History SoYouWantTo / WriteAStory

* '''[[ColorCodedCharacters Colors]]:''' Each character gets a color, which usually informs some aspect of their personality. White might indicate an AllLovingHero, yellow TheDitz, pink TheChick (or perhaps [[RealMenWearPink a more macho type]]), [[ChromaticArrangement blue]] TheSmartGuy and red TheLancer, green or brown the guy who's close to nature, silver TheDragon, etc., etc., etc. There are plenty of ways to play with this (offhand: why is purple listed under villains or at best neutral?), so don't be tied down to what others have done just because others have done it.

Be aware of your themes. Some authors believe you don't need them; Dan Benioff, co-showrunner of the hit HBO series ''Series/GameOfThrones'', once remarked, "[[https://grantland.com/features/the-return-hbo-game-thrones/ Themes are for eighth-grade book reports]]." The part he overlooked is that almost all works ''have'' themes. The story's "subject" is what its plot and character revolves around: The Protagonist wants something and has trouble getting it. The story's ''theme'' lies in what you, The Author, ''think'' about the subject. And this happens almost inevitably, because most stories end up being about some of the biggest questions of human life: [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice How much is romantic love worth]]? [[ComicBook/XMen Who counts as human, and why]]? [[Film/CitizenKane Can money buy happiness]]? [[Series/TheSopranos What do we do if the old ways don't work]]? Because you are a normal human, you probably have opinions on these questions. Because you are a normal human, some of those opinions will inevitably seep into the story. You are writing a theme into the story ''whether you intend to or not''. With that in mind, you'll probably want to do it consciously. If not, you can end up with something like... the ending of ''Game of Thrones'', where the themes that had been built up for eight years were ignored, and which was lambasted by critics and audiences alike for that very reason.

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 RealLife. 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, something even experienced authors have trouble with.

If you don't believe us, try writing down the highway ChaseScene from ''[[Film/TheMatrix Matrix Reloaded]]'' in literary language ''and'' maintaining the dramatic tension. If you succeed, you are either an experienced thriller novel writer or a literary genius, and either way this article can't help you -- you should be ''writing'' it, not reading it. (So get cracking! The Edit button's at the top of the page.)

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 those stories do.

# They want to be taught and challenged. This can be as benign as having AnAesop at the end of the story, or as dramatic as attacking the status quo directly (Upton Sinclair's ''Literature/TheJungle'', anything on SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped). This sort of story exists to tell the consumer that they are wrong -- to get them to question their values and whether they are truly living the life they want to.

Finally, consider theme. Many stories have AnAesop, and are "about" something. (This is not necessarily a bad thing; Administrivia/TropesAreTools.) If your story has a theme, consider how your characters relate ''to'' that theme, and express that theme. Example: ''Film/AmericanBeauty'' is about people trying to find the freedom to [[BeYourself Be Themselves]] in an oppresive, cookie-cutter suburbia; therefore, every character in the film is in some stage of that struggle. An obvious choice, but it makes said theme easier to catch on to without resorting to [[{{Anvilicious}} anvils]].

!!'''Perseverence'''

If you want to learn how to write, the truth is that ''you can''. How do you do it? As mentioned under Perseverence, it's simply about just doing it over, and over, and over again, and spending time being bad at it until you stop being bad at it. As mentioned under Perseverence, every person who ever got successful at what they do -- including all of the above Creators -- spent time being bad at what they did; the only difference is that they didn't give up just because they were bad, the way -- if we're employing BrutalHonesty -- most of us do. And the truth is that Perseverence is the second-most most important indicator of success. How do you get good? ''By getting good'' -- by putting your nose to the grindstone and doing the goddamn ''work''.

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 waste of my 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 an entire ''industry'', ranging from book reviews in magazines and newspapers to podcasts streamed over the internet.

Another tactic: Design your main character and center your story around what he or she does. Just remember: A plot happens when someone ''wants something badly'' and ''is having trouble getting it''. If Bob, your hero, wants a job at a nearby Pizza Hut, make him ''really'' want it, and let us in on the reason he does. Maybe he's desperate for money. Maybe the girl of his dreams works there too. Maybe he needs a job, any job, before his great-uncle shows up and drags him off to something worse (or his parents send him to That Camp). But if he really doesn't care whether or not he gets the job, we're not going to care either. And if he just walks in and applies, and they accept him on the spot, then maybe the job turns out to be [[BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor not all he dreamed of]]. Otherwise, if he gets his wishes immediately ... what was the story again?

!! Multiple Geneses
While Wiki/TVTropes typically describes stories as having a single, linear plot, multiple authors have spoken out about the fact that their best stories (or at least the ones that they're most proud of) were born of a fusion between two disparate ideas.
* Creator/OrsonScottCard was reading about {{Child Soldier}}s in the UsefulNotes/AmericanCivilWar, and wondering about what it was like to be such a person. He was also conducting thought experiments on how one would train infantry for combat in deep space, eventually arriving at the idea of zero-G laser tag. The resulting story, ''Literature/EndersGame'', combined the two.
* Creator/StephenKing had the idea of a girl who gets bullied by her classmates when she has her first period and [[MissConception doesn't know what it means]]... and also doesn't realize that her PsychicPowers have awakened as well. He combined this with curiosity over someone he had known in school, and of what her mother must have been like. ''Literature/{{Carrie}}'' combines the burgeoning psychic with MyBelovedSmother.
* Creator/JMichaelStraczynski was juggling two ideas: one for a space station that served as a trade hub, and the other for a massive war between good and evil. When he realized they were flip sides of the same story, he was able to write out the entire storyline of ''Series/Babylon5'', the first use of MythArc in American television and one of a ''very'' small number of American science-fiction shows to hold their own against ''Franchise/StarTrek''.

In general, you want your story to have more than one idea going into it.

What is the most important skill a good writer has? Ability to read. A lot. And more. Figure out what genre the story you're telling is, then go read what successful authors in that genre wrote. Then see if you can figure out how they did hat and what they did. How did they explain things? How did they create characters? What were the characters' motivations? What was the plot? etc. Then try to learn to do that. Then figure out how you can do it differently. With practice in writing, you'll get as good, perhaps even better. Then you'll actually be proud of your work and be willing (and probably eager) to have others read it.

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!)

While TVTropes typically describes stories as having a single, linear plot, multiple authors have spoken out about the fact that their best stories (or at least the ones that they're most proud of) were born of a fusion between two disparate ideas.

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; in the latter, he's the BigBad.) 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.

If you want to avoid these problems, the recommendation is not avoiding physical descriptions entirely, but instead characterize with few elements. In fiction, a character's actions and attitudes shape their appearance; if you have a character do an evil thing and then touch their facial hair, The Reader will automatically picture a Snidely-Whiplash mustachio or a BeardOfEvil. This goes for positive / good-guy characters too: you can have a character be a nice person and then let The Reader's imagination do the rest. Seriously, who's better at envisioning a character The Reader finds attractive: you or The Reader? So, give only the pertinent details, avoiding [[PurpleProse purpley]] [[HypocriticalHumor adjectivation]], and then leave it alone. It's better if your readers have their own mental images. Let them ''be'' the Casting Director.

Nothing is bigger and better than seeing a veteran get an ovation,\\
Or seeing a brilliant beginner freak out when they win on their first nomination.\\
There's a kid in the middle of nowhere who’s sitting there living for Tony performances, singing and\\

‘cuz I promise you: All of us up here tonight?\\
'''''We were that kid.'''''

Of course, that opens up a question: does "talent" even exist? And the answer is that it does... but its role in the creative process is misunderstood. "Talent" is perhaps best understood as "natural aptitude". If you and Music/WolfgangAmadeusMozart were put in a room, side by side, allowed to touch a harpsichord for the first time, and given an hour to explore, it is safe to say that, at the end of the hour, both of you would have gained some ExperiencePoints and would be better at playing harpsichord than you were before. But ''how much'' better? That's where talent comes in. Mozart has more talent at music than you, so he'll get better, faster... Assuming he doesn't get distracted by [[ManChild a bunch of toy soldiers]] -- which, history tell us, he was ''quite'' wont to do. Talent is a ''ScoreMultiplier''. Do you want the best multiplier you can get? Yes, absolutely... but it's only meaningful if there's any underlying points for it to multiply. It's only meaningful, in other words, if you put your nose to the grindstone and do the goddamn ''work''.

If you don't give ''any'' description of clothing, then people will assume the character is clothed in a manner that makes sense for the time, place, and the reactions of those who interact with the character. (Don't worry, they won't assume he's naked unless he's at a nudist colony.) If your character is a caveman, a pioneer, a sailor, a pirate, an astronaut, a bank teller, a [[CorruptCorporateExecutive CEO]], a surgeon, a journalist, a harried mother... each of these carries with it some [[TropesAreNotBad stereotype]] that makes you think of a certain level of clothing. You probably saw the CEO in a business suit - that's good. But since we ''do'' make assumptions about the visuals, you as the writer have the chance to toy with us a bit, subverting our expectations in a fun or dramatic fashion.

Finally, consider theme. Many stories have AnAesop, and are "about" something. (This is not necessarily a bad thing; TropesAreTools.) If your story has a theme, consider how your characters relate ''to'' that theme, and express that theme. Example: ''Film/AmericanBeauty'' is about people trying to find the freedom to [[BeYourself Be Themselves]] in an oppresive, cookie-cutter suburbia; therefore, every character in the film is in some stage of that struggle. An obvious choice, but it makes said theme easier to catch on to without resorting to [[{{Anvilicious}} anvils]].

Do you love writing? Are you willing to keep doing it until you're good at it? Congratulations: you have all the qualities necessary to become a published author. Talent is only a MagicFeather.

-->"And one of the most important things I believe is that if we love something and have even an inch of aptitude, we can become successful at it because our love for the work will sustain us through the hard times required to get good enough at it to earn a living."
-->--Creator/JMichaelStraczynski, ''Becoming Superman''

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 -- reading everything they could get their hands on, writing whatever struck their fancy, experimenting with this outlandish thing or that -- until one day they woke up and discovered that, somewhere along the ''thousands'' of hours they had sunk into this hobby, they had gained enough ExperiencePoints to stop being bad.

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, and doing it and doing it and doing it until one day they woke up and discovered that, somewhere along the ''thousands'' of hours they had sunk into this hobby, they had stopped being bad.

If you want to learn how to write, the truth is that ''you can''. How do you do it? As mentioned under Perseverence, it's simply about just doing it over, and over, and over again, and spending time being bad at it until you stop being bad at it. As mentioned under Perseverence, every person who ever got successful at what they do -- including all of the above Creators -- spent time being bad at what they did; the only difference is that they didn't give up because they were bad, the way (to be perfectly blunt) most of us do. And the truth is that Perseverence is the second-most most important indicator of success. How do you get good? ''By getting good'' -- by putting your nose to the grindstone and doing the goddamn ''work''.

Of course, that opens up a question: does "talent" even exist? And the answer is that it does... but its role in the creative process is misunderstood. "Talent" is perhaps best understood as "natural aptitude". If you and Music/WolfgangAmadeusMozart were put in a room, side by side, allowed to touch a harpsichord for the first time, and given an hour to explore, it is safe to say that, at the end of the hour, both of you will be better at playing harpsichord than you were before. But ''how much'' better? That's where talent comes in. Mozart has more talent at music than you, so he'll get better, faster... Assuming he doesn't get distracted by [[ManChild a bunch of toy soldiers]] (which, history tell us, he is ''quite'' wont to do). Talent is a ''ScoreMultiplier''. Do you want the best multiplier you can get? Yes, absolutely... but it's only meaningful if there's any underlying effort for it to multiply. It's only meaningful, in other words, if you put your nose to the grindstone and do the goddamn ''work''.

Now, this does raise a second question: "If I don't have as much talent as Mozart or whoever, is it ''worth the effort'' to get as good as he did? -- seeing as how it'll take me three, four, five times longer (at which point I have quite possibly exceeded the limits of my own natural lifespan)." And the answer to that is that, well, ItsUpToYou. Here are the facts: Despite what the United States of America would have us believe, all people are ''not'' created equal; each of us has talents in different areas. Is it better for you to focus on the things you have more talent in? Arguably, yes. It'd certainly be more efficient. But here are more facts: You don't have to be The Greatest Of All Time for it to be worth the effort. If it makes you happy, then it's worth it. End of story.

Do you love writing? Are you willing to keep doing it until you're good at it? Congratulations: you have the qualities necessary to become a published author. Talent is only a MagicFeather.

Be aware of your themes. Some authors believe you don't need them; Dan Benioff, co-showrunner of the hit HBO series ''Series/GameOfThrones'', once remarked, "[[https://grantland.com/features/the-return-hbo-game-thrones/ Themes are for eighth-grade book reports]]." The part he overlooked is that almost all works ''have'' themes. The story's "subject" is what its plot and character revolves around: The Protagonist wants something and has trouble getting it. The story's ''theme'' lies in what you, The Author, ''think'' about the subject. And this happens almost inevitably, because most stories end up being about some of the biggest questions of human life: [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice How much is romantic love worth]]? [[ComicBook/XMen Who counts as human, and why]]? [[Film/CitizenKane Can money buy happiness]]? [[Series/TheSopranos What do we do if the old ways don't work]]? Because you are a normal human, you porbably have opinions on these questions. Because you are a normal human, some of those opinions will inevitably seep into the story. You are writing a theme into the story ''whether you intend to or not''. With that in mind, you'll probably want to do it consciously. If not, you can end up with something like... the ending of ''Game of Thrones'', where the themes that had been built up for eight years were ignored, and which was lambasted by critics and audiences alike for that very reason.

Now, this does raise a second question: "If I don't have as much talent as Mozart or whoever, is it ''worth the effort'' to get as good as he did? -- seeing as how it'll take me three, four, five times longer (at which point I have quite possibly exceeded the limits of my own natural lifespan)." And the answer to that is that, well, ItsUpToYou. Here are the facts: Despite what the United States of America would have us believe, all people are ''not'' created equal; each of us has talents in different areas. Is it better for you to focus on the things you have more talent in? Arguably, yes. It'd certainly be more efficient. But here are more facts: You don't have to be as good as The Greatest Of All Time for it to be worth the effort. If you're enjoying yourself and doing the work makes you happy, ''keep doing it!''

Do you love writing? Are you willing to keep doing it until you're good at it? Congratulations: you have the qualities necessary to become a published author? Talent is only a MagicFeather.

# 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 which (the author believes) are good.

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, directly attacking capitalists, etc).

Be aware of your themes. Some authors believe you don't need them; Dan Benioff, co-showrunner of the hit HBO series ''Series/GameOfThrones'', once remarked, "[[https://grantland.com/features/the-return-hbo-game-thrones/ Themes are for eighth-grade book reports]]." The part he overlooked is that almost all works ''have'' themes. The story's "subject" is what its plot and character revolves around: The Protagonist wants something and has trouble getting it. The story's ''theme'' lies in what you, The Author, ''think'' about the subject. And this happens almost inevitably, because most stories end up being about some of the biggest questions of human life: [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice How much is romantic love worth]]? [[ComicBook/XMen Who counts as human, and why]]? [[Film/CitizenKane Can money buy happiness]]? [[Series/TheSopranos What do we do with the old ways don't work]]? Because you are a normal human, you porbably have opinions on these questions. Because you are a normal human, some of those opinions will probably start seeping into the story. You are writing a theme into the story ''whether you intend to or not''. With that in mind, you'll probably want to do it consciously. If not, you can end up with something like... the ending of ''Game of Thrones'', where the themes that had been built up for eight years were ignored, and which was lambasted by critics and audiences alike for that very reason.

Your {{Settings}} may be based on [[SoYouWantTo/AvoidTheThemeParkVersion your research]] or [[SoYouWantTo/BuildYourOwnFictionalWorld completely made up]].

Be aware of your themes. Some authors believe you don't need them; Dan Benioff, co-showrunner of the hit HBO series ''Series/GameOfThrones'', once remarked, "[[https://grantland.com/features/the-return-hbo-game-thrones/ Themes are for eighth-grade book reports]]." The part he overlooked is that almost all works ''have'' themes. The story's "subject" is what its plot and character revolves around: The Protagonist wants something and has trouble getting it. The story's ''theme'' lies in what you, The Author, ''think'' about the subject. And this happens almost inevitably, because most stories end up being about some of the biggest questions of human life: [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice How much is romantic love worth]]? [[ComicBook/XMen Who counts as human, and why]]? [[Film/CitizenKane Can money buy happiness]]? [[Series/TheSopranos What do we do with the old ways don't work]]? Because you are a normal human, you porbably have opinions on these questions. Because you are a normal human, some of those opinions will probably start seeping into the story. So ignore theme at your peril. If you don't, you can end up with something like... the ending of ''Game of Thrones'', where the themes that had been built up for eight years were ignored, and which was lambasted by critics and audiences alike for that very reason.

Of course, that opens up a question: does "talent" even exist? And the answer is that it does... but its role in the creative process is misunderstood. "Talent" is perhaps best understood as "natural aptitude". If you and Music/WolfgangAmadeusMozart were put in a room, side by side, allowed to touch a harpsichord for the first time, and given an hour to explore, it is safe to say that, at the end of the hour, both of you will be better at playing harpsichord than you were before. But ''how much'' better? That's where talent comes in. Mozart has more talent at music than you, so he'll get better, faster... Assuming he doesn't get distracted by [[ManChild a bunch of toy soldiers]]. Talent is a ''ScoreMultiplier''. Do you want the best multiplier you can get? Yes, absolutely... but it's only meaningful if there's any underlying effort for it to multiply. It's only meaningful, in other words, if you put your nose to the grindstone and do the goddamn ''work''.

The elements of setting aren't just maps and scenery, or even grand cultures (though those can help). The setting is revealed in something as simple as daily routine-- if you go to a well whenever you need water, you likely don't have indoor plumbing. And the says certain things about the technology of your setting. Likewise, if someone addresses the lone female in a group as if it's natural she'd be in charge, that says something, too. People and things are both products of and have an effect on how your setting is revealed to the reader/ viewer. Realize this. Use it.

Of course, that opens up a question: does "talent" even exist? And the answer is that it does... but its role in the creative process is misunderstood. "Talent" is perhaps best understood as "natural aptitude". If you and Music/WolfgangAmadeusMozart were put in a room, side by side, allowed to touch a harpsichord for the first time, and given an hour to explore, it is safe to say that, at the end of the hour, both of you will be better at playing harpsichord than you were before. But ''how much'' better? That's where talent comes in. Mozart has more talent at music than you ([[CaptainObvious duh]]), so he'll get better, faster... Assuming he doesn't get distracted by [[ManChild a bunch of toy soldiers]]. Talent is a ''ScoreMultiplier''. Do you want the best multiplier you can get? Yes, absolutely... but it's only meaningful if there's any underlying effort for it to multiply. It's only meaningful, in other words, if you put your nose to the grindstone and do the goddamn ''work''.

Remember how Perseverence is the second-most important indicator of success? The first is that ''you love doing what you do''. Every author who ever got published? They started writing because ''they like writing''. They enjoy the heady thrill of spinning out plot threads and crafting fun characters and setting up mysteries and devising intriguing settings and even (if you're Creator/FScottFitzgerald) the business of finding the ''exact'' right words to put on the page. Every author who ever got published would still be writing today even if they hadn't.