## Justin Rocket

> the more external 'tools' I bring into the project, the less of myself gets into it. I'm that sort of writer, I'm afraid.



It is a big boost for a writer to know what works for him and what doesn't.  Obviously, there's no way to know if something is going to work for that writer until after he studies it and experiments with it.  Without that study and experience, the writer is just being closed-minded (something art should try to avoid).  How tools influence your writing has to do with you and not with the tools, themselves (since writers have used these techniques and tools to write great content).



> I can't treat my characters as human beings unless I'm treating them as human beings; most 'tools' I come across fail to allow me to do that.



I've found psychology, sociology, and anthropology to all help me understand people and interact with them.  Writing tools are no different.  But, again, this is something to do with your idiosyncratic writing style.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Bishop said:


> But we're talking about a learned set of rules. A set of rules most writers don't know about and many ignore. While I agree there is a lot about structure of a story that can be learned and that most of it leads to generally better writing, I know that people will, inevitably, ignore it. A person's technique of "just writing" versus "writing with rules" can be entirely subconscious to the writer, and is definitely subconscious to most readers. The success and recognition come whether or not those rules are there, but instead whether or not people will consume it. Same today as it was in 1599.



Rules can be learned subconsciously by reading a lot of stories.  This is largely a hit or miss learning approach which is very time consuming, but it can and does happen from time to time.  Writers can learn and not even be aware that they've learned these rules.  For example, we know that burying the story's hook on page 3 is a bad idea.  We know that the hook should come early in the story.  Some writers may not be able to verbalize that they know this, but they can probably look at two different introductions (one where the hook is on page 3 and one where it is in the first paragraph all else being equal) and tell you which intro is better. A writer who never learns this simple rule, or worse who actively rebels against this rule simply because that writer believes they are a special snowflake, isn't going to get very far in the traditional publishing world and isn't going to make a living writing fiction.  That's because whether or not people consume that author's work depends on whether or not that author follows the rules.


----------



## Bishop

Justin Rocket said:


> Rules can be learned subconsciously by reading a lot of stories.  This is largely a hit or miss learning approach which is very time consuming, but it can and does happen from time to time.  Writers can learn and not even be aware that they've learned these rules.  For example, we know that burying the story's hook on page 3 is a bad idea.  We know that the hook should come early in the story.  Some writers may not be able to verbalize that they know this, but they can probably look at two different introductions (one where the hook is on page 3 and one where it is in the first paragraph all else being equal) and tell you which intro is better. A writer who never learns this simple rule, or worse who actively rebels against this rule simply because that writer believes they are a special snowflake, isn't going to get very far in the traditional publishing world and isn't going to make a living writing fiction.  That's because whether or not people consume that author's work depends on whether or not that author follows the rules.



This is actually my point. If the rules are learned entirely subconsciously, there cannot be any actual rules. To say that page 3 hooks are a detriment to success is incorrect. Take a look at Herman Melville, or Faulkner. Compare that to Hemingway. The problem with rules is that there are exceptions to them in EVERY art form. If there is an exception to every rule, the really there's no rules because people break them and still succeed.

People consume what people want, regardless of rules. Compare Jackson Pollack to Monet. There is no discernible rule set for any art form. There are things that trend well, or work toward the masses, but there's no way to quantify it with any certainty. You can say a lot of successful writers do a lot of similar things, but as with anything there's no guarantee any which way. 

Traditional publishing is even more of a minefield to get into. They're specifically not looking for rules--they're looking for money. Putting anything into a neat little box will get you just that. A neat little box. People may buy it, people may not.

Amendment: The point I'm trying to make is that like any art form, writing is a skill. You get better by reading, as you said, and by writing. Studying a mass of rules just gives you the rule maker's opinion of what works. You cannot say for sure it will work for you or anyone else. 

Just remember. THIS book got published: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0870334336/?tag=writingforu06-20

Bishop


----------



## ppsage

> I'm not entirely sure, but I remember reading that Shakespeare structured his plays based on his study of the Roman playwright, Terence


In a classic literary education, which you could probably still get somewhere, in the first parts of the twentieth century, the study of structure centered on theater. This probably a hold over from Aristotle, for whom theater, and art in general, contained, at least in a public aspect, sacred content. I sometimes wonder if the replacement by the psychological of this religious impetus has irreparably impoverished art in all its manifestations. This is a central theme, you know, of that same Joseph Campbell who made such a notable distillation of the popular hero's journey schematic.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Justin Rocket said:


> It is a big boost for a writer to know what works for him and what doesn't.  Obviously, there's no way to know if something is going to work for that writer until after he studies it and experiments with it.  Without that study and experience, the writer is just being closed-minded (something art should try to avoid).  How tools influence your writing has to do with you and not with the tools, themselves (since writers have used these techniques and tools to write great content).



Here's the thing. I was an absolutely horrible student in my school days. No matter how many "tools" they tried to give me to make me a better student, none of them had much effect. Granted, I now know that I actually had A.D.D. back then, and it went undiagnosed, does not change the fact that "tools" probably aren't going to do much for me except make me hesitate while I am writing. Hesitation is my worst enemy because it turns into procrastination, and eventually, stagnation.

Once I am done with my novel, and if there are issues mentioned in reviews that are repeated by more than just a couple of people, then I will go back and look into learning about some of the "tools" that you seem so adamant about.


----------



## Terry D

Each of us started learning story structure the first time we heard "Once upon a time...'. Many writers can put that intrinsic learning to use without dissecting it further. The trait is not rare among professional writers.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Terry D said:


> Each of us started learning story structure the first time we heard "Once upon a time...'. Many writers can put that intrinsic learning to use without dissecting it further. The trait is not rare among professional writers.



When I stopped writing while still in High School, I never lost my love for reading. From the time I stopped, until the present day (I recently started reading the Night Angel novels by Brent Weeks) I have read close to 1500 (at a guess and based on how many books I've owned and lost or sold or donated) works of fiction. 

Perhaps Justin has a point when he says that the rules can be subconsciously learned because, even though I failed English classes miserably in school, structure isn't one of the things that I have ever had mentioned in any of the reviews that have been done on my novel-in-progress.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Bishop said:


> If the rules are learned entirely subconsciously, there cannot be any actual rules.



The assertion that rules learned subconsciously aren't rules is incorrect.  For example, there are rules to English grammar which we begin learning subconsciously the moment we start speaking English.   (You might assert that there are people who get through life in English-speaking countries with a remarkably poor grasp of English, but they tend to know much more about English grammar than do foreigners just starting to learn the language.)



Bishop said:


> To say that page 3 hooks are a detriment to success is incorrect. Take a look at Herman Melville, or Faulkner. Compare that to Hemingway.



Rules change over time.  Can you name a recent successful novelist whose hooks regularly occur on page 3?



> People consume what people want, regardless of rules.



Rules are derived from studying what people want.  So, your assertion is incorrect.



> Compare Jackson Pollack to Monet. There is no discernible rule set for any art form.



Compare either of them to the scribbling of a four year old. 



> Traditional publishing is even more of a minefield to get into. They're specifically not looking for rules--they're looking for money.



They are dealing with risk.  They mitigate that risk by looking for content that adheres to the rules.  That's why you don't hear of a lot of 6th grade authors who get published.


----------



## Justin Rocket

T.S.Bpwman said:


> Perhaps Justin has a point when he says that the rules can be subconsciously learned



In as much as tacit vs. implicit knowledge is a topic familiar to anyone with a degree in anthropology, I can't take credit for this point.


----------



## Jeko

I think if a 'professional writer' heard that he needs to study hundreds of tools to be able to do his job correctly, he'd ask whoever was saying that to stop telling him or her how to do his or her job.


----------



## Jeko

> Rules change over time.



Hang on - now you're defying the entirety of structuralism.

You're clearly not taking a modernist angle to writing, but this means you're not structuralist either. Now I'm really confused.

Thinking about modernism, if you talked about 'tools' to a lot of successful artists they'd probably ignore you. The world of artistry is a lot more diverse than a lot of these 'tools' seem to advocate; the most respectful thing you can do is find what works for you and let other people use what works for them. There is no requirement for any writer to study and specific set of rules to tell a story successfully. In fact, the incredible beauty of written artistry is such that evasion of these 'tools' is a tool in itself, as it contributes to or is a product of the psyche of the writer, that which is naturally distilled onto the page. 

I don't think there's much more to say on this issue.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Cadence said:


> Hang on - now you're defying the entirety of structuralism.



Unless structuralism means something radically different in creative writing then it does in the rest of the social sciences, I'm not defying structuralism.   Social scientists have known for decades that culture evolves.  So, the rules in any structuralist paradigm must evolve as well.



Cadence said:


> You're clearly not taking a modernist angle to writing, but this means you're not structuralist either. Now I'm really confused.



A person can be a structuralist without being a modernist.  In fact, the guy who created structuralism as a distinct paradigm, Boas, was not a modernist.



Cadence said:


> In fact, the incredible beauty of written artistry is such that evasion of these 'tools' is a tool in itself, as it contributes to or is a product of the psyche of the writer, that which is naturally distilled onto the page.



Within your paradigm, what makes a JK Rowling, Stephen King, Toni Morrison, or Jonathon Franzen any better than a child writing their first short story?  Give an answer that isn't just a vapid soliloquy.  Be specific and explicit about those characteristics that apply to all of them collectively.  Then, explain how those characteristics by which you differentiate good story craft from bad do not reflect rules.


----------



## Gavrushka

You know, I am sure I'd be a lot better writer, if I could only work out what you two were on about. - I do try to follow, but I reach the edge of my intellect before I arrive at the far end of your conversation! 

I think it would be a great idea if all the links to the literary tools were collected and put into one thread, along with the circumstances in which they can best be employed.

Many people, including me, face situations where we struggle with our prose for one reason or another. Who knows, such a thread could help.


----------



## Justin Rocket

Gavrushka said:


> You know, I am sure I'd be a lot better writer, if I could only work out what you two were on about. - I do try to follow, but I reach the edge of my intellect before I arrive at the far end of your conversation!
> 
> I think it would be a great idea if all the links to the literary tools were collected and put into one thread, along with the circumstances in which they can best be employed.
> 
> Many people, including me, face situations where we struggle with our prose for one reason or another. Who knows, such a thread could help.



I think this is a great idea.  What's more, I think it would make a greatwiki.  For now, though, there is ​http://www.writingforums.com/forums/116-HATS-Hints-and-Tips


----------



## Jeko

> You know, I am sure I'd be a lot better writer, if I could only work out what you two were on about. - I do try to follow, but I reach the edge of my intellect before I arrive at the far end of your conversation!



I was sort of going off-topic - I try to work out literary perspectives from what I read. Like the 'tools' of this thread and others it is inessential to consider them, but it may be useful for some people. I never think about lenses of criticism when I write; only when I read.


----------



## Sam

This thread has turned into a debate. 

Closed.


----------

