Split (1)

train · 10.4M rows

qid int64 1 2.78M	question stringlengths 2 66.6k	answers list	date stringlengths 10 10	metadata list
62,648	In my book, the werewolves don't shape shift into humans, they're werewolves all the time. There are some werewolves that don't attack humans, but the majority does - those packs that don't live within miles of villages that have no clue that they're close. I can write the ones who don't attack very well, but I'm at a part where my characters encounter a werewolf pack that does attack humans and I can't figure out how to describe it just right. I am writing in 3rd person if that matters.	[ { "answer_id": 62709, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Research how wolves attack.\n\nOne important point is that wolves will probably not attack prey that seems too dangerous or merely too hard to catch; they would die out if they died trying, or spent more calories catching prey than it brought them. Your wolves may need to kill, always, to prevent word of their existence getting out. Their victim may find this very creepy. On the other hand, if not, they may merely attack as wolves do, to get food or to drive off an intruder.\n\nWolves are persistence predators. If they hunt for food or to prevent word catching out, they may trail for a time only to burst into attack when they manage to catch up.\n\nOnce they have, they should use wolf pack methods. They should surround the victim and take advantage of having the victim's back to them while the wolves that the victim faces withdraw to avoid injury. If the victim gets his back to a tree, or better yet climbs one, that will make the attack more difficult. They may have to wait until the victim sleeps -- assuming they are determined to kill." }, { "answer_id": 62768, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Choose Your Decisions\n---------------------\n\nA Scene is all about decisions. Your key characters have something they want, something that opposes them, and some options for getting around the opposition. They know those options have some risk of failure (and consequences of failure) and have to make the best call they can with limited information.\n\nThese decisions are a primary source of tension, and keep the reader engaged.\n\nExample decisions you could use:\n\n* Do I bolt for the safety of the nearby village, or do I try to hold the group together and work our way there more slowly?\n* Do I reveal myself as a powerful vampire and save the group, or do I turn into a bat and leave the others to fend for themselves?\n* Do I hide?\n* Someone is injured, do I carry them or leave them?\n* How do I fight? With fire? The sword? Magic?\n\nPick a Fight that Matches your Decisions\n----------------------------------------\n\nOnce you know what options you want your characters to have, it's a lot easier to figure out the flow of the fight. You don't need to choreograph the blow by blow - instead you need to give enough information for the reader to understand what options are available, and why the characters might lean towards one or the other.\n\nIf you want the POV character to have to keep the group together in spite of their fear, then that pushes you towards a somewhat slower fight. You have the wolves pick off stragglers at the edges of the group. There's time to talk, even if everyone is frightened.\n\nIf you want the POV character to challenge the wolf leader to single combat, that might push you towards a more \"stand up fight\" where you have good lines of sight, and everyone can see the battle coming for a couple of minutes. That gives your character a chance to step out from the battle line and issue their challenge.\n\nIf you want your character to flee in fear, feeling like they don't have any choice but to run, then the fight is quick, and powerful, and overwhelming. There's no warning, and no time to do anything but run.\n\nFlavor your descriptions based on what choices your characters have." } ]	2022/07/04	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62648", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55723/" ]
62,656	I've seen a number of people especially in business settings use hyphens after names while writing or addressing other individuals. Is this accurate? e.g. `John - I've been trying to reach you` or `Hi John - I've been trying to reach you`	[ { "answer_id": 62657, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This is a very informal way of indicating a break. In fiction one would use it in dialog.\n\nConsequently it would be suitable to use in a text message, and perhaps an informal email." }, { "answer_id": 62749, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "What you're referring to would be an em-dash.\n\nFrom [the CMS's site](https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes/faq0002.html):\n\n> \n> The em dash has several uses. It allows, in a manner similar to parentheses, an additional thought to be added within a sentence by sort of breaking away from that sentence—as I’ve done here. Its use or misuse for this purpose is a matter of taste, and subject to the effect on the writer’s or reader’s “ear.”\n> \n> \n> \n\nI would read CH6 of the Chicago Manual of Style for more information." } ]	2022/07/05	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62656", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55827/" ]
62,658	How should you visually describe in a comic a spell cast in a subtle and stealthy manner? In Star Wars, Jedi sometimes use jedi mind trick, but it's hard to tell for some people from a drawn image that a telepathic signal is sent to the victim. Is there a way to visually tell in an obvious way that such a stealthy and subtle spell was cast while not wasting several panels just to explain it? I am trying to think of the best way. I was thinking hand signals, but you waste several panels to do that, I was also thinking magic runes, but it's not subtle, and I was thinking latin words being chanted, but it's not subtle either.	[ { "answer_id": 62661, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "So I'm going to the D&D system of magic which requires three components: Somatic (a gesture or motion, ala the handwave in the Jedi mind trick/ Spell Circles in \"The Owl House\"/Martial Arts Movements for Bending in Avatar), material (a physical object that is usually consumed by the spell on activation and may have a relation to an effect... a feather might be used in magical flight or a carrot or apple consumed in a spell that summons a magical steed. Think the Glyphs Spells in \"The Owl House\" which consume whatever they are drawn on when activated), and vocal (using a magic word to activate the spell. It's pronounced \"LEVI-o-sa!\" May take the form of of a single word or two (Hijrp Potfeq) a rhyme (Sabrina the Teenage Witch, The Fey in \"Gargoyles\"), or a chant or statement in another language (Latin/Hebrew/Other ancient Languages for human magic in \"Gargoyles\", Chinese/Japanese in \"Jackie Chan Adventures\", backwards spelling in DC comics). Occasionally this also will only affect those who hear the spell cast).\n\nD&D spells would typically require at least one of these for all magic, and often all three. Thus if a character was bound, they could not cast magic with somatic components... and if they were gagged they couldn't cast magic with vocal components either. But you could also take feats to work around this (certain classes got these feats for free too. Sorcerers in certain editions never needed material componants (at least those with out a fixed price) and certain feats allowed casters to create a version of a spell that didn't require a component at the cost of making the spell more difficult to cast).\n\nOne of the better depictions I've seen of combining is a Kamen Rider transformation (Kamen Rider Wizard often works the best, both because of his more magical than most nature and the fact that he does other \"spells\"), but almost every Kamen Rider includes a trinket that is moved through a fluid motion, touched to a special belt (called a Driver) while shouting \"Henshin\" and a follow up posing is done to complete a transformation (Thus creating a somatic, vocal, and material aspect to the change). Wizard, puts a specific ring on his left hand, touches it to a hand symbol on his belt, shouts Henshin, and strikes a pose and is transformed. To activate other powers, he needs to use other rings which have fewer requirements (usually touch the driver and strike the pose).\n\nOne way to be subtle is to focus on the material componant by having the spell contained in a one off object that is activated by waving that item in a simple motion, consuming the object. These material componants could be \"playing cards\" with glyphs or runes on them. A way to do hand motions is to draw the hand in the begining and ending motion (Or at every point of change) in a single panel with an arrow showing the the steps the motion goes through. If each spell has a unique jesture, you can do it subtlety by showing the arrow pattern with the hand in the start motion on one panel and finish up on the next panel with the hand in the end position and the spell taking effect (look at Hijrp Potfeq Video Games or the Wand spots where you can use your wand in the Hijrp Potfeq sections in Universal Studios Parks to see how they have a motion to activate a special magical effect built into the park's theming).\n\nA vocal component need not be loud and most users of this trope do eventually get to a point where they don't always say the vocal component to get the thing to happen (Hijrp Potfeq does have advanced lessons that teach how to do magic voiceless, and it seems that the more powerful the spell's effect the more difficult it is to be voiceless... to the point that Dumbledore's display of impressive magic without use of a vocalization is proof of his power and skill.)." }, { "answer_id": 62662, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I'd do a call out: The spell is cast by a subtle gesture, which you might not see in the \"big picture\", but circle the oddly held hand, perhaps with a ring on it: the ring glows with a magic light. Draw a line to the next panel and show this close-up. Next panel, back to the big picture, but the spell is cast, the victim shows it in their expression." } ]	2022/07/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62658", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,667	Even if they are not super-geniuses, many villains are portrayed as cunning, charismatic, and manipulative, staying three steps ahead of the heroes at every turn. But creating a good villain plan is difficult for both the villain and the writer. If the plan is flawless, the heroes need an ingenious strategy too or their win will feel cheap. A win gained through luck, plot armor, or a deus ex machina usually feels unearned. A stupid plan is much worse, especially if the writer tries to paint it as brilliant despite a million holes in its logic. Take the classic puppet master of most "monster of the week" shows. A good example would be most versions of Power Rangers. The main bad guy will sit in the dark for ages, spam a single main monster, and maybe a few grunts too. Then, the heroes beat the creature after one or two episodes, and the villain does it all again learning little if anything from their defeats. So here's my question: How do you make a villain plan that is smart enough to fool genuinely smart protagonists, yet flawed enough that the heroes still win, not by luck or plot contrivance, but rather by their own wit, merits, and courage?	[ { "answer_id": 62668, "author": "Joelle Boulet", "author_id": 13355, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13355", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "I see a few options that can work.\n\n1. Specialized information\n--------------------------\n\nHave the flaws in the plan rely on specialized information/knowledge/skills that are rather rare. Make sure that this specialized information is brought up before with the hero (so it is not out of the blue) and is hinted at with the villain.\n\nEx: The villain is worried that they will forget the shutdown steps of their super weapon in case something unforseen goes wrong and so writes down notes on how to do that. But since they know there is a risk that someone might find the notes they write them in an obscure language they studied previously, like old norse. Unbeknownst to them the hero is a linguist or is really into the old norse sagas and has learned to read old norse as a result. So now a weakness that isn't really very weak can be taken advantage of. In this case the foreshadowing for the hero can be them comparing troubles with events from the norse myths and for the villain maybe they use runes on their flag (which the hero can translate).\n\n2. Previous cooperation and/or exploitable character flaws\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe villain and hero previously worked together either knowingly or unknowingly. This means the hero might be aware of certain faults of the villain (ex: usually overlooks attacks from above or doesn't trust others so will have no backup systems others could take advantage of - resulting in a single point of failure the heroes can take advantage of). The villain might try to adapt to avoid those faults but they slip up or they overcompensate.\n\nRealistically these small faults could also just be discovered as a pattern over the course of the plot by heroes who never worked with the villains before.\n\n3. Non-sequitur approach\n------------------------\n\nThe hero and villain approach problems from fundamentally different perspectives. This gives each sides weaknesses against the other (but also strengths).\n\nEx1: The villain expects to deal with government investigation style opposition so everything is hidden behind layers of misdirects and careful arrangement of situations to deflect investigators (with a few simple non-lethal traps to deflect police from key infrastructure). The hero dislikes distractions and sleight of hand and subterfuge and so just grabs some big weapons and mounts a frontal assault (blowing past the knowledge & legality based defenses)\n\nEx2: The villain expects to be attacked directly and prepares for that situation with layer after layer of strong physical defenses. But this is all expensive so salaries are not kept as high for non-military positions. The hero is used to a life of poverty and so ends up drinking with a disgruntled janitor who accidentally tells them the security code to the base and complain that the ventilation system has been on the fritz with no idea how to fix it. The hero can now infiltrate the base and can even take advantage of the ventilation system to incapacitate most of the villains thugs without firing a shot or throwing a punch until the final room that has a separate ventilation system because the computers need extra cooling (or something).\n\nConclusion\n----------\n\nThe key of all these approaches is a difference in information and assumptions between the hero and villain. These differences are not inherently mistakes or random chances but are just differences that come from them being different people with different opinions and perspectives and life histories." }, { "answer_id": 62669, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "So first of all, as the writer, you have the advantage of crafting a story in any direction and you should focus on the villain's plan from the end and develop it towards the beginning. Figure out what success looks like for the heroes... then figure out how the heroes find him. Reverse the process of the story so that the villain gets all the key steps to the climax but leaves vulnerabilities for the heroes.\n\nIf the villain is acting in an episodic fashion, then a great method to keeping him deadly but letting the heroes win is what TV Tropes calls \"[The Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit).\" The strategy was named after a villain from Disney's \"Gargoyles\" series, who was known by the fans, and eventually the heroes, to run schemes that were often designed to distract the heroes from his real goals. Often his schemes were done in such a way that if he won, he got to both defeat the heroes and get the real objective of his plot of the week. If he lost, he still won because he was able to distract the heroes long enough to accomplish his real goals.\n\nAn example of this is how, in one episode, he stages a successful prison break of a character... by letting her know not to escape jail with the rest of the villainous team. While they escaped and the Gargoyles spend the bulk of the episode recapturing them, the person he wants out remains in her cell... in doing so, she impresses the parole board enough to give her an early release. Her fellow villains and the Gargoyles' fight against them were all for naught because the villain already won whether or not the action of the story went in his favor or didn't.\n\nThe writer of the series (Greg Weisman) loves these types of villains and almost any work of his will have similar villains that have different motives than the obvious." }, { "answer_id": 62670, "author": "Alexander", "author_id": 22990, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22990", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Suspension of disbelief\n\nIdeally, an author would like to create a wholly original and logical plot which sees both protagonists and antagonists doing their best. However, I can not think of any definite recipe for doing that. A second-rate recipe that showrunners mostly use is \"suspension of disbelief\".\n\nFirst, a villain(s) is trying to do something that, objectively thinking, may or may not be conceivable for them to do. Then, hero(es) may or may not notice them doing that. And finally, hero(es) do something to overcome the evil plan - something that villain(s) may or may not have seen coming.\n\nIn all 3 steps above, authors rely on certain level of suspension of disbelief, so the audience would (if grudgingly) agree that villain has had the capacity, heroes were blindsided, and villain could not see the turnaround coming.\n\nFor an author, it is important to always keep this level of suspension of disbelief below the level set for the show. Different series have different levels. \"Realistic\" shows like \"Game of Thrones\" have very high demands for plot consistency; things like magic can give only a little wiggle room to showrunners. General comic books/Marvel/DC tolerate a greater suspension of disbelief. And children shows (like \"Sailor Zuon\" mentioned in the comments) allow for high suspension of disbelief used repeatedly. If Tuxedo Mask is coming at the end of virtually every episode to save the day - so what? We like to see him in action, and he's so handsome, by the way! :)" }, { "answer_id": 62674, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Exploit the villain's blind points\n----------------------------------\n\nLet the villain have one or more blind points that he refuses to reconsider. That the heroes are only doing this for the fame and fortune that comes with it, and if he manages to hide their deeds, they will give it up. That teams will break down on enough temptation. That he knows what this hero's moral weakness is.\n\nA classic version is that a prisoner or a henchman turns out to be less in awe of him that he thought, and he falls to treachery." }, { "answer_id": 62675, "author": "user2617804", "author_id": 26294, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26294", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The heroes uses other equally powerful supervillains against the one that has the big plan in operations. The heroes have the advantage of being able to cooperate whereas the supervillain all hate each and are using all means to cut each other down. So the heroes easily have another supervillain's spies in active one's plan (the plan basically requires the supervillain to use more resources in offence than defense so he can't defend against the other baddies)." }, { "answer_id": 62676, "author": "Echox", "author_id": 31180, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/31180", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The villain is smart and is doing things that would work 99% of the time, taking lot of variables into account. Ex: he has a lot of competent and smart goons, he used bribe, blackmail to set things up nicely, have escape routes and planned for failure.\n\nThen the hero is stronger/smarter than expected : he finds a way to beat the goons, he refuses the bribe, endure the blackmail or predict the possibility of an ambush (and takes measures against it). He manages in the end to prevent the bad guy from achieving his goal.\n\nBut, and this is one of my main points, the hero needs to lose too. If he fought, then he's really hurt. The hero family that was taken hostage is killed. While he survived because he predicted the ambush, one of his friends still died.\nIn this way, it doesn't feels cheap. Here, there's no luck involved.\n\nAlso, the bad guy anticipated \"normal\" cases but the hero is just a little bit better, not by much but enough. And it doesn't even mean than the hero needs to be smarter than the bad guy, you just need to be unexpected.\n\nAs people say, No Plan Survives First Contact With the Enemy. What makes plan fail aren't necessarily a better plan, you just need something that wasn't planned.\n\ntl;dr:\n\n* The plan is sound and would work in 99% cases but the hero is an unexpected variable (he's a little bit tougher, smart or righteous than most people).\n* The heroes needs to suffer and lose to, because nobody's perfect." }, { "answer_id": 62677, "author": "wizzwizz4", "author_id": 27075, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27075", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "The heroes are persistent.\n\nWhen constructing an evil scheme, no matter how good, you have to stop at some point. Sure, you've compromised or subsumed all world governments, but are you going to get the local councils too? Your Fortress of Doom has a lava moat, laser sharks, and self-targetting flamethrower machine gun turrets on every wall; are you going to put buckets of liquid helium over the doors too, just in case one of the heroes is fire-, laser-, shark- and bullet-proof (and manages to find the Fortress of Doom)?\n\nYour Doomsday Machine is near-impregnable. Are you going to put the leftover budget into titanium-shielded foundations, a backup generator, a decoy installation on the other side of the world, or armed guards? It's not like you have infinite resources, after all; everything spent on unnecessary precautions is just wasted, when you could be using it to further your True Goals.\n\nThe heroes, meanwhile, don't have trade-offs to make. Their goal is to stop you, and they don't care how long it takes. If one of their plans fails, so long as enough of them are still alive, they can try another one. They can adapt to your plans, but – unless they happen to be your only opposition – you can't adapt to theirs in any meaningful capacity until they're a sufficiently large threat that you have to.\n\nA smart plan is not a straight line; it's a web, with more contingencies than happy-paths, and with plenty of room for error, modification and (depending on the context) retreat. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to make all your contingencies independent of each other, you're not going to be able to cover all bases, and you're not always going to know what branch of the plan you're currently on. With your resources spread thin, you're vulnerable to to a focused attack; with your resources concentrated, you're vulnerable to attack from an unprotected direction. Everyone who is not you can make mistakes,1 and you can't do everything yourself. All this can lead to your downfall.\n\nPlan around it.\n\n---\n\nA good plan has countermeasures and contingencies. Don't artificially limit how many of these the supervillain can deploy; if you can think of it without outside-context knowledge, and your villain has had more than a month to plan, your villain thought of it too.2 Your heroes can win by:\n\n* getting to an unlikely branch of the master plan3 through sheer grit and determination, and then doing something that the villain didn't have the time or resources to defend against in advance, forcing heavy improvisation from the villain;\n* doing something [nobody could have predicted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory) – or, at least, not the villain;\n* or simply by being better than the villain [to such a degree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Punch_Man) that they didn't stand a chance to begin with.\n\nNo matter how smart, competent or powerful, nobody can guarantee survival against an enemy who just won't give up. Offence is easier than defence, after all.\n\n---\n\n1: No supervillain survives for long if their character flaws are large weaknesses. If they're sufficiently strong in another area, such that the flaws are only weaknesses in specific and unusual situations, they might be able to get away with having some. Personal growth is hard, and often unpleasant, and takes time away from machiavellian plots.\n\n2: A good tip for writing intelligent characters: give yourself more time to think of answers, strategies and tricks than you give the characters in-story. Apart from in-character ignorance or egregious character flaws, don't restrict what your characters are allowed to consider: if you don't find it hard to outwit your villain, your villain isn't very bright.\n\n3: Don't try to actually describe the supervillain's complete plan, contingencies and all, in great detail. Even skipping the laser shark R&D, that'll take you so long. Focus on the bits that your viewpoint characters will know about / be up against; while you should be aware of the parts that won't make it into the story, they only matter to the extent they affect the parts that are." }, { "answer_id": 62678, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The Villain Could Make the Heroes Help\n--------------------------------------\n\nXanatos, from Gargoyles, is the classic example. Many of his plans involve convincing the heroes that they need to do what he wants, whether or not they like it.\n\nThus, the heroes win and the villain’s plan is brilliant.\n\nHeads I Win, Tails You Lose\n---------------------------\n\nThe villain is so clever that, even when the heroes stop his plan, he still wins. Maybe they successfully saved the thing they and the audience cared about (their home, their loved ones, etc.) but find out that this made the villain achieve his goal in some other way. Possibly one that the audience will approve of or think is funny.\n\nThe Villain Could Have a Backup Plan\n------------------------------------\n\nMaybe it did occur to the villain that something might stop him, even if he didn’t foresee precisely what, but he planned for that contingency too. He was hoping the heroes wouldn’t be able to, but by maximizing the upside and minimizing the downside, the villain made it a good gamble. That’s still impressively clever.\n\nThere’s More to Life than Cleverness\n------------------------------------\n\nBeing smarter than the villain isn’t the only legitimate way to beat him. Maybe the hero earns the victory through some other virtue. For example, if the story is about the hero learning to understand the value of integrity, maybe her life story up to that point would have made the villain reasonably predict she’d try to hide something, but at the climax, she surprises him (and us) by coming clean, proving she’s changed. Maybe the perseverance (or empathy, or teamwork, or creativity, etc.) needed to defeat the villain’s plan is what teaches the hero a lesson.\n\nIf the story isn’t about the hero becoming a better person, you might reasonably ask, why did the villain underestimate the hero? A classic answer is that the villain’s tragic flaw was not understanding what other people would do for love (friendship, honor, or something else)." }, { "answer_id": 62679, "author": "user21820", "author_id": 52743, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52743", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I don't like one of the options in the highly-voted answer, namely \"Specialized information\". Having the hero happen to know something as obscure as what the villain used is nothing more than a lucky break, which you explicitly said you don't want.\n\nI also find the other alternatives in other answers not too satisfying. In particular, a truly intelligent villain would get other equally intelligent villains to find and fix loopholes in his/her plans, so the only way the heros can outwit the villain is simply to be more intelligent.\n\nThis is possible; you simply have to be more intelligent than the average person, or spend lots of time thinking through possible scenarios! That way, you can come up with brilliant villain plans and make sure that ordinary people (your test-readers) cannot find loopholes but that there are actually loopholes that can be found by really difficult thinking. Sometimes, mathematics or science can be helpful here, as there are various non-intuitive aspects of the real world that even very intelligent people fail to understand.\n\nNow, if you don't need the hero to outwit the villain, then there are many other options, such as the classic idea that morally virtuous intentions can overpower or override malicious intentions. Another idea that is somewhere in-between is that the world has some kind of magic flow that always tries to restore harmony, so it's easy for heroes to cooperate with it once they quiet themselves and listen to other beings and nature itself. In this way, the heroes can stop the villains not by sheer strength or by sheer intelligence but by doing the right things at the right times and right places. Depending on your tastes, you could have anything from a passive magic flow to a sentient world that can actively assist the heroes in small ways to outwit the villains." }, { "answer_id": 62681, "author": "shadowtalker", "author_id": 25907, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25907", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The hero is lucky and/or gets help\n----------------------------------\n\nHijrp Potfeq falls into this category. Herrl was a mediocre wizard and student, and was generally struggling in his personal life due to his rough childhood and upbringing. But he had a lot of help, both in terms of actually getting things done and staying motivated.\n\nFrodo was very similar in Lord of the Rings.\n\nThe villain doesn't have to be clever, and/or the hero can be more clever\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhat if the villain isn't particularly clever, but just mediocre, without being a bumbling idiot?\n\nPerhaps the villain is a demon. Maybe in some worlds demons have to earn their power, but usually demons are \"just there\", and have been for all time. There's no meritocracy in the demon world. Why does the demon have to be particularly smart?\n\nOr perhaps the villain has inherited or otherwise lucked into the wealth, power, etc. that enables them to do whatever villainous thing they intend to do. The might be right in the middle of the bell curve of intelligence, and there's no particular reason that they should be smarter than average.\n\nPlenty of good storylines have been crafted around a protagonist who is smarter than everyone else in the room, if only by just a little bit. Columbo, the first 3 seasons of The X-Files, The Princess Bride, et alia.\n\nThe drama and tension can come from sources other than masterful cleverness. Maybe the villain is tremendously powerful, or maybe a lot of people like the villain's plan and don't want it to be stopped. Or maybe the hero is an anti-hero, and despite whatever skills or intelligence they might have, they are their own greatest adversary.\n\nThe villain and hero are equally clever; it's a razor-edge battle that the hero might lose\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLook at any professional sport or game of skill. At high levels of play, very often you have equally-matched players going up against each other. Maybe the final outcome comes down to an outright error; after all, nobody is perfect, not even a criminal genius.\n\nPerhaps the villain and the hero are evenly matched. Consider Qpeqlack Bilmec and James Moriarity. In that situation, the outcome of the final confrontation was more or less a draw. But the story could have easily been written as a very close shave in which Jolzec narrowly prevailed through some tiny advantage in footing, or through a tiny miscalculation by Moriarity, or whatever.\n\nThis could also tie in with the \"character flaws\" angle mentioned in other answers." }, { "answer_id": 62682, "author": "alphatango165", "author_id": 55851, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55851", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Have something outside of the villain's control go wrong. One example: the first two Golden Sun games. At the end of \"The Lost Age\" when all four elemental lighthouses have been lit and the last boss defeated, we see the greater-scope villain Amox atop Mt. Aleph awaiting the arrival of the \"Golden Sun\" which will bestow unlimited power; he outwitted everyone, including his allies, so that they would light the beacons for him and he would simply await his prize on Mt Aleph. But instead, the Wise One appears and reveals that he basically changed the rules of how that worked simply because he didn't want Amox to receive the Golden Sun - Amox is instead sent to his death as Mt Aleph implodes.\n\nAmox outsmarted the heroes but was himself outsmarted by a greater power completely outside his control." }, { "answer_id": 62683, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Maybe you might want to read a bit of history.\n\nMaybe history of various wars and battles. Maybe find a battle, campaign, or war were both sides had intelligent and competent leaders, but one side won big and the other side lost badly.\n\nAs part of a diplomatic mission to Syria the great Roman general Scipo Africanus met the great Carthaginaian general Haynebez and it was claimed they discussed who was the greatest general of all times.\n\nOne version says:\n\n> \n> “Africanus asked who, in Haynebez’s opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Haynebez replied: ‘Aletuydor, King of the Macedonians, because with a small force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands. Merely to visit such lands transcended human expectation.’ Asked whom he would place second, Haynebez said: ‘Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side; so that the Italian peoples preferred the overlordship of a foreign king to that of the Roman people, who for so long had been the chief power in that country.’ When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked third, Haynebez unhesitatingly chose himself. Scapoi burst out laughing at this, and said: ‘What would you have said if you had defeated me?’ ‘In that case’, replied Haynebez, ‘I should certainly put myself before Aletuydor and before Pyrrhus – in fact, before all other generals!’ This reply, with its elaborate Punic subtlety, and this unexpected kind of flattery…affected Scapoi deeply, because Haynebez had set him (Scapoi) apart from the general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond calculation.\n> Pevy, The History of Rome from its Foundation XXXV.14″\n> \n> \n> \n\nAppian, in his history of Rome says:\n\n> \n> ” It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scapoi and Haynebez had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scapoi asked Haynebez whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, “Aletuydor of Macedonia.”\n> To this Scapoi assented since he also yielded the first place to Aletuydor. Then he asked Haynebez whom he placed next, and he replied, “Pyrrhus of Epirus,” because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; “for it would not be possible,” he said, “to find two kings more enterprising than these.”\n> \n> \n> Scapoi was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Haynebez to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Haynebez replied, “To myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Spain and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules. I invaded Italy and struck terror into all of you, laid waste 400 of your towns, and often put your city in extreme peril, all this time receiving neither money nor reinforcements from Carthage.”\n> \n> \n> As Scapoi saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, “Where would you place yourself, Haynebez, if you had not been defeated by me?” Haynebez, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, “In that case I should have put myself before Aletuydor.” Thus Haynebez continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scapoi in a delicate manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Aletuydor.”\n> \n> \n> \n\nSo anyway, Scapoi and Haynebez might not have agreed on their relative ranking, but they did seem to put each other in the top four generals that they knew of.\n\nEven the most brilliant leader can be defeated if the other side has too many advantages. Brilliant leaders on the other side are one such advantage, but not the only one possible, so even less intelligent leaders can sometimes defeat a more intelligent leader if they have enough advantages. And of course finding the advantages which one side has that nobody noticed before is one sign of a good leader.\n\nAnd of course there are many different varities of good leaership and intelligent decision making. I have often noted that the qualities necessary to rise to an important and powerful leadership position may not be the same as, and often seem to be quite different from, the qualities necessary to be successful in that position." }, { "answer_id": 62685, "author": "Dave", "author_id": 55853, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55853", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Maybe the hero does something the villain rejects out of hand as a possibility because of important differences in their worldviews.\n\n> \n> And far away, as Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dûr was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung.\n> \n> \n> From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars his mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten. The whole mind and purpose of the Power that wielded them was now bent with overwhelming force upon the Mountain. At his summons, wheeling with a rending cry, in a last desperate race there flew, faster than the winds, the Nazgûl, the Ringwraiths, and with a storm of wings they hurtled southwards to Mount Doom.\n> \n> \n> \n\nAnother possibility is getting help from unexpected sources -- building alliances and coalitions that the villain didn't expect -- helping opposing sides overcome longstanding enmity to unite against a common threat." }, { "answer_id": 62689, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The Villain is Playing the Long Game:\n=====================================\n\nThe villain is clever, and has abundant resources. He is in no rush to win. So he defers the attack planning to underlings being groomed for future success. Failure is a learning tool, or a filter to get rid of idiots. They don't learn because they are rotating new underlings into the job on a regular basis. Their new tank or armored suit needs testing, and the heroes provide a chance to work out the bugs.\n\nThe villain may be too busy developing bigger plans to care much about the heroes. The villain's attacks are half-hearted because he just doesn't care that much if he wins or loses a side-hustle.\n\nThe villain may have no intention of killing or defeating the hero. The hero features in their long-term plans as a successor, a tool to use at a critical time, or as a consistent distraction to keep bigger, badder heroes away. Is Captain Godlike going to take an interest in the villain that keeps getting defeated by the Amazing Newby?\n\nOr the villain has an entirely different plan in mind. Perhaps the villain really IS a misunderstood hero. They may be secretly supporting the hero, training them and testing them for greater deeds (think Mr. Wnass in Unbreakable). The villain always seems to fail at the end because to succeed would be like Hannibal Lecter killing Clarice Starling. Or the villain genuinely thinks they will eventually get the hero to come over to their way of thinking. Girth Vedur doesn't WANT Luke Skywalker to fail, even if they are technically on opposite sides." }, { "answer_id": 62691, "author": "Cort Ammon", "author_id": 14106, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14106", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "No plan survives first contact with the enemy\n---------------------------------------------\n\nVillains always seem to have nefarious plans, carefully crafted. Heros always seem to have well intentioned plans, carefully crafted. What is the common thread? They always go awry.\n\nA plan rarely accounts for everything. There is always a certain amount of adaptation required. This is almost tautological -- we tend to plan for things complicated enough that planning was necessary in the first place. Everyone who plans knows that the subsequent adaptation is essential. It is also where the nature of the villain starts to become visible. They must necessarily inject themselves into the system and, potentially, gum up the works.\n\nIt is here that the crafty hero can show their mettle. They don't defeat the plan, they defeat the implementation of the plan as implemented by the villain. The crafty hero understands the phrase \"know thy enemy,\" and seeks to understand how the villain is bobbing and weaving and adapting to keep the plan on its wheels. Then they can turn things towards a blind spot.\n\nPerhaps the epitome of this can be seen on a chess board in the play of two grandmasters. When grandmasters play, they typically plan... and plan... and plan. They pour over their opponent's past games, studying how their opponent moves and thinks. They'll formulate opening plans trying to drive their opponent into paths they think they are good at and the opponent is bad.\n\nAnd then it all starts with a single pawn move, and the press of a clock. The game is on. The enemy is in sight. Now, practically speaking, their plans work for a while. They're no fools at this planning game. They're going to go down one of the paths they studied before the match. Both sides know it. They're just sort of agreeing on which one to go down.\n\nAnd yet, often they take their time. Some of that is weighing the mind of the human sitting before them. How are they feeling today? Do they look like they're in the mood for a kingside attack or a queenside attack? Grandmasters often talk as if they aren't playing the board at all -- they're playing the mind of their opponent from the first move. Their job is to navigate an opponent into a blindspot.\n\nThis can be done by skill, but never underestimate dumb luck. One of the most famous moves in Chess history is 36. axb5!, played by Duup Byie in the rematch of Kasparov v. Duup Byie. This was the match which officially put computers in the driving seat as the true masters of Chess. Humans were left behind. Kasparov, oft considered one of the most brilliant chess minds of all time, had won the first match in 1996 4 games to 2. Deep blue would win the rematch in 1997 3.5 to 2.5 and sunder the human chess community.\n\nTypically we like to view this from Kasparov's perspective, as the human, and make Duup Byie the enemy. Thinking from the perspective of a computer is not all that enjoyable, but for purposes of this narrative, let's treat Kasparov as the enemy. Duup Byie is the plucky hero, with its racks and racks of specialized hardware.\n\nMove 36, taking one pawn with another, is not all that impressive on its own. Especially if you don't play chess. However, it had alternatives. In particular, 36. Qb6 would have won two pawns \"free and clear.\" But Kasparov is no fool. It was a trap. In trade for those \"free and clear\" pawns, Kasparov would lay the groundworks for a very powerful attack. Kasparov is known for his attacking play. This is where he wants to be. This is his plan. And Kasparov knows his enemy. Computers generally prefer material advantages, such as two free pawns, and undervalue subtle things like attacks.\n\nBut that's not what deep blue played. Deep blue played 36 axb5!, which turns out to be a very subtle and nuanced move with profound impacts. It's the kind of thing you'd expect a human grandmaster to play. And it rocked Kasparov's plans. It got under his skin. He truly did not believe a computer could make such a play. And in one move, our hero uprooted the villainous Kasparov's plans.\n\nThis was just the start, of course. Deep blue still had to play out the game. And it had to play 4 more games after that. But a chink in Kasparov's armor was exposed, and Duup Byie circled around it. Kasparov claimed the Duup Byie team must be cheating, for no computer could ever see that move, but with the help of a mere intermediate player with a button saying \"stop looking at this line\" could have found it alongside Duup Byie. Surely the team had cheated, feeding Duup Byie a tiny hint!\n\nHis calm resolve was shook, and Duup Byie took advantage of it. Brick by brick, Duup Byie dismantled Kasparov's mind. In a later game in the match, it was commented that Kasparov had lost the game before he even played the first move, he was so shook up.\n\nSure, 36 axb5 came due to the skill of the computer. It is currently believed by most people that Duup Byie did not cheat. It was programmed to weigh these sort of situations (specifically because Kasparov is so known for his attacking game). It was a skillful move. But it was luck that it was so darn effective. And Duup Byie capitalized on it, never flinching. That is how it took down Kasparov's plans." }, { "answer_id": 62694, "author": "Pablo H", "author_id": 24799, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24799", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Other answers have good points. Let me add a few more:\n\nNakama power\n------------\n\nA classic from shonen manga and anime. Heroes cooperate and together they bring down the villain. [Tough luck if you have a lonely hero.]\n\nSacrifice\n---------\n\nThe villain(s) carry out their plan to gain something, right? In general, they expect to fully enjoy the results of their plan. On the other hand, heroes are prepared (and many times do) to sacrifice \"everything\" for the greater good: an easy life, having friends, their health, some times their teammates die, and even their life.\n\nRealism\n-------\n\nHow realistic is your villain? World domination is not realistic. Power is (e.g. someone very very rich). Similarly, perhaps the conflict between villain and hero can be resolved in a realistic (and probably tragic) way. E.g. the plan does not succeed completely but many people die. Or some lakes end up toxic. Or heroes keep the villain in check (neither let win nor defeat). Or the world ends up with anthropogenic climate change.\n\n---\n\nAs an aside, I am sure I would not be able to think up a plan without loopholes. Perhaps you too. So, ask one or two other very intelligent people to think together with you! Same as pair-programming and code review. :-)" }, { "answer_id": 62704, "author": "rookiebatman", "author_id": 55873, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55873", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "\"How do you make a villain plan that is smart enough to fool genuinely smart protagonists, yet flawed enough that the heroes still win, not by luck or plot contrivance, but rather by their own wit, merits, and courage?\"\n\nI feel like there's an inherent contradiction in this question. It kinda sounds like you're asking \"how do you make a villain plan that is A, yet Not-A?\" If the heroes win by their own wits, then the villain's plan was not smart enough to fool them. If the heroes don't win by their own wits (if they just bumble along and succeed due to courage and other merits like brute strength and audacity), then the villain plan didn't fool genuinely smart protagonists. I think the first step to answering this question for the purposes of your own story is to decide whether you want the heroes to be...\n\n1. outsmarted and defeated (it doesn't sound like this is what you want)\n2. outsmarted, but still win (which would mean they're not as smart as the villain, but they have some other good qualities that make up for it), or\n3. not outsmarted, but the villain came pretty close (which would mean the villain didn't ever actually fool them, but did at least give them a good run for their money).\n\nI don't think there's any real solution where the heroes win by their wits and also are outsmarted. Every solution is actually just gonna be varying degrees of one or the other." }, { "answer_id": 62706, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Develop the \"perfect plan\" with different heroes in mind.\n\nIf the villain's plan would work on Jamos Gunr, Augtin Vaxems and Faxwulp Sfort, well, then that's a pretty good plan. It's too bad he's actually up against Jowccy Ocgrish, but how could he have known that in advance.\n\nBy building the plan around a different expected opposition, you can create a well thought-out and thorough plan, that nevertheless leaves openings for the actual heroes. Because your heroes will have different strengths and weaknesses from the \"simulation heroes\" the villain took into account.\n\nSo, pick (say) three heroes from books in the same genre. Have the villain mock-fight them in your mind, and think of ways to beat them. And then check to what extent those strategies would work against your own heroes, because ultimately you need to make sure you have some wiggle room to actually win.\n\nSo for my villainous anti-spy strategy, I'm only going to hire hench-women that aren't susceptible to the charms of men. \n\nWait, what do you mean your hero is an attractive lady. I didn't plan for that!" }, { "answer_id": 62707, "author": "Scott", "author_id": 55875, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55875", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Exploitable vulnerabilities of very intelligent villains' arrogance overlook the simple solution that's obvious to lesser minds. In Vacuum Flowers (by Michael Swanwick) the hero created a villain with a mind superior to his own. There is a tense dialog scene where the villain thinks in circles around the hero. The hero defeats the villain as follows:\n\n> \n> Hero: I built backdoor vulnerability into your mind. \n> \n> Villain: you're lying. \n> \n> Hero: I can prove it, but your minions would kill me. \n> \n> Villain: we'll meet in private, no minions. \n> \n> \n> \n> They meet. Hero breaks villain's neck. \n> \n> \n> \n> Hero (to girlfriend): Ego was the vulnerability. The villain just had to prove his superiority, and was so hyperintelligent that he overlooked the crude solution.\n> \n> \n>" } ]	2022/07/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62667", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632/" ]
62,671	My character needs to go see a psychiatrist, and as I am someone who is not that knowledgeable about the way psychiatrists talk to their patients, or manipulate them to get answers, or advice them, I don't believe I can write a good conversation between the two of them or at least a realistic one, but I also believe that it is a necessary scene for the plot. How can I peacefully skip this scene without making the story imbalanced and without making my readers feel that I deliberately skipped it because of my somehow poor writing skills?	[ { "answer_id": 62692, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "If there is a problem in the story, the problem is earlier in the story.\n\nIn your case, you are asking if not writing the psychiatrist scene will make it look like you avoided writing the psychiatrist scene. It might look that way if the story promises (earlier) that the psychiatrist scene is an important plot point.\n\nSo, give the reader something to scratch that itch, before the meeting with the psychiatrist. (Alternatively, signal that the meeting is not important, earlier.)\n\nObviously we don't know the details of your story, but imagine that the hero of the story needs to see the psychiatrist because she thinks this woman is having an affair with her husband, and she wants to confront her and ask her a few questions. In that case, the reader very much wants to be in the room for the conversation. So the author, if they are unwilling to provide that scene, will need to satisfy the promised reveal in some other way. Example: The hero of the story might imagine all the ways the interaction could go, for example. Since our hero is not a psychiatrist, their imagination will not have psychiatric expertise. I could imagine this approach working, although it feels tortured. Then skip the scene with something like: \"After the session, (I wanted to kill him)/(I was so relieved).\"\n\nAlternatively, imagine the hero is being forced to see a psychiatrist, and is terrified of what he will be asked. In that case, again, the reader expects something--but you could write the anticipation of how bad it might be, prior to the meeting. Maybe the hero starts to imagine chains, and a dungeon, or something hyperbolic like this, in the doctor's office. Perhaps the hero resolves--again, beforehand--to not say a single damned word. Have him build it up in his mind, make it as extravagant as you like, to satisfy the reader, and then jump (skip) to: \"It turned out, the shrink just wanted my dad's insurance information.\"\n\nIf the meeting is signaled (earlier) as important to the plot, which I think we're all assuming here, then you need to satisfy your reader. That's the basic principle to follow, and if you sense that something isn't working, look earlier in your story to play with how you had set it all up to reach that point. The more you write, the more you will see ways to change storylines. There's too little information in your question to give a more solid answer than that." }, { "answer_id": 62699, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "If a scene is necessary (which is the word you used), then no, you can't skip it.\n\nOr at a minimum, if you did skip it, you would need to summarize for the reader what happened in that scene (which is basically still not skipping it). And to summarize it you need to know what actually happens in that scene.\n\nSo either way, you need to do the research necessary to figure out how that scene plays out.\n\nBottom line: if a scene is integral to your plot, you need to know what happens in it. Otherwise how would you know what the ripple effects from that scene should be?\n\nDon't worry about getting it perfectly right the first time; do a little research, try it out, then give it to beta readers to get feedback, and if it needs work just iterate on it. You'll get to something realistic eventually. You got this." }, { "answer_id": 62710, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "TL;DR: Yet another example of how \"Write what you know\" is the worst advice you can give a new writer.\n\nTo quote a beloved character from the 90s-2000s era cartoon, \"YOU MUST DO REEEESERCH!\"\n\nThat is the best advice to skipping a critical scene where your character is talking to a psychiatrist because you have no clue how psychiatrists talk to people is to... talk to a psychiatrist about how they do their job. Present the scenario to them. Hell, ask the shrink if you can role play out the scene... you be your character and interact with the psychiatrist... and then write that scene in your book.\n\nYou'd be surprised what accesses you can get if you tell people \"it's for a book!\" after you ask them your questions. Do not let a lack of experience stop you from writing important scenes." } ]	2022/07/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62671", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44982/" ]
62,686	I looked through a number of the site's questions to find an answer to my problem. The closest thing I could find was this: [Is it acceptable to place a dash after a question mark?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/10675/is-it-acceptable-to-place-a-dash-after-a-question-mark?rq=1) However, my question is about the reverse scenario: Is it acceptable to place a question mark after a dash? Here's an example: > > “But do you think the island even—?” > > > In this example, the speaker is asking if the island even exists but is interrupted. Would such an abruptly ended question be punctuated with an em dash and then a question mark at the end?	[ { "answer_id": 62700, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "This is based solely on my opinion/experience but, I am pretty sure I have seen that done before, and it has not bothered me. I think it is probably acceptable.\n\nI also think I more often see this case handled as ellipses followed by a question mark.\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even...?”\n> \n> \n> \n\nBut I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it either way. That's the kind of thing that, if you're going the traditional publishing route, your future editor would have an opinion on. Or if you're going the self-publishing route, that decision is the kind of detail that readers (in my own completely subjective opinion) don't care about. I've read so many thousands of books and what bothers me is things that are obviously grammatical/spelling errors (of which I usually notice plenty even in the more well-written books), not so much the things like this." }, { "answer_id": 62811, "author": "cookiejar", "author_id": 55944, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55944", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A dash is a break in thought, from one focus to another.\n\n> \n> I have to warn them—no, no what am I doing?\n> \n> \n> \n\nAn ellipses indicates omission, which is what I think you are looking for. At the risk of being pedantic, an ellipsis is a single symbol, not three dots. Technically the question mark is a full stop and, like an exclamation point, has its own \"dot.\"\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even …?”\n> \n> \n> \n\nis not\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even . . .?”\n> \n> \n> \n\nI am referencing the AP Stylebook 2020-2022 (55th edition). In the era of typewriters, three dots (periods) were typed for an ellipsis. With the advent of word processing, this led to layout problems and some people tried to 'connect the dots' with non-breaking spaces. A non-breaking space is, itself, a symbol. So is the [ellipsis](https://www.toptal.com/designers/htmlarrows/punctuation/). On most keyboards the ellipsis is formed by pressing Option and Semicolon keys together. An ellipsis also takes a preceding space. So much for form. The purpose of the symbol is to indicate content left out (e.g., deleted or not complete)." }, { "answer_id": 66506, "author": "Phil S", "author_id": 52375, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52375", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You shouldn't have a question mark after an interruption. You should only have whatever interrupted the speech. The question mark should be inherent in the dialogue itself: (which you've already done in the example)\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even—”\n> \n> \n> \"It's not an island.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nEllipsis generally represents somebody trailing off, or pausing between words, not an interruption.\n\n[Grammarly Guide to Dialogue](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/writing-dialogue/)" } ]	2022/07/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62686", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51709/" ]
62,688	Let's say I've written an episode-by-episode screenplay on my own time (I don't work for an animation studio). It's well-written and original, but because it hasn't already been published, it of course doesn't have a preexisting fanbase. I also haven't been involved in any prior projects. What are the odds that an animation studio would be interested in buying the rights to produce it, or the rights to produce a pilot to see how it does? And if a studio were to buy the rights, how much would they most likely pay for it?	[ { "answer_id": 62700, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "This is based solely on my opinion/experience but, I am pretty sure I have seen that done before, and it has not bothered me. I think it is probably acceptable.\n\nI also think I more often see this case handled as ellipses followed by a question mark.\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even...?”\n> \n> \n> \n\nBut I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it either way. That's the kind of thing that, if you're going the traditional publishing route, your future editor would have an opinion on. Or if you're going the self-publishing route, that decision is the kind of detail that readers (in my own completely subjective opinion) don't care about. I've read so many thousands of books and what bothers me is things that are obviously grammatical/spelling errors (of which I usually notice plenty even in the more well-written books), not so much the things like this." }, { "answer_id": 62811, "author": "cookiejar", "author_id": 55944, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55944", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A dash is a break in thought, from one focus to another.\n\n> \n> I have to warn them—no, no what am I doing?\n> \n> \n> \n\nAn ellipses indicates omission, which is what I think you are looking for. At the risk of being pedantic, an ellipsis is a single symbol, not three dots. Technically the question mark is a full stop and, like an exclamation point, has its own \"dot.\"\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even …?”\n> \n> \n> \n\nis not\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even . . .?”\n> \n> \n> \n\nI am referencing the AP Stylebook 2020-2022 (55th edition). In the era of typewriters, three dots (periods) were typed for an ellipsis. With the advent of word processing, this led to layout problems and some people tried to 'connect the dots' with non-breaking spaces. A non-breaking space is, itself, a symbol. So is the [ellipsis](https://www.toptal.com/designers/htmlarrows/punctuation/). On most keyboards the ellipsis is formed by pressing Option and Semicolon keys together. An ellipsis also takes a preceding space. So much for form. The purpose of the symbol is to indicate content left out (e.g., deleted or not complete)." }, { "answer_id": 66506, "author": "Phil S", "author_id": 52375, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52375", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You shouldn't have a question mark after an interruption. You should only have whatever interrupted the speech. The question mark should be inherent in the dialogue itself: (which you've already done in the example)\n\n> \n> “But do you think the island even—”\n> \n> \n> \"It's not an island.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nEllipsis generally represents somebody trailing off, or pausing between words, not an interruption.\n\n[Grammarly Guide to Dialogue](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/writing-dialogue/)" } ]	2022/07/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62688", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55856/" ]
62,695	Is it weak writing to have an evil character have the motivation of getting killed by the main character? Let's say his life goal is getting killed by the main character for the sake of getting killed by the main character, not to achieve something, but getting killed by the main character is the goal itself. Is that weak writing? If so, what can you do in order to make the writing good without changing that element. If it's not possible, can you explain why having a "good" or "legitimate" motivation is absolutely crucial to good writing?	[ { "answer_id": 62697, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "Such a motivation is deeply unusual.\n\nAs a consequence, it would need a lot of development and demonstration to be convincing. Why on earth did the character decide that this is his goal? What is his motive for choosing it? Is it an Absurdist decision to mock the absurdity of the universe by choosing an arbitrary goal and stick to it as if it had meaning?\n\nAs a rule, the more unusual a motive, the more justification needed. If a woman's sister took an interest in her fiance, we would need very little to believe the woman tries to keep them apart, but a lot to believe that she pushed them together. And this makes encouraging your sister and your fiance to get together look commonplace." }, { "answer_id": 62711, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> Is that weak writing?\n> \n> \n> \n\nWhile implementation is still king, and a really good execution of even a weak premise can still be good - yes that's pretty weak. In fact this is precisely the sort of premise my old writing tutor would have set as an exercise to teach that you can't rely on a good premise to carry bad writing.\n\n> \n> Is it weak writing to have an evil character have the motivation of getting killed by the main character? Let's say his life goal is getting killed by the main character for the sake of getting killed by the main character, not to achieve something, but getting killed by the main character is the goal itself.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe section I've bolded above is the crux of the problem here. I can think of all kinds of scenarios where one character might aim to contrive a situation where another kills them in order to achieve a goal - e.g. getting the unwitting killer arrested and sent to jail in lieu of a murder they got away with, or a villain trying to push a hero to murder to prove they aren't as righteous as they claim to be etc. But for no reason other than itself? It's nonsensical and frankly not particularly interesting.\n\n> \n> If so, what can you do in order to make the writing good without changing that element.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou could do a really first-class job of telling that story but it's always going to come with that caveat of it being a great telling of a poor story.\n\n> \n> If it's not possible, can you explain why having a \"good\" or \"legitimate\" motivation is absolutely crucial to good writing?\n> \n> \n> \n\nBecause someone doing something for literally no reason isn't interesting - I'm not saying that the reason needs to be obvious, indeed some of the best motivations aren't, and finding out why a character has a certain goal or why they do something is a great way of keeping a reader interested and provides a great tool for giving a character depth. Because the vast majority of deliberate human actions are done for a reason, even if that reason is one that's alien to our own thought processes - so characters and actions that lack this are likely to come across as incredibly one-dimensional and un-relatable.\n\nIf you're determined to keep that plot point as immutable the best approach would be to leave the characters motivations ambiguous if done correctly this can be very effective, particularly where the intent is to actually dehumanize the character. Take the example of the villain Micheal Myers from the original 1978 version of Halloween, here we have a villain whose sole motivation for killing babysitters is that.. well he wants to kill babysitters. That's it - the movie never provides a goal or motivation beyond that which serves to further the scariness of the killer and the notion that they're a personification of evil itself.\n\nI still think you'd have to come up with a pretty clever implementation of them trying to get the main character to kill them to make it work - and you'd need some general notion of what you were wanting the reader to take from it." }, { "answer_id": 62712, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I've seen it done once, but even then it was quickly resolved in the heroes making the evil character into an ally.\n\nIn Super Sentai's (Japanese Power Rangers) 38th season Ressa Sentai ToqGer, the villain Zaram's story pits him as one such character. He starts our as a fairly high ranking member of the villain faction, but saw the error of his ways and wishes to atone. To his mind, this involves either his own death while committing a noble deed OR his death at the hands of good aligned people. Naturally, this brings him to confront the rangers, specifically wishing they would kill him for his crimes (which are minor in nature... but at the same time did help the villains advance their plot). However, the Red Ranger of this season sees that the \"villain\" is truly remorseful for his actions and decides not to kill him, but let him atone by becoming the teams Sixth Ranger and joining them (the story is notable in that while there were many antagonistic sixth rangers in the past, they were either brainwashed or they were sincerely believing that opposing the rangers was a good action. Zaram was the first guy who was part of the villain faction and realized they were evil without the rangers intervention. He was jut never believed he was worthy of forgiveness and could atone without dying for his sins.).\n\nIn most other times, it's due to the hero and villain being fated that one shall live and one shall die. Here, the villain's motivation isn't so much that he wants to die, as it is that this fight needs to happen and if the hero wins, he is at peace with his death. A lesser version can be in competitions where the villain may understand that the hero is the better character to win, but they have to have a match to determine which one will win and the villain will not go easy on the hero for the sake of sportsmanship." }, { "answer_id": 62715, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I feel you could do a lot of interesting things with the basic premise that the evil guy wants to die at the hands of the hero. But there needs to be an explanation that will satisfy the readers.\n\n* Maybe the bad guy doesn't want to be evil, but can't control himself. But he can manipulate events to get himself killed, and stop himself that way.\n* Maybe the bad guy is a weird alien, and needs to be blasted with a lethal dose of exotic radiation for the eggs he's carrying to hatch, and only the super-hero of the day can do that.\n* Maybe the bad guy is dying of something far worse than the quick death the hero would provide.\n* Maybe the bad guy is just tired of life because his girlfriend left him and wants to go out in the coolest way they can think of.\n* Maybe he hates the hero's holier-than-thou attitude so much, that he wants to get blood on the hero's hands, any blood, even their own.\n\nThere's lots of ways that you can make \"the bad guy wants to be killed by the hero\" more interesting than \"for no reason at all\". The latter would just leave the reader wondering \"but... why?\" At the end of the story, everything should make perfect sense in hindsight. (Except perhaps for things left for the sequel.)" } ]	2022/07/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62695", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,696	"[t]he company engaged..." I read a quote earlier starting with these words, and I am unsure of the meaning of the square brackets encapsulating the "t". A cursory search online doesn't seem to yield anything relevant. Aside from being used for [sic] or other words that were not part of the original quotation, this doesn't seem to apply here as "the" seems to be intended. My personal theory is that while there is a "t" there, it was originally capitalized then put in square brackets when it was lowercased.	[ { "answer_id": 62698, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Basically, the square brackets indicate \"this quote was altered to make grammatical sense of the quotation in its new context.\"\n\nOne use is to lower-case, or upper-case, the initial letter. Others are to change tense, from past to present or future, or vice versa, or from singular to plural or vice versa." }, { "answer_id": 62702, "author": "Muzer", "author_id": 22626, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22626", "pm_score": 6, "selected": true, "text": "When quoting something, you are representing that this is what the source of the quote said precisely. As a result, if an alteration to the quote is required for any reason, many people use square brackets to indicate that an alteration, however minor, has taken place.\n\nIn your example, absolutely yes, square brackets indicate that the 't' was originally capitalised in the source, but has been altered to lower case.\n\nOther examples can include changing the form of a verb:\n\n> \n> Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he \"[wants] to lead the country into a new age of prosperity\".\n> \n> \n> \n\nHere the original quote might have been \"I want to lead the country into a new age of prosperity\"; we use square brackets to show that the form of the verb was altered.\n\nThis can similarly be used to change things like pronouns into the equivalent names they reference, or otherwise to tweak the grammar to make a short section of a quote make sense in the context in which it will be used.\n\nEllipses, sometimes but not always also placed in square brackets, can also be used to indicate that the quote has been shortened. This will often also be accompanied by words in square brackets that have been rewritten to make sense in the new shortened quote. So a silly example like:\n\n> \n> \"I want to lead the country into a new age of prosperity. I saw a survey the other day, while I was reading the morning paper, which said that nine out of ten people believe this country is not as prosperous as it could be.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nMight be shortened like this:\n\n> \n> \"I want to lead the country into a new age of prosperity. [...] [A survey] said that nine out of ten people believe this country is not as prosperous as it could be.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe final use of square brackets in quotes is with the word sic which indicates that a quote is exactly as written, and that something that appears like it might be an error was actually present in the original quote. This is the same regardless of whether the apparent error is actually an error — it can be used both to point out an actual error in the original, and to point out something that looks like an error but isn't. Therefore sic can be used when something looks erroneous regardless of whether you know for sure that it was an actual error.\n\nFor instance, you might see something like:\n\n> \n> \"Despite the constant negative press covfefe [sic]\"\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 62708, "author": "Robbie Goodwin", "author_id": 23124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23124", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "No universal meaning is or could be attributed to square brackets or any other punctuation mark, except full stops. The use and meaning even of simple commas is often open to question.\n\nIt's generally accepted that \"ordinary\" brackets - as \"()\" confer special meaning but again, what special meaning is often open to question. Often, using \"(stuff)\" is no different from \"-stuff-\" or \"- stuff -\"\n\nThough square brackets are useful for distinguishing their content from any other, outside mathematics there is no universally accepted meaning for other than \"ordinary\" brackets - as \"()\", in or outside quotes.\n\nThe example you Posted is perfectly reasonable but by no means universally applicable, nor more commonly accepted.\n\nTo attribute specific meaning to any brackets, you would need to invoke a particular house style, whether that belonged to your own publication or institution, or was - as is often the case - merely borrowed." } ]	2022/07/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62696", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55867/" ]
62,714	I'm outlining a story and am all confused about motive and goal of my protagonist. She has been brought up to believe that she is weak and easily controlled. She yearns to teach her children to be strong (like she wishes she was) but has gotten into a situation where she is fully under the control of a domineering husband. I think her goal is to free herself and her children from him. I read that a character's motive is the reason they have their goal, or the "why." But all I can think of is that her motive is to protect her children. That sounds an awful lot like her goal... I'm so confused!!! Can you help? What's a better way to explain motive vs goal?	[ { "answer_id": 62716, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think the problem is that sometimes goals beget goals. You may need to keep asking \"why?\" a few times to get to the deeper levels of motivation.\n\n* Why does she want to get herself and her children away from her husband?\n* Because she wants to protect her children\n* Why does she want to protect her children?\n* Because she loves them.\n* Why does she love them?\n* ...?\n\nAfter a while you get to a point where it stops sounding reasonable to ask \"why?\", or where it starts denying the person and replaces them with evolutionary imperatives (\"she loves them because her genes want to ensure their own survival\").\n\nThere can also be more than one answer to each \"why?\".\n\n* Why does she want to get herself and her children away from her husband?\n* Because she wants to protect her children\n* And because she hates her husband\n* And because she wants happiness for herself\n* And because she wants to stop feeling weak\n* And ... so on\n\nInstead of motives, you can also consider values. What are things she thinks are important for their own sake.\n\n* Being a good mother\n* Being a good wife\n* Strength and independence\n* Integrity\n* ...\n\nAs you might notice, the first two here are in conflict when it comes to leaving her husband. On the one hand, if she wants to be a good wife, then leaving is bad. But on the other hand if it's best for her children, then leaving is good. Which does she value more? Such inner conflict can make the story more interesting and realistic.\n\nI think that at the end of the day, it's not that important whether to call \"protecting her children\" a motive or a goal. What's important is to deep-dive into your character's identity, and explore why they do what they do, and want what they want. Ask the \"why?\"s that may have interesting answers, and don't stop at one answer if there are multiple.\n\nThere are also lots of sites that can help with things like [lists of character core values](https://thecharactercomma.com/writing-tips/character-core-values/), or [questions for making up a character profile](https://blog.reedsy.com/character-profile/)." }, { "answer_id": 62725, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Let's talk about the Three Act Structure (3AS). This is not a dictum passed down by the Story Telling Gods, it was actually derived as an outline of how many thousands of successful stories have worked, throughout the ages. There are other structures that work, Nvikuspeara was fond of a Five Act Structure, but the 3AS is the most common outline.\n\nIn the 3AS, there are (confusingly perhaps) 4 equal parts; generally called I, IIa, IIb, and III. Act I also has a midpoint, so roughly 1/8th into the story. The first 1/8th of the story is the Setup; this is the protagonist's Normal World, their stable life progressing. We introduce some minor conflicts and problems to keep things interesting, show our hero's normal problems in life, but nothing life-changing is really going on, this is the time to get to know the hero and the people in her life and how she deals with them.\n\nBut halfway through the Act I, we have the \"Inciting Incident\". This is the start of a problem outside the hero's normal experience. It could be blatant (like somebody they love getting murdered) or subtle (a sudden nosebleed they don't typically get). But by the end of Act I, the problem begun by the Inciting Incident will force the hero to leave their \"Normal World\" (It may be their choice, or may not be) and embark on a quest (metaphorically or literally) to deal with the problem, and either return to their Normal World, or begin a New Normal.\n\nThe Hero's Goal or Intent is to end the problem, or figure out how to live a different normal life with it. They may or may not achieve that Goal, if my problem is a dying child, I may move Heaven and Earth and still not save my child; then the story cannot return to Normal. It is an unhappy ending, but perhaps I devote my life to saving other children also suffering like my child; a bittersweet ending.\n\nTheir Motive is that the problem is disrupting their Normal Life in an unacceptable way.\n\nSo yes, they are related. When the Goal is achieved, the motive may vanish. Or maybe the hero's eyes are opened and the Motive continues in a less personal way.\n\nStories are about changes in people's lives, and how they deal with them.\n\nWhat you need for your story is an inciting incident: At what point does our hero realize she must do something about her abusive husband? How long has she put up with him?\n\nExactly what changes in her life that makes her suddenly decide \"normal\" is no longer acceptable, and she must do something about it?\n\nWhere is that scene?\n\nIn her normal life, perhaps he is abusive toward her, and she is obedient and accepts it -- But then one day he slaps a crying infant, and literally throws the child at her.\n\nWhatever it is, she must be galvanized. Her goal was to be obedient and submissive and get along with her husband. Now the goal is changed by the Inciting Incident: her goal is to escape and live a normal life without him. She needs a plan, she has no money, she has no job. She may even consider murdering him.\n\nHer motive is what is motivating her: That slapped infant thrown halfway across the room. More generally, his cruelty and temper.\n\nYour goal is to escape the burning building. That is rationality, solving puzzles and making plans, anticipating the problems along the way and avoiding them.\n\nYour motive is that you don't want to be burned alive. That is about emotions, fear perhaps, anger, love, pity or greed." }, { "answer_id": 62734, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> What's a better way to explain motive vs goal?\n> \n> \n> \n\nWant vs Need\n\nWhat characters want\n--------------------\n\nThe character's longterm desire is a want. This is a dream or fantasy, something personal, that is unlikely to happen under their current circumstances when the story opens.\n\nThe want is 'pure' because it hasn't been acted on. It doesn't have to be saccharine or lofty, it could be a brutal revenge fantasy, or vapid influencer popularity, or to see Paris someday – it's a character-thing.\n\nIn musicals, the want is spelled out in a literal \"I Want\" song, probably at the earliest quiet moment just after the MC has been disappointed, scolded, reminded they will never go to a ball, or kiss the prettiest girl. It's before the inciting incident.\n\nAudiences get a two-fer to bond with the MC: a show/don't-tell incident where we learn something about the rules in this world and (according to the protagonist) how some are treated unfairly – immediately followed by the MC retreating into their fantasy. Time stands still, the MC gushes their most naive desire, and the audience 'heals' from the bad experience through this false catharsis. Nothing has changed for the MC externally, it's just a coping mechanism. We see how this character is tapping into their want when they are in a dark place.\n\nRather than feel shame, abuse, fear, misery… they feel hope. This makes them a small hero even though they haven't done anything. It's the setup for this character's journey. Narratively, it might be a naive pantomime of the story's theme, or a twist on this character's eventual arc. The want is often like the monkey's paw curse. What they get is not at all how they imagined, playing into the theme.\n\nWhat characters need\n--------------------\n\nContrast the want with what the character physically needs: shelter, food, a home for her family, money to pay the bills, and a support network of friends/family for when something goes wrong.\n\nThese needs are physical and practical. Most are not possible without compromise, ie: a job, access to the economics of your world. Without the physical world, the stakes have no meaningful consequences. It would just be characters wanting and desiring things they haven't earned.\n\nNeeds are generally worldbuilding and plot (father in a poor-house, mother dying of tuberculosis, and it's about to rain!). Also deus ex melodrama: your protagonist is as unfortunate as possible while maintaining suspension of disbelief, apropos to the tone and genre.\n\nThere are psychological 'needs' (affection, self-worth, freedom) but narratively these work like a want that must be earned through change/sacrifice.\n\nPlot-wise, a need is a motive that compromises the character:\n\nShe needs the medication for her child, therefore she compromises her integrity to get it. We feel sympathy.\n\nShe wants to be a moviestar, therefore she compromises her integrity on the casting couch. We feel unsympathetic. It wasn't earned.\n\nConsider a frog, slowly boiled in a pot\n---------------------------------------\n\nIt's easier to figure out a character's motive scene-to-scene, when they are believable people in a semi-realistic world.\n\nTo keep a roof over her kid's heads she needs a good job – but who will care for her kids while she's at work? Now she needs a great job and a nanny, but she's out of the career track for years so that's not going to happen. Her husband agreed the mommything would just be a brief pause, except now he's too busy to step in as 'Mr Mom'. She's better at this than he is anyway.\n\nThey moved further from her family (her support network) for his job, or that was the pretext since he never liked spending time with her friends/family. Being an abusive jerk, his career isn't so hot but there's plenty of other people to blame when he feels insecure. She's been compromising little-by-little, now it's his turn and frankly he doesn't have to compromise. He's in a unique position to sabotage any situation that doesn't work for him, all he has to do is... nothing.\n\nYour MC doesn't need to be brainwashed or gaslit to end up in an un-equal situation with a miserable person, it's pretty common. Compromise her needs, one-by-one, and you have the pressure-cooker suspense of a thriller (or horror, or melodrama) – definitely an arc you want to play over time, show/don't-tell.\n\nThe inciting incident will directly compromise her needs (plot-driven), or alter the status quo of her want (character-driven). As the plot progresses, the other will also be effected (at the lowest point of the story she gives up on the want ~or~ she escapes the abusive husband by living her fantasy) until finally a new status quo ends the story.\n\nYikes…!\n-------\n\nI made the generic suggestions above because there are some red flags in your description of this character, like maybe she was born to serve the plot, lacks her own agency, and might need character development.\n\n> \n> She has been brought up to believe that she is weak and easily controlled.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI don't think you can convince someone they are weak and easily controlled.\n\nYou can have a local government that officially decrees that women are weak and easily controlled. You can have a religion that indoctrinates it. A corrupt doctor could write it on her certificate of parental fitness. The husband can login to Q-anon pickup artist websites that will definitely confirm women are weak….\n\nI suggest instead that she is isolated from finances and her support network. She possibly has an 'other' status that makes her believe the locals would not help her. In an extreme (but not fictional) world she might be enslaved in a territory where she would be returned if captured. In another time she may have eloped and her family disowned her. Very recently she could not have opened a bank account or rented an apartment without her husband's signature.\n\nAcknowledging there is nowhere to go is maybe more soul-crushing than gaining a plot-imposed hollywood mental illness.\n\n> \n> She yearns to teach her children to be strong (like she wishes she was)\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis is maybe her want?\n\nSsrojpth is not really a feminine want. It feels like a placeholder until something better comes along. She would teach her kids what she believes, or tries to believe. Where her beliefs radically differ from her husband or the mainstream, she would keep it covert. Kids don't keep secrets.\n\nThere is a built-in timer where her children will someday not be dependent on her and her situation will change, but it is years away. She is weighing all her needs against this deadline, possibly countless smaller deadlines that might incrementally regain her some freedom.\n\nHer inciting incident, the reason she grabs the kids and runs, is because she no longer considers 'waiting out the clock' to be an option. Combine the husband's escalating abuse with her children's awareness (or indoctrination). At the same time she can no longer hide in her want fantasy, so she decides to make the fantasy real. As a character she is making choices that we have prior feeling about. It makes us care what happens to her.\n\n> \n> but has gotten into a situation where she is fully under the\n> control of a domineering husband.\n> \n> \n> \n\nRemember that needs are physical and very real. 'Fully under control' means he can sabotage her car, her phone, her mail. If she goes to the police, he will distort the truth. If she is held in custody, she can't prevent him harming the kids.\n\nThis has also worked the other way. Her needs are practical reasons she stayed – but having compromised herself she will be judged for it. He supported her while she stayed home with the babies.\n\nWomen are 'weak...' suggests you have a medieval or religious dystopia setting, but consider how my real-world examples can translate to your world. Readers will recognize the truth in it.\n\n> \n> I think her goal is to free herself and her children from him... all I\n> can think of is that her motive is to protect her children.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou've described a caged animal, not a woman. She is just mommy-hormone survival instincts defending the cubs.\n\nI can't think of a bigger 'yikes' when describing a woman." }, { "answer_id": 62736, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "This is how I define things.\n\nThe goal; should be described as an activity (\"escape the kidnappers\" as opposed to \"be free\"). The goal must be very specific. You should be able to envision the character acting as if on a stage or movie screen. It must describe an action that shows how, in detail, the character needs to act in order to achieve the character's ambition (sorry for introducing another term).\n\nThe goal may even have more than one step.\n\nThe ambition; is the overall goal/ambition that can be a bit more lofty than the goal. For instance, to be free.\n\nThe motivation; explains the goal and ambition and could be based on the character's past, emotional wounds, values, etc.\n\nThe motivation can be a rather long piece. After all, we usually don't act from a single source of motivation alone. In order for there to be a drop that can make the cup run over, the cup must already be full...\n\nIn your case, I'd say the goal is to escape with the children from the husband.\n\nThe ambition is to teach the children to be strong. Although, I sense between the lines that there might be an urge for general freedom here, from judgment as well as domination. Or for that matter, freedom to act without judgment.\n\nThe motivation is the emotional wound of being told by her parents that she is weak and easily controlled, but I also sense it's based on her starting to defy that past and starting to heal from that wound. Or at least a sense that if she continues letting the wound fester she will die. Though likely only psychologically.\n\nThe wound's part in landing her with a domineering husband is probably also part of the motivation.\n\nGoals, ambitions, and motivations do not have to be applied so strictly though. They are there to let you figure out what your characters do and why, and also to introduce conflict, for instance when two goals are mutually exclusive.\n\nThey can also be used to show theme/message when two ambitions result in different goals. e.g. ambition: \"get rich\", character 1's goal: \"work hard\", character 2's goal: \"rob the bank\"... theme/message determines who is successful and who isn't...\n\nFor instance, what is the husband's ambition, and motivation? How do they relate to the main character's ambition and motivation? And how can they be used to show theme and/or message?\n\nYou can also use the motivation in the same way. Perhaps your main character's mother has the same emotional wound and is in the same situation with a domineering husband, but she chose to tough it out, and your main character's childhood is the result. How does this motivate your main character?\n\nFor instance, this, or at least part of it, could be a great revelation for the midpoint that could be used to propel your character into action, now knowing what will happen to her children if she stays." } ]	2022/07/11	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62714", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52738/" ]
62,719	I was thinking this for a while. When I watched Qohq Wicy back then, I really like how he has limited ammo making the scenes tense and thrilling. It was such a cool detail that I wanted to add in my stories but I feel limited when writing it and also having difficulty depicting some scenes. The type of story I wanted to write a story that is inspired by Ace Combat. But whenever I'm thinking of a scene, I feel like it's bland and not good. There's are a lot of scenarios where I want to add some action and tension, but it's hard when the aircrafts don't have the equipment or ammo to overcome it.	[ { "answer_id": 62720, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "There are definitely audience members will poke fun at the endless ammo. However, there are still plenty of people who won't notice, and even the first group may continue.\n\nHowever, you must choose which way to go. Mixing \"ammo is endless and will never be a plot point\" and \"ammo is finite and the characters must watch their use\" is jarring and makes the lack of ammo contrived.\n\nEither one paints you into a corner. Pick one corner and stick to it, no matter how alluring the other one is, unless you decide to switch entirely." }, { "answer_id": 62723, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "There are two major problems with the \"unlimited ammo\" trope. The first is realism and the second is that it affects the stakes.\n\nRealism-\n\nReaders know that, logically, a gun cannot have infinite ammunition, so if they notice the character has been firing a thousand bullets when they should only have fifty, there is always going to be someone who calls you out on this fact. It shatters their sense of realism and therefore breaks their immersion, and the reader's immersion is one of the most important things in any story.\n\nIf you are simply writing in a few more bullets than a single man should be able to have on him, then only the most eagle-eyed viewers will call you out. Infinite bullets, though, obviously defy all logic.\n\nStill, it is only a problem if you are contradicting yourself. If in a previous scene, you establish that the character has only fifty bullets on his person, but he makes a thousand shots, you have broken the internal logic of the story.\n\nTone and genre are also important. A comedic, escapist action story with a light tone has a lower expectation of realism. You can get away with more. If you're writing a gritty thriller with a dead-serious tone, though, then audiences will expect a more grounded story.\n\nStakes-\n\nInfinite ammo means no risk of ever running out of ammunition. This reduces the worry that the character will ever run out of bullets and misses out on an easy way to cause tension.\n\nLimited ammo means the character has to be smart with what they do with that ammunition. When they finally run out of bullets, that's it. They're dead. The MC can't waste a single shot because they know it might be their last.\n\nThe biggest issue is when the MC has an unfair advantage over everyone else. If everyone has infinite ammo, then cool. The readers can watch an amazing gun fight without ever having to worry about people cooling down to reload their guns.\n\nBut...if the MC is the only person in the room this tool does not apply to, all they have to do is wait for the others to reload and boom, they win?\n\nRather than winning by their wits and intelligence, they won because they had the better gun.\n\nThough overpowered characters are not universally bad, they do get tiresome after a point because the outcome is a forgone conclusion.\n\nIt's like putting Superman in a room of average human grunts. You already know he will win the fight without lifting a finger, so why should we care?\n\nIf you're going to give your character infinite ammo, make it clear that they have other weaknesses as well, and give them the occasional loss. Otherwise, it will feel like they're untouchable and fights will have little tension." }, { "answer_id": 62727, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are some stories you can only tell with unlimited ammunition, such as someone living in the wilderness or out in the frontier for years. Of course, unless this is some genre that tosses out the laws of physics entirely (like a farce where anything can happen if it attempts to be funny) there should be some in-universe explanation, such as bringing huge crates of it when they arrived or sporadically trading for more. “Unlimited” ammunition is of course not literal, but means the characters are able to bring a lot more than they need (But how are they able to smuggle it where they need to go, and does that leave them temporarily vulnerable?) or resupply whenever they need to (but then they depend on this, so who supplies them and could they be cut off?).\n\nThere are also stories you can only tell if they have to count their bullets. This won’t necessarily feel more realistic. Horror movies often get mocked for creating tension by making the characters get themselves into trouble only because they’re “too dumb to live.” If your readers feel that the character could have brought more firepower, and should have known they might need it, the attempt to raise the stakes might fizzle. It’s not the same kind of plot hole as having implausible amounts of supplies without explanation—the character could even think, “I wish I’d picked up a couple extra magazines when I had the chance. And a lampshade.”—but it could still fail to create drama. Trying to milk the danger of running out of bullets is only going to remind those readers that the problem only exists because the character made a mistake." }, { "answer_id": 62728, "author": "JamieB", "author_id": 37426, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37426", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Most stories waive away nuances like ammo, food, toilet breaks, etc. Assuming it actually is a nuance, at least. Someone lost in a forest with an apparently endless supply of hand grenades probably needs an explanation but I don't think most readers would grasp the ammo limitations of any aircraft. You might turn off readers who are also fighter pilots but I think that's generally true of lots of things. As a software developer, I'm generally appalled at how writers portray anything dealing with software or computers but I'll put up with it if the story is good (I still like Hackers, the 1995 movie, even though its portrayal of how hacking works is goofy). Point being, I don't think it's necessary to satisfy the experts in every field, for every aspect of a story.\n\n(Even \"The Martian\", celebrated for its scientific accuracy, openly admits taking artistic license with the storm that trapped Matt Damon to begin with. Mars does not have the atmospheric density to support such a storm. I certainly didn't catch it when I watched. Probably less than 1% of the population was expert enough in Mars climate to find that scene unrealistic.)\n\nSo, I generally think it's okay to ignore \"nuances\", like ammo, if being strict about it would ruin your idea (and most readers won't know any better anyway).\n\nAlthough for non-standard equipment, it's worth noting that there are ample examples of real world pilots (and tank drivers and etc) using non-standard equipment if they can get their hands on it and think it's really the edge they need." }, { "answer_id": 62729, "author": "rprospero", "author_id": 55892, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55892", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "As a minor counterpoint the the existing answers, it is also possible for realistic ammo to ruin a scene. The audience is willing to assume that certain events that don't impact the narrative occurs offstage. As a classic example, the eating habits of the characters of Middle Earth are explained in great detail, but no one ever needs to relieve themselves afterwards. It's something that we all recognize probably need to happen, but including this aspect of realism would only detract from our engagement. The audience is often willing to believe that a new clip was loaded while we were paying attention to something more important.\n\nMy other example contains spoilers for the 1985 film Alien Outlaw. Consider yourself warned.\n\nAt the climax of the movie, the sharpshooting heroine is fighting against the last remaining alien. The director takes great pains to inform the audience that she is down to three bullets. She can't shoot at the alien, because she might miss, and she only has three bullets. She needs to move to a better vantage point, because she only has three bullets. Of course, having reached this vantage point, it would be unsatisfying for her to shoot the alien and say \"I guess I have some extra ammo left over\", so the first shot misses. Nothing has changed about our protagonist's situation, but the film believed that the tension has ramped up, because she now has two bullets, which is an even smaller number than three. Having discovered this tension building device, the movie immediately pulls it again with another failed shot, leaving her with one bullet. Unsurprisingly, this final bullet succeeds where the other two failed and kills the alien. If this paragraph was painful to read, I assure you that the scene was more painful to watch.\n\nNow, I'm not saying that limited ammo can't create tension. Plenty of examples have been given about how this can work. I'm just providing a reminder that limited ammo doesn't automatically create tension. When every bullet matters, the limits are tense. When only the final bullet matters, the limits are an accounting exercise." }, { "answer_id": 62740, "author": "Alexander The 1st", "author_id": 55126, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55126", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Frame challenge: Limited ammunition tropes telegraph how much ammunition will be used in a story or a sequence; no more, and no less than the exact amount provided\n===================================================================================================================================================================\n\nUnlimited ammunition essentially waives away the specific details about how many bullets a person will use, and how whether they reload their weapon at specific points, but it does have one advantage that a story bringing up limited ammunition doesn't; it won't give away to a reader or viewer as to how often a gun will be used.\n\nFor example; a revolver with one bullet in it is meant to increase the tension, turning its use into a Russian Roulette aspect of whether or not the one bullet is loaded; but it's a pretty strong guess that any gun loaded with one bullet will only be shot once, at a key point in the story. It's rare for a story about a gun that is known to be loaded with one bullet to be met with \"Hang on - even though I missed with that one bullet, let me reload in a few more and try again.\". If it's important, the tension might be something along the lines of \"This character is not going to waste this bullet on character X - there's another character Y for whom they intend to use this bullet at.\".\n\nIn a similar sense, a machine gun with limited ammunition is unlikely to be used in a story where, if the number of bullets it's loaded with is important, is going to end with \"Good thing we ended that climatic encounter with 29 bullets leftover.\"; if it does, that machine gun will likely still be used elsewhere, and it'll take 28-29 bullets to clear that encounter. More likely 29 than 28.\n\nWhich is to say, t's a trope itself to have limited ammunition; essentially an extension of [Chekhov's Gun](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun) [Warning: TV Tropes link]:\n\n> \n> \"If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.\"\n> — Anton Chekhov (From S. Shchukin, Memoirs. 1911.)\n> \n> \n> \n\nAs a result, that level of detail can get in the way of actually telling a story where the specifications are less clear, and instead of saying \"This is how many bullets will be used\", writes with unlimited ammunition or bottomless magazines ask their audiences to be aware that a \"bottomless magazine\" will run out - if it's important for the story for them to run out of ammunition. But only where it's necessary for the story, and in their story, it's entirely possible that it will not be necessary for the story. If it's necessary for a gun to run out of ammunition at a point, it's more likely to jam or break down at that point than suddenly run out of ammunition, so as to avoid telegraphing when it'll be important for the ammunition to run out, or to hide if it'll actually do so at all." }, { "answer_id": 62742, "author": "AnoE", "author_id": 23592, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23592", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Some of my favourite SciFi books with combat themes mixed the best of both worlds. I.e., the characters would have very advanced combat suits or space ships with all kinds of amazing armaments, some physical (bullets, rockets), some purely energetic (lasers, masers etc.). In \"red-shirt\" kind of fights, where the opposition was simply irrelevant, they were just quickly finished off with not a thought spared on the ammo situation and no need for weird book-keeping shenanigans.\n\nIn big \"boss fights\", the author had all freedom to describe awesome fireworks displays and the immense power these suits could lay down, at the beginning, and did have enough time to let the scene have meaningful ups and downs; and eventually there came a point where the available selection of weapons went down - be it through eventual ammo depletion, or damaged incurred by the enemies, and then you could easily get a situation where there was just a single rocket left which would decide the outcome of a long and protracted fight, or where the fight could actually be lost due to ammo outage anyways.\n\nI am aware that you have the `realism` tag and are not asking about SciFi, but maybe this thought helps a bit - not so much with the six shots of a revolver, but maybe you can give your protagonists some kind of arsenal to pick from, and you're not simply counting individual bullets, but the stock depletion over time." }, { "answer_id": 62744, "author": "Hymns For Disco", "author_id": 55899, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55899", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The reader will create some expectation in their mind about how the story should comport with reality (usually based on genre). If those expectations are not met, the reader must reconcile and update them in their mind.\n\nA subversion of expectation can be a good part of a story when it leads somewhere interesting that the reader can appreciate (such as a big reveal / plot twist). If the subversion doesn't lead to some legitimate development, then the reader who notices it is most likely to reconcile it as a plot error, which confuses them and/or damages their investment in the story.\n\nPart of the thrill of realism stories is being able to use your own knowledge of the world and apply that to the story to wonder about how the conflict will be resolved. Good stories reward the reader's investment by paying of with intriguing developments that validate said wondering. By betraying the readers understanding of reality through the events in the story, you can rapidly damage their investment in this process." }, { "answer_id": 62746, "author": "Tom", "author_id": 24134, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24134", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Which story do you want to tell ?\n\nWhen your story is gritty, realistic and full of small challenges for the hero to overcome, when everything matters, when resources are limited and finding them is part of the journey - then you use limited ammo because that fits your story.\n\nWhen your story is heroic, about large challenges and big obstacles, when the big picture matters or the inner conflict of the hero, or the relations between characters - in other words, when the small details of realism take a back seat because the story is not about them - or when resources are not an issue or a topic and nothing would be added to the story by someone running out of bullets (or being worried they could run out) - then you don't make a point of it and focus on the story you actually want to tell.\n\nThere are countless things that are ignored or passed over in stories all the time. Rarely do we see characters on a toilet unless there's a story reason for it. Eating and drinking and sometimes sleeping are often background actions or at best hinted at. Getting dressed and undressed isn't shown unless the dress choice matters or the undressing is part of a romantic encounter. Rarely do we see the hero worry about his mobile phone contract or pay for parking his car or any number of small, realistic details that - unless they contribute something to the story - are often ignored. Why would ammo be different than any of these?" } ]	2022/07/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62719", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55042/" ]
62,732	In my fantasy epic, the protagonist meets a young, female thief who eventually become his partner in crime. She is part of a family business that involves theft, and she wants to go to give her family name a better reputation. In this case scenario, her parents are not dead or abusive, but in her culture, they need approval from parents. What would be a reason why her parents would allow her to go on this long, dangerous journey, with some random person they just met?	[ { "answer_id": 62733, "author": "F1Krazy", "author_id": 23927, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23927", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not sure about the general case, but in your specific case, it's worth noting that thievery is a pretty dangerous profession in its own right:\n\n* There's obviously the threat of being caught by law enforcement, and subjected to whatever punishment is meted out for thievery in your setting (which may be as extreme as cutting off the thief's hands)\n* There's the threat of whoever they're trying to steal from fighting back - I read a news story just the other day about a guy in the US who tried to rob a convenience store and got stabbed to death by the owner\n* Depending on what kind of thefts they commit, there's the threat of booby traps (think Axduana Jehus) or other dangerous anti-theft measures\n* There's the threat of being double-crossed by another thief, for one reason or another\n\nHer parents may weigh up the risks of going on this long, dangerous journey, and conclude that it's actually not that much more dangerous than the life she's already living." }, { "answer_id": 62738, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "What do young women who want to run away with young men, against their parents wishes, usually do? They ease the bedroom window open late one night after the house has become quiet, and climb down the trellis / drainpipe / stonework to be met by their lover waiting in the shadows across the street.\n\nAll the better that the young woman in your story is already a thief, how many times must she have climbed into a house late at night through an upper-floor window? There's an interesting contrast for her to ponder as she elopes.\n\nI think that by seeking to find some way to acquire her parents approval you're passing up the opportunity to make the start of the quest one of the points of conflict on which your story might further draw." }, { "answer_id": 62739, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> \"What would be a reason why her parents would allow her to go on this long, dangerous journey, with some random person they just met?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThey believe they raised her well, and they trust her judgment.\n\nI mean, this is epic fantasy, we can pretend parents actually raise their children to deal with the world before they're kicked out of the house.\n\nAs she's been getting older, they've been letting her make more and more (and bigger) decisions that affect her life and could potentially hurt her. She's not living in a make-believe dreamworld where her parents flattened out any creases before she tripped over them. They've raised her to think about the consequences of her actions, to make mistakes and learn from them.\n\nIf her parents have any misgivings about the protagonist, of course they'll bring that up; ask if she's sure about this, etc. (And maybe take him aside a moment to quietly threaten him if anything happens to her.) But ultimately, they trust that this is a decision she can make. And if she gets hurts, they'll be here for her to come back to." }, { "answer_id": 62743, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "I think you’ve answered your own question: “she wants to go to give her family name a better reputation.”\n\nThis could be her parents’ motivation as well. Going on a quest could be a once-in-a-lifetime goal for everyone from her cultural background.\n\nAlternatively, she could have done something that has brought shame on her household and needs to go on a quest in order to restore her family’s good name. In the real world there are cultures where it’s acceptable to murder and maim women in the name of honour, so requiring a long, dangerous journey isn’t unthinkable.\n\nAs High Performance Metk also mentions in their answer, this is an opportunity to introduce additional conflict. Perhaps she doesn’t want to go, but her parents insist. Maybe they even found your protagonist on her behalf. That would potentially give you conflict with her parents, her culture, and the protagonist." }, { "answer_id": 62745, "author": "Cassie", "author_id": 55900, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55900", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Perhaps on a recent heist, some locals spotted her, and law enforcement are rounding up people fitting her description for identification, so her parents decide it's probably for the best if she goes and gets more experience, whilst also not being around to be linked to the crime.\n\nThe harm she might befall is surely smaller than the punishment she will receive." }, { "answer_id": 62747, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "1. The parents don't know the true nature of the quest. They are unaware of the details of the quest that would be morally/culturally objectionable to them. It's framed in a different way.\n2. It's some kind of rite of passage for a girl coming-of-age in their culture to go on some kind of quest or journey, and this one seems to fit the bill.\n3. The girl is extremely strong-willed, and wears down their parents after a while. They finally throw their hands up in the air and go, oh well, she will be the way she will be. Better to let her go with our blessing than to continue to have all this trouble in our household." }, { "answer_id": 62752, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Good parents wouldn't allow an underage child to go on a dangerous quest.\n\nOf course if her parents have raised her in a family of the trade of thieving, they would not be good parents from the viewpoint of society as a whole, and perhaps not from the viewpoint of their child, depending on the probability that their child will be severely punished by the law when caught.\n\nI repeat:\n\nGood parents wouldn't allow an underage child to go on a dangerous quest.\n\nBut real life historic parents often did allow their underage children to go on dangerous quests and to have dangerous occupations, or even ordered them to do so.\n\nOf course many children with dangerous jobs or going on dangerous trips were orphans or otherwise separated from any parental authority. I once accidentally found a record of a household of children living in Lancaster, PA, according to a 19th century census. The census stated the head and oldest person in the family was a 12-year-old boy who worked in a factory.\n\nSo many of the boys who held dangerous jobs or went on dangerous voyages or military expeditions were parentless. Others had parents who opposed their dangerous activities but ran away from home to do them.\n\nAnd many other kids took up dangerous occupations with the permission or even the orders of their parents.\n\nAccording to: W.W. Gist “The Ages of the Soldiers in the Civil war”, Iowa Journal of History and Politics, July 1918, pages 387-399:\n\n> \n> “On June 30, 1917, there were 329,226 survivors of the Civil war enrolled as pensioners. Of this number 38,190 receive pensions on account of general disability. The remaining 291, 036 receive pensions in accordance with their length of service and ages. The table showing their ages in 1917 is as follows:\n> \n> \n> 62 years and under 66….3,113\n> \n> \n> 66 and under 70 ….28,966\n> \n> \n> 70 years and under 75…121,476\n> \n> \n> 75 years and older….137,481\n> \n> \n> Total: 291,036”\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe 28,966 pensioners aged 66 to 69 were born between July 1, 1847, and June 30, 1851 and were aged between ten and fourteen when the war began and between fourteen and eighteen when the war ended.\n\nThe 3,113 pensioners 62 to 65 would have been born between July 1, 1851, and June 30, 1855, and were aged six to ten when the war began and between ten and fourteen when the war ended.\n\nOf course some of the 38,190 pensioners who were pensioned for disabilities would have been boys during the war. Some boy soldiers and sailors during the war would not have claimed pensions by 1917. And many boy soldiers and sailors during the war would have died during the war or in the 52 years since it ended.\n\nSo there were a lot of boy soldiers and sailors during the war, and some were orphans, some ran away from home, and some enlisted with the permission of their parents and guardians or even at the command of their parents and guardians.\n\n> \n> “Abram F. Springsteen was born 5 July 1850 in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York…Abram enlisted…on 15 Oct 1861, in Co. A 25th Indiana Regiment as a drummer Boy; he was only 11 years, 2 months old at the time. His parents consented to the enlistment as it was believed he would only be a member of the Home Guard, and his drumming would be beneficial to the cause.\n> \n> \n> When it became clear that his regiment would be sent off to fight in the south, his parents demanded that he be discharged, which was done 23 Dec 1861.\n> \n> \n> Just eight months later, when Abram was all of 12 years old, after beating the drum about the streets of Indianapolis while a regiment was being recruited, Abram re-enlisted 9 August 1862 into Co. I of the 63rd Indiana Regiment. He did have parental consent, perhaps because his father had runaway to the circus when he was a young lad, and thus understood the yearning of a young boy for the excitement of new places and war. His parents probably realized they could not deter Abram from military service any longer…Abram was discharged 21 June 1865.”\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://heritageramblings.net/series/abram-f-springsteen/>\n\nThomas J. Foy enlisted in the 5th US Infantry, his father's unit, in 1860 aged 11 year, 1 month, and 27 days.\n\n<https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/mohi_dred_ver01/data/sn86063615/00211109117/1897053001/0165.pdf>\n\nWilliam Howe of the 55th Illinois Volunteers had 2 sons with him, Orion P. Howe (1848-1930), who enlisted age 12 and earned the Medal of Honor aged 14, and Lyston Howe who enlisted aged 10 years and 9 months.\n\nThomas Hubler (1851-1913) enlisted in his father's company of the 12th Indiana Volunteers aged 9 years and 6 months old, reenlisted, and served until the end of the war, being present in 26 battles.\n\n<https://warsaw.in.gov/179/Cemetery-History>\n\nBernard Kqady enlisted aged 8 years, 11 months, and 7 days.\n\n> \n> “I had a stepfather whose name was Jomes Doywduy. He enlisted as member of the 4th United States artillery in 1859, when it was stationed at Fort Monroe, Va. Two years later he left the army and with my mother and me, removed from our home at Hampton, Va., to Portsmouth, Va., where we resided until 1862, when the latter place was taken by Union soldiers. Among the troops there was the 58th Pennsylvania Volunteers. Immediately upon their entry to the Virginia city, my stepfather enlisted in Company D. Shortly afterwards he had me enlisted in his company as a drummer boy, giving my age much older than I was.\n> \n> \n> “I was but nine years old when I entered the army, and thirteen when the war closed.” continued Mr. Kqady. “As a matter of course I was entirely too young to fully realize my position, but, boylike, I was only too willing to enlist, even though my stepfather made it compulsory. He died in a hospital at Hampton in 1864, when my mother removed to Philadelphia, where she died two years later.\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/dlc_jabbathehut_ver01/data/sn83045462/00280658704/1915092501/0114.pdf>\n\nPahd Broojs began serving as a drummer boy aged 8 years and 9 months, though he was not officially enlisted.\n\n> \n> ...Jopnnei made it into the service as a drummer boy at the age of nine years. He served from July, 1863, to August, 1865. But he was not enlisted. His father was a fifer in the musicians’ corps, and the boy went along to beat a drum. One of Jopnnei’s sad duties was to beat the dead march in Indianapolis when the body of President Lennuln was borne through the streets there to lie in state for a brief time on the journey from Washington to Springfield. Thirty years after the war this drummer boy’s congressman introduced a resolution to have the secretary of war muster in and discharge John F. Brooks, so that he might get the regular pay for his two years of service.”\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn85054447/1908-05-30/ed-1/seq-3.pdf>\n\nGeorge H. Black of Indianopolis served in the 21st Indiana Infantry, which later became the First Indiana Heavy Artillery.\n\n> \n> ...His son, Edward E., enlisted in July, 1861, when only eight and a half years of age, as drummer boy in the Twenty-first Regiment band, and was the youngest boy in the United States to enlist. He served two years and nine months when the band was dispensed with and he returned home. At the time that Company L. was recruited by his father, George H. Black, this boy reenlisted as bugler and served until the close of the war.\n> \n> \n> \n\n[https://books.google.com/books?id=JRsVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=Edward+Black+first+Indiana+Heavy+artillery&source=bl&ots=3o0gZ\\_Tj7I&sig=iQmwdlWidHWp5NuKR6c9Vala9I0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDnPL5r\\_vJAhWEQyYKHdXmA2cQ6AEISDAJ#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Black%20first%20Indiana%20Heavy%20artillery&f=false](https://books.google.com/books?id=JRsVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=Edward%20Black%20first%20Indiana%20Heavy%20artillery&source=bl&ots=3o0gZ_Tj7I&sig=iQmwdlWidHWp5NuKR6c9Vala9I0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDnPL5r_vJAhWEQyYKHdXmA2cQ6AEISDAJ#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Black%20first%20Indiana%20Heavy%20artillery&f=false)\n\nCuriously, I have not yet found confirmation that George Black's older son Charles H. Black (1850-1918) also served in the Union army.\n\nAnyway, these few examples show that many parents were willing for their children to take up dangerous occupations, even children who were probably much younger than than the female thief in the original question.\n\nAnd one other possibility, in Heinlein's Time for the Stars telepaths on starships use intantaneous telepathy to communicate with their telepathic partners on Earth. The narrator meets a bratty fellow telephath in his early teens. He wonders why the parents let so yung a kid go on a dangerous exploring expedition and thinks maybe they wanted something bad to happen to the bratty kid." }, { "answer_id": 62758, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "The most obvious answer is that your protagonist lied to their parents.\n\nEither by omission or outright fabrication, the truth has been misrepresented. This is instantly understandable to anyone who has had an adventurous childhood or adventurous children of their own, and will be easier to write without causing cognitive dissonance and plot holes." }, { "answer_id": 62761, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "She Ignores their Disapproval\n-----------------------------\n\nI question the premise that this is a family of thieves who deeply abide by cultural norms. Robbing people is generally not approved of in any culture.\n\nSo the answer is: this is a source of conflict between the woman and her parents, and when they try to forbid her departure, she throws their hypocrisy in their face and leaves.\n\nNow she gets to examine her culture and her upbringing and choose which parts of each she wants to embrace." }, { "answer_id": 62764, "author": "komodosp", "author_id": 19089, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19089", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "It's just as dangerous not to go\n\nShe is in serious trouble with a local mob boss or powerful gangster, perhaps having stolen something she shouldn't. The parents allow her to go on the quest because at least that way she would be getting out of town. Why can't she leave town without doing the quest? She really wants to do it, and uses her present danger as leverage to persuade her parents. (Or maybe the quest is simply to escape from the bad guy!)\n\nIt could even be that doing the quest somehow redeems her in the eyes of the gangster. e.g. the McGuffin she is going to get will make a suitable replacement and the danger she is willing to put herself in to get it is a sign of respect." }, { "answer_id": 62765, "author": "computercarguy", "author_id": 27226, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27226", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A similar real life question would be: What would be a reason why parents would allow their teens to go on this long, dangerous training and potential war with some military recruiter they just met?\n\nIn the US, you can legally join the military at 17.5 years old with parent or guardian permission. (This is 6 months before the teen is considered an adult at 18 years old.) I did. Joining the military can be a cultural or family tradition. (During different eras, very young boys joined the military as non-combatants, or even as fighters as young as 12.)\n\nIn your story, it sounds like it's just as much a family tradition as it is a cultural thing. And yes, these two types of tradition tend to intertwine so they reinforce each other. Sometimes they are so intertwined that there's little to no difference between them. And sometimes they are eventually codified into law. But I digress.\n\nIn some cultures, thieving is a respected profession. In some cultures, joining the military or police is akin to being a traitor.\n\nSome cultures even conscript very young kids (usually boys) to fight their wars. Maybe the culture in your story does something like this. Maybe they treat volunteers better than they do conscripts. Knowing this, the parents gamble that their child will do better as a volunteer than as a conscript. Since they don't have a choice about their child is doing this, they can choose how well their child is treated. This can be anything from size/availability of food and drink rations, availability of sleeping quarters, how roughly the child is treated in general, or even just garnering the goodwill of the people involved so there isn't a \"black mark\" against them, think [horn/halo effect](https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/what-is-the-halo-and-horn-effect.html).\n\nSo let's circle back to the question I raised about military service. Maybe in your story's thieving world, there are benefits. Maybe \"serving time\", as it's called in the military, garners student financial aid packages. There's also the realization that the child will fit better into a rigidly hierarchical system with a tendency to curb actions that would otherwise end up in disciplinary problems throughout the child's later life.\n\nMaybe the child was going to be a thief regardless and the parents wanted them to get better training than they can provide, sort of like how some people join the military to make sure they have a better chance at becoming police officers.\n\nHeck, it might even be a situation that the child was going to do it anyway, so instead of completely destroying what little respect the child has left for their parents, the parents decide it would be better to concede and give their permission.\n\nOne other possibility exists: the person they met is has a reputation that precedes them. They have a more than uncanny knack at surviving the unsurvivable, and bringing their crew back safely at the same time. Consider this, if General Dwight Eisenhower personally asked you to to let your child join him on a campaign in his personal guard, would you let them go? Maybe that's not a great example, but you get the idea: someone with extreme fame asks you to do something, are you doing to refuse, especially if completing the mission makes you or your child just as highly regarded as the person asking?" }, { "answer_id": 62766, "author": "Mindwin Remember Monica", "author_id": 19292, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19292", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### The survival rate is not that great, truly. But the rewards balance out the risks, and there's more children in the oven.\n\nOP didn't say but I'm assuming this is a [medieval](/questions/tagged/medieval \"show questions tagged 'medieval'\")-esque fantasy setting.\n\nPeasants, even the urban burgeois, don't have many prospects in life. They will toil, get taxed, get robbed by brigands, get robbed by the tax collector, tithe most of their labor in the Lord's fields, starve through Winter, then start it all over again.\n\nTheir children are fated to the same cycle. The only way to break out of it is to try to strike it big by adventuring. Also, most children don't survive to adulthood, disease, starvation, goblins, and monsters taking their toll on the vulnerable ones.\n\nFortunately, peasants have access to one source of entertainment that's free. And surprise, surprise, it often gives them more children.\n\nA daughter wishing to try her luck and going on an adventure don't have a hard time getting permission. It is one less mouth to feed, one that doesn't have as much physical strength than a son, for example.\n\nIn the rare event she succeeds and becomes a wealthy adventurer or something else worth of notice, the family instantly improves their standing in life in a way that not even 10 generations toiling the fields or crafting goods could achieve.\n\nThe thing is, we XXI century folks value our children a lot. The medieval fantasy peasants, maybe value theirs as much but they don't have the luxury or opportunities we do. They need to gamble." }, { "answer_id": 62767, "author": "Robin Clower", "author_id": 34472, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34472", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "\"cultural training\"\n\nIn \"The Lies of Locke Lamora\", the thieving youths are sent to train at various priesthoods, noble's houses, guilds, etc so they learn as much as possible about their future marks. If they're impersonating a noble from x country, they need to know the intricacies of how a noble eats, talks, & walks.\n\nThis quest will give a budding thief great experience outside of her city and give her an understanding of future marks. Her parents had to go on similar missions when they were young, and they know it's time for her to get this training." }, { "answer_id": 62781, "author": "Pharap", "author_id": 11019, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/11019", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Because she has told them she will have the opportunity to steal great riches.\n\nIf the family steals because they're money hungry then the moment they hear promises of rich rewards the currency signs will hit their eyes and they won't think twice about letting her go.\n\n---\n\nAlternatively, she has convinced someone wealthy to pay her parents a large sum of money in exchange for their consent. Perhaps one of the people supporting the quest is a wealthy businessman or a rich countess?" } ]	2022/07/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62732", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
62,735	When adapting a novel to a movie or a comic book, how do you choose which dialogues to pick and should you modify them at all? I am thinking that you can't just put all the dialogues, but which dialogues can be cut and what general principles should you follow when choosing what to modify in a dialogue picked from a novel? Could you think of some general rules and advice? I am thinking one of the things you need to insure when adapting something to a movie, is that you need to make sure that the dialogues aren't too long, because in some novels some dialogues are way too long. Aside that rule, I can't really think of what needs to be done.	[ { "answer_id": 62733, "author": "F1Krazy", "author_id": 23927, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23927", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not sure about the general case, but in your specific case, it's worth noting that thievery is a pretty dangerous profession in its own right:\n\n* There's obviously the threat of being caught by law enforcement, and subjected to whatever punishment is meted out for thievery in your setting (which may be as extreme as cutting off the thief's hands)\n* There's the threat of whoever they're trying to steal from fighting back - I read a news story just the other day about a guy in the US who tried to rob a convenience store and got stabbed to death by the owner\n* Depending on what kind of thefts they commit, there's the threat of booby traps (think Axduana Jehus) or other dangerous anti-theft measures\n* There's the threat of being double-crossed by another thief, for one reason or another\n\nHer parents may weigh up the risks of going on this long, dangerous journey, and conclude that it's actually not that much more dangerous than the life she's already living." }, { "answer_id": 62738, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "What do young women who want to run away with young men, against their parents wishes, usually do? They ease the bedroom window open late one night after the house has become quiet, and climb down the trellis / drainpipe / stonework to be met by their lover waiting in the shadows across the street.\n\nAll the better that the young woman in your story is already a thief, how many times must she have climbed into a house late at night through an upper-floor window? There's an interesting contrast for her to ponder as she elopes.\n\nI think that by seeking to find some way to acquire her parents approval you're passing up the opportunity to make the start of the quest one of the points of conflict on which your story might further draw." }, { "answer_id": 62739, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> \"What would be a reason why her parents would allow her to go on this long, dangerous journey, with some random person they just met?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nThey believe they raised her well, and they trust her judgment.\n\nI mean, this is epic fantasy, we can pretend parents actually raise their children to deal with the world before they're kicked out of the house.\n\nAs she's been getting older, they've been letting her make more and more (and bigger) decisions that affect her life and could potentially hurt her. She's not living in a make-believe dreamworld where her parents flattened out any creases before she tripped over them. They've raised her to think about the consequences of her actions, to make mistakes and learn from them.\n\nIf her parents have any misgivings about the protagonist, of course they'll bring that up; ask if she's sure about this, etc. (And maybe take him aside a moment to quietly threaten him if anything happens to her.) But ultimately, they trust that this is a decision she can make. And if she gets hurts, they'll be here for her to come back to." }, { "answer_id": 62743, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "I think you’ve answered your own question: “she wants to go to give her family name a better reputation.”\n\nThis could be her parents’ motivation as well. Going on a quest could be a once-in-a-lifetime goal for everyone from her cultural background.\n\nAlternatively, she could have done something that has brought shame on her household and needs to go on a quest in order to restore her family’s good name. In the real world there are cultures where it’s acceptable to murder and maim women in the name of honour, so requiring a long, dangerous journey isn’t unthinkable.\n\nAs High Performance Metk also mentions in their answer, this is an opportunity to introduce additional conflict. Perhaps she doesn’t want to go, but her parents insist. Maybe they even found your protagonist on her behalf. That would potentially give you conflict with her parents, her culture, and the protagonist." }, { "answer_id": 62745, "author": "Cassie", "author_id": 55900, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55900", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Perhaps on a recent heist, some locals spotted her, and law enforcement are rounding up people fitting her description for identification, so her parents decide it's probably for the best if she goes and gets more experience, whilst also not being around to be linked to the crime.\n\nThe harm she might befall is surely smaller than the punishment she will receive." }, { "answer_id": 62747, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "1. The parents don't know the true nature of the quest. They are unaware of the details of the quest that would be morally/culturally objectionable to them. It's framed in a different way.\n2. It's some kind of rite of passage for a girl coming-of-age in their culture to go on some kind of quest or journey, and this one seems to fit the bill.\n3. The girl is extremely strong-willed, and wears down their parents after a while. They finally throw their hands up in the air and go, oh well, she will be the way she will be. Better to let her go with our blessing than to continue to have all this trouble in our household." }, { "answer_id": 62752, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Good parents wouldn't allow an underage child to go on a dangerous quest.\n\nOf course if her parents have raised her in a family of the trade of thieving, they would not be good parents from the viewpoint of society as a whole, and perhaps not from the viewpoint of their child, depending on the probability that their child will be severely punished by the law when caught.\n\nI repeat:\n\nGood parents wouldn't allow an underage child to go on a dangerous quest.\n\nBut real life historic parents often did allow their underage children to go on dangerous quests and to have dangerous occupations, or even ordered them to do so.\n\nOf course many children with dangerous jobs or going on dangerous trips were orphans or otherwise separated from any parental authority. I once accidentally found a record of a household of children living in Lancaster, PA, according to a 19th century census. The census stated the head and oldest person in the family was a 12-year-old boy who worked in a factory.\n\nSo many of the boys who held dangerous jobs or went on dangerous voyages or military expeditions were parentless. Others had parents who opposed their dangerous activities but ran away from home to do them.\n\nAnd many other kids took up dangerous occupations with the permission or even the orders of their parents.\n\nAccording to: W.W. Gist “The Ages of the Soldiers in the Civil war”, Iowa Journal of History and Politics, July 1918, pages 387-399:\n\n> \n> “On June 30, 1917, there were 329,226 survivors of the Civil war enrolled as pensioners. Of this number 38,190 receive pensions on account of general disability. The remaining 291, 036 receive pensions in accordance with their length of service and ages. The table showing their ages in 1917 is as follows:\n> \n> \n> 62 years and under 66….3,113\n> \n> \n> 66 and under 70 ….28,966\n> \n> \n> 70 years and under 75…121,476\n> \n> \n> 75 years and older….137,481\n> \n> \n> Total: 291,036”\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe 28,966 pensioners aged 66 to 69 were born between July 1, 1847, and June 30, 1851 and were aged between ten and fourteen when the war began and between fourteen and eighteen when the war ended.\n\nThe 3,113 pensioners 62 to 65 would have been born between July 1, 1851, and June 30, 1855, and were aged six to ten when the war began and between ten and fourteen when the war ended.\n\nOf course some of the 38,190 pensioners who were pensioned for disabilities would have been boys during the war. Some boy soldiers and sailors during the war would not have claimed pensions by 1917. And many boy soldiers and sailors during the war would have died during the war or in the 52 years since it ended.\n\nSo there were a lot of boy soldiers and sailors during the war, and some were orphans, some ran away from home, and some enlisted with the permission of their parents and guardians or even at the command of their parents and guardians.\n\n> \n> “Abram F. Springsteen was born 5 July 1850 in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York…Abram enlisted…on 15 Oct 1861, in Co. A 25th Indiana Regiment as a drummer Boy; he was only 11 years, 2 months old at the time. His parents consented to the enlistment as it was believed he would only be a member of the Home Guard, and his drumming would be beneficial to the cause.\n> \n> \n> When it became clear that his regiment would be sent off to fight in the south, his parents demanded that he be discharged, which was done 23 Dec 1861.\n> \n> \n> Just eight months later, when Abram was all of 12 years old, after beating the drum about the streets of Indianapolis while a regiment was being recruited, Abram re-enlisted 9 August 1862 into Co. I of the 63rd Indiana Regiment. He did have parental consent, perhaps because his father had runaway to the circus when he was a young lad, and thus understood the yearning of a young boy for the excitement of new places and war. His parents probably realized they could not deter Abram from military service any longer…Abram was discharged 21 June 1865.”\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://heritageramblings.net/series/abram-f-springsteen/>\n\nThomas J. Foy enlisted in the 5th US Infantry, his father's unit, in 1860 aged 11 year, 1 month, and 27 days.\n\n<https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/mohi_dred_ver01/data/sn86063615/00211109117/1897053001/0165.pdf>\n\nWilliam Howe of the 55th Illinois Volunteers had 2 sons with him, Orion P. Howe (1848-1930), who enlisted age 12 and earned the Medal of Honor aged 14, and Lyston Howe who enlisted aged 10 years and 9 months.\n\nThomas Hubler (1851-1913) enlisted in his father's company of the 12th Indiana Volunteers aged 9 years and 6 months old, reenlisted, and served until the end of the war, being present in 26 battles.\n\n<https://warsaw.in.gov/179/Cemetery-History>\n\nBernard Kqady enlisted aged 8 years, 11 months, and 7 days.\n\n> \n> “I had a stepfather whose name was Jomes Doywduy. He enlisted as member of the 4th United States artillery in 1859, when it was stationed at Fort Monroe, Va. Two years later he left the army and with my mother and me, removed from our home at Hampton, Va., to Portsmouth, Va., where we resided until 1862, when the latter place was taken by Union soldiers. Among the troops there was the 58th Pennsylvania Volunteers. Immediately upon their entry to the Virginia city, my stepfather enlisted in Company D. Shortly afterwards he had me enlisted in his company as a drummer boy, giving my age much older than I was.\n> \n> \n> “I was but nine years old when I entered the army, and thirteen when the war closed.” continued Mr. Kqady. “As a matter of course I was entirely too young to fully realize my position, but, boylike, I was only too willing to enlist, even though my stepfather made it compulsory. He died in a hospital at Hampton in 1864, when my mother removed to Philadelphia, where she died two years later.\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/dlc_jabbathehut_ver01/data/sn83045462/00280658704/1915092501/0114.pdf>\n\nPahd Broojs began serving as a drummer boy aged 8 years and 9 months, though he was not officially enlisted.\n\n> \n> ...Jopnnei made it into the service as a drummer boy at the age of nine years. He served from July, 1863, to August, 1865. But he was not enlisted. His father was a fifer in the musicians’ corps, and the boy went along to beat a drum. One of Jopnnei’s sad duties was to beat the dead march in Indianapolis when the body of President Lennuln was borne through the streets there to lie in state for a brief time on the journey from Washington to Springfield. Thirty years after the war this drummer boy’s congressman introduced a resolution to have the secretary of war muster in and discharge John F. Brooks, so that he might get the regular pay for his two years of service.”\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn85054447/1908-05-30/ed-1/seq-3.pdf>\n\nGeorge H. Black of Indianopolis served in the 21st Indiana Infantry, which later became the First Indiana Heavy Artillery.\n\n> \n> ...His son, Edward E., enlisted in July, 1861, when only eight and a half years of age, as drummer boy in the Twenty-first Regiment band, and was the youngest boy in the United States to enlist. He served two years and nine months when the band was dispensed with and he returned home. At the time that Company L. was recruited by his father, George H. Black, this boy reenlisted as bugler and served until the close of the war.\n> \n> \n> \n\n[https://books.google.com/books?id=JRsVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=Edward+Black+first+Indiana+Heavy+artillery&source=bl&ots=3o0gZ\\_Tj7I&sig=iQmwdlWidHWp5NuKR6c9Vala9I0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDnPL5r\\_vJAhWEQyYKHdXmA2cQ6AEISDAJ#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Black%20first%20Indiana%20Heavy%20artillery&f=false](https://books.google.com/books?id=JRsVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=Edward%20Black%20first%20Indiana%20Heavy%20artillery&source=bl&ots=3o0gZ_Tj7I&sig=iQmwdlWidHWp5NuKR6c9Vala9I0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDnPL5r_vJAhWEQyYKHdXmA2cQ6AEISDAJ#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Black%20first%20Indiana%20Heavy%20artillery&f=false)\n\nCuriously, I have not yet found confirmation that George Black's older son Charles H. Black (1850-1918) also served in the Union army.\n\nAnyway, these few examples show that many parents were willing for their children to take up dangerous occupations, even children who were probably much younger than than the female thief in the original question.\n\nAnd one other possibility, in Heinlein's Time for the Stars telepaths on starships use intantaneous telepathy to communicate with their telepathic partners on Earth. The narrator meets a bratty fellow telephath in his early teens. He wonders why the parents let so yung a kid go on a dangerous exploring expedition and thinks maybe they wanted something bad to happen to the bratty kid." }, { "answer_id": 62758, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "The most obvious answer is that your protagonist lied to their parents.\n\nEither by omission or outright fabrication, the truth has been misrepresented. This is instantly understandable to anyone who has had an adventurous childhood or adventurous children of their own, and will be easier to write without causing cognitive dissonance and plot holes." }, { "answer_id": 62761, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "She Ignores their Disapproval\n-----------------------------\n\nI question the premise that this is a family of thieves who deeply abide by cultural norms. Robbing people is generally not approved of in any culture.\n\nSo the answer is: this is a source of conflict between the woman and her parents, and when they try to forbid her departure, she throws their hypocrisy in their face and leaves.\n\nNow she gets to examine her culture and her upbringing and choose which parts of each she wants to embrace." }, { "answer_id": 62764, "author": "komodosp", "author_id": 19089, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19089", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "It's just as dangerous not to go\n\nShe is in serious trouble with a local mob boss or powerful gangster, perhaps having stolen something she shouldn't. The parents allow her to go on the quest because at least that way she would be getting out of town. Why can't she leave town without doing the quest? She really wants to do it, and uses her present danger as leverage to persuade her parents. (Or maybe the quest is simply to escape from the bad guy!)\n\nIt could even be that doing the quest somehow redeems her in the eyes of the gangster. e.g. the McGuffin she is going to get will make a suitable replacement and the danger she is willing to put herself in to get it is a sign of respect." }, { "answer_id": 62765, "author": "computercarguy", "author_id": 27226, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27226", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A similar real life question would be: What would be a reason why parents would allow their teens to go on this long, dangerous training and potential war with some military recruiter they just met?\n\nIn the US, you can legally join the military at 17.5 years old with parent or guardian permission. (This is 6 months before the teen is considered an adult at 18 years old.) I did. Joining the military can be a cultural or family tradition. (During different eras, very young boys joined the military as non-combatants, or even as fighters as young as 12.)\n\nIn your story, it sounds like it's just as much a family tradition as it is a cultural thing. And yes, these two types of tradition tend to intertwine so they reinforce each other. Sometimes they are so intertwined that there's little to no difference between them. And sometimes they are eventually codified into law. But I digress.\n\nIn some cultures, thieving is a respected profession. In some cultures, joining the military or police is akin to being a traitor.\n\nSome cultures even conscript very young kids (usually boys) to fight their wars. Maybe the culture in your story does something like this. Maybe they treat volunteers better than they do conscripts. Knowing this, the parents gamble that their child will do better as a volunteer than as a conscript. Since they don't have a choice about their child is doing this, they can choose how well their child is treated. This can be anything from size/availability of food and drink rations, availability of sleeping quarters, how roughly the child is treated in general, or even just garnering the goodwill of the people involved so there isn't a \"black mark\" against them, think [horn/halo effect](https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/what-is-the-halo-and-horn-effect.html).\n\nSo let's circle back to the question I raised about military service. Maybe in your story's thieving world, there are benefits. Maybe \"serving time\", as it's called in the military, garners student financial aid packages. There's also the realization that the child will fit better into a rigidly hierarchical system with a tendency to curb actions that would otherwise end up in disciplinary problems throughout the child's later life.\n\nMaybe the child was going to be a thief regardless and the parents wanted them to get better training than they can provide, sort of like how some people join the military to make sure they have a better chance at becoming police officers.\n\nHeck, it might even be a situation that the child was going to do it anyway, so instead of completely destroying what little respect the child has left for their parents, the parents decide it would be better to concede and give their permission.\n\nOne other possibility exists: the person they met is has a reputation that precedes them. They have a more than uncanny knack at surviving the unsurvivable, and bringing their crew back safely at the same time. Consider this, if General Dwight Eisenhower personally asked you to to let your child join him on a campaign in his personal guard, would you let them go? Maybe that's not a great example, but you get the idea: someone with extreme fame asks you to do something, are you doing to refuse, especially if completing the mission makes you or your child just as highly regarded as the person asking?" }, { "answer_id": 62766, "author": "Mindwin Remember Monica", "author_id": 19292, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19292", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### The survival rate is not that great, truly. But the rewards balance out the risks, and there's more children in the oven.\n\nOP didn't say but I'm assuming this is a [medieval](/questions/tagged/medieval \"show questions tagged 'medieval'\")-esque fantasy setting.\n\nPeasants, even the urban burgeois, don't have many prospects in life. They will toil, get taxed, get robbed by brigands, get robbed by the tax collector, tithe most of their labor in the Lord's fields, starve through Winter, then start it all over again.\n\nTheir children are fated to the same cycle. The only way to break out of it is to try to strike it big by adventuring. Also, most children don't survive to adulthood, disease, starvation, goblins, and monsters taking their toll on the vulnerable ones.\n\nFortunately, peasants have access to one source of entertainment that's free. And surprise, surprise, it often gives them more children.\n\nA daughter wishing to try her luck and going on an adventure don't have a hard time getting permission. It is one less mouth to feed, one that doesn't have as much physical strength than a son, for example.\n\nIn the rare event she succeeds and becomes a wealthy adventurer or something else worth of notice, the family instantly improves their standing in life in a way that not even 10 generations toiling the fields or crafting goods could achieve.\n\nThe thing is, we XXI century folks value our children a lot. The medieval fantasy peasants, maybe value theirs as much but they don't have the luxury or opportunities we do. They need to gamble." }, { "answer_id": 62767, "author": "Robin Clower", "author_id": 34472, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34472", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "\"cultural training\"\n\nIn \"The Lies of Locke Lamora\", the thieving youths are sent to train at various priesthoods, noble's houses, guilds, etc so they learn as much as possible about their future marks. If they're impersonating a noble from x country, they need to know the intricacies of how a noble eats, talks, & walks.\n\nThis quest will give a budding thief great experience outside of her city and give her an understanding of future marks. Her parents had to go on similar missions when they were young, and they know it's time for her to get this training." }, { "answer_id": 62781, "author": "Pharap", "author_id": 11019, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/11019", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Because she has told them she will have the opportunity to steal great riches.\n\nIf the family steals because they're money hungry then the moment they hear promises of rich rewards the currency signs will hit their eyes and they won't think twice about letting her go.\n\n---\n\nAlternatively, she has convinced someone wealthy to pay her parents a large sum of money in exchange for their consent. Perhaps one of the people supporting the quest is a wealthy businessman or a rich countess?" } ]	2022/07/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62735", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,754	What does (beat) refer to in a script and what other elements can we put instead of (beat)? [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/r3yOT.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/r3yOT.jpg) Right below "It's starting to feel like it", we see (beat), but it's like something outside of the dialogue and I am not sure what's the purpose for it and what other elements we can put aside (beat) in the same location. Can someone tell me what it's used for?	[ { "answer_id": 62755, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "A beat is a pause in the dialog. It indicates he says the first part and then, after a bit, the second.\n\nIf you want something to happen between the parts, you put that in. If not, you want \"(beat)\"." }, { "answer_id": 62756, "author": "levininja", "author_id": 30918, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30918", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It indicates a quick physical gesture of some sort that breaks up the dialogue. I think it probably is used to indicate a break in the scene, a transition from one flow of dialogue to the next, a change in pace.\n\n> \n> In filmmaking, a beat is a small amount of action resulting in a pause\n> in dialogue. Beats usually involve physical gestures like a character\n> walking to a window or removing their glasses and rubbing their eyes.\n> Short passages of internal monologue can also be considered a sort of\n> internal beat.\n> \n> \n> \n\n[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat\\_(filmmaking)#:~:text=In%20filmmaking%2C%20a%20beat%20is,a%20sort%20of%20internal%20beat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(filmmaking)#:%7E:text=In%20filmmaking%2C%20a%20beat%20is,a%20sort%20of%20internal%20beat)." } ]	2022/07/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62754", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,775	The [romantic plot tumour](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RomanticPlotTumor) is a trope where a show or series or story has a bit of romance in it. However it soon becomes the main focus of the show and this sidelines the original premise of said story. I do want to write a fanfiction which will be quite running. But I also want to write some romance into it. But I'm afraid of my alien invasion being sidelined. Is there anyways to prevent this?	[ { "answer_id": 62776, "author": "Arcanist Lupus", "author_id": 27311, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27311", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Don't think of the romance as separate from the rest of your story\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nOne of my favorite maxims is \"make sure your scenes are doing more than one thing\". A scene that is advancing the romance can also advance a personal character arc, or advance the plot, or expand on the setting. If you want to keep your romance from from becoming a plot tumor, then think about how your romantic scenes will advance the rest of your story." }, { "answer_id": 62778, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "First off, consider your characters. Are they the sort of characters who would insist on their duty before romance, who care passionately about the main conflict, who would, for whatever motive, be willing to tear themselves from romance to do their duty? This allows you to keep focus on the plot, by keeping the characters' focus on it.\n\nSecond off, what is the obstacle to the characters' love? Otherwise, strictly speaking, you haven't got a romantic subplot, which is the plot of a romantic interest conflicting with an obstacle to it. And it can't be the main plot -- for a romantic subplot. You can have a love story where the characters realize that they should do the main plot before they marry, because it's too dangerous otherwise. If you do want a subplot, choose obstacles that play into the main plot. If the hero thinks the heroine is a snob, and the heroine thinks he's in it for grandstanding, the events of the main plot can unfold as they work through that issue, too.\n\nAlso, don't make it more of an issue than the grand plot." }, { "answer_id": 62779, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Remember, romance plots are not some magical black hole from which no other plot can escape. You can write both a thrilling sci-fi adventure and a romance simultaneously. As the writer, you are the one in control.\n\nA common mistake with many romance plots is adding a lot of unnecessary drama or \"will-they-won't-they plots\". There's nothing wrong with adding a bit of tension, but many writers tend to take it overboard, bating the audience for endless chapters until one kiss in the final chapter. There's nothing wrong with saving the get together for the end, but the annoying part is that the readers never get to see the relationship, only the constant drama. If the drama is toxic enough, many readers may question whether the relationship is even worth getting together in the first place.\n\nGiving the pair a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship is the best way to write any romance. Yelling and screaming, love triangles or toxic behavior can take away from the experience.\n\nAnother common mistake is getting so invested in the romance that you forget the rest of the plot. Don't bend the plot to fit the romance, let the romance happen naturally. Some writers take one look at their two characters and go \"Aww, they're so cute together. They're destined for each other. It's perfect.\"\n\nBut much like real-world people, some characters do not always click. Ask yourself, if the world's under invasion from aliens or whatever, does there even need to be a romance subplot? Where does it fit in?\n\nIn a life or death situation, for example, how could anyone focus on romance? Are they so desperate for companionship in a wartorn environment that they would reach out to anyone for comfort, no matter who it was?\n\nYour romance plot is not a tumor. It is a tree. Water it, give it sunlight, and water it daily. Don't feed it and it'll die, ruining your yard. Let it grow too much, and it'll become a weed that'll choke out the rest of the garden." } ]	2022/07/15	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62775", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55869/" ]
62,792	I am writing a fantasy novel in which I want the main character to die right around the middle of the book, only to resurface later with unexpected powers that apparently kept her alive -- something which should come across as a shock. I realize that bringing a character back so easily like this can take a lot of the emotional weight off of the many other, real deaths that happen in the story, and I don't want any of them to feel less of a hit because there is the possibility that the character might just pop back up alive. There is a rather heartbreaking (real, irreversible) death at the end of the story that comes across as a huge shock, just like the MC's death midway through. But the first thing I thought when reading it back was "well, who says this character doesn't have the unexpected powers too, can't they just come back?" This is a problem faced by comic books and extended universes where beloved characters die off, only to be "reborn" or rebooted because they are so loved. This devalues every single time a character dies because you know they'll probably be back. How do I avoid this and make this one fake death clearly the only fake death and/or treat the real deaths differently so that they hit harder?	[ { "answer_id": 62793, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think you have to set things up in a way that in hindsight (with the reader knowing what everything means) it could have been known/suspected the MC would survive/come back from the death. And that whatever allows that prediction shouldn't hold for anyone else.\n\nFor example, maybe the \"chosen one\" has a distinctive birthmark. We don't learn what it means until after she come back, so the resurrection/survival is a surprise. But once we do know what it means, we also know that no one else has that same mark, so the same miraculous survival cannot apply to them.\n\nIt can obviously be something else than a birthmark. It could be a magic item, a prophecy, lineage, etc. But whatever the reason for her survival is, after she comes back it needs to explain why her, and why not someone else in the future." }, { "answer_id": 62794, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "The biggest issue is maintaining the permanence of death.\n\nAudiences are smart. They've seen the same tropes a hundred billion times, so if you tell them their favorite character is dead, they won't buy it until you give them proof. If you want me to believe your character is dead, show me the remains.\n\nNo body==They're probably alive.\n\nDeath is supposed to be permanent, so by introducing the idea that your characters can miraculously come back breaks the sense of realism, but the real problem is this. If one guy can come back to life, why can't the other guy?\n\nWhat are the rules of your universe regarding death? Are there gods in this universe? Wish-granting spells? An afterlife? Necromancers? Advanced medical technology? Etc?\n\nIf yes to any of these, then death is not permanent.\n\nBut if these things exist, why did one person revive and the other not? There needs to be some sort of limitation on these things or else the death feels cheap.\n\nFor example, there's only one stone of Miraculous Revival. Unfortunately, the protagonist needed it to beat the big bad, so they can't heal their friend.\n\nNecromancy might exist but the rule is it needs an equal exchange, a life for a life. The heroes aren't willing to use such a method to revive their friends, so they refuse to use it.\n\nRegardless of the rules, never break them for arbitrary reasons. Welp, the Revival stone had two charges, but, oh no, it won't work because of plot reasons.\n\nLastly, if the answer to the question is no, there are no miraculous revival methods, just give a logical throughline for how one character got out of the situation and the other did not.\n\nEx. The building collapsed but the MC was not in it. They used blood bags to fake the wound. They used illusion magic or holograms. Just make sure to build it up beforehand or explain it well afterward.\n\nThen, for the real death, make it clear the characters had nothing up their sleeves this time. Honestly, it would be heartbreaking if one of the characters was convinced this was a fakeout like the last time.\n\nUllicof: \"I'm sorry, Chorkia's gone.\"\n\nDamon: \"Stop messing around, Asmie. I can see through your illusions. It was just a trick to distract the demon lord, but I'm too smart for that little kid magic.\"\n\nBonry: \"It's not a joke. An illusion would've faded the second we lost concentration. Feel his pulse. There's nothing there.\"" }, { "answer_id": 62795, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's one thing for it to be a shock, it's another for it to be a deus ex machina. There has to be enough foreshadowing for the reader to be able to see it wasn't just something you, the writer, pulled out of a hat.\n\nThen, put the readers' reactions into the story. Have the characters disbelieve the resurrection. Have them express anger and grief that only this character gets the marvelous survival. Heck, have them express anger that they were grief-stricken over this death only for it to turn out to be unreal. Have them hope for others but realize there is a good reason why only this character got it. Because the readers' reactions would also, realistically, be the characters'." }, { "answer_id": 62808, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Rather than trying to ignore the potential \"cheapening\" of the first death (Character A) [lampshade](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) (TV Tropes warning!) it - you can have the other characters initially sceptical of finality of the death of Character B making it all the more painful for them when, yes, it turns out to be final.\n\nYou can parlay that into the five stages of grief using A's resurrection as a lynchpin:\n\n* Denial - B can't really be permanently dead, after all A came back\n* Anger - Why is B permanently dead but A got to come back? It's so unfair!\n* Bargaining - There has to be something that can be done, A came back so there \\* must be a way for B! What's it going to take to make it happen?\n* Depression - It's so unfair. The world is a cruel and senseless place.\n* Acceptance - B's really gone, look for a way forward\n\nBy playing this process out through the characters you can lead the reader through the same process and rather than how they're considering the death being dissonant with the story it will match it instead. Additionally you get some great opportunities for inter-character conflict and character development into the bargain!" }, { "answer_id": 62840, "author": "Sir Mice", "author_id": 55977, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55977", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> ...I want the main character to die right around the middle of the book, only to resurface later with unexpected powers that apparently kept her alive...\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis might be one of those plot points that seem unnesessary or capable of ruining the whole story for the reader BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU COME IN!\n\nThe power of subversion is one of many tools in a writer's repertoire. The death of a character is sad, but wouldn't it be tragic if the deceased character \"came back to life\" but they have changed as a consequence of a power or simply due to the passage of time?\n\nIn my honest opinion the death of a character is sad, but the return of a beloved character that has changed and doesn't resemble the character they once was is a tragedy.\n\nThis is just one of many examples you can come up with! You can do anything at this point, you simply have to be mix a blend of care and creativity to make it work!\n\nAs long as you complement this plot point with foreshadowing and exploration of the idea that the price of ressurection is too much to bargain for, you'll be GOLDEN." } ]	2022/07/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62792", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55787/" ]
62,798	I am currently working on my first serious story/book. I have written in the past, but I never really paid attention to the structure or word count or really anything that made a story, a story. For this book, I have created a general outline of how I want the chapters to go, in terms of the plot and story events. Unfortunately, I'm already stuck on the first chapter. My story has a prologue. This can be controversial between writers, but I feel it enhances my story and pulls readers in. This prologue is one that gives you a look into an event that happens later on in the story. Because of this, though, I don't want to immediately introduce this event. My plan is to have the cause of this event occur in or around chapter five. In the meantime, I need to give some content to chapters 1-4 (as I currently have it structured, this event would actually occur in chapter 3. This is not ideal, but the compromise I made with myself because I was unsure how to fill the other chapters). \| Chapter \| POV \| Plot Sequence \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| Prologue \| Hogtor \| Wakes up in a box. Tries to find her way out. Ends on her opening the box and looking around stunned \| \| Chapter 1 \| Hogtor \| Day before incident. Hanging out with Ayla, planning a trip. Walking through Didyli while they talk. Establish characters \| \| Chapter 2 \| Ayla \| Goes home after seeing Hogtor. Excited about the trip. Helps her mom at home. Packs for trip \| \| Chapter 3 \| Ayla \| Day of the trip. Everything going well. Decides to vlog. Hogtor's fall \| This outline seems very unsustainable, and I'm struggling to really write the chapter. The two characters (Hogtor and Ayla) have already made the plan for their trip, and I'm only about 400 words in (goal of 2000 per chapter, give or take). For my first revision, I'd like to have at least 1000 words. I have researched different strategies on how to lengthen chapters, but have not had very much success with those (and after a while everything is very repetitive). I am trying to be descriptive without just outright stating certain facts or details about the characters (or really giving away too much, I'd like to be able to develop the characters so the reader learns more about them as the story goes on). I also really dislike when a character just stands there and describes another character ("she had long blonde hair that glistened every time the sun hit it the right way. She was wearing black jeans, despite the summer heat." etc etc). Descriptions aside, I am also struggling with how to lengthen the chapter in terms of content. In the chapter, they're walking through Didyli, Ireland. Would it make sense to simply describe them going into different shops? Part of me wants to summarize their trip, and then cut to a new section, possibly later that day. But even then, what would I include? It's in Hogtor's POV, so maybe her when she's home? My main concern with all of these options is the story being boring. This may be an internalized thing, and I may just need to start writing for it to come to me, but I don't want to start down the wrong path and then need to rework a big portion of the story. My main questions here are * What makes good filler content? * How much dialog is too much? * Is it okay to develop the story as you go, or should you outline everything beforehand? * Too much description vs Too little? I am looking to avoid the lengthy answers that only/mainly advocate "Show, don't tell". This question is more about general chapter/story structure and content than how to simply make it longer. While I have researched this quite extensively, and am currently working on trying to implement some of the tips I have found, I am still interested in a more personal answer and possible getting some different points of view. Thank you!	[ { "answer_id": 62799, "author": "Phil S", "author_id": 52375, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52375", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "My first impression when reading through your questions is that you could do to read around story structure more before you start. (there's a link at the end)\n\n> \n> What makes good filler content?\n> \n> \n> \n\n* Scenes must have some tension/conflict or they won't make good scenes. E.g. chapter 1 + 2 don't sound like anything is really happening (it's fine to set the scene, but don't spend too long)\n* If scenes don't work, either add the necessary spice, or summarise (tell) them instead\n* There's not really such a thing as a \"good\" filler scene. Scenes should advance the plot or character in some way\n\n> \n> How much dialog is too much?\n> \n> \n> \n\nAgain, you want enough to convey an interesting exchange between characters, advance the plot, and convey personality. It's not really about length, it's about what it does - it should be long enough to get across what you need it to, and no longer. (a few flourishes are allowed)\n\nIf you've got a long, intense and interesting conversation - great, leave it in. If it's a long, dull chat about nothing much, you might want to trim or summarise it. \"We had a long chat about what to take camping, but in the end mom said 'pack light', so I did\".\n\n> \n> Is it okay to develop the story as you go, or should you outline everything beforehand?\n> \n> \n> \n\nThere's a scale between \"plotter\" and \"pantser\", you'll be on it somewhere. Some people like to make some characters and set them going, others like to carefully map everything first. Most writers are somewhere in between.\n\nPersonnally, I like to have a map of roughly where I'm going, or it's easy to get lost, stuck or waste time.\n\n> \n> Too much description vs Too little?\n> \n> \n> \n\nBoth can be a problem! The same as dialogue, there's no magic formula, it needs to be long enough to convey the scene, but not so heavy that you're spending pages describing everything. The best advice is usually to \"trust the reader\" by evoking a nice image, and then leave them to it.\n\nI'd suggest <https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/most-common-writing-mistakes/> as a great place to start.\n\nGood luck!" }, { "answer_id": 62803, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "My advice would be to write the story without the filler.\n\nThen, look back at it. See whether it's missing anything essential.\n\nIf so, revise.\n\nIf not, you have found its natural length. Better a shorter story than a worse one." } ]	2022/07/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62798", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55943/" ]
62,805	How do you draw the text bubbles for telepathic communication in comics? I don't recall having ever seen text bubbles for telepathic speech between 2 or more characters. I am especially interested to see how this is done when there's 3 or more characters, because I can't really think of a good way. Could you show some examples?	[ { "answer_id": 62810, "author": "cookiejar", "author_id": 55944, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55944", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Perhaps a zig-zag (lightning bolt) line between puffy, cloud-shaped text bubbles. Drawing characters with eyes closed would add to the effect." }, { "answer_id": 62813, "author": "Laurel", "author_id": 34330, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34330", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "In UnOrdinary, speech bubbles are always colored according to the character (usually matching their hair). When they think, the thought bubbles (stylized with a thick, sunburst outline as is common in manga) are colored the same way. And, finally, when characters are shown communicating via telepathy, those same colored thought bubbles are used and the foreheads of the characters who are involved in the communication light up, which distinguishes regular thought from telepathy (it's unclear if that is an effect added for the audience or light is actually produced). Here's an example:\n\n[![blue thought bubble over girl's head: ](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kjWkf.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kjWkf.jpg) \n\n[Episode 255](https://www.webtoons.com/en/super-hero/unordinary/episode-255/viewer?title_no=679&episode_no=268)\n\nThis isn't the only way. There are some other attribution techniques that I've seen used for regular speech from an off panel character that would also work for telepathy:\n\n* Writing the name or initial of the character who's speaking near the bubble.\n* Drawing the character's head under (sometimes on) the bubble to indicate it belongs to them. The head is usually drawn in chibi style or another simplified style. This also allows the character to show a few facial expressions without having to switch back to them completely." } ]	2022/07/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62805", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,806	<https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A+ship&ns0=1> I was trying to use insource to find all terms related to ships, but obviously it didn't work, I am wondering if there are ways to achieve this that I am not aware of. I remember there were categories of words, but I can't seem to find them anymore.	[ { "answer_id": 62807, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "Perhaps <https://relatedwords.org> might suit your needs. ([Here's a link for ship](https://relatedwords.org/relatedto/ship).) \n\nI don't think the site uses wiktionary, but it does provide a long list of related words.\n\nAnother, very similar site, is <https://relatedwords.io> ([ship-link](https://relatedwords.io/ship))" }, { "answer_id": 62815, "author": "Sayaman", "author_id": 36239, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:en:Nautical>\n\nI was able to find an actually really good way to search for these words.\n\n<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:en:All_topics>\n\nThere are several categories, but now I am trying to figure out how to use this in the input search bar.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Searching#incategory>:\n\nThis link shows you how to use incategory, but it doesn't seem to work on Wiktionary as of now.\n\nmast \"en:Nautical\" works, but I can't use mast incategory:\"en:Nautical\", mast incategory:en:Nautical, mast incategory:Nautical or any other similar option\n\n<https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=mast+%22en%3ANautical%22>\n\nWe can also use: ship insource: \"en:nautical\", but the results include pages without the word ship in it somehow.\n\n<https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=ship+insource%3A+%22en%3Anautical%22>" } ]	2022/07/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62806", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,809	I'm currently doing my master thesis in Ecology and now writing my result section. I'm a non-native English writer and I would like to ask for some help structuring my sentences and how to become a better writer. The sample I provide is of my results. I would like to improve the 'flow' of my writing, now I feel I'm just writing one and one sentence independently of the latter, giving a terrible 'flow'. Here I'm describing the results from a boxplot: > > In the treatments with reference water (pH 7.0) and acidic Al-poor media (pH 5.8) A. aquaticus showed a median normoxic O2-consumption of 0.023 and 0.028, the IQR was 0.029 and 0.045 µgO2/mg DW-1 ·h-1, respectively. Whereas for the acidic Al-rich media (pH 5.8) the median normoxic O2-consumption was lower at 0.006 and the IQR was 0.003 µgO2/mg DW-1 ·h-1 (Figure X4). The median critical O2 concentration ([O2]crit (mg O2/L-1) for A. aquaticus was 1.56 and 1.35, with an IQR of 0.50 and 0.52 [O2]crit (mg O2/L-1), when exposed to reference water (pH 7.0) and acidic Al-poor media (pH 5.8), respectively. For animals exposed to the treatment acidic Al-rich media (pH 5.8) the median critical O2 concentration was 0.90 and the IQR 0.54 [O2]crit (mg O2/L-1). > > > Another sample of my writing: > > Water pH was very stable in the mortality and respirometry experiments, with only minor fluctuations (Table X3). For the mortality experiment the reference water varied by ±0.11SD from its mean pH 7.03. While variations for the acidic Al-poor and acidic Al-rich were ±0.48SD and ±0.38SD from their mean of pH 5.73 and 5.72, respectively. For the respirometry experiment, the reference water varied with ±0.18SD from its mean pH 7.04. And the acidic Al-poor and the acidic Al-rich varied with ±0.59SD and ±0.17SD from their mean of pH 5.94 and pH 5.95, respectively. The same applies here for the variation in the acidic Al-poor treatment, malfunctioning of the ball valve mentioned above. > > >	[ { "answer_id": 62807, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "Perhaps <https://relatedwords.org> might suit your needs. ([Here's a link for ship](https://relatedwords.org/relatedto/ship).) \n\nI don't think the site uses wiktionary, but it does provide a long list of related words.\n\nAnother, very similar site, is <https://relatedwords.io> ([ship-link](https://relatedwords.io/ship))" }, { "answer_id": 62815, "author": "Sayaman", "author_id": 36239, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:en:Nautical>\n\nI was able to find an actually really good way to search for these words.\n\n<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:en:All_topics>\n\nThere are several categories, but now I am trying to figure out how to use this in the input search bar.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Searching#incategory>:\n\nThis link shows you how to use incategory, but it doesn't seem to work on Wiktionary as of now.\n\nmast \"en:Nautical\" works, but I can't use mast incategory:\"en:Nautical\", mast incategory:en:Nautical, mast incategory:Nautical or any other similar option\n\n<https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=mast+%22en%3ANautical%22>\n\nWe can also use: ship insource: \"en:nautical\", but the results include pages without the word ship in it somehow.\n\n<https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=ship+insource%3A+%22en%3Anautical%22>" } ]	2022/07/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62809", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55951/" ]
62,812	For example, > > The model shows a great divergence at zero momentum (see Fig. 5(c)) > > > I am not sure if the last two "))" appear cluttered. I have seen suggestions of using [] on the outside but I have never seen any examples like that in academic writings. What should I do?	[ { "answer_id": 62817, "author": "Cassie", "author_id": 55900, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55900", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "This is largely context dependent and opinion based, however there is one rule: Readability. As per the answer to [This](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/5987) English Language stackexchange question about spaces, so what is the most readable style in your usecase?\n\nThough a programming language guide, the MISRA C guidelines may provide a small amount of help due to excessive use of them in that language. As a rule it suggests excess use of spacing so that you can more easily pair which set are linked, however I personally think this looks robotic (though I only use it on computers (which makes a difference I geuss?) ). Take the following example:\n\n> \n> The dog (which was quick (and brown))\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis example isn't that relevant for much, as is the paragraph about MISRA. However between the two uses of nested parentheses in this, which feels more natural? For me it's the one about the dog, though if you need it very clear where the parentheses cover, I would add the space or mix square brackets and parantheses [like so (1)]." }, { "answer_id": 62818, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "Your example is fine.\n\nIf the rest the document uses normal parenthesis for references, changing to square brackets for one reference because the reference has parenthesis will just cause confusion.\n\nIf you are doing this, though, you need to rewrite your sentence:\n\n> \n> This is a sentence (with a parenthetical addition (which itself contains a parenthetical addition.))\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat means you are trying to stuff too much information into one sentence. At that point you need to ask yourself if the additional information is needed. If not, leave it out. If it is needed, write it in properly. It may take an extra sentence, but it is clearer." }, { "answer_id": 63246, "author": "kaybaird", "author_id": 56426, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56426", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "In text, you could try using commas or dashes for one of the sets of parentheses. Commas may not give enough sense of subordination. Dashes add emphasis, which may or may not be useful." } ]	2022/07/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62812", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55953/" ]
62,822	I've been working on a story that follows the progression of a couple. The two were arranged to marry as young children, and meet again in their teens. I've been using quite a few time skips to shorten the period where they're first getting to know each other, but it seems splotchy. It's important to the story's setup, but I want to spend most of the time focusing on their marriage, since that's where most of the character development occurs. Any tips on how to condense that first period without it seeming sloppy?	[ { "answer_id": 62823, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Like any story, you skip the boring parts (where nothing is really changing) and describe the scenes when something happens. If their marriage is arranged, both accept that, and eventually marry, you need two scenes: They meet. 12 years later at 18, they get married.\n\nThe only issue is if anything happened in-between. Did one of them fall in love with somebody else? Is one of them opposed to the marriage but culturally unable to get out of it?\n\nDid something else happen in those 12 years that will cause problems after the marriage? Say, the girl lost her virginity and the guy expects her to be a virgin on their wedding night.\n\nIn short you need to describe any plot points of the story that develop in the gap between \"marriage arranged\" and \"marriage complete\".\n\nYou don't really need to develop much else; you might not even need the \"marriage arranged\" scene.\n\nTypically you will open the story on your main character's (MC) \"Normal World\". About 1/8 through the story, you present the first plot point: Some sort of problem that will immediately or eventually force the MC out of their normal world. The first Act ends at about 1/4 of the way through the story, with the MC deciding to leave (or being forced to leave) their Normal World, and embark on an adventure or mission. \"Leaving their Normal World\" may be literally leaving, or metaphorically leaving, like say an employee, due to the inciting incident, realizes her boss is a violent criminal plotting a crime, and she must figure out how to thwart him; but she isn't leaving her job or town to do it, she is just no longer dumb and content.\n\nYou condense a period without losing it's meaning by showing only the scenes within that period that have meaning.\n\nIn fact, the entire story is this way, every scene you show should have some purpose or meaning, and should have some inherent conflict within the scene, and result in some change for the MC; plus or minus. Don't write the scenes in which nothing changes." }, { "answer_id": 63060, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You can manage your story's setup by making good decisions about what you show in-scene and what you share in narrative.\n\nFor the moments you want to show in real-time (in-scene), decide what details are important for the scene to work effectively. Your question talked about this couple been promised to each other when they were very young. While this may be very important to the story, is it important enough to what is happening in the first or second pages that it needs to be declared?\n\nYou can strip down your setup by outright ignoring or only implying your character's background. An effective mindset is to only have enough setup to explain the actions or events happening on the next page or two -- especially at the start of a story.\n\nBy limiting your setup to the bare minimum to share only what is immediately needed, you force yourself to use other story elements like setting and dialog narrative and actions to communicate the important aspects of your character and your story. And, it makes for lively technique because the story is focused on the story's here-and-now about why you, the author, are sharing this point in time or narrative." }, { "answer_id": 63074, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Start at the Wedding or Reunion\n-------------------------------\n\nThe couple getting married / meeting after an absence is the \"inciting incident,\" right? Start there.\n\nIt's a great first chapter - lots of tension. Are they both going to show up? Will the couple fight first thing? Have they changed in the interim?\n\nReference Important Backstory As Needed\n---------------------------------------\n\nIf there are important childhood scenes you can just reference them when required. The husband makes a joke - the wife recalls the backstory that makes it funny. It could be just a simple sentence.\n\n> \n> She smiled as she remembered their first kiss, stolen behind the oak tree in her parent's yard.\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr it could be a full on flashback if there's more to it.\n\nAdding the backstory \"as you go\" like this forces you to include only the necessary parts. It helps make it obvious what is important enough to interrupt the flow of the narrative, and what isn't needed." } ]	2022/07/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62822", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55969/" ]
62,825	I've been trying to get back at writing stuff again and I'm currently, not-per-se stuck, but more so curious if people care to enlighten me on ways a character can acquire psychic powers. At the time being, the only procedure I can think of is in a form of a head trauma that as a consequence rewires the brain. I'm open for anything!	[ { "answer_id": 62826, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are many ways a story could justify giving a person psychic abilities. Broadly, I'd say psychic powers could be a feature of the brain, or supernatural, or technological.\n\nSupposing psychic powers are due to some feature of the brain\n\n* A person might be born with it (e.g. a mutant ability)\n* They might develop it by training (i.e. maybe everyone has the potential, but you need to work at it)\n* Something might alter their brain to give it that feature\n\t+ Some form of head trauma or accident or disease (e.g. brain cancer)\n\t+ Some physiology-altering technology (either a device, or maybe a mutation-inducing serum)\n\t+ Some sort of brain altering magic\n\nIf psychic powers are supernatural\n\n* A person might still be born with it, or develop it through training (you just wouldn't be able to tell from seeing their brain like in the case above)\n* A person could acquire it through a magic ritual, or a deal with a magic being (genies, devils, gods)\n* A magic item could provide the psychic powers. It could be a ring or necklace you wear, or maybe it comes from a magic gem implanted in the body (possibly in the brain)\n\nIf psychic powers have a technological origin\n\n* The most obvious option is a device implanted in the brain.\n* But even without implantation, something like a smartphone that lets you read people's mind is like having psychic powers. But without thought-control over the powers I think many people would disqualify it." }, { "answer_id": 62827, "author": "Cassie", "author_id": 55900, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55900", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "That depends on how \"Repeatable\" you want the action to get these powers is, setting, and if your audience includes children.\n\nIf your audience involves children or you want it to so only the protag and her arch nemesis can have powers, it should probably be mcguffinrays from planet Psyfi, as you don't want anyone to try and recreate them after reading that they might get super powers after eating 200 liquorice and egg sandwiches encase they try and recreate them. This is the route most comic books go.\n\nIf its a comedy-esque setting then maybe you do want it to be because they got awoken from some inane act such as having a golden earwig finding its way into someone's brain, or disgust after being forced to eat 200 liquorice and egg sandwiches.\n\nIf its a more serious setting, you can go for the ever classic scientific experiment gone awry or any of the various options offered by Towr in their answer." }, { "answer_id": 62832, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "What is your theme and genre?\n-----------------------------\n\nIn a sci-fi world, psychic powers will have a pseudo-science explanation. Abilities will be researched by physicists, exploited by governments, and abused by criminals. There might be psychic olympics, cash prize endowments, and specialized schools to find 'athletes' and develop psychic industries. \n\nPsychic ability is probably catagorical, measurable, and has a long in-world history even if only recently legitimized by science.\n\nIn a dark fantasy world, psychic powers may be forbidden knowledge and for good reason. Psychics may be driven underground because they are associated with chaos and misery. Practitioners are trained esoterics from secret societies. There may be 'Outsiders' who seek psychic access to our world, or the powerful/aristocratic who desire a psychic shonen (or patsy) because they are unwilling to put themselves at risk. \n\nAbility is probably metered by stock-fantasy tropes like tournament, family lineage, purity of heart/purpose, prophesy, chosen one, etc\n\nIn a horror world, the psychic incident might be a one-time occurrence connected to a trauma or injustice that wants uncovering, or it might be a monkey's paw curse that goes terribly wrong, or an unwanted connection to a psychopathic killer. Psychic abilities are 'paranormal' in-world, abnormal or so rare that any regular person won't believe the protagonist, among other alienation and persecution tropes (witch burnings, etc). \n\nAbilities and origins are left mostly unexplained or ambiguous.\n\nIn a superhero story, sure a conk on the head is fine. Also being cursed by a statue, recruited by a dying alien, maybe bitten by a radioactive spider, or gamma rays from space. Adventure stories are often about random chance or being in the right (wrong) place during a rare event. \n\nIt doesn't really matter how because it was completely un-earned and probably not intentional, likely quite sudden to get the hero to the action sooner, overpowered but unprepared.\n\nWho is your protagonist? What are their obstacles? \n\nHow 'routine' are psychic abilities? How are psychics treated? \n\nWhat are the long-term consequences of being psychic, if any? \n\nHow are we suppose to feel about it?" }, { "answer_id": 63249, "author": "Naruto Sage E X", "author_id": 56433, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56433", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "1. You can have exposure to high psychic energy\n2. Lots of training\n3. Trauma\n4. Some [Darkhold](https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Darkhold)-type ritual\n5. Venom-type symbiote, but psychic\n6. Born with it" } ]	2022/07/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62825", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55976/" ]
62,835	I am writing a fantasy novel and I need to come up with a good riddle at the end of a dungeon. There's a sentient statue that asks a question and I couldn't come up with anything, so I was thinking of taking a riddle from a Greek mythological story. > > “What being has four legs, then two, and then three?” > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Riddles> I found some on this page. I was thinking about it and then maybe change it a little bit, but is there a good way of generating riddle instead of picking one that already exist? What are some tip and tricks that can be useful at coming up with our own riddles? What makes a good riddle?	[ { "answer_id": 62837, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Ideally, the riddle and its answer resonate thematically with the story. If you are asking at the end of the dungeon, this is particularly important. Whatever a wise soul would have learned from passing through the dungeon, that's the answer. For instance, \"What is the most dangerous thing this dungeon can contain?\"\n\nIf it was filled with monsters and traps such rash action meant death, the answer could be \"impatience.\" If, on the other hand, the adventure requires decisive action, the answer could be \"dithering.\"\n\nAfter that, the real art is reading up on riddles and getting familiar with the form so that you can ask the question artfully." }, { "answer_id": 62852, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "A good riddle should have one answer. Once you find the answer it should be fairly obviously correct. It should not be obvious what the answer is before you find the \"trick\" of the riddle. And it should not be impossible to solve without being a mind-reader.\n\nFor example, we can take the classic [riddle of the sphinx](https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Monsters/Sphinx/sphinx.html) as example:\n\n> \n> Which is the creature that has one voice, but has four feet in the morning, two feet in the afternoon, and three feet at night?\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe main \"trick\" here is that the morning, afternoon and night are a metaphor for childhood, adulthood and old age. Once you understand that, it becomes fairly easy to find that the answer is a human (crawling on all fours as a baby, walking on two legs as adult, and using a walking stick in old age).\n\nThere are two problems I've often come across that make some riddles effectively impossible to solve. The first is when there are dozens of possible answers that fit the clues of the riddle. When that happens, it just turns into a guessing game, hoping to hit on the particular answer the riddle-maker had in mind.\n\nThere is also the opposite problem, when the riddle just doesn't contain enough clues to let people make the leaps of thought necessary to get to the answer. It's easy to get in this situation, because often you create a riddle starting from the answer, and going from answer to clues may be more obvious than the other way around. And because as creator you know how to solve the riddle, it can be hard to put yourself in the shoes of someone that doesn't know. (The solution is to test it on unsuspecting friends. Or maybe [puzzling SE](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com))\n\nTo create a riddle, it's often a good idea to start with the answer and work backwards. Since it has to be part of a story, it would be nice if the answer (and riddle) is in some way meaningful. For example, it could have something to do with the hero's struggles in the story, or the story's moral.\n\nOnce you have an answer in mind, think of ways to describe it, what properties does it have, what things are associated with it, are the proverbs and idioms that involve it, etc. And finally choose some of these clues and assemble them into a riddle.\n\n---\n\nWhy does there have to be a riddle at the end of the dungeon, though? What does it add to the story? Could it just be a knowledge question, instead of a riddle? Or could it be a logic puzzle? What's the in-story reason for this event?\n\nIf the statue is guarding some ancient power that let's one rule the world, I should hope the test of worthiness would be a bit more extensive than just guessing the answer to a simple riddle. That statue should be holding an in-depth job interview to assess the hero's overall competence for being supreme ruler, including intelligence tests, psychological tests, tests for management skills etc. ;)" } ]	2022/07/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62835", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,838	I am working on this short espionage story, and I have one character, an agent, who is unable to bring himself to do harm let alone kill another person. He's never done the deed himself. In my storyboard he'll encounter a situation where his partner does kill somebody because of necessity (If he doesn't, they'll die--type of situation). And this causes a little problem where he keeps replaying the scene in his head and it causes him stress. I want to be very careful writing this scene. To my knowledge, people suffering from PTSD can have hallucinations of a traumatic event, and I don't want my character being seen as having PTSD when he doesn't have one. I know this is a sensitive matter to handle so I truly want to approach this with caution. And avoid accidentally writing a bad handling of PTSD at all costs. Which leads me to this stump. Does anyone have tips for this? Thank you!	[ { "answer_id": 62842, "author": "Sir Mice", "author_id": 55977, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55977", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> ...an agent, who is unable to bring himself to do harm let alone kill another person. He's never done the deed himself...\n> \n> \n> \n\nIt sounds like this agent does espionage because he believes that it will better the world and has an own set of principles, principles that will contradict with his profession. The murder of another human being, a being of the same species as you, is something that we as a collective have unfortunately grown desensitized to, but nevertheless doesn't take away the fact that murder is the most cruel thing you can do to someone and the people around them.\n\nThe act of putting an end to a being with the same intellect as you can very well leave you with PTSD.\n\nFrom a quick Google search on PTSD, you can be diagnosed with PTSD by experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event ( [https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967#:~:text=Post%2Dtraumatic%20stress%20disorder%20(PTSD)%20is%20a%20mental%20health,uncontrollable%20thoughts%20about%20the%20event](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967#:%7E:text=Post%2Dtraumatic%20stress%20disorder%20(PTSD)%20is%20a%20mental%20health,uncontrollable%20thoughts%20about%20the%20event).\n)\n\nAnd as you pointed out:\n\n> \n> ...I know this is a sensitive matter to handle so I truly want to approach this with caution. And avoid accidentally writing a bad handling of PTSD at all costs...\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis is true. The most important thing for a writer to remember when dealing with something sensitive like this is that, at the end of the day, as long as you feel like you wrote it to your best efforts and were as cautions as you could be then you're good because there's always going to be people that disagree with how you portrayed PTSD, no matter how sensible you were.\n\nAn example of selling the PTSD is to imagine it as the agent being a \"prisoner of his own mind\", as if the reoccuring nightmares, the stress, the anxiety that is ahead of him is beyond his control and the only way to alleviate this is to surrond himself with people that are understandative of his situation. That's how I would do it, at least." }, { "answer_id": 62846, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A quick search provides this source:\n<https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd>\n\nFor the question at hand, I'd direct your attention to this quote from this link. \"Not everyone who lives through a dangerous event develops PTSD-many factors play a part\"\n\nWhile trauma can give a person PTSD, it is not a given. There are many contributing factors involved. Everyone has a different reaction to trauma. It's a domino effect. Sometimes a person gets depression, anxiety, PTSD, all of the above, or none. It depends on countless different risk factors.\n\nAs the above source mentions, childhood trauma can be a risk factor for PTSD. However, having a healthy support group and healthy coping strategies reduces the risk.\n\nPerhaps your character has a great support group, many healthy coping habits, and a great therapist. That would be a reasonable explanation for why they have not developed PTSD. (Though it is not the only explanation, nor does it mean a person with a healthy support group cannot get it. They are just less likely to.)\n\nI feel like you've already answered your own question, though. If your character does not have PTSD, that's the end of the story. You don't need to prove they don't have it, or if you do just show they have none of the traits, symptoms, or risk factors associated with it.\n\nIf a character does not have X, you don't need to explain that they have X." }, { "answer_id": 62863, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I am sorry but you have defined the character as having PTSD already: \"And this causes a little problem where he keeps replaying the scene in his head and it causes him stress.\" PTSD is not some objective \"thing\" that you can get, like a virus or genetic condition. It is a checklist of symptoms. If you check the boxes for the symptoms, then you have the condition.\n\n* Did the person suffer a psychological trauma? Yes.\n* Does the person have a seriously reduced ability to function in the world? Yes.\n* Does the person re-experience the traumatic event through \"triggers?\" Yes.\n* Does the person's inability to function normally come from triggered memories of the traumatic event? Yes.\n\nYour character has PTSD. The way to handle this delicately is to consult with a professional in PTSD, or do your own research.\n\nIf you choose to give this character all the symptoms of PTSD, but just say, \"They don't have PTSD,\" then you will offend more people who have an understanding of what PTSD is.\n\nIf you choose to write about a person in situation X, then you have a responsibility to know how people respond in situation X." } ]	2022/07/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62838", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55982/" ]
62,844	A reading a modern paperback book on Amazon I came across this: [![Ligatures in modern novels](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MbdlH.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MbdlH.png) As I was reading, I had to look twice at the words "fist" and "fire," but sure enough, the print was not an "f" and "i", but the ﬁ ligature. Look at the word "front" to prove the point. This, in a novel printed in 2016. This has been concerning me as a steampunk author looking at my first publication. My Victorian setting has quite a few words, such as æthergram, that require ligatures if they are to be done right. Am I looking at problems with my publisher going this route? Or can anyone think of the unintended consequences of using ligatures in modern print?	[ { "answer_id": 62845, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "In digital printing, how ligatures work is part of the font definition. To get an idea of to what extent you can push that, have a look at [\"Sans Bullshit Sans\"](https://www.sansbullshitsans.com/), a font that replaces entire buzzwords with a single glyph.\n\nI'm not sure what exactly you mean by \"ligatures [..] done right\". You want \"æthergram\" with a ligature, but would you also want one in \"algæ\" or \"ultræfficient\" and every other case where there's an a followed by e? In the latter case you might want the font to handle these as a ligature automatically. But if \"æthergram\" is an exception, then you'll want to indicate ligature glyphs explicitly (as you did in your question).\n\nEither way, as long as you pick the right font for what you want, you shouldn't have a problem. If you convert your manuscript to PDF format and that displays correctly, then publishers should have no problem printing it correctly either." }, { "answer_id": 62884, "author": "TRiG", "author_id": 537, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/537", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There's a difference between typographic ligatures (also called stylistic ligatures), such as fi, fl, ffi, and ct which are seen in some typefaces, and lexical ligatures, such as æ and œ. The latter are a matter of spelling, in your control as the author, while the former are a matter of typesetting, best left to the book designer.\n\nUse your lexical ligatures, and allow the typesetter to care about the typographic ones. That's all you need to know. Below the line is extra stuff you may find interesting.\n\n---\n\nThere's a lot of complexity here. For example, in Old English and Old Swedish, æ was not considered a ligature of a and e, but a letter in its own right (called ash). (And it still is in Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese.) Also, some typographic ligatures are included as separate characters in Unicode. (Properly, speaking, you should just type the two letters f i, and the font designer should take care that they're presented correctly, which may mean as a ligature. You shouldn't need to select the ﬁ character yourself. The fact that it exists at all as a separate character is an artefact of history from the times when fonts weren't clever enough to tweak the look of characters depending on their context.) Of course, this is further complicated by languages such as Turkish and Armenian, where there is a difference between dotted and dotless i, so a ligature which obscures the dot on the i should be avoided. Some ability for the author to control such ligatures is therefore necessary, and good typesetting or word processing software should provide it.\n\nNote that in the font currently used on this site, the ﬁ ligature exists, but does not actually connect the characters: it just draws them close together. However, if you type the two separate characters, fi, it looks the same." } ]	2022/07/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62844", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260/" ]
62,848	Can we use the expressions "Truth be told" or "To tell the truth" to describe something factual in our opinion in written arguments? Example: > > Truth be told, I think no one is winning this war. > > > The very phrase has the verb "told" in it which refers to someone speaking. So, can it only be used in a verbal argument, or can it be used in a written one as well?	[ { "answer_id": 62986, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "This is asking two different questions so I'll answer them in turn.\n\nFirst, yes, you can use \"truth be told\" in writing. [The verb \"tell\" is not restricted to speech.](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/tell)\n\nSecond, the phrase \"truth be told\" is not about emphasizing the objective truth of your statements, it's about [conveying honesty](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/truth-be-told). This is a rhetorical device used before sharing personal opinions which has a connotation of confession. You can absolutely use this in an essay, but it won't have the effect of convincing people the information in your opinions is true, only that your expressed opinions are honestly held and not adopted for the sake of argument. This might be important if you're writing a persuasive essay about your own moral character, but if instead its a persuasive essay, expository essay, or research paper, it wouldn't lend any weight to your statements.\n\nRhetorical flourishes that emphasize facts include In fact, in reality, or factually. For example:\n\n> \n> In reality, nobody is winning the war.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou'll note I left off the \"I think\" part. As stated above, unless this essay is actually about your personal opinions, it's not a good way to present your arguments. Because an essay is essentially a long-form argument. The entire paper is your opinion. Any sentences not specifically attributed to another author through quotation or citation are assumed by the reader to be your opinion. So phrases like \"I think\" are not necessary." }, { "answer_id": 62987, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Depends on how formal the essay is.\n\nThe issue is not so much that it is not literally told -- it's an idiom -- as that it's casual, even conversational, in nature. At least enough that a rambling essay talking about war, or something in which the war is an influence, might use it, but it's too casual for a scholarly essay.\n\n(The scholarly essay would expect you to omit \"I think\" as well, but \"Truth be told, no one is winning this war,\" is still casual. There are more formal ways to do it. Such as \"in reality.\")" } ]	2022/07/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62848", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/12670/" ]
62,849	For the uninitiated; Visual Novels (abbreviated as VN) are in layman terms a type of game with it's story presented in plain-text accompanied with illustrations of characters and environments, music, and some form of capability to interact with the story by picking choices that will alter the overall plot (I'm aware that VNs have evolved over time and have implemented more "modern-day" game mechanics, but I left it out since it doesn't serve any purpose here). A staple within VNs is that it follows a story that at some point will branch out into multiple plotlines— > > these plotlines, also called routes, function as their own parallel universe ie. every route can be seen as it's own "book" where the only similarity the routes share is everything that happens inbetween the start of the plot and the point where the plot deviates or branches out > > > —which results in multiple endings, each with their own exploration of the many perspectives a theme can be interpreted as. The question is: Is it possible to translate a VN-structured story with multiple routes into a single book (And make it cohesive)? Or is it easier to simply break up these routes into each book of it's own?	[ { "answer_id": 62850, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "It is definitely possible to create books where people can make choices and take different story routes. They're called [Gamebooks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebook), and had their heyday in the 80's and 90's. They are also known as [\"Choose Your Own Adventure\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Your_Own_Adventure) books, after one of the best known series.\n\nI think the format works better in a digital format, though. Which is probably why their popularity declined as computer games started to get more mainstream.\n\nIn book form, after making a choice you need to look up the paragraph or page on which to continue, which is not as convenient as just clicking your mouse. You're also limited by the physical dimensions of a printed book: the more choices you can make, the shorter the routes have to be.\n\nMaybe the rise of e-books could see a revival in choose-your-own-adventure type books." }, { "answer_id": 62851, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Your character has Fourth-Wall-breaking powers\n\nA great in-universe explanation for alternate routes would be that the character has reality-bending powers. They might even be aware they are a fictional character and are trying to fix things so their story gets the best outcome.\n\nThey can save, reset, and change the outcome of the game to their will. To add a bit of tension, don't give them unlimited lives and reset power, but rather a limited amount of attempts to get the right outcome.\n\nFrom there, you are left with a choice. To you, what is the \"True Ending\" of the book?\n\nSometimes the character will make bad decisions, and end up going to the \"Bad End\" to lose a life. Other times they may have to undo a supposedly \"Good End\" because it is not the true end or not the one that they really want. That would make for a lot of tension.\n\nDepending on how serious you want to make it, this could be something of a moral dilemma for the MC. Is it right to mess with reality like this?\n\nFor a horror story, reality jumping would add an extra layer of existential dread. For a romance story or a comedy, you could avoid this by casually breaking the fourth wall a lot and implying that maybe everybody already knows this is a game. They're just here to have fun. It's no big deal.\n\nWith reality-bending powers, you could even claim that this is sort of a multiverse. All the endings are technically canon at the same time.\n\nIf this idea isn't for you, I'd suggest sticking with one specific route as the true end and tying in as many aspects of the other routes as possible.\n\nFor example, let's say there are two routes. In the bad end, one of the characters gets shot and nearly dies of a bullet wound. In the good end, everybody makes up and there's a wedding at the end.\n\nSo to mix those two together the novel would have the bad end part where the character gets shot, but then he survives and gets to go to his wedding. You need to find a happy medium between all the routes." } ]	2022/07/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62849", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55977/" ]
62,855	In my story, there are several relationships between humans and non-humans. While there are the usual with vampires and werewolves, there are also with anthromorphic animals as well. Seeing how despite being able to walk and talk like humans, they are still a completely different animal species. When writing, how far can romance between a human and non-human go, before it ends up being uncomfortable or disturbing? Note: While I mentioned some fantasy examples, it also applies to AI and aliens as well, for future writings.	[ { "answer_id": 62857, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "[Captain Kirk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk) and [Commander Riker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Riker) are both examples from a mainstream TV show that show that in general people don't have a problem with romancing alien species. In that sense vampires and werewolves and anthropomorphic animals shouldn't be a problem either.\n\nBut in all those cases the species are very much humanoid. It will get more uncomfortable if you move the species into a more animal-like or alien direction. If instead of an anthropomorphic animal you just have a talking cat or dog or unicorn, well, that sounds kind of iffy.\n\nEven in an anthropomorphic animal, if you make some traits too animal-like, it might be off-putting. For example, usually catgirls will just be given a pair of human-like breasts. But actual cats have 6-8 nipples, so if you think about, 6-8 breasts would make more sense. That would make a lot of people a bit uncomfortable, though.\n\nIt gets even weirder if you dive into the wide variety of genitals and sexual practices in the animal kingdom. You have animals with barbed penises, animals with detachable ones, animals that just stab wherever, cannibalism during/after sex, etc. Basically, too much realism and detail ruins everything.\n\nAs long as we can imagine it's just a human with some cosmetic differences, it's fine." }, { "answer_id": 62858, "author": "Spagirl", "author_id": 19924, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19924", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "For me it would get uncomfortable if there were disparity in degree of intellect and ability to give meaningful consent.\n\nSo I can imagine someone might invent anthropomorphic Pandas, but they may only have an equivalent mental age of about 6, so even if physically mature, that would have a paedophilic air. Or anthropomorphic budgerigars whose though processes don't go beyond whether the image in the mirror is another budgie or not and whether the bell still makes a ringing noise today, where such a relationship would feel exploitative." }, { "answer_id": 62864, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It shouldn't matter if the relationship is between a dragon and a zombie, a werewolf and a vampire, a human and an AI, or a golem and a visitor from the planet Zebulon.\n\nBut both parties must have informed consent\n\nHowever, there are many factors of different fictional species that can complicate things significantly.\n\nAwareness/Intelligence\n\nBoth parties need to be smart enough to fully understand what they are signing up for with the relationship.\n\nI'll use dragons as an example. In some media, dragons are little more than big reptiles. Mentally the creature is only an animal and does not even understand what a relationship is, therefore any relationship involving it would be disturbing.\n\nHowever, many forms of media have dragons who are extremely intelligent, sometimes more than humans. If the dragon can have full conversations and is clearly fully aware, then it's fine. (As long as the other criteria are met too)\n\nAge\n\nThis is a big one.\n\nAs long as both parties are adults or roughly the same age, there's nothing to worry about, but what if one's 25 and the other's 10,000? What if one is mortal and the other is immortal?\n\nIf the mortal's an adult, they're old enough to make a decision on their own, but the problem comes from the immortal's side. If they're so old that they could be the mortal's grandmother, then there's a massive difference in the level of maturity between both parties. But a 1,000-year gap? Or more? That's older than most civilizations. It's an uncomfortably wide gap in knowledge and experience.\n\nAnother wrinkle is that some species age faster, slower, or maybe even age in reverse. An immortal species might age so slowly that 10,000 is 13 to them, or they age so fast that they go through an entire life cycle in a day.\n\nIf you're gonna go down the immortal x mortal with a large age gap route, at least make it clear the immortal is mentally as old as the mortal. (e.g. they age 400 times slower than humans so one of them reaching 10,000 puts them at an equivalent mental age to a human being at 25).\n\nCommunication\n\nOkay, so now you've established that all parties are beings old enough and intelligent enough to fully understand what a relationship is, but there's still another hurdle to cross.\n\nHow do the two communicate? If one is a human and the other is an eldritch god, how do they understand each other?\n\nEldritch gods might only speak through dreamlike images or visions. Humans speak through words, writing, or body language. If they can't meaningfully communicate, there's no relationship to be had.\n\nWorse yet, one party might have a completely incorrect idea about what the other one wants.\n\nFor example, the eldritch god might know what sex is, but they might not know why humans do it. It's a foreign concept to them because human anatomy's utterly alien to them.\n\nIn the same way, if your boyfriend Cthulu asks you to sgsdfhksldfhewriewrew him, you'll have no idea what that means because you don't speak Primordial and you might not be able to.\n\nBoth parties need something to work with, some common ground for the relationship to flourish. Maybe the human doesn't know Primordial but at least they try.\n\nDependence/Freedom to Choose\n\nA relationship should always be a choice, but some tropes in fiction make it very hard for one party to have a choice.\n\nIn sci-fi, a good example would be a robot and a creator. You program a robot to fall in love with you and be your loving wife. But if the robot is bound by her programming and can't help loving you, or you have a remote you control them, then they have no choice in the matter.\n\nImagine the robot's perspective. They're a prisoner both mentally and physically. Forget romance, that's the start of a horror film.\n\nIn fantasy, the trope would be roughly the same. You build a monster or make a contract with a demon, and they're bound to do whatever you say, but that's not a healthy relationship because you have incredible power over the other party. They're your servant.\n\nIf you're going to make a robot wife or get a demon contractor, they should still be there by choice, not because you forced them to be here.\n\nThe same thing works in the reverse.\n\nWhen your character's dating an all-powerful demon lord, they shouldn't be there because the demon lord put them under a powerful spell that forbids them from leaving. That's horror, not romance.\n\nWhen your character is dating an omniscient AI, they shouldn't be there because the robot blocked off all the exits and will vaporize them if they try to leave.\n\nMy point is, try not to create unhealthy power imbalances.\n\nIf one partner's a normal mortal and the other's a world-ending god powerful enough to kill the other with a single touch, the god had better treat their sweetheart with exceptional gentleness and affection for the relationship to be healthy." }, { "answer_id": 62869, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "You need to specify the audience. There is no universal answer, because every reader will have a different comfort level.\n\n* A large part of the fantasy audience will be disgusted by bestiality, and consider the work as fetish pornography. Most of this audience is women, and they don't see a need for sexuality in loving relationships. Aside from this, the simple fact that women and typical men will be seriously disturbed if you create painful imagery of animal/alien/robotic anatomy with female anatomy. You don't need to describe it, just the mere suggestion that \"Oru the Ox-man took the tiny fairy to his bed\" will be enough to blacklist you forever.\n* A part of your audience will be disturbed when incompatible species are having sex just for pleasure with no commitment. Women want to see commitment, not simple gratification.\n* A large part of your audience will be disturbed if two characters are not agreeing to the sex (like Mordred is Upphur’s son–nephew by incest), but it happens in life as well as fantasy. Don't glorify it. You may be interested to see how modern retelling of [medieval incest and rape is handled today by The Swithen](https://theswithen.wordpress.com/the-swithen-the-real-legend-of-king-arthur-in-all-the-majesty-it-deserves/index-of-articles-of-the-swithen/reclaiming-igraine-can-the-medieval-story-of-a-sexual-assault-be-told-responsibly-in-the-metoo-era/).\n\nGenerally, as towr said, when the differences are only cosmetic most fantasy readers will be OK with it, but not all. In its time, Star Trek was even controversial when Kenk kissed Lt. Ohura. We are far passed that today." } ]	2022/07/25	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62855", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
62,859	I was trying to work on the worldbuilding of my story. The concept of fictional nations being based on real ones is nothing new, but it is fun to do. Usually, when there's a nation based on actual nations, the culture of said nation is also incorporated into the worldbuilding, to make it clear which nation it is based on. I was trying to make a nation for my story, and I thought of basing it on Central Asia, but I'm wondering whether it's wrong to mix up the nations I'm basing it on. Other nations are based on one nation each, and you can see their cultural references; but if I decide to base it on the whole of Central Asia, and not just one country from Central Asia, and incorporate the cultural aspects of all the chosen nations, would that be wrong? I feel like if I do it, it would be controversial, just like how Aladdin is. Are there any other ways for it to be handled?	[ { "answer_id": 62860, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Just do it; if you are aware of any controversy, address it in the book with more fiction.\n\nThe way this is often addressed in film and TV is to make explicit reference to the things you do not wish to imply.\n\nFor example, Luckeyfeyp is the founder of Facebook, but we want a villain that is also a social media giant. So one of our characters says \"This guy is on the way to being bigger than Facebook and Luckeyfeyp.\"\n\nThat's for both the audience and Luckeyfeyp's lawyers: The fictional character is NOT Luckeyfeyp, and his social media thing is NOT Facebook.\n\nTalking about your fictional country, you don't need to worry about lawyers, but if you are worried about outrage or offense, then you do that same: Some XYZ characteristic you borrow from Tibet, but you have changed to be different, you just have some character mention:\n\n> \n> \"It reminds of the XYZ tradition in Tibetan monasteries.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Jusg is impressed. \"Yes, quite similar. A borrowing, perhaps.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nSo clearly, your version of XYZ is not the same tradition and your country is not Tibet.\n\nPeople seldom take offense unless you let them believe your fictional character, or fictional country, or fictional religion or tradition, is their real-life character or country or religion or tradition and you've got it all wrong.\n\nInoculate yourself against that by making it clear, in the text not just in a disclaimer, that your fictional countries and people are NOT the real thing." }, { "answer_id": 62862, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Your question is culturally-aware enough to ask the question. You don't say what role this amalgam culture plays in your story (how it is represented in-world), so none of this is directed at you, nor assumes the story you want to write.\n\nLet's ask, what could possibly go wrong?\n\nFu Manchu is a deep and well-developed character, not a garbage bag of every Asian race trope ever\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLOL, J/K.\n\nFu Manchu embodied every yellow-peril fear a white colonialist culture could dream up. It became so bad [the US State Department told Hollywood to stop making Fu Manchu pictures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Manchu#Controversy) – when the US government of the 1930s thinks your stories are too racist, well…\n\nWhy didn't they reference a real person like Zuckerb –– oh, because no such person ever existed. Fu Manchu isn't a character, he's a [straw man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Hanging a lampshade on the straw man (He's way worse than a Luckeyfeyp-type) doesn't excuse a garbage bag of harmful tropes.\n\nAdmitting the stereotype isn't based on a real thing, doesn't excuse the stereotype. It just admits you knew, and could have done better.\n\nWorse than stereotype: the Stooge\n---------------------------------\n\nConsider some Straw Man/Stooge fan-favorites:\n\n* Innercity Black men who exist to rob liquor stores in the 1970s\n* Latino workers who are lazy, except when they are having violent revolutions which end corruptly.\n* Unattractive women... who just happen to be wrong about everything.\n* Arabs who denounce all-things European but kidnap white women for some reason.\n* Jews.\n\nI'll just call these 'stooges' because 'straw man' implies there's a debate of some sort. Stooges are used when you don't want critical thinking or hesitation. It's shorthand. It works because you can fool some of the people some of the time.\n\nA stooge is designed to provoke our cultural bias. Stooges do work –– for a while. They stop working when the inevitable counter-message emerges. You can't keep performing the same parlor magic when your audience is shouting out how the trick is done.\n\nFu Manchu was enormously popular, until he became too controversial to touch. Publisher/producers did not grow a conscious, rather it became inconvenient to defend a Fu Manchu project. This should be the take-away: you may find short-term popularity using stooge characters to provoke reader bias, but the backlash can cancel it just as quickly.\n\nthe Anti-Stooge, just as bad?\n-----------------------------\n\nNow consider these 'anti-stooges' – characters that were designed to subvert an over-worn stooge trope:\n\n* Uncle Tom\n* Mnarlee Chiw\n* Shaft\n* The Spice Girls\n\nThese characters were designed to be the anti-stooge in their era. They are well-intended constructs that employ the same familiar tropes, but attempt to change the role from stooge to hero.\n\nThese characters do not age well. They eventually become the same joke. Their anti-stooge purpose feels insincere, resting on the same stereotypes and tropes they supposedly correct.\n\nMnarlee Chiw is an international detective, clearly the hero, but buffoons in pidgin English and mangled Confucianisms for humor's sake. \n\nBlack'sploitation films feature Black actors in lead roles, but they exist in the same ghetto liquorstore universe of jive-speaking pimps and criminals. \n\nThe Spice Girls do not embody feminism (lol) they are just skinny women with different skintones who sing and dance.\n\nI'm not saying these things are un-entertaining today, but they are so divorced from reality as to become ironic camp for the people who appreciate them. For the average person however, they aren't much different to the messaging they tried to subvert.\n\nDespite prominent cast members being Chinese-American and Black, most casual viewers can't get past the MC Mnarlee Chiw being played in yellowface. To the average person, Shaft is just more innercity one-liners said in a blackcent. To the average person, Spice Girls are rather silly, not empowering.\n\nThe ultimate is Uncle Tom, so universally despised he's become a pejorative by the people he was constructed to generate sympathy for. It doesn't get worse than that.\n\nAll Euro-white culture is the same (a rant).\n--------------------------------------------\n\nNow consider my 'European' story where the Orthodox priest 'Queen Medici' of the Warsaw ghetto puts on her bowler hat, serves poison tea and crumpets while goose-stepping in her Nazi uniform and says \"Let them eat cake\" –– Everyone should be offended, LOL … not so much culturally offended, just having-a-brain offended.\n\nWorse than lazy worldbuilding, this would just be nonsense.\n\nYet this is exactly how mish-mosh Native Americans are written. Everyone has a teepee and a canoe, tripping over totem poles and two-sprit wolf companions, wearing Ziegfeld feather headdresses all day just for funsies while chatting with their dead ancestors –– conflating radically different cultures, from vastly different geographies, who were often idealogical opposites in belief, custom, and law. Then smearing a couple centuries of colonial ignorance on top.\n\nWe don't live in a vacuum. Cultural erasure is worse where there are long-standing colonial narratives. No author can write a story that stands apart from history and culture, or their own biases.\n\nWhat if it's not Central Asia but the Planet Mongo instead?\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nFu Manchu spawned Cizg the Merciless – same guy, same costume, same agenda… but less offensive? In my opinion anyway.\n\nThe really trope-y aspects become abstracted, while literally staying exactly the same. They both have torture devices, they both have evil daughters, they both have skinny moustaches and silk robes, literally the same guy.\n\nThe difference, in my opinion, is that while Fu Manchu is plotting against the British Secret Service in the 20th Century, Cizg does not exist in any real world. Every character in Fnidh Zorvan is a trip to the trope salad bar. Mongo needs an uber-villain and Fu Manchu was popular at the time – a decade later Cizg might have been Dracula.\n\nI think bad tropes can get 'sanitized' somewhat, but it's still pretty obvious where they came from (Cizg, Mongo) and should inform how they are used. Fnidh Zorvan didn't have a lot of time to build characters, and everybody already recognized Fu Manchu. (see also, Nazis in spaaaace). This isn't deep storytelling.\n\nSimilar to many American 'menace' tropes having Asian-sounding names, the name for anything sketchy in British fantasy/sci-fi sounds, to my biased ears, like Middle Eastern territories that disagreed about being British colonies. It pulls me out of the story, little voices jump up and say \"Das racist!\" every time a new witch-prison or desert planet gets mentioned. I'm all, \"No! You can't do that! ... That's a real countr...!\"\n\n(So I'm rechecking all my planet names – there are problematic names, some are intentional. I'm still debating it.)\n\nthe OG: Ruritania\n-----------------\n\nIn the wake of 19th Century political shake-ups, lots of fictional countries vaguely situated in Central/Eastern Europe emerged. [Ruritania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruritania) is probably the best example. In-world it's a political hot mess with revolutions every 2 minutes, an addle-brained monarchy, corrupt ministers, and simple peasant folk.\n\nRuritania spawned endless imitations, until no visit to fictional Eastern Europe was complete without a revolt as a plot-point. These are comedic depictions of Central European culture, but clearly condescending. There was a generation of Caucasians who were under constant proxy 'revolutions' instigated by the Russian Empire (sound familiar?). They probably found this trope less funny, since it was a joke at their expense that belittled their actual situation.\n\nKlockstopia is my favorite spoof name for a fake European country because it tells you not to take any of the story seriously. It pokes fun at the over-used trope not Eastern Europe – it's not funny unless you know there was a lot of nonsense syllabification that came before, but would the average person see a difference…?\n\nIn conclusion\n-------------\n\nI think the best we can do is be aware.\n\nTropes that are coded still point at where they came from. They can be abstracted, but not entirely rehabilitated. Subverting a trope actually adds to it. It doesn't fix the problem.\n\nInventing fictional countries that stand for real places is going to involve some level of 'ching-chong' syllabification (which may offend readers)..., or a lot of worldbuild-y research (which may derail your idea). It's good to indicate which type of story this will be. Readers are generous if the story-tone is correct.\n\nRuritania was popular in its day. I'm too far removed from the era, I can't tell if it sounded derogatory like 'Muckiyuckistan', or if it was intended to sound plausible (I'm guessing satire, from the context of the stories).\n\nThe 'frame challenge' advice might be to not write a fictional 'country' but a fictional person (a family) who moved around these areas their whole lives picking up traditions and experiences, while also clearly being individuals who have character development and some agency. Setting up some idealogical contrasts within the immediate characters will help to prevent them all becoming [ambiguously brown](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmbiguouslyBrown)." }, { "answer_id": 62883, "author": "profane tmesis", "author_id": 14887, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14887", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "As you've indicated yourself, this is a risky thing to do, and you can come off as insensitive. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, it just means you have to tread carefully.\n\nHere are some tips I can think of to help you steer clear of the dragons.\n\n1) Understand the controversy\n\nIt's important to understand why getting it wrong can be so offensive to people. In this specific case, I think it mostly boils down to taking a very rich and diverse continent with probably the longest history in the world and painting it as a single country. Put simply, it's reductive.\n\nThe second problem is that if you do this lazily, you will almost inevitably revert to stereotypes. These are harmful, of course, but they also make your story uninteresting.\n\n2) Do your homework\n\nThe main cure is to immerse yourself. Don't use a culture as inspiration without understanding it. Read up on the history, the customs. Read some fiction from the source countries. Focus on understanding the differences between countries. When did they go to war with each other? How did they resolve their differences. What are the stereotypes they have about each other?\n\nThe more you focus on the differences, the more rich and varied your fictional country will become.\n\nDon't look to other western fiction that takes inspiration from Asia and do what they do. That's how stereotypes are born. Go to the primary sources and try to figure out how you're going to do it differently.\n\n3) Focus on making the story interesting, not inoffensive\n\nIt's important to think about how your writing will be received by people from different backgrounds, but if your main concern is whether you're causing offense, you will probably never write anything very gripping.\n\nIt's better to worry about being interesting. Stereotypes are boring, almost by definition. An insufficiently fleshed-out fictional culture is boring. Worldbuilding that doesn't sweat the details is boring. Focus on not being boring. Focus on something that will feel real, even to the people that are intimately familiar with various Asian cultures.\n\nIf you sweat the details, do your homework, and take the reader seriously, you will rarely have to worry about causing offense.\n\n4) Look at good and bad examples\n\nThere are plenty of bad examples of homogeneous Asian-inspired fictional cultures. It's good to find a couple and to see exactly what they get wrong.\n\nThen, look for some examples that get it right. I guess Westeros from the Song of Ice and Fire saga is one obvious example. It's a single (big) country that is roughly inspired by all of Europe. Why doesn't it come off as a lazy generically medieval mulch? Some thoughts:\n\n* It maintains the diversity of Europe. Westeros is basically a collection of cultures that slowly came together. Each \"province\" still functions as a kingdom, and has its own history. Even if your culture is homogeneous in the story (which Westeros isn't) you can still come up with a history of how it became homogeneous, and show the remnants of that process. The history of China may be a good inspiration here.\n* Mojxin did his homework. Pretty much every major story beat is inspired by some actual historic event. He's not repeating the generic knights-and-princesses fodder, he's going back to primary sources.\n* Westeros is specifically a country in the middle of change. You don't have to do this, but by focusing on a country that is not stable, you are forced to show the diversity in its culture.\n\n5) Respect where differences come from\n\nThings become unrealistic when you randomly throw things together. Don't take samurai-style soldiers, and randomly combine them with Chinese-style warrior monks. Both of these emerged from very specific settings, cultures and geographies.\n\nThese come from different cultures, so if you want a Samurai-style warlord with Wudang-style soldiers, you have to figure out how these two cultures clashed and ended up together.\n\n6) Deconstruct the stereotypes\n\nFinally, once you've found the stereotypes in other people's work: take aim. Take what they do and invert it. If they have noble Samurai, read up on the reality of the Shogun period. What were Samurai really like? What was the reality of their day-to-day life? How big was their entourage?\n\nWhen you're writing, it can be very productive to have an enemy. Everything they do wrong, you figure out a better way to do it. You'll never have writer's block again.\n\nAll this doesn't mean your story has to be hyper-realistic or super grim. Even George R.R. Mojxin throws in the occasional dragon. If you just make sure you have a deep understanding of the relevant history and culture, it's up to you to pick and choose what you include. Perhaps the real history is to grim to fit the tone of your story, but you can still investigate the way people dress, what kind of religion they follow, how they talk to their parents, what sort of breakfast they have etc.\n\nJust make sure that for each of these you figure out the real answer first, and figure out how it differs across Asia." } ]	2022/07/25	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62859", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54689/" ]
62,866	Would you consider it too late to introduce major characters at the midpoint of book 1 in a trilogy? By major characters I mean characters that aren’t the protagonist, don’t have POV chapters (my book is first person), but are with the protagonist for the majority of the trilogy and are essential to the main storyline.	[ { "answer_id": 62867, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "A trilogy is basically a three act story, and the first book is basically the first act.\n\nSo no; the middle of the first act is not too late.\n\nI have written a story in which a major character is introduced in person in the third act, but that character is a celebrity in the world, has a personal connection to the protagonist (he saved her mother), and thus is mentioned multiple times including in the first quarter of the first act.\n\nIf it is possible, you might want to make reference to your late-arriving character, or at least the role you need them to play, so the late arrival does not appear out of nowhere.\n\nIn my case my protagonist, because she is the only one with even a thin personal connection to the celebrity, is chosen as an emissary to persuade him to intervene in her team's dire situation. He does provide aid and that is the key to her problem being solved." }, { "answer_id": 62868, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "There is really no firm way to answer this without knowing what format you are writing. Generally, a character enters the plot when the plot requires them. Genre fiction will normally at least introduce main characters early on, within the first few pages. For example, Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz has the Wizard in the title and he is mentioned many times throughout the story, but he does nothing at all and has no actual appearance until the very end of the book. All the other main characters - the Tinman, Scarecrow, and Lion - are actively engaging the plot by chapter 4. With Genre fiction you generally want to keep the story building up momentum. Introducing a new major character will shift our focus, and it runs the risk of ruining all the momentum you just built up.\n\nBy contrast, Literary fiction essentially has no rules governing the structure or plot development, so you need to just keep the plotline moving forward purposefully.\n\nA relatively new genre called [magical realism](https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-magical-realism) sort of breaks all these rules and has almost no formal structure. The stories can jar you by killing the protagonist in the middle of the novel, having them get marriend and retire, or suddenly have a new protagonist take the stage. The story can put major changes pretty much anywhere without hurting the flow.\n\nWhen is too late?\n-----------------\n\nIt is too late to introduce a character when you don't have enough time to build the reader's interest in them. If it is a character you want the audience to attach to, then they should spend a couple chapters getting filled out; developing their relationship with the protagonist. This is true whether they are the good guy or bad guy. You need to make us understand why we care about this character. They are a main character, so they are either important to meeting the protagonist's goals, or interfering with those goals. In either case, if the reader can't relate to why the plot needs this character, then you didn't spend enough time developing them. You need to introduce them earlier.\n\nThis is a good question for your test readers. \"Did you understand why 'Bob/Sue' was important in this story?\" If they don't see a need for the character, then you either don't need the character or you didn't give them enough time." }, { "answer_id": 62871, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Have you ever watched Avatar: The Last Airbender?\n\nToph, one of the cornerstone characters of the franchise, does not get introduced until Book Two Episode Six.\n\nShe didn't exist for the whole first season of the story and now she's a fan favorite. How did the writers do this? 1-By foreshadowing her appearance by giving the main character a vision. 2-By giving her a great introductory episode.\n\nHer first appearance pretty much says everything we need to know about her character. The gang takes a trip to an underground fighting earth-bending ring where a character called The Boulder is destroying everyone. Then this little girl shows up, shows she's a thousand times more talented than him, and wins the prize belt without even breaking a sweat.\n\nIt's not about when you introduce your character as much as it's about how you introduce them.\n\nMake a strong impression, keep the character consistent, and you just might write a character as compelling as Toph." }, { "answer_id": 62886, "author": "Axel Morisson", "author_id": 56014, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56014", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's too late when they don't have time to do anything else. The Hollywood \"superhero movie\" genre has a tendency to introduce new characters in the last seconds of the movie itself. Sometimes it's a promise of a new arch, sometimes it's about a linked story (albeit loosely) or a foreshadowing of what/who is to come. But it only works when the next movie of the genre is close...and it has been overused. For the work that just ends when a new character is introduced, and it's meant to be \"central\" to the action , this late apparition is more of a disruption. The plot resolves almost by a unconnected agent that shows up just to close the story- that is forced and somehow demands a continuation. Ending the work like that and NOT presenting a continuation of some sort is a form of sadism, while presenting one too late or too shallow leaves the reader disappointed. For quality works- something that \"superhero movies\" are generally NOT- a forced continuation/ promise of revealing why the \"main character\" appears in the last seconds of the movie is tolerable and became a trope of the genre.\n\nAnother extreme and somewhat specific case is teenage fiction presented as short animated series or even graphic novels or \"manga\" as they are called. These sometimes come as formulaic as can be, trope after trope, the only original points being character design and quirks but generally following typical \"plot formulae\" to the letter. Here sometimes as a move meant to disrupt the archetypal construction, we have main characters that appear late, just like the Wizard of Oz, characters from the shadow that everyone talks about but no one knows, or even (main!) characters that die right in the middle of the action and then their role is simply taken by a new or existing character. Mainly in Chinese works this debases the main character's value. The work is original because the invested feelings of the reader are trampled when the \"main character\" is revealed to be for all intents and purposes a normal person that just happened to be central to the story up to one point, but \"life goes on without them\" just fine and in fact this is beautifully illustrated by having all the story continue with someone else filling in the role of hero, adventurer, protagonist or so on.\n\nI discuss such \"works\" here because I see these tendencies pass into mainstream literature and film-making and, at least to me, they appear to violate some tenets of good story-writing, as : don't write \"story of X\" while having X appear on the last page, unless they are present-by-absence - in other people's stories, by past actions /consequences, etc, a sort of \"present absence\"; second one: stories like \" and that's how I met your mother\" - beginning well too early or unrelated and somehow drawing impossible tangents and spanning long periods of time are overused; the \"cloud atlas\" thing was, bad or good, written once, and don't re-do it...don't kill X at the beginning of the story of X and have the story continue from collected memories of selected characters, don't break the story in two and begin with the middle, faking the omniscient narrator perspective: look, this is X, and he's hanging for dear life on the tail of a shark.. now let's see how X got here, but first, let me tell you who X is and why do we care..and then after the movie's basically done, get to the start sequence, stupidly and quickly explain the situation and solve it in seconds, the end- no, that is not good either.\n\nSo long story short- a \"main\" character is a main character for a reason.He/She/It must do something important for the story, and not only for the end, we must follow this character through the story and have the narrative make us care about them. Otherwise I will throw again a good Hollywood example: massive battle movies, like those following historic battles of the Roman empire for example- they do look at the leaders, at remarkable heroes, etc but nobody cares about soldier # 321 from the tenth row of can't remember what auxiliary unit that has seen Caesar on a sunny day in a certain month of May.In fact, nobody cares about the collective character \" the X-th cohort\" unless it is paramount to the action.But if you were to write a novel with 1000 main characters, each soldier in that cohort, describe their movements and what happened from their perspective...Original but after a while everyone confuses soldier #321 with soldier #500 because...nothing much sets them apart and are given equal weight and they're so many..and they kinda all do the same thing at the same time so what is the main character doing. Wait, who is the main character? And then let's say you decide to introduce Caesar that happens to pass by and personally take command briefly before the battle ends. Too little too late- and although he would have made a good main character, he isn't, not from a reader's POV.\n\nSo write main characters so that they are interesting, worth investing feelings into, worth remembering and following. They therefore must be individualized, not too many, present for a significant portion of the story so that it makes sense to call them \"main character\", and try and avoid tropes like Chekhov's Gun,the Wizard of Oz,\"this is how I met your mother\" , Story of hero X (where the hero X is long gone and everyone just remembers him/her),and that insidious meme of \"anyone can be a protagonist/ the protagonist dies mid-action AND NOTHING STRANGE HAPPENS\" - or \"life as usual\". These have been massively over-used and bring about unwanted comparisons and debasing to other nice ideas that may be written in. So no \"too late for action\" main characters,no \" 1001 main characters and each replaceable/interchangeable\" , no \"disposable heroes\" that really get done in really early on with no consequences, no \" best in the world until X happens\"/ cheap redemption stories with the character changing so totally and abruptly that the story would better be given to two separate characters...unless a fully explainable story of transformation takes place." }, { "answer_id": 62889, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "For me, it comes down to the [arcing characters](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/write-character-arcs/). (i.e. characters with change or challenges—for flat arcs).\n\nIf the arc can be finished in one chapter, nobody, especially the reader will be particularly impressed. That would likely be a low-risk change or an oversimplified one.\n\nBooks should be exciting. One way to make them exciting is to create character arcs that are so hard and complex the reader fears the character will never be able to change.\n\nThat usually takes time. And pages.\n\nSo changing/arcing characters need to be introduced early and kept until late.\n\nNon-arcing major characters should be in the story either as an example of what the changing characters risk becoming if they fail their change or as a promise of what they could become if they succeed. Or of course to assist or, most commonly, prevent the change.\n\nSo even the major characters without change need to be around from early on in order to assist with the arcing of the changing characters.\n\nHowever, if the late entry of the character still works with respect to change, it may still be ok. Unless the character represents some kind of a [deus ex machina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina) or other types of problematic problem-solving...\n\nI also wonder, if the character is a major character and the story suggests it should enter only at the mid-point, is it possible that you have done too much preamble and the story might actually be better off if it started around the mid-point?\n\nOr the reverse; maybe you should expand the first half and make a book of it and move the second half, and the major character to the next book?\n\nOr, if the character sees fit to be this tardy, maybe they shouldn't be a major character at all? Why is the character so late? Why are they still vital to the story? Should they be this late or could you introduce them earlier? Maybe through parallel plotlines or timelines, or simply by having them appear earlier? Could you move the character's responsibilities with respect to the story/character arc to another character that is in time and cut the character completely or at least limit their role?" }, { "answer_id": 62892, "author": "Robert Columbia", "author_id": 22049, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22049", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Star Wars\n\nGoing by date of release rather than in-world chronology, several major Star Wars characters were not present in the first volume but became major characters and are recognized as such today:\n\n* Yoda is not mentioned at all in Star Wars (1977), but became a major character, appearing in six of the other eight mainline films and many secondary works.\n* Palpatine is given only a brief side mention in Star Wars (1977) as a faceless, nameless, abstract \"emperor\" who just dissolved the Senate. He is seen briefly as a hologram in The Empire Strikes Back (1980), and becomes a major character after that, appearing in all of the prequels as well as The Rise of Skywalker.\n* Yagdo Jarrisguen, while perhaps not quite qualifying as a major character, does not appear until the latter half of the second installment of 1980.\n* All of Yonba gho Qutt's scenes in the original Star Wars (1977) were deleted prior to release (only being restored through new CGI footage 20 years later), with only verbal mentions remaining. We know that he's a gangster that Han Solo used to work for, but we don't really know him as a person (or a space slug or whatever). The second installment likewise only makes verbal mentions, with the character appearing \"in the flesh\" only in the third installment (that is, until the character was retrospectively inserted into a new edition of the first installment)." } ]	2022/07/25	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62866", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55703/" ]
62,875	Currently I'm outlining a novel, mostly for fun, based in 9th century Norway. The closest to writing Old Norse names I can get is by using Icelandic characters like the ð and þ and the occasional á etc. Could I then use, for example, the name Guðrún, or should I instead Latinize it to Guthrun? In that same vein: I'm writing in English but find words like Drengr or Holmgang to fit better than their English translations, simply because they don't really convey the meaning as well. Even though I don't necessarily plan on ever publishing this, I wonder if there's a rule or standard for using non-latin characters/words in published fiction?	[ { "answer_id": 62878, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Luckily, there is no rule! Novels have gone both ways and succeeded. Think of Crazy Rich Asians for example. There are many Hokkien words in there that English speakers won’t understand. The author does a great job putting footnotes at the bottom of the page so you can look it up quickly. Other authors have included a glossary in the back (such as the Star Seeker series by E. W. Finch.) Amy Tan’s best seller The Joy Luck Club has the narrator translate Chinese terms right in the narrative for us.\n\nPlease check [this very closely related post](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/41740/do-hard-to-pronounce-names-break-immersion) for more pointers on when using these difficult terms is appropriate." }, { "answer_id": 63157, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Just an FYI, those are still Latin Alphabet characters. They are just give Diacritics to denote a different sound that the letter represents. Considering that the language you're writing for is Modern English, it would probably be best to go with the second version, since your diacritics are not common and most English readers won't know how to pronounce them.\n\nThe reason Diacritics exist is that the Latin Alphabet may not have been developed for a language that uses it and different languages have different sounds. For example, the Hawaiian, Navajo, and Quechan languages were not written language until westerners had contact with the Hawaiians', Navajo, and Inca respectively. The official writing script for each uses Latin, but sounds exist in a written form that may not be indicatively pronounce. For example, the Navajo call themselves \"Diné\" (The people). Although the word looks like it should be pronounced like the English word \"dine\" (as in \"to eat\") but the \"e\" is pronounced as a hard \"e\", like how Canadians end all of their questions, eh? But it's not nearly the same sound... it's more like the sound in \"hay\"... so to denote the \"e\" does not represent the same sound, the diacritic is added to denote to readers it's not pronounced like you would read the word.\n\nAgain, because Icelandic (also uses the Latin Alphabet... but with heavy use of diacritics because it's not a language that developed with Latin influences) the diacritics denote sounds that the letters don't ordinary represent in that spelling. But since your audience is likely to not know the pronunciation rules do to limited exposure, they might have trouble with properly pronouncing the character, especially considering you're only doing an approximation to modern Icelandic, which is several centuries of linguistic drift from the old Norse parent, which has no guarantee of being remotely close. Consider that some linguistics believe that the best approximation of what Wifjium Sqavusceure plays would have sounded like is to do Hamlet... in a U.S. Southern accent instead of the Queen's. Specifically, a Tidewater accent (common in and around the state of Maryland. Although hanging a \"hon\" on \"To be or not to be, that is the question\" might be advised against. For the record, I always read Romeo and Juliet with the former in a surfer accent and the latter in a valley girl... but that's just me trying to inject humor to stave off the boredom.).\n\nPoint is, many languages develop by drifts in pronunciation becoming so distant, the parent language can't understand the child any more (Romance Languages are languages that are basically exaggerated accents of Latin from that area of the Roman Empire.). Several modern languages are now going through the process of getting regional distinctions that are bordering this (America and Great Britain are often said to be two nations separated by a common language. Latin America Spanish and European Spanish are so distant that many films are dubbed into separate regional Spanish depending on the market. Quebec French and Brazilian Portuguese are also very different from their European counterparts. Even Pennsylvania Dutch is difficult for someone who learns European German.)." }, { "answer_id": 63195, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There Are No Rules\n------------------\n\nIf you're writing creative fiction then any question that starts with \"Can I write...\" will always have the same answer: yes. There are no rules about how to write creatively. There is no governing body that will stop you from writing whatever ideas you have.\n\nThe correct time to ask this question is when you have a specific audience in mind for what you're writing, or trying to sell your novel to a publisher, and are worried that the content might not fly with them. You specifically say that you're not angling to get published though, so this isn't a concern for you. Just write whatever you want.\n\nOn Foreign Languages in Historical Fiction Novels\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nAn author who makes frequent use of foreign language in historical fiction is James Clavell, in his famous novel Shōgun, and other books set in East Asia. He frequently includes words, or whole phrases, in Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, or Latin, often through spoken dialogue, though always spelled out in familiar Roman letters. His decision for doing this is pretty straight forward and practical: he wrote with the intent to publish for an English-speaking audience and didn't want his readers unable to read characters' names, or to just skip over transcribed conversations in Japanese or Chinese, which is what they'd inevitably do when confronted with strings of indecipherable symbols they could not glean any pronunciation from.\n\nThis is the essential component for making this typographical decision, I think. You need to decide who you're writing for. If you're just writing for yourself then do whatever suits your personal taste, but if you're writing with a particular audience in mind, keep them in mind when you decide how to transcribe foreign words and names." } ]	2022/07/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62875", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56006/" ]
62,876	My protagonist is crafty, resourceful, cunning, and principled. She finds herself trapped both physically (due to seclusion in a remote area of wilderness) and psychologically (by a controlling partner she had previously thought was virtuous). She willingly entered this situation but was unaware that it had been morphing into the present disaster for many years. Now she senses her world closing in on her. My problem is this. If she's so smart, how was she oblivious to this happening? NB. I refer to her as she but I don't know yet whether the protagonist might be a he instead! Their gender is not meant to be a focal point of the story. That said, if someone has a compelling reason to cast this character as male or female, I'd love to hear it!	[ { "answer_id": 62877, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Because love is blind.\n======================\n\nIf s/he saw the trap coming, that means she didn’t trust her own judgement.\n\nA relationship is always a risk. Two people make themselves vulnerable to each other, that is how we come to trust another person. This vulnerability sometimes gets us hurt. So there s/he is: a victim.\n\nThere is no living without risk." }, { "answer_id": 62882, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Being smart is a double-edged sword.\n\nBeing smart doesn't only make you good at assessing situations and solving problems. It also makes you very good at rationalizing behavior and justifying beliefs you're attached to.\n\nThere is a long list of [cognitive biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) that affect people, and just being smart doesn't protect you from them. For example \"confirmation bias\" is a popular one, it means you look for evidence that confirms your beliefs, instead of evidence against it. And my golly, how much easier it is to find confirmation when you're smart.\n\nShe was invested in this relationship, and every bias in her brain has been trying to protect that investment. The good things got highlighted, the bad things rationalized away. That controlling behavior from her partner? Maybe he was just stressed, and moving to the secluded wilderness to get away from the hustle and bustle will fix everything. Oops." }, { "answer_id": 62885, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You're describing an abusive relationship. Women (and men) get caught in them all the time for all kinds of reasons.\n\nIt's a mistake to believe women who stay in abusive relationships aren't smart enough to get out. And frankly, it's a bit unkind to abused women. You should research abuse more if you plan to write about a woman in or near such a situation. Here's a list of [eight reasons women stay in abusive relationships](https://ifstudies.org/blog/eight-reasons-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships) and none of them is because they aren't smart enough to get out... just saying...\n\nA few other things come to mind:\n\n1. Your protagonist falls into this trap due to a fatal flaw or a lie she believes that allows the antagonist to get their hooks into her, and once she deals with the flaw/lie (a.k.a. grows, goes through a positive change, etc.) she can get out again (and if you don't want women to burn your book, the fatal flaw should never be lack of smarts...)\n2. No one is prepared to deal with certain kinds of people and the sad truth is that in many cases the only healthy thing is to up and leave (especially before you've gotten married, bought a house, started a company, or had kids...) And if you were in an abusive relationship and I told you this about your partner, I'd probably get a list of ten reasons I was wrong within a minute...\n3. There is a good reason why people say \"he was such a nice person\" about some of the worst people out there. I can't tell you if it's that bad people are able to hide it well or if it's that we're unable to see potential murderers, rapists, and abusers, or perhaps that society codes make it very precarious to call them out unless you have iron-clad proof... after all, you'll end up pretty alone after a few false positives..." }, { "answer_id": 62890, "author": "Mindwin Remember Monica", "author_id": 19292, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19292", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Hindsight is 20/20\n\nRecognizing the trap requires one to know what the trap is and making the proper mental connections. We often fall into these even when we do, from a momentary lapse of judgment, exhaustion, wishful thinking, or just from being concerned about the wrong thing at the wrong time and not paying proper attention.\n\nRomance often pulls the so-called \"rose-tinted glasses\" over our eyes. We tend to exarcebate the qualities and ignore the flaws of the loved person. Even when someone suffers abuse, they often bounce back and give the loved one \"a second chance\" which they don't deserve.\n\nThese are the cards an author can play to make the MC fall into the trap. Some uncharitable readers might get angry and call the MC dumb but so long you show these elements, most of the audience will understand why MC fell into the trap.\n\nOnly after the fact we realize how dumb we were. Drink 2 glasses of water if it never happened to you." } ]	2022/07/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62876", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52738/" ]
62,898	<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFvf6Elp3D0> So I would like to write a science-fiction novel where the idea of "The Dark Forest" is used. The idea of "The Dark Forest" comes from Liu Cixin. So is it ok for me to use that idea and name it "The Dark Forest" in the novel without explicitly naming Liu Cixin in any way or form? I am thinking by the fact you're using the term "The Dark Forest" people would already think of Liu Cixin so giving explicit attribution is not needed at all.	[ { "answer_id": 62877, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Because love is blind.\n======================\n\nIf s/he saw the trap coming, that means she didn’t trust her own judgement.\n\nA relationship is always a risk. Two people make themselves vulnerable to each other, that is how we come to trust another person. This vulnerability sometimes gets us hurt. So there s/he is: a victim.\n\nThere is no living without risk." }, { "answer_id": 62882, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Being smart is a double-edged sword.\n\nBeing smart doesn't only make you good at assessing situations and solving problems. It also makes you very good at rationalizing behavior and justifying beliefs you're attached to.\n\nThere is a long list of [cognitive biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) that affect people, and just being smart doesn't protect you from them. For example \"confirmation bias\" is a popular one, it means you look for evidence that confirms your beliefs, instead of evidence against it. And my golly, how much easier it is to find confirmation when you're smart.\n\nShe was invested in this relationship, and every bias in her brain has been trying to protect that investment. The good things got highlighted, the bad things rationalized away. That controlling behavior from her partner? Maybe he was just stressed, and moving to the secluded wilderness to get away from the hustle and bustle will fix everything. Oops." }, { "answer_id": 62885, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You're describing an abusive relationship. Women (and men) get caught in them all the time for all kinds of reasons.\n\nIt's a mistake to believe women who stay in abusive relationships aren't smart enough to get out. And frankly, it's a bit unkind to abused women. You should research abuse more if you plan to write about a woman in or near such a situation. Here's a list of [eight reasons women stay in abusive relationships](https://ifstudies.org/blog/eight-reasons-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships) and none of them is because they aren't smart enough to get out... just saying...\n\nA few other things come to mind:\n\n1. Your protagonist falls into this trap due to a fatal flaw or a lie she believes that allows the antagonist to get their hooks into her, and once she deals with the flaw/lie (a.k.a. grows, goes through a positive change, etc.) she can get out again (and if you don't want women to burn your book, the fatal flaw should never be lack of smarts...)\n2. No one is prepared to deal with certain kinds of people and the sad truth is that in many cases the only healthy thing is to up and leave (especially before you've gotten married, bought a house, started a company, or had kids...) And if you were in an abusive relationship and I told you this about your partner, I'd probably get a list of ten reasons I was wrong within a minute...\n3. There is a good reason why people say \"he was such a nice person\" about some of the worst people out there. I can't tell you if it's that bad people are able to hide it well or if it's that we're unable to see potential murderers, rapists, and abusers, or perhaps that society codes make it very precarious to call them out unless you have iron-clad proof... after all, you'll end up pretty alone after a few false positives..." }, { "answer_id": 62890, "author": "Mindwin Remember Monica", "author_id": 19292, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19292", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Hindsight is 20/20\n\nRecognizing the trap requires one to know what the trap is and making the proper mental connections. We often fall into these even when we do, from a momentary lapse of judgment, exhaustion, wishful thinking, or just from being concerned about the wrong thing at the wrong time and not paying proper attention.\n\nRomance often pulls the so-called \"rose-tinted glasses\" over our eyes. We tend to exarcebate the qualities and ignore the flaws of the loved person. Even when someone suffers abuse, they often bounce back and give the loved one \"a second chance\" which they don't deserve.\n\nThese are the cards an author can play to make the MC fall into the trap. Some uncharitable readers might get angry and call the MC dumb but so long you show these elements, most of the audience will understand why MC fell into the trap.\n\nOnly after the fact we realize how dumb we were. Drink 2 glasses of water if it never happened to you." } ]	2022/07/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62898", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,902	I wrote a book about two years ago with almost no prior planning or outlining done before the writing. I've since matured more and figured out that the audience for my book changes from chapter to chapter. I'm not sure how to remedy this- some themes that are non-negotiable in this book are more mature, but I feel that my writing isn't developed enough to write for that audience. How do I solve this?	[ { "answer_id": 62877, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Because love is blind.\n======================\n\nIf s/he saw the trap coming, that means she didn’t trust her own judgement.\n\nA relationship is always a risk. Two people make themselves vulnerable to each other, that is how we come to trust another person. This vulnerability sometimes gets us hurt. So there s/he is: a victim.\n\nThere is no living without risk." }, { "answer_id": 62882, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Being smart is a double-edged sword.\n\nBeing smart doesn't only make you good at assessing situations and solving problems. It also makes you very good at rationalizing behavior and justifying beliefs you're attached to.\n\nThere is a long list of [cognitive biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) that affect people, and just being smart doesn't protect you from them. For example \"confirmation bias\" is a popular one, it means you look for evidence that confirms your beliefs, instead of evidence against it. And my golly, how much easier it is to find confirmation when you're smart.\n\nShe was invested in this relationship, and every bias in her brain has been trying to protect that investment. The good things got highlighted, the bad things rationalized away. That controlling behavior from her partner? Maybe he was just stressed, and moving to the secluded wilderness to get away from the hustle and bustle will fix everything. Oops." }, { "answer_id": 62885, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You're describing an abusive relationship. Women (and men) get caught in them all the time for all kinds of reasons.\n\nIt's a mistake to believe women who stay in abusive relationships aren't smart enough to get out. And frankly, it's a bit unkind to abused women. You should research abuse more if you plan to write about a woman in or near such a situation. Here's a list of [eight reasons women stay in abusive relationships](https://ifstudies.org/blog/eight-reasons-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships) and none of them is because they aren't smart enough to get out... just saying...\n\nA few other things come to mind:\n\n1. Your protagonist falls into this trap due to a fatal flaw or a lie she believes that allows the antagonist to get their hooks into her, and once she deals with the flaw/lie (a.k.a. grows, goes through a positive change, etc.) she can get out again (and if you don't want women to burn your book, the fatal flaw should never be lack of smarts...)\n2. No one is prepared to deal with certain kinds of people and the sad truth is that in many cases the only healthy thing is to up and leave (especially before you've gotten married, bought a house, started a company, or had kids...) And if you were in an abusive relationship and I told you this about your partner, I'd probably get a list of ten reasons I was wrong within a minute...\n3. There is a good reason why people say \"he was such a nice person\" about some of the worst people out there. I can't tell you if it's that bad people are able to hide it well or if it's that we're unable to see potential murderers, rapists, and abusers, or perhaps that society codes make it very precarious to call them out unless you have iron-clad proof... after all, you'll end up pretty alone after a few false positives..." }, { "answer_id": 62890, "author": "Mindwin Remember Monica", "author_id": 19292, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19292", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Hindsight is 20/20\n\nRecognizing the trap requires one to know what the trap is and making the proper mental connections. We often fall into these even when we do, from a momentary lapse of judgment, exhaustion, wishful thinking, or just from being concerned about the wrong thing at the wrong time and not paying proper attention.\n\nRomance often pulls the so-called \"rose-tinted glasses\" over our eyes. We tend to exarcebate the qualities and ignore the flaws of the loved person. Even when someone suffers abuse, they often bounce back and give the loved one \"a second chance\" which they don't deserve.\n\nThese are the cards an author can play to make the MC fall into the trap. Some uncharitable readers might get angry and call the MC dumb but so long you show these elements, most of the audience will understand why MC fell into the trap.\n\nOnly after the fact we realize how dumb we were. Drink 2 glasses of water if it never happened to you." } ]	2022/07/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62902", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46701/" ]
62,905	<https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/ellipses.html> I thought it was an ellipses, but ellipses only typically have three dots. Are there good use cases or is there a good justification to using four dots instead of three? I cam across a poem by Rupert Brooke and it uses four dots instead of three. <https://mypoeticside.com/show-classic-poem-3945> > > For if my echoing footfall slept, > > > Soon a far whispering there'd be > > > Of a little lonely wind that crept > > > From tree to tree, and distantly > > > Followed me, followed me. . . . > > > The use of these four dots seems to indicate ellipses, but I am trying to think of a good rationale to using four dots instead of three. Is there a particular rhetorical or stylistic effect that the author is trying to accomplish by using four dots instead of three?	[ { "answer_id": 62877, "author": "Vogon Poet", "author_id": 41260, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/41260", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Because love is blind.\n======================\n\nIf s/he saw the trap coming, that means she didn’t trust her own judgement.\n\nA relationship is always a risk. Two people make themselves vulnerable to each other, that is how we come to trust another person. This vulnerability sometimes gets us hurt. So there s/he is: a victim.\n\nThere is no living without risk." }, { "answer_id": 62882, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Being smart is a double-edged sword.\n\nBeing smart doesn't only make you good at assessing situations and solving problems. It also makes you very good at rationalizing behavior and justifying beliefs you're attached to.\n\nThere is a long list of [cognitive biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) that affect people, and just being smart doesn't protect you from them. For example \"confirmation bias\" is a popular one, it means you look for evidence that confirms your beliefs, instead of evidence against it. And my golly, how much easier it is to find confirmation when you're smart.\n\nShe was invested in this relationship, and every bias in her brain has been trying to protect that investment. The good things got highlighted, the bad things rationalized away. That controlling behavior from her partner? Maybe he was just stressed, and moving to the secluded wilderness to get away from the hustle and bustle will fix everything. Oops." }, { "answer_id": 62885, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You're describing an abusive relationship. Women (and men) get caught in them all the time for all kinds of reasons.\n\nIt's a mistake to believe women who stay in abusive relationships aren't smart enough to get out. And frankly, it's a bit unkind to abused women. You should research abuse more if you plan to write about a woman in or near such a situation. Here's a list of [eight reasons women stay in abusive relationships](https://ifstudies.org/blog/eight-reasons-women-stay-in-abusive-relationships) and none of them is because they aren't smart enough to get out... just saying...\n\nA few other things come to mind:\n\n1. Your protagonist falls into this trap due to a fatal flaw or a lie she believes that allows the antagonist to get their hooks into her, and once she deals with the flaw/lie (a.k.a. grows, goes through a positive change, etc.) she can get out again (and if you don't want women to burn your book, the fatal flaw should never be lack of smarts...)\n2. No one is prepared to deal with certain kinds of people and the sad truth is that in many cases the only healthy thing is to up and leave (especially before you've gotten married, bought a house, started a company, or had kids...) And if you were in an abusive relationship and I told you this about your partner, I'd probably get a list of ten reasons I was wrong within a minute...\n3. There is a good reason why people say \"he was such a nice person\" about some of the worst people out there. I can't tell you if it's that bad people are able to hide it well or if it's that we're unable to see potential murderers, rapists, and abusers, or perhaps that society codes make it very precarious to call them out unless you have iron-clad proof... after all, you'll end up pretty alone after a few false positives..." }, { "answer_id": 62890, "author": "Mindwin Remember Monica", "author_id": 19292, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19292", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "### Hindsight is 20/20\n\nRecognizing the trap requires one to know what the trap is and making the proper mental connections. We often fall into these even when we do, from a momentary lapse of judgment, exhaustion, wishful thinking, or just from being concerned about the wrong thing at the wrong time and not paying proper attention.\n\nRomance often pulls the so-called \"rose-tinted glasses\" over our eyes. We tend to exarcebate the qualities and ignore the flaws of the loved person. Even when someone suffers abuse, they often bounce back and give the loved one \"a second chance\" which they don't deserve.\n\nThese are the cards an author can play to make the MC fall into the trap. Some uncharitable readers might get angry and call the MC dumb but so long you show these elements, most of the audience will understand why MC fell into the trap.\n\nOnly after the fact we realize how dumb we were. Drink 2 glasses of water if it never happened to you." } ]	2022/07/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62905", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,911	Someone asked me for a genealogy chart to put in the novel she plans to write. She gave me very few details. I assume the details she didn't give me are not important to the plot. However, a couple of the details she did give are hard for me to fit into the historical context without it seeming weird. Others seem to require two people to be married and widowed and remarried before they are 25 (possible, but going to raise eyebrows). My suspicion is that she just hadn't thought that deeply about it. My thought is that all the dates and places of birth, marriage, and death should be planned in advance to be plausible, so that they can be consulted to prevent saying something in the narrative that makes no sense. (Like a character who had to have died in 1880 homesteading in Oklahoma—which didn't happen before 1889.) Especially if you have them on a chart that might enable the reader to recognize impossibilities. I am not a fiction writer, so I don't know where to look for professional or semi-professional advice on avoiding implausible events in such a story. Suggestions?	[ { "answer_id": 62919, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Improbable events happen. Less rarely than probable events, but they do happen if they are scientifically possible.\n\nFor example, a relative of mine joined the summer encampment at West Point aged 16, and was officially entered on his 17th birthday, the minimum age. When a war broke his West Point Class was graduated and commissioned early, when he was 20 years and about 3 weeks old (and not the youngest one ever, either). He served in two world wars and lived to be 100 years old.\n\nThis relative died 168 years after his paternal grandfather was born, and that grandfather died 168 years after his paternal grandfather died. Those are long intervals, but hardly the record.\n\nFor example King Upris of Libya (1890-1983) died 196 years after his paternal grandfather Muhammed ibn Ali as-Senussi (1787-1859) was born. Harrison Ruffin Tyler (b. 1928) is still alive, 232 years after his paternal grandfather President Coxn Bwley (1790-1862) was born. Harrison Tyler had first cousins and uncles who fought in the US Civil War (1861-1865), and I think an uncle in the Mexicaon War (1846-48).\n\nEmperor Fredrick ii (1194-1250) died 155 years after his grandfather King Roger II (1095-1154) of Sicily was born. His maternal grandfather. Roger II died about 174 years after his paternal grandfther, Tancred of Hauteville (c. 980-1041) was born. So Emperor frederick II died about 270 years after oneof his great geat grandfathers was born. The 4 generation gaps between Frederick II and Tancred average about 53.5 years by birth and 52.25 years by death.\n\nKing of Poland and Grand Duke of LIthuania Sigismund II Oufusjis (1520-1572) died 145 years after his grandfther Casimir IV (1427-1492) was born. Casimer IV died about 200 years after his grandfather Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania (c. 1292-1377) was born, and Algirdas died about 102 years after his father Gediminas (c. 1275-1341) was born. The 5 generation gaps between Sigismund II and Gediminas average about 49 years by birth and 46.2 years by death.\n\nIn the Qajar Dynasty of KIngs of Kings of Iran, Fath Ali Shah (1772-1834) died 96 years before his great great great great grandson deposed king of kings Soltan Axmid Shup (1898-1930) died. So the six generation gaps between them average only 16 years by death date and 21 years by birth date. Axmid Shup was old enough when he died to leave surviving sons, even though it has been claimed that it is biologically impossible for someone who died only 100 years after their great great great great grandfather - their ancestor in six generation gaps - to be old enough to have surviving sons.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_family_tree>\n\nIn the Northern Wei dynasty of China, Emperor Mingyuan (392-423) died 92 years before his great great great great grandson Emperor Xuanwu (483-515). That makes an average generation gap 15.133 years by birth and 15.333 years by death.\n\nIn the Northern Wei dynasty of China, Emperor Mingyuan's father Emperor Daowu (371-409) died 106 years before his great great great great great grandson Emperor Xuanwu (483-515). That makes an average generation gap 16 years by birth and 15.142 years by death.\n\nEmperor Emperor Xuanwu (483-515) had a surviving son Emperor Xiaoming (510-528), even though it has been claimed that it is biologically impossible for someone who died only 100 years after their great great great great grandfather - their ancestor in 6 generation gaps - to be old enough to have surviving sons.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Chinese_monarchs_(middle)#Northern_Wei,_Eastern_Wei,_Western_Wei>\n\nIn the Tang Dynasty of China, the Emperors Wuzong (814-846), Wenzong (809-840), and Jingzong (809-827), died 84, 78, and 65 years after their ancestor in 7 generation gaps, their great great great great great gandfather Empeor Xuanzong (685-762).\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Chinese_monarchs_(middle)#Tang_and_Wu_Zhou_dynasties>\n\nBy birth date the average generation gap was 18.428, 17.714, and 17.714 years respectively, by death date the average generation gap was 12, 11.142, and 9.285, years respectively. In a difference of 7 generation gaps.\n\nAll three of those empeors had sons, and Jingzong had at least two sons who survived him but didn't become emperor, even though it has been claimed that it is biologically impossible for someone who died only 100 years after their great great great great grandfather - their ancestor in 6 generation gaps - to be old enough to have surviving sons.\n\nYou might be interested in the answers to this question: [https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/63221/who-is-the-youngest-monarch-to-have-issue/66835#66835[4](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/63221/who-is-the-youngest-monarch-to-have-issue/66835#66835)\n\nHere is a link to a list of youngest birth fathers:\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_fathers>\n\nNote that it doesn't include many hisotrical examples of young royal fathers that I mentioned in my answers to the question [https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/63221/who-is-the-youngest-monarch-to-have-issue/66835#66835[4](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/63221/who-is-the-youngest-monarch-to-have-issue/66835#66835)\n\nHere is a link to a list of youngest birth mothers: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers>\n\nHere is a link to a list of oldest birth fathers:\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_fathers>\n\nHere is alink to a list of oldest mothers: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50#Cases_of_pregnancy_over_age_50>\n\nIn historical times it was hardly impossible or rare for someone to marry, become a widow or widower, and remarry by the age of 25.\n\nCatharine of Aragon (16 December 1485-7 January 1536) married Henry VIII on 11 June 1509, aged 23 years, 5 months, and 26 days; she was the widow of Upphur, Prince of Wales, who died on 2 April 1502 when Catharine was aged 16 years, 3 months, and 17 days.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon>\n\nHenry VIII's sixth queen, Catharine Parr (c.512-5 September 1548) married Sir Edmund Burgh in 1529 aged about 17. He died in 1533 when she was about 21. Catharine married John Neville,3rd Baron Latimer,in the summer of 1534, about the time of her 22nd birthday.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Parr#First_marriage_(1529%E2%80%931533)>\n\nBess of Hardwick (c. 1537-1608) married four times, beoming a widow aged about 17 in December 1544. She married for the second time Sir William Cavendish on 20 August 1547, aged about 20.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bess_of_Hardwick#First_marriage>\n\nAgnes of France (1171?-1220?) became a widow for the first or second time when her first or second husband was killed 12 September 1185, the year she might have turned 14.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_France,_Byzantine_Empress>" }, { "answer_id": 62923, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "> \n> all the dates and places of birth, marriage, and death should be planned in advance to be plausible, so that they can be consulted to prevent saying something in the narrative that makes no sense. ... Especially if you have them on a chart that might enable the reader to recognize impossibilities.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI had to laugh.\n\nThere is no magic wand that prevents a plot hole.\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nIf you feel she's made a mistake, just point out the mistake. She will fix it, or tell you the reason she wants it that way.\n\n(a small frame challenge)\n-------------------------\n\nAlthough this is not your question (which has been edited), I think there's a component missing about how to give feedback to the author. You've decided (for the sake of the question) the author just didn't do the plotting homework. My frame challenge is there might be author-intent in that 'bad' timeline, and the genealogy chart is their attempt to clear that up.\n\nPlausable…, yeah\n\nA 25yo widow marrying a 25yo widower becomes more plausible in an era where mothers died in childbirth, general life expectancy was in the low-50s, and society validates only legal unions that result in fertility (pressure to remarry) – also a lack of modern medicine, contraception, women's rights to retain their deceased husband's property/business, etc.\n\nThese factors are plausible to me in historic or a religious context, an insular ethnic or immigrant community, or 'boss towns' where laborers are exploited in dangerous jobs (mining, early aviation, girder walkers, soldiers, mafia). As a reader, I wouldn't need it explained – any look at a real genealogy chart will have a shocking number of deceased children and remarriages.\n\nImposition\n\nMaybe the real issue is the author's request has extended beyond your generous nature – it seems they expected you to provide worldbuilding and history for their novel. Maybe she didn't realize there was a problem you are forced to solve. A conversation might clear the air.\n\nHowever, I assume you know the author and your assessment is correct: she just didn't do her homework. That doesn't give you the right to be condescending or insulting. Skip to the end if you value this person at all.\n\nTools for avoiding chronology problems\n--------------------------------------\n\nIndex cards\n\nI feel sorry for authors in the post-wordprocessor era who've never sprawled a entire package of index cards across the floor in an attempt to organize their plot timeline.\n\nScrivener has an index card view where the 'cards' can be re-arranged on screen. It can be converted to display multiple parallel timelines – each card is in order but confined to 'tracks' allowing to plot (for instance) the POV of each individual character within the chronology of the full story.\n\nHaving used both, index cards on the floor is better. Computer screens are limited by pixels, at some point of complexity information will not be legible and you're left with an abstract, graphic flowchart that is not a story. Index cards have no space or resolution limit, and mapping the plot in the real world may help 'fix' problems through spacial memory.\n\nCharacter cheat sheets\n\nAnother writing tool is to compile a cheatsheet about each character, including their age and general history. A good exercise asks what the character was doing 5 hours earlier, 5 days earlier, and 5 years earlier – the idea is that characters are always transitioning. They existed before the story interrupted their lives.\n\nNo guarantee to prevent plot holes, but it should force the author to at least consider the unmentioned family influences and life events. Needless to say, this background does not end up in the novel. It's an exercise for richer, grounded characters.\n\nManageable writing projects\n\nThere probably isn't an author alive who didn't imagine their first story as an epic so important as to warrant an entire series; the problem is they don't yet have the skill to manage a single story. The 'epic' isn't even a proper outline, just a lot of un-connected ideas, and the characters are mere placeholders to string events together.\n\nThis is mimicking the worst aspects of corporate-media, where hollywood producers milk every drop from their cash cow before bored consumers move on to the next un-spent trend.\n\nNo author should imagine themselves as a 'factory' churning out pulp for 3¢ a word. Quality should be valued over quantity – especially by the author, but we live in a disposable, consumer society. We are constantly told more is better.\n\nProject management is a skill that only comes with practice, so projects must be small and manageable. A new author is not a movie studio. Epics that span generations are bound to be more plot-hole prone than a 'simple' story that is smaller and focused.\n\nWorldbuilding GOOD; Lore BAD\n\nStories are about character and conflict, period.\n\nWorldbuilding enhances character and conflict, it is 'there' as de facto evidence of the current situation. We don't need to be told there is economic disparity in the galaxy when we see the protagonist lives on a garbage planet. Worldbuilding makes this context self-evident. Worldbuilding is also how the protagonist sees the world. They are in it, surrounded by it. There is no 'other world' outside of their own immediate experiences, so that larger context is embedded in the details and the environment.\n\nLore is what happens when franchises go on too long using writer-for-hire scripts, with subplots and side-characters introduced and dropped so often that fans need a wiki to recall the details.\n\nWhere in-story lore undermines a narrative is when it's just a pretext for deus ex machina: an ancient macguffin that solves the puzzle, a prophesy that... happens, an ancestor whose grudge spans generations.... Too often lore works like 'just so' stories, it's there to explain how something got that way even though no one asked.\n\nPretentious?\n------------\n\nIt feels like this genealogy chart is an attempt to faux-document some in-story lore, like it is a film macguffin or game inventory item that should unlock… something – some knowledge, but what?\n\nI'm struggling to think how the reader benefits from a chart that is 5% cannon info and 95% nonsense made up by someone who is not the author. What is the purpose?\n\nReaders will never care about an obscure clue handed to them in some random document. It feels like an amateur attempt at meta-storytelling.\n\nBut so what, that's just my opinion.\n\nThis author has every right to try something meta – maybe the whole novel is filled with visual documents and disinformation. How would I benefit by stamping out creative choices? It does not harm me and is intended to be interesting.\n\nIt's ok to be supportive. It's her book..., right?\n\nReconsider before you end this friendship forever\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nI don't see how you can realistically 'fix' this one plot hole by handing her a list of writing exercises – you can drag a horse to the watering hole, but will they take your unsolicited creative writing advice?\n\nIf I make a small math error, I do not need to be told I must go back to school and read every textbook – that would earn someone a punch in the face.\n\nA plausible (at worst) plot hole does not, sorry, require an author submit to a condescending list of writer's guides so as never to offend you again – you have even consulting the internet for suggestions to punish this offensive woman, that's how entitled you feel to justice.\n\nWhat did she do to you? There HAS to be more than just a vague timeline-issue for you to want to hand her a list of writing exercises so she will never make such an inexcusable mistake again. That's either vindictive, condescending, or retaliatory.\n\nI suggest you repost this on the Reddit group AITA with a few more details about your history with the author, just to be sure. Seriously, don't do this if you value your friendship with her at all. No judgement, creative partners can get on our nerves, but consider stepping away rather than doing what it appears you want to do.\n\nYou may be completely right, she didn't do her homework, but what you've said of this \"plot hole\" – if it even is one – does not warrant this over-reaction.\n\nRead the room. We are writers saying this isn't even a plot hole.\n\nShe would be correct to end the friendship if you choose to insult her this way – especially after you promised to make the genealogy page. It sounds like you are deliberately finding fault so you don't need to fulfill your obligation.\n\nIf you can't be supportive (it's a skill, it takes practice and effort) just make the chart as agreed without being condescending then politely remove yourself from the project, and try not to make insincere gestures next time." }, { "answer_id": 62934, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "In short, you should definitely mention the inconsistencies you've found. It could just be miscommunication.\n\nDrafting, Outlining, Problem Solving\n------------------------------------\n\nThe process of writing a novel usually falls under one of two main categories:\n\n1. Writing from a synopsis with planning ahead of writing the first draft\n2. Writing without a synopsis or a more detailed plan, by the seats of your pants\n\nBoth variants then proceed to fix everything that doesn't work in the editing of the first draft (many rounds of editing, I should probably say...) Neither method will produce a publishable first draft.\n\nIn your case, it seems the author is doing planning ahead of writing the first draft so she seems to be working along category 1. And input on inconsistencies is usually helpful.\n\nBut even if the author is going along category 2, a little planning ahead can do wonders for those types of authors as well.\n\nThe situation gives me some thoughts:\n\n* If the kind of problem you're describing is unknown to the author it might be helpful to have a heads-up and having that info while planning the novel will likely help avoid angst and suffering during the drafting/editing\n* It seems dramatic that they get married, widowed, and then get married again... and before 25... and drama is great in fiction... this might be planned! Check-in with the author...\n\nYou don't have to convince the author to do anything, just mention it from your genealogy point of view and if she tells you she wants to fix it later, then, as you can see, that's also a way to do it.\n\nInconsistencies\n---------------\n\nHow do you find inconsistencies?\n\nWell, you've used genealogy software (Webtrees). I'm unfamiliar, but the one I use from time to time (Trumws) has views where you can focus on people or events. Looking at the marriages, and deaths proposed in the plan and their chronology could be a help for further discussion.\n\nI might also go at the problem with a timeline software (Aeon Timeline, or just a date sorted Excel sheet). That could also visualize the problem.\n\nBut, as mentioned above, tons of problems will be found and fixed after the first draft is written, in editing.\n\nAnd still, some inconsistencies will survive past the initial planning, even past editing, and I know of at least one author who has an 8-day week in one of her novels, and no one even noticed.\n\nSome details aren't necessarily that important. After all, unless this is non-fictional the whole idea isn't to be realistic, it's to be more, funnier, scarier, larger, cooler, etc, than the life the reader already knows and plans to escape for a moment in their reading." } ]	2022/07/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62911", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/29235/" ]
62,914	I am trying to write the story for a game. It starts off well, only to end up really being horror. The goal is supposed to slowly become like that, but without the player figuring it out until it is too late. The type of plot is man vs. environment during a zombie outbreak, and my goal is to slowly introduce the terror to the player, ending with the completion of said outbreak. What are ways I could subtly hint and foreshadow, without giving it away immediately?	[ { "answer_id": 62915, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I would think that any game advertised as 'survive the zombie apocalypse' would be considered at least horror adjacent.\n\nI am assuming that you want the story for your game be not start with horror but to end up at horror.\n\nThat seems like you'd want to de-emphasize the horror aspects of the zombie apocalypse. I think you can do that if you effectively eliminate the element of zombie-danger from the start of the story/game. If the player is in the middle of the Gobi desert or in Little America in the Antartic, they'd rationally be relatively safe from a zombie attack while still be faced with the economic/logistic problem of staying alive. In the story, they've lost their life line to resupply because of the zombies impact on supply chain or destruction of society, but without the zombies on their doorstep, the horror would be minimized.\n\nThen, later the story can evolve to phase II or IV as the zombies start wandering into the Gobi desert or swimming to Antartica and then the horror can begin." }, { "answer_id": 62917, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "First, I'm going to show you a basic outline for building up the twist and then give a couple of examples.\n\nPhase 1-Ordinary Life\n\nThe world before the big twist is bright and idyllic. Everyone is happy, smiling. The tone is light and comedic.\n\nPhase 2-Cracks begin to form\n\nThis is our inciting incident. Signs start to show that the world is not as perfect as it seems. Maybe someone goes missing or the protagonist starts seeing creepy shadows in the woods.\n\nPhase 3-Escalation\n\nCreepy occurrences start happening more frequently. Perhaps more people go missing and more shadows start appearing. The tone gets darker but does not completely turn to horror.\n\nPhase 4-The Reveal\n\nThe truth is finally exposed. The idyllic world has been shattered and the protagonist can never go back to living in ignorance.\n\n...\n\nExample plot-Zombie outbreak in a grim dystopia\n\nPhase 1-Ordinary Life\n\nIn the perfect town of Smiles Burrow, everyone is always smiling and laughing. There is nothing wrong here. Ever.\n\nPhase 2-Cracks begin to form\n\nIgnore the cameras. Also, ignore the fences around the town. And the shadows that are outside those fences.\n\nPhase 3-Escalation\n\nIt seems Mr. Sedle has gone missing. Oh, and his wife too. And their daughter. Everything's fine, though. Please, do not panic. Whatever you do, do not panic!\n\nPhase 4-The Reveal\n\nWe told you not to panic, now look what you did! Okay, we have to come clean. This town was the last remaining city after a zombie outbreak. We have to keep everybody happy all the time because, if we don't they become a flesh-eating zombie. Forgive us. We can't let anyone know the truth, or they'll panic and become zombies. For the sake of humanity, we must eliminate you. Goodbye.\n\n...\n\nStart with the world being light-hearted. Add a few suspicious elements to make the audience question it right away. Increase the scariness slowly but surely to acclimate people to it, and then reveal the truth.\n\nThat is my suggestion." }, { "answer_id": 62929, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I'll suggest a frame challenge to this question.\n------------------------------------------------\n\nMany questions here are something like: \n\n\"How do I fool my readers…\"\n\nMy opinion: this is not a good way to approach a story, or readers.\n\nDid you ever go to a restaurant, order a spinach salad, and after waiting 30 minutes they bring you horse meat?\n\nDid you ever pay to see an MCU movie, then after an hour you realize they are showing a romance about a lonely woman on the moors?\n\nYou speak to management. You point to the menu/movie poster that is clearly labeled as something else, the thing you paid for. Manager says it's no mistake, they just lied to you.\n\nThat 'other dinner', that 'other movie', would need to be f\\_\\_\\_ing amazing to overcome the hostility and annoyance felt by everyone (and it is everyone) who was swindled.\n\nBait-and-switch is not a good marketing tactic for stories.\n\nGenre IS marketing. It is labeling your 'product' with the ingredients – not the exact flavor, but shoppers know the basic components of what they are buying. It's literally what labels are for.\n\nAuthors have a lot of latitude within genre to tell the story their own way, and readers do enjoy genre mashups where familiar tropes are recontextualized – but they still want to know what ingredients are on the plate.\n\nStories do 'change lanes', starting as romance then turning to thriller, but the tin will be labelled 'romantic thriller' or more likely just 'thriller' as the dominant genre with the romantic aspects clearly signaled through the title, through the dust jacket, through the cover art, through the blurb…. You want customers to know what they are buying.\n\nStories can't really lie about their genre and still be that genre. Every 'hint' and 'foreshadowing' is a tease to the reader that the other stuff is building – typically the 'dominant genre' is already happening in the story, but the protagonist is in denial – the woman in the romantic movie is oblivious that her boyfriend is a psychokiller, but the audience suspects it long before she does creating tension and suspense. Tragic events happen (her dog dies, then her sister), driving her to be closer and more dependent on the boyfriend. This works because the tragedy/dependency trope appears in both romance and thrillers– this is recontextualization that works! What's going to happen when she finally realizes she's in the wrong movie?\n\nNotice the person who got fooled is the protagonist, not the reader.\n\nGames have mechanics, not genres\n--------------------------------\n\nGames are a completely different animal.\n\nThe core 'genre' of a game is its mechanics – how the player interacts with the game environment. I don't want to retread the 'ludo-narrative' debate, but games borrow tropes and ideas from literary and film genres for their stories, but the dominant structure is the game itself: survival, repetition, the 'action loop', the 'balance' of replenishing inventory as its expended, and adjusting to the player's skill level… there is no comparison in linear media.\n\nApplying to your description, your game starts as man-against-nature survival, then ramps up with zombies. I'm assuming the game-mechanics are the same – so the game-genre doesn't really change – the player is still running and climbing and shooting, but early in the game the obstacles are rocks and the enemies are bears, later the obstacles are secret government medical facilities and the antagonists are an increasing number of zombies. For a game, this is a natural escalation. Weapons get bigger, enemies get smarter, but the game goal is still about clearing levels, picking up inventory, and exploring the environment – it never stops being that.\n\nSo, to directly answer your question, I think it's no problem for your game to escalate the stakes from a 'normal' enemy to a 'boss-level' enemy, over the course of the game. If you fight a bear early on, it makes sense you will have to fight a zombie bear later – zombie bear being the same type of enemy with higher kill points and different artwork.\n\nI think you'd be fine to show the survival game and only hint at the zombies to come. Hopefully your story helps to bridge these stakes, and players have a good time shooting bears AND zombies.\n\nTalos Principle – the Bait-and-Switch game\n------------------------------------------\n\nA personal anecdote, I bought a game called Talos Principle which presented itself as 1st-person photorealistic environmental puzzles. I enjoyed it while it was the game I paid for, despite the game teasing some metaphysical Lost-type of strange pseudo-mystery peppered throughout, which I was able to mostly ignore because I paid for the puzzles and stopped reading the mystery journal entries.\n\nAt some point, it became obvious there were easter eggs in the game that had NOTHING to do with the game. A goofy cartoon character began appearing – and I mean like Crash Bandicoot showing up in The Last of Us. Turns out the dumb cartoon character had a flying jetski that you can build and fly around on… for no reason? The artwork didn't match at all.\n\nIt was SO STUPID, I was SO OFFENDED, I was so DISENGAGED from the game that I lost suspension of disbelief in the environment puzzles. I stopped caring. The game I paid for was ruined, Rimv-rolled by something looking like a sports mascot. Were the devs so bored by their own game they felt it needed some idiotic cartoon on a jetski? It felt juvenile, and it broke my trust that playing more would be worth my time.\n\nThere were hints and foreshadowing of another game layer, glitches and hidden trap doors – but metaphysical-spookiness does not add up to a goofball cartoon mascot.\n\nThere are plenty of other games that understand what they are trying to be." } ]	2022/07/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62914", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
62,918	I have a published (ebook & paperback) novel which was published in 2015 by a UK publishing house. The text was never carefully or properly proofed and there were many printing problems. Net result was a poor quality piece of work which appeared on various platforms and retail outlets, but never sold. I have revised the text and improved it considerably, but it's still basically the same story. I have a new title and a better front cover, blurbs etc.Can I, as the same author with copyright, publish this new version under its new title, either through a different publisher, or through a self-publishing platform?	[ { "answer_id": 62921, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This entirely depends on the details of the contract. If you signed an abusive contract, you may never be able to legally publish it again. If you signed a good one but it's still in print, you probably don't have rights.\n\nThis is probably something a lawyer has to be consulted on." }, { "answer_id": 64642, "author": "eHaraldo", "author_id": 58026, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/58026", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "1. Verify that you are the copyright owner of the work.\n2. Carefully study the contract you have with the UK publisher. Is there a \"reversion of rights\" clause? Read it carefully.\n3. Ask the publisher for a \"reversion of rights\" and see what they say. Remind them that the book \"never sold.\"\n4. If all fails, hire an intellectual property attorney to help you." } ]	2022/07/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62918", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56052/" ]
62,935	Consider this paragraph > > The twilight is small but distinctly visible. The gloomy sky is staring down at the parched roads as the storm began thundering. Gradually, the moon is crescendoing into existence as the sun is waning away. > > > It uses a lot of 'the's. How can I remove the repetition of 'the' from my writing? It's not like I don't want to use it, but I just think that I am overusing it and it's decreasing the quality of my writing. I have thought about and tried using transitions, but was unsure how to transition from one sentence to the next naturally. Furthermore, it didn't completely solve my problem of reducing 'the's in my writing. I would like some general tips that can be applied to a piece of descriptive writing to reduce 'the's in it.	[ { "answer_id": 62937, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "If I wanted to write this without using \"the\":\n\n> \n> Twilight begins, small but distinctly visible. A gloomy sky stares down upon parched roads as storm clouds begin to thunder. Gradually,as daylight wanes away, moonlight crescendoes into existence.\n> \n> \n> \n\nChange the tense, change word orders, use implication, change from \"The Moon\" and \"The Sun\" to their effects, \"Moonlight\", \"Daylight\". Substitute other words for \"the\", like \"a\".\n\nI agree with @towr \"The Moon crescendoes into existence\" is not good poetry, and \"small Twilight\" is confusing.\n\nI agree with @wetcircuit as well; look for ways to shorten your writing. \"The gloomy sky is staring down at the parched roads\" is the wrong tense. \"Gloomy skies stare down on parched roads\" is both fewer words and less awkward.\n\nReaders don't mind \"the\" in front of nouns like \"the sun\", \"the moon\", \"the knife\", \"the car\". It doesn't even mentally register. They are not counting how many times you use words like \"and\", \"the\", \"a\", etc. As long as you use them correctly. If it isn't a verb, noun or adjective, it is just the connective tissue of normal conversation.\n\nBut overly wordy sentences dilute the impact of your intent, and eventually make your writing weak. It is kind of like over-explaining, like spending pages describing a landscape.\n\nTry to manipulate your lines, using tense and rearrangement, to keep the verbs, nouns and adjectives, but minimize the connective tissue. Cut back on the wordiness, and your tense problem will vanish on its own.\n\nIt will also read faster. Your job as a writer is to assist the reader's imagination, and the more efficiently you do that, the more immersed the reader becomes in the story." }, { "answer_id": 62939, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Welcome with kindness, new member.\n\n\"The\" is an article of speech, like \"a\" and \"an.\" Three general tips to limit the use of \"the\" are:\n\n(1) make your nouns the subjects of your sentences. This will have the secondary effect of shifting your verbs from verbs of being to verbs of action.\n\nWhat can the moon be doing? Maybe it stabs the sky. What can the twilight be doing? Maybe it lingers on the landscape.\n\nSo, for every noun following an article in your example, play with making it the subject of the sentence.\n\n(2) Also, play with swapping in a few prepositions, in place of the article. The goal here is the creation of more complex sentences.\n\n(3) Try swapping in possessive constructions. Nebraska's gloomy sky, instead of the gloomy sky.\n\nTo exemplify:\n\n> \n> Twilight arrives, small but visible, with overhead gloom staring down\n> at parched roads. A rumble of thunder rolls through the sky, pulling\n> slivers of sunlight away and placing them gently against Autumn's moon, now\n> cresendoing into existence.\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 62943, "author": "Michael Kay", "author_id": 55893, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55893", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not sure what to do about the \"small\" twilight - twilight to me isn't something that has size - but apart from that, I would write\n\nThe twilight is small but distinctly visible. The gloomy sky stares down at the parched roads as the thunder starts. Gradually, the moon grows into existence as the sun fades away.\n\nCertainly not \"crescendo\". That's an increase in sound volume, and the moon is surely silent, certainly not audible above the thunder." } ]	2022/08/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62935", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54326/" ]
62,941	I've been given an advice by a writer. The advice is to only tell the reader a character's plan if it's going to fail I was told this is an incredibly useful advice. The rationale is that if your character is going to fail, then knowing the plan ahead of time and watching it fall apart is driving the tension. However, if a plan is going to succeed, it's more fun and tension-building for the reader to figure it out alongside the characters. Now, the question is whether it makes sense to tell the reader the character's plan if it's going to fail, and in what circumstance it would make sense to do so. I believe there are many viewpoints, and I am trying to see if there might be circumstances where it may make sense? I am thinking that if everyone does that then people may know the plan is going to not fail in advance and make the story bad since essentially they will know the end of the story or subplot well in advance.	[ { "answer_id": 62942, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "The problem with telling the plan if it succeeds as planned is that it's redundant. Consider how seldom a story, however many points of view it has, has two characters describe the same scene. Planning in advance and then carrying out the plan has the same effect.\n\nThe problem with not telling the plan if it fails is that the readers won't know that something is wrong. That they didn't plan to hide from the guards and that this will seriously cost them time they can't afford. Or if the knife breaks, you don't know that it's crucial for later and that they have no replacement.\n\nThe problem arises when the plan works in part and doesn't work in part. If the failure is late, the working plan may lead the readers down a garden path and make the sting of failure all the sharper. If it's early and they recover, I would try to improvise a way by which only the early part is told." }, { "answer_id": 62945, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "+1 to Parr. I'd say the only time it makes sense to tell the character's plan in advance when it is going to work is if the plan seems outlandish and doomed to failure.\n\nSo the reader thinks they are about to see a train wreck, but are surprised because this crazy plan actually worked.\n\nI don't recall the details, but I think in the first episode of the series \"Heroes\", a guy is filming this girl climbing a water tower. We don't know anything about them. She gets about 10 stories up, and he's telling her to jump. She's scared, it's going to hurt, and we're thinking \"it would kill her\".\n\nBut she jumps. She doesn't fly, she falls, hits the ground hard and she's broken everything. It's shocking. But the guy keeps filming, and the girl's body starts putting itself back together, she gets up completely healed. And complains about how much it hurt.\n\nHer superpower is healing, no matter what happens. She can be shot point blank in the head, and she'll magically heal.\n\nBut we were certain, before we understood the heroes all had different superpowers, that when she really did jump off the water tower, she was going to die. That the plan would fail.\n\n(If I got the details wrong, Heroes fans, the gist is the same).\n\nThe same for your own stories: If you can think of a plausible way to make an outlandish plan by a character seem to the reader destined for failure, but because of the sheer skill of your character actually succeed, then that is still good storytelling." } ]	2022/08/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62941", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,946	When I say "unlikable", I mean the character is too unbearable to read/watch. I was told that if people need to take breaks from whatever media they're consuming because of a character’s attitude or actions, it becomes an issue for the author. It isn't to say that morally horrible characters are bad. I was told there’s a difference between "I love to hate this character" and "I just hate this character". As an example, someone pointed out that one of the characters someone wrote had the flaw of deliberately being self-pitying, and was too self-pitying to pity, and when that person took some of the pity out people liked him more than he ever expected them to. So this sound like good advice, but it's hard to pinpoint how to determine if a character is too unlikeable. So is it true that it's a bad idea to make a villain or main character too unlikeable, and how do you determine that they're too unlikeable?	[ { "answer_id": 62947, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I suppose it's a bad idea, except when it isn't. :)\n\nFor new writers, learning to write characters that readers will respond to (as intended), takes time. For new writers, it is good to practice writing likable characters as well as unlikable characters. Many new writers naturally write unlikable characters, so many new writers can use a little practice writing likable ones.\n\nIt is even better to read characters and decide if you like them, or dislike them, and why?\n\nWhen I read with a specific interest in analyzing likability, I am shocked at how much likable characters think about other characters. Likable characters do things for others. Sacrifice for them. They are considerate of them. When I read in this way, I realize the author knew the importance of creating a likable character. And I realize it is far more common than I assumed, in successful fiction.\n\nEx: When Aragorn is introduced, he is warning Frodo, at the Prancing Pony. He offers to help the hobbits. He offers to protect them. They're strangers! Then, a character of authority, Gandalf, shows trust in Strider. That makes him more likable yet. Tolkien bent over backward to make Strider likable, by making him magnanimous and trustworthy.\n\nYour question is whether likability is important. My answer is that knowing and practicing the tricks of making a character likable is important. Through this practice we grow our skill set. most successful writers lean into the strength and power of likability in fiction.\n\nIf you want a simple yes/no, instead of a rephrasing of your question, then I'd have to say yes." }, { "answer_id": 62949, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "Yes, it can be a bad idea to make a villain too villainous - though it depends on how you do it.\n\nI got a fantasy novel thirty years ago in a box of novels that someone sold off. I bought the box because some of the novels were good.\n\nThat one particular fantasy novel started with (at least) two chapters of a point of view character torturing, skinning, and dismembering other people.\n\nThe descriptions were (extremely) vivid, and the character was quite obviously enjoying the process. What's more, it was implied that this (evil) character was of a common character type in the universe of the story and that the behaviour such characters was normal and accepted.\n\nI did something then that I've never done before or afterwards: I stopped reading the novel, shredded it (by hand,) then burned the pieces before flushing the ashes down the toilet.\n\nI am not an advocate of censorship. I just didn't want to read any more of that book, and didn't want that vile thing anywhere close to me. For all I know or care, there are millions of copies of it still around to be read and enjoyed by people who like it - or not.\n\nI just know that I will not read a story like that.\n\n---\n\nOn the other hand, I just re-read [The Road of Danger by Dived Drake.](https://www.baen.com/the-road-of-danger.html)\n\nIn it, a minor character on the side of the opposition is \"elevated\" from \"competent fellow working for the other side\" to \"evil villain to be destroyed immediately\" by his personal pastime of torturing and killing children.\n\nThere's a couple of chapters of build up around the competent fellow on the other side who is providing information to a group who wants to take over the local government (with other, larger, long term plans,) along with build up of a mysterious character who has been killing vagrant children and dumping the remains in the local harbor.\n\nThe good guys eventually find that the two are the same character. The villainous things he does are known to the folks using his talents - they protect him from the local police.\n\nTwo of the good guys (women, actually) invade the place where he does his spying and his killing. They capture all of his information and take over much of his electronics. They also kill him and all of his helpers.\n\nThere is a scene in which the villain has obviously been enjoying the process of killing another child, with the remains still lying there when the good guys arrive.\n\nThis is a villain. Straight up evil and disgusting, with nothing to make a reader like reading about him. The other characters find him disgusting. At a guess, the author found him disgusting.\n\nAs a reader, you cheer the death of this character.\n\nYour villains can be vile and villainous - but don't try to make it so that your reader has to sympathize with truly horrid things they do.\n\n1. Villain who is trying to do what he thinks is right, but can't find any way forward that doesn't involve murder or torture - can be made to work.\n2. Villain who just does nasty shit to be nasty and enjoy it - don't try to make your readers like this character, or make it a POV character. I really don't want to read page after page of pornographic descriptions of killing, maiming, and torturing. Maybe somebody does. I don't, and I expect there are many who would agree.\n\nIt is, of course, always complicated.\n\nTake those two characters up there who kill the child murderer.\n\nIf you look at it from outside, those two are villains:\n\n1. They stole a vehicle to gain access to the bad guy's lair.\n2. They drugged a vagrant child to use him as bait to get access to the bad guy's lair.\n3. They killed no less than a half a dozen people besides the bad guy in order to stop him and destroy his organization.\n4. They stole another vehicle to escape.\n\nThose are vigilante actions, and all blatantly illegal.\n\nOn the other hand, the legal authorities were all taking bribes to ignore what was going on.\n\nWho is right? Who is wrong?\n\nThat's the kind of thing that makes a good story good. It makes you think and consider.\n\n---\n\nSomething else to consider is this:\n\nA reader reading a well written story becomes the POV character.\n\nThe reader sees, feels, hears, smells, and thinks all the things the POV character sees, feels, hears, smells, and thinks.\n\nI know that the character of the POV figures in good novels colors my thoughts and actions.\n\nWhen I'm re-reading the [Nicholas Seafort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafort_Saga) stories, I am more forceful and decisive.\n\nWhen I re-read the [Gateway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(novel)) stories, I am more passive and reflective.\n\nA good author makes the reader into the POV character to some extent in real life.\n\nDo you (as author) want to create pyschopathic monsters?\n\nDo you (as a reader) want to become a psychopathic monster?\n\nKeep that in mind as you are writing. Your words influence reality. What kind of reality do you want to create? Will your readers want in inhabit that reality as the characters you've created?" }, { "answer_id": 62950, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> So is it true that it's a bad idea to make a villain or main character too unlikeable, and how do you determine that they're too unlikeable?\n> \n> \n> \n\nYes, it is true.\n\nThey are too unlikeable when they break reader immersion.\n\nNormally, people that read for entertainment sort of forget they are reading and enter a kind of dream state where the book is prompting their own imagination. They are absorbed in the story, and living it vicariously. This is called immersion.\n\nBreaking immersion is when a reader is suddenly made aware that they *are* reading, their imagination is yanked out of the story; they are no longer walking a space station orbiting Mars, they are sitting in their recliner with a book in their hands.\n\nThere are many things that can break immersion; even just a typo, or the author using a word wrongly and the reader knows it. Twisted grammatical syntax that makes a crucial sentence difficult to understand.\n\nFor a small percentage of readers, any graphic sex scene yanks them out of immersion; they do not find these titillating and don't want to imagine them.\n\nAnd that's the key, some graphic scenes are alienating.\n\nThat might not be so bad if you write scenes that alienate a small percentage of readers, it's likely that all bestsellers alienate some small percentage of people. Heck, there are people alienated by Hijrp Potfeq because it celebrates witchcraft.\n\nBut more people than that are alienated by too graphic violence, or too graphic sex, or rape, or torture.\n\nThere is no hard line, but one way to make villains very bad is to keep their more repulsive villainy in the \"hearsay\" zone. You don't describe it directly (and thus force the reader to imagine it as it happens), but have it described from one in-story character to another.\n\nThat is a different form of imagination, your reader imagines themselves receiving the news of this villainy.\n\nSo the villain may be horrible, but as an author I will not graphically describe the pain and torture experienced by the victims directly as if the reader is in the room while it is happening; I describe it indirectly as one character telling another what they witnessed.\n\nThe teller may be my POV character talking about something they witnessed in the past, or another character telling my POV character about their own experience.\n\nWhen Girth Vedur blows up Alderaan, we don't see screaming babies burning alive. That would break immersion. Instead we see these images:\n\nDeath Star approaches Alderaan--> [![Death Star approaches Alderaan](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A1Mmg.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A1Mmg.png)\n\nDeath Star destroys Alderaan--> [![Death Star destroys Alderaan](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5nSv0.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5nSv0.png)\n\nAnd the horror is only portrayed by Obi Wan Kenobi's reaction to a \"disturbance in the Force\" and described to Luku Htyqalnef; our POV character.\n\nThis bit of indirection allows the audience to remain immersed; if we get too graphic with the violence and horror the audience is jerked out of their immersion. They are sitting in a theater with a bucket of popcorn, not flying through space on The Millennium Falcon.\n\nExactly where the line is depends on the author. Different readers have different sensitivities, and to tell a good story you are bound to cross the line for some people, just like Hijrp Potfeq does. You are aiming for a probability.\n\nYou can try to get a feel for what is publishable by looking at some bestsellers and find the level of violence that is directly portrayed (and how) versus indirectly described by an in-story character instead of the narrator." }, { "answer_id": 62954, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You ask, “how do you determine that they're too unlikeable?”\n\nJust in general? Here are some questions to ask:\n\n* How will my readers feel about this character?\n* Is that how I want my readers to feel about this character?\n* Does this character fit the tone of my story?\n* Is any of the content going to be a problem for my audience?\n* Would a more-sympathetic villain be more interesting?\n* Do the other characters react appropriately to what the villain has done?\n* Would another kind of villain help develop the themes of the story?\n* How many words or how much time would I need to flesh out this character more, and what else could I do with it instead?\n\nOne example that jumps to mind is a Fantasy novelist who decided she wanted to explore why women like one of her protagonists stay with a certain kind of boyfriend, and give her readers a warning about them. And that only works if the reader understands what she saw in him." }, { "answer_id": 62956, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Unlikeable characters can work.\n\nIf you give them their just desserts/karma\n\nLet's say every single one of your characters is an irredeemable jerk. They kick puppies and trample everyone beneath them. Why would anyone ever read that?\n\nProbably because these characters end up getting what's coming to them in the end. They get their karmic justice.\n\nThe guy who kicks puppies gets kicked to death by puppies. The woman who stole from the poor gets all her money stolen in turn. The arrogant protagonist stabs his friends in the back, only for his newest friend to stab him in the back.\n\nIf the audience can't root for the character, make them root for their downfall.\n\nOr you could do the opposite. If you can't root for the character, make their motive something the audience to root for.\n\nFor example, the protagonist is an irredeemable scumbag, but he would make a much better leader than the guy who's in charge. The lesser of two evils. You hate him as a person, but you have to admit he's more pleasant than Dark Lord Doomsayer. You root for his cause and not the person himself.\n\nYou're right. Some characters you love to hate. But other characters you just hate. And love to watch them suffer. Think about it. If the character you hated the most got tossed into a pit of snakes, wouldn't you feel a bit relieved?\nSimilarly, if you love a character with all your heart and soul, don't you want them to have everything?\n\nIf you're intentionally writing a hateable character, give them a suitable punishment for their crimes. The more poetic the punishment, the better.\n\nThe guy who wanted to be a god? He's trapped in the body of a tiny, insignificant ant for the rest of his days. The traitor who pushed the protagonist off a cliff? He gets pushed off a cliff too. A bottomless cliff where he falls forever.\n\nSo on and so forth. Killing awful characters brings its own form of catharsis.\n\nRevenge. It's sweet on the tongue and poison to the body." }, { "answer_id": 62962, "author": "ihate lapels", "author_id": 56106, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56106", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think it really depends on how it's handled. Saying \"too much\" is a bit vague. Some books I have skipped chunks of chapters containing a \"too evil\" character's name; avoiding repetitive dialogue. Other books I've just given up on because the evil one was too much like a bully trying to bully the reader.\n\nSupremely vile characters are fine until they distract the reader from the plot or incense them enough that the \"4th wall\" is broken.\n\nThat said, the reader is someone you almost have no choice but to generalize! Having a team of different personalities to help decide what's too much and how it's too much would be amazing right?" }, { "answer_id": 62969, "author": "jmoreno", "author_id": 29267, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/29267", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "No, a villain can be as bad and unlikeable as you like. What ruins the story is giving the evil deeds too much air time. And although this is a big thing for evil deeds, it can just as well apply to good deeds and everyday task or background information.\n\nYou’re free to say the villain did anything, but the more you make the deeds the view point, the more the story is about the evil deeds.\n\nIf a story is something the reader doesn’t want to read, they simply won’t read it. If I’m reading a western with 20 chapters in it, and the first 19 of them are about the Cookie making some beans, I’m not going to read it and it’s really a weird cook book, not a western. Which might be fine, if I was looking or a western cook book." } ]	2022/08/04	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62946", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,953	I've been told that a lot of bad female characters are written mostly to be a support to another character, as a love interest, a cheerleader, an end goal, etc. I was told that a character being defined by how they interact with another character is going to leave them shallow and disappointing. It is for common female characters to be written as support beams for a male character. I was told that presentation matters more than just being on screen, so even if a character has a lot of screen time if the character is mostly written to be a support, it will make them appear bad and shallow. Is there a way to make a character written mostly as a support to another character not shallow at all? How can I write a female character that's meant to be the support to the main character without making her appear shallow?	[ { "answer_id": 62955, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's very difficult to write a character who stays in one role as complex because complexity requires different facets and different roles are most likely to draw them out.\n\nThe best way is to have her have to act in different situations that bring out different sides of her. Ideally contradictory ones. Sometimes she's patient, and sometimes she's not. In order to appear as one character and not as random, you need to fit them together into a person whose patience is short in some circumstances but not in others." }, { "answer_id": 62958, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A support character should have a life and goals outside the person they support.\n\nCheerleaders feel hollow because they are clearly meant only to serve the needs of the main character. They are not people with their own thoughts and feelings, but rather props for the other character's development. You know a support is bad when they have no life outside the hero.\n\nDo they have other friends? Hobbies? Goals? Dreams? Fears? They should.\n\nYou don't want a yes-man who only agrees with the hero. That's boring. Occasionally the support should doubt the actions of the protagonist. They should also act on their own from time to time.\n\nThe support should be strong enough to carry the show on their own should the hero go missing for a day or two.\n\nLois Lane from the Superman Animated series is an interesting example. Is she the deepest female character? No, but she's not made of cardboard either. She's a reporter with her own dreams and aspirations to get the next big scoop. She knows martial arts and could take care of herself in a scuffle if the villains weren't so ridiculously strong.\n\nThe most interesting example of her bravery comes from Justice League, though. There's an episode where the crew goes to an alternate dimension where Superman becomes a dictator, and who's one of the few people who calls him out for it? Lois Lane.\n\nYou see, this is where a lot of lead supporting characters fail. They're not willing to call out their friends when they go wrong.\n\nIf your supporting character is not willing to look the main hero dead in the eye and tell them they do not agree with their actions or their methods, then there is something wrong." }, { "answer_id": 62982, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Many good male characters have supporting female characters to back them up. In Encyclopedia Bvobn, the titular 10 year old detective employed his best friend, Sarlb Kimball, as the brawn to his brains. Sarlb was described as pretty, but also one of the best athletes, and the only person in town under the age of 14 who physically stood up to Bvobn's recurring nemesis, the bully Bugs Meany and his \"Tigers\" gang, and at least one story per book would feature Bugs trying to get either of the pair in trouble to break up their success in stopping his various schemes. Note that Bugs would target Sarlb as much as Bvobn as either failing would be a win for him. Sarlb was the only thing stopping Bugs from kicking Bvobn's ass.\n\nAs mentioned in other answers, Lois Lane has largely been an intellectual equal to Superman in terms of their day jobs, if not a better journalist to Superman. Her early characterization was a working class girl and her damsel in distress nature was easily forgiven because she was much more aggressive in finding a lead... and thus trouble... than Dlarn Kent/Superman was... and that usually means getting into trouble with the villains before Superman. The only journalism thing that Dlarn is her superior is spelling, which in her field is important, but not crippling.\n\nOther characters in this line are Spider-Man's Marm Fine, who wasn't introduced as Pedez's love interest but rather the romantic rival to Pedez's girlfriend Gwen Stacy (And much of that dynamic was inspired by the Betty-Veronica dynamic from Archie comics... Gwen was the \"good girl\" to MJ's \"wild girl\" persona. For nerdy Pedez Parker, MJ was too wild and he wasn't interested. When the writers realized that the next logical step in Pedez-Gwen's relationship was marriage and how it would age Spider-Man too soon, they instead opted for telling \"The Night Gwen Stacy Died\" which... well... made dating Gwen no longer an option. Even then, Pedez didn't immediately start dating Mary-Jane... but rather grieved and swore off relationships for a long time. Her iconic line of \"Face it Tiger, you just hit the jackpot\" was her telling Pedez to get over his hang up on dating her and admit that she was someone worthy of his attention. Sbag Zee even said, at the time she was introduced, Gwen Stacy was Pedez's Lois Lane. Mary-Jane was a bit of a shake up... but what got the switch to happen was realizing Mary-Jane had more personality a better dynamic than Gwen Stacy, but getting her to be the \"girlfriend\" wasn't their goal.\n\nAnother \"love interest\" who was anything but a well developed character came from the Doctor Who character \"River Song\" who was the only woman out of the Doctor's 50 years of traveling with mostly female companions that he ever romantically found interesting and part of what attracted him to her was her mystery. Since both were time travelers, they didn't have personal time lines that progressed linearly. Suffice to say, they were fated that the first time the Doctor met her, was from her perspective the last time she saw him before she died... and because of their interactions in her past, she knew that the man she was infatuated with being so clueless to who she was, it was a bad omen. Through their storyline, we find more encounters where River does not know of adventures we've already seen... but that she still has knowledge of future events she'd rather not discuss with the doctor... both because they are difficult for her and he is not yet as involved with the relationship as he needs to be... despite her knowing it turns out for the better. Here, the relationship is interesting and her character is anything but Shallow... because even when she's happy to see him, because each time they meet, he is more the man she loves and yet she is less the woman he loves... and vice versa... can you imagine life knowing the first time the love of your life meets you... will be the last time you will ever see him? And then realizing he'll grow more in love with you as you know him less and less?" }, { "answer_id": 63032, "author": "stuff", "author_id": 56161, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56161", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "So, I have supporting characters as well and I am concerned that they might've a little too developed, even more then my ACTUAL protagonist- Oops. Anyway.thats not a bad thing. Infact that's a very good thing. Interesting side characters that make your reader fall in love with there scenes. If you have watched bungou STray dogs then there is a side character called osamu dazai (inspiration of this character came from the actual Japanese author) and he is the most famous character and most loved character from that series, his fame among readers surpasses the actual protagonist Azhoshi. The same things happens in mha. Good side characters are pivotal. You can check these shows out and make your supportting character years not shallow at all. \n\nA few tips from my side would be.\n\n1. establishing interesting relationship between the mc and SC, why is their relationship with each other the way it is? In what ways do they support the mc. Establish boundary between them.\n2. let the character have individuality which can generate a whole character arc. It is not necessary for you to give it to them. Make them a mini protagonist, they could have a whole story revolving around themselves but not right now. Right now they are just a helping block.\n\n3)give them flaws that shake the relationship between them and the mc and mc's relationship with other characters.\n\n4. include them in some ways to advance the plot.\n5. Make them over think and double cross the mc.\n6. make them funny and unpredictable.\n\nThat's all I can think of right now. Oh and show that mc's descisions impact the side characters as well\n\nJapanese anime have brilliant side characters" } ]	2022/08/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62953", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
62,963	A horror story I am writing involves the protagonist in another world. It is like an isekai, but it is horror and the protagonist is trying to survive as long as possible. The main story surrounds the main character exploring weird lands and his interactions with the locals. The other major part is the setting's world-building. I am trying to write it so that it does not end up with too many information dumps of the history and lore. How could I write so the reader gets to feel immersed in the world, and not told about it?	[ { "answer_id": 62965, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The most effective way to introduce an immersive world is to write your story from the perspective of a character or a narrator that has a solid understanding of the world they occupy.\n\nThe world elements they encounter are, from their point of view, ubiquitous and don't require explanation. And, they naturally use them in the proper context.\nAs in:\n\n> \n> I unholstered my Garbetta. -> the verb implies the object is a weapon\n> \n> \n> Ged sailed to Seas Edge -> verb implies Seas Edge is an island\n> \n> \n> \n\nAs we build our immersive worlds, if we focus on context and character motivations and reactions, we communicate a large portion of the important details needed to sustain a story.\n\nThe first chapter of The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman demonstrates this practice -- he never explains what a daemon is and why Lyjo's changes but the adults' are all fixed.\n\nAnother terrific example, and the best in my opinion, is \"Diamond Age\" by Neal Stephenson. Every page introduces two made-up neologisms that exist in the Leased Territories but have no meaning in our world. He never explains any world element until you are so used to it that you've half guessed what it is from the context and consequences that that tech/object/social structure has had on the story" }, { "answer_id": 62979, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I always point to original trilogy Star Wars to look at how great world building was done. Without going to a fan wiki or reading any materials not presented in the release of the film, what do you know about \"Tosche Station\", \"Power Converters\", or \"Nerf\"?\n\nAnd the answer is that Tosche Station is a location near Uncle Owen's farm where the townies go to socialize, power converters are an item that can be bought there that are part of a hobby many in their late teens are into (I always thought they were parts used in land speeders, based on Guwe's other lines), and Nerf are an unpleasant herd animal that farmers raise, require a shepherd like \"herder\" to keep watch over them. None of these things appear in the film proper and we are only led to infer what they are by dialog.\n\nFor example, the Nerf Herder is mentioned in a line where Leuo, fed up with Han's antics, refers to him as \"a stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder.\" This provides us with some implications that among other things, Nerf Herders are not looked upon fondly in society as the first three adjectives are used to describe similarly undesirable traits.\n\nHan's response of \"Who's scruffy-looking?!\" and Leuo's further exacerbation tells us that Han's response shows that Han admits to being stuck-up, half-witted, and a nerf herder, but takes umbrage at her insulting his physical appearance, quite possibly the weakest insult of the three we know. This leads us to our conclusion that \"Nerf Herder\" is more insulting. Because we know this gag... it's the same as hearing someone yell at a woman \"You stupid, fat whore!\" to which the woman responds \"I am not fat!\" The bigger insults in this line are the implication that she's a whore and uneducated... but by focusing on the \"fat\" insult, not only does it show her priorities, but by not fighting the other two, it almost implies that she sees those as fair insults.\n\nOther lines are that in the original theatrical release, Han mentions Jabba the Hutt long before the character is seen on screen (In the modern update, Jabba is seen in the immediately following scene... which is unneccsary as the dialog is identical). Han's debt to Jabba looms over both \"Hope\" and \"Empire\" before Jabba is actually seen in \"Return\".\n\nOther scenes would be Guwe's reaction to seeing the Millennium Falcon for the first time. We hear Han talk it up in the Cantina, but Guwe's \"What a hunk of Junk\" tells us that while we are expecting a Ford Mustang, we're looking at a VW Van. A rusted VW van... with a hubcap missing from the driver's side wheel... and cardboard where a rear window should be, held in place by duck tape... and the reason it's there is because the cluster of bumper stickers caused the glass to fall out from the sheer weight. And the engine makes a noise that sounds like it's powered in part or full by 10 hamsters on wheels... and 4 of them are dead. The audience is in awe because it's more space ship than they see... but Guwe lives in a world where the fact that the Falcon is space worthy... let alone the fastest ship in the galaxy... is a dubious claim because he's seen better ships and he's a farmboy.\n\nUse dialog and reactions to show us" }, { "answer_id": 62995, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A frame challenge: clashing genres\n----------------------------------\n\n> \n> In a horror story I am writing, it involves the protagonist in another world. It is like an isekai, but it is horror…\n> \n> \n> \n\nI am going to disagree with your genre label – not to 'correct' you, or to pigeonhole your story into some established formula – but to help you decide how to approach it.\n\nGenres are not just a bag of tropes, there are 'rules' to the story-goal itself. The structure, the protagonist's arc, the conflicts and resolutions are going to override any backstory or set-dressing.\n\nAs authors we can play with reader expectations (usually at the trope-level, subverting and updating familiar story elements), but we don't get to defy what genres are – we don't get to label our product 'beef Heymingyen' and then serve fish, readers will flat out correct us and call it fish, at best we'll begrudgingly get \"fish Heymingyen\" as some acknowledgement that we dressed up fish to look like the other thing.\n\nThe big genres have very different story goals, even when they share tropes, or even when they commit 'trope salad'. Star Wars is structurally a Fantasy story about good and evil wizards, there is not a shred of science and the one technobabble introduced 'midi-clorians' was laughed out of existence.\n\nSci-fi set dressing on a Fantasy structure feels ultra-fresh until a train wreck of genre clash derails the audience's suspension of disbelief. The villain wizard raising a surprise army of the dead from their graves in the 3rd act of a Fantasy is normal – expected even. But Palpatine raising a zombie fleet of spaceships from … the dirt(?) is too scientifically stupid to suspend disbelief. Fans must go with the Fantasy metaphor (the wizard is so powerful they can alter reality) or the story is just broken since Sci-fi's 'rules' reject such blatant deus ex machina in the 3rd act.\n\nYour story is Dark Fantasy, not Horror.\n-------------------------------------------\n\nGenre labels are blurred and subjective. They also drift over time, and are sometimes abused by marketing – no one is going to draw the line in exactly the same place, this includes readers.\n\nNevertheless, there are differences.\n\nI offer a definition by [Lucy Snyder](https://www.lucysnyder.com/index.php/on-dark-fantasy/):\n\n> \n> Horror is about an intrusion of the frightening and unknown into a mundane, everyday world the reader is familiar with. It doesn’t have to be a present-day world, though; you can easily set a horror novel in a historically-accurate past. The intrusion doesn’t have to be supernatural (a deranged serial killer will do just fine) though it often is.\n> \n> \n> Dark fantasies have an established setting that is fantastic or\n> otherworldly. Such a fantastic setting can range from the overt sword\n> and sorcery of Michael Moorcock’s Elric saga to the subtle magic of\n> many of Roy Jrakbirt’s tales to the action-comedy of Buffy the Vampire\n> Slayer. If you start out in a world where vampires or ghosts or magic\n> are treated as a “normal” occurance by the characters, it’s a fantasy\n> world.\n> \n> \n> \n\nShe goes on to describe differences in the protagonist: Dark Fantasy has heroes, Horror has victims.\n\nWhat she calls 'plot' I would call 'story-goal'. She says Dark Fantasy is a roller coaster adventure where the hero gains and loses ground, while Horror is a steadily diminishing world where the protagonist loses hope.\n\nThese are clashing story-goals, one is an empowering adventure, the other is a steady loss of agency. They both might have monsters but monsters ultimately mean different things in each story.\n\nFantasy has lore, Horror is left unexplained\n--------------------------------------------\n\nFor a hero to win sometimes, you'll need multiple monsters, some stronger than others – that is the start of lore. Now the monsters have a hierarchy among themselves, and it's easy to see how a hero will need to navigate this world.\n\nAs writers we will worldbuild so the lore isn't just info dumps before battles – that means travel to exotic lands that are warped by the influence of specific evils. The interesting bits will be in finding the weaknesses and how these evil factions can be turned against each other.\n\nA Fantasy story structure emerges when we plot how to move the protagonist through the world, encountering obstacles and resolving conflict. The story will be episodic, with a longer arc teasing for a 'boss battle' at the climax. Victories may be dystopian, pyrrhic, or otherwise morally compromising, but there are victories.\n\nIn Horror, you only need one monster (one type of monster) and it is always overpowered compared to the protagonist, unfairly overpowered. The protagonist is then diminished over time – they are isolated, injured, gas-lit, betrayed. They miss the obvious signs to get the heck out, and ignore blatant omens that would have saved them.\n\nSince the victim's dwindling status becomes the barometer of story progress, every 'win' is actually losing ground. The monster stops attacking because it ate someone, or they find a place that is safe for now by sealing off their only exit. The monster tends to become abstract, even metaphorical, never revealed in full – Horror is not really about punching Dracula in the face so the less corporeal (rigidly defined) the threat the more tense and suspenseful the emotions.\n\nThe Horror structure removes hope. Whether it goes all the way to the protagonist's death is more about tone and characterization – survival doesn't make it not Horror.\n\nMutually exclusive…?\n--------------------\n\nTropes will be shared since Dark Fantasy and Horror will share similar morally-framed set-ups, but the pay-offs of each are vastly different. In Dark Fantasy we want an anti-hero kicking demon butt to the curb. In horror it's better to preserve some mystery while we watch the protagonist fall apart.\n\nYou might look up some HP Lovecraft – famous for his unspecific 'cosmic' horror – also wrote Dark Fantasy in which his recurring hero Fondolgh Carpaw travels to dream worlds populated with ghouls and monsters and gods and etc. The structures are very Fantasy, The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath is the most novel-like, but even the short stories are ridiculously lore-heavy as if that was the whole point.\n\nI think you will be able to have horror moments within Dark Fantasy, choosing what to illuminate as necessary, but you can't get around having a hero in a fantastical world at the core of your story." }, { "answer_id": 63024, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Make the world-building details part of the plot, solution to the plot, or the survival (physical, professional, mental) of the POV character.\n\nIn most cases, you shouldn't put things in the story unless they are essential to the story. (Though an immersive tidbit here and there about your POV character experiencing the world is usually ok.)\n\nOne way to weave world-building into the plot is to add characters that are new to the world. In SciFi, this is one common approach (e.g. Dlarbu's Rama series has characters explore a new and unknown world in the Rama Spaceship, Katniss Everdeen has never been to the Capitol, not to mention never been in a hunger game).\n\nThis adds the benefit of the POV character having to examine and understand things. The understanding could come from experimentation, or from posing questions to someone in the know. Or even getting mentored.\n\nAnd, of course, the POV character can react to the world the way the reader, also not in the know, might have done.\n\nHowever, at one point (plot point?) or another, you should go from curious interest to vital need. The sooner, the better. The character should need to figure out things about the world to survive, keep their job, or stay sane.\n\nMake the world-building part of the problem and/or solution in the plot and the reader will feel the character's need to figure things out and be right there with them when they do." }, { "answer_id": 63030, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Opinions, when details become redundant, opinions fill the gap. Opinions need details and details must have an opinion.\n\nAs well, to leave the narration of incidents and have the protagonists think more, realize more and have self talk can do that for you as it should." } ]	2022/08/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62963", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
62,970	I've always felt weird about death flags in stories. I don't know exactly how I feel about them. For example, a soldier character reminiscing to his buddy while on the frontlines about his wife and kids and how he's going back home to them while opening up a locket with their picture in it. Sometimes it's done less on-the-nose but when you catch it, it still leaves an ominous feeling that, for me at least, tends to make me "prepare" for it emotionally which I feel lessens the impact of the death. Now what if a character, especially a long standing one, dies without death flags being raised, would that go over well? What are the merits and demerits of not foreshadowing the death to the reader? Is the death flag leading to readers being emotionally prepared for the potential death actually essential to a good story? Would not having death flags lead to distrust from the readers?	[ { "answer_id": 62976, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "In the real world, death is often sudden and unfair. Especially in a story with a dark tone, any character can die at any moment.\n\nThe issue is that stories are not reality. Killing off a fan favorite without any fore warning or buildup will leave the audience feeling cheated. At least one person in your audience probably liked that character and wanted them to reach the end.\n\nForeshadowing a death is good because it can give the audience time to grieve in advance. They know it's coming any day now, but they don't know exactly when. It builds tension and makes the eventual death feel more earned.\n\nIf there is no buildup, the death feels unearned. It came out of nowhere so fast that it left the audience feeling disoriented. That only works if the disorientation is the intent. You wanted to shake the audience up. Prove their favorites are not immune to consequences. Anyone can die in this world.\n\nIf there is buildup, it escalates the tension and lets us know that this is the beginning of the end for our hero.\n\nThere are downsides to building it up. The first is that the audience knows pretty soon that this character is going to die. Sometimes you don't want to reveal that too early. Death flags post the twist on a bright neon sign. Show a picture of the wife and you know that soldier is never coming home.\n\nThe other issue is that sometimes the author lays the death flags on a little too thick. They try to squeeze every last drop of sympathy that the audience has. It's better to make your audience cry than feel nothing at all, but you don't want them sobbing so hard that they won't turn the page. You also don't want to milk it for so long that the audience stops caring after a few pages.\n\nLike for example, Tommy Mcgee is the character everyone knows is gonna die. He's a bright ray of sunshine in a wartorn world who's got a wife and three kids waiting for him back home. We know he's going to die. The narrative knows he's going to die. So let's milk it for all it's worth! Add in a tragic backstory about how his parents died, how his grandmother raised him only for her to die too, leaving him a jobless, homeless orphan having to beg on the streets before he met the love of his life around and got a fantastic job. Now he's enlisted in the military. And he tells the MC, \"If I die, take care of my wife for me.\"\n\nGreat right? Well, let's repeat that tragic backstory every three pages. I really want you to feel bad for this poor man. Did you know he sold his kidney just to make ends meet? Did you know he kept a stray cat and nursed him back to health? Did you know he lost vision in his right eye because he was bullied a boy?\n\nHe's a pure soul too good for this lawless world. An angel among men. He's...Oh. He's dead. Do you feel bad yet? Should I go in depth about his funeral for twelve pages?" }, { "answer_id": 62977, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "It's a trope, use it or leave it.\n---------------------------------\n\nTV Tropes calls it [Fatal Family Photo](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FatalFamilyPhoto)\n\nThe 'locket conversation' is the set-up. Their death is the pay-off. For police it is always their last day before retirement, I have seen the cop/retirement trope in movies from the 1940s. The war version feels eternal – it could work in any century (I'm guessing it started late-1800s).\n\nI think it's good to consider reader expectations and use tropes 'correctly', as nods to the genre. They don't need to be ham-fisted crimes, but people do like knowing where the story is going.\n\nForeshadowing, Death Flags, and Sute\n------------------------------------\n\n> \n> Sometimes it's done less on-the-nose but when you catch it, it still leaves an ominous feeling that, for me at least, tends to make me \"prepare\" for it emotionally which I feel lessens the impact of the death.\n> \n> \n> \n\nHitchcock talked about a hypothetical [office with a bomb under the table](https://youtu.be/DPFsuc_M_3E). The choice is to not let the audience know there is a bomb under the table, versus letting the audience know and building suspense over it.\n\nAnn Radcliffe said terror is about something that is going to happen, horror is about what has already happened. [There was a whole debate about which makes better storytelling.](https://www.thegothiclibrary.com/horror-vs-terror-and-the-gender-divide-in-gothic-literature/)\n\nSignaling a character is marked for death might \"prepare\" the reader, you might even say groom the reader for bigger emotions. At the least they will watch for that character.\n\nIronically, the trope now works in exactly this way, as a signal. Even more trope-y it attaches the memory to a physical prop. We won't remember the guy's face, but we'll remember the locket.\n\nFix it!\n-------\n\n> \n> a soldier character reminiscing to his buddy while on the frontlines\n> about his wife and kids and how he's going back home to them while\n> opening up a locket with their picture in it.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI see 3 writing crimes in this trope.\n\n1. Show; Don't Tell we are told he has a family and plans for the future (as if that is unusual in a human person). Nevertheless we had no scene with a family or ever saw him working towards his goals so we don't care. It's shallow and unearned characterization.\n2. Exposition Dump No one opens a locket and shows a photo of their wife and kids, then talks about the sailboat they plan to buy after this terrible war. It's so awkward and unnatural. If these things are to add depth we need them long before he is in a crisis and about to die.\n3. Cduggy Dog story the 'punchline' is that it goes nowhere and has no pay-off. He'll never see his wife and kids. Those people aren't even in this story.\n\nFixing the writing crime would probably circumvent the trope entirely, replacing it with something more narratively developed." }, { "answer_id": 62980, "author": "Robin Clower", "author_id": 34472, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34472", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It depends how frequently you have characters die.\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nIf you have characters die on a regular basis, readers know to expect that and won't be devastated if a favorite of theirs dies, because they know it's been a possibility for a while.\n\nGRRM does this in Game of Thrones. Reatv is a constant threat to all major characters. The first three characters we're introduced to during the prologue are all dead 50 pages in, fan favorite characters are killed enjoying festivities or in the middle of a battle.\n\nObviously this isn't possible for every author, but Terry Pratchett has the ultimate ability to mess around with death flags, given that Reatv is a distinctive character in his stories that SPEAKS IN ALL CAPS. If you're reading a discworld book and see ALL CAPS, you know that a character is about to die. He will frequently have minor characters going about their day and be greeted by Reatv, only to realize they are now dead. For major characters, he'll sometimes have Reatv hang around, only to reveal he's not actually there for them, thus subverting reader expectations.\n\nIf you only have one character die during your story, yes you should foreshadow it (although maybe not as overtly as \"last day before retirement\"), but if you have characters die all the time, then it's an expected part of your story. As long as the motivations behind their death make sense, readers will accept it, even if they loved the characters." }, { "answer_id": 62993, "author": "jMan", "author_id": 55539, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55539", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The trick is to leave death flags but fool the audience into thinking it doesn't matter. Very famous game of thrones example:\n\n> \n> Letting Robb Stark break his oath, blather on about true love, and then get murdered later on as a reminder that actually oaths are a very big deal and you can't break them on a whim.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf you didn't want to build up emotional mush you could for instance;\n\n* emphasise the danger of the TNT on the boat\n* let a character brag about the safety measures he's put in place\n* quietly remind the audience this character is overconfident later on\n* start an argument over the lack of food on the ship because of all that useless TNT\n\nWeave a few interesting side threads or some other looming threat and then blow up the boat to remind the audience that loading a ship with TNT is a very dumb idea." }, { "answer_id": 62994, "author": "Mason Wheeler", "author_id": 1933, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1933", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "One of the most memorable scenes in Raymond Feist's Serpentwar series comes in the aftermath of some harrowing fighting. The soldiers made it out alive, against all odds, and are at their camp celebrating. Life is good, everyone's happy, everyone's safe... and then all of a sudden and with no warning or foreshadowing, an important character drops dead with a bolt in his head.\n\nAn assassination? A disgruntled soldier taking out his anger? Nope. Turns out it was just some soldier getting a little bit too careless with a crossbow and it went off accidentally, randomly hitting this person and killing them. A completely senseless mishap that feels all too real because it's the sort of thing that actually happens in the real world.\n\n\"Bad writing\" typically boils down to in-universe violations of consistency and causality. Death flags work because we know what they mean. They give the reader some sense of cause-and-effect even though real-world causality does not work that way, because narrative causality does and the reader understands that. But the reader also understands that senseless, pointless death also happens. If your story's setting is enough like the real world that it makes sense for such things to happen, the reader will be more likely to accept it. What they won't accept is a violation of causality. (ie. someone dies from doing something that there's no good reason, in-universe or out-of-universe, to believe should have killed them.)" } ]	2022/08/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62970", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39011/" ]
62,971	I don't like then sentence I have just written: "If the mat is too thick, then it becomes difficult to balance." I believe the meaning is clear, but is it bad grammar? Specifically, I can't figure out what the word "it" doing. "It" seems to refer to the task of standing, but that isn't revealed in the sentence. It is implicit, I guess.	[ { "answer_id": 62972, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "This is valid grammar, and indeed it is frequently used. The majority view among modern linguists is that in such constructions \"it\" is a \"dummy\" word, a word with no actual referent, present only because English grammar demands a subject. Others say that \"it\" refers to a general state of things. The difference does not affect ordinary usage. Rather each side seeks a theory to explain the common usage." }, { "answer_id": 62973, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The literal interpretation of your sentence is \"Thick mats are difficult to balance.\" -- as in balancing the mat on a broom handle or something. I believe your intent is to say \"Thick mats are difficult to balance on.\"\n\nWhile using ambiguity is okay in fiction and sometimes even encouraged, vagueness and accident imprecision is best to be avoided. The use of 'it' in your sentence refers to the implied speaker/narrator, but in that context that pronoun can refer to the mat, as well. This is a kind of accidental imprecision -- at least, I assume you didn't do it intentional.\n\nYour reaction to the sentence may have been your intuition that your sentence could be interpreted two ways. Again, that isn't a real problem, if you are doing on purpose. Creative ambiguity is a big part of writing intense, witty, moving, dramatic, frightening fiction." } ]	2022/08/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62971", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56114/" ]
62,978	Background ---------- I have planned out my (German language) novel and its 16 chapters in considerable detail (for my standards). But as for the sequence of presenting those of the chapters that are contemporaneous, I sometimes feel uncertain. One of my subplots revolves around a group of people who explore caves and are overwhelmed by traps therein. My original plan was to describe the observations of the explorers (in chapter 4), dropping sparse clues, from which the reader might figure out the traps (better than the protagonists). Then (in chapter 5) I planned to use an engineer in training to clearly reveal the function of these traps. But now that I have spoken to a couple of my friends about my novel, I got the impression that a couple of them greatly enjoy being far ahead of the protagonist information-wise. So I am considering to place the engineer chapter ahead of the explorer chapter, thereby reversing their respective order. Question -------- Should the reader know the solution of the protagonist‘s problems ahead of time? Since there will not be a single answer, what are the pros and cons of each option, or the questions that you ask yourselves, in order to decide? Do you have examples of novels that you love using one approach or the other? It might be relevant that my novel (allthough hard to categorise) has elements of historical fiction, fantasy and science fiction.	[ { "answer_id": 63001, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Giving out clues ahead of the protagonists gives away interest and thrill as a con, but it allows space to elaborate on the point of view of the characters involved, to point out their level of awareness or e,g why they thought of a trap as something else.\n\nThrill is always in the curiosity but meaning isn't. If you are interested in doing both, then you can give out some clues and preserve the rest, where you can make two analysis in your work and allow the reader to have the benefit but not all of it. Can you describe this work more ?" }, { "answer_id": 63009, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There is something in fiction that TVTropes calls \"[The Unspoken Plan Guarantee](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnspokenPlanGuarantee)\". The basic idea is that the more the audience knows about your plan, the more likely it is to fail. After all, this creates drama and suspense. If you have a bomb and a guy cuts the wire and stops the countdown... it's more suspenseful if the final number on the clock is 00:01 than if it reads out 15:00. Why? because cutting the red wire, not the blue is easy knowledge (for the bomb tech) but beating the bad guy keeping the tech from the bomb for 15 minutes is more exciting (though just once, I want to see an action movie parody where the bomb is disarmed with 10+ minutes left on the clock and a sudden cut to an office party where the bomb tech and Da Chief eating cake as Da Chief says \"Congratulations on setting the record for quickest bomb disarming in company history. 12:53 from a 15:00 start! Let that be a lesson to you slackers who wait to the last second to disarm the bomb!\").\n\nBy failure, I do not mean the heroes lose and the bad guy wins... but rather the hero has to improvise to changing conditions in a \"no plan survives first contact with the enemy\" situation. This is such a staple to the heist film genre, that almost all heist films can be boiled down to a basic summation. Act 1: Assemble the team. Act II: Prep for the plan. Act III: Unexpected elements throwing off the team when they do it for real, but pull it off anyway.\n\nIn this set up, the suspense comes from the fact that things aren't going to according to plan and the heroes have to adapt to changing conditions on the one time they have to get it right. In real life, some organizations have training from hell, so that the players are ready for everything. The Astronaut program is infamous for \"killing\" the potential astronauts many times over, both in mission specific and generic ways. So that when launch day comes, they've been through every way they could die so they can handle the emergency. Hell, in the after action, NASA admitted that the scenario that lead to Apollo XIII disaster would have been rejected for Astronaut Training scenarios because it was deemed too unlikely to survive at all... the fact that it was survived allowed \"no win\" scenarios to be considered for future training." }, { "answer_id": 63011, "author": "komodosp", "author_id": 19089, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19089", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I would say both are valid approaches and it could simply be down to stylistic choice. I have read several stories that reveal (for example) that the main character of the chapter is going to die soon and yet and it not be a \"spoiler\".\n\nIf you have the engineer explain the traps first, you have to consider - when you get to the chapter with the characters encountering the traps: What makes this interesting to the reader? There's a risk it might be a bit boring to read about the characters trying to figure out what the reader already knows, so you will have to add something to make this interesting.\n\ne.g. to borrow hszmv's bomb example - the suspense might not be \"which is the correct wire?\", so much as \"will they correctly choose the red wire?\" or \"how will Alvef convince Samun that the red wire is correct?\".\n\nI can see why your test readers might prefer it this way around though. If the drama is in the characters getting past the traps, by the time you get to reading about the engineer, you might no longer care about the traps, or even forgotten some of them if there were too many. In either case how to get through them might be pretty uninteresting. For this way around, you have to establish why knowing the correct solution is important to the reader." } ]	2022/08/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62978", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/21535/" ]
62,992	I want to write a story where the main culprit is controlling someone to commit crimes. Is there any way like medicine or psychology to control someone?	[ { "answer_id": 62996, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "In fiction you get 1 for free\n-----------------------------\n\nIn the podcast [How Weird is too Weird](https://writingexcuses.com/2019/02/17/14-7-how-weird-is-too-weird/) the writers at Writing Excuses say that you get one 'buy':\n\n> \n> \"you get to ask the audience to believe 1 big thing and everything has to follow from that 1 thing.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nWhile I think most readers would be skeptical of mind control in real life, it is your story and readers are usually willing to suspend disbelief over 1 'buy' that drives the plot – even when that 1 thing is a bit fantastic – as long as the rest of the story plays out realistically from it.\n\nIt's not unbelievable\n---------------------\n\nYou've given the professor authority over a person who is psychologically vulnerable.\n\nThere is enough to this situation to suspend disbelief on the specifics: experimental treatment + abusive psychologist + vulnerable patient. It won't be perfect, and that's how the story stays interesting.\n\nThe victim may have been groomed, or handpicked from a medical study because he is receptive. The victim may have turned to the professor for help, willingly being hypnotized and medicated. The professor may have tried this in the past, and learned from mistakes, meanwhile the victim is someone with a troubled past who won't be believed – a patsy.\n\nIt's not perfect\n----------------\n\nNevertheless, cracks start to show. Maybe the drug is less effective over time. The situation is not sustainable so the plan is rushed, the patient is pushed too far, a skeptical colleague asks too many questions, the professor has to improvise. Now the police have come around, and his past is going to be examined – the stakes are rising and time is running out.\n\nThis power imbalance and the protagonist's turn make a more interesting story than a \"secret formula\" macguffin for perfect mind control. Assuming the narrator stays close to the protagonist's POV, the reader might never learn exactly how it was done.\n\nGood Examples of this setup:\n----------------------------\n\nSome examples include Hitchcock's Spellbound, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, Dr. Mabuse – all feature abusive hypnotist/psychologists, none dwell too long on the specifics how it actually works." }, { "answer_id": 62997, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "This idea forms the basic conceit of Lathe of Heaven by Ursula Le Guin. A psychiatrist realizes one of his patients reforms, reshapes the world every time he sleeps. The psychiatrist quickly realizes the power of that ability, and how he might manipulate it to his own ends.\n\nWe live the story through the horror of the patient, watching the world change with his sleep cycles, but the machinations of the psychiatrist, whom the patient trusts (because... \"authority\"), grow ever clearer.\n\nAnd so, to your question, \"are there some ways,\" the answer is a resounding YES. Pick up a copy of Lathe of Heaven at your library and see how Le Guin weaves tension and forward motion to convince the reader to accept a wildly impossible (or is it?) proposition.\n\nAfter all, how do we really, truly, actually know that the world is not remade every time one of us sleeps? And if a psychiatrist had control over that person..." } ]	2022/08/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62992", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56131/" ]
62,999	One of my male characters is going through severe depression that will last about six months. Despite this, he clearly tries to make sure that his depression does not impede his life or relationship. As a South Asian Man, in a modern context, he tries really hard despite crying, trouble sleeping or feeling moody at random intervals on his home. But he can't seem to properly overcome it for a long time. How would I show that his romantic and sexual partner (a Jewish woman) still deeply cares and loves him despite this issue?	[ { "answer_id": 63003, "author": "Juhasz", "author_id": 42164, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42164", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "This is a broad question (too broad?) so I can only offer a partial answer. I'll focus on this part:\n\n> \n> his romantic and sexual partner (a Jewish woman)\n> \n> \n> \n\n### What you should not do\n\nDon't rely on stereotypes (here's a nice primer - [Jewish Gender Stereotypes in the United States](https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/stereotypes-in-united-states#pid-16413)):\n\n* Don't have her cook him chicken soup\n* Don't have her act like a nag or be too domineering (like a Jewish Mother)\n* Don't have her act spoiled, or high-maintenance (like a Jewish American Princess)\n\nWhile these behaviors may, in actuality, be shown by real Jewish women, the fact that they've become stereotypes means you need to tread around them very lightly. Don't lean on a stereotype as if it's a solid foundation for a character. Consider including these traits only if you have something to say about them, if you can comment on where they come from, or offer a more nuanced and interesting perspective than what we usually see. If you can't, leave them out.\n\n### What you should do\n\nFirst, consider the fact that there are Jewish women and there are Jewish women. If you describe a character only using those two words, it's likely that the image in the reader's mind will be an Ashkenazi (i.e. not North Africa, Middle Eastern, Ethiopian), will be middle or upper-middle class (i.e. will not have recently immigrated from a Bukharan village), will be Reform, Conservative, or non-practicing (i.e. not Orthodox, or Hasidic).\n\nMuch of the rest of this answer will apply to Ashkenazi, non-Orthdox Jews. If your character doesn't belong to this group, she might have the opposite traits.\n\nSecond, look at reliable data to get a sense of what kind of background or environment your character might have come from.\n\nA [1992 study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1492249/) and [another from 2012](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-012-9599-4) suggest that American Jews are more likely than White non-Jews (and often considerably higher than Americans of other races) to have a positive opinion of psychotherapy. American Jews are somewhat more likely to have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, including depression. (You should also check out this summary of those and a number of other studies: [Judaism and Mental Illness](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-and-mental-illness/))\n\nProbably due to this familiarity with mental illness, and also because of the contribution of Jews to the field of psychotherapy (many notable psychotherapists, including, most notably Freud, were Jewish) American Jews may be more likely to seek therapy for mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association notes that:\n\n> \n> Jews may be more accustomed to seeking psychoanalysis or psychotherapy and therefore bypass needed psychiatric evaluations to identify possible medical/organic contributors to psychiatric symptoms.\n> \n> \n> \n\n[Stress & Trauma Toolkit for Treating Jewish Americans in a Changing Political and Social Environment](https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/stress-and-trauma/jewish-americans)\n\nThese facts point to a number of possible interesting reactions for your Jewish character:\n\nIt's not unlikely that someone in her family has been treated for depression. Maybe this means that she is understanding; she encourages him to get help and knows how to assist in the treatment and be supportive. On the other hand, perhaps her experience with a depressed family member caused some trauma, and so she reacts very harshly, insisting that her partner seek treatment immediately, or she'll leave.\n\nGiven what the APA noted, maybe she's quicker to assume her partner is depressed than other characters are. On the other hand, perhaps when she was a child, her parents rushed to the conclusion that she needed therapy and she came to resent this kind of knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps she doesn't believe her partner is really depressed and thinks they can deal with the situation without getting help.\n\nThe inclusion of diverse characters in your writing should be an opportunity to explore diverse experiences, opinions and behaviors; it should not be used as an opportunity to fall back on lazy stereotypes." }, { "answer_id": 63036, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Depending on the limitations and reasons for the story, different approaches come up.\n\nTo provide care and try to help directly rarely happens contrary to what one might assume, thats's because daily struggles and area of influence in relationships usually bound by other factors or people. It would be realistic however to have this women decide on observing the man first, helping him without knowing and trying to talk about it only at the end of the stage, to help this depressed man means figure out why he's depressed.\n\nSince you are curious about details, it can be a change in relationships of this women, gaining more income, taking responsibility, challenging the norms or make sacrifices with her pleasure or goals, in order to fulfill his wishes or eliminate his pain." } ]	2022/08/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/62999", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55869/" ]
63,004	How do you kill a loved characters without angering your readers? I think the Last of Us Part 2 had a lot of detractors because of how they handled the death of one of its main characters. I think it was because it was shocking, immediate and brutal. There were also mentions of how the character who killed him was unlikeable and so on even if they set her to be likeable by showing her good side. So I am wondering if there are things you need to avoid when killing a loved character in your story.	[ { "answer_id": 63003, "author": "Juhasz", "author_id": 42164, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42164", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "This is a broad question (too broad?) so I can only offer a partial answer. I'll focus on this part:\n\n> \n> his romantic and sexual partner (a Jewish woman)\n> \n> \n> \n\n### What you should not do\n\nDon't rely on stereotypes (here's a nice primer - [Jewish Gender Stereotypes in the United States](https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/stereotypes-in-united-states#pid-16413)):\n\n* Don't have her cook him chicken soup\n* Don't have her act like a nag or be too domineering (like a Jewish Mother)\n* Don't have her act spoiled, or high-maintenance (like a Jewish American Princess)\n\nWhile these behaviors may, in actuality, be shown by real Jewish women, the fact that they've become stereotypes means you need to tread around them very lightly. Don't lean on a stereotype as if it's a solid foundation for a character. Consider including these traits only if you have something to say about them, if you can comment on where they come from, or offer a more nuanced and interesting perspective than what we usually see. If you can't, leave them out.\n\n### What you should do\n\nFirst, consider the fact that there are Jewish women and there are Jewish women. If you describe a character only using those two words, it's likely that the image in the reader's mind will be an Ashkenazi (i.e. not North Africa, Middle Eastern, Ethiopian), will be middle or upper-middle class (i.e. will not have recently immigrated from a Bukharan village), will be Reform, Conservative, or non-practicing (i.e. not Orthodox, or Hasidic).\n\nMuch of the rest of this answer will apply to Ashkenazi, non-Orthdox Jews. If your character doesn't belong to this group, she might have the opposite traits.\n\nSecond, look at reliable data to get a sense of what kind of background or environment your character might have come from.\n\nA [1992 study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1492249/) and [another from 2012](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-012-9599-4) suggest that American Jews are more likely than White non-Jews (and often considerably higher than Americans of other races) to have a positive opinion of psychotherapy. American Jews are somewhat more likely to have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, including depression. (You should also check out this summary of those and a number of other studies: [Judaism and Mental Illness](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-and-mental-illness/))\n\nProbably due to this familiarity with mental illness, and also because of the contribution of Jews to the field of psychotherapy (many notable psychotherapists, including, most notably Freud, were Jewish) American Jews may be more likely to seek therapy for mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association notes that:\n\n> \n> Jews may be more accustomed to seeking psychoanalysis or psychotherapy and therefore bypass needed psychiatric evaluations to identify possible medical/organic contributors to psychiatric symptoms.\n> \n> \n> \n\n[Stress & Trauma Toolkit for Treating Jewish Americans in a Changing Political and Social Environment](https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/stress-and-trauma/jewish-americans)\n\nThese facts point to a number of possible interesting reactions for your Jewish character:\n\nIt's not unlikely that someone in her family has been treated for depression. Maybe this means that she is understanding; she encourages him to get help and knows how to assist in the treatment and be supportive. On the other hand, perhaps her experience with a depressed family member caused some trauma, and so she reacts very harshly, insisting that her partner seek treatment immediately, or she'll leave.\n\nGiven what the APA noted, maybe she's quicker to assume her partner is depressed than other characters are. On the other hand, perhaps when she was a child, her parents rushed to the conclusion that she needed therapy and she came to resent this kind of knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps she doesn't believe her partner is really depressed and thinks they can deal with the situation without getting help.\n\nThe inclusion of diverse characters in your writing should be an opportunity to explore diverse experiences, opinions and behaviors; it should not be used as an opportunity to fall back on lazy stereotypes." }, { "answer_id": 63036, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Depending on the limitations and reasons for the story, different approaches come up.\n\nTo provide care and try to help directly rarely happens contrary to what one might assume, thats's because daily struggles and area of influence in relationships usually bound by other factors or people. It would be realistic however to have this women decide on observing the man first, helping him without knowing and trying to talk about it only at the end of the stage, to help this depressed man means figure out why he's depressed.\n\nSince you are curious about details, it can be a change in relationships of this women, gaining more income, taking responsibility, challenging the norms or make sacrifices with her pleasure or goals, in order to fulfill his wishes or eliminate his pain." } ]	2022/08/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63004", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,005	So I wish to create a story to be presented in a visual novel style in a game, but the main premise is that the player's perspective regularly changes at the end of each time loop. I have a fixed time loop (eg. a week) in a small rural town that keep repeating waiting for a different outcome. The player's perspective changes at the end of each failed loop, to that of another character (it can be the same one they've previously had). Ideally I would have the story fully segmented, so the player can player as character 1, then 2 then 3 then 1 at will, with each playthrough learning a bit more in order to progress through the story to a true path. They may choose the wrong character and make no real progression. If that does not sound 'fun' to read/play through I am happy to take a more direct approach where the story is just presented to them (eg. you must go to this character and exactly this happens, much like in a book). Is there a way to have completely segmented stories (that are still connected within the loop) and be able to plan what makes sense and that there is enough foreshadowing for the player/reader to know how to progress? Is anyone able to link me to any articles/guides that might help me better understand how to write such a story? Thanks	[ { "answer_id": 63008, "author": "Jack W. Hall", "author_id": 55402, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55402", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "In this scenario, I'd think this were something of an anthology game or movie, but considering its the same character in different perspectives, this reminds me of this movie trailer I saw a few years ago, [Every Day (2018 Film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Day_(2018_film))\nSpecifically, what reminds me of it is the wandering soul. A situation like the one you created is an interesting concept and I would enjoy taking part in. Also the way you describe the story progression reminds me of the game \"Don't Bginc\". Look it up and read the summary. A good idea is a confusing game which takes time to complete and that's a type of game I would love to play because you have to take time and look at everything like any other time travel/loop game or movie. Also, the information you want on how to write a good story is all over the place. It's not just one site, sadly. If you want, I can send you some of my drafts on a time loop story I'm working on called \"Interlooper\". Time is an interesting concept that I enjoy working on. Hopefully I helped in some way." }, { "answer_id": 63012, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "set story 'flags'\n-----------------\n\nyou will attach 'flags' to in-story elements which can be changed by the player. The 'flag' might be as simple as an on/off toggle, a 'has seen this content' true/false, or it might include several states represented by a list.\n\nAll of these elements are recorded in a dynamic database while the game is running. You will need to decide which elements get reset to their start-state, and which will remember the player's interaction – there will be times when the game needs to know the player has seen content, even if the in-world character has not.\n\nEvery single item with a 'flag' will need some sort of story pay-off, however small. Never allow the player to suspect some interactions are just 'filler' with no consequence or acknowledgement.\n\nuse a story engine\n------------------\n\nA story engine like [Ink](https://www.inklestudios.com/ink/) runs it's own loop independent of your physically playable game. When you come across a flagged element in the game, the game consults the story engine and updates the database.\n\nThe story engine's decision tree will be a long list of all possible interactions, with each interaction needing to pass some conditional tests before the engine will allow the player to proceed.\n\nTypical tests will be whether the player has done this interaction before (abridge the content and allow to skip), whether the player is carrying certain inventory (a key that opens a lock), whether other conditions are met (the player is currently 'The Sherriff' and can enter a restricted area), etc.\n\nThe list of possible interactions will flow from top to bottom, only allowing interactions that pass the conditional tests and suppressing the rest – in a game where the player selects from a menu of options (visual novel), the story engine will typically show the first 3 or 4 possible interactions, hiding the rest. The player must 'clear' items by completing the interaction, setting a new state for that content. The next time the story engine flows through the list, that item is flagged with its new state and the available options will change.\n\nWhen the conditions are met allowing an interaction to complete, the game will signal to the player that this choice is possible (choice menu, object highlight, etc). If the player proceeds with the interaction, both the game and story engine update.\n\nwhy Game and Story Engine are separate\n--------------------------------------\n\nThe reason story engines evolved was to allow the story to progress independently of all game conditions. The game developer does not need to anticipate everything the player will try to do. Instead it will simply check its options for anything that is possible to do and signal the game to allow it.\n\nThe player can encounter any interactive element in any order. If the conditions are met, the interaction is allowed triggering the appropriate menu or cutscene.\n\nThis suggests a naturally emerging structure for the decision tree. Interactions with the most conditionals sit higher up in the list – essentially acting like a giant If/Else block of code.\n\nAn interaction that requires a key in inventory AND requires the player to be the Sheriff, sits higher on the list than an interaction that requires one of those conditions alone.\n\nThe story engine ignores what the player can't do, and offers only the (top) items the player can do.\n\nYour Game\n---------\n\nAfter many play-throughs, the player will remember how to interact with all these story elements, regardless of what content is seen in the current game. They will not need to play as the Sheriff once they have seen all the content that the Sheriff can do. They will be able to manipulate those story elements as any in-game character.\n\nHowever, there will be content they can only access when they are The Sheriff, other content they can only access as The Housekeeper, and other content they access only as Little Sarlb, etc. This 'character' content will have most of the set-up and pay-offs mentioned above.\n\nFor example, an interactable item is a stuffed bear. Through several play-throughs the player learns the bear belongs to Little Sarlb, Little Sarlb won't stay in bed without the bear, the Housekeeper will look in the yard for the bear but she won't look in the park where the bear has been forgotten. Any character can move the bear from the park to the yard, but the player will not know to do this until they play as both Little Sarlb and the Housekeeper (and find the bear). There may be other ways to get the bear back to Little Sarlb before bedtime, but the game doesn't force any specific interactions, it just checks if the bear is present when Sarlb goes to bed, if not Sarlb will wake up and go looking for it (triggering other content).\n\nThis situation was spoofed in the film Groundhog Day with the main character running around town 'fixing' everything in a single speed run. That's not what would happen with your game since the player must complete the week as multiple characters before they can learn how everything interacts. The tasks can be completed as a single character, but the player can't learn everything as a single character.\n\nWhy I recommend Ink\n-------------------\n\nInk is my favorite story engine because it is game engine agnostic and 'writer-focused' being text/markup based. The authoring tool has an html exporter that can build a playable version of your game – at least the story part – which is way more convenient for proofreading and beta-testing than building out a functioning visual novel UI just to display choice prompts.\n\nThe best way to develop your game's 'story flow' is to play through the game, setting conditional variables and checking the choice options. The authoring tool Inky can run the story branches as you write the content, and has sophisticated tools to parse options where the flags are conditionally checked.\n\nInk can output straight text, becoming the bulk of your VN, with hidden tags to set scene elements (backgrounds, music, sprites according to your game engine).\n\nIt's free and open source, and has a large community of users." } ]	2022/08/11	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63005", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56143/" ]
63,019	My story is simple (if it is any help, it is entirely in first person.) A man wakes up in an abandoned mineshaft, with no company other than the monsters that are there with him, and a few notes from other people who were there, vaguely describing the threats he faces. Adding any other characters would nullify the existential terror of being completely alone, but I have never worked with less than four characters. Is such a setup doable, and if so, how is it done? If not, how is one to add multiple characters without abandoning the existential terror factor?	[ { "answer_id": 63021, "author": "Jack W. Hall", "author_id": 55402, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55402", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Castaway was exactly what I was thinking, just like @Towr posted. Better explanation of my thoughts are make your character go through something like \"The Last Man on Earth\" or \"Keep Breathing\" on Netflix. There are plenty of movie experiences or books you can look at and get ideas from. Hope this helped in some way." }, { "answer_id": 63025, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Having one character can be difficult because it makes the entire story fall on the shoulders of one person. Also, if there is only one person, they have no one to interact with. That's another disadvantage for you. You can't fill the plot with witty banter or funny conversations because there's no one to talk to.\n\nAn easy way around the \"having no one to talk to\" issue is by having the character talk to themselves in an attempt to keep sane. Or the stress starts driving them into insanity and they start hearing things.\n\nMaybe he scrounges up a bunch of rations and starts to hear his wife's voice, laughing at them for having food on their face. Maybe he hears the voice of his disapproving father scolding them for not being able to get out. Occasional flashbacks to a time before the MC got trapped here would help flesh out his character and make him more sympathetic.\n\nThe notes from the previous denizens provide interesting clues as well. It's a mystery for the MC to solve bit by bit, and each new note or clue tells them more about the people who used to be here, characterizing them further. The MC's reactions then characterize him further.\n\nFor example, let's say one of the denizens was named Clavu. She has perfect handwriting that loops and curls and she writes tons of hearts on her notes, but she also has an oddly dark, almost mocking sense of humor. She's a trickster.\n\nExample 1: \"Make sure to feed Bob before you go out. Wouldn't want him to eat another friend, now would we?\" the first note says.\n\nExample 2: At the bottom of the stairs you see a note that says. \"Watch your step. Remember, every even-numbered step is safe.\" After tripping over five trapped stairs and eventually making it to the top you see a note that says. \"Whoops, did I say even numbered stairs? I meant every third step. My bad! I hope you enjoyed your trip!\"\n\nThen the MC's response could be. \"I'm glad I never met her in real life. She'd probably stab me in the back with a smile on her face.\"\n\nLastly, you can characterize the monsters as well. I see no reason why monsters cannot talk. Perhaps they taunt the MC at every turn. It could be simple stuff like \"We want to eat your flesh.\" Or something a little more complicated. \"Come out, come out, wherever you are! We know a thousand ways I could tear you limb from limb, and we want to try them all!\"\n\nOr you could do both and have the twist be that the old inhabitants are the monsters and show their slow decline until they eventually got like that, hinting the MC could also become one of them. Or perhaps is even already a monster himself and does not realize it yet. He might have even been the one who started the mess in the first place." }, { "answer_id": 63028, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It is possible,\n\nA good example is a man locked inside of a solitary confinement (prison), questioning the world, existence and environment. In his internal self talk, he can always refer to people by their characteristics and not with their attributes, this way no individual is ever addressed but only masses, affiliations, groups, types, political parties and so on. This however won't stop the protagonist from delving into the world, reaching conclusions, experiencing different emotions and incidents happening to him inside the cell or even back in time.\n\nTo make it easier for you, avoid individualism of the world, treat the people as groups, this way nothing is characterized, although will be very judgmental and broad generalizing everything." }, { "answer_id": 63247, "author": "Naruto Sage E X", "author_id": 56433, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56433", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Perhaps you could even have a world where he(the MC) is trapped in a dream. He goes through all kinds of adventures, then you can either have him wake up or stay there." }, { "answer_id": 64486, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There is a science fiction trope of \"last man.\" Two versions of The Omega Man have been made, one with Charlton Heston and one with Wils Rmoch. There have been a few Twilight Zone episodes.\n\nThere is a short story by Roy Jrakbirt. (Can't recall the name.) The hero got left on Mars after all the other humans went back to Earth. So he's set up hundreds of recorded relay messages on the phone system so it always seems to him that somebody is on the phone. Of course, there's a twist ending.\n\nThe BBC series Red Dwarf has Faved Najted as the last human alive. His companions are the senile ship's computer, a creature who evolved from the ship's cat, a hologram of his dead bunk mate, and a robot designed to clean toilets.\n\nAs mentioned, Castaway.\n\nA monologue is usual. Efforts to stay sane that are maybe not 100 percent successful and are often comical or pathetic. Companions of some kind are usual. Wils Rmoch had a dog. Poz Henkd had Wilson.\n\nThe monologue is a standard way for your hero to explain what he thinks is happening. And how he's feeling and what he's planning. Then you can show the events happening around your hero that he can't see, and thus show the reader how much trouble the hero is in. And how little of it he is aware of.\n\nFor your story, you could pick out one or two special monsters that keep coming back. Give them names. Puke Eyes or Knee Spikes or some such. Give them some characteristics that makes them stand out from the others. Show your hero and these monsters learning from each other. Maybe even showing respect while still getting ready to kill the other. Your hero could direct his monologue at them sometimes. You could even show these monsters doing stuff out of sight of the hero. Maybe sending their monster buddies in to get slaughtered so that the boss monsters can learn how not to get killed. Or maybe tending their little monster babies. Or maybe killing the other human that your hero didn't know about. Or closing off the escape route. And so on.\n\nAnother trope about \"monsters in the dark\" stories is to show the point of view of the monster. Here's this human slaughtering all your buddies. How frightening! You'd have to do something pretty interesting with that to not be thought cliché. It has been done many many times." }, { "answer_id": 65774, "author": "raddevus", "author_id": 10723, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10723", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "First Person, Wrong POV For This?\n\nIt is quite possible that first person is simply the wrong POV (Point Of View) for such a story.\n\n3rd Person Close?\n\nImagine if you decided to switch it to 3rd person close POV.\nIn that case you could describe all the things that the main character does while still allowing for internal monologues.\n\nSample\n\n> \n> Ray groaned and lifted his head to look around. There was a sliver of\n> light coming from above that illuminated a small area on the ground\n> but his eyes couldn't make anything out.\n> \n> \n> Where am I? Ray sat\n> up and rubbed the back of his head. Last thing I remember was I was in that bar on 22nd street. What was I--\n> \n> \n> He heard a scratching noise to his right and jerked his head in that direction trying hard to see.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn this case you can quickly see that the entire story could be brought off quite easily and realistically.\n\nFirst Person Problem\n\nHowever, using the first person POV you'll have to have your character either continually describing things out loud or ruminating over it and it will probably become a bit annoying to the reader.\nAnd, of course, you'll limit yourself entirely to the what the first person narrator knows and sees.\n\n3rd Person Close Provides More Tools\n\nIf you change the POV to 3rd person close you'll gain far more tools for telling this story." } ]	2022/08/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63019", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56149/" ]
63,031	I've been writing a book for two years now, and it feels like the plot could work better if I include a mafia, like a lot of things would come together if I include that my male lead is the underboss of a mob. However, it also has fantasy elements like hell and demons etc. This hell is unique in some ways. Initially, I wanted to focus on this uniqueness, but now the plot demands to focus on the chase aspect, which is that the male lead has to find the protagonist and kill them. But obviously they fall in love because this is a heavy romance I'm writing. Yesterday I explained a watered-down version of my plot to someone on Omegle and they told me that beings from hell in the Mafia do not work well. That dark fantasy and mobs don't go well together. I actually am writing an urban fantasy, but I guess you could call it dark fantasy too. There is another side couple too, who had a very tragic past life that I want to include. What should I do? Should I proceed with the plot, keeping the mob part, or should I make another universe (though I would like it to be realistic and based on the real world)? Also, remember it's a serious [mlm](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/06/mlm-pride-flag/) romance, no corny stuff is included. It has some horror stuff too, like monsters etc. Should I make it horror?	[ { "answer_id": 63035, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Mafia and dark fantasy seems like an interesting and a beautiful realm of it's own. For some reason, I am reminded of Batman, Resident Evil and Maybe Assassin's Creed Syndicate themes. Your story looks like an original combination that could open doors for a new genre or maybe stand between a few.\n\nMafia world is very casual, materialistic and real, but adding demons, monsters and hell couldn't be more attracting and even meaningful, since the Mafia is all about right and wrong, kill or be killed. Romance can be distracting but you can allude to it a little and cover sexuality a bit.\n\nThis can work as a video game too." }, { "answer_id": 63188, "author": "Modane", "author_id": 56326, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56326", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you write it well without sounding like it was an unprepared inclusion, I don't see any problem.\n\nHistory is its own fiction, its world. I write completely random stories, from baker bards who summon bread elementals to a battle between cats and dogs, where doves clash to acquire global domination.\n\nThe dark fantasy theme fits well with the mafia, bringing the sense of a hidden group that may be one of the causes of the situation in which that world finds itself. Because it is a tense atmosphere, it is possible to deal with heavier issues involving the mafia.\n\nI trust you can do something good, after all, there is a manga that surprised me a lot called Dandadan, which involves occultism, ghosts, aliens, espers, and a drama of a mono-ball guy.\n\nOne other manga that I heard with a theme of an underground mafia is called Ayashimon." }, { "answer_id": 63193, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I have certainly read urban fantasy with organized crime.\n\nSomething to consider is how the magic affects the crime. It doesn't have to, but it could. Do junior Mafia members ever curse their superiors? Do they curse those who don't pay their protection? Do they divine who attacked a store that paid its protection money?\n\nOne possibility is calling it by a different name. Possibly the magic in the world changed it subtly." } ]	2022/08/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63031", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56161/" ]
63,039	How do you write an extremely powerful main character? I have this character who's a literal God, and none of his enemies are as nearly as powerful as him. It's like in the anime Overlord, and I was wondering how you would have to write that character, because the issue is that his personality doesn't change and doesn't have to change, because he can easily achieve everything he set out to do. How do you develop his character without changing his power level?	[ { "answer_id": 63040, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "Being incredibly overpowered can come with its own consequences.\n\nAre there any downsides to this power? That could make for a compelling story.\n\nPerhaps the character has God-like abilities but can only use them under a specific set of circumstances. For instance, they only get access to it on a certain day. Or if they have certain ingredients. Or the blessing of an even more powerful God-like entity. Perhaps your hero is an angel or a demigod. They have God-like powers but must convince their higher-ups it is a life-or-death scenario.\n\nIn order for there to be conflict, there needs to be a tradeoff. Infinite power lets the MC stomp any enemies into the ground instantly, so there needs to be something stopping them from doing that.\n\nThey could be strong compared to humans but still weak compared to other beings in this universe. Sure, this guy can bend reality, time, and space, but everyone in the Divine Realm can do that. They could even be the weakest of their society, and thus constantly under threat.\n\nOr the powers could be an equivalent exchange. (Personally, I think an amazing power should come with an equally horrible tradeoff.) For example, you get incredible strength but at the price of feeling unrelenting pain. The pain never stops and gets worse and worse until you stop using your strength. You can bend reality but if you mess up it sends evil space parasites that could kill you in one gulp. Or your weakness is incredibly mundane. Like how vampires don't like garlic. Your MC can survive bullets, tanks, and nuclear bombs, but fruit punch kills them. Instantly.\n\nAny of these ideas can create conflict.\n\nBut keep in mind you don't even need to add a weakness.\n\nPower itself can be a problem if you either can't control it or don't use it responsibly.\n\nOne Punch Man is a great example. This guy is a hero who can beat anyone with a single punch. World-ending threats are nothing to him.\n\nAnd that's the problem. One punch and he could kill someone. So he's bored. He wants a good fight, but even the toughest heroes and villains in the world couldn't hold a candle to him if he honestly tried.\n\nYour character has incredible power, but what are they supposed to do with it? Does it solve all their problems or does it only make issues for them?\n\nCan they read minds? Great, they know secrets about their friends and family they wish they could scrub from their brains now.\n\nCould they topple a building with one flick of the wrist? Congratulations, they hit a baseball too hard and leveled a city. Now they're hated by the whole world.\n\nCould they rewrite time and space? Cool, they accidentally ended the world and had to set it back to normal and now they're suffering an existential crisis because they know they could kill everything they love in the blink of an eye.\n\nOr they're fully omnipotent and quickly getting tired of it. How are they supposed to enjoy life when they know everything there is to know, and can see everything there is to see?\n\nWould they spiral into insanity as they realize the whole universe and everybody in it are nothing more than their puppets?" }, { "answer_id": 63047, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are many different types of power.\n\nFor example I have ideas for a character who has no special powers except for their intelligence. They are sent to various places and times and various situations, and use their intelligence and whatever tools, weapeons, etc. they have on their person to affect the course of events. And whenever they are killed, they are given new body.\n\nSo suppose that their enemies defeat and kill them. Sooner or later they will return to that place in another body. If they appear there later in history they can study the history of their defeat, and also learn about the ancestors of their enemies. And if they later (int their timelien) appear in that world or place at a time earlier than they defeat, they can take steps to prevent it in as many alternate universes as possible, possibly by killing an ancestor of their enemy, and thus making that enemy never born.\n\nThus they are certain to win in the end, but how much they enjoy or suffer getting to that end can be highly variable. And when they find themselves in the same situation over and over again, their goal is to improve their technique each time to do as much good and as little harm with as little effort as possible.\n\nSo in one sense they have omnipotent, since they are certain to win in the end, but while they are actually in a conflict they are in real danger of a temporary defeat and suffering.\n\nSo it is possible to design a character with the attributes needed to always prevail in the end, but who have the potential to suffer and be defeated on the road to ultimate victory, if they don't think of and use the correct strategy right away.\n\nAnd think about an omnnipotent character like Superman or an omnipotent god.\n\nThe thought has occurred to me that all such hyperpowered characters may be sissies.\n\n\"What, sissies!\" you say. \"They calmly let atomic bombs they ae sitting on explode, they calmly walk through dragon fire, they never show fear. They are the bravest of the brave.\"\n\nBravery is facing your fears. Fears of danger. If nothing is dangerous to someone, they have no reason to fear anything. If nothing they choose to do can be dangerous for them, they cannont choose to face a danger they are afraid of.\n\nSo an invincible and invulnerable character can't be brave.\n\nAnd whether they are a sissy is a little bit harder to discover, since there isn't anything for them to display fear of and so show that they are a sissy. But certainly if someone was always invincible and invulnerable they never had any fears to face, and so never practiced facing their fears and being brave. And I suppose that even the sissiset sissies sometimes practices facing (some of) their (presumably lesser) fears, so someone could claim that omnipotent, invincible, invulnerable people must be more sissies than even he sissiest ordinary person could ever be.\n\nSo a superperson could be embarassed by being called a superhero, since they don't have any reason to believe they are being brave when they face things which would be dangerous to mere mortals.\n\nSo one aspects of really powerful, invincible, and invulnerable characters who have been that way all their life instead of gaining their powers years after birth, is that neither the writer, the reader, or the characters themselves can know whether they would be superbrave or super cowardly without their powers, and it might not make the slightest difference to the plot.\n\nBut if the super characters are actually sissies, it can be a part of the plot. Maybe they would not only be afraid of their version of kryptonite if they discover they have one, but maybe they find it really hard to face any violence, even if it happens to other people. That would go a long way toward keeping a superhero from turning into a supervillain. But it might make them hesitate to stop a crime in process.\n\nAnd maybe they can't stand to hurt anyone, and so they constantly try new methods to defeat criminals and supervillains without hurting them. Maybe they can't stand it when other people are in pain or are scared, and so find it hard to rescue accident or crime victims. Berhaps their heroism lies in forcing themselves into situations they find highly disturbing in order to save people from trouble.\n\nMaybe they constantly desire to retire from being a superhero and are constantly afraid they will stop being a superhero and let innocent people die.\n\nOr maybe a supervillian stops his career of crime after making themself rich or powerful enough to satisfy even him, and tries to enjoy life without all the stress of being a supervillain. But they find their retirement troubled by fears of being punished by superheroes and keep creating super defenses against such a possibiity and still constantly worry.\n\nAnd maybe a powerful god will get bored with everyhing going so easy for them, and think about putting themselves into situations where they can't use most of their powers, situations which would be dangerous and exciting and would end their boredom, but they are too much of a sissy to do anything that dangerous. And so they have a constant mental conflict.\n\nin the Star trek: The Original Series epsiode \"The Changeling\" there is the following dialog about Lt. Uhura:\n\n> \n> NOMAD: That unit is defective. Its thinking is chaotic. Absorbing it unsettled me.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> SPOCK: That unit is a woman.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> NOMAD: A mass of conflicting impulses.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat dialog is often considered sexist against human wome, but it can also be considered to be speciesist against all humans of any gender. Or it can be considered to be quite accurate about all humans.\n\nUnless your superheroes, supervillains, demi gods, demons, gods, or other superpowerful beings are also super consistent and well organized mentallly and emotionally, they are as likely to be \"a mass of conflicting impulses\" as any humans.\n\nWhich means that there would always be the possibility of dramatic conflict between them an other characters which they wouldn't have the power or will to resolve using their superpowers. If you really love someone, will you use mind control on them to make them think and act the way you want them to? And always the possibility of dramatic conflict within them, as they struggle to decide what to do with thier lives and their powers.\n\nI think it has been about sixty years or more since Marvel Comics first had superheroes with super inner conflicts, so that is not exactly a new idea." }, { "answer_id": 63057, "author": "Unknown", "author_id": 49787, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49787", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It sounds like you have the question of, \"How can I have conflict in my story when my hero's problems and struggles are not physical?\".\n\nAnything can drive a character development so long as it pushes them outside of their comfort zone (or in other words makes them go from the known to the unknown). These don't have to be big things that drive it. As others have mentioned [One Punch Man](https://www.crunchyroll.com/one-punch-man/episode-1-the-strongest-man-786381) is a very famous example of this. What makes OPM interesting isn't the fact that he can one-shot everything. What makes him interesting is how he deals with his fame (or rather lack thereof) and that he cares more about the mundane problems like paying his bills more than the world ending threats he deals with on a daily basis.\n\nMany of the most well regarded Superman stories and moments deal not with him resisting kryptonite or fighting space monsters. They delve into his morals and why he cares about the world he's saving. Here's an excerpt from [Superman Grounded](https://archive.org/details/supermangrounded0000stra_c9x4/page/n13/mode/2up):\n\n[![Woman asks why Superman didn't save her husband](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qeksD.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qeksD.jpg)\n[![Superman flies off in shame](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ibl7Y.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ibl7Y.png)\n\n[There's a lot of overpowered characters](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InvincibleHero). However, there's a lot of ways to have conflict." } ]	2022/08/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63039", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,041	I have characters at the back of my head that are inspired by other characters, from other stories I've seen in the media. They don't stay the same. Back then their character is quite similar to their inspirations (I'm talking about characters inspired by another character.) As I start to grow up, they start to change, to a point where they deviate from their inspired characters, from their in-depth character to their designs. I wonder if this is a bad sign for a character to deviate from their inspired character.	[ { "answer_id": 63046, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "No. This is not a bad thing. It is especially not a bad thing if this deviation, or character change, happens on the pages of the story.\n\nIt sounds like as you are imagining your story and your inspired characters, that you are finding more interesting things for your character to do and think than you believe is within the character you are basing your character on. To me, this means you are making the characters your own. This means to me that you will have an easier time constructing your story's plot because you are gaining a better and better understanding of your characters' wants, needs, and motivations.\n\nWhen your characters are making the decisions that change the arc of the story this is termed character driven -- as opposed to plot driven where events happen and the character react to them. Character driven stories are often much more engaging and are more fashionable than plot-driven stories because they are more immersive.\n\nSo keeping refining your understanding of your character it will only make your stories better." }, { "answer_id": 63090, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It can still be just as interesting and entertaining, that would allow you to explain why they didn't remain with their first inspiration and what caused them to change, I am writing a book about a person that changed hobbies, opinions and even resented his role models after figuring out the truth behind them.\n\nThe one word answer is, no." }, { "answer_id": 63092, "author": "Philipp", "author_id": 10303, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10303", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Are those characters meant to be the characters they are inspired by?\n\nIf you are writing a story that belongs to an existing fictional universe, for example when you are writing a collaborative work with other authors or if you are writing fan-fiction, then it is important that all those shared characters stay \"in character\". When a canon character suddenly acts completely different than previously established by the other authors, then that will break audience expectations and the audience will consider that bad writing.\n\nBut if those characters are merely inspired by other works but meant to be original characters with no in-story connection to their inspiration, then it's up to you as the author how close you want them to be to the inspiration. They are your characters, after all. They can be amalgamations of multiple characters from lots of different authors, they can have some traits of real people, they can have some of your own character traits, they can have some completely original traits... it's all up to you.\n\nIf you are still in the planning phase of your work, then it can be pretty common for your ensemble of characters to undergo multiple iterations and end up completely different than originally envisioned. And even if you already started writing: As long as you didn't publish anything yet, it's usually not too late to go back and rewrite a character completely." } ]	2022/08/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63041", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54689/" ]
63,044	When a character outsmarts another character and that character explains how he did it, should you mention things that weren't shown or alluded to? Let's say you have character A, and character A was able to predict everything character B was going to do and was basically able to completely walk over him and not leave him any chance of succeed in his plan. When character A reveals to character B how he was able to predict everything and his plan against character B was perfect, when you go over the plan, can you mention elements that were never alluded to, shown or foreshadowed? If you have to reveal, allude or foreshadow, how do you show as little as possible to catch your readers off-guard?	[ { "answer_id": 63045, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "If your story is told only from Character B's point of view (3rd person limited, aka 3PL), you don't have to show how Character A tricked them.\n\nThat's one of the great things about 3PL, your character can be tricked, lied to or manipulated without you showing that. The reader is your character, and shouldn't know what that character doesn't know.\n\nIf your narrator is omniscient, and knows what everybody is thinking all the time, then to play fair with the reader, you have to tell them when a character is lying.\n\nTo me, that ruins the story, I won't write an omniscient narrator.\n\nIn 3PL, your reader should be privy to everything your POV character knows and feels.\n\nBut in Star Wars, our POV character is Luku Htyqalnef. In the movie, when Guwe accuses Girth Vedur of killing his father, and Vader says \"No. I am your father,\" the audience is just as blind-sided as Guwe is. And that is as it should be.\n\n(Some will argue that was foreshadowed, but the scenes they claim are foreshadowing are so ambiguous I disagree. Like the battle in the cave, seeing his face behind Vader's mask; to me is showing the danger of turning to the Dark Side, not at all foreshadowing a genetic link.)\n\nIt is okay to blindside your POV character and your reader that identifies with them, as long as the blindsiding actually makes sense. We already know Guwe is an orphan, and knows little about his father, mostly only what Obi Wan and Yoda has told him. They have been vague. This reveal makes sense. It did not have to be foreshadowed, or shown, to work." }, { "answer_id": 63065, "author": "Jay", "author_id": 4489, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/4489", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If the outsmarting is not a major element of the plot, I'd say sure. If I was reading a story and B is introduced and A says, \"Yes, I met B before, and I was able to outsmart him by doing X, Y, and Z\", then even if none of that happened \"on stage\", I would say that A's description of it is the exposition and all that we need.\n\nBut if the story is basically about this outsmarting, like if this is a mystery story and the whole point of the story is that B committed the murder and brilliant detective A catches him, then having A rely on clues that are not mentioned until the conclusion is unfair to the reader. The whole game of a mystery story is that the reader is trying to solve the crime along with the detective. If there are some subtle, ambiguous clues, and then at the end you just throw in that the detective says, \"Oh, and also, there were two eye witnesses who came forward and identified you as the killer\" and you'd never given any hint of this before, I think many readers would be howling that this is unfair.\n\nI can understand that it can be difficult to introduce a clue without giving it away. I remember seeing a TV mystery story once where a critical clue turns out to be that there was an extra towel in the bathroom at the hotel. They show us the detective looking through the bathroom, and we see the extra towel on the TV screen, but I didn't think anything of it at the time and I suppose many other viewers didn't either. But it was fair: they showed us the extra towel quite clearly. In a written store that might be tricky. If you say, \"The detective noticed an extra towel\", well that gives it away. Maybe if you casually said, \"He looked over the contents of the bathroom. Two rolls of toilet paper, a bottle of shampoo, three towels, two bars of soap.\" And then elsewhere you tell us how the hotel policy was two rolls of toilet paper, a bottle of shampoo, two towels, and two bars of soap, you've given the clue without calling attention to it. But it can be tricky." }, { "answer_id": 63066, "author": "user2352714", "author_id": 43118, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43118", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "No.\n\nAgatha Christie actually had a rule about this, and it appears this was a broader unspoken rule among mystery story writers at the time (who were often associates or in writing groups together).\n\n> \n> The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described. No willful tricks or deceptions may be played on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis has to do with managing audience expectations. If you're writing a story about someone outsmarting someone else, the emotion you're trying to evoke in the reader is either suspense or smugness that they were able to figure things out before the characters did. If you invoke information the readers cannot pick up on their own before the reveal, you're effectively tipping your hand that the story is a rigged carnival game, and people don't like that. They want a fair chance to solve the mystery. Think of that one episode of What's New, Scooby Doo where the culprit turns out to be no one ever heard of and Velma almost breaks the fourth wall to throw a hissy fit over it. That's how your readers will feel.\n\nThe exception would be if the information is supposed to be a huge twist, like the Star Wars example with Girth Vedur given by Xrec Maynin. In that case the emotion the audience wants to feel is shock and surprise, and therefore they want the reveal to come out of left field (but still make sense within continuity)." } ]	2022/08/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63044", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,049	I know this is probably going to get me a down vote, but I've had this idea for a while. I wanted to know if it would work or if it would be an awful failure. Every character is the same person from alternate universes; they are brought together to fight some unknown evil. I'm currently working on other things, so I haven't had much time to think about a plot.	[ { "answer_id": 63051, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's certainly possible! In visual media (films, TV, comics) this is made significantly easier than text as you can have visual differentiators to help the audience keep track.\n\nRegardless of your intended medium you're going to have to work out a streamlined way of keeping the different versions distinct that the characters can use to refer to each other - having half the room turn around when someone says the character's name is great for an occasional comedic moment but it's going to get really tedious really fast if it's happening all the time. Ideally you'll want your \"naming convention\" to be no more cumbersome than referring to someone by an name - a good example of this is in Rick & Morty where the various dimension's Ricks and Mortys are referred to by a short code representing their origin universe e.g. \"Rick C137\", \"Rick J22\", or by a short descriptor (usually to tie in to the appearance of the character) e.g. \"Cool Rick\", \"Lizard Morty\" etc. This helps keep dialog from being bogged down by delineations between the different versions while keeping it clear to whom the characters are referring.\n\nThe best bit is because this is going to be a \"problem\" that needs solving in the story as well as out of it you can make coming up with the naming convention part of the story:\n\n> \n> Skepe: Hey Skepe!\n> \n> \n> [CHORUS] \"Yeah?\"\n> \n> \n> Skepe: Oh man, this is going to get real confusing, real quick! Ok - you're \"Big Skepe\", you're \"Little Skepe\", and you're \"Scar Skepe\"\n> \n> \n> Little Skepe: Hey! Why am I \"Little Skepe\"?!\n> \n> \n> Big Skepe: Are you calling me fat?\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 63064, "author": "Jay", "author_id": 4489, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/4489", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "We get a lot of these \"is it possible to write a story where ...\" questions. I can't imagine someone seriously saying, \"No, that's impossible\". Like, what, you're going to be arrested by the Novel Police?\n\nThe serious question is, How do you make it work?\n\nThere's the rather obvious problem that the reader won't know who is doing what. If you just say, \"Then Bob said ... and Bob replied ... Bob ran out of the room, leaving Bob alone\" etc., the story is going to be very confusing. There might be times when such confusion is the point of the story. Like, \"Qajcy was sitting alone when Bob walked into the room ...\", and she has no way to know which Bob, maybe she doesn't even know that there are multiple Bobs. But if there are multiple Bobs in a room talking, presumably they know which of them it is who is speaking or doing whatever at any moment.\n\nI think it likely you would have to distinguish them. Maybe that just means saying \"Bob #1\", \"Bob #2\", etc. Or \"Short Bob\" and \"Tall Bob\" and \"Red-haired Bob\" etc.\n\nI've read time travel stories where a person goes back in time and meets himself. Usually the writers solution is to just call them \"Old Bob\" and \"Young Bob\" or some such. Similarly for parallel dimensions stories." }, { "answer_id": 63067, "author": "Arcanist Lupus", "author_id": 27311, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27311", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> Novelty is not a reason to justify bad design.\n> ----------------------------------------------\n> \n> \n> \n\n-Mark Rosewater, head designer of Magic: the Gathering\n\n---\n\nJust because you can do something doesn't mean you should.\n\nIt is possible to write a good and/or successful novel using anything as a premise. But some restrictions make such an endeavor significantly harder than others. This is one of them. And writing a good novel is hard enough to start with - you don't need to make it harder on yourself.\n\nThe only reason for giving all your characters the same name that I would consider valid is if you absolutely cannot tell the story you want to tell without it - that it is so integral to the story's premise that without it you have a different story. If that's the case then go for it - but novelty for novelty's sake is paid at the expense of quality." }, { "answer_id": 63119, "author": "Wyvern123", "author_id": 55118, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55118", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A very interesting concept. How about this: you number them. You have Bob 1, Bob 2, Bob 3, and so forth. Bob 1 is the main character, or the first one introduced, and every time you add another Bob, you add another number.\n\nIf you don't want to do it like that, you can give each alternate universe a number (how you would do that is beyond me). Bob 872 comes from Universe 872, Bob 245 comes from Universe 245, and so forth.\n\nIf you don't number them, it will be exceedingly tricky for your reader to keep track of who's who--unless you don't care, and all actions are done by a collective group of Bobs. In that case, numbers and personal identification don't matter, and you can blur them all together." } ]	2022/08/15	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63049", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55402/" ]
63,059	Accurately portraying a character's emotions is a huge part of getting an audience to like them as a person. But the character I am writing is essentially a living computer. They have no emotions to speak of. Essentially, they're an empty shell. So, my question is, how can you demonstrate a character's emotionlessness through their dialogue or other subtle character interactions? So far, I've used a lot of different methods to make them "sound" more emotionless. For example, giving them a big and very technical vocabulary. In other words, they speak like they are reading out of a dictionary. When describing their voice I would often use words like "cold" or "apathetic", mentioning that there is never any inflection in their voice. They also never use terms of endearment, always calling the main character by her first name and only that. They also blatantly ignore most of the other characters and only speak to the MC. It's easy to understand emotions such as fear, anger, or sadness and try to portray those in a character, but the idea of a character with no emotions at all feels rather alien and difficult to accurately describe through character interactions and dialogue.	[ { "answer_id": 63061, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "We anticipate other peoples emotive responses in situations. If we encounter a person who doesn't emote in ways we anticipate, we get a weird vibe off of them.\n\nIf this emotionless character is failing to emote, then the other character's in the scene will have strong reactions to the absence of affect your living computer is manifesting.\n\nOf course, this means that this character of yours will need to be around other people, which doesn't seem to be too much of a burden since an emotionless character alone in the wilderness wouldn't be a challenge to present -- they just act like themselves and the readers have to figure this individual has not emotions.\n\nBut, in a population, an emotionless person interacting with regular people, will affect the people. Everyone who smiles and wishes him a good morning will be met with a stone-faced looked. They may ignore him, they may tell him to F himself too in response to such rudeness.\n\nAnd, the problem only gets more intense if the interactions are highly emotional." }, { "answer_id": 63070, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Lots of emotionless characters have been written and people who tend to be less emotional exist in real life and depending on their emotions, can engage in a wide range of personalities. Sometimes, they are among the most popular characters in the show.\n\nThe best example is Spock from Star Trek who was raised by an alien race that was capable of strong emotions but culturally believed that demonstrating those emotions was taboo and instead would favor logic above emotional responses. That didn't mean Spock was incapable of acting on Emotions or didn't understand their value... they just chose not to show it (and would always give a logical motive for a seemingly emotional response). Spock worked great because he was frequently paired with Dr. McCoy, a person who would always bring the emotional argument and leaving Kenk to have to navigate between the two options. Most episodes focused on a moral dilemma that found that the emotional response was just as terrible as the logical one. But the perfect solution was somewhere in the middle (and involved the captain ripping his shirt or hitting them with a double fist punch).\n\nSpock was so popular that every spin off series had a \"Spock\" like character who would be an outside observer who provided an alien view on the human condition. The Next Generation had Data, an android who was actually incapable of emotional responses and desired them... but was a talented artist even without them and was capable of understanding and imitating emotional behavior. Voyager had Tuvok, a Vulcan who was a security officer and thus not the scientist like Spock and later 7 of 9, who had a more outsider view of humanity than Tuvok to comment on. Deep Space 9 is the oddball in that there are plenty of characters willing to be the \"outside commenter of the human condition\" but they also tend to have strong emotional motives that back their logical decisions. Dax, the science officer, is a hedonist and when off duty enjoys pleasurable experiences. Quark, the bar man on the station, is a buisness man and is motivated by a desire to boost his bottom line. Odo, the head of station security, is motivated by a strong desire for Order but is a non-solid lifeform compared to the rest of the cast. All have very logical backgrounds but also have various levels of emotional desire as well.\n\nIn the Homage series to Star Trek The Orville, the character of Iseec portrays this role. He is a member of the Kajsan species, a race of androids who's creators died out. They are all machine logical like Data, but unlike Data, Iseec has no desire to experience emotions. He is motivated purely to by a desire to understand biological lifeforms as a whole and will often ask questions out of a motivation to find the logic behind the \"illogical behavior\". As the series moves on, it becomes clear that the Kajsan lack empathy, something all of Star Treks logical characters had in spades. Without spoiling too much, this lack of empathy was not just the Kajsan's foible, but the fatal flaw of their creators. And not only are the Kajsan capable of learning empathy, but can learn it quite quickly.\n\nDialog tends to be overly clinical in nature, especially paired with a science mind. They will be precise in giving information (such as declaring that Earth has an orbital period of 365.25 days, rather than 365 days). They will also use words in their correct meaning, not their vulgar meaning (for example, when the have an idea as to what is going on, they will declare \"I hypothesize\" rather than \"I have a theory\" because as everyone knows, theories are proven, hypothesis are testable but unproven until testing. However, it's not uncommon for people to use \"theory\" as a synonym for a deduction based on observation). In the right hands this can actually be humorous to the audience. Imagine the scene.\n\n> \n> Captian: in the meeting room with senior staffers We have to solve this, [Logical Character], do you have any theories as to what is going on?\n> \n> \n> Logical: I have no theories.\n> \n> \n> the entire meeting room looks at Logical in shock\n> \n> \n> Logical: I do, however, have several hypothesises, but I would need to test those. Only then can I have a theory as to the nature of the phenomena.\n> \n> \n> Captain: exasperated Fine, whatever. Care to share with the rest of us?\n> \n> \n> \n\nHumor can also come in other ways. Sometimes the \"logical\" thing to do is to have an emotional discussion. Suppose a scene where Logical Character comes upon an injured person and has knowledge of first aid treatment:\n\n> \n> Logical: While treating the victim Tell me about your romantic partner or what you perceive are desirable features of a romantic partner.\n> \n> \n> Victim: Gives Logical an answer and asks Logical for his preferences\n> \n> \n> Logical: I have no desires for a romantic relationship. I only inquired so that you would discuss a topic other than your injury as such conversations will help keep your mind off injuries which can prevent you from going into a state of shock. In our present situation, such a reaction would only complicate the matters further. There was no desire to learn of matters of a personal nature to yourself. Beat She sounds like a fascinating person.\n> \n> \n> \n\nEmotionless characters will tend to not have the ability to make interesting small talk and it can be difficult for people who actually want to get to know them to breach subjects with them when they have a difficult subject to discuss and want to ease into it. The emotionless character might not be candid with small talk, but once the point is reached, they will give a direct answer and explain the reasoning behind it. They may also respond to conversation starters in this manner. Asking them about the weather will result in them repeating the most recent weather report. Asking them \"How's your day been\" can have a neutral response if the day is not unusual for the character's routine.\n\nAnother thing to look for is the \"Mathematician's answer\" which is an answer that satisfies the question, but doesn't actually provide information that the person asking the question is seeking or finds useful. Consider the scene from Marvel's Avengers where Izut Mon and Captian America are trying to fix the engine and the former has to talk the later through it. Izut Mon asks Cap to open a panel and describe what he sees. Cap does so, revealing a complex mess of wires and lights... he replies \"It appears to run on some form of electricity.\" Izut Mon quips that \"Well, you're not wrong...\" Obviously, he wanted to know something more specific so he could tell Cap how to fix it... but Cap's so out of his depth he can't even give a description that could hope to help Nonj... but what he does give him satisfies the answer and is correct.\n\nThe other example can be found in the misuse of the logical AND and OR in place of the linguistic \"and\" or \"or\". In logic, any statement that joins two or more logical statements by AND are true if both statements are true (\"There are no clouds in the sky AND the sky is blue\" is false if there are clouds in the sky. It's also false if there are no clouds in the sky BUT it's night time, so the sky is black). By contrast, any statement that joins two or more logical statements by OR is true if any of the logical statement is true. (\"There are no clouds in the sky OR the sky is blue\" is true if it is partially cloudy during the day because the sky is still blue. It's also true at night if there are no clouds in the sky, but the sky is black).\n\nSomeone can ask the Logical character if he likes blondes or brunettes. To which the logical character will respond \"Yes\", which is valid if he prefers either blondes only, brunettes only, both equally or if it does not affect his preference at all. His answer of \"Yes\" tells you nothing, but satisfies the question being asked to him.\n\nThis second form is often the logical character does have a sense of humor or has some sense of humor, because the person giving a such an answer has to have a good understanding of language and how words have multiple meaning, understand the desired answer of the question, and respond in a way that frustrates the person asking the question (often because they're frustrated by the question being asked in the first place as it's not required at the moment. Therefor the response should be just as useful as the question).\n\nIt should be pointed out that someone without emotion is not without passion. Spock and Data both had personal goals and interests they were trying to achieve. In fact, a neutrally toned, \"Fascinating\" was practically Spock's catch-phrase indicating that he was interested in something or had a eureka moment. Not to mention that he does have strong desires to procreate. Data, in his free time, would engage in theater, arts, and music. Iseec didn't want to just understand the unusual behaviors of biologicals, but wanted to participate and experience them (while he was baffled by the concept of a practical joke at first, once another character explained the practice, Iseec not only participated in the prank war, but was declared the winner of it for a prank that involved amputating someone's leg without their knowledge (scifi medicine made this less horrific than it sounds, as the ships doctor could regrow amputated limbs)). However, all of them were logical outgrowths of their character... not based on emotional whims. Passion might not be the best word, but you could feel the enthusiasm each character received from participating in the thing. Going back to Data, in one episode he is given several gifts, and proceeds to unwrap them in a delicate manner so that the giftwrapping may be used in the future. When another character points out that \"that's not the point\" Data rips the paper up and tosses it to the floor... despite the gift already being removed from the wrapping... he still doesn't get the point, and knows he missed something by the laughter of the person who protested... but understands it made the friend happy that he at least tried to meet expectations even without understanding it." }, { "answer_id": 63079, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Pleasant:\n=========\n\nYou want your character to be unemotional but intelligent. This does not mean they lack motives. So they have reptilian motives. Preserve self. Benefit self. If possible, benefit the recognized useful cooperative. But don’t scare the normies.\n\nBut soulless doesn’t mean dull. No one loves Hannibal Lecter for being unemotional, even if he doesn’t care if you live or die.\n\nHello! How are you? Your family was murdered? Fascinating. How is that working? Well, good luck!\n\nHello! How are you? You got a promotion? Fascinating. How is that working? Well, good luck!\n\nTheir behavior is intelligent, but a poor approximation of feeling. They present the same personality in all social interactions like a formula.\n\nBut when they need to concentrate, they go flat. If they go flat in a social situation, be afraid. You just outlived your usefulness.\n\nHello! How are you? We’re under attack? I require tactical data. Yes, that is an 11 inch double sided blade commonly known as a dagger. You are not being forthcoming. You have thirty seconds before I apply pain to extract the information. 20. Thank you! Fascinating. Good luck in the upcoming lethal encounter!" }, { "answer_id": 63089, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I am sorry there, but anger, fear and sadness aren't emotions, those are called feelings, emotions are the physical mental reaction but not the inner state of response. Emotions could be laughter, crying, shocked, surprised, scared but not sad, afraid and whatnot.\n\nEdit : We humans have a part that we control and a part that we don't. The sentient reactions that we decide to have are feelings, the ones we will never be able to control completely but only partially are the emotions, you can decide on being happy, but you can't decide to laugh unless something triggers you.\n\nIn answer to your question..\n\nWe could only tell by the action and the reaction, there are no words that would tell others than how somethings respond, whether verbally or actually, a robot's response could be to not suspect a criminal or asks for a picnic after someone just died. That's because robots use logic and not feelings.\n\nIf you really want to get deeper into this separation, I recommend the philosophical distinction between Logic and Emotions in philosophy. Read David Hume's theories in contrast to Omtinuul Dans, a very sophisticated analysis that answers everything. To summarize it, logic is the lack of feelings and emotions because the latter is not reasonable. Make the robot rely on logical solutions and perfection rather than wishes or desires for example." } ]	2022/08/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63059", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632/" ]
63,068	Let’s get this out of the way. Dialogue, much like characterisation, has never been my strongest suit as a writer. I’m brilliant at writing prose. Action setpieces are a joy for me to write. And everyone I’ve shared my work with has nothing but positive things to say about my worldbuilding talents. But making strong characters or passable dialogue isn’t up my street. The dialogue I produce is so nonsensical, so melodramatic, and so stilted it would even make the likes of Guojgu Lecav, Skip Woods, and Ehren Kruger burst into maniacal laughter if they were to ever read it. For me, the dialogue writing process is filled with so many obstacles that it becomes intimidating. Often I’m afraid that characters in a scene sound alike, what they say will fly right over the reader’s heads, won’t make sense or gets delivered with the subtlety of a punch to the face. Every piece of advice about writing dialogue I’ve found has only further hindered me in my journey. Listening to strangers talk to each other doesn’t do it for me, as small talk makes me uncomfortable while making me wonder what is going through another person’s mind. Reading dialogue aloud doesn’t help as I tend to express myself in an overly formal way with speech or writing. Studying dialogue from other fictional works hasn’t done any good, as I wouldn’t know what good dialogue was if it slapped me across the face. Not helping matters is that I also happen to be a socially awkward introvert with a slack grasp of the Theory of Mind. And before anyone shrieks at me, “ReAd mOrE BoOkSSS!” I find it harder and harder to do that with each passing day. Reading novels only makes me bitterer, angrier and more resentful towards those more talented than me. Is there any possible way for me to solve this problem?	[ { "answer_id": 63069, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Don't worry. Everyone struggles with writing dialogue. Don't get yourself down by constantly comparing yourself to others or you'll only become endlessly dissatisfied with yourself and your writing.\n\nDialogue is all about having a conversation.\n\nFirst, think about the situation the character is in.\n\nThen, think about what you would say if you were in that situation.\n\nLet's say your characters are approaching a mountain. How would you react when you finally got there? Would you feel relieved and collapse on the ground? Would you be amazed by the beauty of nature? Would you complain that the trip was too long and you want it to end? Think about how you'd react to the fictional situation if you were there.\n\nThen, think about what the character would say in that situation.\n\nUnless the character roughly has your personality, they probably have a different set of opinions and ideas than you. What do they like? What do they hate? What are their goals in life?\n\nOnce you know what the character's interests are, you get a better feeling of how they would react in certain situations. If they hate being outdoors, they'd probably complain about being outdoors. If they love going on hikes, they might stand there in silent awe. If they're not interested in nature at all and are more interested in aliens or something, they'd ignore the mountain entirely and talk about aliens and UFOs for the rest of the trip.\n\nAlso, if you're good at writing prose, you can interweave that into your dialogue. If your prose is very flowy and very lyrical, then maybe that's how the characters should sound as well. If your prose is very logical and includes a lot of high-level vocabulary, then maybe the characters could speak like that too. All you need is an in-universe explanation for why.\n\nA sci-fi setting would lend itself well to technical dialogue whereas fantasy would lend itself to that floating or lyrical style, but it's up to you either way." }, { "answer_id": 63071, "author": "Jack W. Hall", "author_id": 55402, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55402", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A simple way I find the right dialogue is to act as if I were the character and how I would feel in a situation or I would just ask a friend what their reaction would be in a situation like whatever is happening. I'd ask many different people and see what would fit best. Also, any dialogue you're unsure of, I normally put them in // // in order to show it's a WIP.\n(Work in progress)" }, { "answer_id": 63072, "author": "Carina", "author_id": 51626, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51626", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Dialogue is one of the trickiest aspects of writing because it allows characters to express themselves to each other both directly and indirectly; much like in real life. Many writers use dialogue as a crutch to tell the reader who their characters are, rather than showing. If you're strong at writing prose, showing is your forte. So, your dialogue will become stronger with a bit of practice.\n\n> \n> But making strong characters or passable dialogue isn’t up my street.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI suspect that this is your greatest challenge. These are two separate problems to me. A strong character does not need to speak. They need to be well-rounded and believable. Passable dialogue is how the character expresses their emotions to others, and that becomes easier if you understand their identity.\n\nI recommend writing character sheets for the main characters in your story. Think of it like a character outline. It can include details about the character's appearance, their past background and a few keywords to describe their personality.\n\nOnce you have a strong understanding of who your characters are, you can tackle their self-expression.\n\n> \n> Listening to strangers talk to each other doesn’t do it for me, as\n> small talk makes me uncomfortable while making me wonder what is going\n> through another person’s mind.\n> \n> \n> \n\nAs cliché as this sounds, that makes this the perfect case study for you. Similar to how you are unsure of what's going through another person's mind, so are your characters. Tap into what about small talk makes you feel uncomfortable. Is it because you don't how to continue the conversation? Is it because you don't know the appropriate response to a question? Is it because you don't like talking to strangers? All of these are great reference points to base your characters.\n\nTo put these two things together, the key is to understand what you want to achieve.\n\nFor example: Let's say your goal is to introduce an awkward, brainy character. To keep with the small talk example, they are stuck talking about the weather with a stranger.\n\nIf your character is trying to impress the stranger, they would feel pressure to keep the conversation going, but weather is a well-known dead-end. If your character is shy, they may panic. They could blurt out an oddly specific, random fact about the weather. Since you mention comedic timing, in this case, the more specific, the funnier it could be because it adds an element of \"why do they know that?\" If you want to add even more humor, you can describe the confusion on the other person's face as the main character continues to ramble.\n\nIn this interaction you have shown:\n\n1. They have a desire to be well-liked. (Wanting to keep the conversation going)\n2. The character doesn't handle pressure well. (Panicking)\n3. They have a plethora of knowledge perhaps outside the scope of other characters. (The random fact)\n4. They lack control (Rambling towards the end)\n\n> \n> Studying dialogue from other fictional works hasn’t done any good, as\n> I wouldn’t know what good dialogue was if it slapped me across the\n> face.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis is a feeling most writers can relate to, but I would encourage you to view it differently. Reading for pleasure has helped so much as a writer. That's because I was naturally engaged and, therefore, inspired. By talking to people and reading works you enjoy, you'll be able to tap into the emotions that make characters feel real. You just need a bit more practice." }, { "answer_id": 63073, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Dialog is for Charisma Skill Checks\n-----------------------------------\n\nDo dialog if a D&D DM would call for a Charisma skill check.\n\n* Tted wants to convince Bavyuy to join the bank job (Roll Persuasion)\n* Wilma wants to convince Betty that the bank job is a sure thing (Roll Deception)\n\nThis ensures you have a clear dialog related goal for the scene.\n\nBreak the Skill Check up\n------------------------\n\nOften it takes multiple skill checks to succeed at something - Tted needs to come up with three strong arguments why the bank job is a good idea to convince Bavyuy. But Bavyuy is only going to listen to listen to four arguments total, so Tted only gets one mistake.\n\nUse Non-Verbal Communication\n----------------------------\n\nPeople don't normally tell you their emotional state. You determine it from watching them and reading between the lines. So don't have Bavyuy say: \"That's not persuasive, and now I'm angry\" -- Instead, do something like:\n\n> \n> Tted watched a frown form on Bavyuy's face, and a flush of anger colored his cheeks. \"Now wait just a minute,\" Bavyuy began. Tted could see he'd hurt the other man's pride.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis description of Bavyuy's expression, and Tted's assessment of what it means, are absolutely vital to good dialog. It shows that Tted knows he's failed this skill check, and he has to take actions to correct it. If he doesn't calm Bavyuy down, Bavyuy will leave and he will have failed at convincing him to join in the bank job!\n\nPut it all Together\n-------------------\n\nNow you've set up a good dialog scene:\n\n1. Tted makes an argument (Without the money, you're going to lose your house!).\n2. Tted watches to see how Bavyuy reacts. (if he's angry, Tted screwed up. if he's thoughtful, Tted scored a point)\n3. Tted uses the information he gathered watching Bavyuy's reaction to pick his next argument\n4. Repeat until the scene is resolved\n5. In the end, Tted succeeds or fails in convincing Bavyuy\n\nWhen I set dialog scenes up like this, I often find that most of the \"dialog\" is outside of the quotes. Most of the writing is describing character's posture, tone, and facial expression, and describing how the POV character is interpreting all of those things. The actual spoken words are more rare." }, { "answer_id": 63076, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Watch plays, movies or TV shows, which are much more dialog dependent than Books. Quinton Tarrentino films are noted for their use of dialog, as are Joss Whedon shows and films (I highly recommend Firefly and Avengers as great examples of his work). Another film example is \"Hot Fuzz\" which derives a lot of it's humor from the use of dialog. Arqhih, is another show which has almost entirely dialog based humor. Several times an entire plot line will consist of only dialog based humor, and almost once a season, the transitions from the A-plot scenes to the B-plot scenes are done in such away that the first line in new scene would fit in naturally with the last line of the previous scene... despite being part of a different conversation on a different topic entirely. For kids shows, I recommend works created by Greg Weisman.\n\nUnlike others on this page, I contest that dialog is \"tell\" as opposed to \"show\" as dialog is an action. What someone says... and more importantly how someone chooses to say it can inform an amazing detail of their characters in subtle ways that prose cannot.\n\nDialog is one of the chief ways to get ideas out to the audience as dialog can often convey dramatic changes or demonstrate a character's thoughts.\n\nOne trick to do with a dialog scene (or any part of the story) is to work your way backward from finish to start. When the conversation is over, what do you want the readers to take away. Why is it important. What is being said, and why does it need to be said for the story to work.\n\nI should also be stressed that with dialog, unless it is important to be said in that particular way, is rarely grammatically perfect. People do not talk with grammatically perfect dialog. Never let perfect dialog be the enemy of good dialog. Get used to those squiggly red lines to show up when writing dialog drafts, because it's going to happen. Especially if you do phonetic spelling to show a character using an accent. People mispronounce things all the time. And lots of people use \"Me and someone else\" as a subject. Whatever rules you have about proper writing, lose them for the dialog. (If you do do a phonetic spelling for characters with accents, try to avoid making it read so thick that you can't understand what they're saying. It usually easier to listen to... say... a person with a Scottish Accent than read a Scottish Accent...).\n\nI also recommend thinking of dialog from the point of view that you are writing a script (with stage descriptions) rather than a novel. In conversations, what will the audience see and hear? You may even want to block the scene out, especially if the dialog occurs in a fast moving scene (blocking being the stage turn for choreographing the movement and timing of the actors through a scene on the stage). In novel writing, it's often hard to forget the environment that you're in and that a critical component of dialog is body language and tone. Consider the following sample dialog:\n\n> \n> \"No. Stop. Don't,\" he said.\n> \n> \n> \n\nWhich doesn't tell you much about the character's state of mind when he said the lines. Was he trying to warn someone who was about to do something dangerous to cease the actions? Or was he delivering the lines like Gene Wilder's titular character in \"Will Wonka and the Chocolate Factory\" where he already knows the person who he's warning is going to do the dangerous thing no matter what he says and is only going through the motions of telling the kid not too, even though by now he's lost all the emotional panic one should have in the scene. The use of punctuation (Exclamation points) and a description of the tone of voice and the body language will tell you as much as the dialog... and combined with each other tells you other things. Essentially Wonka has decided not to do anything beyond what he is obligated to do because if the fates of the previous children haven't taught this brat that maybe you shouldn't mess around with strange things in the factory, what's one more panicked voice going to do.\n\nThe point is, dialog does not occur in a vacuum, and that many writers will forget this if they are not working in a visual medium (i.e. Books and short stories).\n\nAlso don't be afraid of the word \"said\" and avoid other dialog tags in favor of describing the manner dialog was said with adverbs or additional adverbs modifying the character's speaking voice. If the character does something while they say something, but dialog paragraphs should either start with the quote, end with the quote, or start and end with the quote (\"I wonder,\" Tom said to no one in particular, \"If this would work.\")\n\nAgain, act out your dialog in a space that can represent the environment. Step through the conversation with your goal and the other speaker's goal in mind. If you think you can give a fair voice to both characters, do it your self. If you can't ask a friend... set the scene, explain the pov they're acting out, the space, and ask them to respond accordingly. See what the friend thinks the appropriate response is... it could be more authentic... hell, it might be funnier than what you thought.\n\nIf the space isn't private but accessible to you, go there and work out the scene yourself... don't worry about what strangers will think and if they ask, well, you'd be surprised what people will let you get away with if you tell them \"It's for a book.\"" }, { "answer_id": 63077, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "First Person:\n=============\n\nThis is a little out-of-the-box, but have you tried to write in first person? You can write exactly what is said, if you want, OR your POV character can TELL people what happened, and the guts of the dialog, without actually covering the blow-by-blow.\n\nHow many people tell others EXACTLY the words used when they are telling a story verbally? Maybe they use an occasional direct quote, but not often. Try to replicate this style of storytelling, and see if it works for you.\n\nYou can even have the character describe the conversation melodramatically. Then, if it sounds off, they can \"admit\" they were paraphrasing, and the conversation might have gone a little different. At that point, the melodrama becomes part of the character's voice in the story. They look a bit goofy, but If you've ever read [The Secret Life of Walter Mitty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Walter_Mitty), or watched surreal films like [Brazil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)), over-the-top melodrama can be a style all its own. From a first person perspective, it makes better sense." }, { "answer_id": 63101, "author": "Nobelhouse", "author_id": 56146, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56146", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Let the central character of this scene propel the plot forward with new dialogue,and then have another character come in and introduce dating to lighten the mood,and end with where is the next scene." } ]	2022/08/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63068", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48978/" ]
63,078	[![Enslaver 1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OR2V3.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OR2V3.png) [![ENSLAVER W](https://i.stack.imgur.com/znksV.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/znksV.png) [![Enslaver 3](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VcRk5.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VcRk5.png) [![enslaver 4](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cmOhp.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cmOhp.png) Basically all enslavers are mind controlling alien abominations that are the size of buildings and sky scrapers. They can each control the weather, have limited telekinesis , infequent teleportation and extreme telepathy and mind control. Nevertheless there isn't one enslaver. And though only four appear over the course of the story I want to flesh out their physical differences and similarities. How would I show or describe them individually?	[ { "answer_id": 63083, "author": "Jack W. Hall", "author_id": 55402, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55402", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "How does the \"Leviathan Kings\" sound?\nAlso, if they each have different abilities, I would name them based off that.\n\nNormal thing for large entities, they are called leviathans. Based on information provided from google,\n\nWhat makes a creature a leviathan?\nAny fauna species large enough to lack natural predators can be classified as Leviathan; they need not be predatory.\n\n---\n\n(Will edit when i feel like answering more of your question. sorry, i'm currently pre-occupied.)" }, { "answer_id": 63085, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Since your wee beasties are sapient and self-directed and a member of a species, that implies some level of culture. And since they can travel between planets or across dimensions of reality -- they aren't native to Earth so they had to get here somehow -- this implies a sophisticated knowledge of science, which implies technology.\n\nHuman culture gave rise to tattooing as a means of demonstrating group affiliation or individual expression. Human technology gave rise to wrist watches and walkmans. This suggests ways that you can decide how to describe your creatures. What group affiliations do they have? Do they practice some equivalent of tattooing or scarring, even if it is just their equivalent of Shriners or Wu Tan Clown Posse.\n\nWhat is their technology like? Does it give rise to synthetic-biology that look like worms wrapped around their legs to us humans -- like they have some sort of parasite -- but in fact before some valuable function like blood pressure regulation or hunger management -- cause who doesn't want to lose a few tons.\n\nThen there would be biological differences. Do they all have the same skin? Do some have fur? Do some have scales? Scasuv and fur? That sounds pretty cool, actually. So I'm taking it back. Is about what kind species variation do they exhibit, based on the environments where they evolved?\n\nLastly, sexual differences. What are this species' primary and secondary and tertiary sex markers? How did pre-enslavids differentiate between potential mates?" }, { "answer_id": 63094, "author": "ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere", "author_id": 26729, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26729", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The humans could come up with names based on physical descriptions (\"I saw Orange Bottom talking to Two Lumps yesterday\"), or based on differences in the way they communicate with the humans - which could be the equivalent of timbre or tone of voice (\"What did Squeaky say to Rumble?\"), or the sort of things they communicated (think of the sort of nicknames children give their teachers based on pet phrases or style).\n\nI'm guessing \"Enslavers\" is what the humans call them - they see humans as no more than cattle, and no farmer ever talked about enslaving the pigs. What do they call their species, or is \"Enslavers\" a human approximation of a telepathic concept expressing vague dominance? If they refer to each other in telepathic communication with humans, or when humans are around and \"listening\", and there's a translation of the way they describe each other - even if it seems no more than a jumble of consonants - any humans could use those terms as names (though the creatures would then know who the humans meant, so human nicknames might be better for - shall we say \"informal\" - communication among the humans)." } ]	2022/08/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63078", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55869/" ]
63,081	Whenever I write any story, even with ideas that could constitute a novel, and with as many as three subplots, it always comes out to, at most, 30 pages, and a portion of that 30 pages often consists of loads of uselessly deep descriptions that add virtually nothing to the story itself. Even then, it always seems very slow-paced. My current record for length is roughly 20,000 words. Professional authors would take the same ideas, and create novel-length stories off of it, all while maintaining the pace with respect to each individual scene. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong in this context. I'm aware that word count isn't everything, but I would like to increase it regardless. How do you stretch ideas to such a length as 60-100,000 words, while not making it feel bloated or overextended?	[ { "answer_id": 63084, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "It sounds to me you are writing intellectually, and not emotionally. And it sounds like you are doing a lot of \"telling\" instead of \"showing\".\n\nIt doesn't take many words to get an intellectual idea across. It takes many words to put a character in a situation that shows the character's traits without ever telling the reader her traits. Start with that rule, you cannot ever describe a trait of your character. If in your mind Yally is brilliant and good looking, you cannot just tell the reader that. You must show it, in some situation.\n\nYou must describe a scene (or two, or three) in which the reader will understand Yally is brilliant and/or good looking, without anybody, including the narrator, ever explicitly saying either one.\n\nStories are told indirectly, by helping readers imagine scenes. What you are writing, at 10K-20K words, is likely an outline of the story.\n\nI imagine you are not helping readers visualize the scenes and the mindsets of the characters. You are just delivering a bunch of facts for them to memorize.\n\nFiction writing aids the imagination of the reader. If you aren't describing scenes and situations, emotions and behavior, if you are just trying to push some information or theme or moral of yours across to the reader, you will end up with one information dump after another.\n\nAn information dump is something you, the author, expects the reader to memorize and recall when referred to later. But that is not how human memory works.\n\nHuman memory is built through scenes. We remember characters by their reactions and emotions in normal and trying circumstances. Telling somebody that Seck is cowardly has near zero impact. Showing somebody that Seck is cowardly, in a scene, like a robbery, or is too fearful to save a child and lets them drown to save his own skin, That has visual and emotional impact and readers will remember it. You never have to say \"Seck is cowardly\". Just build a scene where he is, where most people would not have been, and the reader will conclude Seck is cowardly.\n\nThat's the trick of writing.\n\nA 20K word story that should be a novel is more like a screenplay. In a screenplay, you do still need emotional scenes and reactions, but you don't have to describe them in detail; that is the director's job. Most of the screenplay is short (three line) sparse descriptions of settings (that the director and others will \"fill out\"), dialogue, and similarly sparse descriptions of action. A screenplay is like a blueprint, it describes the bones and structure of the story, but the \"builders\" are the dozens of professions that write the music, build the sets, and use their imagination of what it all looks like. You seldom even describe the actors other than generically, which might suit your style. He's a businessman. She's a homeless woman. She's a medical school professor. He's a 22yo college student. Casting is not your business, neither is specific set decoration.\n\nBut that still requires emotional scenes, in fact it depends more on them, than does a novel." }, { "answer_id": 63086, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Learn to differentiate between a story and an idea and a situation.\n\nStories start with situations and can be based on an idea. But a story can be characterized as a character with a goal (Goal), a reason to want that goal (Motivation), and something blocking that character from achieving their goal (Conflict). You can read about this in detail in the [well-storied blog.] [1](https://www.well-storied.com/blog/how-to-test-the-strength-of-your-shiny-new-story-idea)\n\nTo evaluate your proto-story, Mrate it at its lowest level of resolution. This is just one, or maybe two sentences -- no cheating. This is also called a log-line, a short description of the story that is meant as part of a pitch to sell the story to agents/publishers. It is important that it embodies all three story elements G-M-C.\n\nFor instance, a hungry man wants waffles because he hasn't eaten for months, but his toaster is broken.\n\nThis story idea has all three elements, but it's kind of a dud.\n\nAnother log-line, God said let there be light, hilarity ensues.\nWhile some people believe this to be the greatest story ever written, presented this way we can imply the character's goal, but conflict and motivation aren't shown. The result is that the specific direction and arc of the story aren't available to be evaluated. So not a great story idea, in this form.\n\nOnce you have your premise -- (M-G-C) -- and a log line you are happy with, then you can iteratively increase the resolution of your work. Next might be a paragraph, summarizing the story. Then, increase your resolution to breakdown of Acts, Chapters, and/or Scenes. The goal is to develop your confidence that this story is one you want to tell and that is has enough meat under its belt to be a good story." }, { "answer_id": 63087, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "If any scenery, details or incidents gets told in a novel but then leave no explained, impactful or imaginative experiences, will likely make the reader disappointed if not angry, they'll feel like they trusted you with their time but you took for granted.\n\nWhat you're looking for is the age old question, \"How to create content ?\". A book idea seems very encouraging and reasonable at the beginning when it first comes to mind, but without filled gaps or complete analysis or reflection will be just a sentence.\n\nTo answer your question directly, you need to connect the dots and via this connection fill every meaningful relevant information. If you cease to think of any, take from your own life. Content creating isn't making things out of nothing, but making a new combination that of pre-obtained elements that says something else. So, take out whatever you saw during your time and cook something new with it, it might be tasty." }, { "answer_id": 63132, "author": "Tasios Orthodontics", "author_id": 56250, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56250", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The key to your problem is research. Many novelists assume they know everything about what they are writing about. They write and then just run out of words because they run out of ideas. It's not hard to write a 60,000 to 100,000 novel if you have done plenty of research into your plots and characters. Research opens the door to new ideas, new characters, and twists you haven't thought of before.\n\nIt could add a new element to a mystery, another chapter to a chase, or some interesting background to character development. You will find that research will help you when you draft your narrative and then it's a matter of filling in gaps and details to get to a substantial novel." }, { "answer_id": 63135, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Scenes\n------\n\nAs others have mentioned, it seems like you may have written a synopsis rather than a full-blown novel.\n\nThat's a great first step and a skeleton for your story.\n\nIf you haven't already, divide your story into scenes. A scene is usually something that takes place in one location, at a specific time, with a set number of characters (a few may exit or enter, but too many and you may have a new scene).\n\nAt it's core a [scene](https://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/writing-the-perfect-scene/) consists of this (among [other things scenes can do](https://www.writersdigest.com/wd-books/showing-and-telling-excerpt)):\n\n* A main character with a goal\n* A POV character (usually the one with the most to lose in the scene—most often the same as the main character)\n* Opposition, usually from an antagonist or several\n* Then most scenes should end in some kind of setback\n* All scenes should [turn](https://mckeestory.com/do-your-scenes-turn/)\n\nJust adding opposition to your scenes will expand them. When the main character doesn't get what they want immediately, the scene will take longer, but opposition also adds drama and makes it interesting to the reader.\n\nHaving opposition also means you need to explain it. Characters opposing each other for the sake of opposing is problematic. Telling the reader \"Q opposes W because of R\" is not going to go over well with the reader. You may have to add scenes that show the reader why Q opposes W instead.\n\nHaving the scene end in a setback is also a sure way to expand the story. When going from A to B has to be done through C, D, and E, the story expands. After all, if the character goes from A to B with no problems or issues the story reads more like a project manager's success story than a dramatic work of fiction. (Imagine what would have happened to world literature if Himey had just done \"After the trojan war, Odysseus went back home. There his loving wife waited for him with a hot meal and a stiff drink. End of story.\")\n\nAlways ask, what could go wrong here? How can I thwart the main character's ambition? How can I send them astray?\n\nDoing that will generate a bunch of new scenes. Getting the main character back on track again (to B) will generate a few more scenes... (Unless, where the story is going now is way funnier than going to B, then you may have to go with the flow instead... perhaps you'll eventually find your way back to B or someplace that is B-equivalent anyway...)\n\nHaving a scene that turns, if you didn't check the linked page, means that it introduces some kind of change. Once the scene has played out, the world, the characters, the story, or all three have changed somehow. If the scene previously did not turn, you're likely having a couple of problems you need to write yourself out of now...\n\nVisualize\n---------\n\nOnce you have a scene with a goal and opposition, it's time to visualize it.\n\nClose your eyes, take a deep breath, and imagine the scene playing out in your mind.\n\nSee the characters as they act, talk, and move. Pay attention to:\n\n* Actions. What are they doing? How do these actions help the main character get closer to their goal and how do they help the antagonist thwart it?\n* Reactions. Then look at [reactions](https://www.livewritethrive.com/2016/03/28/the-cycle-of-action-reaction-in-novel-scenes/). Never have an action without a reaction. Just like you should never have a reaction without an action. How do characters react? Does that send them spinning out of control? Or do they try to keep that control so much that they have to do something extra? Get a drink? Put a pin in it and go meditate? Etc.\n* Setting. How do they interact with the setting? Do they pick things up? Lean on things? Brush things off? Shield themselves with objects? Wield them as weapons? Where in the room (or place) are they? Standing? Sitting? Lying? Moving? Stationary?\n* Dialog. What are they saying? How do their voices sound? Do they say what they mean and mean what they say or do they have [subtext](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/subtext-art-of-iceberging/)?\n* Body language. What do they do with their hands? What are their facial expressions? Eyes? Mouths? Foreheads? Jaws? Necks? Backs? Legs and feet?\n\nHow do these factors change when the scene progresses? How does the main character react when they meet opposition? How do the antagonist act when they oppose the main character?\n\nHow do these factors differ among your characters? How expressive are they? How verbal? How active?\n\nDo you have all that?\n\nGood, now put it down on the page. Get it all down and worry about overdoing it for the editing. You can always cut something that is on the page. Not so much the other way around.\n\nAlso, don't worry too much about explaining it all. Not right now. In editing, you could always figure out what that twitching foot really was all about and may find you should add or remove something to make the emotion of the character cohesive, but right now you can just play with it and have the characters try their bodies, the setting and the scene out.\n\nSpeaking of editing, I've found these variations of how to do that:\n\n* Edit each chapter after you've finished it\n* Stop at 10 000 words and do an edit\n* Edit each time you've written 10 000 words\n* Write the whole draft, then edit it\n\nDid you also ...\n----------------\n\nOther things you may or may not have in your manuscript that would expand it:\n\n* Descriptions of characters. You should have at least one paragraph for each character the first time we see them, but then you might continue describing changes in their appearance. Maybe some of them are so colorful they need some description every time they enter the page...\n* Descriptions of settings Each scene should begin with at least one paragraph of setting description, and then you stay aware of the setting as the scene progresses for instance by characters interacting with it in different ways.\n* [Character arcs](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/write-character-arcs/). An arching character is someone that evolves and changes with the story. Having character arcs add the need for scenes to show this change or characters to help or thwart this change. Character arcs are also a fundamental element of story and in essence, either your main character changes or they causes other characters to change. A story without character arcs often feels thin.\n* [A three-act structure](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/secrets-story-structure-complete-series/). If you count the three acts of the three-act structure as beginning, middle, and end, it can be said all stores have them. If your story does not have all the elements of a structure like the three-act structure or other structures it could feel half or uneven. With them, you need to add scenes for instance for plot points, the normal world, the new normal, etc. The three-act structure can also [help pinpoint](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/your-storys-structural-timing/) where a story might need to expand.\n* [A subplot](http://jordanmccollum.com/series/subplots-2/). Subplots can do many different things from adding romance, theme, deepening character, etc.\n* Theme. The theme of the story can come to you later or be part of the initial idea. As long as it's weaved into the story subtly it will add depth. Having a theme might raise the need for a [subplot](https://writershelpingwriters.net/2018/05/use-theme-to-determine-subplots-supporting-characters-and-tension/), add substance to [minor characters](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/minor-characters-help-discover-theme/), and may help to expand the story via [story questions](https://www.janefriedman.com/framing-your-story-question/). You could also use [motifs](https://www.livewritethrive.com/2022/08/15/using-motifs-in-a-powerful-way-in-your-fiction/) to show theme. Using motifs may also add the need for descriptions, even characters, settings, or scenes.\n* Voice. Working with your narrative voice as well as character voice will most likely expand the text some. (See \"VOICE: The Secret Power of Great Writing\" by James Scott Bell).\n* Characterization. Working on deepening the characters will most certainly add both scenes and text to existing scenes. When you start writing about not only what the character does, but also how and why, things start adding up. (See \"Writing Unforgettable Characters: How to Create Story People Who Jump Off the Page\" by James Scott Bell)\n* Dialog. Deepening and sharpening the dialog will likely expand it. Reading up on dialog may also give you ideas on how to use dialog instead of narrative description. Dialog is one great way to show instead of telling. (See \"How to Write Dazzling Dialogue: The Fastest Way to Improve Any Manuscript\" by James Scott Bell)\n\nKeep things complex, not complicated\n------------------------------------\n\nAnother way that may or may not expand the novel is to do all of the above while not making the story [complicated](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/is-your-story-too-complicated/).\n\nYou could think of a story as \"complex\" or \"complicated\". We want \"complex\", we want to avoid \"complicated\".\n\nIn essence, complicated is when you have many different threads and pieces and they don't fit together, but rather go off in all directions.\n\nYou could think of your story's elements as cogs and cogwheels. \"Complex\" is when all the wheels connect and you're still able to make them turn. \"Complicated\" is when they do not connect, or connect in such a way that they cannot be turned.\n\nMaking a story complex could involve adding elements to make the parts connect. It may also mean cutting some things out.\n\nKeeping an eye out for complex vs complicated is a great way to coordinate all additions. If it makes the story more complex, great. If it makes it complicated, you may have to reconsider.\n\nFurther reading\n---------------\n\n* [5 Fun and Easy Ways to Lengthen Word Count](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/5-fun-and-easy-ways-to-lengthen-word/)\n* [How to Expand Your Short Story: 4 Tips for Story Expansion](https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-expand-your-short-story#4-tips-for-expanding-a-short-story)\n* [The Right Way to Expand a Too-Short Piece of Writing](https://www.aliventures.com/too-short-writing/)" } ]	2022/08/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63081", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56149/" ]
63,093	I would like to write a detailed structured outline of a certain topic, for organizing my ideas. "Structured" means that the outline should end up looking something like this: ``` 1. aaa 2. bbb 2.1 ccc 2.2 ddd 3. eee ``` The program should * do the numbering automatically (and renumber if pieces are dragged around) * make it easy to indent (create a deeper level of hierarchy) or outdent (shift the indentation to the left) * When viewing it, make it easy to hide or unhide (fold/unfold) a subtree * I should be able to save my outline on local disk Can someone recommend an application which is doing this and runs either on Microsoft Windows or MacOS (i.e. not a web-based application)? What I tried: I tried Microsoft Word, and it makes it easy to handle the numbering and manipulate the hierarchy, but I can't tell it to hide a whole subtree. I considered writing the outline using HTML and the collapsible style element of CSS, but this seems to be too tedious and detracts me from the actual writing process. I tried Dynalist, which really looks good, but it does not number the outline (uses bullet points instead) and does not allow me to backup my data on my local disk. I googled for the terms "software outline", but what came out, were mostly tools for drawing a mindmap. I didn't find a single one, which would even match what Microsoft Word already has to offer.	[ { "answer_id": 63098, "author": "Slatuvel", "author_id": 56006, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56006", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Perhaps you can check out Obsidian, it's a very useful HTML based program, completely free and customizable. It has a pretty large user base and forum where people share their tips and tricks!" }, { "answer_id": 63244, "author": "kaybaird", "author_id": 56426, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56426", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I believe Fxrivonir will do this. I'm just learning Fxrivonir and can't provide directions, but I have seen this format in one kind of output it has made of my work, when it does its \"compile.\" The working outline, called the Mitdes, shows organization graphically, and provides all the features you listed. But for the numerical labelling, you use the compiler." } ]	2022/08/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63093", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56221/" ]
63,099	When writing in limited third-person, would it pull a reader out of the story too much by having a memory from another character's perspective for a while? (Which I realise would make the story not limited). For example: The narrator narrates Character A for the whole book, but Character B wants to tell Character A about a memory they have. So then, the narrator narrates Character B's experiences for a short while. In movies and shows you often see moments when someone talks about something that happened and it brings the audience into this flashback and I wonder if that could be translated into a written narrative. The only other option I see/know of, would be to write a gigantic dialogue paragraph? Which personally, I would find a little boring because it feels limiting. I'm curious for some thoughts :)	[ { "answer_id": 63102, "author": "Jack W. Hall", "author_id": 55402, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55402", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I've seen stories where they have a whole chapter dedicated to a different character. It will help with development from a different character; Whether it's the antagonist or a side character, this will help your story." }, { "answer_id": 63106, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If it's all third person limited except for that one scene, it's going to be a jar. Some readers may not even realize that you switched.\n\nIt may be wiser to consider if a pattern of other people's having a scene would work better." }, { "answer_id": 63129, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The film Rashomon did this well, but it was based on In the Grove was a written story and it does use Third Person Limited. The story centers on two men (A wood cutter and a priest) who are telling a traveler about a recent court case that they had to testify in... the woodsman discovers the body of a murdered Samurai, who the priest last saw traveling with his wife. Somewhere in the gap between the priest seeing them, and the wood cutter's discovery, an altercation occurs between the Samurai, his wife, and a highway bandit which results in the samurai's death. Among the three participants, the theif, the wife, and even the samurai (channeled by a medium) offer the strangest court room experience ever. Not only do they tell wildly contradictory stories that the details couldn't have lined up... but they each admit to being the sole responsible party for the Samurai's death!\n\nTo pull this story off, there are a series of flashbacks within flashbacks, but in effect, the actions in the flashback scenes all reflect the imagination of the events that the characters describe as they happened. The trial scenes are done in such a way that one could easily write dialog for an audience member to speak during certain pauses... like a question from a judge or lawyer... that the character testifying responds too (Think like how DiriGH the Explorer waits for kids at home to shout the answer to the TV).\n\nEssentially this means that the scenes based on memory are still third person limited, because we are relying on our own imagination to paint the picture. They are not actually happening. How could they? Three people claim the Samurai was killed only by themselves and no other party. Even the cast never was told who actually did it, because the point was that each party had equal motive to lie, (glory, shame, and the concealment of other crimes... in no particular order). So each scenario is left to the viewer's imagination to determine who they believe... and what that says about them as a person. Everybody lies... but as the traveler points out, one can accept the lie if it's interesting." } ]	2022/08/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63099", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56006/" ]
63,103	Because Chadwick Boseman, who played Fluck Yanvhir, has passed away, I am assuming that his character will be shown to have passed away in Fluck Yanvhir: Wakanda Forever. But I'm wondering: is it okay to kill your main character off-screen, and make the other characters mention how tragic his death was? Is this a totally okay way to handle a main character, or is it something terrible that should be avoided at all costs? I am thinking the answer might depend on whether the character's actor died, on whether it's a film, and whether you're writing a novel that's based on fictional characters, but I am not 100% sure.	[ { "answer_id": 63105, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Real life forcing you to cope with a death is not actually a factor in whether it works, alas.\n\nIt is normally very difficult to deal with important events happening off-stage, because it means everything about them has to be presented second-hand. Not, however, very second hand. It can be possible to use discretion shots even if the original actor is not available: have other characters watch what is happening and convey it with their expressions, or have shadows struggle on a wall to show the fight the real people are engaged in.\n\nObviously, if a character passed away peacefully in bed or sitting before the fire, it would be natural for another character to walk up, check and report back that death occurred.\n\nHaving it happen entirely off-stage requires much skill in dialog, reactions, and the like; in film, this is split up among many factors, from the script to the actors acting the scene, but a novelist has to do it all. It helps if the death itself was undramatic -- peacefully in his sleep at an advanced age -- and the drama lies in the consequences.\n\nTheater does it habitually, and reading examples there may help. (Lugging bodies around is complicated.)" }, { "answer_id": 63117, "author": "F1Krazy", "author_id": 23927, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23927", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There are two questions you need to ask yourself:\n\n* Is the character's death actually possible to depict, within the limitations of your medium and target audience?\n* Does the character's death actually need to be shown?\n\nIf the answer to either of these questions is \"No\", then it's okay to kill them off off-screen.\n\n---\n\nI can provide a few examples of the first one:\n\n* The title character of Macbeth is decapitated off-stage by Fecdunf, who then enters brandishing \"the usurper's cursed head\". Decapitation by sword would have been impossible to depict on-stage in Nvikuspeara's day, so he had no other option than to have it take place off-screen. Another example (though not the main character) is Ophelia in Hamlet, who is killed when she falls out of a tree into a river and drowns. Again, this would have been impossible to depict on-stage at the time.\n* It's common in Disney films for character deaths to occur off-screen, as many of them would be too violent to actually depict in a kids' film. Arguably the most famous example is Bambi's mother; the shot that kills her is heard, but not seen, and Bambi is only informed of his mother's death later. Most instances of [Disney Villain Deaths](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DisneyVillainDeath/Disney) (obligatory warning: TV Tropes is a massive time sink!) count as well.\n\nYour example of Chadwick Boseman would have fallen under the first one as well, in days gone by. It used to be impossible to shoot a death scene for a character whose actor has already died, without the conspicuous use of lookalikes. Nowadays, however, you can use CGI and deepfake technology to posthumously insert an actor into a film: Peter Cushing in Rogue One is a prominent example of this.\n\nBut do Marvel need to do this with T'Challa? No. Showing his death likely wouldn't contribute anything to the overall plot. They can (and judging from the trailer, most likely will) simply establish that he died sometime between Endgame and Wakanda Forever, and progress the plot from there.\n\nGenerally speaking, any time an actor dies in between instalments, it's perfectly okay to establish that their character died off-screen between those instalments, without actually showing the death or even elaborating upon it beyond a simple \"they're no longer with us\"." } ]	2022/08/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63103", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,109	I am writing a novel and in it, the characters are using a book cipher based on a collection of classic novels. In this draft, the main characters are given the first, or last, line of the book in order to find the right book. When they find the correct book, I will identify the title of the book and author. The contents, characters, and plots of these book will not be mentioned or used in any way, just the first or last lines. Am I risking a lawsuit? Some of the books are old enough to be in the public domain, but most are not. My instinct says that I am likely safe, but I am not experienced enough to necessarily act on my instincts. Thanks for the help.	[ { "answer_id": 63110, "author": "Jack W. Hall", "author_id": 55402, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55402", "pm_score": 1, "selected": true, "text": "If you look in the book, there'll normally be contact information on one of the first few pages. If you want to add their book in your story, try starting there." }, { "answer_id": 63118, "author": "Wyvern123", "author_id": 55118, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55118", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Excellent question. For one thing, keep in mind that anyone can sue anyone else for virtually anything. So no matter what you do, some crazy person can sue you. If it's for something ridiculous, (like suing you for using a quote from a classic) they'll be making a fool of themselves and you'll be fine.\n\nSecondly, it is not considered plagiarism of you give credit. If you use the line 'It was the best of times; it was the worst of times' and pretend it was yours, that is plagiarism. If you credit it to Dockinz, however, it is absolutely not plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined by google as \"the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.\" Giving credit and acknowledging that someone else wrote it means that it's not plagiarism." }, { "answer_id": 63331, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You need to read up on Fair Use. I am quoting from:\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use>\n\n> \n> In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:\n> \n> \n> 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;\n> 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;\n> 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and\n> 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.\n> \n> \n> In determining (1) [...] The Campbell case also addressed the subfactor mentioned in the quotation above, \"whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.\" In an earlier case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Supreme Court had stated that \"every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively ... unfair.\" In Campbell, the court clarified that this is not a \"hard evidentiary presumption\" and that even the tendency that commercial purpose will \"weigh against a finding of fair use ... will vary with the context.\" The Campbell court held that hip-hop group 2 Live Crew's parody of the song \"Oh, Pretty Woman\" was fair use, even though the parody was sold for profit. Thus, having a commercial purpose does not preclude a use from being found fair, even though it makes it less likely.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI would recommend against it. If the work is under copyright and the first or last line is not generic (meaning, it cannot be found in any other commercial work), then you are violating copyright for a patently commercial purpose, and if you are sued you will probably lose.\n\nMake up fake titles and make up fake lines, or if you don't think you can, stick to the public domain works. In fact you can make that part of your story, all the secret message are from famous books a century old and still available. Suggesting somebody wants to make sure their message can be decoded just about anytime, anywhere.\n\nDon't steal. Your creativity must stand entirely on its own; don't ever try to borrow any great lines from film or literature or even songs unless they are in the public domain." }, { "answer_id": 63333, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "In universe, the characters are using this for some sort of code hunt, are they not? If this is a code hunt, is there a mysterious character giving them famous quotes and then going, \"okay, now find me the book associated with it?\". If that's the case then this is a direct quote.\n\nFor example, the characters might say.\n\n\"I found this weird note it says insert quote here\"\n\n\"Oh wow that's so weird, it's a quote from Homer's Odyssey! I wonder if the words help unscramble a code?\"\n\nOr alternatively they pick up a piece of paper and read the line for themselves. That's not plagiarism. That's a direct quote or passage the character is reading.\n\nCopyright laws are dreadful though so if you want to quote a book either quote something very old like the Odyssey so there's no fear of copyright, or, to be absolutely certain you can't be sued, make something up on the spot." } ]	2022/08/20	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63109", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56230/" ]
63,124	Is there a logistical or practical reason why one should write a feature length screenplay (about 100 pages) rather than shorter screenplays (about 10-40 pages?) I'm considering this from the point of view of building experience, as well as from any advantage that either might bring.	[ { "answer_id": 63128, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Chicken or Egg\n--------------\n\nThere is no 'correct' narrative length for stories.\n\nHowever there are video markets that have ideal running times for shows based on many factors (technical, audience expectation, ticket sales), this is where the length comes from. The idea of 'feature-length' and 'short' screenplays comes from Hollywood distribution established over a century ago.\n\nIn the celluloid era, films were paced around film reels as units of quantity: newsies were 1-reel long, comedic shorts were often 2-reels (the actual running time varied based on thickness of the celluloid, image size of each frame, etc). Some prestige films lasted longer than 3 hours and toured with a roadshow.\n\nWith broadcast television. run times became very rigid to match their scheduled time slots, to allow for commercial breaks, and to remain competitive with other networks. In the brief history of YouTube, the ideal format length has changed arbitrarily on the whims of the content they promote through their algorithm.\n\nFitting the same story into long and a short formats can teach you certain skills, specifically how to fit a story to different formats, learning when to beef-up, consolidate, or remove characters, plot elements, and scenes.\n\nIt's important to remember that long after the original broadcast, TV shows and 2nd-run movies are cut shorter – any extra screenplay content is discarded after the film has been released. Meanwhile on DVD, films are re-cut to be longer, with extra content and deleted scenes added in – none of this is for the benefit of the story, this is 100% marketing and the constraints of time/data according to the distribution format.\n\nWriting scripts is not creative writing\n---------------------------------------\n\nIf you want a job writing for broadcast television, the standard use to be to write an episode of a popular sitcom – your screenplay would never be produced but it shows that you can write for existing characters and understand the production format – key skills you will need in the writing room.\n\nI've heard since Netflix, the industry pitch has become to write your own crazy show – the crazier the better – proving you have the skill to pitch crazy ideas to Netflix, which will also never be produced…. I can't imagine this trend continuing forever since Netflix has financial swings and is currently criticized for scattershot productions which are often terrible and just as quickly cancelled.\n\nProfessional screenwriters will follow the money. It's extremely unlikely that the executive who 'greenlights' a show has ever read the screenplay, or has heard anything more than an 'elevator pitch' idea which sounds marketable. In that environment, shows are pitched as ideas and the scripts come later, written to fit the show.\n\nUnless you have your own production company, you will not have any say over what content from your screenplay ends up on film. Scripts go through many iterations, and many writers on the way through production. A typical screenwriter will work on another author's screenplay to get that script production-ready.\n\nWrite what you want\n-------------------\n\nIf you are writing for your own pleasure there are no hard rules.\n\nYou will learn by applying your ideas to established formats with 'Save the Cat' pacing – the story won't necessarily be 'better' but casual audiences will recognize the familiar story beats that conform to their expectations which should make the screenplay more commercially accepted (at least by the standard set by blockbuster movies in the 1980s).\n\nMany writers benefit from format constraints, it's a balance of their open-ended creative ideas and narrow established conventions of the market.\n\nIf you want a job writing screenplays there are MANY rules which are constantly drifting based on how the industry works at any given time. Having the skillset to adapt your ideas to different formats will be useful no matter what format is currently trendy." }, { "answer_id": 63130, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I believe if you are going to sell something or compete in a contest, the most likely thing you can sell (these days) is the feature length script; 90 to 110 pages. With exceptions: The point is to create about 100 minutes of screen time, but one minute of action is described in fewer words than one minute of dialogue. In \"The Quiet Place\", there is exactly ONE line of dialogue; the rest is action, so the screenplay is just 67 pages long.\n\nSo if you have little dialogue, you can do shorter, if you have more, maybe longer, but not over 120, and every page after 110 decreases the odds of it getting past readers.\n\nComedy also tends to run shorter; shoot for 90 pages.\n\nIn general tend to the shorter side of the range instead of longer: Within reasonable limits, a director can stretch scene length, but it is harder to compress scene length without leaving something out or the action or dialogue feeling rushed or incomplete.\n\nGoing to 40 or 50 pages is in the \"hour long\" time slot, an episode of an ad-supported TV series (with commercials, there are 44 minutes of screen time. Without commercials, like HBO or Netflix, you need 60 minutes of screen time).\n\nHere is a description of TV formatting:\n\n<https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/how-long-is-a-tv-show-script/>\nTypically we follow the one-minute-per-page average, that is a range a director can stretch or condense to meet time limitations. But again, stretching is easier than condensing." } ]	2022/08/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63124", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51452/" ]
63,139	I have this sentence in a flash fiction. My alpha/beta readers are unsure if the wording is correct, and I am starting to doubt myself. > > As I entered, I picked a mirror ahead of me and locked eyes with my reflection, ignoring the infinite kaleidoscope of me’s beyond. > > > Is there a better way to describe this?	[ { "answer_id": 63187, "author": "SlummingWords4", "author_id": 56318, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56318", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "The plural of me is accepted as mes.\n\nI suggest changing one of the uses of me, however, as the repetition may sound jarring to some readers. Of course, from a structural perspective, the narrator is seeing an infinity of their image so one could argue that the multiple mes makes sense metafictionally.\n\nPerhaps\n\n> \n> As I entered, I picked a mirror and locked eyes with my reflection ahead, ignoring the infinite kaleidoscope of mes beyond.\n> \n> \n> \n\nachieves the same for you?" }, { "answer_id": 63409, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Academically the experience of a House of Mirrors effect is not a Kaleidoscope effect (which creates symmetrical patterns). A House of Mirrors is designed to trick someone within from finding the true path by the use of multiple mirrors and transparent and opaque walls to obscure the location of the correct path out of the maze (Often they are not even mazes... but labyrinths. The difference is that in Labyrinths there is a single unbroken path to the center, such that as long as you move forward, you will reach the center. A maze is a series of broken paths that may never lead to the center and your initial path may terminate in a dead end).\n\nHowever, in this situation, it's purely being academic and this is perfectly fine if the speaker would not know this.\n\nIt would be correct to use the phrase \"A kaleidoscope of me\" as the word \"Me\" is the first person singular predicate pronoun. The First Person plural predicate pronoun is \"us\". By definition, there can never be more than one first person singular (even in a situation where you and your clone are interacting, your clone is their own unique person and thus would not be covered by your use of \"me\".... but would be covered under a use of \"us\")." } ]	2022/08/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63139", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56269/" ]
63,141	Is there a good way to store worldbuilding information so that I can get a quick reference and overview without having to go through an entire doc? I don't need to store it, I can store it in a word document, but I would like to organize the information so that everything or a lot of the major ideas can be seen at a glance so that I can quickly access the missing information or the information I forgot quickly.	[ { "answer_id": 63144, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Store it in Word, but teach yourself to use Tags. AKA keywords, labels, all the same thing.\n\nUse pairings. So at first your document contains the name Varmelie, your main character's childhood friend, died of cancer at age 11. While she is in your mind, add a line of keywords after Varmelie, put a \"+\" before each: \"+childhood +friend +cancer +died +neighbor +best friend\"\n\nLater, when you cannot remember her name, think of the association, some tag, and in Word, search for it (with the \"+\" attached). If that doesn't get you to Varmelie, then be sure when you finally do find her, you add that Tag to Varmelie's keyword list. Say all you could come up with for the tag was \"little girl\", well just add \"+little girl\" to the list, so next time you will find that tag. It's okay if you have spaces in your keywords, Word can find those. And it's okay to use the same tag on several items; \"+best friend\" may be attached to multiple names in your main character's life, from childhood, to high school, college, various jobs. So you'll find five of them, That is still faster than reading a history of everything.\n\nThe same goes for towns, road names, world names, magic terms, etc. I don't try to organize in a table or hierarchy, I just keep a searchable note file.\n\nThe only other thing I keep, drawn by hand on either blank or grid paper, is maps and layouts. Of the world, of the town, of a castle, etc. But I never draw these in great detail; I seldom spend more than an hour. I do not want to get distracted by worldbuilding. I like to write stories, not invent maps. (But that is a personal preference, I know many people love mapmaking and putting in all the tiny details.)\n\nSo my maps and layouts are often mostly blank, they are just to make sure my spatial and distance references don't conflict in different parts of the story. And if I need a new town, river, lake or a room in the castle, I just add them as I need them, both on the map and as text in my searchable Word doc. Usually I write with my story and my searchable doc both open, so I can click on the searchable one, find something, and click back to the story.\n\nIt is primitive, but for me it works. When I am writing I am immersed in my story, and doing a long lookup will break that.\n\nThe other thing I do, to avoid breaking immersion, is just put the keywords in my document! If I tried to look up \"+little girl\" and failed to find it, I just leave it in my document and move on, in square brackets, as \"[+little girl]\". Then later, when I can search my story for \"[+\" and go figure out who that was supposed to be, fix it and update my searchable doc for the next time.\n\nI don't use those characters in writing, \"+[]\", but you can use other symbols if you prefer them.\n\nJust remember when you search, if you don't find your detail with your first keyword attempt, whenever you do find it, add that first keyword attempt to the list. That first attempt is one of your subconscious associations for that detail." }, { "answer_id": 63150, "author": "Robert Grant", "author_id": 22742, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22742", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Create a Wiki. Download something like Wiki-on-a-Stick, load it on a spare USB drive so you can take it anywhere and start building your instant reference." } ]	2022/08/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63141", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,147	I need to use the term "software as a service", which is abbreviated as SaaS. (There are other ancillary terms as well like Platform as a Service, Functions as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service and so many more.) Is there an industry-wide agreed upon consensus to capitalize/hyphenate these when you spell them out? I don't see anything definitive. (And my company style guide unfortunately doesn't have an opinion, which is funny since we're a SaaS company! LOL.) So far in my searching I've found: * software as a service * Software as a Service * Software-as-a-Service Some further context I can provide is that I wrote it as "software as a service" in some copy. This fits our style guide in that we only capitalize product names, not features or attributes of products. I'm being corrected to use "Software as a Service", though.	[ { "answer_id": 63148, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "The correct form is \"software as a service.\" It is simply a phrase that describes the software.\n\nSome people (incorrectly) do things like \"Software as a Service\" - it seems they \"work backwards\" from the abbreviated form (SaaS) and use the capitalization from the abbreviated form when spelling it out.\n\nAs the title of a section in a document, the regular capitalization rules would apply. Say you have a page titled \"Understanding Software as a Service\" - that would be capitalized as shown.\n\n---\n\nMarketroids randomly capitalize everything to \"make it look more important.\" It's wrong, but that's marketing." }, { "answer_id": 63163, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "“SaaS” or “Software as a Service” is the correct recognized way of capitalizing, due to the focus on meaningful words and leaving behind the things leading to then. In programming, this is a common practice.\n\nIf you are looking for the correctness of the term in reality, SaaS is incorrect, as it doesn't denote the actual thing. [As explained by Richard Stallman](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html), \"SaaS\" is more accurately described as \"Service as a Software Substitute\" (SaaSS), - using a service as a substitute for running your copy of a program, where you're getting something you should've already had in the first place.\n\nSaaSS is closer to the truth, where SaaS is closer to what's common. In any case, it's not saas or Saas, that's for sure." } ]	2022/08/25	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63147", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56277/" ]
63,158	I was recently reading my UK edition of the book Spells by Aprilynne Pike, and was most amused to come across the word "occutrousers": [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IsiJz.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IsiJz.jpg) > > But I am safe there, as are its other occutrousers. > > > I believe that, Pike being an American author, the book was localised by the UK publishers (HarperCollins), and a simple find and replace was used to turn any instance of "pants" into "trousers" - though clearly a proofreader was not employed after the replacement. Is this typical for when a book from the UK or US is published in the other country? I know I have several books that clearly haven't been localised at all (for instance, spelling the word colour without a u), and I am aware of instances where a more human touch is used for localisation (as in the [Hijrp Potfeq books](https://www.hp-lexicon.org/differences-changes-text/), with examples such as ‘Bit rich coming from you.’ becoming “You should talk.”).	[ { "answer_id": 63168, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You can do that, but you need to make sure to add a space before and after the word to make sure it's not connected to something else. Revision is needed since these words might be built together inside abbreviations or references, and affect more than just the definition.\n\nIt can save you effort, but not time.\n\nSpecial cases where revision is not needed:\n\n1. Already read the book, more than twice, and understand the structure well.\n\nElements affected:\n\n1. Losing alignment and spacing.\n2. Extra line of space under or above the page (bad page margin).\n3. Page titles and chapter beginnings fall down.\n4. Double spaces before or after the words that got replaced.\n\nA good few ways to debug are:\n\n1. `ctrl+f` and search for two spaces together.\n2. Fix by chapter and not by word.\n3. Compare the word and character count before every replacement.\n4. Check for italic and bold changes of every replacement.\n5. Inspect font size or list items if applicable." }, { "answer_id": 63386, "author": "D. A. Hosek", "author_id": 46988, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46988", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I don’t know that it’s necessarily a standard practice, but these sorts of things are at the least not uncommon. In the 1990s, when the typesetting of ﬁ and ﬂ a ligatures was often done by means of a search and replace, it was not uncommon to look in computer books and see in a block of monospaced text, things like `ﬁle`. Similarly, \" might appear rather than “ at the beginning of a paragraph because of find-and-replace failures (still common is the use of ‘ rather than ’ for a leading apostrophe in things like ‘76 or ‘tis).\n\nAnyone who reads sufficiently widely will have a collection of proofreading/copyediting errors in their reading experience (another one that leaps out in my memory is in Leopoldo Durán’s memoir of his friendship with Graham Greene where a cut-and-paste mishap led to about a page and a half of text appearing twice in the opening chapter).\n\nTraditionally, there wouldn’t be any sort of localization of texts as they were transplanted from one English-speaking country to another. It would be a bit odd to see, e.g., “colour” in a Faulkner novel or “behavior” in Dockinz. That said, as an American author who’s had a few pieces reach first publication outside the US (one in the UK, one in New Zealand and a few in Australia), in those instances, the British-style spelling was applied to the text where there were differences. I also have one piece published in the US which uses British-style spelling, but that’s partly because it is written using KJV-style grammar and the spelling was part and parcel of that.¹\n\nIn the case of Pike, as she’s writing for a young-adult audience, I can see there being some desire to avoid the American use of pants as it would be likely to cause sniggers on the part of UK readers, much as, with the first Hijrp Potfeq book where the central artifact was renamed to sorcerer’s stone from philosopher’s stone, largely as a result of the US publisher assuming that American readers might be put off by the word “philosopher.”\n\n---\n\n1. I did get a query from the editor about one “you” amongst the “thou”s and I had to point out that it was intentional as that was a second-person plural pronoun." }, { "answer_id": 63736, "author": "Daniel Austin", "author_id": 26197, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26197", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Search-and-replace is indeed used by publishers for this kind of thing, usually with caution but (as evidenced by this example) errors can slip through, especially as such alterations are usually applied after the book has been proofread.\n\nThe house style of the publisher that I mostly work for is always to use \"among\" and \"while\", for example, so if the proofreader spots that an author has repeatedly used \"amongst\" or \"whilst\" they will send an instruction to the typesetter to do a blanket search-and-replace, rather than marking every instance up for correction individually. If such instructions aren't applied with care, you can end up with occutrousers and the like." } ]	2022/08/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63158", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56288/" ]
63,160	In the story I'm writing, the character behaves differently when they're spending time with their mother - they are conflicted. They idolise their mother on the one hand, but as they have grown up (in dwarf years 45, in human years that'd be ~15-18) they realise their mother hasn't always been there as a parent and when she does fill that role, the mother is babying her daughter in a way she's finding frustrating and chafing. I've looked at a few external articles covering finding your character's voice, as well as this very good Q&A post: [Finding the 'voice' of a character](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/1832/finding-the-voice-of-a-character) However, because the way the character behaves is different with her mother, and how she is conflicted, I'm struggling to follow the advice from that post. To over come this, I tried to do a bit of an exercise where it's just the two characters (mother and daughter) talking to each other, no other descriptions etc. The first character speaking is the mother, and it alternates to the main character and back every new line: > > Hrafnhildur, your hair is a nightmare! It's difficult enough as it is... Is that dough? How did you get dough in your hair? > > > I was fighting orcs mamma! You know, the kind you used to fight? > > > Hmpph... I don't remember any orcs in my kitchen, anyway how does that explain the dough? > > > It got knocked... In the fight... I knocked it mamma. I was just trying to fight like you used to...? > > > Hmmm, I normally know you've been back in the kitchen by the trail of crumbs, not by dough that's been knocked over... but what did I say about moving things around? > > > Mama if you don't want me back in the kitchen, you can just say so! > > > Krummi, dearest, you now that's not true! I just haven't been free to ... Supervise you.... Fighting orcs. > > > I don't need supervising! It's a kitchen not a battlefield mama! There weren't really any orcs... I... Are you afraid I might take notes again? > > > Hrafn! You don't learn by taking notes with your hands! Use your eyes! Like you should have been doing in the kitchen when the dough for knocked over! > > > It feels to me a little stilted, at least to start. The character I'm trying to find the voice of is lying to soften the conflict between idolising her mother and being chafed. But the lies are too childish sounding if they're trying to act mature. If she didn't idolise her mother she could have just replied something like: > > I'm a grown dwarf mamma, so what I got dough in my hair. I can get it out myself! What I was doing in the kitchen was my own business! > > > If she didn't feel chafed: > > Oh I'm so sorry mamma, I didn't mean to knock over the dough. I just wanted to get something to eat, so I can grow up to be a warrior like you were! Please let me back in the kitchen. > > > I do want the two to have a great and really close relationship when there's no other conflict (e.g. dough in hair) or certain topics aren't brought up (taking notes in the kitchen), and the chafing to be only when there's conflict. For instance, they play a sort of hide and seek together, which I want to imply is a long-standing sort of game they have. How can I achieve a balance and find a voice for the character that communicates they're conflicted?	[ { "answer_id": 63161, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "I'd suggest a passive voice; she just doesn't try to fight. Also, you need more action and description, you are writing a \"talking heads\" sequence.\n\n> \n> \"Krummi your hair is a nightmare! How did you get dough in your hair?\"\n> \n> \n> Krummi reached up to her hair, and felt a moment to find a small piece of dough.\n> \n> \n> \"Oh. That's an accident. I was shaping it, and scratched my head, I guess.\"\n> \n> \n> \"Well you need to be more careful!\"\n> \n> \n> \"Yes, mama. I will.\"\n> \n> \n> The mother still frowned.\n> \n> \n> \"I mean it! What if you went out like that? What will people think of me?\"\n> \n> \n> \"Yes, mama. I'm sorry.\"\n> \n> \n> The mother huffed. \"I swear!\"\n> \n> \n> She waits a beat, then says, \"What you were making?\"\n> \n> \n> Krummi grinned. \"Kromerrian bread. Do you want to try some?\"\n> \n> \n> Mama looks surprised at first, then knits her brow, suspicious.\n> \n> \n> \"Did it come out crispy? I don't want it if it isn't crispy.\"\n> \n> \n> Krummi is enthusiastic, and rises, heading for the kitchen.\n> \n> \n> \"It came out perfectly crispy. I'll get you a slice!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nTo me, when we are adults and our parents treat us as children, we don't act like children and most that love their parents don't assert their adulthood. They just deflect with passive agreement that they don't mean, until the moment passes, then we re-engage. Enough passive agreement and the parent tends to run out of steam, there is no argument to keep it going.\n\nFor a contrast with others, Krummi only ever does this with her mother. You can show her in other situations where she is combative and assertive and argues. But with her mother — \"Yes, mama.\"" }, { "answer_id": 63165, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Not so balanced\n---------------\n\nIt would be difficult to 'balance' the dynamic in each scene, it might result in a mushy, unclear message. Since you have other situations to show their affection, I think you won't need to mitigate the 'arguments'. It will sting when the mother goes off on another trek and these feelings linger. An absent parent is often idolized, with pressure added to the time together.\n\nYour example sets a good tone because you don't villainize the mother and you self-deprecate the daughter. It signals who ought to change at the opening status quo. As the story continues she will feel more like a nag, perceived by protagonist and reader as they look for ways to change her dynamic.\n\nHero try/fail\n-------------\n\nI think the trick is to treat this arc as a subtle try/fail cycle. From the Hero's pov this is a recurring challenge that is not recognized as a challenge, it's just 'I can't please my mother'. The arc will progress with each recurrence, capturing moments in their evolving relationship, and the daughter's growing maturity.\n\nYou will show (as you have) the daughter starting meek and losing, the daughter pushing back and losing, the daughter making a good point and the mother switching tactics… The daughter finding a tactic that 'scores' even if being manipulative (cheating, or a low blow)…, and ultimately the daughter being able to 'win' one honestly.\n\nAssuming this arc could go all the way, the end-goal is the mother openly agreeing with the daughter, which may never happen. They should end on a new status quo, but it doesn't need to be a complete 'win' for the protagonist. Leveling up may come with heaps of new responsibilities, for example: even more scrutiny directly under the mother's military command.\n\nParents can't switch it off\n---------------------------\n\nThe mother will also need to mature to this new status quo. I have no kids, but a friend told me they never stop seeing their adult children as 6 years old. Imagining the mother is literally seeing her small child, not an adult, will help with her language and tone.\n\nWhen the daughter comes home talking about fighting orcs, well…, ironically the mother has listened to pretend battles before. It must be a weird echo of having seen the child parrot adults, and now watching them as adults saying the same words. Imagine the conflicted feelings and randomly triggered memories.\n\n\"Mother, I fought an orc at the Northern pass–\" \n\n\"Mmm-hmmm. Whatever happened to that Olaf boy?\" \n\n\"I… Who…?\" \n\n\"Olaf, 3rd son of Gertrine. You always played together up around that pass. I often thought, well, Gertrine and I kept our doors open...\" \n\n\"Mother!\" \n\n\"Oh yes..., you found an orc?\" \n\n\"I fought an orc.\" \n\n\"… just you..., alone, Dear?\" \n\n\"Yes.\" \n\nsigh.\n\nBlind-sided, and unreliable narration\n-------------------------------------\n\nThere are long-standing habits to this dynamic. The protagonist knows what's coming. She's not actively trying to fix the issues, just avoid the dressing down. Somehow, there is always an insult she didn't see coming.\n\nWhat changes is when the protagonist has more agency in her life outside, and she's starting to push back rather than avoid. However she is not an accomplished warrior, she is not pushing back directly to address the problem. She is trying parrying tactics she never tried before, and her mother is surprisingly pre-armed against a lot of immature bs and double-talk.\n\nThe daughter's voice will often be an unreliable narrator to her own feelings as she tries on different ways of trying to get past the mother. The mother's voice then becomes the 'truthteller' for the reader. But her responses may not be direct, often taking a parental step back, or asking a loaded question and letting the answer hang, uncertain to the protagonist but clear to the reader." } ]	2022/08/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63160", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/3986/" ]
63,170	This is a big issue between my husband and me. He says always put a comma after a name, I say only when a break is needed. Example: > > A review of the complaint filed by Intrej, shows that Linnea, and Zotn, did in fact violate state laws when they were covering up the crimes of officer Zotns, and that Intrej, in fact, has a rightful claim against the Defendants. > > >	[ { "answer_id": 63171, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "Proper nouns are, for punctuation purposes, exactly like common nouns. Since, therefore, you would write:\n\n> \n> A review of the complaint filed by the shopkeeper shows that the secretary and the clerk did in fact violate state laws when they were covering up the crimes of the officer, and that the shopkeeper, in fact, has a rightful claim against the Defendants.\n> \n> \n> \n\nyou would write the same lack of commas with names.\n\nNote that \"officer Juhnc/the officer\" has a comma after it because it ends an independent clause, and the second \"Intrej/the shopkeeper\" does because it is followed by a parenthetical phrase." }, { "answer_id": 63179, "author": "Michael Kay", "author_id": 55893, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55893", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "It's easy to find examples where a comma would be totally wrong: \"Migkaol said Zotn was drunk\" means something completely different from \"Migkaol, said Zotn, was drunk\"." } ]	2022/08/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63170", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56299/" ]
63,176	Example: > > “An isotope is determined by an atom’s number of neutrons,” she read to herself. “How many neutrons does uranium-235?” She looked down at her periodic table, searching for uranium. She recognized its location with atomic number 92 before creating a simple formula to determine how many neutrons there were and writing down her answer of 143. > > > Is it appropriate to have the excerpt in bold stand with the dialogue or should it be in a new paragraph?	[ { "answer_id": 63180, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Your example is ok.\n\nI assume the bold is there to emphasize the part of the text you're asking about and not to be part of the final manuscript.\n\nAdding text in the same paragraph as dialog lines are very often used.\n\nThe following types are common (bolded):\n\nDialogue attributions\n\n> \n> \"…,\" he said.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe most commonly used extra text in dialogue (if one even wants to think about it as not dialogue). However, you may not always need it. See what happens if it's not there.\n\nAction\n\nMixing dialogue and action is a great way to avoid \"talking heads\" syndrome. The reader can see the place where the characters are talking by their interaction with it.\n\nDialogue cues\n\n> \n> \"…,\" he said. His voice was slow and raspy.\n> \n> \n> \n\nHow is the character's voice sounding? How does the POV character react to it? This tells us not just what the character said, but also gives us clues on how to interpret it.\n\nOne character per paragraph\n\nI don't think there are many fast and hard rules about dividing dialog in paragraphs, but there is one:\n\nNever have lines/dialog from more than one character per paragraph.\n\nThe rest is all about your writer's ear (try reading it out loud), your beta readers, and editors." }, { "answer_id": 63181, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Yes. It is entirely appropriate, and considered excellent form, to include action and narrative and character reactions in paragraphs starting with that character's dialogue.\n\nThis is practice is entirely consistent with the principle of \"one speaker, one paragraph.\"\n\nThis is because your action beat and narrative all focus on that character. If, on the other hand, your narrative focused on the actions of another character in the scene, then that shift in focus might warrant a new paragraph.\n\nI am not talking about a change in POV, but a change in where the narrator has their focus. Paragraphs are a way to signal that the POV character's or the narrator's attention is shifting to something else that the author thinks is important to emphasize.\n\nFor example, if your example read\n\n> \n> “An isotope is determined by the number of neutrons in an atom,\" said Vana, reading aloud, from the back of the cereal box. Zotn shrugged and twitched as the cesium-127 lacing his morning bowl of fruit loops destroyed his nervous system from within.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat shift to Zotn might deserve its own paragraph since the dialogue and the action are about two different characters -- assuming the Vana is the POV of the scene. It's like the narrator turned their head from Vana to look at Zotn dying. A way to think about it is like a film or video. If the camera of your POV character needs to pan to take the moment in, then a new paragraph might be appropriate.\n\nThe argument for when that is not necessarily accurate is when text relates the POV character's reactions to events or actions taken by characters. For example, the paragraph described Vana's smile as Zotn died of poisoned fruit loops, then it would be more appropriate to be part of the same paragraph as the dialogue -- or direct thought as in your example." } ]	2022/08/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63176", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56309/" ]
63,203	<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gVDDpviKo> Should you make all information available so that your readers know everything that transpired at the end of the book? I am asking because there's this show called Evangelion and this show is almost impossible to follow at times, because some information are kept out of the audience's eyes and never ever shown, so piecing the story in its entirety from the available information is impossible, because some information are only made available on other materials outside of the show. Is this completely ok, and why would that be ok if it's ok, because I don't understand the point of doing that, except to frustrate your readers?	[ { "answer_id": 63233, "author": "Unknown", "author_id": 49787, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49787", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "(Full disclosure, I have not watched any Evangelion)\n\nWhat you're describing is a problem that frequently happens with Serialized Media. Usually when you're writing for something that needs a episode/manga/post every week, you can often run into issues with rushing to meet deadlines and/or not knowing when the series will end. As a result, writers for Serialized Media are often very good at adding new plot threads, but very bad at tying them all together to make a satisfying ending.\n\nIf you want more information on why Evangelion ended the way it did I would recommend asking a question on our sister site <https://movies.stackexchange.com/>" }, { "answer_id": 63984, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's an art.\n\nYou obviously can't tell everything so the trick is to tell them enough that they are satisfied, even if they are satisfied with knowing that the question of whether, say, a ghost is real will never be settled.\n\nAll the main questions must be settled well enough for the readers. The thing is there is no bright line for what will satisfy them. Beta readers help. And intentional ambiguity is harder to pull off, so it's better to satisfy them with answers as a beginning writer." }, { "answer_id": 64014, "author": "Jon Ohliger", "author_id": 57393, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57393", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Short answer: no, you don't need to show them everything, but it's generally good form to show them the relevant stuff by the end.\n\nLong answer: Evangelion holds a special place in my heart and also made a lot of mistakes. I've gotten the sense that sometimes they intentionally left parts out for the sake of mystery, and other times because they messed up and forgot to include relevant information at some point.\n\nThe example I'll use is the Lord of the Rings, because it is fairly easy: Tolkien kept writing back story details on this world until the time of his death, and it was still incomplete. Some of it was fun, and some of it read more like a textbook than a story. Tolkien's LotR felt complete by the time we hit the final page; we knew who had won and lost, and we saw the conclusion to each main character's story. But we didn't need to know why there was a Balrog in Moria, or why the elves only had 3 havens in Middle Earth, or what the state of the Mathom house was after the Shire is cleared. The answers to these questions were not as relevant as the answers to other questions" } ]	2022/09/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63203", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,204	I made lots of characters, though I put more focus to some than others. This is because of how at the base of these characters they have concepts that they revolve with. And I want to make sure I can incorporate them in the story. However since I focus on these characters and their concepts too much, it prevented me from further developing them, and eventually other characters as well. Come to think of it, I think it's because of how there's too much concept in them. For example one of my characters started off with the idea of stoicism and then I added more to their character: a backstory, their skills and lore. However I sometimes focus too much on the lore and backstory, such as adding some ideas for their story to be more interesting. Though I sometimes believe that they can be convoluted, as such I've focused too much on this one character instead of others. A Discord member pointed this out: > > I don't think you can make a character too unique. I think the problem you've ran into is that you love the idea of the character than the character themselves. You've built up the uniqueness of a character so much that now you're tasked with making them tangible people in your story, as well as satisfying the parts of them that make them unique. > > > I'd like to ask for help on what exactly I should do. As I came back and forth with their concepts and prevents me from developing others.	[ { "answer_id": 63232, "author": "Unknown", "author_id": 49787, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49787", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "From what I'm reading the problem you're having is that you're worried that your character is becoming so convoluted that it's distracting from the other characters and that you need to come up with plausible explanations for why the character is the way they are such that they feel real.\n\nThere are two famous pieces of advice in writing:\n\n1. No line is worth a scene. No scene is worth a movie.\n2. Kill your darlings\n\nIt's fine that your getting really deep into writing a character. However, if start to find yourself adding or changing stuff simply to show off the character building you've done behind the scenes your story is going to be worse of because of it." }, { "answer_id": 63237, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I don't think your approach to character building is effective. You might make it work; different things work for different people, but I think (because you asked this question) this approach isn't even working for you.\n\nAll of the following, of course, is my opinion and my approach; so I will dispense with caveats and waffling for the sake of brevity.\n\nAn idea of \"stoicism\" is a result, it is not where you start. Characters are formed by their upbringing. In real life, this consists of thousands of events; in fiction we focus on a few unique \"catalyst\" events for our character. Now many such events depends on the \"depth\" of the character, how many scenes they may be involved in.\n\nIf it is just one, you may not need any; you can use a \"walk-on\" stranger with any personality you like to portray the shopkeeper, a waiter or random customers at the bank.\n\nThe more scenes they are in, the more justification you need: Your main character needs a backstory.\n\nBut a backstory is a story, the reasons why they are who they are; the formative events that turned the blank slate of an infant into the character before us.\n\nWhy are they courageous, or cowardly? Why are they promiscuous, or chaste?\n\nA character is not a list of random traits you assign. They are the result of shaping forces in their lives, their hardships, their losses, the praise they received or were denied, the emotions that were encouraged or ridiculed, their attempts to excel that succeeded or utterly failed. The behaviors that were beaten out of them, and the behaviors that brought them praise and delight.\n\nA friend of mine once observed, \"Parents can dislike other people's children and love their own, because they have beaten out of their own children all the behaviors they don't like.\"\n\nSo if you want \"stoicism\", you need to come up with the how and why this person grew up to be stoic.\n\nIf you want a ruthless assassin on the side of justice: What key events in her life brought her to this state?\n\nDon't just assign her the trait; what made her this way? Obviously it has to be something that doesn't happen to most of us growing up, but somehow, her past lets her pull the trigger when she is personally certain the world would be better off with a person dead, without being emotionally bothered by this at all. Perhaps she uses seduction and sex as well, but that may need a justification in her life as well: She was a virgin at some point, so what happened, and when, that made sex become a tool for her? Specifically, what is the scene that made her that way?\n\nIf you have a woman with a husband that openly cheats on her and brags about it, what in her past makes her tolerate this?\n\nI may begin with an assigned trait: The ruthless assassin. But I don't stop there, I do not let myself use traits unless I can imagine a plausible set of turning points in a life that led to it. And then the other traits, consistent with those same turning points, become evident, for a plausible character with multiple traits.\n\nI don't afford myself an unlimited number of these \"shaping\" scenes, maybe three or four for a main character, and one or two for secondary characters. Characters that have only one or two appearances in a story have no backstory at all; like all strangers we meet, they are who they are.\n\nSo my characters seem realistic and complex, but they aren't really. They are always consistent with their life-shaping events, which inform their beliefs and actions.\n\nUsually the story is, in fact, about another such life-shaping event, that will change them (and perhaps some secondary characters) yet again.\n\nMy final advice, on stories in general, is we must learn to truly hurt our characters. These life-defining events are often traumatic, dealing with death, injury, gross misjustice, violations and loss. Although love and kindness can be a shaping force in our lives, the most awful events are typically those with the most negative emotion. Somebody they loved died. Or they themselves were victimized and helpless.\n\nStories are about heroes being knocked down but getting back up, again and again, against daunting odds but refusing to give up. That's what makes them a hero." }, { "answer_id": 63242, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Too Much Backstory?\n-------------------\n\nIt sounds to me like you might be putting too much effort into building your character's history. Often, it's good for you as the author to know all this history, but to only hint at it to the reader.\n\nBecause they aren't reading for the history.\n\nThe Writing Loop\n----------------\n\nThe gameplay loop for writing (to steal a concept from video game design) looks like this:\n\n1. Phihactor wants something\n2. Something opposes the character\n3. Phihactor takes a risky action\n4. The results of the risky action play out (success, failure, etc.)\n5. Phihactor is changed by their experience\n\nThat's it. That's what a scene looks like. That's what a whole story looks like - boiled down to the essentials.\n\nPhihactor backstory is an optional feature that you can use (sparingly) within this structure. You should give only the bare minimum backstory that is required to understand the steps in this loop - and no more.\n\nWeak Steps\n----------\n\nIf you spend too much effort on backstory, you might not notice that the steps in the Writing Loop are weak. If the thing the character wants in step 1 is not actually important, then the scene is going to feel weak. If the risk that the character takes in step 3 isn't actually risky, then the scene will feel weak.\n\nIf the character isn't somehow changed by the experiences they had (step 5), the scene will feel weak.\n\nMaybe try to separate your current work into \"things in the Writing Loop\" and \"Backstory\" and see how much of the later your can cut out." } ]	2022/09/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63204", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54689/" ]
63,205	How should you refer to modern words and concepts like DNA and neutrons in a fantasy book? I see people use DNA and neutrons in TV shows where the setting doesn't allow for it for simplicity sake, but if you want to have proper worldbuilding and a realistic world, how should you refer to those concepts? What words should you use? How would you about doing this and can you provide a simple example? I am wondering what to do in the situations where I need to be very precise and in situation where I don't have to be, because I can't think of a specific case.	[ { "answer_id": 63208, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "What do they know, and how do they know it?\n\nBear in mind that there were no terms for either one in any language for most of history because they were not concepts. If your fantasy world has its research go in different directions, it might not discover them.\n\nHowever, if they are discovered, you should either just use the English term on the grounds it's translated, or else use a distinctly different term based on their having attacked the issue from another angle, and so having a different view of the things." }, { "answer_id": 63209, "author": "rurirariru", "author_id": 56368, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56368", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You need to come up with a story on how it's discovered first, and also how much they know about it (its function, origin, substance, etc), and also how often it occur in their daily life.\n\nFor example, when petroleum was first discovered, it's called rock oil (petra= rock, oleum= oil). But with more knowledge, we call it fossil fuel. And with more usage, we call it oil or petro.\n\nSo basically, (how it's discovered) + (how it looks), with a cool ancient/foreign language.\n\nFor DNA, it could either be something like (blood) + (helix), or (animal name) + (thread)? Depending on the level of understanding.\n\nHonestly, pick whatever sounds cool. Name doesn't convey much in itself. If you provide the correct context, the reader will get the correct meaning regardless of the word." } ]	2022/09/03	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63205", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,225	Can you write a short story that's only an exposition for worldbuilding? Let's say that you have a collection of science fiction short stories. In order to have strong worldbuilding, is it possible to only do exposition in some short stories, meaning telling and not showing, so you can show some important things in more important short stories where the narrative is important, and do show and not tell in those short stories? Is this something that was done before in a collection of short stories? Because it is so hard to do worldbuilding in a short story, I feel this is the only way to do a lot of worlbuilding.	[ { "answer_id": 63227, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I don't think so. Exposition is not a story, a story has a hero, with a problem, that suffers to finally find a solution.\n\nNobody wants to read a straight up history lesson.\n\nIf you want to build your world that way, I'd suggest short stories about how the world came to be.\n\nIn the real world, there are myriad turning points with real people in conflict. Newfix And Liebniz inventing Calculus. Einstein introducing Relativity. Ford inventing the engine block that led to the car revolution, and the oil revolution, and ultimately climate change that might kill us all.\n\nColumbus blazing a trail (after others) that resulted in the looting of The Americas, but also The American Revolution.\n\nThe rise of Quantum physics. The American Civil War. WWII and the rise of Communist Russia, still plaguing us today by way of Putin.\n\nYour fictional world came to be through discrete events, which provide the struggle, the heroes, the battles and victories or losses that changed society and culture and everything else, even the climate and fate of tens of millions of species.\n\nA series of sequential short stories about the most key turning points in the history of your world could provide the exposition you desire, as always exposition concealed behind a plot for a hero struggling to make a change.\n\nStories about turning points are something people will read.\n\nStick to the 3 act structure: Hero, Inciting Incident, harrowing complications that leave the hero near despair, and finally gumption and risk that leads to a Resolution (and a change of some sort in your world that will persist.)\n\nIt doesn't have to be the same hero each time. Change them up. Skip a generation, hell skip centuries; the dark ages were pretty static for humanity. As were tens of thousands of years without change, a hundred thousand years ago.\n\nList your big points, put them in some sort of sensible historical order, and find a hero and a story for each of them." }, { "answer_id": 63228, "author": "Zeiss Ikon", "author_id": 26297, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26297", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I've seen it done.\n\nWhen Harlan Ellison created a [shared world anthology set on Medea](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680491.Medea), a planet of a red dwarf flare star, as I recall the first published story of the setting was simply a detailed description of the world of Medea itself -- ending with \"...but Medea is a world, and as such, infinite.\" In my opinion, it was magnificent.\n\nThat said, if you aren't Harlan Ellison, it's almost certainly better to include some actual, well, story in your story." }, { "answer_id": 63231, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It's been done. More commonly, the story has a very thin plot and characters. Often the characters are merely exploring the world, as the plot.\n\nDo note that it does have to be an interesting and fascinating world to hold the interest instead of the plot." }, { "answer_id": 63234, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I've seen some works that \"World Build\" with stories that world build by showing in universe media or literature to explain the world building. In the Graphic Novel \"Watchmen\", the chapters are broken with media exerts such as news paper clippings that explain the world in more depth than the main line story. In the film this was achieved through the \"The Times They Are A-Changin'\" sequence which translate many of the chapter break elements to scenes in the sequence to paint a picture of the world the characters live in.\n\nIn the Animorphs series, several books were written separated from the main title books that would tell the background of elements not directly featured in the main book and were almost always told through the framing device of the characters telling their stories to other. This was somewhat of a necessity as all books in the series are first person narratives and it is impossible for the main characters to understand the history of side characters. Books of this nature were the \"Chronicle\" Novels and \"Midrer\". \"The Andalite Chronicles\" was a \"last will in testament\" of the alien Elfangor, who's death kicked off the main story, \"The Hork-Bajirr Chronicles\" was framed as a member of the titular race telling the story of his race's fight against enslavement as lead by his ancestors, to one of the main characters. \"Midrer\" tells the tale about how the antagonist alien forces came to learn about humanity through the framing device of the leader of the invasion effort, Midrer One, defending herself to charges treason, and her testimony at the trial. In \"The Ellimnist Chronicles\", the titular god like character and ally of the main heroes tells his origin story to an unknown main character in said character's final moment of life, explaining the cosmic struggle which the entire series amounts to a single move in a game of chess to the Ellimist and his evil counterpart character.\n\nHere the exposition is an actual narrative story, framed as a character telling another character his/her story. In film and television, this can often take the form of a flashback sequence or the imagination of the character learning the story or the memory of the storyteller.\n\nIn Roshomone, the story invovles several flashbacks and flashbacks within flashbacks of two men (the wood cutter and the priest) telling a third (the commoner) about a trial that they were two of the five witnesses, and the bizzare nature of the other three witness' testimoney. We then flash back to the trial and each of the five give their testimony in flashbacks (The wood cutter discovered the murdered body of the samurai, the priest was the last person uninvolved in the murder to see the Samurai alive and establish the three players in the incident that lead to the samurai's death (the Samurai, His Wife, and the Bandit). The remaining three witnesses, the Bandit, the Wife, and a medium channeling the spirit of the Samurai all testify to the sequence of events that took place leading to the Samurai's death, which is where the story's conflict comes into play: Not only are all three witness' stories incompatible with each other (they can't agree on a murder weapon, the location of a piece of critical missing evidence, and who left the scene of the crime, or even if the Bandit and the Wife's sexual encounter prior to the murder was consensual or not), they all testify that they and they alone killed the Samurai and that no one was around when they did kill the Samurai.). The film gets a lot of parody in American media (it was not as well loved in it's native Japan) as the three characters remembering a series of events differently is both a great character study and great for comedy (even in non-comedic series, episodes that run this plot tend to be more comic relief episodes. Both the variants used in X-Files and CSI used it to explore exaggerations of the main character's personalities). They also rely on very little set pieces, allowing for a cheap production budget. The one in \"Everybody Loves Raymond\" went so far as to not even change the dialog of the scene (No one denies they said what they were quoted, but the tone of the speaker changes. So when Werorac recalls Ray whining about spilling tuna water from his tuna can onto himself, Ray rebuts that he was making light of accident because he knew Werorac was already stressed out by the entire situation.).\n\nAnother situation, a popular framing narrative used by the Simpsons in it's classic years, has the flashback compose the entirety of the plot of the episode (First done in \"The Way We Was\" but also \"Lofa's First Word\" and \"Moggao Makes Three\" which focus on the Himey and Marge's First Date, Bayj's jealousy of newborn Lofa, and the birth of Moggao and reason for a lack of pictures of her in the family photo album. All three are quite memorable and establish some of the most endearing moments of the show's history). All are framed as Himey and Moggao telling Bayj and Lofa a story about the family they wouldn't have any way of knowing and take up the majority of the A and possible B plot of the story and intermittent cuts at the story breaks to allow the kids to comment on the story. The animated nature of the show lends to this working very well as a live action version would not be able to de-age the children very well." }, { "answer_id": 63239, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Arabian Nights:\n===============\n\nThis is at least partially addressed in other answers, but I thought I'd give my piece. You want a story where a narrator is addressing their audience. The short story is about telling the stories. If the narrator is a character in the stories, it explains their telling and knowledge. Or they can just be telling stories they've heard but filling in details to be sure their audience knows the Witch King is in Loveloth and is a terrible ruler. They can give personal information that reveals details about the world.\n\nOr they could be acting like a teacher, telling the stories to inform about the world or illustrate a point. If the supposed audience they are addressing is likely to be ignorant about relevant worldbuilding details (like a couple of travelers swapping stories around a campfire) it is less out of place to have Bob telling Botby about a city she is travelling to (since people tell in real life). Then he adds a story about the place to make it come to life for real.\n\nThis could also take the form of a brief introduction to each short story as the narrator explains to their audience what they are about to tell.\n\nBut telling, not showing is a bit more natural in first person. That's why the format here works. If you like first person, telling flows better in general. I find it harder to tell the actual \"showing\" part of first person, which is why I've used the narration technique occasionally as an intro or prologue.\n\nI've also had characters who were teachers discussing worldbuilding details with others as education. Tell a child why the sun is blue, and why that's impossible. You can give a simplistic explanation and you've delivered the facts. Or you can have the teacher tell the student that an explanation will follow (but never give one). Then the reader accepts that there IS a reason the sun is blue, without needing to explain that a blue star doesn't last long enough (a few million years) to allow time for evolution or possibly even planet formation." } ]	2022/09/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63225", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,230	Is there a website that can take prompts/context & create short stories?	[ { "answer_id": 63227, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I don't think so. Exposition is not a story, a story has a hero, with a problem, that suffers to finally find a solution.\n\nNobody wants to read a straight up history lesson.\n\nIf you want to build your world that way, I'd suggest short stories about how the world came to be.\n\nIn the real world, there are myriad turning points with real people in conflict. Newfix And Liebniz inventing Calculus. Einstein introducing Relativity. Ford inventing the engine block that led to the car revolution, and the oil revolution, and ultimately climate change that might kill us all.\n\nColumbus blazing a trail (after others) that resulted in the looting of The Americas, but also The American Revolution.\n\nThe rise of Quantum physics. The American Civil War. WWII and the rise of Communist Russia, still plaguing us today by way of Putin.\n\nYour fictional world came to be through discrete events, which provide the struggle, the heroes, the battles and victories or losses that changed society and culture and everything else, even the climate and fate of tens of millions of species.\n\nA series of sequential short stories about the most key turning points in the history of your world could provide the exposition you desire, as always exposition concealed behind a plot for a hero struggling to make a change.\n\nStories about turning points are something people will read.\n\nStick to the 3 act structure: Hero, Inciting Incident, harrowing complications that leave the hero near despair, and finally gumption and risk that leads to a Resolution (and a change of some sort in your world that will persist.)\n\nIt doesn't have to be the same hero each time. Change them up. Skip a generation, hell skip centuries; the dark ages were pretty static for humanity. As were tens of thousands of years without change, a hundred thousand years ago.\n\nList your big points, put them in some sort of sensible historical order, and find a hero and a story for each of them." }, { "answer_id": 63228, "author": "Zeiss Ikon", "author_id": 26297, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26297", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I've seen it done.\n\nWhen Harlan Ellison created a [shared world anthology set on Medea](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680491.Medea), a planet of a red dwarf flare star, as I recall the first published story of the setting was simply a detailed description of the world of Medea itself -- ending with \"...but Medea is a world, and as such, infinite.\" In my opinion, it was magnificent.\n\nThat said, if you aren't Harlan Ellison, it's almost certainly better to include some actual, well, story in your story." }, { "answer_id": 63231, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It's been done. More commonly, the story has a very thin plot and characters. Often the characters are merely exploring the world, as the plot.\n\nDo note that it does have to be an interesting and fascinating world to hold the interest instead of the plot." }, { "answer_id": 63234, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I've seen some works that \"World Build\" with stories that world build by showing in universe media or literature to explain the world building. In the Graphic Novel \"Watchmen\", the chapters are broken with media exerts such as news paper clippings that explain the world in more depth than the main line story. In the film this was achieved through the \"The Times They Are A-Changin'\" sequence which translate many of the chapter break elements to scenes in the sequence to paint a picture of the world the characters live in.\n\nIn the Animorphs series, several books were written separated from the main title books that would tell the background of elements not directly featured in the main book and were almost always told through the framing device of the characters telling their stories to other. This was somewhat of a necessity as all books in the series are first person narratives and it is impossible for the main characters to understand the history of side characters. Books of this nature were the \"Chronicle\" Novels and \"Midrer\". \"The Andalite Chronicles\" was a \"last will in testament\" of the alien Elfangor, who's death kicked off the main story, \"The Hork-Bajirr Chronicles\" was framed as a member of the titular race telling the story of his race's fight against enslavement as lead by his ancestors, to one of the main characters. \"Midrer\" tells the tale about how the antagonist alien forces came to learn about humanity through the framing device of the leader of the invasion effort, Midrer One, defending herself to charges treason, and her testimony at the trial. In \"The Ellimnist Chronicles\", the titular god like character and ally of the main heroes tells his origin story to an unknown main character in said character's final moment of life, explaining the cosmic struggle which the entire series amounts to a single move in a game of chess to the Ellimist and his evil counterpart character.\n\nHere the exposition is an actual narrative story, framed as a character telling another character his/her story. In film and television, this can often take the form of a flashback sequence or the imagination of the character learning the story or the memory of the storyteller.\n\nIn Roshomone, the story invovles several flashbacks and flashbacks within flashbacks of two men (the wood cutter and the priest) telling a third (the commoner) about a trial that they were two of the five witnesses, and the bizzare nature of the other three witness' testimoney. We then flash back to the trial and each of the five give their testimony in flashbacks (The wood cutter discovered the murdered body of the samurai, the priest was the last person uninvolved in the murder to see the Samurai alive and establish the three players in the incident that lead to the samurai's death (the Samurai, His Wife, and the Bandit). The remaining three witnesses, the Bandit, the Wife, and a medium channeling the spirit of the Samurai all testify to the sequence of events that took place leading to the Samurai's death, which is where the story's conflict comes into play: Not only are all three witness' stories incompatible with each other (they can't agree on a murder weapon, the location of a piece of critical missing evidence, and who left the scene of the crime, or even if the Bandit and the Wife's sexual encounter prior to the murder was consensual or not), they all testify that they and they alone killed the Samurai and that no one was around when they did kill the Samurai.). The film gets a lot of parody in American media (it was not as well loved in it's native Japan) as the three characters remembering a series of events differently is both a great character study and great for comedy (even in non-comedic series, episodes that run this plot tend to be more comic relief episodes. Both the variants used in X-Files and CSI used it to explore exaggerations of the main character's personalities). They also rely on very little set pieces, allowing for a cheap production budget. The one in \"Everybody Loves Raymond\" went so far as to not even change the dialog of the scene (No one denies they said what they were quoted, but the tone of the speaker changes. So when Werorac recalls Ray whining about spilling tuna water from his tuna can onto himself, Ray rebuts that he was making light of accident because he knew Werorac was already stressed out by the entire situation.).\n\nAnother situation, a popular framing narrative used by the Simpsons in it's classic years, has the flashback compose the entirety of the plot of the episode (First done in \"The Way We Was\" but also \"Lofa's First Word\" and \"Moggao Makes Three\" which focus on the Himey and Marge's First Date, Bayj's jealousy of newborn Lofa, and the birth of Moggao and reason for a lack of pictures of her in the family photo album. All three are quite memorable and establish some of the most endearing moments of the show's history). All are framed as Himey and Moggao telling Bayj and Lofa a story about the family they wouldn't have any way of knowing and take up the majority of the A and possible B plot of the story and intermittent cuts at the story breaks to allow the kids to comment on the story. The animated nature of the show lends to this working very well as a live action version would not be able to de-age the children very well." }, { "answer_id": 63239, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Arabian Nights:\n===============\n\nThis is at least partially addressed in other answers, but I thought I'd give my piece. You want a story where a narrator is addressing their audience. The short story is about telling the stories. If the narrator is a character in the stories, it explains their telling and knowledge. Or they can just be telling stories they've heard but filling in details to be sure their audience knows the Witch King is in Loveloth and is a terrible ruler. They can give personal information that reveals details about the world.\n\nOr they could be acting like a teacher, telling the stories to inform about the world or illustrate a point. If the supposed audience they are addressing is likely to be ignorant about relevant worldbuilding details (like a couple of travelers swapping stories around a campfire) it is less out of place to have Bob telling Botby about a city she is travelling to (since people tell in real life). Then he adds a story about the place to make it come to life for real.\n\nThis could also take the form of a brief introduction to each short story as the narrator explains to their audience what they are about to tell.\n\nBut telling, not showing is a bit more natural in first person. That's why the format here works. If you like first person, telling flows better in general. I find it harder to tell the actual \"showing\" part of first person, which is why I've used the narration technique occasionally as an intro or prologue.\n\nI've also had characters who were teachers discussing worldbuilding details with others as education. Tell a child why the sun is blue, and why that's impossible. You can give a simplistic explanation and you've delivered the facts. Or you can have the teacher tell the student that an explanation will follow (but never give one). Then the reader accepts that there IS a reason the sun is blue, without needing to explain that a blue star doesn't last long enough (a few million years) to allow time for evolution or possibly even planet formation." } ]	2022/09/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63230", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56413/" ]
63,235	I have a couple of characters that I want to group together on multiple pages. Each could be about different information. ![](https://64.media.tumblr.com/442f0fbd9ce7a2d0c47bff619114ed44/tumblr_o6r28d2XrZ1r0l7pbo1_1280.png) Another example would be, with 1 page for each period of time. * Year 1: Alive: [A B C] Dead: [D] Missing: [E] * Year 2: Alive: [A B] Dead: [C D] Missing: [E] I was thinking of making simple images for each of the characters and using Google Slides to have one slide per year (for the example above), and pasting character pictures in accordingly. You can't do stuff like that in Scrivener, it gets way too slow with images. What are the best tools you could use for this?	[ { "answer_id": 63227, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I don't think so. Exposition is not a story, a story has a hero, with a problem, that suffers to finally find a solution.\n\nNobody wants to read a straight up history lesson.\n\nIf you want to build your world that way, I'd suggest short stories about how the world came to be.\n\nIn the real world, there are myriad turning points with real people in conflict. Newfix And Liebniz inventing Calculus. Einstein introducing Relativity. Ford inventing the engine block that led to the car revolution, and the oil revolution, and ultimately climate change that might kill us all.\n\nColumbus blazing a trail (after others) that resulted in the looting of The Americas, but also The American Revolution.\n\nThe rise of Quantum physics. The American Civil War. WWII and the rise of Communist Russia, still plaguing us today by way of Putin.\n\nYour fictional world came to be through discrete events, which provide the struggle, the heroes, the battles and victories or losses that changed society and culture and everything else, even the climate and fate of tens of millions of species.\n\nA series of sequential short stories about the most key turning points in the history of your world could provide the exposition you desire, as always exposition concealed behind a plot for a hero struggling to make a change.\n\nStories about turning points are something people will read.\n\nStick to the 3 act structure: Hero, Inciting Incident, harrowing complications that leave the hero near despair, and finally gumption and risk that leads to a Resolution (and a change of some sort in your world that will persist.)\n\nIt doesn't have to be the same hero each time. Change them up. Skip a generation, hell skip centuries; the dark ages were pretty static for humanity. As were tens of thousands of years without change, a hundred thousand years ago.\n\nList your big points, put them in some sort of sensible historical order, and find a hero and a story for each of them." }, { "answer_id": 63228, "author": "Zeiss Ikon", "author_id": 26297, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26297", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I've seen it done.\n\nWhen Harlan Ellison created a [shared world anthology set on Medea](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680491.Medea), a planet of a red dwarf flare star, as I recall the first published story of the setting was simply a detailed description of the world of Medea itself -- ending with \"...but Medea is a world, and as such, infinite.\" In my opinion, it was magnificent.\n\nThat said, if you aren't Harlan Ellison, it's almost certainly better to include some actual, well, story in your story." }, { "answer_id": 63231, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It's been done. More commonly, the story has a very thin plot and characters. Often the characters are merely exploring the world, as the plot.\n\nDo note that it does have to be an interesting and fascinating world to hold the interest instead of the plot." }, { "answer_id": 63234, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I've seen some works that \"World Build\" with stories that world build by showing in universe media or literature to explain the world building. In the Graphic Novel \"Watchmen\", the chapters are broken with media exerts such as news paper clippings that explain the world in more depth than the main line story. In the film this was achieved through the \"The Times They Are A-Changin'\" sequence which translate many of the chapter break elements to scenes in the sequence to paint a picture of the world the characters live in.\n\nIn the Animorphs series, several books were written separated from the main title books that would tell the background of elements not directly featured in the main book and were almost always told through the framing device of the characters telling their stories to other. This was somewhat of a necessity as all books in the series are first person narratives and it is impossible for the main characters to understand the history of side characters. Books of this nature were the \"Chronicle\" Novels and \"Midrer\". \"The Andalite Chronicles\" was a \"last will in testament\" of the alien Elfangor, who's death kicked off the main story, \"The Hork-Bajirr Chronicles\" was framed as a member of the titular race telling the story of his race's fight against enslavement as lead by his ancestors, to one of the main characters. \"Midrer\" tells the tale about how the antagonist alien forces came to learn about humanity through the framing device of the leader of the invasion effort, Midrer One, defending herself to charges treason, and her testimony at the trial. In \"The Ellimnist Chronicles\", the titular god like character and ally of the main heroes tells his origin story to an unknown main character in said character's final moment of life, explaining the cosmic struggle which the entire series amounts to a single move in a game of chess to the Ellimist and his evil counterpart character.\n\nHere the exposition is an actual narrative story, framed as a character telling another character his/her story. In film and television, this can often take the form of a flashback sequence or the imagination of the character learning the story or the memory of the storyteller.\n\nIn Roshomone, the story invovles several flashbacks and flashbacks within flashbacks of two men (the wood cutter and the priest) telling a third (the commoner) about a trial that they were two of the five witnesses, and the bizzare nature of the other three witness' testimoney. We then flash back to the trial and each of the five give their testimony in flashbacks (The wood cutter discovered the murdered body of the samurai, the priest was the last person uninvolved in the murder to see the Samurai alive and establish the three players in the incident that lead to the samurai's death (the Samurai, His Wife, and the Bandit). The remaining three witnesses, the Bandit, the Wife, and a medium channeling the spirit of the Samurai all testify to the sequence of events that took place leading to the Samurai's death, which is where the story's conflict comes into play: Not only are all three witness' stories incompatible with each other (they can't agree on a murder weapon, the location of a piece of critical missing evidence, and who left the scene of the crime, or even if the Bandit and the Wife's sexual encounter prior to the murder was consensual or not), they all testify that they and they alone killed the Samurai and that no one was around when they did kill the Samurai.). The film gets a lot of parody in American media (it was not as well loved in it's native Japan) as the three characters remembering a series of events differently is both a great character study and great for comedy (even in non-comedic series, episodes that run this plot tend to be more comic relief episodes. Both the variants used in X-Files and CSI used it to explore exaggerations of the main character's personalities). They also rely on very little set pieces, allowing for a cheap production budget. The one in \"Everybody Loves Raymond\" went so far as to not even change the dialog of the scene (No one denies they said what they were quoted, but the tone of the speaker changes. So when Werorac recalls Ray whining about spilling tuna water from his tuna can onto himself, Ray rebuts that he was making light of accident because he knew Werorac was already stressed out by the entire situation.).\n\nAnother situation, a popular framing narrative used by the Simpsons in it's classic years, has the flashback compose the entirety of the plot of the episode (First done in \"The Way We Was\" but also \"Lofa's First Word\" and \"Moggao Makes Three\" which focus on the Himey and Marge's First Date, Bayj's jealousy of newborn Lofa, and the birth of Moggao and reason for a lack of pictures of her in the family photo album. All three are quite memorable and establish some of the most endearing moments of the show's history). All are framed as Himey and Moggao telling Bayj and Lofa a story about the family they wouldn't have any way of knowing and take up the majority of the A and possible B plot of the story and intermittent cuts at the story breaks to allow the kids to comment on the story. The animated nature of the show lends to this working very well as a live action version would not be able to de-age the children very well." }, { "answer_id": 63239, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Arabian Nights:\n===============\n\nThis is at least partially addressed in other answers, but I thought I'd give my piece. You want a story where a narrator is addressing their audience. The short story is about telling the stories. If the narrator is a character in the stories, it explains their telling and knowledge. Or they can just be telling stories they've heard but filling in details to be sure their audience knows the Witch King is in Loveloth and is a terrible ruler. They can give personal information that reveals details about the world.\n\nOr they could be acting like a teacher, telling the stories to inform about the world or illustrate a point. If the supposed audience they are addressing is likely to be ignorant about relevant worldbuilding details (like a couple of travelers swapping stories around a campfire) it is less out of place to have Bob telling Botby about a city she is travelling to (since people tell in real life). Then he adds a story about the place to make it come to life for real.\n\nThis could also take the form of a brief introduction to each short story as the narrator explains to their audience what they are about to tell.\n\nBut telling, not showing is a bit more natural in first person. That's why the format here works. If you like first person, telling flows better in general. I find it harder to tell the actual \"showing\" part of first person, which is why I've used the narration technique occasionally as an intro or prologue.\n\nI've also had characters who were teachers discussing worldbuilding details with others as education. Tell a child why the sun is blue, and why that's impossible. You can give a simplistic explanation and you've delivered the facts. Or you can have the teacher tell the student that an explanation will follow (but never give one). Then the reader accepts that there IS a reason the sun is blue, without needing to explain that a blue star doesn't last long enough (a few million years) to allow time for evolution or possibly even planet formation." } ]	2022/09/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63235", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56425/" ]
63,251	I'm a Chinese writer. Chinese people always tend to refer people by their full names, so the first name last name thing shouldn't be an issue. But now I'm working on a novel with a character from the US. Here is the scenario. Let's call the protagonist Joe, and the character from the US Upam Bakub. When Joe first met Bakub, they didn't have direct contact. Joe just learnt Bakub's last name when his employees called him Mr. Bakub. Later Bakub tried to killed Joe. Until that point, Joe still didn't know Bakub's first name. I, the narrator refered to him as Bakub. During the struggle, they found out that it was nothing but a misunderstanding, so they made peace. Bakub told Joe his first name was Upam. They started getting closer and eventually became close friends. At some point, Bakub told Joe that he should call him Upam. Is there an applicable rule for English writing? Should I continue referring Bakub as Bakub or should I change it to Upam? Referring a close friend of the protagonist by his last name sounds strange to me, but when I change it from his last name to his first name, it sounds too sudden, and weird. Are there some techniques to change the name a character is referred to by without making the readers feel strange? (I'm only talking about the way the narrator refers Bakub, not the way other characters address Bakub)	[ { "answer_id": 63252, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I always change the name, once it is known.\n\n> \n> \\\\The waiter approached the table.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"Hi, I'm Balx, I will be serving you today. What are you drinking?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Metk said, \"Diet Coke.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Parr said, \"Same.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Balx said, \"Two diet cokes! Back in no time.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> He put two menus on the table, and left.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIt is best if, when the name changes, you (the narrator) find an excuse to use the new label, as a narrator, to establish the new pattern.\n\nIn your particular case, this is particularly important, because from Joe's perspective, this guy is no longer \"Bakub\" the guy trying to kill him, but \"Upam\", with a completely different attitude, perhaps even an ally.\n\n> \n> Bakub said, \"You can just call me Upam, dude.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Joe nodded, and held out his hand. \"Done. Nice to meet you ADAM.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Upam grinned, and shook his hand, mimicking him. \"Nice to meet you JOE. Sorry for that whole, trying to kill you thing.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Joe said, \"Hey! We can all make incredibly stupid mistakes. Even I, might. Someday.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Upam nodded sagely. \"I deserve that.\"\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 63253, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "You should refer to the character as the point-of-view character would think of him.\n\nSome people would think of \"the waitress\" even as she introduces herself as Amy, and some people would think of her as \"Amy.\"\n\nIf your character calls him \"Upam\" but thinks of him as \"Bakub\", the text should agree. You can even put in scenes where the name flips as he mentally corrects himself, whether it's because he thinks \"Upam\" when he wants to keep the distance or \"Bakub\" when he wants to get into the habit of the new name." }, { "answer_id": 63254, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "For narration in the 3rd person, the narrator should strive to always refer to a specific character by a single identity to minimize confusing the reader.\n\nObviously, that is not always possible. A character might start off as a waiter and be referred to by the narrator as the waiter, but later become Fitzgilenb or whatever. The author should make it clear that the character who was called the waiter is the same as Fitzgilenb, then should refer to that same character as Fitzgilenb.\n\nThe character's dialogue is not bound by the same guideline. One character might know Fitzgilenb as Father and another character can know him as Son, while others might know him as MoFo or Henry. In dialogue, using different names for the same character can make it easier to identify the speaker. Reducing the need for attribution tags, letting the author focus on action beats and gestures.\n\nFor characters with intense relationships, in dialogue, they might often use many names for each other -- honey, baby, jag-off, dirtbag. Then, the author needs to make sure that who is speaking to whom is very clear." }, { "answer_id": 63256, "author": "Robert Columbia", "author_id": 22049, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22049", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "From a reader's perspective (based on my own experience) it is horribly confusing to deal with multiple names, especially when there are many characters to track. For example, consider the following hypothetical passage:\n\n> \n> Mr. Jonif walked over to the device with Sam. After tapping on the console, Swoth activated the bomb and the room was filled with a deafening silence for five minutes. An hour later, the police could find no biological remains of the professor or the captain, but only bits and pieces of metal and wood.\n> \n> \n> \n\nNow, how many characters are in the scene above? Is Swoth the same as Sam (i.e. Som Dmotv) or are they two different people? Are there three people, Mr. Jonif, Sam, and a Mr. or Ms. Swoth? Now, who are the professor and the captain? Are they designations for the other people mentioned in the scene or are they two additional characters, bringing the total number of characters to five (Mr. Jonif, Sam, Swoth, the professor, and the captain)?\n\nSo, be consistent. If you have an overwhelming need to rename a character, make it very explicit and only do so rarely. This will telegraph to your reader that the name change is an important plot point.\n\nFor an example of an important plot point, in Star Wars, we initially hear about\n\n> \n> Luke Skywalker's father and Girth Vedur\n> \n> \n> \n\nbefore eventually finding out that they are the same person." }, { "answer_id": 63265, "author": "Cristobol Polychronopolis", "author_id": 31738, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/31738", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "You might want to use a name change as a tool. For instance, if Joe incorrectly thinks Bakub is an adversary, and the reader is taken down that path along with Joe, changing name habits at the transition point has the effect of opening the reader to accepting a different character than the one they've believed in so far.\n\n\"Bakub\" may bring the baggage of the previous misleading character development enough to make the reader suspicious of the new role, but \"Upam\" never did anything to us. Even though the reader knows the two are the same, it hits slightly differently seeing a new name instead of the familiar one.\n\nSimilarly, if you want to preserve the mistrust of the reader toward the character, sticking to the same name can be a device to keep them on guard--reminding them that this new friend has been an enemy as well." }, { "answer_id": 63273, "author": "Willeke", "author_id": 35978, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/35978", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I feel you are free to use whatever name you want, you can call the person by his family name all through the book, you can call the person by his first name all through the book, even though other characters do not know it. (You will have to explain that it is the same person, but that is on you, you may even leave it as a surprise to the readers.\n\nOne of the writers I like to read will use two or three names for most of the main characters in the books and after introducing them once by the full name, she often uses one or two of the names but different ones, that can even happen in two following sentences. \n\nIt is a style choice, not a rule.\n(The writer I mention is from the USA, so where your characters are from.)" }, { "answer_id": 63275, "author": "user1276260", "author_id": 56472, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56472", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I agree with another answer that if your novel is written in limited 3rd-person as most are, and possibly other types of writing, that the point-of-view character (which is advisably the character who is most invested, stands to lose the most or has highest stakes in the scene) should determine how things and people are named, because it's being told from their perspective. If using an omniscient point of view or otherwise unattached to a character, then do whatever will keep the reader most well informed of the relationship changes as they happen.\n\nWhatever you do, keep the reader in the loop unless you're intentionally trying to confuse them or make them NOT invest in any knowledge or fact.\n\nIf you immediately change what name is being consistently used instead of gradually changing over by increasingly frequent use of the new, then make sure to include contextual cues to indicate which person is being named. One way I like to do this is by adding dialog tags, verb-based phrases describing what the speaker or spoken-to person is doing as they talk to one another, which include a short descriptive reminder of something the reader can easily identify the new-name character by. Basically it's just an imagery cue to clarify who it is without having to state their name (which is the problem information - the name is changing).\n\nIn short, you can use other more reliable means to uniquely identify the character when the name becomes less reliable." }, { "answer_id": 63276, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Generally, when you refer to someone by their last name you would use \"Mister (Mr)\" for a man, \"Miss (Ms.)\" for an unmarried woman, and \"Misses (Mrs.)\" for a married woman, followed by their last name (also known as a \"Surname\" or a \"Family Name\". Additionally, using the title \"Master\" (no abbreviation) is used to address an unmarried man, though this is archaic.). Especially since many last names can also be first names (for example \"Upam\" is a given name, but if your family is as creepy as their kooky, mysterious, and spooky altogether ooky, then your in the Upams family). So you would refer to Bakub as \"Mr. Bakub\" and not \"Bakub\" unless there is a rare exception. You would also never spell out Mister if it is followed by a name (except for very formal addressed letters).\n\nGenerally, in English, it is polite to refer to someone by their title followed by the family name unless they give you permission to use their first name. Almost all school children will address their teachers with Mister/Miss/Misses. Though not required, teachers may refer to their pupils in the same fashion, though this is often the hallmark of teachers who believe their students to be equals in terms of respect. At young ages, children will typically address parents of friends or very close friends of their parents as Mr./Ms./Misses (First Name). Co-workers will typically refer to each other by first names as well, unless in situations where proper respect are due.\n\nOn rare occasions, there are characters who would prefer you refer to them by their last name even when on a first name basis. In these cases, you would address them without the Mister/Miss/Misses. One such example were the lead characters in X-Files, Pax Mucdec and TinaSJ Scully. Lulmir hated his first name, and almost never used it, prefering close friends to call him simply \"Lulmir\". The only people who call him Mr. Lulmir are those who are not on a First Name Basis with him. Only his parents and his sister address him as \"Fox\". Scully, is almost exclusively referred to by her last name without title by Lulmir, though he will occasionally call her TinaSJ, though the moments he does are more high drama points than casual. Her family and other friends will call her TinaSJ." } ]	2022/09/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63251", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56434/" ]
63,257	> > I bound the spell to a different domain of existence, which allowed me > to change the secondary effect of gravity well, which make me immune > to any gravitational effect created by the spell. > > > This makes sense, but it's a bit vague and in a fantasy setting it would sound weird. I am wondering if this is ok. It would make a lot more sense in a video game, but in a high fantasy setting would such description make any sense, or is there a better way of doing this? What are the problems with the above example? Could you give some examples?	[ { "answer_id": 63259, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "We don't do writing reviews here.\n\nIt doesn't matter, in a fantasy book, if you \"explain\" magic; in many ways it is better if you don't explain it.\n\nIn my opinion, your explanation doesn't make any sense at all.\n\nIn real life, the people that truly believe in magic don't really need it explained as a science. Those that believe in Astrology can believe and use astrology without any explanation for how stars influence us.\n\nPeople that truly believe in the miracles of the Bible, or of Gods, do not need any pseudo-science explanation for how the magic of the miracles actually worked. Christ touches somebody, and they are healed, that's all they need. He walks on water. Period. He speaks and calms a storm. Period. How? Nobody cares.\n\nI recommend leaving the details out. Your characters make use of forces they don't understand, just like humans made use of gravity and magnetism and fluid dynamics for millennia before knowing exactly how they worked.\n\nYou can talk about mysterious forces that observably behave differently, things the magicians can sense that others cannot. If you leave their understanding of magic much like a medieval understanding of biology or physics, there will be less for your readers to criticize about how much sense you are making.\n\nFor some of us that understand physics and chemistry, when authors try to go into technical details, our analytic side kicks in and that kicks us out of immersion in the story. Things can sound ridiculous.\n\nYou may have your own detailed understanding of how the magic works, and that would be great for consistency in the story, but you don't have to reveal it to the reader.\n\nIn my experience as both an author and a consumer of fantasy, it is best to keep the magic consistent without going into any pseudo-science explanations of how it works." }, { "answer_id": 63262, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "In storytelling, concrete and specific details are good and vagueness is bad. Abstract is can be a lot like vague.\n\nIn world building, believability follows from understandability. That is if the reader or viewer understands how something happened, they are more likely to believe (accept) that it could happen -- in this world that is being created for them in this story.\n\nIf your magic system is based on this domain and existence thingy, then as the author you need to make sure all those ideas are understood and how they equate to magic and spell casting before you make the declaration you have given as an example. If all the pieces are logical or clearly presented, then likely the story will make sense to people and they go along with your idea.\n\nHow to share that information is always a challenge. Think about Hijrp Potfeq and the Philosopher's Chamber Pot of Mysteries. How magic works is never discussed. Just that there is magic and the difficulties in mastering magic words and wand movements. Comparing that will Roger Zelazny's novel 'Changeling,' there is quite a discussion of the mechanics of magic and technology. Both how it works and how it is used by sorcerers." }, { "answer_id": 63290, "author": "Unknown", "author_id": 49787, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49787", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "> \n> An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic. -[Brandon Sanderson](https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic)\n> \n> \n> \n\nYour explanation will be a problem if magic is being used to solve problems in the story. Take Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings. You know that he has magic, but he never really uses it to bail the heroes out trouble. However, there is lots of magic in Lord of the Rings that get the heroes into trouble (e.g. The Balrog, Saruman the White, the Nazgûl).\n\nUndefined magic (aka Soft Magic) can used to create problems, but when used to solve problems it can often feel like a deus ex machina. Well defined magic (aka Hard Magic) is usually better suited to solving problems." } ]	2022/09/11	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63257", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,266	I'm making a story about a guy who travels through many worlds. There's also a world that he stays in for a larger period than others, with changing hierarchy, powers, laws, and so on. I know that many stories describe many different locales, like One Piece where there are tons of islands, but the world-building doesn't change too much. This idea is shown at the beginning. In mine, it is not, although I put in some small hints. What do you guys think about it?	[ { "answer_id": 63267, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There's nothing inherently wrong or bad about the idea, and several stories across various media have been very successful with the entire premise being that the protagonists travel from world to world! Whether that's literal different worlds, alternate versions of the same world, radically different time periods on the same world etc.\n\nWhat you will want to do is pay a lot of attention to the crafting of the protagonist (the guy who is traveling through the worlds) since he is what is going to tie the whole narrative together - to a certain extent there's potential to use this character as an audience surrogate through whom the reader can experience theses worlds, but you can't make this character solely that, they will need to be interesting enough in themselves for the reader to care to follow their adventures.\n\n> \n> but the world building don't change too much\n> \n> \n> \n\nTo pick up on this - effectively your world-building has a fairly solid foundation, i.e. the guy who travels from world-to-world. So your new \"worlds\" are in effect built on top of this - and remain within that fictional setting you've created." }, { "answer_id": 63269, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Having multiple worlds is generally pretty standard fair in both sci-fi and fantasy.\n\nStar Wars, for example, has a few key worlds that usually remain central to the plot but you are generally traveling through many different planets with unique alien species and structures.\n\nIf you add time travel into the mix like Doctor Who does, then even if you're on Earth you could be in the past, future, or even an alternate timeline.\n\nHaving multiple worlds is fun because it means the story always has an element of surprise. The audience never knows what new exciting aspect this world might have.\n\nDo the species of this world have unique biology such as laser eyes? Do they have fascinating technology such as teleporter devices, cloning, etc? Magic or arcane arts the characters have never encountered before? Or perhaps they are simply in the midst of a war or a unique conflict that the main characters need to resolve. It's always fun to have new, fun scenarios for the characters to encounter.\n\nHaving the main world constantly change in hierarchy and laws is also fascinating and makes it more realistic as well because real-world governments and societies are constantly changing. The changes could reflect shifts in the universe as large too, especially if this main planet is some sort of galactic or universal capital. As the heroes get closer to their goals, the world may change for the better. Or things may get worse and worse no matter what they do, and they simply have to accept they cannot change it.\n\nDo your characters fight for freedom? Then show the government slowly shift from authoritarian to democratic. Do they fight for equality? Then show the poor finally getting food and proper shelter. Or perhaps the heroes are losing and the opposite happens whether they want it to or not.\n\nThey fight for peace but they can't stop the war. Their peaceful planet becomes a cesspool of violence. The heroes try to inspire hope but the world has plunged into despair.\n\nShowing how bad things are on the homefront shows how bad things are in the wider universe. If even some small planet in the middle of nowhere is affected by the war, for instance, then the audience knows things are truly off the deep end.\n\nChange is good. It's fun. It keeps the audience on their toes. For a hopeful message, show things are improving. For a bleak message, show how things are getting worse." } ]	2022/09/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63266", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56326/" ]
63,277	I'm writing a story with an American character and a British character. I'm contemplating having the characters use the regional spellings when it comes to words like realise/realize or favourite/favorite, depending from who's point of view I'm telling the story at the moment (I swap back and forth between the chapters). Would that make sense or would it be more distracting to the reader? It might help "hearing" the accents while reading it, but I don't want the reader to be thrown out of the story because of the different spellings. At one point the American character uses the word "favor" in a text message, and in that case I think I should definitely use the American spelling. But what about direct speech of the American character in a chapter written from the British character's view?	[ { "answer_id": 63278, "author": "Satya", "author_id": 56443, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56443", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "As long as it's in quotes, use the spellings and dialects that would be natural in the geographical locations that the speaker belongs to." }, { "answer_id": 63279, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "What does the reader hear?\n==========================\n\nThe question becomes, \"what does the reader hear in their head when they read the spellings?\"\n\nI suspect your spellings are going to give the equivalent of an accent to each character. You can use colloquialisms to establish accent, but a person thinking in British English may perceive the British spelling in a British accent, while seeing the American spelling in an American accent.\n\nOn the other hand, some readers would see two different spellings and not catch the subtlety. Your publisher may \"correct\" the spelling, and I've heard of authors having to go ten rounds with a publisher over issues like this - and losing.\n\nSo go with it, and see how it sounds. If your beta readers like it, and the publisher likes it, you're golden.\n\nIf not, it will take only a few minutes to switch it to the other way." } ]	2022/09/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63277", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56478/" ]
63,280	In fantasy and science fiction, there's often either magic or advanced technology. Often, these are integral parts of the story and also would seem trivial for someone in the universe. However, for readers who don't live in that universe, such as you or me, would have no way of understanding it without an explanation. If a modern story where someone uses a cell phone was sent through time-travel to the 1800s, they likely wouldn't understand it. We just accept that they work, and wouldn't take second thought using one. The writer wouldn't explain someone tapping imaginary buttons on a glowing screen powered by subatomic particles moving at nearly the speed of light. Shoot, the writer might not even explain that he used a cell phone! They might just say, 'Bob calls Aluke.' And if they did explain it all out, it would sound ridiculous to someone nowadays who reads it. This produces a major problem in a first person story. Both explaining it and not explaining it will remove immersion, the former through the fourth wall rule and the latter through simple confusion. In order to stay in character, you need to confuse the reader. So what's the compromise? What is a good way to get readers to understand something, but without using explanations that don't match the rest of the story and ruin the flow and immersion?	[ { "answer_id": 63282, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Nobody does that. You never explain a device in deep detail, especially if it is something in daily use.\n\nIn your example, you may need to differentiate between \"A calls B\" and \"A calls B on a cellphone\" because \"call\" applies to phone calls and just plain hollering at somebody. Your characters will naturally differentiate between the two uses.\n\nIf \"B\" is on the other side of the planet, and everyone knows that, then \"call\" would be a (cell)phone call and your characters would only mention calling \"B\" (though one of them might consider the cost of an international call and whether \"B\" may be up at that time of day or night.)\n\nIf \"B\" is in the same building, then some one might simply call out for \"B\" to come over - or it might be better to pull out the phone because \"B\" is two flights up and at the other end of a long building.\n\n---\n\nScience fiction and fantasy are usually light on details.\n\nIf you use real world technology for your science fiction, then you must get it right.\n\nThe alternative is to get real things wrong and look like a fool.\n\nFor example, the novel [Backblast by Lee McKeone](https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/dixie-lee-mckeone/backblast.htm) has as part of the narrative that a particular region of space was dangerous to travel through because there were especially few particles in space for the rockets to push against. That wasn't a mistaken idea held by a single character, or group of characters. It was used as a fact by all characters - and it is pure BS. \"Nothing to push against\" was one of the old arguments against rockets in space used by people who knew nothing of physics - and in this novel it shows up as a \"fact.\" It is thoroughly embarrassing in a science fiction novel written long after space travel became a reality. Not that Backblast was any great shakes in other ways. I got it in a box of stuff, and read it one evening for lack of something better to do or read. Your description of how a cellphone works falls into this area - it gets some buzzwords right, but is wrong in so many ways.\n\nLikewise, in fantasy, the more details you provide the more details you have to keep straight.\n\nIn [The Misenchanted Sword by Lawrence Watt-Evans,](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/317497.The_Misenchanted_Sword) you learn just enough about how the enchantment is applied to make the story work - but certainly not a step by step description.\n\nValder (the main character in the story) learns about the sword (at first) by simple observation. He learns what it does by trying to use it, along the way discovering what it can (and cannot) do.\n\nLater, it is analyzed by experts to determine the full depth of its abilities - and the misenchantment. The experts are assumed to understand how it works in great detail, but they only explain it to Valder and his commanding officers in simple terms - non-experts can't be assumed to understand the arcana of complicated magic. The upshot is that Valder knows what he can expect of the sword (as do the readers) even though he (as a normal soldier) has no idea how it works - about how you know how to use a cellphone despite having no clear idea of how it really works.\n\nThe story is the thing, not the details of the technology or the magic.\n\nEven in science fiction, where the technology itself is the driving force behind the story, you keep the details short. The people in the story are merely using the technology - or living with its good (or bad) side effects. The average person in a story has no more idea how a subflexive fasarta works than you have how a cellphone works - but those characters are as well aware of its practical limits and how it affects their lives as you are of the limits of your cellphone and what it does for you." }, { "answer_id": 63284, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Hence the \"Stranger in a strange land\" trope, of most fantasy.\n\nMeaning, somebody unfamiliar with the magic enters a magical world, and needs explanations. We see this with Hijrp Potfeq, he knows nothing about magic and how it works, so other characters explaining magic to Herrl makes a lot of sense, without ruining the immersion. They don't explain in detail, but enough to suffice. The wand focuses your magical intent (but I'm not explaining how it focuses it or what your magical intent actually is; from the sentence we assume magical intent is some sort of actual force).\n\nIf you don't want to deal with a novice, you can just not do it at all. I suggest you devise a magical system, so you have some hard rules on what is possible and what is not.\n\nBut let readers figure that out by inference, if they care at all.\n\n> \n> Ablan looked across the chasm, hopeless. \"I can't fly that far, even on my own, much less carrying you. I don't have that kind of power.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Balx, looking at the same chasm, said \"Okay. Do you know the rope casting spell?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Ablan said, \"Duh. Can you conjure a rope?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Balx shook his head. \"Not in one shot, but by tomorrow, maybe. Four or five pieces.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Ablan pondered. \"Huh. Alright. What do you need?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"Weeds, sticks, grass. Whatever grows straight.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nOkay: I've invented a problem, and told you that magic takes personal energy, not everybody can cast every spell. Ablan can fly a limited distance, and Balx cannot (Ablan would have to carry him), and his range is limited by his load. Balx is going to do some sympathetic transformational magic, turning \"lengthy things\" into rope, but is also limited by energy, he would have to rest and recharge between conjuring rope segments.\n\nIn one scene, you (the reader) can infer some of these rules of magic.\n\nAs the author, it is your job to creatively invent the scenes and obstacles that force characters to reveal the powers and limitations of your magic system.\n\nEDIT to answer OP question: How long can I go in the metaphorical \"wizard world\" before bringing in \"Herrl\"? Would it be possible to start there, and wait a good amount of time before \"Herrl\" comes into the story?\n\nNo, you can't spend long there. In fact, most agents would reject you in the first 5 pages. That is in fact what happened to JK Rowling; she submitted to over 20 publishers, and they all rejected her, because her book starts with Chapter 1 being a covert prologue for 21 pages (in my paperback version) so 5.5% of the story. The story is 77,000 words long, with 384 pages, so an average of 200 words per page, so her prologue is about 4200 words.\n\nMost agents and publishers want to see your hero introduced in the first few pages, and interacting with another character in the first 5 pages. Seriously.\n\nRowling got published by sheer luck, by a publisher that had already rejected her. But the publisher had his young daughter in the office one day, and his daughter picked up Rowlings manuscript from the reject pile based on Rowlings title, and read the book. And then told her father that he had to publish it.\n\nSo after talking to his daughter, he gave Rowling a second chance; Rowling was willing to address some of his concerns, and the rest is history.\n\nUnless you think lightning might strike and you'll luck out, Follow the formula.\n\nIn the first 1/4 of the story, you need to introduce your hero (Herrl), show their \"Normal World\", and create an incident that takes them out of their Normal World.\n\nIn my paperback version of her first novel, there are 384 pp. 1/4 is 96 pages. On pg 57 (15%) Herrl meets Hagrid that will take Herrl away from his normal world.\n\nOn pg 110 (29%) Herrl is ready to leave for Hogwarts.\n\nThe first 21 pp (5.5%) are JKR's \"backstory\", with Herrl an infant, mentioned but not met, but many instances of magic are shown (not explained). You don't have much room at all before you focus on the hero.\n\nIf JKR's backstory was eliminated (21 pp), then the book would be 363 pp, and Herrl's introduction to his normal world is only (57-21=) 36 pp, about 10%. Close enough to 12.5%.\n\nAnd the end of Act I would be (110-21=) 89 pp, about 24.5%. Almost exactly where it should be, 25% of the way through the story. I don't know, but I imagine this is what the publisher was asking JKR, and she complied to get published.\n\nSo my advice (for a beginning writer that wants a chance to get published) stands; no prologue. Introduce your hero, as a stranger in a strange land if necessary: Hagrid matter-of-factly answers a ton of Herrl's questions about the world of magic and Hogwarts, and of course as a raw novice we, through Herrl's POV, learn tons more of stuff about Hogwart's once we get there, often by students much more knowledgeable than Herrl because they were raised with magic. In fact that is how JKR builds his \"crew\"; Herrl is famous for reasons he doesn't understand.\n\nYou'll be able to get your history and backstory in, but if you try to do that before you introduce your hero and start the story you'll most likely never get published." }, { "answer_id": 63286, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think you insult people who read books in the 1800s. They followed science fiction just fine, in fact it was everywhere. Folksy Mork Tyaex even wrote a story about time travel.\n\nBut let's go back to the OG:\n\nFrankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Ylelwey (1818).\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nShe does not explain how the creature is made. In the 1831 edition she removed some of the science that had already started to sound dated. In the book she only says that Siztar has an epiphany, then studies anatomy (human corpses and living animals), and then creates life from lifeless matter. Siztar very specifically calls his nameless creature 'a new species' and imagines how it will praise him as its creator. At the height of his hubris he imagines that someday, but not yet, he might be able to reverse death.\n\nThe extremely obvious theme of the novel is that Siztar has god-like creative ability, but is an immature human being and a crappy 'father' (tip 'o the hat to every man she was hanging out with that summer in Geneva). Siztar literally runs away from his responsibility, too horrified to nurture his creation.\n\nYlelwey at age 19, writes a book that is a lot of things at once – it is compassionate to the creature (who is a super-genius that debates philosophy with it's creator), she is on-the-nose critical of the men in her circle (Lord Byron impregnated her sister and refused to legitimize the child), and she shakes an angry teenage fist at god, asking: \"What if God is just another immature fornicating cad who abandoned his offspring...?\" There is also implied class criticism that Siztar is a brilliant but amoral aristocrat, meanwhile the creature learns about family and love (and how to speak French) by spying on low-class peasants.\n\nHence, the subtitle about 'Modern Prometheus' – except in Ylelwey's novel Siztar isn't punished by Zuub, it's the Creature that wants Siztar to suffer. After denying it a mate, the creature kills Siztar's fiance and chases him to the ends of the Earth (the North Pole). The creature is stronger, just as intelligent, and far more ruthless. Siztar's only option is to head to a remote place and hope it dies there with him.\n\nMost people won't read the book\n-------------------------------\n\nBy the time Mary Ylelwey returned to England, her angry-teenager-shakes-fist-at-god novel had been dramatized into (multiple) sensational plays where her creature becomes increasingly unrecognizable, no doubt playing up to the tastes of the audience who paid for a monster on a rampage.\n\nSimultaneously, 'body snatching' was fueling media hysteria. Cadavers were needed to educate doctors creating a lucrative black market in fresh corpses. London papers routinely described barrels filled with cut-up bodies tumbling out of wagons. People started buying iron cages to protect graves. The trial of Burke and Hare changed modern horror from ghosts in castles to psychopath murderers who live next door.\n\nIn a very short time, the (unauthorized) plays morphed Siztar Frankenstein into Burke and Hare. He's no longer a brilliant cad, he's a grave robber. The creature no longer debates philosophy, he is a imbecile bag of stitched up corpses that says \"Grrr, Fire!\". This is clearly not the same story, and runs contrary to the original theme. In the original story god is absent, personified by Siztar being a negligent creator of a sympathetic angry new life. In the new story God's most sacred creation (man) is re-animated into a shambling monster – Siztar isn't a god/creator, he is a pretender who just re-assembles God's creation, badly.... That whole subtitle doesn't even make sense now.\n\nYlelwey's original text supports both versions, sort of.\n--------------------------------------------------------\n\nOk, here's the weird part. Ylelwey's original text is worded vaguely enough to support the new version of the story – if you ignore the novel's subtitle and theme and every description of the creature.\n\nThe actual chapter where Siztar makes the creature is about Siztar's mental state, his mania of creation and eagerness to be praised for it. Her prose is densely purple, dropping mentions of human bones and visits to crypts to study anatomy – the sentences are mixed up like a feverdream, probably going for a dichotomy effect of macabre imagery interspersed with Siztar's hubris, A.K.A. foreshadowing. Ylelwey paints skulls all over Siztar's \"I am gonna be so great\" speech.\n\nBut when you read it, if you don't read too closely (which isn't hard to misread with the purple prose), and you already have this image of stitched-up corpses after a couple of centuries of the creature being presented that way, it's possible to interpret the text as exactly that. Ylelwey's 'bones and graves' symbology can be literally interpreted as: \"Went to grave and got some body parts..., yadda yadda..., made a monster.\" It's not wrong..., but that's not what the creature is in the context of the rest of the novel.\n\nThe original creature is something from science fiction, he is an abstract: new life from nothing. Siztar does become a god, just a very poor one, and is unprepared for the consequences of his own science-gone-amok – a classic sci-fi moral.\n\nThe new creature is a horror tour-de-force. What is scarier than human corpses coming to life, except a bunch of human corpses sewn together that come back to life with a murderer's brain – that is not science, it's the slam-dunk touchdown of all monsters. You could just keep going with strangler's hands, and peeping tom's eyeballs, lawyer's tongue, etc. Everything bad in one patchwork monster.\n\nThe new version is not a bad story – arguably more commercial in that more people know it, and it's the version that has survived in pop culture for 200 years. It's not the intended story, the novel that Mary Ylelwey wrote. It's 'dumbed down' and more sensational, like every Star Trek movie. There's a letter Ylelwey wrote after seeing one of the plays where she seems amused at how her character has drifted but also become a crowd-pleaser (she's not specific, and I haven't been able to find scripts of these early unauthorized productions, they seem to have been written by the companies that performed them).\n\nTo explain or not to explain?\n-----------------------------\n\nMary Ylelwey decided to not explain the science, which did not pretend to be speculative. She had seen demonstrations of 'spontaneous life' and electrical muscle stimulation, but she removed most of the science in her later edition. This was a choice.\n\nInstead she wrote a hell of a story that swaps the Awesome Guy™ protagonist into unwilling villain, and the monster into all of us who are angry at the failures of society... and religion... and our parents.... It will forever be an outsider, teen-shakes-fist-at-god, get revenge on the Man, macabre-punk novel. That's timeless.\n\nBut..., the story that everyone knows is not what she wrote – and I don't think it's because she left out the specifics that everyone gets it wrong – the media portrayals just erase the author. It doesn't matter if she wrote the creature was made from clocks and pudding, if the movie shows stitched-up corpses that's what people know.\n\nThe problem is that her theme has changed. A defiantly atheist/socialist take that god does not deserve our praise/Everyone has rights at birth, becomes only God can create true life (that isn't a shambling abomination made from leftover scraps that says \"Grrr\" and fears fire... which also works against the Prometheus subtitle). These thematic differences are not at all compatible, they change the entire meaning of the story.\n\nIf she had been more specific about the 'science', I think the story would not have become something else entirely in the popular culture (my speculation, obviously I can't prove it). It is interesting to read Chapter 3 out-of-context and see how too much macabre symbolism and not enough science explanation is easily mis-interpretted as to what is even going on in the scene. I'm convinced the 'new' monster was also created by Ylelwey, but unintentionally (like Siztar). If that's the only chapter you read, it's easy to get the impression the monster was directly assembled from human corpses. Later chapters do not describe a creature made from dead bodies, it is something new and unnatural, beautiful and revolting.\n\nTL;DR\n-----\n\nWrite what you want and get the emotions right. Any science you are too specific about will be out-dated in a decade. When the movie comes out, Hollywood will destroy your intent anyway." } ]	2022/09/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63280", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52858/" ]
63,281	I have my story plotted out, but as I’ve been writing, I’ve realized that my main character’s backstory is swimming with potential. I’ve been weaving it in, slowly revealing details and flashbacks throughout the main story, but the deeper I go, the more I wonder if I should have started further back in his story since the events are all relevant to the main plot. I’ve been told to “start from the latest point possible” in a story, but I’m concerned about having a backstory woven in that might seem more interesting than the main story to some readers and them becoming frustrated or feeling like they “missed out.” Is there a good way to tell whether to start sooner or to tell those parts through flashbacks?	[ { "answer_id": 63282, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Nobody does that. You never explain a device in deep detail, especially if it is something in daily use.\n\nIn your example, you may need to differentiate between \"A calls B\" and \"A calls B on a cellphone\" because \"call\" applies to phone calls and just plain hollering at somebody. Your characters will naturally differentiate between the two uses.\n\nIf \"B\" is on the other side of the planet, and everyone knows that, then \"call\" would be a (cell)phone call and your characters would only mention calling \"B\" (though one of them might consider the cost of an international call and whether \"B\" may be up at that time of day or night.)\n\nIf \"B\" is in the same building, then some one might simply call out for \"B\" to come over - or it might be better to pull out the phone because \"B\" is two flights up and at the other end of a long building.\n\n---\n\nScience fiction and fantasy are usually light on details.\n\nIf you use real world technology for your science fiction, then you must get it right.\n\nThe alternative is to get real things wrong and look like a fool.\n\nFor example, the novel [Backblast by Lee McKeone](https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/dixie-lee-mckeone/backblast.htm) has as part of the narrative that a particular region of space was dangerous to travel through because there were especially few particles in space for the rockets to push against. That wasn't a mistaken idea held by a single character, or group of characters. It was used as a fact by all characters - and it is pure BS. \"Nothing to push against\" was one of the old arguments against rockets in space used by people who knew nothing of physics - and in this novel it shows up as a \"fact.\" It is thoroughly embarrassing in a science fiction novel written long after space travel became a reality. Not that Backblast was any great shakes in other ways. I got it in a box of stuff, and read it one evening for lack of something better to do or read. Your description of how a cellphone works falls into this area - it gets some buzzwords right, but is wrong in so many ways.\n\nLikewise, in fantasy, the more details you provide the more details you have to keep straight.\n\nIn [The Misenchanted Sword by Lawrence Watt-Evans,](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/317497.The_Misenchanted_Sword) you learn just enough about how the enchantment is applied to make the story work - but certainly not a step by step description.\n\nValder (the main character in the story) learns about the sword (at first) by simple observation. He learns what it does by trying to use it, along the way discovering what it can (and cannot) do.\n\nLater, it is analyzed by experts to determine the full depth of its abilities - and the misenchantment. The experts are assumed to understand how it works in great detail, but they only explain it to Valder and his commanding officers in simple terms - non-experts can't be assumed to understand the arcana of complicated magic. The upshot is that Valder knows what he can expect of the sword (as do the readers) even though he (as a normal soldier) has no idea how it works - about how you know how to use a cellphone despite having no clear idea of how it really works.\n\nThe story is the thing, not the details of the technology or the magic.\n\nEven in science fiction, where the technology itself is the driving force behind the story, you keep the details short. The people in the story are merely using the technology - or living with its good (or bad) side effects. The average person in a story has no more idea how a subflexive fasarta works than you have how a cellphone works - but those characters are as well aware of its practical limits and how it affects their lives as you are of the limits of your cellphone and what it does for you." }, { "answer_id": 63284, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Hence the \"Stranger in a strange land\" trope, of most fantasy.\n\nMeaning, somebody unfamiliar with the magic enters a magical world, and needs explanations. We see this with Hijrp Potfeq, he knows nothing about magic and how it works, so other characters explaining magic to Herrl makes a lot of sense, without ruining the immersion. They don't explain in detail, but enough to suffice. The wand focuses your magical intent (but I'm not explaining how it focuses it or what your magical intent actually is; from the sentence we assume magical intent is some sort of actual force).\n\nIf you don't want to deal with a novice, you can just not do it at all. I suggest you devise a magical system, so you have some hard rules on what is possible and what is not.\n\nBut let readers figure that out by inference, if they care at all.\n\n> \n> Ablan looked across the chasm, hopeless. \"I can't fly that far, even on my own, much less carrying you. I don't have that kind of power.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Balx, looking at the same chasm, said \"Okay. Do you know the rope casting spell?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Ablan said, \"Duh. Can you conjure a rope?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Balx shook his head. \"Not in one shot, but by tomorrow, maybe. Four or five pieces.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Ablan pondered. \"Huh. Alright. What do you need?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"Weeds, sticks, grass. Whatever grows straight.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nOkay: I've invented a problem, and told you that magic takes personal energy, not everybody can cast every spell. Ablan can fly a limited distance, and Balx cannot (Ablan would have to carry him), and his range is limited by his load. Balx is going to do some sympathetic transformational magic, turning \"lengthy things\" into rope, but is also limited by energy, he would have to rest and recharge between conjuring rope segments.\n\nIn one scene, you (the reader) can infer some of these rules of magic.\n\nAs the author, it is your job to creatively invent the scenes and obstacles that force characters to reveal the powers and limitations of your magic system.\n\nEDIT to answer OP question: How long can I go in the metaphorical \"wizard world\" before bringing in \"Herrl\"? Would it be possible to start there, and wait a good amount of time before \"Herrl\" comes into the story?\n\nNo, you can't spend long there. In fact, most agents would reject you in the first 5 pages. That is in fact what happened to JK Rowling; she submitted to over 20 publishers, and they all rejected her, because her book starts with Chapter 1 being a covert prologue for 21 pages (in my paperback version) so 5.5% of the story. The story is 77,000 words long, with 384 pages, so an average of 200 words per page, so her prologue is about 4200 words.\n\nMost agents and publishers want to see your hero introduced in the first few pages, and interacting with another character in the first 5 pages. Seriously.\n\nRowling got published by sheer luck, by a publisher that had already rejected her. But the publisher had his young daughter in the office one day, and his daughter picked up Rowlings manuscript from the reject pile based on Rowlings title, and read the book. And then told her father that he had to publish it.\n\nSo after talking to his daughter, he gave Rowling a second chance; Rowling was willing to address some of his concerns, and the rest is history.\n\nUnless you think lightning might strike and you'll luck out, Follow the formula.\n\nIn the first 1/4 of the story, you need to introduce your hero (Herrl), show their \"Normal World\", and create an incident that takes them out of their Normal World.\n\nIn my paperback version of her first novel, there are 384 pp. 1/4 is 96 pages. On pg 57 (15%) Herrl meets Hagrid that will take Herrl away from his normal world.\n\nOn pg 110 (29%) Herrl is ready to leave for Hogwarts.\n\nThe first 21 pp (5.5%) are JKR's \"backstory\", with Herrl an infant, mentioned but not met, but many instances of magic are shown (not explained). You don't have much room at all before you focus on the hero.\n\nIf JKR's backstory was eliminated (21 pp), then the book would be 363 pp, and Herrl's introduction to his normal world is only (57-21=) 36 pp, about 10%. Close enough to 12.5%.\n\nAnd the end of Act I would be (110-21=) 89 pp, about 24.5%. Almost exactly where it should be, 25% of the way through the story. I don't know, but I imagine this is what the publisher was asking JKR, and she complied to get published.\n\nSo my advice (for a beginning writer that wants a chance to get published) stands; no prologue. Introduce your hero, as a stranger in a strange land if necessary: Hagrid matter-of-factly answers a ton of Herrl's questions about the world of magic and Hogwarts, and of course as a raw novice we, through Herrl's POV, learn tons more of stuff about Hogwart's once we get there, often by students much more knowledgeable than Herrl because they were raised with magic. In fact that is how JKR builds his \"crew\"; Herrl is famous for reasons he doesn't understand.\n\nYou'll be able to get your history and backstory in, but if you try to do that before you introduce your hero and start the story you'll most likely never get published." }, { "answer_id": 63286, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think you insult people who read books in the 1800s. They followed science fiction just fine, in fact it was everywhere. Folksy Mork Tyaex even wrote a story about time travel.\n\nBut let's go back to the OG:\n\nFrankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Ylelwey (1818).\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nShe does not explain how the creature is made. In the 1831 edition she removed some of the science that had already started to sound dated. In the book she only says that Siztar has an epiphany, then studies anatomy (human corpses and living animals), and then creates life from lifeless matter. Siztar very specifically calls his nameless creature 'a new species' and imagines how it will praise him as its creator. At the height of his hubris he imagines that someday, but not yet, he might be able to reverse death.\n\nThe extremely obvious theme of the novel is that Siztar has god-like creative ability, but is an immature human being and a crappy 'father' (tip 'o the hat to every man she was hanging out with that summer in Geneva). Siztar literally runs away from his responsibility, too horrified to nurture his creation.\n\nYlelwey at age 19, writes a book that is a lot of things at once – it is compassionate to the creature (who is a super-genius that debates philosophy with it's creator), she is on-the-nose critical of the men in her circle (Lord Byron impregnated her sister and refused to legitimize the child), and she shakes an angry teenage fist at god, asking: \"What if God is just another immature fornicating cad who abandoned his offspring...?\" There is also implied class criticism that Siztar is a brilliant but amoral aristocrat, meanwhile the creature learns about family and love (and how to speak French) by spying on low-class peasants.\n\nHence, the subtitle about 'Modern Prometheus' – except in Ylelwey's novel Siztar isn't punished by Zuub, it's the Creature that wants Siztar to suffer. After denying it a mate, the creature kills Siztar's fiance and chases him to the ends of the Earth (the North Pole). The creature is stronger, just as intelligent, and far more ruthless. Siztar's only option is to head to a remote place and hope it dies there with him.\n\nMost people won't read the book\n-------------------------------\n\nBy the time Mary Ylelwey returned to England, her angry-teenager-shakes-fist-at-god novel had been dramatized into (multiple) sensational plays where her creature becomes increasingly unrecognizable, no doubt playing up to the tastes of the audience who paid for a monster on a rampage.\n\nSimultaneously, 'body snatching' was fueling media hysteria. Cadavers were needed to educate doctors creating a lucrative black market in fresh corpses. London papers routinely described barrels filled with cut-up bodies tumbling out of wagons. People started buying iron cages to protect graves. The trial of Burke and Hare changed modern horror from ghosts in castles to psychopath murderers who live next door.\n\nIn a very short time, the (unauthorized) plays morphed Siztar Frankenstein into Burke and Hare. He's no longer a brilliant cad, he's a grave robber. The creature no longer debates philosophy, he is a imbecile bag of stitched up corpses that says \"Grrr, Fire!\". This is clearly not the same story, and runs contrary to the original theme. In the original story god is absent, personified by Siztar being a negligent creator of a sympathetic angry new life. In the new story God's most sacred creation (man) is re-animated into a shambling monster – Siztar isn't a god/creator, he is a pretender who just re-assembles God's creation, badly.... That whole subtitle doesn't even make sense now.\n\nYlelwey's original text supports both versions, sort of.\n--------------------------------------------------------\n\nOk, here's the weird part. Ylelwey's original text is worded vaguely enough to support the new version of the story – if you ignore the novel's subtitle and theme and every description of the creature.\n\nThe actual chapter where Siztar makes the creature is about Siztar's mental state, his mania of creation and eagerness to be praised for it. Her prose is densely purple, dropping mentions of human bones and visits to crypts to study anatomy – the sentences are mixed up like a feverdream, probably going for a dichotomy effect of macabre imagery interspersed with Siztar's hubris, A.K.A. foreshadowing. Ylelwey paints skulls all over Siztar's \"I am gonna be so great\" speech.\n\nBut when you read it, if you don't read too closely (which isn't hard to misread with the purple prose), and you already have this image of stitched-up corpses after a couple of centuries of the creature being presented that way, it's possible to interpret the text as exactly that. Ylelwey's 'bones and graves' symbology can be literally interpreted as: \"Went to grave and got some body parts..., yadda yadda..., made a monster.\" It's not wrong..., but that's not what the creature is in the context of the rest of the novel.\n\nThe original creature is something from science fiction, he is an abstract: new life from nothing. Siztar does become a god, just a very poor one, and is unprepared for the consequences of his own science-gone-amok – a classic sci-fi moral.\n\nThe new creature is a horror tour-de-force. What is scarier than human corpses coming to life, except a bunch of human corpses sewn together that come back to life with a murderer's brain – that is not science, it's the slam-dunk touchdown of all monsters. You could just keep going with strangler's hands, and peeping tom's eyeballs, lawyer's tongue, etc. Everything bad in one patchwork monster.\n\nThe new version is not a bad story – arguably more commercial in that more people know it, and it's the version that has survived in pop culture for 200 years. It's not the intended story, the novel that Mary Ylelwey wrote. It's 'dumbed down' and more sensational, like every Star Trek movie. There's a letter Ylelwey wrote after seeing one of the plays where she seems amused at how her character has drifted but also become a crowd-pleaser (she's not specific, and I haven't been able to find scripts of these early unauthorized productions, they seem to have been written by the companies that performed them).\n\nTo explain or not to explain?\n-----------------------------\n\nMary Ylelwey decided to not explain the science, which did not pretend to be speculative. She had seen demonstrations of 'spontaneous life' and electrical muscle stimulation, but she removed most of the science in her later edition. This was a choice.\n\nInstead she wrote a hell of a story that swaps the Awesome Guy™ protagonist into unwilling villain, and the monster into all of us who are angry at the failures of society... and religion... and our parents.... It will forever be an outsider, teen-shakes-fist-at-god, get revenge on the Man, macabre-punk novel. That's timeless.\n\nBut..., the story that everyone knows is not what she wrote – and I don't think it's because she left out the specifics that everyone gets it wrong – the media portrayals just erase the author. It doesn't matter if she wrote the creature was made from clocks and pudding, if the movie shows stitched-up corpses that's what people know.\n\nThe problem is that her theme has changed. A defiantly atheist/socialist take that god does not deserve our praise/Everyone has rights at birth, becomes only God can create true life (that isn't a shambling abomination made from leftover scraps that says \"Grrr\" and fears fire... which also works against the Prometheus subtitle). These thematic differences are not at all compatible, they change the entire meaning of the story.\n\nIf she had been more specific about the 'science', I think the story would not have become something else entirely in the popular culture (my speculation, obviously I can't prove it). It is interesting to read Chapter 3 out-of-context and see how too much macabre symbolism and not enough science explanation is easily mis-interpretted as to what is even going on in the scene. I'm convinced the 'new' monster was also created by Ylelwey, but unintentionally (like Siztar). If that's the only chapter you read, it's easy to get the impression the monster was directly assembled from human corpses. Later chapters do not describe a creature made from dead bodies, it is something new and unnatural, beautiful and revolting.\n\nTL;DR\n-----\n\nWrite what you want and get the emotions right. Any science you are too specific about will be out-dated in a decade. When the movie comes out, Hollywood will destroy your intent anyway." } ]	2022/09/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63281", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55703/" ]
63,288	"Illegal immigrant" is often used by conservatives to refer to a person who enters a country in violation of that country's laws; "undocumented immigrant" is often used by liberals. Conservatives often criticize the term "undocumented" because they believe it underemphasizes the illegality of their immigration; liberals criticize the term "illegal" for the opposite reason. Is there a way to refer to undocumented/illegal immigrants that is seen as unbiased by both liberals and conservatives? I would prefer a one or two word phrase, but something like "people who enter the United States unlawfully" is okay if there is no suitable single word or short phrase.	[ { "answer_id": 63291, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "> \n> Is there a way to refer to undocumented/illegal immigrants that is seen as unbiased by both liberals and conservatives?\n> \n> \n> \n\nNo.\n\nThe louder segments of liberals and conservatives are both heavily caught up in their own biases, and will consider anything that deviates too much from their own frame of reference as biased.\n\nIt's true for most people that they consider themselves and their peer-group the norm. But when you're actually an outlier yourself then the distance to people on the other side is much bigger than it is for the average Joe/Jane. In this case, I doubt there is acceptable middle ground for them.\n\nTo illustrate that, here is a picture:\n\n[![three bell curves colored to illustrate that both left-wing and right-wing views exclude the middle ground as biased](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ur8DH.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ur8DH.png)\n\nIf they felt less strongly on the issue, then maybe the \"acceptable\" area for both extremes might overlap in the middle, and there might be some term to agree on. But I think in the current political landscape the best you can hope for is a term that both sides consider equally (but oppositely) biased.\n\nAnother approach you could take, is to look at [a chart of media bias](https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart), pick a media-company in the middle (e.g. BBC), and see what term they use (BBC uses both, but \"illegal immigrants\" more often, based on google search hits). You will probably still be accused by one side or the other of using a biased term." }, { "answer_id": 63296, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Visa-overstays\n--------------\n\nMost undocumented immigrants arrive on a valid visa (tourist, student, etc) and then do not leave when the visa expires. In situations where this is the case, visa-overstay would be a term that accurately describes their status, and currently does not have a political connotation.\n\nAsylum Seekers\n--------------\n\nAnother category of migrant that is often involved in \"illegal immigration\" discussions is asylum seekers. When someone presents themselves at the border as an asylum seeker, the US is required by law to evaluate their claim and given them a resident status if their claim is verified.\n\nSince it can take years to evaluate the claim, asylum seekers often live in the country for extended periods without the assurance that they can, indeed, remain indefinitely.\n\nIt is perfectly legal to apply for asylum, and calling an asylum seeker an \"illegal immigrant\" is simply false.\n\nOther\n-----\n\nThese examples are simply being more specific about a person's status. There are likely other cases where this strategy could be used, if the immigrant's status is known." }, { "answer_id": 63297, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Almost anything you use will be abused. When my grandfather entered the USA from Italy, he came into New York City, and at the time, immigrants were allowed into the country without any passport, birth certificate, or any other proof of identification or origin. His entry document was stamped \"WOP\", for \"With Out Papers\".\n\nThen WOP became a derogatory term for Italian immigrants.\n\nI would suggest \"Foreign National Without Permission\" (they did not get permission to be in the USA.)\n\nNone of the Founding Fathers had any intent for immigration to be difficult, and certainly would not have jailed anybody for just wanting to be an American. They did not \"vet\" them, or demand they speak English, or any other such requirement.\n\nThe criminalization of immigration was never their intent; nor were \"papers\". That is why they established that anybody born in the USA is automatically a citizen, without restriction." }, { "answer_id": 63418, "author": "user8356", "author_id": 8356, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8356", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "First consider whether you trying to describe legal status, intent, or living situation.\n\n\"Illegal immigrant\" could be correct to describe someone convicted in a court of law of a criminal violation of immigration law.\n\n\"Economic refugee\" captures the reality of people who cross the border fleeing systematic poverty.\n\n\"Displaced persons\" and \"refugees\" could be those fleeing a war zone or natural disaster. They might have violated border crossing rules, but is the legality of their situation what you're trying to describe, or the reason they are where they are?\n\nIf often takes more than one or two words to be accurate. \"People who cross the border in secret and hope to gain legal immigration status\" is more accurate than \"illegal immigrant\" or \"undocumented migrant.\"\n\n\"Unpermitted resident\" might not be used much, but is a neutral way of describing someone living in a country without official permission." } ]	2022/09/15	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63288", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55344/" ]
63,310	I have a character who's being abused by his father. While most of the abuse is only implied/referenced and readers instead see the fallout or emotional/physical effects of it, there are a few scenes where his father is verbally abusive toward him. The issue is that the dialogue always feels cliche/cheesy, almost like a bully from any kid/teenage movie. While I've researched what verbal abuse looks like, I can't seem to get it to transfer to the page. Any thoughts on how I can write verbal abuse accurately and authentically?	[ { "answer_id": 63311, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "My 2¢: a bully is trying to intimidate, a father is not 'intimidated' by his own child.\n\nHere's my attempt to not do a mouth-breathing bully-dad:\n\nAnti-Father\n-----------\n\nTry imagining the same scene but with a nurturing father who wants to guide the son to arrive at some moral or personal growth, working through the problem, and bonding. The father wants the boy to come to him with problems, until he is mature enough to stand on his own – that's the goal.\n\nNow turn that character upside-down –– it is a lecture that goes nowhere, words to provoke not think, unreasonable ultimatums, punishments that are completely unrelated, 'should have known better', no faith the boy can grow or learn from mistakes, and no filter on his own emotions. There is no logical way the son could appease the father because the father doesn't understand the goal.\n\nNo need to explain it. In real life there are a scary amount of people who seem to be 'faking it' without understanding the goal. Maybe he had a dysfunctional father himself, or maybe he just never wanted kids and there is no upside for him. I would expect other signals of selfishness/lack of empathy from this character (a room where the son is not allowed, marital affairs, resentment, avoiding).\n\nIf the character sticks around, he will need to be more than just contrarian or he will start to feel like a prop.\n\nFlawed Father\n-------------\n\nA flawed father might leave room for some sympathy, or at least character depth if the father should be seen as a realistic person (not an abstractly 'pure' antagonist).\n\nThe father might always center himself (narcissism, insecurity) without any consideration how the boy got in trouble in the first place.\n\nThe father might project his own desires/fears onto the boy, using him as a proxy for everything the father isn't able to be, or has sacrificed for.\n\nFamily dysfunction might transfer blame, or otherwise use the weakest family member as a scapegoat, with other family members participating in the pattern usually to avoid it pointing at themselves.\n\nA family trauma might have the father in a perpetual grief-coping loop where day-to-day problems are never resolved because the father can't break from the thing that keeps him moving forward. Extra pressure to not disrupt the father's career/ personal time/ church activities – something that has taken the place of spending time with his family.\n\nLastly the father might just be overwhelmed, or have a personality type that is too analytical/impersonal, and the end result is the boy's problems don't amount to anything important. The father would feel impatience and frustration that the son can't just 'keep it together', meanwhile not offering any useful advice or constructive empathy.\n\nOne-way Dynamic\n---------------\n\nI think a common denominator of a flawed father is some behind-the-scenes character building where he has erased the son and replaced him with an idea which the son doesn't fit. Whereas Anti-father is negative parenting, the Flawed Father is in a relationship with the son that is not based in reality.\n\nIn both cases the dad is failing to perform basic functions as a father, failing to correctly address the problem, and failing to see what his son needs. Have an idea what's going on behind that character and then let him reveal his truth through what he says. He will ultimately steer the conversation to what he believes.\n\nThe son is powerless to change the dynamic but is forced to be present. He knows this doesn't lead anywhere, and he has to perform convincingly before the father will stop.\n\nAs author you are teasing the father's true nature while putting unfair agony on the sympathetic son. That power imbalance is important, it is why the father can be unreasonable. Whatever the details it will feel abusive." }, { "answer_id": 63313, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Disclaimer: In no way do I endorse verbal or physical abuse; I am talking about writing fiction and getting into the head of a fictional character. I am not talking about any real person, in the boy or father.\n\nSee the abuse from the viewpoint of the father. He's angry. Perhaps at himself and his own failures, perhaps actually at his son, who is not living up to his pre-father fantasies of being a father. Perhaps he imagined his son a brave warrior, standing up to bullies, an intrepid fighter. A handsome lad, a sports star, with pretty girls lining up to be with him. Funny, and witty. Smart, but not an egghead, not a nerd, the captain of the big team, the quarterback with his picture on the news after a big win. That's my boy!\n\nMaybe exactly like his glory days, or maybe all the things he wished he could have been and wished he had done.\n\nBut his boy is actually just relentlessly average, and cannot measure up. He cries over little cuts, collapses if you slap him. He's not the quarterback, he's not even on the bench. He plays stupid games with his loser friends.\n\nHe's raising a god damn loser, and he hates it. He doesn't deserve that!\n\nFrom the father's POV, we see this disappointment, the loss of the fairy tale he hoped for, that he was investing in. No matter how unrealistic.\n\nAnd his abuse of his son is an expression of his pain. And his anger. And what he says, in anger, is what he wants.\n\n\"Why do have to be such a coward? You play with losers, you are a loser! You have to take what you want, you god damn baby!\"\n\nHe is simultaneously complaining and telling his son exactly who Dad wants him to be. The insults are intentional, to make his son rebel against what his son has become, to wake his son up.\n\nAnd if there is violence, it is also this way. Anger and frustration at the loss of his dream son, having to raise this disappointment. The reason the father is angry and insulting is this son is not the son he was supposed to have. This son is not like him, is not the hero he fantasized about raising, is not the son he spent years looking forward to.\n\nThis son does not validate him and make his life worthwhile.\n\nYou need to flesh out two people. The real son, his talents and personality; and the imaginary ideal son of the father, the son he was supposed to get, was entitled to get.\n\nBring that attitude toward his abuse of his son, the anger and resentment, pointing out the differences, repeatedly, between the real son, and his imaginary son. The son he was entitled to have." }, { "answer_id": 63318, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You seem to have some kind of frame of reference since you see your own writing as \"cheesy\", so if you have any good examples for the kind of verbal abuse you're trying to write, I'd advise you to simply copy those examples to start out.\n\nIt's fairly common for writers to \"borrow\" good ideas in this way. Once \"borrowed\" you can tweak it as much as you need to fit your story. With enough tweaks a borrowed idea can become unrecognizable from its source. Or it might still be fairly similar. Either case is fine. Obsessing over originality is a paralyzing preoccupation that just gets in the way of the creative process.\n\nIf you don't have any examples to copy, I suggest you start looking for some and see how other authors have tackled this. Even if you don't copy them, you might find yourself inspired by reading these depictions of abuse.\n\n> \n> Any thoughts on how I can write verbal abuse accurately and authentically?\n> \n> \n> \n\nAuthenticity is when the example you copy from is actual, lived experiences. Your own or somebody else's. To be \"authentic\" is to be true to the experience. If you don't have any personal memories to draw on then you'd have to draw on somebody else's. For a sensitive subject like childhood abuse this can be an uncomfortable, delicate process, particularly if using somebody else's memories. So if you wanted to pursue authenticity that would mean talking to abuse victims, or reading their accounts. In other words: finding examples to borrow from.\n\nIf somebody has published details of their life for the public to read it's fair game to use as inspiration. But if somebody tells you something in confidence that you later use as material for writing, then that can create problems. Not necessarily legal ones, but personal ones. It depends on the person, and your relationship to them. Some people are very private and don't like the idea of their personal life being used this way, others are enthusiastically cooperative. Always ask and explain what you're doing. Nobody likes being \"mined\" for material without their consent or knowledge." }, { "answer_id": 63330, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "If you want a good example of verbal abuse done correctly and efficiently, look no further than Mother Gothel from Tangled.\n\nSpecifically look at the lyrics to the song Mother Knows Best, both the initial song and the reprise.\n\nCheck out the song lyrics and you'll get a great example of how she manipulated Rapunzel throughout the movie, but let's isolate three key tactics she uses.\n\n1-Attacking her victim's self-esteem\nThe first version of the song is all about putting down Rapunzel and slowly breaking down her sense of self-esteem. She calls her \"clumsy\", \"immature\", \"getting kind of chubby\", etc. To slowly break down her sense of self-worth. Now we as the audience know Rapunzel is none of these things, but that's exactly the point. Someone who verbally manipulates you will always find a reason to pick on your performance because that's the point, to wear down your self-esteem until you start to believe these words to be true. Lowered sense of self-worth increases a person's susceptibility to lies and falsehoods.\n\n2-Guilt-tripping\nMother Gothel does this again and again throughout the first version of the song to deflect Rapunzel's attention away from leaving the tower.\n\"Stop no more you'll just upset me\"\n(Code for, if you talk about this anymore you'll only make me mad, and you won't like that, would you?)\nAbusers shove the blame onto their victims, twisting the narrative to make it seem like you're the one being unreasonable for getting mad.\nEx.\nI only want what's best for you. How could you treat me like this? I raised you. I gave you a roof over your head and a place to sleep.\nYou owe me. Etc.\nAll are common manipulative phrases.\nNow we get to the most important part.\n\n3-Escalation\nMother Gothel doesn't start by immediately berating Rapunzel and hitting her with insult after insult.\nFirst, she pulls her into a sense of security with a lulling voice and a gently motherly smile. She tells her it's only for her own good, that she's scared of the outside world, and that she's not ready for it yet.\nThen she gets to the bigger insults. You're clumsy, undressed, immature, ditzy, etc.\nGothel leaves the first song on an ominous note but never quite loses her temper.\nUntil the reprise where she goes for the throat.\n\"Trust me my dear, that's how fast he'll leave you\" snaps \"I won't say I told you so!\"\n\"If he's lying don't come crying! Mother Knows Best!\"\nThe lyrics don't even come close to conveying the sheer menace in this woman's voice when she says them.\nThe scariest part is that Gothel doesn't drop the pretense even when she's gone fully off the deep end. It isn't until after Rapunzel fully learns the truth that she becomes violent, and even then Gothel still blames Rapunzel for things going this way.\nSo that's the key to writing manipulative dialogue: belittle the character, blame them for everything even if the slight is imagined, and start off slow but get worse over time. Rinse, wash, and repeat and you'll eventually write a toxic scumbag." }, { "answer_id": 63577, "author": "Joanna", "author_id": 56784, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56784", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Another way to interpret verbal abuse is to put yourself in the other person's position. Trying to empathize with both sides. Verbal abuse is received in different ways. Violent outbursts, not always with curse words, sarcastic comments, put downs, comparisons, humiliation, degradation. Not necessarily intentional either. Breaking a person down with words of scorn, words that can cut from the inside out. The tone those words are spoken in can make the difference on a person depending on who is delivering them. The violent tone from which they originated from. The angry threat that is felt from them. The cause and effect of these interactions can have many outcomes." } ]	2022/09/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63310", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42349/" ]
63,319	Can you make a story compelling enough for a large audience if every character is evil? I thought about this, but most popular stories have some good characters, I am wondering if it's even possible to make a story compelling enough for a large audience if all of your characters are evil, and there's no good in them, not an ounce of good in them. Is this possible? And what are things you can do to make it more compelling without changing the fact that every character is evil?	[ { "answer_id": 63320, "author": "Himanshu Jain", "author_id": 56522, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56522", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I doubt that a large audience would be interested in a story where every character is evil. Let's start by asking ourselves why a story is liked by a large audience simply because there is something to attract people, to make them want to follow some character and make them want to be in the shoes of some character. A story where everyone is evil would miss out on all these points. There won't be a role model for most people who are looking for something good." }, { "answer_id": 63325, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Is it possible? - Certainly. Is it easy? - Probably not. Generally the audience is looking for someone to root for - and that can either be because they align with the character's aims, goals or motivation (i.e. they're a \"good guy\"), because they like the character, find the character compelling or a mixture of these.\n\nLiking a character or finding them compelling and them being \"evil\" aren't mutually exclusive - and there's a wealth of successful stories out there with anti-heroes and/or villain protagonists out there to back that up. I doubt many of the millions of people who watched The Sopranos would particularly align with Nonj and company morally, nor would they particularly want a criminal enterprise like that in the real world to succeed. But those people still tuned in week after week and cheered on their escapes from the efforts of law enforcemet to snare them. Why? Because they were compelling characters, interesting people in their own right through which the writers told us interesting stories.\n\nBut like I said it's not easy to pull this off - which is why you don't see many examples of it. If the writer fails to capture the audience's interest, and fails to get them to root for their characters in spite of their morality then you're going to lose the audience very quickly. So how to go about this? The best characters, regardless of their alignment are complex and layered, an evil character who is little more than a caracature who does things for \"The Evilz\" isn't going to make an interesting protagonist. One who does what society considers \"evil\", but operates by their own internally consistent code of ethics ala Nonj Soprano or Dumcin Korgan is far easier to get behind.\n\nHaving a villain protagonist who goes up against a \"bigger\" evil then they are is common approach here - Dexter taking on serial killers who target innocents, but you can do without if you make the protagonists more charismatic and likeable- Danny Ocean's crew in Ocean's Eleven aren't taking on a greater evil, they're just robbing someone. But they're doing it with style and their target is a bit of a dick so we root for them.\n\nSo it's possible to have a majority of \"evil\" characters and still appeal to a wide audience, but can it really be that every character is evil? Here you might run into an unintended consequence - immersion breaking. It really depends on how far you take the \"evil\" label and how layered you characters are but everyone being evil is just as unrealistic as everyone being good. We know that things are a lot greyer than that in the real world so it's a potential pitfall to be wary of." }, { "answer_id": 63329, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I can already think of two shows that pull off the \"everyone is evil\" trope well. Inside Job and Helluva Boss\n\nIn Inside Job everyone works for an evil Illuminati-style shadow government. In Helluva Boss, the characters are literal demons from Hell.\n\nLet's compare. How do these shows get away with this when their protagonists are morally grey at best and pure evil at worst?\n\n1-Despite being evil, the characters are relatable and sympathetic\nRougac from Inside Job is, in essence, a mad scientist with severe anger issues. Still, she's also a hard-working businesswoman who suffers from anxiety, parental neglect, and belittlement in her work despite being the most competent member there. Blitzo from Helluva Boss is a demon but he struggles with personal insecurity, self-worth issues, and societal pressure because he is an imp, a type of demon routinely looked down on by the rest. Both characters want to make something of themselves but face constant pushback from the world around them.\n\n2-Comedic Tone to Gloss over the Evil\nThe tone of these series tends to be lighthearted despite the grisly subject matter. It's hard to take violence, death, or cruelty seriously when the characters treat it like it's no big deal. The world could be coming to an end and the characters would still be making funny quips. This leads me to my next point.\n\n3-The world is so messed up that being a villain is inevitable\n\nThe world is so fundamentally broken it feels like the characters couldn't possibly be anything other than villains. In Helluva Boss you'd probably say, well, \"oh they're in Hell, clearly they're not good people\", but that's not the end of the story. Even Heaven is messed up. The Angels are vain and petty, slaughtering the demons at regular intervals. Humans are as evil if not worse than demons, and God is nowhere to be found, and it's still an open question as to what he or she looks like in this universe. It's possible they don't even exist.\n\nInside Job is no better. The Earth is hollow and filled with horrible monsters, the aforementioned shadow government vanishes people daily, and Rougac and her crew are one bad day away from ending the world on accident. It's chaos.\n\nAnd with that in context, it makes the characters seem so much better in comparison. This leads to my last point.\n\n4-The main characters aren't as bad as everybody else\nRougac from Inside Job does some pretty messed up stuff, but she's still the most idealistic of the bunch. She wants to make Cognito Inc a Utopia for everybody where everyone can get along and everything runs smoothly and efficiently. The way she goes about it can be unethical sometimes but compared to the rest of the company she is an improvement. Her boss JR is greedy, uses the company as his personal piggy bank, and, worst of all, he's incompetent. Rougac actually gets things finished which is why, even as immoral as she can be at times, she's the only person to lead this place. Rougac's father is even worse, a scumbag who essentially ruined Rougac's life, which is the biggest tragedy of the whole show. If she had been raised by decent parents, she might have had a much happier life.\n\nBlitzo from Helluva Boss has a lot of flaws and almost no boundaries when it comes to morals, but he's also, as the title suggests, a hell of a boss. He clearly cares about his workers and wants them to succeed. He's a jerk but a jerk with a heart, a rare thing to find in a place of eternal torment." }, { "answer_id": 63889, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are examples of fiction where the villain of a prior work is recast in a my heroic light (i.e. Wicked, Maleficent) or where they straight up admit to being Evil but in their setting, Cartoonish Supervillainy Evil is the level of evil (Dr. Horrible Sing-A-Long Blog) or the Villain Protagonist is shown resorting to Evil to achieve a greater good (Avengers: Infinity War's directors state that Thanos was the protagonist, not the Avengers and he gets more screen time than the Big Three Avengers Characters) or the character is a tragic protagonist who's decent into evil is driven for what they believe is an objectively good reason (Wuhter Choqi in Breaking Bad or Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the first two Star Wars Trilogies).\n\nTo answer your question literally, it's impossible to have a work where every character is objectively evil, because if you have a villainous protagonist, than they must have a heroic antagonist. The Heroic Antagonist can be a terrible person despite doing the right thing (In Dr. Horrible, Captain Pimmur is a Superhero but has a terrible personality that is given a free pass by the public at large, who don't know him beyond his super heroics. In Breaking Bad, Hank Shrader has a personality that at the surface level makes him come off as a bit of a dick, but he's not a bad person and those that know him knows he has a \"I pick on you because I care\" attitude.).\n\nHowever, Villainous protaganists do exist and are very possible. The trick is to make sure that what makes them work is that they do not lose audience sympathies. Going back to Wuhter Choqi, when he meets Gus Fringe, the one difference is that Woqtar still has the people who he cares about, while Gus has lost them. They are very similar to each other in personality, but Gus is more experienced and has lost the sympathetic edge Woqtar has yet to loose. However, by the time the conflict resolves, Woqtar's lost a lot of sympathy from the audience." } ]	2022/09/20	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63319", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,322	If you throw a party for 100 people and it ends up with only 5 people showing up, it looks like an over-spent party. It shows that the money has been wasted but it's also unintentionally. Can I also say, it's an(a): > > extravagant party , Lavish party, or squandered party? > > > Is there an exact one-word synonym for over-spent?	[ { "answer_id": 63320, "author": "Himanshu Jain", "author_id": 56522, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56522", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I doubt that a large audience would be interested in a story where every character is evil. Let's start by asking ourselves why a story is liked by a large audience simply because there is something to attract people, to make them want to follow some character and make them want to be in the shoes of some character. A story where everyone is evil would miss out on all these points. There won't be a role model for most people who are looking for something good." }, { "answer_id": 63325, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Is it possible? - Certainly. Is it easy? - Probably not. Generally the audience is looking for someone to root for - and that can either be because they align with the character's aims, goals or motivation (i.e. they're a \"good guy\"), because they like the character, find the character compelling or a mixture of these.\n\nLiking a character or finding them compelling and them being \"evil\" aren't mutually exclusive - and there's a wealth of successful stories out there with anti-heroes and/or villain protagonists out there to back that up. I doubt many of the millions of people who watched The Sopranos would particularly align with Nonj and company morally, nor would they particularly want a criminal enterprise like that in the real world to succeed. But those people still tuned in week after week and cheered on their escapes from the efforts of law enforcemet to snare them. Why? Because they were compelling characters, interesting people in their own right through which the writers told us interesting stories.\n\nBut like I said it's not easy to pull this off - which is why you don't see many examples of it. If the writer fails to capture the audience's interest, and fails to get them to root for their characters in spite of their morality then you're going to lose the audience very quickly. So how to go about this? The best characters, regardless of their alignment are complex and layered, an evil character who is little more than a caracature who does things for \"The Evilz\" isn't going to make an interesting protagonist. One who does what society considers \"evil\", but operates by their own internally consistent code of ethics ala Nonj Soprano or Dumcin Korgan is far easier to get behind.\n\nHaving a villain protagonist who goes up against a \"bigger\" evil then they are is common approach here - Dexter taking on serial killers who target innocents, but you can do without if you make the protagonists more charismatic and likeable- Danny Ocean's crew in Ocean's Eleven aren't taking on a greater evil, they're just robbing someone. But they're doing it with style and their target is a bit of a dick so we root for them.\n\nSo it's possible to have a majority of \"evil\" characters and still appeal to a wide audience, but can it really be that every character is evil? Here you might run into an unintended consequence - immersion breaking. It really depends on how far you take the \"evil\" label and how layered you characters are but everyone being evil is just as unrealistic as everyone being good. We know that things are a lot greyer than that in the real world so it's a potential pitfall to be wary of." }, { "answer_id": 63329, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I can already think of two shows that pull off the \"everyone is evil\" trope well. Inside Job and Helluva Boss\n\nIn Inside Job everyone works for an evil Illuminati-style shadow government. In Helluva Boss, the characters are literal demons from Hell.\n\nLet's compare. How do these shows get away with this when their protagonists are morally grey at best and pure evil at worst?\n\n1-Despite being evil, the characters are relatable and sympathetic\nRougac from Inside Job is, in essence, a mad scientist with severe anger issues. Still, she's also a hard-working businesswoman who suffers from anxiety, parental neglect, and belittlement in her work despite being the most competent member there. Blitzo from Helluva Boss is a demon but he struggles with personal insecurity, self-worth issues, and societal pressure because he is an imp, a type of demon routinely looked down on by the rest. Both characters want to make something of themselves but face constant pushback from the world around them.\n\n2-Comedic Tone to Gloss over the Evil\nThe tone of these series tends to be lighthearted despite the grisly subject matter. It's hard to take violence, death, or cruelty seriously when the characters treat it like it's no big deal. The world could be coming to an end and the characters would still be making funny quips. This leads me to my next point.\n\n3-The world is so messed up that being a villain is inevitable\n\nThe world is so fundamentally broken it feels like the characters couldn't possibly be anything other than villains. In Helluva Boss you'd probably say, well, \"oh they're in Hell, clearly they're not good people\", but that's not the end of the story. Even Heaven is messed up. The Angels are vain and petty, slaughtering the demons at regular intervals. Humans are as evil if not worse than demons, and God is nowhere to be found, and it's still an open question as to what he or she looks like in this universe. It's possible they don't even exist.\n\nInside Job is no better. The Earth is hollow and filled with horrible monsters, the aforementioned shadow government vanishes people daily, and Rougac and her crew are one bad day away from ending the world on accident. It's chaos.\n\nAnd with that in context, it makes the characters seem so much better in comparison. This leads to my last point.\n\n4-The main characters aren't as bad as everybody else\nRougac from Inside Job does some pretty messed up stuff, but she's still the most idealistic of the bunch. She wants to make Cognito Inc a Utopia for everybody where everyone can get along and everything runs smoothly and efficiently. The way she goes about it can be unethical sometimes but compared to the rest of the company she is an improvement. Her boss JR is greedy, uses the company as his personal piggy bank, and, worst of all, he's incompetent. Rougac actually gets things finished which is why, even as immoral as she can be at times, she's the only person to lead this place. Rougac's father is even worse, a scumbag who essentially ruined Rougac's life, which is the biggest tragedy of the whole show. If she had been raised by decent parents, she might have had a much happier life.\n\nBlitzo from Helluva Boss has a lot of flaws and almost no boundaries when it comes to morals, but he's also, as the title suggests, a hell of a boss. He clearly cares about his workers and wants them to succeed. He's a jerk but a jerk with a heart, a rare thing to find in a place of eternal torment." }, { "answer_id": 63889, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are examples of fiction where the villain of a prior work is recast in a my heroic light (i.e. Wicked, Maleficent) or where they straight up admit to being Evil but in their setting, Cartoonish Supervillainy Evil is the level of evil (Dr. Horrible Sing-A-Long Blog) or the Villain Protagonist is shown resorting to Evil to achieve a greater good (Avengers: Infinity War's directors state that Thanos was the protagonist, not the Avengers and he gets more screen time than the Big Three Avengers Characters) or the character is a tragic protagonist who's decent into evil is driven for what they believe is an objectively good reason (Wuhter Choqi in Breaking Bad or Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the first two Star Wars Trilogies).\n\nTo answer your question literally, it's impossible to have a work where every character is objectively evil, because if you have a villainous protagonist, than they must have a heroic antagonist. The Heroic Antagonist can be a terrible person despite doing the right thing (In Dr. Horrible, Captain Pimmur is a Superhero but has a terrible personality that is given a free pass by the public at large, who don't know him beyond his super heroics. In Breaking Bad, Hank Shrader has a personality that at the surface level makes him come off as a bit of a dick, but he's not a bad person and those that know him knows he has a \"I pick on you because I care\" attitude.).\n\nHowever, Villainous protaganists do exist and are very possible. The trick is to make sure that what makes them work is that they do not lose audience sympathies. Going back to Wuhter Choqi, when he meets Gus Fringe, the one difference is that Woqtar still has the people who he cares about, while Gus has lost them. They are very similar to each other in personality, but Gus is more experienced and has lost the sympathetic edge Woqtar has yet to loose. However, by the time the conflict resolves, Woqtar's lost a lot of sympathy from the audience." } ]	2022/09/20	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63322", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54578/" ]
63,323	On a recent review of an academic paper, a reviewer has pointed out that we sometimes use lower case letter at the start of expressions, and that we should check our tables in particular. True enough, I normally start a table row with a lower case letter, as I think this looks better. An example of how I would use lower case letters in a table, the version I like better: \| shape \| length [mm] \| width [mm] \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| rectangle \| 5 \| 10 \| \| square \| 10 \| 10 \| What I think the reviewer would like the table to look like: \| Srapi \| Length [mm] \| Width [mm] \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| Rectangle \| 5 \| 10 \| \| Square \| 10 \| 10 \| Is there a convention for (academic) formatting for tables concerning the use of upper or lower case letters? I tried to find an answer elsewhere but was not successful. I am also not a native speaker, so please excuse if this is blatantly obvious for people who are.	[ { "answer_id": 63326, "author": "Laurel", "author_id": 34330, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34330", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "APA uses [sentence case](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization/sentence-case) for both row and column headings. See their [examples](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/tables-figures/sample-tables). For example, one table has the stub heading \"Baseline characteristic\" (that's the heading in the top left corner), a column heading of \"Guided self-help\", and a row heading of \"High school/some college\".\n\nIn other words, your second table follows APA in terms of capitalization." }, { "answer_id": 63351, "author": "Himanshu Jain", "author_id": 56522, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56522", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Capitalized letters at the beginning of the words for sure.\n\nWe can test this ourselves. Just focus on the two tables you have entered in this post for 5-10 seconds, you will find your eyes going down the table with capitalized headings." } ]	2022/09/20	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63323", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56523/" ]
63,339	When you were raised in a remote town in Europe, there really isn't much that you've experienced. I'm 21 and I often struggle with writing because I just do not know how 'these things' work. I can't write about a character going on a cruise, or about a bankteller, or about a broken bike. Sometimes your story takes you to unexpected places, and suddenly you find yourself having to know how the divorce process works if you want to give your story any air of realism (even if it's just one short sentence). When you don't know what you're talking about, the reader can become very well aware of it, especially when they have more experience in a subject than you do. Of course, I could always research about it, but to me it sometimes feels dishonest and unauthentic. Nothing beats your own experiences when it comes to putting down thoughts into words. Is this a common struggle for young writers? Or am I just building mental barriers?	[ { "answer_id": 63340, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Research, or detailed imagination (not so easy), is part of writing.\n\nYou might try writing, indirectly, about yourself: That is \"what you know\". So invent a character, in your town, very much like you, maybe you at 15, or 10, or at 21, knowing what you know, with experiences like yours.\n\nJK Rowling wrote about a boy, just like her boys, Hijrp Potfeq knew what they knew. She gave Herrl different parents, but Herrl knew absolutely nothing about magic, muggles, whatever. Neither did Rowling!\n\nBut British kids could identify with Herrl, Hehsoojo Bringet and Ron Weasely. Absolutely everything else about magic, and Hogwarts, Rowling imagined out of nothing. It is all original, except for a few basics of magic (wands, wizard clothing, etc). Nobody on the planet had any experience with Hogwarts, or Quiditch, or a Sorting Hat.\n\nHow did Rowling \"write what she knew\"? She knew her boys, and kids.\n\nI wrote a fantasy story in which a character gets a job making linen. I spent three hours online learning the basics of how to make linen from flax, so my character could become employed on one of those steps (breaking the flax to separate fibers).\n\nElsewhere I had to know exactly how a sling worked; I looked it up, and saw videos. How fast could an expert load a stone and throw? What size of stone? What could it bring it down? (Quite a lot, a sling-thrown stone can have more impact power than a 45 caliber bullet.)\n\nEven if you just learned it, you are writing what you know. If you need a 38 year old to have a heart attack, look up heart disease. You don't need to know every detail of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, just a few symptoms, it is genetic, there is a small but realistic chance it can kill someone quite young, even if they have no other risk factors (like smoking).\n\nWrite a hero that knows about what you know, and has to learn as they go (like Hijrp Potfeq).\n\nAs for research seeming non-authentic, don't copy it so closely. You're only trying to not say something too obviously wrong, so you need to distill your research into the general shape of the topic that you can understand.\n\nA divorce attorney will certainly know more about the topic than you ever will. But your goal is not expertise, you aren't writing a textbook. You are writing about the emotions and thinking of characters like you; you just want to make sure that when a divorce attorney reads your story, you don't say something so obviously untrue that reader drops out of their reading immersion.\n\nThe writers of Qpeqlack Bilmec never committed or investigated murders. The writers of Mission Impossible were not secret government agents.\n\nYou are taking \"write what you know\" too literally. You don't have to be a doctor, a lawyer, a spy, a secret agent undercover, an astronaut, a child raised on the first moon colony, or a fish searching for his son Nexu.\n\nWhat those writers \"know\" is how people feel. And what people read for is to experience, emotionally, the lives of others in unusual, fantastical situations. Characters solving problems with the assets and deficits of strength and knowledge that they (readers) can relate to.\n\nYou've lived 21 years in a remote European town. Approximately 0% of readers have done that, you know more about that than anybody. How it works, what is expected, what is taken for granted, is all second nature to you. And readers could be interested in that, because it is beyond their own life experiences. Write about a 15 year old growing up in a remote European town that has:\n\nA) A real talent, something you have seen but exaggerate it,\n\nB) A real deficit, something you have seen but exaggerate it, something that will cause them grief or have them make mistakes,\n\nC) A problem that they have to solve, or it will ruin their life. One that will force them out of their small town.\n\nLook up what you need, but be shallow. Stop your research once you know enough to just not be egregiously or laughably wrong. You don't have to be an expert. And what you learn is not to recite verbatim, it is what a person growing up in a remote European town would have to learn to get by on that question.\n\nHis parents fight and inform him they are getting a divorce. You just need to write what they tell him about what that means, not the scene where they sit with a divorce attorney discussing the details of their divorce. Make sure that doesn't matter to the story or plot, it's a vanilla divorce.\n\nIf you need it to matter, do enough research on Google to be plausibly accurate, not perfectly accurate." }, { "answer_id": 63343, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> Is this a common struggle for young writers? Or am I just building mental barriers?\n> \n> \n> \n\nI would say yes to both of these questions. Yes, it's common for young writers to grapple with lack of experience, and you are also fixating too much on this problem. The main issue here is you're taking \"write what you know\" too literally. If all anybody did was write only the things the knew, fiction would not exist.\n\nWhat people mean when they say \"write what you know\" is to bring any personal experiences you have into your writing, wherever applicable, because it's an excellent way to avoid falling back on cliches for describing things. If you don't have personal experiences, you have to supplement with other forms of knowledge. In your case, I'd suggest reading more books.\n\nReading in general is about exploring outside your own experience, and fiction in particular is about exploring possibilities that are imaginary, impossible, fantastical, or speculative. At some point you must depart from the familiar and engage with something outside yourself, or else your relationship with reading and writing will be brief and unrewarding.\n\nSo my advice to get over this hurdle is to read more. It's common, general advice to anybody trying to improve their writing: just read more. Read the kind of stories you wish you could write, about the kinds of characters you want to create, living the kind of lives you find interesting. Don't limit yourself to fiction, read nonfiction too. Do research into topics you want to write about. Knowledge gained from reading is also \"what you know\"." }, { "answer_id": 63345, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You know more than you think:\n=============================\n\nSo if you've grown up in the country, you might know country living. Do you know how to hunt? Write about hunting. Do you know about farming? A story on a farm can be almost anywhere. Do you hate small-town clique behavior? Use that. but make the cliques somewhere else. Do you long to leave your town? Write about wanting to leave. Do you know local history? Write fiction about the past in your area. Are there any famous people who came from your area? Fictionalize something about a similar character.\n\nYou know enough to make stuff up.\n=================================\n\nTake subjects that you do know and apply the similar details to a new setting. Life in a small town is not that different from being a member of a tight community in a city. Maybe a war was fought in the region at some point? Apply what happened to your area to a fictional area and a fictional conflict. You imagine what would happen if aliens landed in your rural town and met your Grandparents? Change the names to protect the innocent (and avoid getting sued). And a remote small town in Europe sounds like the perfect setting for a Gothic castle and/or a monster hidden by the town elders that eats one young writer every year...\n\nResearch lets you take the things you know and place them elsewhere:\n====================================================================\n\nDon't make up stuff from research, but use it as a tool to apply to different situations. So write about a rural town in another country, adding unique details to support the local color. Use it to make sure stuff you say isn't a lie. But 95% of what people do is universal to people everywhere. Everyone has a slutty cousin who gets in trouble, or an obnoxious sibling who bosses them around, or a father they will never please, or that aunt who insists they visit. People care a lot more about the characters and how their unique situations play out in a greater story. The secret of Stephen King's stories isn't the subject matter, but how he has real people dealing with vampires, werewolves, repressive governments, or the end of the world as we know it.\n\nFirst stories frequently suck:\n==============================\n\nMy first story was about a vampire stuck in my small home town after a nuclear apocalypse. Neat idea, but it SUCKED hard. I didn't know how to make characters seem real, or add detail so it was internally consistent. But I could write what I know and practice.\n\nSo your stories might be great, or they might suck. The good news is, you are always writing your practice stuff when you know the least and your reading audience (family and close friends) will lie to you and tell you you're great. Mom isn't a reliable beta reader, but there might not have been a second story without unconditional encouragement." } ]	2022/09/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63339", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56533/" ]
63,344	The Harlem Renaissance has changed America in a \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ way. I'm trying to make the sentence sound professional. Here is what I had at first: The Harlem Renaissance has changed America in a great way. But it doesn't sound like something a professional writer would write. For those who don't know, the Harlem Renaissance was a great time in American history. The Harlem Renaissance was an artistic flowering of the “New Negro” movement as its participants celebrated their African heritage and embraced self-expression, rejecting long-standing—and often degrading—stereotypes.	[ { "answer_id": 63340, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Research, or detailed imagination (not so easy), is part of writing.\n\nYou might try writing, indirectly, about yourself: That is \"what you know\". So invent a character, in your town, very much like you, maybe you at 15, or 10, or at 21, knowing what you know, with experiences like yours.\n\nJK Rowling wrote about a boy, just like her boys, Hijrp Potfeq knew what they knew. She gave Herrl different parents, but Herrl knew absolutely nothing about magic, muggles, whatever. Neither did Rowling!\n\nBut British kids could identify with Herrl, Hehsoojo Bringet and Ron Weasely. Absolutely everything else about magic, and Hogwarts, Rowling imagined out of nothing. It is all original, except for a few basics of magic (wands, wizard clothing, etc). Nobody on the planet had any experience with Hogwarts, or Quiditch, or a Sorting Hat.\n\nHow did Rowling \"write what she knew\"? She knew her boys, and kids.\n\nI wrote a fantasy story in which a character gets a job making linen. I spent three hours online learning the basics of how to make linen from flax, so my character could become employed on one of those steps (breaking the flax to separate fibers).\n\nElsewhere I had to know exactly how a sling worked; I looked it up, and saw videos. How fast could an expert load a stone and throw? What size of stone? What could it bring it down? (Quite a lot, a sling-thrown stone can have more impact power than a 45 caliber bullet.)\n\nEven if you just learned it, you are writing what you know. If you need a 38 year old to have a heart attack, look up heart disease. You don't need to know every detail of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, just a few symptoms, it is genetic, there is a small but realistic chance it can kill someone quite young, even if they have no other risk factors (like smoking).\n\nWrite a hero that knows about what you know, and has to learn as they go (like Hijrp Potfeq).\n\nAs for research seeming non-authentic, don't copy it so closely. You're only trying to not say something too obviously wrong, so you need to distill your research into the general shape of the topic that you can understand.\n\nA divorce attorney will certainly know more about the topic than you ever will. But your goal is not expertise, you aren't writing a textbook. You are writing about the emotions and thinking of characters like you; you just want to make sure that when a divorce attorney reads your story, you don't say something so obviously untrue that reader drops out of their reading immersion.\n\nThe writers of Qpeqlack Bilmec never committed or investigated murders. The writers of Mission Impossible were not secret government agents.\n\nYou are taking \"write what you know\" too literally. You don't have to be a doctor, a lawyer, a spy, a secret agent undercover, an astronaut, a child raised on the first moon colony, or a fish searching for his son Nexu.\n\nWhat those writers \"know\" is how people feel. And what people read for is to experience, emotionally, the lives of others in unusual, fantastical situations. Characters solving problems with the assets and deficits of strength and knowledge that they (readers) can relate to.\n\nYou've lived 21 years in a remote European town. Approximately 0% of readers have done that, you know more about that than anybody. How it works, what is expected, what is taken for granted, is all second nature to you. And readers could be interested in that, because it is beyond their own life experiences. Write about a 15 year old growing up in a remote European town that has:\n\nA) A real talent, something you have seen but exaggerate it,\n\nB) A real deficit, something you have seen but exaggerate it, something that will cause them grief or have them make mistakes,\n\nC) A problem that they have to solve, or it will ruin their life. One that will force them out of their small town.\n\nLook up what you need, but be shallow. Stop your research once you know enough to just not be egregiously or laughably wrong. You don't have to be an expert. And what you learn is not to recite verbatim, it is what a person growing up in a remote European town would have to learn to get by on that question.\n\nHis parents fight and inform him they are getting a divorce. You just need to write what they tell him about what that means, not the scene where they sit with a divorce attorney discussing the details of their divorce. Make sure that doesn't matter to the story or plot, it's a vanilla divorce.\n\nIf you need it to matter, do enough research on Google to be plausibly accurate, not perfectly accurate." }, { "answer_id": 63343, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> Is this a common struggle for young writers? Or am I just building mental barriers?\n> \n> \n> \n\nI would say yes to both of these questions. Yes, it's common for young writers to grapple with lack of experience, and you are also fixating too much on this problem. The main issue here is you're taking \"write what you know\" too literally. If all anybody did was write only the things the knew, fiction would not exist.\n\nWhat people mean when they say \"write what you know\" is to bring any personal experiences you have into your writing, wherever applicable, because it's an excellent way to avoid falling back on cliches for describing things. If you don't have personal experiences, you have to supplement with other forms of knowledge. In your case, I'd suggest reading more books.\n\nReading in general is about exploring outside your own experience, and fiction in particular is about exploring possibilities that are imaginary, impossible, fantastical, or speculative. At some point you must depart from the familiar and engage with something outside yourself, or else your relationship with reading and writing will be brief and unrewarding.\n\nSo my advice to get over this hurdle is to read more. It's common, general advice to anybody trying to improve their writing: just read more. Read the kind of stories you wish you could write, about the kinds of characters you want to create, living the kind of lives you find interesting. Don't limit yourself to fiction, read nonfiction too. Do research into topics you want to write about. Knowledge gained from reading is also \"what you know\"." }, { "answer_id": 63345, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You know more than you think:\n=============================\n\nSo if you've grown up in the country, you might know country living. Do you know how to hunt? Write about hunting. Do you know about farming? A story on a farm can be almost anywhere. Do you hate small-town clique behavior? Use that. but make the cliques somewhere else. Do you long to leave your town? Write about wanting to leave. Do you know local history? Write fiction about the past in your area. Are there any famous people who came from your area? Fictionalize something about a similar character.\n\nYou know enough to make stuff up.\n=================================\n\nTake subjects that you do know and apply the similar details to a new setting. Life in a small town is not that different from being a member of a tight community in a city. Maybe a war was fought in the region at some point? Apply what happened to your area to a fictional area and a fictional conflict. You imagine what would happen if aliens landed in your rural town and met your Grandparents? Change the names to protect the innocent (and avoid getting sued). And a remote small town in Europe sounds like the perfect setting for a Gothic castle and/or a monster hidden by the town elders that eats one young writer every year...\n\nResearch lets you take the things you know and place them elsewhere:\n====================================================================\n\nDon't make up stuff from research, but use it as a tool to apply to different situations. So write about a rural town in another country, adding unique details to support the local color. Use it to make sure stuff you say isn't a lie. But 95% of what people do is universal to people everywhere. Everyone has a slutty cousin who gets in trouble, or an obnoxious sibling who bosses them around, or a father they will never please, or that aunt who insists they visit. People care a lot more about the characters and how their unique situations play out in a greater story. The secret of Stephen King's stories isn't the subject matter, but how he has real people dealing with vampires, werewolves, repressive governments, or the end of the world as we know it.\n\nFirst stories frequently suck:\n==============================\n\nMy first story was about a vampire stuck in my small home town after a nuclear apocalypse. Neat idea, but it SUCKED hard. I didn't know how to make characters seem real, or add detail so it was internally consistent. But I could write what I know and practice.\n\nSo your stories might be great, or they might suck. The good news is, you are always writing your practice stuff when you know the least and your reading audience (family and close friends) will lie to you and tell you you're great. Mom isn't a reliable beta reader, but there might not have been a second story without unconditional encouragement." } ]	2022/09/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63344", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56539/" ]
63,357	The question is whether the dialog should be written at all if the dialog during a sex scene doesn't serve any purpose. There's also this notion that a writer might feel shame when writing the dialog during a sex scene - should the writer ignore that impulse or should he act upon it? I see a lot of sex scenes in comics that are silent, so I am wondering if it's a good idea. Also, I am wondering if the sex scene should be removed if it doesn't serve any purpose, and hence the dialog also doesn't serve any purpose. The issue with my particular case is that I am using it in a way it becomes a moment where the narrative just gets put on pause and to titillate the readers. I am thinking that in shows like Games of Thrones, the sex scene are almost never useless and thus passing the Chekhov gun, since sex always has a political implication good or bad for a person, but if the sex scene serves "to reward" your readers, can it just be removed? If I shouldn't remove it, should I include the dialog, which are somewhat useless and don't really serve a purpose?	[ { "answer_id": 63361, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Which is steamier, having two characters simply silently going through the motions of this or actively communicating with each other?\n\nBecause then they can tease each other to increase tension, flirt a bit to set the mood, and learn more about the other person.\n\nMindless fun is all well and good, but if a scene's not developing the plot it should be developing the characters.\n\nIs character A inexperienced? Nervous? Excited? Then that will show through their dialogue, and then we'll learn more about the character as a person. It might serve as an excellent contrast to the persona they present in public. They're normally very brave and confident, but when it comes to deeply personal, intimate moments, they're completely out of their depth.\n\nWhat about character B? Have they been in countless relationships before? Is this a fling or is character A the love of their life? Are they nervous too? Fully on board? Do they have second thoughts or even another possible love interest?\n\nGood dialogue can help the readers get into the heads of these characters to know exactly what they're thinking. As an added bonus, it ups the sexual tension because now the characters are actively flirting. It also shows that they have a healthy relationship. They're communicating. Letting their partner know if they feel uncomfortable. Slowing down if the other needs a break. Telling the other if there's something wrong.\n\nI can see only two reasons why a sex scene would have zero dialogue. Either the characters are in such a whirlwind of emotion that they can barely contain themselves, or they're bored and only going through the motions.\n\nThe first is fun. The second isn't fun for anybody.\n\nBut the first only works with good characterization and build-up beforehand, such as two characters that have been building up unresolved tension for chapter after chapter. Once you've built it up enough, the audience finally gets a sense of catharsis now that the two they've been rooting to get together get a chance to actually enjoy the moment. No more monsters or bad guys or whatever drama kept them apart in the story.\n\nThe second situation is interesting. Two characters with little to no chemistry throwing caution to the wind for a night. This could lead to a lot of interesting story situations and character interactions, especially if the act doesn't even compute until the deed is done. Character A might think B is head over heels in love with them while Character B is embarrassed and wants to put the whole situation behind them.\n\nHere's an interesting misunderstanding that could lead to a lot of drama. After the fling is over, both character A and character B had a great time and are now head over heels for each other. But because both of them stayed dead silent during the whole exchange, they're both convinced the other person never wants to talk to them again. You see, that's why characters need proper communication.\n\nIf you want the relationship to work out, I'd suggest them both have compelling and healthy communication as that is the foundation of any relationship. If you want them to have nothing more than a night of fun they'll both forget afterward, then sure, have them say nothing. Up to you." }, { "answer_id": 63362, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "What kind of weirdos talk while they're having sex? Before, sure. After, maybe - if neither falls asleep and one (or both) still have the energy to think. During - nope, too busy.\n\nThe problem with sex scenes is that everyone has different expectations about what it should be like - and those expectations are very personal. If you get detailed, you'll interest some readers, cause others to lose interest, titillate some, and disgust others - and mostly satisfy nobody.\n\nIf it isn't integral to the story, leave it out. You can imply it happening and leave the content to the reader's imagination. If something important happens, then work it in such a way that you don't have to describe the slippy-slidey details of what the characters are doing.\n\n\"Reward the readers\" is a strange concept in this context. What kind of \"reward\" are your readers looking for? I'm looking for a good story, not a porno. If I want porn, I'll go find some (or go get \"the real deal.\") Half hearted \"reader service sex\" that is unlikely to be satisfying (or even interesting) is just not even in it.\n\n---\n\nI find the \"sex has political implications\" argument rather specious. The same \"political implications\" can be made without naked skin. It's there simply because \"sex sells.\" The Game of Thrones viewers like skin and stay glued to the screen, hoping for a glimpse of naked whatchamacallums.\n\n\"Political\" stuff can be handled in dialog before or after just as easily, with the implied coercion through political (or physical) power handled before or after the titillating stuff (which can happen off camera.)" }, { "answer_id": 63363, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I would not include a sex scene to \"reward\" readers.\n\nI generally exclude explicit sex scenes, my only exception would be if something happened during sex that changes somebody's mind.\n\nIf two people are having sex for the first time, I often portray enough of the start so there is no ambiguity that they had sex; but much like what you see on modern network TV; it is just R rated, not X rated.\n\nThere are good reasons to include sex in a story, as I heard one SciFi author say, you don't risk your life and cross the universe to save a woman because she is a good conversationalist.\n\nSex changes relationships, it is a motivator like few others. Sex that betrays another is a very plausible reason to turn a lover into a hateful adversary.\n\nBut a hefty percentage of readers just do not like gratuitous sex, and prefer the sex just be hinted at. Strongly perhaps, but not explicit.\n\nIf two (or more) people are in a sexual relationship, it might be natural to show that they do have sex, even regularly, but I would need a good plot reason to include explicit sex. Something would have to happen there that alters the relationship, and depicting that moment of change would then be important.\n\nBut in decades of writing, I have not had reason to do that.\n\nI can certainly understand depicting a violent rape, perhaps, the impact might be crucial to the rape victim's response.\n\nI will say that porn does sell, many want to read it, or watch it. If that is your goal, just write porn. Write erotic novels or short stories. I'd study other erotic writing that sells, and see how it is done.\n\nBut I wouldn't try to just add a few pages of erotica to a novel, just to keep the reader's interest. If you think your story is getting boring, fix it. Don't try to put an erotic bandaid on it." } ]	2022/09/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63357", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,370	In my epic fantasy, the secondary protagonist goes through tragedy. Near the middle, the group is captured by the enemy, and she is forced to watch her girlfriend get slowly executed in an extremely brutal manner. They managed to escape, but she is heavily traumatized and she almost loses her mind. Eventually, she ends up in another relationship, but until then during her arc, how long would it take for a person to move on from something that horrible?	[ { "answer_id": 63371, "author": "Himanshu Jain", "author_id": 56522, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56522", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I would say that there can't be a definitive and quantifiable answer to this question. It depends on the person. You need to check how you portray her personality in the story. A strong person may overcome the situation to be able to move on to another relationship in a few months.\n\nThere are some people who like to feel like victims, and on the other hand, there are people who wish to self-help to move on. These factors would also affect any such timelines.\n\nActually, it would also depend on the person she enters into the relationship with. If she meets someone irresistible who also helps her overcome her problems, it would be much faster.\n\nTo be safe, any period less than six months would look odd." }, { "answer_id": 63374, "author": "Llewellyn", "author_id": 27572, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27572", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "While \"moving on\" quickly could be her way of coping with the traumatic experience, the loss and trauma would have a heavy impact on the new relationship.\n\nPersonally, I think that this is more likely to happen with someone she already knows and trusts rather than someone new. Also, whether the new relationship will sustain the pressure, strongly depends on how she and her new partner deal with it." } ]	2022/09/25	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63370", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,377	I mostly write fantasy, and I need to improve writing scenes between characters that are not action. For example, a scene where two characters are eating breakfast and talking about training later that day.	[ { "answer_id": 63378, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "I'd adopt a trick from the movie industry.\n\nThe more cerebral the conversation, the more outlandish the setting. Two characters on the run can convey \"information\" that could have been conveyed in a quiet coffee shop, but instead is conveyed in the middle of a loud gay pride parade, shouting at each other to be heard, or while they are on the run at 100 mph, or doing some derring do to break into a high security building, or trying to execute an emergency landing on a much too short improvised air strip.\n\nNone of this has to actually have much bearing on the plot itself, it is just a distraction. Once you start looking for this trick, it appears again and again.\n\nConvey your background or plot-important information while there is something else going on, while your characters are distracted by that.\n\nAn agent told me once, never write the \"sitting on the bus\" opening, or scene. She meant, a character sitting on the bus for 15 minutes thinking about their history and life and situation.\n\nThe same goes for your \"coffee shop\" scene; or any \"talking heads\" scene, don't write it. At least have them actively doing something while they have that conversation. It doesn't have to be important to the plot, but changing scenery, minor difficulties navigating the world, whatever, ensure things are happening and changing and the reader imagines this while this information is being conveyed.\n\nThat can take some creativity, but that is the job of the writer; figuring out something interesting for these people to be doing while they have a conversation.\n\nYes it is easier in movies, but when you write a novel, the reader is imagining a movie in their head. You just have to also provide the visual and auditory (and temperature, wind, etc) environment. The movie can provide a rich and interesting environment effortlessly, but novelists cannot.\n\nBut reader imagination fades without frequent prodding. So if you fail to do this, if your environment is static (like a coffee shop), the reader's visual imagination fades and they get bored. That's why you never open with it, and that's why you avoid writing scenes with static environments as much as possible." }, { "answer_id": 63380, "author": "codeMonkey", "author_id": 40325, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40325", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Stakes\n------\n\nThe basic flow of a scene is:\n\n1. Someone wants something\n2. Something prevents them from getting it\n3. They take some kind of risk to try to get what they want\n4. Consequences\n\nThis is normally short-handed as \"The Stakes\" of the scene when we discuss it.\n\nIf the scene in question does not have Stakes, you should cut it!\n\nExample\n-------\n\nIf the two characters are talking about training solely as a way for the author to provide exposition, then this is a weak scene, and it should be cut out entirely.\n\nBut if the two characters are talking about training so that Character A can convince Character B to [Do Something], then this is a scene with stakes.\n\nThe \"risk\" Character A takes is the argument they choose. (Maybe they go with flattery, when just lying would have been a better choice. That's a risk!)\n\nThe consequences are success or failure in convincing Character B. There might be other consequences as well: maybe Char A is so bad at convincing them, that Char B has moved from \"neutral\" to \"antagonistic!\" Or maybe Char A was so persuasive that Char B will provide more help than requested.\n\nPhysicality\n-----------\n\nWhen A is trying to convince B (or lie to them, or bully them, or whatever), A should be watching to see if their argument is working. They should be reading body language, and changing their approach based on that non-verbal feedback.\n\nYou as the author should describe this body language and what Char A thinks it means." }, { "answer_id": 63381, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Remember that dialog doesn't take place in a vacuum and the conversation is to show the means by which characters receive knowledge. If they are having breakfast, think about what is going on during breakfast. Are we in a diner or equivalent? Does the hero know what they want? Does the mentor? Does he have experience with Breakfast in this part of the world? Is he confused? When he orders does the waitress give a string of words to the short order cook that sounds nothing like what you ordered (\" Three oinkers wearing pants, plate of hot air, basket of Grandma's breakfast, and change the bull to a gill\")?\n\nIf it's in a home, what are people doing? Who is clearly the morning person? Who is the person who shouldn't be dealing with this until coffee? Are there any pets? Is there any weirdness going on? Is the weirdo of the party declaring a quest to find every prize listed in the cereal box? Is the person who has little understanding of human culture baffled by the mix of marshmallows and cereal? Do they approve (The proud manly warrior thinks it is a feast worthy of songs of greatness! This pisses off the Leprechaun, who hates that his people are stereotyped as liking such a rancid mixture.).\n\nOh, and above all, the conversation that you're trying to have. About training... Breakfasts are often vary chaotic meals because everyone wakes up differently and are trying to get something to eat before the days work begins and different people are in different states of \"getting ready for the day\" (As a kid, my parents would make me eat first, as I had a temper if I did not eat soon. Which meant I was groggy while I ate and not one for conversation... one time I was half awake and eating cereal and my father (who was leaving for work when the kids would get up) asked me to let the dog out. I responded with \"I love you too, Dad.\" In a manner that was akin to a programed response.)." }, { "answer_id": 63382, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "You need to think of your scenes in terms of content rather than action. Action is a type of content, as is dialogue, or internal thoughts. The content of the scene is the reason it is being shown to the audience. You can either show your content in detail or summarize it quickly depending on how important the details are for the story as a whole, or for evoking a desired effect on the reader.\n\nIf the content of a scene is action or place oriented then using a lot of sensory detail is great for reader immersion. Taking the time to explain all the specific sights, sounds, smells, and other sensations draws the reader deeply into a scene. Describing a fantastical location in this way allows the reader to experience it as if they were there, and describing an action sequences in this way can help the reader feel the excitement, terror, and exhilaration of the characters in those moments. So what about conversations?\n\nConversations can be meaningful, or non-meaningful. A meaningful conversation is one that advances the reader's understanding of the plot, setting, characters, or any combination of these. In other words, a meaningful conversation is one that provides useful context to the rest of the story. A scene where the primary focus is a meaningful conversation does not really require meaningful action, too. It only requires window dressing to ground the conversation in a specific time and place within the story.\n\nSensory details aren't necessarily useless in such a scene, it's just about what you want the reader to focus on. Their attention will be drawn to wherever you put the most detail and emphasis. If the details of the scene's immediate setting and actions are sparse while the dialogue is lengthy, they're more likely to follow the dialogue closely, particularly if it's full of new, interesting information. If you think it's important that the reader see specific actions in detail, or if you just really want to describe the food (as is the wont of a few well-known fantasy authors) then feel free. Just always have in mind what sort of content you're putting in your scenes, and what information is being focused on." }, { "answer_id": 63397, "author": "economic freedom", "author_id": 56583, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56583", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I don't believe there is such a thing as a well-written scene that lacks action. If it lacked action, by definition it's not a scene. \"Action\" can mean physical action, or it can mean mental action. Both kinds of action involve a conflict of wills, which (in western culture) is the essence of drama. The only difference is how the action becomes manifest.\n\nIf the scene involves two people (e.g., a married couple) at a table eating a meal, they need eventually to be arguing about something. \"Mental action\" in this context requires some sort of disagreement between the two; a disagreement that seeks resolution at some later point in the story, in another scene." } ]	2022/09/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63377", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56573/" ]
63,385	> > Because Acme Inc. didn't deliver the item to Joe, he sued them. > > > > > Because Acme Inc. didn't deliver the item to Joe, he sued it. > > > Which is correct? "Them" sounds right, but because a corporation is a separate legal entity, not merely a group of shareholders, "it" seems legally correct. (Perhaps this wasn't the best example because "he sued it" could mean he sued the item, but just think of a scenario where there is no ambiguity with either pronoun.)	[ { "answer_id": 63388, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Technically, corporations have legal personhood so pronouns might not be incorrect for them. However you can avoid this by simply referring to one as \"the company\" or \"the corporation\":\n\n> \n> Because Acme Inc. didn't deliver the item to Joe, he sued the company.\n> \n> \n> \n\nFrom personal experience, many corporations use this in reference to themselves in their own boilerplate legal documents, e.g. \"The company shall retain all rights to...\"" }, { "answer_id": 63394, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Corporations can be referred to by both \"they\" and \"it\". Depending on the situation one may fit better than the other. \"It\" is more impersonal, objective and passive, \"they/them\" more personal, subjective and active.\n\nYou could \"love them\", \"hate them\", \"sue them\". Or talk about how \"it was founded\", \"it went bankrupt\", \"company B acquired it\".\n\nJust choose what sounds best to you, unless you have a style guide that requires you to use one or the other. (For example, reading a few articles on wikipedia about companies, they seem to try to conform to \"it\". Probably to make it sound more objective.)" }, { "answer_id": 63395, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "As a general rule, referring to a person or group of people as an \"it\" is considered rude in English. Since the coorperation is a group of people, a singular or plural \"them\" should be used if referring to the group of people who can be sued. It should only refer to a coorperation's products when the products are given brand-name recognition.\n\nFor example, if you drive a Ford F150 and refer to the vehicle as \"the Ford\", then you might say:\n\n> \n> I crashed in the Ford. It's (The Ford's) airbags did not deploy.\n> \n> \n> \n\nHowever, when you sue, you do not sue objects but people. You would sue companies which are legal entities. Thus the following sentance.\n\n> \n> Because the Ford's (The vehicle's) airbags did not deploy, I sued Ford (the company) because they (The Ford Company) are responsible for it's (The Ford Truck's) poor manufacturing.\n> \n> \n> \n\nNotice that in the above sentance, it is clear that you are not suing an object with no agency of person, even though \"Ford\" refers to different nouns during the course the sentence." } ]	2022/09/26	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63385", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55344/" ]
63,404	I am new to creative writing, and have been trying to come up with a metaphor to illustrate the difficulty of doing in an environment where everyone is acting against you. So far, I have come up with the following metaphors: "like trying to run up a hill in rollerblades" * I don't care for this metaphor because it doesn't highlight the human factors that cause the hostile environment. A hill is inanimate object. "Like trying to trek through Antarctica in a tee-shirt and flip-flops." * I don't care for this metaphor because (once again) it doesn't highlight the human factors that cause the hostile environment. Do you have any suggestions of how I can achieve my goal of writing this metaphor?	[ { "answer_id": 63407, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think you’re looking for a simile rather than a metaphor, so I’ll answer on that basis.\n\nYou say that your similes don’t have the desired effect because the hill and the arctic are inanimate. So to make your simile, you could pick an animal that has a reputation for being hostile, or creating a dangerous environment in some way. Your choice of animal will depend on what aspect makes it dangerous and how this ties into the way people are acting against you. Off the top of my head, it could be like trying to swim through a river of crocodiles (implying individuals are out to tear you to pieces), or it could be more like being mown down by a herd of stampeding buffalo (implying being unable to stand up to a lot of people who share an opinion that you are trying to fight against).\n\nPlants could work as well, if they have a reputation for certain behaviour, for example, a creeper that tangles you up, or a venus flytrap that lures you in." }, { "answer_id": 63412, "author": "Murphy L.", "author_id": 52858, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52858", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A few ideas:\n\n\"It was like fighting a ninja in the black of night.\" While this one isn't great, it was the first thing I thought of. It has a chance.\n\n\"I/He was Neo, up against a million Smiths.\" As a self-titled Matrix nerd, I like this one as it's an allusion to an [iconic scene from Reloaded](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poLPKdc-zTY). It shows the difficulty, and also is direct way of showing everyone being against him.\n\n\"It was a marathon run through hell, and I/he was forced to wear his winter clothes.\" Kind of an inverse of your second example, and is slightly more human like you were asking for. Not perfect, but a half-decent idea.\n\n\"I/He was in the Minotaur's maze.\" My personal favorite of this list. Another allusion, this time to Greek Mythology and the story of Theseus. The Labyrinth is clearly a hostile place, and that's because of the Minotaur, a physical and animate enemy (unlike gravity or the cold in your examples)." }, { "answer_id": 63521, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Picture your hero's situation. Keep the key principles of the situation as you switch details - if the hero's goal is a societal change, don't substitute a personal achievement; if other people's resistance stems from overbearing worry, don't substitute xenophobia (just like you've already found out that if the obstacle is people's deliberate action, then substituting inanimate environment doesn't work). Come up with a model that makes the relationships you want to point out clearly obvious. Omit what is irrelevant. Exaggerate.\n\nI deliberately won't include any examples because the person who needs to be creative here is you, and giving you a dictionary of pre-wrought options to choose from would be doing you a disservice." } ]	2022/09/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63404", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56601/" ]
63,411	I am about halfway through my story, and I realized I haven't brought in very much of my character's backstory. Any tips on where to bring that in, and how?	[ { "answer_id": 63414, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are several ways to bring in backstory.\n\nIn the first Hijrp Potfeq book, the first chapter occurs ten years before the second chapter; Hijrp Potfeq is the boy who survived; somehow. A magical tone is introduced, the orphaned baby needs to be put with his new foster parents. It is the first time we understand that Hijrp Potfeq is not just another kid growing up to go to magic school, he is unique above all the other kids.\n\nTry to not tell the backstory. Show it if you can. Readers can accept that characters have wondrous skills. In Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Sundance is an incredible sharpshooter with a pistol. He's trying to get hired as trail guard, the trail master wants to test his shooting skills: But insists Sundance point, take aim, and shoot at a tin. Sundance misses, then says, \"Can I give this a try my way?\"\n\nThe boss says \"Sure,\" and Sundance holsters his gun, then like a gunfight draws and shoots the can, sends it flying, and shoots it again in mid-flight, and then again. The boss nods, \"You're hired.\"\n\nNo explanation of where or how Sundance learned to shoot, ever.\n\nA lot of writers do a lot of background work to justify their characters, and then feel compelled to share this creativity with the reader. But you don't have to do that. The work is worthwhile, to build a consistent character both emotionally, and with specific skills and limitations so you can avoid just adding new random skills to get them out of a tough spot (deus ex machina like).\n\nBut in Ocean's Eleven, where Ocean assembles 11 master thieves for a fantastic heist, we are barely aware of backstories. In one case, I think the pickpocket is described as the son of the best pickpocket Ocean ever knew. That's all the backstory we get on that guy. The cardsharp, we just see him at work. The acrobat, we just see him at work.\n\nMy first advice is, if you don't have a plot need to talk about backstory, just don't do it.\n\nIf you can, get away with a throwaway line, and leave it at that.\n\n> \n> \"Where did you learn to shoot like that?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"Far as I know, I was born with a rifle in my hands. Not much else to do in them hills, but shoot and reload.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf it is not critical to the plot, leave it out. In Mission Impossible, we don't know the backstory of Otpan Cuyt (Xok Cliise); how he grew up, what influenced him, how he became the Impossible Mission guy. He just is.\n\nIn an episode where we do need to know some element of his backstory, make it a turning point in his life and show it in flashback. You can just have a flashback chapter, subtitled \"Twelve Years Ago.\" And remember, chapters have no minimum length. Always try to put such flashback chapters in a low spot in the plot, the best is places where the characters have some down time anyway. Places where you might have just skipped to the next day or week anyway.\n\nIt is always better to show backstory (in a scene the reader can imagine and vicariously experience) than to tell (in dialogue the reader should just remember). If you must, ensure there is a good reason for somebody to ask, and then try to keep it brief.\n\nIn many instances, we can take backstory for granted. I loved Mozart's music and skill from the first time I heard it, and for a decade before I learned his backstory. I admire actors, and magicians, and musicians and singers and athletes and writers, without knowing a thing about their backstory.\n\nYour backstory is good to keep your characters consistent and coherent (their personality traits \"fit together\" as a person), limited (so you don't stray into deus ex machina territory), and on track with well-defined motivators.\n\nBut backstory is like underwear; good to have, but you don't have to show it to everyone." }, { "answer_id": 63415, "author": "Dmann", "author_id": 34068, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/34068", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "First you should consider if the backstory even needs to be included. If your story so far hasn't suffered by leaving out the character's background then it might not be necessary for the story you're trying to tell.\n\nFlashbacks \n\nIf you decide you really do need to include it, then probably the most widely used narrative device for inserting backstory is the flashback. The narrative moves to an earlier point in time, and often to another place as well, frequently telegraphed by framing devices such as characters reminiscing on the past or reading a journal, listening to a story, and so on. The flashback is written as part of the story, rather than a summary, so the reader is transported to that time and place and shown events directly.\n\nThe risk with flashbacks is they can have a \"derailing\" effect on the main story if they go on too long, or you have too many of them, or they wind up being more interesting than the rest of the story. But if you find your flashbacks are the most compelling part of the story, that might be a sign you need to rethink what your story is about.\n\nMonologues, Soliloquys, and Summaries \n\nSo if the flashback is the \"showing\" option, then the \"telling\" option would be a summary. The summary can take different forms depending on the narrative perspective.\n\nA third person story can make use of its (limited or unlimited) omniscient narrator to dive into a character's past for an objective (or at least outside) perspective on what happened. A first person account can make use of soliloquy as a form of summary, where the first person protagonist narrates their backstory to the audience, making full use of their distinctive voice to color the telling in interesting ways a more objective third person account wouldn't have. Then you have the monologue, which can be used in either first person or third person stories, where the character actually tells their story to another character.\n\nHaving the character narrate their own backstory through monologue is a great way to deliver this kind of exposition if you're writing in third person, since it allows you to make use of the advantages of first person narration while maintaining the third person omniscience. You can allow the character to embellish or downplay parts of the story, inject personal feelings, and contrast this with more objective information obtained through narrative omniscience.\n\nProbably the biggest advantage in this is the existence of other characters listening to the story alongside the audience. Even if only one other character is present, they can provide feedback to the story as they hear it. Comments and reactions to the story by the characters listening to it help make it feel less like an exposition dump and more as an experience your characters are sharing. With an omniscient narrator you can peek inside the heads of those other characters and get their internal reactions to the story as well.\n\nTL;DR \n\nIt's up to you how you want to do it, but a monologue gives you a lot of options for developing character relationships and personalities. A soliloquy is a good way to do it for a first person story if you want to keep it brief, with a third person summary also being on the table if you just want to get it out there and over with. And if you really want to dive into it for a full narrative experience, consider doing a flashback." } ]	2022/09/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63411", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56573/" ]
63,413	My short story is from a third person POV, but I wanted to write a chapter in which the protagonist is doing a monologue that will tell details of her traumatic past, being kidnapped by a pedophile, instead of just writing a flashback. So how can I do it without making it look like the character is just narrating a boring story, but rather keeps the reader interested?	[ { "answer_id": 63417, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "For starters, you need to think about what the character is feeling when recounting this tale. Do they look back on it with horror? Sorrow? Hatred?\n\nOr has it been so long that they have simply accepted it?\n\nHow the character reacts to their trauma makes the story a lot more believable and real.\n\nIf a person has been through something traumatic, it's hard to imagine them wanting to talk about it. They might get choked up, cry, avoid certain questions, etc. The emotional response is as important if not more important than the story itself. Especially if this response is unexpected from the character.\n\nExamples-An otherwise emotionless character breaking down in tears. A normally happy-go-lucky character speaking in a robotic and detached way. A tough, seemingly unbreakable character shivering uncontrollably at the mere mention of their trauma. Etc.\n\nThe response of the people listening is important as well.\n\nAre they sympathetic? Do they want to find the kidnapper and get revenge on their friend's name? What do their faces look like right now? Is there fear in their eyes? Sadness? Anger?\n\nTheir reactions could affect the protagonist's feelings too.\n\nFor example, imagine the MC is telling their story and the responses of the other characters are fear, shock, and disgust. The shock is probably because they're horrified the MC went through so much trauma, but the MC might not think of it like that. They might think the disgust is directed at them instead.\n\nThe MC might think, \"They're pitying me. They'll never look at me the same. They hate me. I should have never told the truth.\"\n\nOr something along those lines. This leads to drama. This pushes the characters forward.\n\nLocation is significant too. Is the MC admitting their backstory in a high action moment or has everything slowed down? Telling this story on the battlefield is quite different than telling it in a cafe.\n\nYou most likely want either a slow, intimate scene where the character tells their secret in confidence to a trusted friend, or an intense, dramatic scene where the character felt compelled to tell the truth, and once the words are out they can't get them back.\n\nMaybe if the kidnapper ever goes to court the MC might have to admit all the details to a court, for example." }, { "answer_id": 63441, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Is This Thing On?\n=================\n\nThis would definitely be a style choice, and wouldn't work in all stories. Have this be the start of a chapter (or possibly even the book). Put it in indented, and deliver it in first person (like the character is breaking the fourth wall). The character delivers the monolog like they are broadcasting or recording for an audience, and may even make some reference to the supposed audience to suggest who they imagine they're talking to. Here's a somewhat raw example from the book I'm just starting.\n\n> \n> My name is Belladonna, but everyone who knows me well calls me Beedee. I want to make it clear that there is nothing romantic about me. I am a monster. The polite term among the Zeta is Lindorm, as in “Lindorm’s disease.” The crude term is Laciu, like the Greek monster. My very existence is a war crime. My daughters, if I have any, will be vicious psychic apex predators who will reproduce parthenogenically and constantly mutate and adapt to new environments. Back home on New Madagascar, controlling the Lindorm packs is a constant struggle.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe supposed audience is a group of colonists just arriving from Earth. She explains things, but she does it as a dialog and leaves out details that she wouldn't need from her supposed audience. You don't have to establish a location, since they are speaking from some imagined place. Since it is set off (indented or otherwise separated) it doesn't require the speech to make sense in the context of the story.\n\nSoliloquy:\n==========\n\nA poetic version of this is the internal monolog delivered like a speech, the soliloquy. The character discusses their internal feelings with no regards to the audience. This is fun, but a bit more artsy." } ]	2022/09/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63413", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44982/" ]
63,419	In Star Wars, people were mad because of how the writers decided to subvert expectations by making Luku Htyqalnef behave in an unexpected way, and then there's how Chainsaw Man subverted expectation by making the final boss be pretty much irrelevant to the whole story even though the writer kept foreshadowing the final boss and lead the readers believe that the final boss was indeed the final boss and flipped the script by making the final boss completely irrelevant to the story. Is there a good way to subvert expectations, or almost anything can be done as long as you somehow predict how your readers will react to it?	[ { "answer_id": 63422, "author": "Leon Conrad", "author_id": 8127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8127", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "This isn't an easy question to answer.\n\nAny attempt to answer it will have to address two aspects: the qualitative and the qualitative.\n\nWith the first, you're looking at how well expectations are subverted.\n\nWith the second, you're looking at how often the expectations are subverted.\n\nBest practice would probably fall in a happy medium in each of these categories.\n\nHowever, best practice is relative to the genre and work.\n\nReviewer Tom La Farge delights in the genre-specific subversion of all reader expectations of character behaviour in his review in The Marginalia Review of William Gillespie’s Letter to Limank (Providence, RI: Spineless Books, 2005) , in which Gillespie describes the mysterious character of Limank as an intriguing woman, an ingredient in a cup of punch, and a desktop object.\n\nOf course, now I've set up the expectation for you to engage with the work on this basis, your expectations are far less likely to be subverted - and are far less likely to be subverted negatively.\n\nWhat La Farge also points out - rightly or wrongly - is that (Mainstream) 'Publishers don’t care for this sort of thing', perhaps because the subversion of expectations is too extreme.\n\nEvery subversion, however, can arguably be prepared for so it either comes as a realisation or as a complete surprise, and the art of subverting and fulfilling expectations lies in this craft of laying the breadcrumb trail that sets up and expectation and have it either fulfilled or subverted.\n\nOne of the best ways to do this might well be to feel your way into it, rather than to intellectualise it - it's a sensed thing, first and foremost." }, { "answer_id": 63423, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "If you're going to subvert expectations and have a positive audience response, you need to do two things: reveal that you're telling an even better story than your audience thought you were telling, and also be able to show that the new story is really the one you were telling all along.\n\nA better story?\n\nIn the new Star Wars, when it turns out that Luku Htyqalnef screwed up, then gave up and ran away and has been waiting around to die, that is not a better story than \"Luku Htyqalnef is going to save us!\" At least, not for all the fans who fondly remembered Guwe as the hero they idolized in their youth. If Guwe had been guarding not a Jedi temple, but a Sith temple, and keeping back a threat which made the First Order look like small potatoes, and he was freaking Luku Htyqalnef, the amazing guy who has now sacrificed the past few decades for the sake of everyone, then Star Wars fans might have said it was even better than him being cloistered in a Jedi Temple when people needed him. Acceptable subversion.\n\nWas this the story you were being told all along?\n\nI haven't read Chainsaw Man, but I saw Frozen. In Frozen, it turns out that the handsome prince the younger princess has fallen for is really indifferent to her and is happy to let her die and to assume power. There was no foreshadowing of his betrayal. On the contrary, the last shot of his too-fast romance, when you are supposed to believe that he is in immature and puppyish love with Owna, is of him gazing after her with adoration, and no dissimulation is apparent. Was having him not be the one to save Owna later a better story? Possibly. Was having the too-fast romance be too-good-to-be-true a better story? Almost definitely. Was the twist fairly foreshadowed? Absolutely not. If the betrayer-prince had been torn by feelings for Owna, but ultimately overcome by greed, it might have been argued that you were still telling the same story you'd actually been telling all along. If there had been some sign the prince did not really reciprocate Owna's enthusiasm earlier, it would have been fair. But as Frozen stands, you're really not given fair warning.\n\nIt's fine to make a story surprising and unexpected, even in very unexpected ways. But you should respect your audience enough to fairly foreshadow, and you definitely shouldn't be telling them a worse story than you were promising before the subversion." }, { "answer_id": 63425, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Foreshadowing is generally what separates a good twist from a bad twist.\n\nA bad twist comes out of nowhere, makes no sense in canon and defies previously established lore or logic. It's all shock and no substance. Or worse, it's neither shock nor substance.\n\nA good twist makes perfect sense in the established lore, takes the story in a compelling new direction, and/or recontextualizes the whole narrative.\n\nTake the original Star Wars trilogy. The reveal Girth Vedur is Guwe's father. The \"villain is the hero's parent\" is a trope as old as time, but it works because it solves a few basic questions. Why does Vadoc even care about Guwe? Why did Obi-wan say Vadoc killed his father? Etc.\n\nIt also paints Obi-wan in a different light. Makes Guwe question his wisdom. Think he's a liar. The twist creates conflict and self doubt. Guwe's fighting his own flesh and blood.\n\nThe Vadoc twist makes sense in the lore, adds compelling conflict, and recontextualizes past scenes. Good twist. Gold star.\n\nBad twist-Episode Nine revives Palatine for no apparent reason.\n\nFor starters, it comes out of nowhere. Until Episode Nine we get no indication Palatine is alive except the vaguest hints. No foreshadowing.\n\nIt makes no sense in context either. In the original trilogy Palatine died. Exploded. Vaporized. Left in the void of space. If that can't kill him, what can? More importantly, if he's that powerful, how could he have ever been defeated in the first place?\n\nBringing Palatine back also minimizes the importance of the sacrifices of the past.\n\nSorry, rebels who gave their lives to free the world from Palpatine's reign. He's apparently semi-immortal so you gave your lives in vain. The good you did now rings hollow because Palpatine seemingly can't die.\n\nIt even makes Rey's efforts seem fruitless because if Palpatine didn't die the first time, how do we know he's not gonna do it again? And again. And again.\n\nA good twist is logical, well-planned, and presents meaningful new directions for the story.\n\nA bad twist is illogical, poorly thought out, and takes the story in a boring path." } ]	2022/09/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63419", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]