#writing theory

[sciroccoorion35]

so like any normal person, I was just thinking about that scene in the creeping shadow when Lockwood shows up at Lucy’s door and has her underwear-filled laundry packet…

do we think Stroud was planning this scene and thought: would Lockwood bring flowers? No, that’s too cliche. What could he have behind his back that would be absolutely hysterical and unexpected…?

[kyriefae]

Writing theory hot take... I'd rather experience a story with an underwhelming conclusion that at least aligns with the logic of the story that preceded it than experience a conclusion that detaches from the very expectations it built along the way.

The latter is a cheat code. A deus ex machina. Often indicative that a plan was never really prepared. We were simply meant to enjoy the ride before it ended. There's some heart in this methodology. ...but ultimately it doesn't treat the story as a complete project and it abandons the investment an audience may pay into it.

The method of the story that values consistency within its own logic garners trust between writer and reader. Worst case scenario: subjectively the reader or audience wasn't excited about the narrative choice. However, if an exciting event is hinted at, a logically consistent storyteller is far more likely to deliver a result their audience is going to enjoy.

P.S. - To those who may chant "All art is subjective", I'd like to highlight that painters' techniques are often utilized in the act of appreciation. Observations of technique in writing are worthy of their own analysis as well.

[half-blood-prince-throne]

Fictional characters are living their own lives in different dimensions. The writer acts as a god who created them, placing them in various situations but granting them free will. Because of this, the characters sometimes take control of the story themselves.

When someone writes a fanfiction about these characters, it creates another dimension branching off from the original. If a story is left unfinished, the characters become stuck in a time loop. Sometimes, they even pray to their god—the writer—to release them from the loop. This could be why writers often feel haunted by their unfinished works.

[kimyoonmiauthor]

Writing Theory: Don't forget the importance of Settings

I think if you write settings only as this thing was there, this thing was there, and this person was there, it gives no sense of personality.

Compare: The tower was to the southwest. The river was east, and sun was setting in the west.

Dull, right, even if you detailed it like this:

A shining white tower marked the east most point of the compound, now glowing with the setting sun. A roaring river calmed to an estuary.

It's still DULL.

So, the next step after you get the directions, is to insert an OPINION about them from the character.

A shining white tower marked every single town Jawali had been in thusfar, and so he thought it was quite boring, though this one had a little decoration at the top. The tower glowed in sunset colors, but he found the river far more interesting. He wondered how the river was so disciplined by the time it got to the East wall.

OK, this makes it a bit more engaging, but the next bit can send it over the top...

Make sure your setting has a personality and a sense of history.

People build and shape the land before them. So the setting should, in effect also be shaped by people and the land (This is basic Anthropology, so, sorry, it's not a story theorist. It's Anthropology 101). Who was the architect? Who thought about it? How old is the place before them? And can it tell something about the people that live there?

Take this opening line from Anne of Green Gables:

Mrs. Rachel Lynde lived just where the Avonlea main road dipped down into a little hollow, fringed with alders and ladies' eardrops, and traversed by a brook that had its source away back in the woods of the old Cuthbert place; it was reputed to be an intricate, headlong brook in its earlier course through those woods, with dark secrets of pool and cascade; but by the time it reached Lynde's Hollow it was a quiet, well-conducted little stream, for not even a brook could run past Mrs. Rachel Lynde's door without due regard for decency and decorum; it probably was conscious that Mrs. Rachel was sitting at her door, keeping a sharp eye on everything that passed, from brooks and children up, and that if she noticed anything odd or out of place she would never rest until she had ferreted out the whys and wherefores thereof.

It doesn't just tell about the Cuthbert place, but it also tells about Mrs. Lynde and how her sharp eye even disciplined the brooks in her path. The setting, works in tandem with Mrs. Lynde.

You get to learn about both at the same time. The setting gets personified. And in this, LM Montgomery sets up the theme for the chapter.

So if you circle back to the previous and insert a bit of this in...

A shining white tower marked every single town Jawali had been in thus far, and so he thought it was quite boring, though this one had a little decoration at the top. It needed a bit of repair, though the townspeople had dared to still whitewash it as it were fine. The tower glowed in sunset colors, reflecting into the river tamed at its base. Despite everything, the river was so disciplined by the time it got to the East wall, it was hardly a brook, showing a great feat of engineering.

A subtle difference because there is action, Jawali is approaching it, there is a contrast point, so the town gets a personality.

You can of course, integrate it, make it shorter, etc. But the setting sets up how people will think of the townsfolk.

It's not this thing is there, this thing is there, OK, there is something. Let's move on. They work together. From this, you should get the fact that the tower isn't in disrepair because the townspeople don't care about it or don't know how to fix it.

Equally, how your characters choose to utilize the space makes it come more alive and may also tell about the character themselves.

So, this writing theory is because people keep saying things like reading setting is boring, etc, but I always thought if you don't make the setting generic, it could be interesting. What does the character notice and pick out? Also, my grandparents were into architecture and talking about it, so I learned a lot of history there as well. How people treat a setting does heavily influence how a place feels.

If it's South Korea the squeaky clean garage floors, the clean streets, the exact lack of gum on the sidewalk, makes you really think and examine. The quiet trains where there isn't anyone talking.

If it's NY, the feeling of dinge, but also fierce loyalty.

If you can't make noir feel like noir without the setting!

And so on... it matters because if you nail the personality of the space, often the minor character will shine more quickly and feel slotted in, even if they have a cursory line.

No setting:

"What can I get ya? Hey, Frank, Frank, yes, you. Your usual? Yeah. Sorry. Old customer."

Setting:

The little diner was packed to the gills. The waitress came up, chewing gum and in a Manhattan accent, said, "What can I get ya?"

She paused to wave across the room, "Hey, Frank, Frank, yes, you. Your usual? Yeah. Sorry. Old customer."

See~~ Setting makes the dialogue make more sense. The character comes alive suddenly.

[madxmoonlight]

[43501]

TY for commenting on the x reader stuff those people are so critical of hard work and SELF INDULGENT enjoyment of the writers - like buddy it's not for you if the reader doesn't fit you. Anyways have a good one (you don't have to post this just ty for sticking up for us x reader writers 🫶)

No worries! It bothers me to see such an immediate, sweeping dismissal of a whole genre. If you don't mind, I will publish this one so I may elaborate.

Some people will never enjoy x reader. Understandable. What I don't get is the attitude of "how could anyone possibly enjoy this?"

No matter how carefully considered your writing is, 2nd person perspective will always place your reader in the challenging position of having their thoughts and actions directed. This can be unbearably uncomfortable, or it can be just a little annoying when something comes up that takes you out of it. This is why I continually emphasize the "reciprocal" nature of writing/reading 2nd person: the 2nd person reader understands what's being asked of them, is willing to step into the shoes of the perspective character and suspend disbelief about the inevitable stuff that's going to be at odds with what they'd think/do.

Final thought: us "x reader" writers also need to stop loudly performing embarrassment about what we make. It's not "self aware" to constantly apologize for things you've made and call them cringeworthy, it's just really sad. No other creative niche except maybe like, furry porn artists or something, are expected to distance themselves from their work in this way.

[breakandbuildfiction]

Logical Through Lines

I know that there is an expectation of suspension of disbelief when it comes to stories, and fanfiction especially, but I feel like there should still be an expectation of logic in how some things operate even if we ignore the impossibility or at the very least improbability of those things existing in the first place.

For example, there are officially published stories where only one biological sex or one ethnic group have superpowers or magic. And yet the world progressed up to the modern day almost exactly the same way as it did in our world. The same jobs, the same nations, the same governments, alliances, culture, curses, insults, fashion, everything. And if it was a very recent thing I could accept that, but when you then say it has been the case for hundreds or even thousands of years? No. That isn't how things work.

There has to be some kind of consequence to these drastic changes to the world and history.

You can't just say 'Oh they were scared of the evil white man with their flintlock rifles to risk showing that they had pyrokinesis and could teleport' and leave it at that. That's just lazy, uninspired, and really just straight-up insulting to whatever sex or ethnic group you are giving superpowers to.

For a less daunting example I'm going to point to the Nartuo fandom. A common trope to pull when wanting to give Naruto Uzumaki a harem is to say he is being given permission via the 'Clan Restoration Act'. Which, in itself, is a logical thing given setting and power systems of the Naruto universe. Some families, some bloodlines, have special superpowers tied to their genetics and as such it can be seen as very important to keep those families as plentiful as possible. Heck, we even see several powerful clans that have been reduced to very small numbers in the canon story, so it makes sense that at some point the powers that be would make a law like the CRA.

But then the authors will just have things play out so Naruto goes around dating more than one girl and nothing else.

If someone's bloodline is going to be considered important enough to bypass local laws, customs, and religious doctrine to ensure it lives on, why the Hell would the powers that be just say 'Okay, go and find as many girls willing to share you as possible and knock them up on your own time'? That doesn't make any sense. If the government decided 'we need more people with this bloodline to exploit the shit out of their superpower later down the line' they would not stop at just encouraging polyamory. They would demand a series of girls that they deem somehow 'strong' or 'fit' enough to maximize the potential of the bloodline holder's offspring-- or if they were being 'nice' they could pick out a handful of their female prisoners-- and force them to either get screwed the guy or be subjected to artificial insemination. Or they would arrange marriages based on the best genetic and political potential they could and demand the last member of the clan with the bloodline NOT GO ON ANY DEADLY MISSIONS until they had some kids.

Heartless? Yes. Historically accurate? Also yes. Does it make logical sense? You bet it does!

I don't care if there are nonsensical things in stories. Part of making a story is being imaginative and it being different to what is reality. But I do care when people ignore the obvious consequences of the things they put into their stories and the reactions others would have if presented to these changes to their established cultures and reality.

Just something to keep in mind next time any of you all decide to write something. Please.

[faerspell]

Happy STS! What’s your favorite genre to write, and why?

Day two of me catching up on months of missed questions.

I think, ultimately, it comes down to fantasy as my favorite. The ability to create and tell stories in an open sandbox is just so appealing to me. I’ve actually been running into this a lot with my dieselpunk space opera— it’s all so politically relevant and pertinent that it’s hard to find the joy. I don’t have that problem with fantasy, but even my fantasy stories are still pretty grim, but I think the wide open sandbox is a big part of it.

[schneereggen]

Hello, I hope you are well, since you have not been active for a long time, I came to ask your opinion about the current story of Seraph. I really like your deep analysis. But before that, I wanted to express my opinion that I was badly disappointed. Why doesn't this story have a real and true and normal villain? Villain is a main pillar in the story and we don't really have such a thing now, and it is clear that Kagami intends to cover up Shikama's crimes. While Shikama has not failed to do anything bad that we don't want to call him a villain. He even wants to create a dark world and destroy humanity, is it reasonable to call him a villain and close our eyes to all his crimes? In the first place, Shikama committed the forbidden (Mikaela's creation) and caused his own punishment. How can I feel sorry for someone like that? I think everything is very illogical and ridiculous. I feel like Kagami doesn't even know what he is writing anymore and he is writing everything for the sake of Mikayu fans. what's your idea?

Hey, thanks for checking. I'm doing well, my priorities just shifted over the last months that's why I'm not that active on Tumblr anymore. I still hop in and hop out of the fandom from time to time. But yeah, the story is tiring at the moment. That's why I don't have not much to say about it.

Still, thank you a lot for asking me. I love analysing the story. But the deeper you dig, the more frustrating it becomes to know what the story would need and what we aren't getting for years now. But I still want to properly answer your question because it interests me as well, what's wrong and why I feel sooooo over bored with the story.

You are totally right, the story by this point has no villain, not in the traditional sense and not even in the meta sense.

As I explained in another analysis, the villain mustn't necessarily be a person. But there needs to be an antagonistic force. Something that prevents the hero from achieving his goal. This can be a person, the limitations of the world or a bunch of characters. Nevertheless a good story needs an obstacle. In case of ONS, the antagonist had been Shikama and other characters for a long time.

But with the characters kind of working together or not being a real threat to Yuu. There was only Shikama left as a villain and when there was the moment for him to appear and show he's a threat he was weak af. He wasn't even an obstacle because other characters already "defused" his powers. On top we are now getting his backstory. Which is fine by me. But do I really bother if I don't know the characters? Sure, they are supposed to be previous versions of more well known characters. But they aren't these characters. So why should I bother?

So now, we are left with no antagonist, no villain, no obstacle to overcome. Maybe god? But that's too vague.

In general the story had always been about Mika and Yuu wanting to save each other. But at the moment it's not even defined how. We only know, Mika will be smart enough and figure out something. But that's it. That's nothing concrete. No Goal to achieve.

Moreover, what's currently happening seems to have nothing to do with that goal. How does it help to know the backstory of Shikama of the goal is to revive and safe Mika. Plus, we all know Shikama failed doing it for thousands of years already.

So having his backstory now indeed feels misplaced. I also feel that kagami wants to give him a reason and a backstory. But why now? Usually the best place to but a tragic backstory would be the point in time where a character is at his lowest. In the case of ONS that would have been the moment Shikama was captured. I could have understand that a glimpse of tue backstory could have been placed there.

But getting it now, where I rather want to know how Yuu's going to figure out something like a plan, it's not the right time to dump the story with lore that (currently) has no connection.

To me it also feels like Mila and Yuu had to be in the story now to serve the fans. But they aren't even necessary. They do react in a minimal way, making it easier for the reader to understand what's going on.

But they aren't actually reflecting or putting the story they are witnessing into a bigger picture or drawing conclusions themselves. Witnessing what's happening has no effect on them, they are only there for the reader. And that's plain boring.

Back to Shikama himself. The story never has judged characters before and left it to other characters and the reader themselves to judge them. He almost never made anyone explicitly evil (except for Tenri) and left them mostly grey.

In that sense, the story at least thinks the readers are smart enough to put what they know about a character and what they learn new in a context themselves. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. In my personal opinion, the story at the moment desperately lacks characters with different options. If the story doesn't judge, let other characters judge.

Let Yuu and Mika remember that Shikama was said "terrible monster" that possessed the Hiragi or let some other character remind them about it.

It's the same with every other potential villain in the story. None of their crimes is ever brought up again as if everyone was a saint now. Guren, Ferid, Saito and most of all Mahiru.

I miss the time were characters were cautious, were every character was against the other because of different goals. It's all too harmonic. And the main reason is that there is no real obstacle, no threat, no clear plan towards the goal.

Even though the story that is told in general might be not as bad. It just doesn't feel like the same compared to the previous storyline which always had that threat, a clear goal and an obstacle to overcome.

Kagami better pick up the right writing books to make the story match his themes again. I feel like a structure had always come to him naturally to him in the past because he had been writing a lot and with passion. But now that he had been struggling for so long, the passion and the flow is gone and he has to do some hard structuring to get it back. I really hope he remembers what made the story enjoyable in the first place. And that it wasn't only Mika and Yuu to begin with.

[sunofaraven]

Anyone else ever get asked a question in your area of interest which you start to answer but then realise that actually there are five other explanations that would help... And then three hours later you nervously trail off to a stop hoping you haven't just overwhelmed the other person into never talking to you again?

Just me?

Anyway, if you want tips on how to write a fight scene, you know who to ask...

[adj-thoughts]

Writing a captivating opening chapter 

Introducing engaging characters- Your characters should be having a intriguing personality why? because when readers start reading the first chapter and doesn't find it engrossing, they just stop reading the book so if you start the book interesting then the reader will keep on reading it.

example- In a crime thriller there was a detective named Maya Gates She’s a seasoned investigator haunted by the unsolved murder of her sister. Her determination is to crack the mystery case forward by the hint she got a prophecy that her sister had made.

Make a problem- After creating a intriguing aura or personality the character should also be having a problem or poses questions that also have a resolution this ignites curiosity and keeps reader turning pages.

Set the Scene- Describe the problem so vividly and engrossing that the reader also feels present in the scene.

example-  Imagine a historical romance set in 19th-century London. The opening chapter describes the gas lit streets, the opulent ballroom of Lady Pembroke’s mansion, and the scent of roses mingling with heavy smoke. Readers step into this vividly painted world.

Critical Gamble- Clearly convey what’s at risk for your characters. Whether it’s love, survival, or a quest for justice, ensure readers to understand the sacrifice.

example-  In a dystopian sci-fi novel, humanity faces extinction due to a deadly virus. The protagonist, Dr. Alex Turner, discovers a hidden research facility with a potential cure. The sacrifices are life and death, and readers are invested in Alex’s quest.

Foreshadow- Means that an indication of something that will happen in the future within the story. By foreshadowing, writers create anticipation and intrigue, allowing readers to sense that significant events or outcomes are on the horizon.

example- Juliet see 's something strange looking like animal later she finds out that it was the savior of the world.

Thank you for reading!

Regards adj-thoughts

[frankenstan]

doing writing sprints on a live stream and after twenty minutes of me banging out a good 400 words of plot progression and tight dialog, the streamer looks up like, "oh yeah! just wrote about ehhhh 1,200 words!"

looking at you, carson

(these are the livestreams, held by Writing Theory on YouTube, for those interested)

This is me. Kinda jealous of all the writers who can write quickly because I can't.

[kyriefae]

Being a Whovian is sincerely so much fun.

This show is so many different things to so many people but what I think truly makes it special is not just the change it forces on us as an audience but the way it pushes us subconsciously to give up on purism.

"Your Doctor" was <insert amiable character traits> but the current one doesn't represent that same persona? Pity. Almost like we can be different people all throughout our lives...

You ever hear someone say like..."it's fine it's just not for me"?

I wonder how many people who say that about the newest Doccy Who seasons genuinely think in their heart of hearts "actually this is garbage and you should agree with me that it is garbage" because those two are not the same thing at all! 🤭 Ugh, I can't help my incredulity sometimes. Maybe the internet adds to the expectation of toxicity. ...or I just spent a lot of time growing up around cynical assholes that hated fun. *shrug*

More to the point! 😅

Pick an era of this show; pick a doctor and you'll be transported to a world more or less unique to them. That's pretty cool if you ask me. They still have that silly multidimensional blue box; they still have two hearts (even if it didn't become canon until their 3rd incarnation)...and yes they still pick up stray humans (...usually young, petite British women from whatever decade said Doctor conveniently and sequentially visits).

But maybe to really hit home on what I mean about this show tackling purism in its audience's mind...it's always been a silly sci-fi show meant to elicit joy and wonder out of children. Additionally so, to help adults retain that same joy and wonder in their own lives by reflecting on the excitement that comes from infinite possibilities only possible when traveling with a genderfluid space alien that wears extraordinary clothes and hands out candy like it's already gone out of style. Oh and you become the universe's only hope the moment you step into another time or location lol.

Sometimes when we love something, we take it very seriously no matter how absurd it truly is at its core. We may not even notice we're doing it but any criticism of Doctor Who really ought to be taken with a grain of salt (and spread out at the very edge of creation...just for good measure). No need to get all salty over a television show. 🧂

So yeah. Being a Whovian, for me, is having the freedom to dive head first into an ocean of lore whenever I desire and really explore storytelling from several perspectives. Albeit many of the early years were written and directed and produced from the perspectives of white, straight men in the U.K. and stories with misogynist stances that heavily limited the functional roles of women in the context of said stories and were also affirmed by narratives and protagonists that failed to question any of it. *clearing throat* Oof, there was a frog back there!

All the same, our heroes of yesterday battled styrofoam monsters breaking through plywood walls built on cardboard sets represented by painted miniatures dangling on strings over a starlit portrait meant to look like space. Even when they couldn't help but be a bit cringe, they were still a silly lil sci-fi show playing at games of the imagination. Like children at play.

Now, we have this beautiful and talented man standing at center stage:

He is all the play; all the heart(s); all the joy we have known in this character but decorated in his own unique way.

My love for this show has evolved and I intend to allow it to continue doing just that. Hopefully we can continue to see the Whoniverse do just the same...instead of getting too caught up in the past. 🫣

Anywho, that's all for now.

Kisses 😘

[kimyoonmiauthor]

The source of the idea of "Nothing original under the sun" in writing.

Was most likely Lajos Egri who was trying to be an asshole to Dorothea Brande.

The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri (1946)

How to Become a Writer by Dorothea Brande (1934)

Originally I was giving him a break, but he does no citations, and tends to grandstand things suddenly so I should have known he was putting down another woman (yet again). !@#$

I originally made a note of it by going over Lajos Egri (and the fact he married a child and promoted it in his writing book) the first time, but now I understand why he spent so much time with it.

FU Lajos Egri. Seriously, dude?

See... unlike a lot of the structuralists and later structuralists who were mostly saying:

There's a formula for stories and success.

Originality? Don't even try.

Dorothea Brande spends a whole chapter basically arguing what Jerry Seinfeld argued about stand up comedy: In the specific is the general.

Dorothea Brande leans wholly into the toolbox ideology. There isn't conflict mentioned as a part of story. She isn't in conversation with Percy Lubbock. Can I get a 1940's-1950's cis man not slamming down on women?

This is why one needs to read and give advice in context of the time period and the writing movement they were a part of.

As for Originality...

I made a treaties about that. I think there are a few things to keep in mind...

Stealing other people's ideas when you cannot add a spin to it is often a bad idea because you have not through the philosophy or the depth. People often say it's all in the execution, but often when you steal, it lacks in the execution because you did not ut in the depth of thought and unlike what you've been taught, 100% readers can detect this. Look up Magic Kingdom, Sold by Terry Brooks. Then realize he doesn't really develop the idea more by book 2 he's into the same tropes he uses for his other books because his investment is low. (This isn't slamming him as a writer, but pointing out that you need to also develop your ideas so they have depth.) If he had developed it more thematically and tonally, the following books wouldn't have been as boring. I'm saying execution isn't the only thing you need with ideas, you also need to fundamentally develop the ideas further so you command on more than character and events, but also tone, and theme.

Gap theory

There is a gap in the market, exploit it. Someone went right and EVERY book went to the right path. But what if you went LEFT. This often gets you more money, but is riskier. The readers tend to like gaps over the same three things rehashed. What's more popular an exact remake of a movie, or a new movie? I've gone over the risks and benefits of this, BTW. Great for diversity, BTW.

3. Overlap theory

Usually three things and remix them, but the key is so they feel unfamiliar. NOT that they are this but a little different. The second one doesn't really get an audience following, the first often does. The obvious downside is that people try to play it too safe with this and the market can go stale as people follow people using the gap theory. But when you make things that don't seem to naturally mix then it can be exciting. "Pride and Prejudice only Bollywood." is BORING. I've watched that movie THREE TIMES already. Give me something more outlandish.

So YES, it is 100% OK to chase down new ideas and go all high concept if you like, but put in the time and research to develop those ideas further before you execute them. And I've said it before, but knowing a little philosophy and being a general nerd can help where to look on how to develop your idea.

And psychologically the contemporary research backs up Dorothy Brande over Lajos Egri, so stop repeating that there is no new idea under the sun. Development of your ideas is new and not always in the execution of character/s do events. Because story fundamentally is more than characters in settings doing events.

[brainypixel]

This week's article from our "Theology of Storytelling" series is now available on the Brainy Blog! Check out "The Big Four" below!