# Crafting the Story Concept



## Kyle R (Feb 4, 2014)

It's a universal experience to writers domestic and abroad: whenever your writing enters a conversation, expect the question, "What's it about?"

There's a reason why readers, agents, and even your best friend's aunt ask this—your story concept will tell a reader if your writing is worth their time.

Why should I read this? What about it is interesting?

Here are the key ingredients that go into crafting a good story concept.

*The Protagonist
*
Yes, it might seem like an obvious choice to have a main character in your story, but you'd be surprised at how many agents come across manuscripts with no clear main character or point of view. Who is this story about? Without a clear protagonist the readers won't know who to identify with, and, by extension, why they should care.

At a more advanced level, you'll have authors juggling multiple protagonists through the narrative. While less clear-cut and defined as a single protagonist, the approach is still workable, as long as the author is able to establish a connection between the reader and each protagonist.

*Review: Have a protagonist.
*

*Empathy*
The reader has to care, on a visceral level, for your protagonist and his or her journey. A lot of writing workshops teach the approach of creating a "sympathetic" character, but this falls short of the actual goal. A sympathetic character is one the reader feels _for_. An empathetic character is one the reader feels _with_.

It may be hard, for example, to make a reader empathize with a serial killer, because that character's morals and values are so different from the reader. The trick, therefore, is to establish a situation or series of conflicts that the reader can universally identify with. The loss of a loved one. The desire for respect. The thirst for knowledge.

If you can establish an empathetic situation for your protagonist, one the reader can identify with on an intellectual, physical, or spiritual level, you'll be that much better off than the writer who tries to create a sympathetic character by having them experience a string of meaningless misfortunes. 

It's the difference between the reader thinking, "Oh, poor Sally, she lost her brand new fur coat! That must suck for her." and "Gosh. Allen doesn't get any respect, not even from his wife! I feel this guy's pain."

It's, essentially, just a matter of digging deeper, of finding a connection between your reader and your protagonist's situation, no matter how different the character may be.

*Review: Have an empathetic protagonist.*


*The Outer Goal

*What is the thread that binds the whole story together? What is it that your character is pursuing? Without some sort of outer goal for your protagonist, some external motivation that is driving your character's actions, your story might collapse into a meaningless jumble of unconnected vignettes. 

A good trick to nailing down your character's outer goal is to say that it should be _visible_.

The trophy at the end of the finish line. The girl with the blue dress. The mountain peak.

What visible goal is your protagonist pursuing? Without it, your reader will have no idea why they should invest their attention in your story. What pursuit is going to keep them riveted?

Some writers go astray by having their protagonist pursue an invisible goal, such as redemption, courage, or self-fulfillment. While such goals can work to motivate a protagonist through a story, they also have a wishy-washy effect on the reader, who gets a sense that the story is moving in a poignant direction, but sees no starting or finish line to the journey. As a result, the reader will feel less riveted. Why rush to keep reading if there's no end to the journey in sight? No sense of urgency? No reason _not_ to put the book down and pick it up again in, oh, maybe a week or two. If she feels like it.

Without a visible goal for your protagonist to pursue, you may have just lost your reader's interest.

So, how to take that invisible goal of _revenge_ and make it visible? Apply it to something concrete. Something physical. A person, maybe, that the protagonist wants to kill. Or perhaps a company that your protagonist wants to sabotage. (Another point here is to make sure your visible goal is as singular and defined as possible. So, in the "company" example, you can narrow it down even further and make it the CEO of the company whom your character is motivated against.)

If your character wants to climb a mountain, then choose *a* mountain and make it the goal, rather than the idea of mountains. 

*Review: Have an empathetic protagonist with a visible goal to pursue.*


*Make the Goal as Important and Difficult as Possible to Achieve 

*If Sally, your empathetic protagonist, wants an ice cream cone, and all she has to do achieve her goal is to walk across the street and pay for it, why should the reader waste their time?

But what if Sally's goal is to win her Olympic Event, something she's been training for her entire life? And what if she breaks her leg two months before qualifiers?

Your reader is more likely to stick around for that one.

The more important the goal is to your protagonist, the more your reader will be invested in seeing if your protagonist succeeds, especially if you've managed to make your protagonist empathetic. 

And the more difficult the goal seems to be, the closer your reader will lean toward your page. An important goal is one thing. An important goal that looks nearly impossible, is another!

*Review: Have an empathetic protagonist with a visible goal to pursue, one that is both important and difficult to achieve. 
*

*The Antagonist

*To help make the goal difficult, you can do worse than by including the time-honored element of most every great story you've ever read: the antagonist. The nemesis. The villain.

Keep in mind, this doesn't always have to be a "bad" person, or an evil morlock, like some writers believe. The antagonist is simply someone, or something, that directly opposes your protagonist's pursuit of his or her goal.

In Sally's pursuit of the olympic medal, for instance, the antagonist might be a girl named Amy, who is also trying to win. Amy may be a nice person, too. Her requirement for being an antagonist doesn't rest on her being "bad" or "evil", just that she opposes Sally's pursuit of her goal.

What person, or thing, can make your protagonist's pursuit as difficult as possible? Usually nailing this down as a single person works better than something like "a corporation" or "racism." With a clearly defined antagonist, your reader has someone to root for (your empathetic protagonist) and against.

*Review: Have an empathetic protagonist with a visible goal to pursue, one that is both important, and difficult to achieve because of an antagonist.
*

*The Deeper Level: Internal Conflict and Emotional or Spiritual Change

*What separates the popcorn fluff stories from the ones that stay with us on a lasting, deeper level? Generally, these are the stories where the protagonist grows and changes, and we, as a result, feel like we've changed as well. Or at the very least, learned something important.

If you're looking to deepen your story concept, then think about the internal conflict of your protagonist. What do they think or believe about themselves, or about the world, that is incorrect?

What flaw in their thinking or way of living should be corrected? What is holding them back from being a better person?

Does Jim believe that love isn't real? Is his disbelief in love hindering his life? Then we can craft a change, a character arc, that moves Jim from his starting point toward his moment of change: Jim will believe in love again.

Does Carly always doubt herself? Is her self-doubt crippling her professional and personal life? Can you help Carly find the belief in herself she desperately needs?

Nailing down the internal conflict of your protagonist, and the change you want to take place through the story is a more elusive, trickier element to nail down. As a result, some writers don't even bother with it. Others toil away and let it hinder their progress.

Others, still, trust in their intuition and allow the internal conflict to manifest on its own, and allow the change to happen without conscious crafting.

Whatever route you use, keep in mind the best stories have these internal components in them, and often the plot has been crafted with them in mind.

Is there something about your character, some internal knot, that they need to untie? Can you figure out a way to do this in your story to give your writing a deeper resonance with your readers?

*Review: Have an internally conflicted, empathetic protagonist with a visible goal to pursue, one that is both important and difficult to achieve because of an antagonist, in a story that evokes emotional or spiritual change.


*Looking at the final *Review* line, we've been left with quite a mouthful! But each element is there for a reason, and if you can build a story concept that involves each of these elements, chances are you've got something worth reading! The only thing left to do is write it! :encouragement:


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 4, 2014)

Just to add: Logic and Realism

Your character must act realistically, even logically, for it to be empathized with. That does not mean that the character must share any morals or ethics with the Reader, only that the character's actions are internally consistent with the story and the values and abilities of the character. This also does not mean that the character can not change. After all, most stories are about change, else they'd be dull affairs. But, it does mean that all of that behavior needs to be realistic in the sense of the logic that it consistently follows.

This also goes for the Setting, in most cases. (Not, necessarily, all cases. Wonderland is a terrifying place due to its illogical nature, after all. The same goes for an environment like, perhaps, the interior of a black hole. In general, unpredictability due to a lack of understood and shared logic is not good in a Setting.) The Setting in which the story takes place can be looked at like a big room with a bunch of levers and screens. Some screens are just there in order to display pretty or visually interesting things, but they do nothing else except lend themselves to the general atmosphere in the room. But, there are some important aspects to the Setting that bear directly on the story, namely the "levers." These levers in the Room of the Setting will be the things that the Reader expects will be pulled and pushed by the character and the events taking place in the story. Being able to pull some of these levers might be some of the goals, perhaps even the main goal, of the story. If, for instance, the characters in the story run about, doing nothing but generating pretty pictures for the displays in the room of the story, then the Reader is going to lose interest without a lot more work from the writer. But, if the characters are actively trying to push and pull the leavers of the Setting that the Reader already knows are there (and understands the implications of, due to writer's excellent Setting construction) then one can have a bit of high drama in the Setting to spice up all the pretty pictures. It's also the combination of the expected results of an event (lever) with the unexpected, but logical, previously unknown results that frequently adds a lot of spice to a story.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 4, 2014)

To add to Morkonan's point, I'm extremely frustrated by writers that use simplistic contrivances or require a remarkable suspension of disbelief in order for the reader to enjoy the story.  Consider _The Hunger Games_.  Perhaps I'm expecting too much from it, since it's only a YA novel, but when my friends enthusiastically recommended it to me, I went into it hoping to be wowed and was sorely disappointed.

Right now, I'm thinking of the stipulation that even though twenty-four people enter the games, only one can be the winner - yet we're given two protagonists to root for.  As a reader, this means one of four things: only Protagonist A survives, only Protagonist B survives, neither protagonist survives and someone from another district wins, or the author ignores the established rules and decides that both protagonists will survive.

Collins chose the fourth option, which to me is a huge betrayal of the reader's trust.  Here you have the potential to grip the reader, to prove that rules truly are rules and that not everything can end happily ever after.  If you stick to your guns here, you've created suspense for the rest of the story, because the reader will never know what's going to happen.  Once that trust is broken, the reader is going to remain disengaged for the rest of the story.

So, not only must the characters act logically and the setting be internally consistent, but we as authors CAN NOT play with the rules if we want our readers to care about what's happening.  We establish strict rules to create suspense; if we break those, what keeps the reader reading?


----------



## Jeko (Feb 4, 2014)

> but we as authors CAN NOT play with the rules if we want our readers to care about what's happening.



I find that hard to believe. Say I have two people in a room with me - one of them is a policeman, the other a convicted criminal. Which am I going to feel more tense around?

It's the same with stories; while I advocate structuralism, that there are rules governing storytelling that make X cause Y, the breaking of these rules is as potentially beneficial as adherence to them. It can make readers feel tense and gripped by that tension - suddenly you're not playing by the rules; suddenly you can do anything, providing it works. And it frequently works.

As to The Hunger Games, I'm not sure what your point is. The protagonist of the Games was not a single character, but a unit (bound, some might say, by a mixture of love and rebellious hope); the antagonist was the system they went up against. The protagonist won, in a way that has satisfied many, many readers. The escape from individualism, even at the level of plot structure, is a prevailing theme throughout the novel.

The Hunger Games is a strong and successful example of KyleColorado's advice.


----------



## Sam (Feb 4, 2014)

Kyle, all of your OP goes without saying. Anyone who has ever read a book will know each of those concepts without needing to understand the minutiae of them. This is where, I believe, writers get bogged down in needless over-thinking. I cannot understand why some insist on attempting to break down novels into formulae. There is not, nor never has been, a formula for writing a novel -- best-selling or otherwise. Anyone with the first concept of writing can understand that three things need to happen for a story to even exist. One, the main character has to have a goal. Two, someone has to stop him from achieving same. And three, there has to be conflict. 

You cannot make readers empathise. You cannot make them feel emotion on a deeper level. All you can do is let the chips fall where they may. Everything else will be determined by the person, how they relate to the character, and their only life experiences. Trying to cater to readers with specifically designed characters is a sure-fire way to create a stereotype. Create the character how you want and let the reader decide whether to love or loathe them. When we don't give our readers enough credit, we fail as writers.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 4, 2014)

Cadence said:


> It's the same with stories; while I advocate structuralism, that there are rules governing storytelling that make X cause Y, the breaking of these rules is as potentially beneficial as adherence to them. It can make readers feel tense and gripped by that tension - suddenly you're not playing by the rules; suddenly you can do anything, providing it works. And it frequently works.



You can (and should) break the rules of storytelling, no question about it.  But there are two ways of breaking the rules: breaking the rules of the world, or breaking the rules of storytelling.  Readers feel the tension you describe when you break the rules of storytelling - when you do something that years of reading have trained them to not expect.  When you merely break the rules of the world, there's no tension, and therefore no satisfaction.

I'll use the Hunger Games again, so as to extend my earlier example.  Midway through the story, we're informed of a rules change: two tributes CAN win, as long as they're from the same district.  This breaks the rules of the world, without question.  For decades, only one person has ever won the games each year.  However, as far as storytelling goes, this is about as par for the course as something can get.  Oh, the main characters AREN'T going to be forced to fight each other? What a strange and unexpected development! Who could have seen this coming? Because the rules of storytelling remained firmly intact, there's no suspense whatsoever.



Cadence said:


> As to The Hunger Games, I'm not sure what your point is. The protagonist of the Games was not a single character, but a unit (bound, some might say, by a mixture of love and rebellious hope); the antagonist was the system they went up against. The protagonist won, in a way that has satisfied many, many readers. The escape from individualism, even at the level of plot structure, is a prevailing theme throughout the novel.



I'm afraid if I can't accept a premise, I can't accept a theme.  Just as Maslow's hierarchy requires basic needs to be fulfilled before experiencing higher ones, a story must make sense at its core - at its most basic technical and structural level - before I can enjoy and appreciate whatever message the author is trying to tell.  Perhaps the average reader doesn't require that, but I would be very surprised to find writers like ourselves disregarding such things as well.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 5, 2014)

Sam said:
			
		

> Kyle, all of your OP goes without saying. Anyone who has ever read a book will know each of those concepts without needing to understand the minutiae of them.



I agree with you, Sam, that it all seems very common sense and obvious. If only that were the case!

When talking about publication, at least, two elements of submitted works stand out to acquisitions editors: the quality of the prose, and the quality of the concept.



			
				Los Angeles Editors and Writers Group said:
			
		

> Many agents ... report that each week they receive around 200 submissions either by snail mail or e-mail. Each time they open a submission, whether fiction or nonfiction, they hope it will be what they call “market ready” based on their sense of what the market is looking for, the quality of the writing, and whether the basic storyline, *concept*, or premise makes them want to go on reading.
> 
> However, out of every 100 submissions, only one or two meet the gold standard of* a strong concept backed by exceptional writing*. If yours measures up, you’ll be asked to submit the rest of your manuscript.
> 
> ...



A lot of writers try to skirt by on their writing alone, thinking that's all that is needed. "Concept? What concept? My story is about life and all its intricacies." While such a writer may believe in his or her work, and while it may be written beautifully and poignantly, there's a good chance it'll fall flat into the rejection pile if the concept doesn't hook. 

Why take that chance? The elements of what goes into crafting a good story concept are clear-cut. Better to be aware of them than ignore them, I say. 



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> This is where, I believe, writers get bogged down in needless over-thinking. I cannot understand why some insist on attempting to break down novels into formulae.



I agree with you there, for sure. Over-thinking can definitely hinder writers. I'm not advocating a regimen of writing paralysis. More so, I'm posting this so others can be aware of the elements that go into a workable story concept. Knowing the minutia can help one pinpoint where their story might be lacking. :read:



Sam said:


> You cannot make readers empathise. You cannot make them feel emotion on a deeper level. All you can do is let the chips fall where they may. ... Create the character how you want and let the reader decide whether to love or loathe them. When we don't give our readers enough credit, we fail as writers.



I have to disagree with this to some degree. Yes, we cannot _make_ readers empathize or feel emotions on a deeper level, but we sure as heck can _try_!

The techniques of creating empathy for the protagonist (as well as disdain for the antagonist) go far back, but are most easily visible in the time of the old television Westerns, when the bad guy would be shown kicking a helpless dog, while the hero would be shown rescuing and petting it.

Here was the audience's knee-jerk cue to root against the dog-kicker ("Oh, that cruel bastard!"), and to root for the dog-rescuer ("Now there's a good guy if I've ever seen one!").

The technique has evolved immensely since then, but the basic purpose remains the same: to get the reader on the side of the protagonist early in the story.

There's actually a whole gamut of practiced and taught approaches, each with their own name. 

"The Undeserved Misfortune" shows our protagonist suffering an early setback that just plain isn't fair! Poor guy!

"Man in Jeopardy" shows our protagonist facing an emotional or physical crisis. Will he make it out okay? I don't know, but I'm sure turning the pages to find out!

"Everybody Loves Roger" shows our protagonist being likable, charming, and/or popular. Here's the hero we like because we want to get to know them more.

These techniques, and others, are taught for a reason: they work. The trick is using them in unique and creative ways. :encouragement:

(P.S. "Man in Jeopardy" and "Everybody Loves Roger" are my own aliases.)


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 5, 2014)

Los Angeles Editors and Writers Group said:
			
		

> Many agents ... report that each week they receive around 200 submissions either by snail mail or e-mail. Each time they open a submission, whether fiction or nonfiction, they hope it will be what they call “market ready” based on their sense of what the market is looking for, the quality of the writing, and whether the basic storyline, *concept,* or premise makes them want to go on reading.
> 
> However, out of every 100 submissions, only one or two meet the gold standard of *a strong concept backed by exceptional writing.* If yours measures up, you’ll be asked to submit the rest of your manuscript.
> 
> ...



That actually makes me feel a LOT better about my odds of getting published. Thanks.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Feb 5, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Collins chose the fourth option, which to me is a huge betrayal of the reader's trust.



Maybe the concept of Blood Sport isn't something you are familiar with.  Since the Roman days a thumb up or down as decided by the crowd determined the fate of a competitor.  Today in the bull fights it is common for the crowd to save a brave bull that gives a good performance.  

I'm not a fan of the Hunger games series although I did read them.  Still, saving 2 players at the end of book 1 seemed highly predictable.  

Apparently the writer can and does write the rules and then has the choice to break them.  I'd say in any kind of fantasy it's completely acceptable.  Millions of readers obviously agree.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

Writing, as a craft, has been developing since about 6,000 BCE.  But, all you have to do is ask most Nanowrimo fans to learn that all you have to do is write.

Personally, I believe the rules of structure are simple.  Don't make your story realistic.  Instead, give your story verisimilitude.  Make your lead some combination of charismatic, competent, or cunning.  Give him a critical  flaw (i.e, one step away from happy).  Motivate him to change either himself or the world around him to achieve happiness (typically by showing him that the status quo is preventing him from being happy).  Make him "fail forward" (i.e. every effort he makes to achieve that change fails, but, while he's ignorant of the fact, the failure brings him closer to his end goal anyway).  Repeatedly make him "fail forward" (each failure appearing more catastrophic than the last) until just before the story's word count  is reached, then have him reach happiness.

While the above is the gist, don't adhere to it like computer code.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

I differ on your view of the protagonist.  Rather, my protagonist--if he can even be called that.

In point of fact, my "lead" is a plot twist.  He is not the story, in fact, he's told that in his life he's not even the star of his own story.  But if art is to mimic life, wouldn't that be the case for a number of people, even the interesting ones?

For example, it takes eight to twelve people in support roles to keep one soldier in the field.  Certainly they have stories.  In fact, the movie "Monument Men" is about such individuals.

We know guys like Custer, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and Audie Murphy, but even they wouldn't have any fame without hundreds of other heroes making an equally important contribution.

I feel so passionately about this that my eyes glaze over when I learn the lead is a "spec ops Mary Sue."  For example, a new TV show appeared called "Intelligence."  I had looked forward to the show due to its premise.  _While the opening credits rolled_ they defined the protagonist as America's most decorated spec ops soldier.  I switched over to an infomercial...

I've know a lot driven, heroic and selfless men in my day.  Most of them succeed at the cost of losing everything else.  And I mean big stuff, like wives, children, their fortunes and sobriety.  They die young, and surprisingly isolated.  Why we admire this ridiculous demographic baffles me.

Give me some hoe-handle with two strikes already against him and I'll show you a true hero.  I've seen guys at the gym weighing over 300 pounds, and then see them six months later at 185.  There's a man with courage, drive, ambition and abject ability to withstand a metric ton of pain.

Tell his story.  Or re-read The Hunger Games if true passion is beyond your interest.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> I differ on your view of the protagonist.  Rather, my protagonist--if he can even be called that.
> 
> In point of fact, my "lead" is a plot twist.  He is not the story, in fact, he's told that in his life he's not even the star of his own story.  But if art is to mimic life, wouldn't that be the case for a number of people, even the interesting ones?
> 
> ...



I kind of agree, but, also, feel that there is a danger of confusing the main character and the protagonist.

Moby Dick has Ishmael (the main character) and Captain Ahab (the protagonist).
To Kill a Mockingbird has Scout (the main character) and Atticus (the protagonist).

While a protagonist must be some combination of charismatic, competent, or cunning, they don't need to be Superman, but, rather, Batman  (i.e. measured by their motivation, not by anything innate).


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> While a protagonist must be some combination of charismatic, competent, or cunning, they don't need to be Superman, but, rather, Batman  (i.e. measured by their motivation, not by anything innate).



I'm with you 95% of the way.

The exception is "modern storytelling."  I think the last time the 'invincible hero' really worked was the movie "Mad Max."

If I had to define the modern crafting of a tale, I'd use the word "lazy."  It used to be that only bodice rippers had a formula, now everything does.

When the THG came out, one of my baristas--who looks like Katniss--dressed like her for a Halloween party.  I told her that I also sold ESEE survivalist arrowheads, and I got her a pack for a lark.  Get this, she posted them to her FaceBook page.  She never used them, experimented with them, shot them or had any real fun.  She used them as a modernist ornament.  That's an adjunct to how our stories are now crafted.

Say what you want Mary Sues, but frankly it's the new template.  There are themes in writing, but changing a "strong female lead with a bow" to a "strong female lead with a crossbow" is not creativity.  It's sloth.

BTW, I like Batman better.  It takes real hair to jump into a confrontation when bullets don't bounce off your chest...


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> BTW, I like Batman better.  It takes real hair to jump into a confrontation when bullets don't bounce off your chest...



Batman's concept can be applied here. 

Billionaire crime-fighter with a guilt complex (An internally conflicted, empathetic hero) , who wants to stop The Joker/The Scarecrow/Bane from attacking Gotham City/Rachel Dawes (with an important but difficult goal), but first has to learn to forgive himself for his parents' deaths (in a story that evokes emotional or spiritual change).


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Feb 5, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> *Review: Have an internally conflicted, empathetic protagonist with a visible goal to pursue, one that is both important and difficult to achieve because of an antagonist, in a story that evokes emotional or spiritual change.*



I really like this.  It's brilliant.  It's logical.  Now, forget about it.  And while you are at it, forget about that inciting incident in the first paragraph, the snappy opening line with a quirky little question that hooks the reader.  Forget about all the formulas promoted in all the 'how to' books because you really want to write something that doesn't fall into the formulaic, modern, commercial, pop lit structure.  

I love the logic of the entire Crafting the Story Concept post - I spend hours a day daydreaming about how it works, why it works, what is it about the human psyche that desires a certain tension / release... give / take... fantasy, escapism, fairy tale LIE which many of us satisfy with stories in books, on TV or at the Movies.  

I also spend hour after hour daydreaming about why so many stories that have been written over the years have become classics and why some that are being written today become bestsellers without following all those formulas.  Off the top of my head I'd say that The Life of Pi, The Art of Racing in the Rain, The Kite Runner and a lot of other don't follow many of the formulas ... nor do most classics since the styles have changed.  (yes, protagonist, antagonist, empathy, something at risk etc. but not the standard pop formula a la James Patterson)  

Maybe therein lay the universal truth.  That pornographic word / concept that makes me so nauseous as to upchuck the soles of my shoes.  STYLE.  FASHION.  Which is just another way of saying MARKETING.  (die all marketing execs....faster pussycat, Kill, kill, kill...die now!)    

I digress ... but you get the point.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> Batman's concept can be applied here.



On that we agree.

How is anyone supposed to identify, empathize and or model themselves after a cookie-cutter Mary Sue?  In fact, layering muscle onto a cardboard cut-out is the best way to dumb-down any treatise.  

The author's talent is inversely proportional to the physical stamina of his lead.  If the lead is a hulk it just shows me the writer is a midget.

It's in the telling, or to steal from the best, _"the play's the thing."_


----------



## Jeko (Feb 5, 2014)

> Readers feel the tension you describe when you break the rules of storytelling - when you do something that years of reading have trained them to not expect. When you merely break the rules of the world, there's no tension, and therefore no satisfaction.



I don't know why you're using The Hunger Games as an example when it is clearly successful and tension-filled. From the example you give, I should be disregarding your point. 

You may not have enjoyed many of the books that people find suspenseful and brilliant; same with me. This makes neither of us an authority on this matter. Rather, let the reader be the authority. If so many people liked The Hunger Games, Collins must have done something right.

Also, a 'rule change' within a story world is a common device for storytellers. I'd look it up.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I don't know why you're using The Hunger Games as an example when it is clearly successful and tension-filled.



Only with the proviso "if you are of a certain age."

I know stories and heroes from Hitchcock, from Fellini and the classics taught in school.  As stated, THG games--at best--is a chick-flick version of "The Running Man."

And you must remember, my love of literature spans over 50 years.  I always point of that I have clothes older than the book, in fact, older than Jennifer Lawrence.

Speaking of old, there's an old Sicilian adage I learned from my Aunt Clara, _"Don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs."_

It's an idiom, meaning we know more stuff than you do, so don't embarrass yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> The author's talent is inversely proportional to the physical stamina of his lead.  If the lead is a hulk it just shows me the writer is a midget.



Now you've got me intrigued at the possibility of creating a lead who is physically powerful, but mentally weak/stupid.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 5, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I don't know why you're using The Hunger Games as an example when it is clearly successful and tension-filled. From the example you give, I should be disregarding your point.



If you'd really like, I can have a private conversation with you about all the opportunities for suspense that were either shunned or outright rejected over the course of the book.



Cadence said:


> You may not have enjoyed many of the books that people find suspenseful and brilliant; same with me. This makes neither of us an authority on this matter. Rather, let the reader be the authority. If so many people liked The Hunger Games, Collins must have done something right.



People like Twilight.  People like Honey Boo Boo.  People like Bieber.

People have terrible taste.



Cadence said:


> Also, a 'rule change' within a story world is a common device for storytellers. I'd look it up.



I don't believe I ever said it was uncommon.  In fact, you can see right in the bit you quoted from me that my issue is in how common such devices are.  Still, I'll repeat it: Because rule changes are so common, there's no longer any tension associated with them.  You've come to expect not only that it will happen, but also that everything will still turn out alright regardless, and that destroys the whole point.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Now you've got me intrigued at the possibility of creating a lead who is physically powerful, but mentally weak/stupid.



I think the ship has sailed on that narrative.  There's a bargain bin at B&N full of them!  The covers are pretty.  Big muscular guys, naked to the waist, usually holding a 1911 pistol.

For some reason, I never think "manly men" when I see marketing like that.  Perhaps that's the point...


----------



## JamMau5 (Feb 5, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> If you'd really like, I can have a private conversation with you about all the opportunities for suspense that were either shunned or outright rejected over the course of the book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People have different tastes, not terrible. Just think about it from a philosophical standpoint. What are we but the universe experiencing itself through different lenses? I think that's what is happening here. Granted, I did not read these books, I watched the movies. I enjoyed them, despite being cliche. I did read Harry Potter and even gave Twilight and chance. There is a reason why these books are so popular and that is simply because everyone likes something different, so who we to say people have bad taste? That promotes definitions of what's good and what's not, people promoting their ideals over others. I'm a Philadelphia Eagles fan and I can't stand Dallas. But, I won't necessarily say fans of Dallas have bad tastes because they were born into a situation where that was more promoted. You could have easily, if born in different circumstances, like the Hunger Games.  It should be all encompassing, so I do agree that Collins had to do something right. I have to admit that I like some Bieber, Miley Cyrus, and other popular artists. I also listen to artists that don't receive as much attention. But there are certain concepts/ideals/patterns that we as humans (and this has been proven) are extremely attracted to, so they are repeated and repeated. Hunger Games is no different. I want to say that a great majority of the one-hit wonder/great songs over the past several decades follow the same basic patterns. Nothing wrong in following the trend and also nothing wrong in deviating from it.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I don't believe I ever said it was uncommon.  In fact, you can see right in the bit you quoted from me that my issue is in how common such devices are.  Still, I'll repeat it: Because rule changes are so common, there's no longer any tension associated with them.  You've come to expect not only that it will happen, but also that everything will still turn out alright regardless, and that destroys the whole point.



The opposite has been used to great effect.  The reader is given a situation in which there will be only a partial success unless a rule is broken.  The reader expects the rule to be broken.  The surprise is that the rule is not broken and the protagonist gets only partial success.  It can feel like an emotional sucker punch to the gut.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

JamMau5 said:


> who we to say people have bad taste? That promotes definitions of what's good and what's not, people promoting their ideals over others.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> There's a bargain bin at B&N full of them!  The covers are pretty.  Big muscular guys, naked to the waist, usually holding a 1911 pistol.



I don't know which books you're referring to, but I'd like to point out that many of those old protagonists (ex. Conan, John Carter, etc.) are unfairly described (by people who have little knowledge of them) in that way.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

JamMau5 said:


> You could have easily, if born in different circumstances, like the Hunger Games.



Yes, to a point, I agree.

But a fly thinks the inside of a vinegar bottle is the sweetest place if that's the only place he's ever been.  To boomers, even the Steve Reeves' Hercules movies had more depth, the same biting social comment, more intense action and far reaching moral lessons.  The idea of "sacrifice of self" was not created by Katniss.  I watched Steve Reeves rendition of his movie character pray on the rail of bridge to divest himself of his immortal half for the privilege of service.  That was 1958, I believe.

The last movie I saw was "I, Robot."  Now, my wife and my SIL got to the movies together every weekend, and they see all the popular releases.  They tell me I haven't missed a thing.

To the other extreme, I'm in a bookstore at least three to four times per week, even in the riding season.  From the best-seller table, to the "30% off" display, then onto the "any book for four dollars" corral and then sentenced to the "bargain bin" is usually about a three month span...

That's not literature, it's first degree murder of a tree.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 5, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> The opposite has been used to great effect.  The reader is given a situation in which there will be only a partial success unless a rule is broken.  The reader expects the rule to be broken.  The surprise is that the rule is not broken and the protagonist gets only partial success.  It can feel like an emotional sucker punch to the gut.



Absolutely, and that speaks to my point: Writing is most effective when it breaks the rules of STORYTELLING.  By breaking away from writing norms, you appeal to reality itself, which makes your story that much more immersive.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Absolutely, and that speaks to my point: Writing is most effective when it breaks the rules of STORYTELLING.



Now the hard part--how do sell that idea of continuing, evolving creativity?  

In all truth, I think if you started a thread entitled, "Creative stories with crafted plots and fully developed characters" you'd get more detractors than supporters.

One argument always gives way to money.  One pundit is bound to say, _"Well, what's your response to THG breaking the all time Saturday matinee record for foreign films in Lithuania using a three word title, heh, smart guy?!!!  It made over sixteen bucks..."_

Technically, I'm the world's tallest dwarf.

I'm almost to the point of joining the "can't fight city hall" crowd.  Heck, with some current slang, a crossbow and some torn jeans from The Buckle, I could make one of my ancillary females a Mary Sue mercenary.  Heck, I could e-mail a few paragraphs and *you* could do write it before morning coffee.

Swimming pools, movie stars.  I just don't want to do that kind of work.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 5, 2014)

My contention isn't with the ideas presented here. My contention centers around the fact that just because a writer meets all of the requirements, a good story it does not make.

I'm sure we can all agree with that.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> Now the hard part--how do sell that idea of continuing, evolving creativity?
> 
> In all truth, I think if you started a thread entitled, "Creative stories with crafted plots and fully developed characters" you'd get more detractors than supporters.
> 
> ...



I believe that it is the job of every artist to encode their message in a medium that the viewer will see it.

In other words, if viewers are all about emo protagonists who sparkle in sunlight or teenage protagonists armed with crossbows, then it is the job of the novelist to use that medium, but create something new and interesting out of it.

After all, how much talent does it really take to just write stories that no one is going to want to read?  Not much talent at all.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I believe that it is the job of every artist to encode their message in a medium that the viewer will see it.



In the abstract, I agree.

But let's be honest, there are enough good writers here to crank out a top notch YA collaboration.  I'll bet we could even make it riveting and a commercial success.  Would that make it "good"?

Take it out of the realm of writing, because most of us truly love the written word.  Most early katanas are museum pieces, almost priceless.  I can polish a 17 dollar Schrade SCHF14 and a chef can easily make quality sushi.  Hey--they both cut.

If you took all of the books I've read in my entire life, perhaps twenty were in the "very good" range.  Of those, less than ten moved me emotionally.  Only one changed my life.

I don't think people want that goal anymore, I believe it to be passe' and old school.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> In the abstract, I agree.
> 
> But let's be honest, there are enough good writers here to crank out a top notch YA collaboration.  I'll bet we could even make it riveting and a commercial success.  Would that make it "good"?
> 
> ...



The movie _Hostel _changed my life and made me afraid to go to that part of the world.  Does that mean it was a good movie?
The _Human Centipede_ changed my life by affirming that i don't want to watch a movie by Tom Six ever again.  Does that make it a good movie?
Stephen King's anti-organization books (anti-church in _Silver Bullet_, anti-government in _Firestarter_, anti-capitalism in _Needful Things_, etc.) was thrown into chaos when I learned that he's dedicated over a hundred thousand dollars to the Democratic party and made me suspicious of every author I've read after that.  Does that make him a good writer?


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 5, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> to the Democratic party and made me suspicious of every author I've read after that.  Does that make him a good writer?



Well, no, but I am going to nominate you for MENSA and canonization.  You're clearly a genius.

However, the things you mention are essentially what has moved me.  For example, I pretty much ignored every hippie sandal freak when I was in college.  However, viewing "Easy Rider" made me think about the changes in my country.

Is Peter Fonda better than Abbie Hoffman?  Well, one moved me, the other bored me.

Technically, I think you're blessed.  You had a palpable and visceral response to the art and statements of other creators.  Perhaps there were rough edges, but aren't you better for the experience of a wider perspective?


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 5, 2014)

> The movie _Hostel changed my life and made me afraid to go to that part of the world. Does that mean it was a good movie?_


_

_


> Technically, I think you're blessed. You had a palpable and visceral response to the art and statements of other creators. Perhaps there were rough edges, but aren't you better for the experience of a wider perspective?




"Better" because a movie - a work of fiction - made me irrationally fearful of a group of people based on where they live?  No.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> "Better" because a movie - a work of fiction - made me irrationally fearful of a group of people based on where they live?  No.



Very few of the truly worthwhile things in life--including love--are pain free.  They are life lessons, and you grow and prosper like ripping down muscle to let it heal stronger.

I carry hollowpoints, and their use will certainly bring me months of excruciating PTSD counseling.  But my wife and I will be alive.  Knowledge is always power, and you are better off knowing than prancing clueless in a world of predators.

I wish you peace.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 6, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> Very few of the truly worthwhile things in life--including love--are pain free.  They are life lessons, and you grow and prosper like ripping down muscle to let it heal stronger.
> 
> I carry hollowpoints, and their use will certainly bring me months of excruciating PTSD counseling.  But my wife and I will be alive.  Knowledge is always power, and you are better off knowing than prancing clueless in a world of predators.
> 
> I wish you peace.



How is becoming xenophobic comparable to building muscle?


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 6, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> How is becoming xenophobic comparable to building muscle?



I believe that what one man calls a stereotype another may call an "oral tradition."

As a younger man I was taught to be suspicious of any person or behavior that stands out from the norm.  Numerous police officers have foiled bank hold-ups because a number of guys were wearing long heavy coats on a hot August afternoon.  It's a classic.

But I look at it the other way.  No man need fear me.  He does what is expected of us all.  He is polite, he is peaceful, he does not jeopardize the safety and security of those who are weaker.

If he becomes problematic, I'll cut him out of my path like an errant weed.  

This applies to the self-entitled who come to my country and expect I'm going to stumble all over myself due to some misperceived slight.  If they had that much courage they should fight their native despots, not lecture me.

Like any muscle, rights atrophy when not used.  I have rights.  Loudmouths need to learn that.

As for being xenophobic, it doesn't really apply to me.  I love Lucy Lawless as an actor.  I have no fear of her...


----------



## Jeko (Feb 6, 2014)

> People like Twilight. People like Honey Boo Boo. People like Bieber.
> 
> People have terrible taste.



Those are the people you're selling to.



> I don't believe I ever said it was uncommon. In fact, you can see right in the bit you quoted from me that my issue is in how common such devices are. Still, I'll repeat it: Because rule changes are so common, there's no longer any tension associated with them. You've come to expect not only that it will happen, but also that everything will still turn out alright regardless, and that destroys the whole point.



I'm missing your logic. You're advocating that because something is successful and frequently accepted by agents, we shouldn't use it.

It's called a 'plot twist', and a rule change is a way of causing one. There is _no _evidence to prove that readers lose interest or immersion or suspense because of them. There is only evidence to the contrary.



> If you'd really like, I can have a private conversation with you about all the opportunities for suspense that were either shunned or outright rejected over the course of the book.



Cool. I wouldn't want it to clog up the thread. 

I'll make a different thread for the overarching issue.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 6, 2014)

Cadence said:


> It's called a 'plot twist', and a rule change is a way of causing one. There is _no _evidence to prove that readers lose interest or immersion or suspense because of them. There is only evidence to the contrary..



The career arc of M Night Shyamalan may be the evidence against plot twists


----------



## Jeko (Feb 6, 2014)

> The career arc of M Night Shyamalan may be the evidence against plot twists



Why would we want evidence against plot twists? People like them when they're successful. Writers do them to various degrees of success. That's all that matters.


----------

