History SoYouWantTo / WriteAStory

Finally, remember that list from up above? The 1) [[TheProtagonist protagonist]] who 2) [[MotivationIndex wants something]] and 3) [[{{Conflict}} can't get it]]? That's a great structure. But in [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXJxQ0NbFtk an episode]] of ''WebVideo/{{Tabletop}}'', Creator/JohnRogers listed it this way: 1) [[MotivationIndex What do they want]], 2) [[{{Conflict}} why can't they have it]], and 3) ''why do I give a [PrecisionFStrike]?'' We have plenty of tropes on the idea that the audience simply won't hook into your story, from the EightDeadlyWords to the AudienceAlienatingPremise, and it might be a good idea to review them. You could be the finest writer in history, but that won't help you if your audience gives up after the first paragraph because what you're writing about is objectionable, poorly communicated or irrelevant. The idea cannot be interesting to only you; it has to be made interesting to ''everyone''.

We have built a myth, in Western culture, about creativity. You see it applied not just to fiction but to all artistic endeavours: musicianship, painting, sculpting, dancing, etc. The myth is this: "A {{True Art}}ist is BornLucky." All the great Creators in human history, from Creator/WilliamShakespeare to Creator/VincentVanGogh to Music/TheBeatles to Music/LudwigVanBeethoven to Creator/StevenSpielberg to Music/ArethaFranklin to Creator/MerylStreep to Creator/BabeRuth to LetsPlay/PewDiePie, are treated the same way by this myth: They have something we {{muggles}} don't. And, perhaps more importantly, they have something we muggles ''can't have''. There is some elemental, fundamental difference, some genius -- some, what's the word, ''talent'' -- that you simply must have if you are going to be good at your craft; and since the rest of us don't have it, it's hopeless for us. We can never be as good as they are. Ever. Period.

!!'''Authorial Perseverence'''

!!'''Authorial Confidence'''

There are story ideas, story kernels, plot bunnies, that fill a person with excitement. "This is a really cool idea!," the consumer exclaims, "a story about having to ScrewDestiny after you're cursed with an unjust fate by a callous and uncaring system!" And then there are stories that sound, well, boring and pedestrian: "Once upon a time, a man and a woman fell in love, but the boat they were on sunk and the man died. The end." Which of those ideas, do you think, was a staggering financial success? Well, the first one is ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyXIII'', one of the worst-reviewed games in its franchise; the other was the first film to ever gross more than $1 billion at the box office: ''Film/{{Titanic}}''. How could this be? It seems like a no-brainer that the first story would blow past expectations, while the second... well, it's so ''pedestrian''. Where's the action? Where's the adventure? Where's the excitement? ''It's a love story on a boat!''

There are story ideas, story kernels, plot bunnies, that fill a person with excitement. "This is a really cool idea!," the consumer exclaims, "a story about having to ScrewDestiny after you're cursed with an unjust fate by a callous and uncaring system!" And then there are stories that sound, well, boring and pedestrian: "Once upon a time, a man and a woman fell in love, but the boat they were on sunk and the man died. The end." Which of those ideas, do you think, was a staggering financial success? Well, the first one is ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyXIII'', one of the worst-reviewed games in its franchise; the other set profit records and, to this day, is still one of only two movies to have grossed more than $2 billion: ''Film/{{Titanic}}''. How could this be? It seems like a no-brainer that the first story would blow past expectations, while the second... well, it's so ''pedestrian''. Where's the action? Where's the adventure? Where's the excitement? It's a love story on a boat!

The answer lies in ''how'' the stories were told. The answer lies in ''execution''. The answer lies in the fact that, to a certain extent, ''how'' you tell a story is more important than what the contents of that story actually are.

The extent is not large. The RomanceArc is fundamentally interesting to most human beings, because romantic love is something most human beings can relate to. Now, a fight against an unjust system is also interesting... but at that point, a lot depends on the nature of the system being fought ''against'', and ''[=FF13=]'' had some problems following ShowDontTell with regards to those details. Both had good stories to tell, but one work just did a better job of telling it.

If you keep at it, you'll inevitably start to work out the kinks until it becomes something worth reading, and then keep going until it becomes something worth telling other people to read. Again, every published author started this way. ''Every'' author was bad when they started. The successful ones just kept doing it anyway, until they weren't bad at it anymore.

When The Reader starts reading your story -- when The Consumer starts consuming your story, via whatever medium it's being told in (television, VisualNovel, movie, video game, etc) -- they are looking for a number of things. Solid CharacterizationTropes; consistent world-building and BackStory; a limited level of AuthorFilibuster; proper {{Foreshadowing}}; avoiding UnfortunateNames; even technical things like avoidance of WantonCrueltyToTheCommonComma and RougeAnglesOfSatin. They are using all these things to make one simple judgment: "Does this author know what s/he is doing? They're about to throw me on a journey that will probably take hours; do I trust them to catch me at the end? Is this story a good idea, or a waste of time?" The need to answer this question -- to make accurate judgments about the quality of a work of fiction, without doing it the hard way (IE consuming it) -- is why we have reviewers and critics like Creator/RogerEbert. It's literally the foundation of the entire metafiction industry.

Now, there's no accounting for taste. One person's IntrepidReporter is another person's MarySue. (Look at how the main characters of ''Literature/TheMillenniumTrilogy'' were written after a ReplacementGoldfish picked up the series following AuthorExistenceFailure.) But whatever you're doing, as an author, you have to be good at it. You have to give signals that your story will be about something, and then follow through on that promise. You have to demonstrate that you know enough about the world to be worth listening to. If you don't... well, there's a lot of other stories in the sea for your would-be consumers to consume instead. Better figure out how to have what they do.

Let's take an example. Let's say you have a heroic man who is good at what he does, but wants to be more. Additionally, he's blind to his own limitations. So he bulls his way into a position of power he's not ready for and ends up ruining everything. Does this plot belong in a {{tragedy}} or a farcical {{comedy}}?

The answer is that it literally depends on whether you have a LaughTrack or not. The plot just described is the story of a ''lot'' of sitcoms (''Series/TheOfficeUS'', ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'', about half the episodes of ''Series/{{Frasier}}'')... and is also a very accurate, if somewhat generalized, summary of two of the greatest tragedies of all time, Creator/WilliamShakespeare[='s=] ''Theatre/{{Macbeth}}'' and ''Theatre/{{Hamlet}}''. (In the former, the out-of-place man is the MainCharacter; the BigBad in the latter.) The only difference -- the ''only'' difference -- is whether the audience is supposed to laugh at it or not. The only difference is in how the story is meant to be perceived. The only difference is tone.

# They want to be comforted and reassured. This can be as benign as affirming RousseauWasRight or as dramatic as redefining a vice as a virtue (Ayn Rand's ''Literature/AtlasShrugged'', certain AuthorTracts). This sort of story exists to tell the consumer that they are ''right'' -- to reaffirm their values and congratulate them for making choices the author approves of.

We can actually take both of these straight back to one of the most famous and influential works of fiction, Literature/TheBible. Check out the picture of ''Film/{{Dogma}}''[='s=] "Buddy Christ" on the JesusWasWayCool trope page -- "He didn't come here to give us the willies! He came here to help us out!" This is certainly a valid interpretation of what Christ (says he) set out to do. But then in Matthew, the first of Literature/TheFourGospels, we have that immortal line, "[[GoodIsNotNice I come not to bring peace, but a sword]]," implying that Christ's mission is less about spreading comfort and more about upsetting the status quo -- which, again, is a valid interpretation of what Christ (says he) set out to do, and was backed up by action (railing against the parties who held political power, spending lots of time with people who those parties discriminated against, etc).

Also, you may hear that TrueArt is [[TrueArtIsAngsty angsty]], [[TrueArtIsIncomprehensible incomprehensible]], offensive and such - take this with a pinch of salt. Whilst it is true that great stories have been told in ways that can be painful, complex or challenging to our core beliefs, true art often cannot be summed up so simplistically, and it is often a sign of a certain degree of pretentiousness when people insist that art is 'only' one thing or another. Great art can just as often be optimistic, simple and inoffensive - and the greatest works of art generally tend to acknowledge both sides.

Finally, remember that list from up above? 1) A [[TheProtagonist protagonist]] who [[MotivationIndex wants something]] and [[{{Conflict}} can't get it]]? Other people list it this way: 1) [[MotivationIndex What do they want]], 2) [[{{Conflict}} why can't they have it]], and 3) ''why do I, the consumer, give a [PrecisionFStrike]?'' We have plenty of tropes on the idea that the audience simply won't hook into your story, from the EightDeadlyWords to the AudienceAlienatingPremise, and it might be a good idea to review them. You could be the finest writer in history, but that won't help you if your audience gives up after the first paragraph because what you're writing about is objectionable, poorly communicated or irrelevant. The idea cannot be interesting to only you; it has to be made interesting to ''everyone''.

The point here is simply to say that, as a beginning author, you should not worry if the idea for your story seems mundane. You're not here to sell an idea; you're here to tell a ''story''. And the way you tell it can make all the difference.

The extent is not large. The RomanceArc is fundamentally interesting to most human beings, because romantic love is something most human beings can relate to. Now, a fight against an unjust system is also interesting... but at that point, a lot depends on the nature of the system being fought ''against'', and ''{=FF13=}'' had some problems following ShowDontTell with regards to those details. Both had good stories to tell, but one work just did a better job of telling it.

* Are the clothes really representative/appropriate/useful for my character, or I just cramming any kind of AuthorAppeal on them?

!! A Foreword
No story ever springs from the writer's pen fully formed and in perfect condition. '''''Do not let that stop you.''''' You're gonna start with stupid ideas, shallow characters, pointless conversations, and in general the kind of writing you would give your eyes and teeth to make sure no one ever sees. That's fine; the truth is that every published author, every titan of literature, even the "geniuses", started this way. (And succeeded at making sure nobody ever saw their early crap, too!)

If you keep at it, you'll inevitably start to work out the kinks until it becomes something worth reading, and then keep going until it becomes something worth telling other people to read. Again, every published author started this way. ''Every'' author was bad when they started. The successful ones just kept doing it anyway, until they weren't bad at it anymore.

The same is true of individual stories, not just an overall body of work. ''Keep writing'', even if it feels like you're going nowhere. It's much easier to polish a turd than it is to polish nothing at all; and, believe it or not, there is much to be learned from turd-polishing.

Perseverance is far more important than perfection.

But don't take our word for it: ''WebAnimation/ExtraCredits'' has some inspirational thoughts for you right over [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjrOaoHz9s here]].
----

Let's take an example. Let's say you have a heroic man who is good at what he does, but wants to be more. Additionally, he's blind to his own limitations. So he bulls his way into a position of power he's not ready for and ends up ruining everything. Does this plot belong in a {{tragedy}} or a {{sitcom}}?

The answer is that it literally depends on whether you have a LaughTrack or not. The plot just described is the story of a ''lot'' of sitcoms (''Series/TheOfficeUS'', ''Series/TheSimpsons'', about half the episodes of ''Series/{{Frasier}}'')... and is also a very accurate, if somewhat generalized, summary of one of the greatest tragedies of all time, Creator/WilliamShakespeare[='s=] ''Theatre/{{Macbeth}}''. The only difference -- the ''only'' difference -- is whether the audience is supposed to laugh at it or not.

So let's take a look at what you might decide, and how to implement that decision.

We started with this distinction between Comedy and Drama, and nowadays some of the strongest series are Dramedies, drama with a strong sense of comedy, the two forces working together, waxing and waning as appropriate to the story of the moment. Still, it's a good idea to know which one of them you plan to focus on, especially since you can exaggerate either of them, from absurd surrealism to unrelenting {{grimdark}} bleakness.

We can actually take both of these straight back to one of the most famous and influential works of fiction, Literature/TheBible. Check out the picture of ''Film/{{Dogma}}''[='s=] "Buddy Christ" on the JesusWasWayCool trope page -- "He didn't come here to give us the willies! He came here to help us out!" This is certainly a valid interpretation of what Christ (says he) set out to do. But then in Matthew, the first of Literature/TheFourGospels, we have that immortal line, "[[GoodIsNotNice I come not to bring peace, but a sword]]," implying that Christ's mission is less about spreading comfort and more about upsetting the status quo -- which, again, was not just an InformedAttribute but was backed up by action (railing against the parties who held political power, spending lots of time with people who those parties discriminated against, etc).

The trip up is, of course, this is a balancing act. Under do it, and your readers will have no idea of setting at all. [[SceneryPorn Over do it]], and other things suffer. And this balance is different depending on the story-- sometimes, simply saying your two characters are in a small room is enough. Other times, to properly set up a thwarted [[AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs storming the castle]], you may need the ChekhovsGun of the super cool defense set up in the first chapter. Then you need to decide how much of a surprise you want it to be.

Another issue is one a lot of writers miss. Even if you supposedly set your story in "our" world, [[RealityIsUnrealistic you often end up bending things]] to suit the narrative. You never truly set your story in reality. The Chicago in Literature/TheDresdenFiles isn't real; neither is the LA in VideoGame/BlackDahlia.

The UsefulNotes/WritersResources page collects links to writing communities, articles, market information, resource collections, and more.

Now, there's no accounting for taste. One person's IntrepidReporter is another person's MarySue. (Look at how the main characters of ''Literature/TheMilleniumTrilogy'' were written after a ReplacementGoldfish picked up the series following AuthorExistenceFailure.) But whatever you're doing, as an author, you have to be good at it. You have to give signals that your story will be about something, and then follow through on that promise. You have to demonstrate that you know enough about the world to be worth listening to. If you don't... well, there's a lot of other stories in the sea for your would-be consumers to consume instead. Better figure out how to have what they do.

Now, there's no accounting for taste. One person's IntrepidReporter is another person's MarySue. (Look at how the main characters of ''TheMilleniumTrilogy'' were written after a ReplacementGoldfish picked up the series following AuthorExistenceFailure.) But whatever you're doing, as an author, you have to be good at it. You have to give signals that your story will be about something, and then follow through on that promise. You have to demonstrate that you know enough about the world to be worth listening to. If you don't... well, there's a lot of other stories in the sea for your would-be consumers to consume instead. Better figure out how to have what they do.

Where you want to fall on this scale -- on either scale -- is really up to you. There is no "right" way to write a story; ''Series/GameOfThrones'' is one of the most popular works of fiction in recent memory because it challenges its audience, but shed a sizeable population of viewers who weren't looking for anything more than {{escapism}}. ''Film/Transformers'' is one of the most lucrative works of fiction in recent memory, but shed a sizeable population of viewers who found its ''excessive'' escapism boring and unstimulating. ''There is no right answer to this question''. There is only the right answer for ''you'', the kind of story ''you'' want to write. Figure it out, and tailor your tone accordingly.

And that ''that'' tells us is that it isn't really a Sliding Scale; the two are actually independent. A story can be both comforting ''and'' challenging, and some of history's greatest works have in fact accomplished both. (''Literature/HarryPotter'', for instance, contains both the comforting moral that love is stronger than death, but also the frightening reminder that choices matter.) Likewise, a story can do ''neither'', if it's written poorly enough (the infamous trainwreck of a FanFic ''FanFic/MyImmortal'' being a good example).

We can actually take both of these straight back to one of the most famous and influential works of fiction, Literature/TheBible. Check out the picture of ''Film/Dogma''[='s=] "Buddy Christ" on the JesusWasWayCool trope page -- "He didn't come here to give us the willies! He came here to help us out!" This is certainly a valid interpretation of what Christ (says he) set out to do. But then in Matthew, the first of Literature/TheFourGospels, we have that immortal line, "[[GoodIsNotNice I come not to bring peace, but a sword]]," implying that Christ's mission is less about spreading comfort and more about upsetting the status quo -- which, again, was not just an InformedAttribute but was backed up by action (railing against the parties who held political power, spending lots of time with people who those parties discriminated against, etc).

!! A Foreward

-->''When you write a story, don't make it boring.''

There are works of fiction that are meant to shock a society to its very core, to make its viewers question their values and whether they should hold them anymore. And then there are works that are meant to act like a cup of hot cocoa: soothing, reassuring and even escapist-oriented. You should decide which of these you want to focus on, as it's difficult to do both at once.

'''A quick word:''' No story ever springs from the writer's pen fully formed and in perfect condition. '''''Do not let that stop you.''''' You're gonna start with stupid ideas, shallow characters, pointless conversations, and in general the kind of writing you would give your eyes and teeth to make sure no one ever sees. But if you keep at it, you're going to work out the kinks until it becomes something worth reading, and then keep going until it becomes something worth telling other people to read. Perseverance is far more important than perfection.

But don't take our word for it: ''WebAnimation/ExtraCredits'' has some inspirational thoughts for you right over [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjrOaoHz9s here]].
----

The SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism: Where do you stand?

The SlidingScaleOfSillinessVersusSeriousness: Where do you stand?

We started with this distinction between Comedy and Drama, and nowadays some of the strongest series are Dramedies, drama with a strong sense of comedy, the two forces working together, waxing and waning as appropriate to the story of the moment.

Number of characters? Number of locations?

Some of the greatest classics have drummed up a cast of [[LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters dozens, even hundreds of characters]], and ranged over a world almost as intricate and detailed as our own. That said: Don't bite off more than you can chew. It's best, in the beginning, to work with only a few major characters - perhaps half a dozen mains, half a dozen minors. By choosing a judicious [[CastCalculus number of characters]] that suits a (compact) plot, you can avoid a scattered tale with a dozen dangling plots that never seems to tie down all the loose ends.

Many themes and tropes can be subverted in interesting ways. One of the most common forms is the {{Deconstruction}}, which is about analyzing the themes and how they would play out with if ''painfully'' realistic consequences were applied. Another good tool is to add HiddenDepths to seemingly archetypal characters.

Whatever theme you can do can be subverted in either way. The most common form to do that is the {{Deconstruction}}, analysing the theme and dissect it until the last consequences. Another way to do this is by adding HiddenDepths to seemingly archetypal characters.

Finally, remember that list from up above? 1) A [[The Protagonist protagonist]] who [[MotivationIndex wants something]] and [[{{Conflict}} can't get it]]? Other people list it this way: 1) [[MotivationIndex What do they want]], 2) [[{{Conflict}} why can't they have it]], and 3) ''why do I, the consumer, give a (PrecisionFStrike)?'' We have plenty of tropes on the idea that the audience simply won't hook into your story, from the EightDeadlyWords to the AudienceAlienatingPremise, and it might be a good idea to review them. You could be the finest writer in history, but that won't help you if your audience gives up after the first paragraph because what you're writing about is objectionable, poorly communicated or irrelevant. The idea cannot be interesting to only you; it has to be made interesting to ''everyone''.

'''A quick word:''' No story ever springs from the writer's pen fully formed and in perfect condition. '''''Do not let that stop you.''''' You're gonna start with stupid ideas, shallow characters, pointless conversations, and in general the kind of writing you would give your eyeteeth to make sure no one ever sees. But if you keep at it, you're going to work out the kinks until it becomes something worth reading, and then keep going until it becomes something worth telling other people to read. Perseverance is far more important than perfection.

But don't take our word for it: ''ExtraCredits'' has some inspirational thoughts for you right over [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjrOaoHz9s here]].

Notice how the time you need to read through that sentence is much longer than the actual actions it describes. A text is linear (you can only read one word at a time) while a motion picture is holistic (you notice or can notice many details at once), therefore, just like with the clothes and appearances, avoid describing in great detail each move that a character makes in your book because it simply won't be as interesting as in the movies.

Just search any Literature Classics section in the bookstore/library, or ask the old man under the bridge who sells second-hand books.

Aside from picking up plots at random, you can start with an archetypal plot and go from there. Christopher Booker's ''TheSevenBasicPlots'' outlines, well, seven archetypes, from TheQuest to classic monster-slaying to RagsToRiches to [[StartOfDarkness Tragedy]] and even Rebirth (the Tragedy plus a HeelFaceTurn in time for it to matter). There are others who classify the archetypal plots in [[MasterPlots different ways]] and with different numbers, from two (every story is about Love or Death) to 42 or even more.

But don't take my word for it: ''ExtraCredits'' has some inspirational thoughts for you right over [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjrOaoHz9s here]].

* '''[[AnimalStereotypes Animals]]:''' Each major character gets an animal "totem" that shows off the basic feel of the character. ''ElfQuest'' did this with Cutter, Leetah, Skywise, and Rayek: a bantam rooster, a cat, a fox, and a snake. But this was never the be-all and end-all of their characters; even Rayek, despite going fairly dark in many places, was never ''merely'' the "[[SmugSnake snake]]" of the series.