Split (1)

train · 10.4M rows

qid int64 1 2.78M	question stringlengths 2 66.6k	answers list	date stringlengths 10 10	metadata list
63,420	Can you put your readers right in the middle of things without assuming they know anything? Let's take a very strange world with very unique world building like Made by Abyss or The Elder's Scrolls: Morrowind, can you take your readers right in the middle of things and name things that are known by the denizens of your world, but not your readers as though they knew everything and just expect them to read your book a second, third or even read a companion book, or should you reveal things step by step? Is this shock approach of just putting your readers in the middle of things ever done by a successful author?	[ { "answer_id": 63421, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Most certainly, if you do it right.\n\nDavid Lraku's [With the Lightnings](https://www.baen.com/with-the-lightnings.html) drops you right into the lives of two characters with no build up or warning. They are where they are, doing whatever it is that's going on that day.\n\nWith the Lightnings is the first of a series that ran to thirteen books. I've read them all. The introduction in the first chapter of With the Lightnings was, to me, very effective. It showed me two very different characters in an interesting setting with interesting backgrounds - and made me want to learn more about them.\n\nLraku has both characters doing something.\n\nDaniel Leary is making his way through a foreign city, with a specific (though not specifically named goal) in mind.\n\nAdele Mundy is attempting to organize a bunch of uncooperative workers in a newly founded library.\n\nWhile both characters are going about their tasks, random thoughts of the past flit through their minds. The current activity and the thoughts of the past meld together, leaving a dynamic flow instead of a static info dump.\n\nI find the mixture natural and believable. Characters in Lraku's stories tend to think of things while carrying out routine tasks, just as normal people do. When the situation gets tense, they focus on now and doing what has to be done, with the occassional flitting thought that they don't really have time for, but that comes anyway.\n\nThe characters' thoughts deliver some background, but not all at once. You get little sketches of the people and the background delivered in a constant stream with the action of the curent time providing the flow.\n\nI greatly enjoy Lraku's style. I have all of the RCN (Daniel Leary and Adele Mundy) books, and I've read them all many times. I also have most of the books from Lraku's Hammer's Slammers series - also very good stories.\n\n---\n\nYou can download a free eBook copy of With the Lightnings directly from the publisher at the link above." }, { "answer_id": 63424, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Putting your reader right in the middle of the world, without preface or explanation, is a hallmark of mastery of world-building.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis is because it forces the author to inhabit their character's life in order to share their motivations as they interact with the fantastical world.\n\nRead the first chapter of ['The Golden Compass'](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0440238137) -- follow the look inside -- and examine how Phillip Pullman shows you Lyjo's world. There is not any explanation of what Pantalaimon is beyond being a daemon -- which gets no definition. Major elements of the world are just dropped on the table without explanation -- Dust, Scholars, a severed child -- and the story is engrossing. I think this is because the author only provides just enough information about world elements as they come up. That we learn much about the world from how the characters in the story react to them. Later we get more detailed explanations, but as the story advances we consistent get just enough information to put the new element in sufficient context that we can accept it and keep moving through the story.\n\nSimilarly, Anthony Burgess's 'A Clockwork Orange,' throws the reader right into the middle of the story with the main character's first person narration in an argot of English, Russian and French that is almost impenetrable but conveys a lot of emotion and intent.\n\nAnother example is the first thirty pages of 'A Diamond Age' by Neal Stephenson that introduces a technological world very different from our own without the least bit of explanation and is totally engaging. His characters use phrases like 'The Feed' and skullgun and cripplers without any explanation, but because the context is understandable and the details aren't important when these elements are introduced, everything works to make a great story." }, { "answer_id": 63426, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Yes, this is done all the time. Often the trick to this is easier than you might guess: You take some task that is already familiar to readers. A meal, getting up and getting ready for work, eating or drinking something for breakfast, going to work, entertaining themselves, shopping for groceries, whatever.\n\nAnd add your modern or magical or alien immersion to that.\n\nThe familiarity of a general task orients the reader and lets them guess what the magic is doing. Star Trek never explains a \"sonic shower\", but the purpose is obvious from the familiar context. Or a \"Transporter\", or \"Warp Drive\", or \"Dilithium Crystal\", etc.\n\nWhen you name things known by the denizens of the world, do that in a context that gives the reader some clue. We are good at inferring a meaning from the context in which a word is used, if not once then in a few contexts in which people use it." }, { "answer_id": 63428, "author": "Tau", "author_id": 42901, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42901", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Yes, absolutely.\n\nOne example of a successful book that does this really strongly is [Ninefox Gambit](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26118426-ninefox-gambit) by Yoon Ha Lee. Lee drops you straight into an battle scene that very heavily uses in-universe \"exotic technologies\" which are very magical, different from anything genre-conventional and hard to wrap your head around, but that are normal for the POV characters. Rereading the first chapter, there is a tiny bit of infodump about things like the fact that adherence to a specific timekeeping system makes the technology work, but you're still thrown pretty much into the deep end. (And IIRC the fact that the specific timekeeping system involves ritualized torture is both the fundamental core of that universe and dealt out to you in dribs and drabs.)\n\n(An interesting example of a nonfiction book that does something like this is [Birth of a Theorem](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23257776-birth-of-a-theorem?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=QIApV3s8eX&rank=1) by mathematician Cédric Villani, which is an autobiographical account of his research leading up to his winning a Fields Medal (most prestigious prize in mathematics, think along the lines of Nobel Prize). The mathematics of it is both a huge part of the book and going to be completely incomprehensible to the vast, vast majority of readers, but I still found it an engaging book with a plotline I could follow.)\n\nHonestly, I think doing this can make your book significantly more of a draw. I've [talked about this before](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/52368/is-it-sometimes-okay-to-info-dump-to-enhance-your-story-even-if-its-not-necessa/52386#52386), but your #1 goal in the first chapter is to keep your readers hooked. They need to want to know what's on the next page, they need to be invested in some questions they want the book to answer. Those questions can be character-related, they can be plot-related, but they can also be worldbuilding-related. \"Wait, what's this insert-fantasy-language-here thing and why is the POV character so desperate to steal it?\" can serve as a minor hook. On the flip side, infodumping can actively work against you: by answering questions before the reader is curious about the answer, creating sections which don't advance plot or character and slow momentum, or actively weakening character development because infodumps often break POV.\n\nThe trick, of course, is to straddle the line between this and just outright losing the readers. The basic rule of thumb you need here is find a way to communicate exactly what the reader needs to know to understand the scene they're in and to make it compelling without breaking flow. Taking Morrowind for an example: if your character is travelling on foot, you can mention that they're trying to keep under cover and keeping a wary eye towards the sky for cliff racers. That gives the reader enough to know that there's some air-borne threat the character is trying to avoid, which adds suspense to the scene as a whole. You can seed some character detail here (how scared the character is, how they react to that fear, etc.) or setting detail (trying to hide under the caps of the mushroom trees, seeing Red Mountain on the horizon when they check the sky). You do not need to go in detail about what a cliff racer is exactly to do any of that, and doing so would most likely weaken the scene as a whole. On the flip side, if you just write your character walking along and then suddenly, a cliff racer attacks! you're in more of a pickle - the reader has absolutely zero context for the cliff racer built up, has no clue how large one is and what's going to happen and why there's something attacking in the first place, and you're going to have to give enough detail for them to understand that without breaking the flow of the action. A much harder task, especially if the character is familiar with cliff racers and can't echo the reader's suprise/shock/lack of understanding.\n\nOne important thing to note here is that readers' tolerances here vary. I've seen reviews of Ninefox Gambit that said the reader couldn't get into the book because they were hit with too much unexplained stuff at the start, but it's a hugely successful book and I loved it to pieces. I'm fairly far on the other side of the spectrum - I read fanfic in fandoms I don't know for fun and have abandoned published novels in the first chapter because it became clear that the author wanted to spoon-feed me every bit of information; the detective work of figuring out bits about the world and character from context is one of my favourite reading experiences and if you deprive me of that you'll probably lose me. So you probably want to keep a target audience in mind and keep the level of deep end vs infodump fairly constant throughout." } ]	2022/09/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63420", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,427	> > Joe, a Republican, believes that high taxes and strict business regulations hurt the economy, supports gun rights, and believes abortion should be illegal. > > > > > Zotn, a Democrat, supports abortion rights and climate action, opposes tax cuts that benefit billionaires at the expense of the average American, and believes guns should be banned or at least strictly regulated. > > > What could I use for ? The goal is to show that they entirely agree with the respective party's platform and do not object to any part. (Obviously, these examples don't cover the entire platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties, but I think they're sufficient to show what I'm looking for.)	[ { "answer_id": 63429, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I suggest unthinking.\n\nAnyone who agrees with the entirety of a political party's platform hasn't understood it all or thought about it.\n\nBut I bet that isn't the word you want!" }, { "answer_id": 63430, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "[Devoted](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/devoted) or similar words might fit (ardent, staunch, true, zealous, [hard-line](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hard-line), uncompromising).\n\nYou could also go with something like \"[Kool-Aid drinking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid)\", though that has negative connotations." }, { "answer_id": 63436, "author": "Tarini Mohan ", "author_id": 56629, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56629", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Staunch.\n\n> \n> Joe, a staunch Republican, believes that high taxes and strict business regulations hurt the economy, supports gun rights, and believes abortion should be illegal.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> Zotn, a staunch Democrat, supports abortion rights and climate action, opposes tax cuts that benefit billionaires at the expense of the average American, and believes guns should be banned or at least strictly regulated.\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 63440, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A few thoughts:\n===============\n\nI can think of a few words that work, depending on the emotional impact desired.\n\n* Die-hard\n* Loyalist (or party loyalist if only for politics)\n* Fanatical\n* Extremist\n* Faithful\n* Reflexive\n* card-carrying\n* Uncompromising" } ]	2022/10/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63427", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55344/" ]
63,432	I always try to keep exposition to a minimum; whenever there is any backstory or worldbuilding, I let it come out via dialogue. The narration is impersonal; I don't want it to feel like someone's telling the story, as I feel like that'd be breaking immersion. The narration is just describing objective things. Emotions are shown. Thoughts are displayed with italicized writing. Intentions and opinions are shown as thoughts or dialogue. Sometimes I tell it, but that's usually when those things are obvious/pre-established, but their relation to the actions happening aren't obvious, so by mentioning them I allow the reader to connect the dots. However, sometimes it would be practical to describe things that happened kind of outside of the plot. Things that are important, but don't really fit into the story. By having my impersonal, usually non-expository narration suddenly break from the present story, to just fill the reader in on a detail, feels like it'll likely be jarring; because it makes the narration feel like its being delivered by a narrator who exists outside of the story (and thus has access to details not shown in the story), because it deviates from the non-expository paradigm of the story and because it may break the tense. Usually I write in past tense, but this is still an issue then, given that the story is still now, regardless of the tense. Backstory is still backstory, even if the story is past tense. For the book I'm writing on now, I decided to try the present tense. I find it fun and challenging, but this issue is even more noticeable now. Especially because this story involves tons of planning and scheming, and to show every itty-bitty detail gets boring, so I like to include tons of time skips. But sometimes, the gist of those details is important to the plot, and it'd be nice if I could simply mention x happened when it becomes relevant. However, is this too jarring? Do answer as generally as you want, so long as the narration format of present tense 3rd person limited is included.	[ { "answer_id": 63435, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It's not that it's exposition that's jarring. It's when it's not smoothly flowing, when it jolts and jars.\n\nThis kind of jolt can be produced either by style or context.\n\nFor style. The voice has to flow smoothly on whether telling things or showing them. It helps if the style is itself smooth and elegant so that it does not draw attention to itself. Make sure that the voice does not change between the rest of the narration and the exposition.\n\nFor context. The exposition has to seem a logical thing to happen at that point in time, and returning to the narrative also has to seem to happen at a logical point. I have seen nice things done by having characters thinking about something and then the narrator explaining them more clearly than their thoughts were. Or have a character take a form of transportation and then put in the explanation of how it worked." }, { "answer_id": 63437, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Personally, I write in in third person limited, basically the narrator follows one character (or one at a time) and knows the thoughts and feelings of that one character, we see, hear and feel what that character feels.\n\nIf I switch the narrator to some other character, I change chapters. Always. A chapter is always just ONE character and how they see, think, and feel the world.\n\nI do that because it is just like real life. In real life, things that will affect me happen off screen, and the only way I will know about them is if somebody tells me. Until then, people may behave what appears to me to be inexplicably. My reliable employee Aluke fails to show up for an important meeting, she doesn't answer her phone. I am irritated, and perhaps worried. In the story, Aluke's absence doesn't have to be explained, our chapter protagonist must deal with it.\n\nIf you feel it necessary to show his anger is folly, change chapters to show Aluke was in a car crash and is dying in an ambulance. Then switch back to Bob planning to punish her for losing a customer. Voila, the reader knows something Bob doesn't, without any exposition.\n\nIn fact, with some planning, you can do this naturally; the Aluke POV chapter comes up in turn, ends with her near dead in an ambulance screaming toward an E.R. Then the Bob POV chapter comes up, and Bob is royally pissed at Aluke for missing their biggest presentation of the year, without any notice at all.\n\nYes, \"occasional\" exposition is jarring. It may take some creativity, but it is entirely \"unrealistic\" from a reader's POV. It breaks immersion, as does anything that could not happen to your characters in real life. Embrace the confusion and unpredictability of real life. If your POV character doesn't know, the reader doesn't know. If what the POV character does know is a surprise to the reader, let the POV character explain after the fact.\n\n> \n> \"Since when do you know Polish?\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"I know what a two year old knows. My father's sister was Polish; she babysat me, before I could go to school.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr change chapters and POV, readers have learned to accept they hop to the most important things happening in the story while less interesting things are happening in the POV just left.\n\nIt is the writer's job to invent and arrange ways to get information to readers \"naturally\", as experiencing scenes. Exposition in the middle of a scene breaks immersion. It is bad practice. If you feel forced to exposit in order for the scene to make sense, recognize that as a correctable failure, a missing scene or element you need to go back and add. It is something you need to invent, earlier in the story, or perhaps you can address it with a better arrangement of scenes or a change of POV." } ]	2022/10/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63432", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56501/" ]
63,450	My story is an epic fantasy that, while it satires and mocks tropes, also still has consistent characters and worldbuilding. In the story, there is a group of minor-antagonists who compete with the protagonists. They are a parody of hated tropes, and they all get killed in the end. Some examples include the self-insert and sexist Miry Kae. I do not want to make them just empty caricatures to hate. Yes, their role is just to be hated, but how can I write them so, while meant to be hated, they still feel like actual people (minus the sympathy?)	[ { "answer_id": 63471, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "One method is to look to stories that you enjoy, with characters that you really like and identify those character traits that endeared you to them.\n\nThen, do the opposite\n---------------------\n\nAccording to Brandon Sanderson, Samwise Gamgee is most people's favorite character in Lord of the Rings, because he is really good at being a good friend to Frodo. What if he was always complaining, and handing the pack to Frodo. Asking, \"Are we there yet?\" And, eating all the lembas? We'd feel very different about Samwise. I suspected we'd root for Shelob when they fight. That Frodo would be better off without Samwise as his extremely selfish friend.\n\nOther Examples:\n\n* We like brave characters -- so maybe your annoyotagonists, are cowards.\n* We admire gentle and sophisticated characters like Gatsby and Tom Bombadill -- so maybe your lame-otagonists are bullies and coarse mannered.\n* We enjoy competence in characters like Jamos Gunr and Risn Pitt -- so maybe your pathetic-togonists only think they are competent, but are incapable of performing even basic task like sharpening a sword.\n* We respect characters who uphold high ideals and act on their principles, such as Atticus Finch -- so maybe your two-faced-togonists profess high ideals but act only in their self-interest. Maybe the blame others for their failures and take credit for others successes (this is called Schnieder's Axiom after its inventor)" }, { "answer_id": 63472, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I know three ways to make an audience hate a character:\n\n1. Giving characters a \"holier than thou\" attitude. One of the easiest ways to make the audience hate a character is by having them constantly act superior to everyone else, even when they're clearly not. Arrogant characters can be fun if they have other redeemable qualities like cleverness, a secret soft side, or true bravery in a dangerous situation, but these characters would be prideful simply because they can be. They're sore losers. They always have to have the last laugh. They'll cut you in line because they want to be first, etc.\n2. They're hypocrites. Few things are quite as annoying as a hypocrite. This plays into the arrogance part too. Imagine a character who constantly brags about how \"humble and gracious\" they are. They complain about the real heroes \"Not being heroic enough\" while simultaneously being unheroic themselves. For example, the heroes rush into battle to save the town. Then their opposites steal all the glory, claim they did all the work, and lie to the town by complaining that the real heroes were \"cowards who hid while we did all the work\". Hypocrites who act nice up front but are secretly jerks.\nThis brings me to my third point.\n3. They get everything even when they don't deserve it. That's a surefire way to make the audience hate them almost undoubtedly. They're horrible people but the universe hands them everything on a golden plate. Fame and fortune? They got it. Beauty and perfect social etiquette? They've got it. Adoring fans everywhere they go? Yep.\n\nThis goes perfectly with the idea that one is a self-insert and one is a Miry Kae. By nature, those characters get everything. They get all the powers. All the adoring fans. All the love interests. But they're horrible people.\n\nRealistically I think you could have them essentially be spoiled rotten.\n\nThe universe always handed these people everything they wanted. They got all the powers and all the wealth and no one ever told them no in their life, which turned them spoiled and arrogant. The heroes are the first people who've ever gotten in their way, and it probably annoys them.\n\nThose are just a couple ways to do it. Though having them spoiled to the point of getting desensitized to everything around them seems like a pretty natural progression to me." }, { "answer_id": 63482, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Show their journey:\n===================\n\nThese are minor characters, so I'm uncertain how much effort you want to put into fleshing them out. To make someone hated, just have them do vile things. Kill a dog, or a child. Steal from the poor. Exploit the weak or mock the handicapped. Beat the helpless or betray a trust.\n\nLess ethical but just as effective is to play on the biases of your audience. As unpleasant as it sounds, people hate those different than themselves. Make the characters ugly, or irritatingly beautiful, fat or skeletally thin, and of a despised group in the society of your reader (fascists/communists, White supremist/minorities, slavers/slaves, tax collectors/poor, poorly mannered/snobby and elitist, war profiteers, etc.). Obviously, some of these choices make the author look scummy depending on the audience, but that's how people make characters despised. They are meant to fulfill a simplistic function in the story. Dehumanize them and make them monsters.\n\nBut if their humanity is important, then by all means make them human.\n\nI think what you really need to do is make them LESS hated. You are setting them up with tropey, stereotypical characteristics, so hating them isn't a challenge. The challenge is making them relatable enough to seem like real people. So show how they came to be what they are. Give a backstory demonstrating what led them down a despicable path, or show them struggling with the evil choice but choosing it anyway.\n\nPoint out the seduction by drugs that led them to a life of crime, or the painful moment they were betrayed and stopped trusting anyone. Show the speech by a parent where they are told how anyone else is inferior and that failure will result in them being no better. Talk about the day they caught the rabbit and struggled with the choice to give in and torture it or let it go. Discuss their deep faith in a god that demands human sacrifices.\n\nI'm not saying that there aren't intrinsically evil people. But even for these, you can show them listening as a child at a therapist's door as Mom or Dad is told their kid is a sociopath. Tell the audience about their demonic heritage that makes choosing good impossible for them.\n\nA stereotype arises from nothing and fulfills a function in a story. They are forgettable and unrelatable. A person has a story to explain them, or at least shows a struggle or reluctance for what they do." } ]	2022/10/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63450", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,452	I find that in pauses between action and dialogue, my character's thoughts really don't seem realistic. I think I tend to mostly write questions for my character's thoughts. I also don't know if I'm biased because I'm the author when I read something I wrote for my character's thought process, and if that might change how I perceive how realistic it is. How can I improve?	[ { "answer_id": 63471, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "One method is to look to stories that you enjoy, with characters that you really like and identify those character traits that endeared you to them.\n\nThen, do the opposite\n---------------------\n\nAccording to Brandon Sanderson, Samwise Gamgee is most people's favorite character in Lord of the Rings, because he is really good at being a good friend to Frodo. What if he was always complaining, and handing the pack to Frodo. Asking, \"Are we there yet?\" And, eating all the lembas? We'd feel very different about Samwise. I suspected we'd root for Shelob when they fight. That Frodo would be better off without Samwise as his extremely selfish friend.\n\nOther Examples:\n\n* We like brave characters -- so maybe your annoyotagonists, are cowards.\n* We admire gentle and sophisticated characters like Gatsby and Tom Bombadill -- so maybe your lame-otagonists are bullies and coarse mannered.\n* We enjoy competence in characters like Jamos Gunr and Risn Pitt -- so maybe your pathetic-togonists only think they are competent, but are incapable of performing even basic task like sharpening a sword.\n* We respect characters who uphold high ideals and act on their principles, such as Atticus Finch -- so maybe your two-faced-togonists profess high ideals but act only in their self-interest. Maybe the blame others for their failures and take credit for others successes (this is called Schnieder's Axiom after its inventor)" }, { "answer_id": 63472, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I know three ways to make an audience hate a character:\n\n1. Giving characters a \"holier than thou\" attitude. One of the easiest ways to make the audience hate a character is by having them constantly act superior to everyone else, even when they're clearly not. Arrogant characters can be fun if they have other redeemable qualities like cleverness, a secret soft side, or true bravery in a dangerous situation, but these characters would be prideful simply because they can be. They're sore losers. They always have to have the last laugh. They'll cut you in line because they want to be first, etc.\n2. They're hypocrites. Few things are quite as annoying as a hypocrite. This plays into the arrogance part too. Imagine a character who constantly brags about how \"humble and gracious\" they are. They complain about the real heroes \"Not being heroic enough\" while simultaneously being unheroic themselves. For example, the heroes rush into battle to save the town. Then their opposites steal all the glory, claim they did all the work, and lie to the town by complaining that the real heroes were \"cowards who hid while we did all the work\". Hypocrites who act nice up front but are secretly jerks.\nThis brings me to my third point.\n3. They get everything even when they don't deserve it. That's a surefire way to make the audience hate them almost undoubtedly. They're horrible people but the universe hands them everything on a golden plate. Fame and fortune? They got it. Beauty and perfect social etiquette? They've got it. Adoring fans everywhere they go? Yep.\n\nThis goes perfectly with the idea that one is a self-insert and one is a Miry Kae. By nature, those characters get everything. They get all the powers. All the adoring fans. All the love interests. But they're horrible people.\n\nRealistically I think you could have them essentially be spoiled rotten.\n\nThe universe always handed these people everything they wanted. They got all the powers and all the wealth and no one ever told them no in their life, which turned them spoiled and arrogant. The heroes are the first people who've ever gotten in their way, and it probably annoys them.\n\nThose are just a couple ways to do it. Though having them spoiled to the point of getting desensitized to everything around them seems like a pretty natural progression to me." }, { "answer_id": 63482, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Show their journey:\n===================\n\nThese are minor characters, so I'm uncertain how much effort you want to put into fleshing them out. To make someone hated, just have them do vile things. Kill a dog, or a child. Steal from the poor. Exploit the weak or mock the handicapped. Beat the helpless or betray a trust.\n\nLess ethical but just as effective is to play on the biases of your audience. As unpleasant as it sounds, people hate those different than themselves. Make the characters ugly, or irritatingly beautiful, fat or skeletally thin, and of a despised group in the society of your reader (fascists/communists, White supremist/minorities, slavers/slaves, tax collectors/poor, poorly mannered/snobby and elitist, war profiteers, etc.). Obviously, some of these choices make the author look scummy depending on the audience, but that's how people make characters despised. They are meant to fulfill a simplistic function in the story. Dehumanize them and make them monsters.\n\nBut if their humanity is important, then by all means make them human.\n\nI think what you really need to do is make them LESS hated. You are setting them up with tropey, stereotypical characteristics, so hating them isn't a challenge. The challenge is making them relatable enough to seem like real people. So show how they came to be what they are. Give a backstory demonstrating what led them down a despicable path, or show them struggling with the evil choice but choosing it anyway.\n\nPoint out the seduction by drugs that led them to a life of crime, or the painful moment they were betrayed and stopped trusting anyone. Show the speech by a parent where they are told how anyone else is inferior and that failure will result in them being no better. Talk about the day they caught the rabbit and struggled with the choice to give in and torture it or let it go. Discuss their deep faith in a god that demands human sacrifices.\n\nI'm not saying that there aren't intrinsically evil people. But even for these, you can show them listening as a child at a therapist's door as Mom or Dad is told their kid is a sociopath. Tell the audience about their demonic heritage that makes choosing good impossible for them.\n\nA stereotype arises from nothing and fulfills a function in a story. They are forgettable and unrelatable. A person has a story to explain them, or at least shows a struggle or reluctance for what they do." } ]	2022/10/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63452", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56573/" ]
63,455	When quoting someone who used a racial slur, should you censor the racial slur, and how should you do so? > > I said that he's a \\\\\. That's what I said. > > > When quoting someone who used a racial slur, should you censor it, and what's the correct way to censor it. Should you just use \\\\\, or should you replace the slur with the actual reference to the racial slur, such as c-word, n-word, etc.?	[ { "answer_id": 63471, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "One method is to look to stories that you enjoy, with characters that you really like and identify those character traits that endeared you to them.\n\nThen, do the opposite\n---------------------\n\nAccording to Brandon Sanderson, Samwise Gamgee is most people's favorite character in Lord of the Rings, because he is really good at being a good friend to Frodo. What if he was always complaining, and handing the pack to Frodo. Asking, \"Are we there yet?\" And, eating all the lembas? We'd feel very different about Samwise. I suspected we'd root for Shelob when they fight. That Frodo would be better off without Samwise as his extremely selfish friend.\n\nOther Examples:\n\n* We like brave characters -- so maybe your annoyotagonists, are cowards.\n* We admire gentle and sophisticated characters like Gatsby and Tom Bombadill -- so maybe your lame-otagonists are bullies and coarse mannered.\n* We enjoy competence in characters like Jamos Gunr and Risn Pitt -- so maybe your pathetic-togonists only think they are competent, but are incapable of performing even basic task like sharpening a sword.\n* We respect characters who uphold high ideals and act on their principles, such as Atticus Finch -- so maybe your two-faced-togonists profess high ideals but act only in their self-interest. Maybe the blame others for their failures and take credit for others successes (this is called Schnieder's Axiom after its inventor)" }, { "answer_id": 63472, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I know three ways to make an audience hate a character:\n\n1. Giving characters a \"holier than thou\" attitude. One of the easiest ways to make the audience hate a character is by having them constantly act superior to everyone else, even when they're clearly not. Arrogant characters can be fun if they have other redeemable qualities like cleverness, a secret soft side, or true bravery in a dangerous situation, but these characters would be prideful simply because they can be. They're sore losers. They always have to have the last laugh. They'll cut you in line because they want to be first, etc.\n2. They're hypocrites. Few things are quite as annoying as a hypocrite. This plays into the arrogance part too. Imagine a character who constantly brags about how \"humble and gracious\" they are. They complain about the real heroes \"Not being heroic enough\" while simultaneously being unheroic themselves. For example, the heroes rush into battle to save the town. Then their opposites steal all the glory, claim they did all the work, and lie to the town by complaining that the real heroes were \"cowards who hid while we did all the work\". Hypocrites who act nice up front but are secretly jerks.\nThis brings me to my third point.\n3. They get everything even when they don't deserve it. That's a surefire way to make the audience hate them almost undoubtedly. They're horrible people but the universe hands them everything on a golden plate. Fame and fortune? They got it. Beauty and perfect social etiquette? They've got it. Adoring fans everywhere they go? Yep.\n\nThis goes perfectly with the idea that one is a self-insert and one is a Miry Kae. By nature, those characters get everything. They get all the powers. All the adoring fans. All the love interests. But they're horrible people.\n\nRealistically I think you could have them essentially be spoiled rotten.\n\nThe universe always handed these people everything they wanted. They got all the powers and all the wealth and no one ever told them no in their life, which turned them spoiled and arrogant. The heroes are the first people who've ever gotten in their way, and it probably annoys them.\n\nThose are just a couple ways to do it. Though having them spoiled to the point of getting desensitized to everything around them seems like a pretty natural progression to me." }, { "answer_id": 63482, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Show their journey:\n===================\n\nThese are minor characters, so I'm uncertain how much effort you want to put into fleshing them out. To make someone hated, just have them do vile things. Kill a dog, or a child. Steal from the poor. Exploit the weak or mock the handicapped. Beat the helpless or betray a trust.\n\nLess ethical but just as effective is to play on the biases of your audience. As unpleasant as it sounds, people hate those different than themselves. Make the characters ugly, or irritatingly beautiful, fat or skeletally thin, and of a despised group in the society of your reader (fascists/communists, White supremist/minorities, slavers/slaves, tax collectors/poor, poorly mannered/snobby and elitist, war profiteers, etc.). Obviously, some of these choices make the author look scummy depending on the audience, but that's how people make characters despised. They are meant to fulfill a simplistic function in the story. Dehumanize them and make them monsters.\n\nBut if their humanity is important, then by all means make them human.\n\nI think what you really need to do is make them LESS hated. You are setting them up with tropey, stereotypical characteristics, so hating them isn't a challenge. The challenge is making them relatable enough to seem like real people. So show how they came to be what they are. Give a backstory demonstrating what led them down a despicable path, or show them struggling with the evil choice but choosing it anyway.\n\nPoint out the seduction by drugs that led them to a life of crime, or the painful moment they were betrayed and stopped trusting anyone. Show the speech by a parent where they are told how anyone else is inferior and that failure will result in them being no better. Talk about the day they caught the rabbit and struggled with the choice to give in and torture it or let it go. Discuss their deep faith in a god that demands human sacrifices.\n\nI'm not saying that there aren't intrinsically evil people. But even for these, you can show them listening as a child at a therapist's door as Mom or Dad is told their kid is a sociopath. Tell the audience about their demonic heritage that makes choosing good impossible for them.\n\nA stereotype arises from nothing and fulfills a function in a story. They are forgettable and unrelatable. A person has a story to explain them, or at least shows a struggle or reluctance for what they do." } ]	2022/10/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63455", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,473	### Is there a word for when a text is between chapters that enriches the story but are not part of the previous or following chapter? I'm writing fiction and wanted to have in-universe news articles from time to time that are between the character story chapters. I looked to see how others have done so previously, but could not find a proper word for it. Is there a word for it? Something like: > > Chapter 1 > > > Chapter 2 > > > 1-2 pages long text not part of chapter 2 or 3 > > > Chapter 3 > > > Is there a word for it, or does that sort of thing just become part of the previous or following chapter? (English is not my first language, so I'm sorry if this reads as an unclear question.)	[ { "answer_id": 63484, "author": "Steve L", "author_id": 55528, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55528", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not aware of a word that would specify textual content that lies between successively numbered chapters. I don't believe people think of it this way when they layout books of fiction.\n\nThere are two ways to consider this.\n\n1. Your content is the last section of Chapter 2 or the first section of Chapter 3.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this case you would call it a section. Different formatting might make it appear like it is set off from the chapters.\n\nMy e-book version of Frank Herbert's Dune uses this technique. Excerpts from a book, \"Manual of Muad'dib,\" provide lead-in text for every chapter. The text is indented like a quote, then the chapter text follows. So, in this case the text of interest is the first section of the chapter.\n\n2. Your content is a chapter without a heading (or with a heading if you prefer)\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMy e-book version of Jeff Wheeler's The Druid uses this technique. Between successively numbered chapters he has text that is a journal entry from another point of view. It is treated like a chapter and begins on a new page like chapters. It has no heading. In the table of contents, this in-between chapter appears with the first few words of the text rather than a chapter title. But it has no number.\n\n[![In-between chapter from Jeff Wheeler's The Druid](https://i.stack.imgur.com/M5ImR.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/M5ImR.png)\n\nIn my e-book version of Dan Brown's Origin, he includes short news segments (as you are wanting to do) as their own numbered chapter.\n\n[![Dan Brown's Origin. News segment chapter.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dmjvM.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/dmjvM.png)\n\nWhile you are free to do whatever you want, when it comes to laying out the actual book, you will probably be required to choose one of these approaches: treating your in-between content as a chapter section or as a chapter on its own." }, { "answer_id": 63485, "author": "Zeiss Ikon", "author_id": 26297, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26297", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "One of my favorite authors, Soqn Xrunvaq, did this in a number of his novels during the late 1960s and early 1970s -- The Shockwave Rider, The Sheep Look Up, and a couple others as I recall. Robert A. Heinlein also did it in Time Enough for Love.\n\nApparently these are called an \"interchapter\". This isn't quite the same as inserting a (real or fictional) quote at the beginning of a chapter (proper epigrams); those are generally selected or created to fit with the text, often symbolically, while these \"interchapters\" may contribute tone or background, but often don't directly advance the story." } ]	2022/10/11	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63473", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56685/" ]
63,483	I've been reading a lot of books on scene writing. One thing in common--found in every single book--is that the main character in the scene should have a goal. That goal should be made obvious as early as possible and repeated often to make sure the reader has clarity. This is said over and over in writing craft books. Of the approximately ten most popular books on scene writing, there is only one that even hints at anything different. That is the 1965 grand-daddy of scene structure, "Techniques of the Selling Writer" when he casually refers in one sentence to the idea that some scenes are happenings, which bring people together, but no goal or conflict is involved. One sentence in the history of advice on scene writing suggests there might be the rare scene without a clear goal. But when I read scenes from bestsellers, like Dan Brown's Origin or Dean Koontz's Devoted, they often begin with either a slice of life, some back-story, internal thoughts, or a character bumbling along observing their surroundings. There is no clear goal at all in some cases or else it may only appear very late in the scene and then often it's a passive goal like "avoid some rowdy people" or "tell someone it's bedtime." Examples: Dean Koontz Devoted, Scene #1: Megan Liobman feels time is running out. Looks at her non-verbal eleven year old son. Loves him, but struggles. Tells him it's bedtime soon. [Goal of telling her son it's bedtime, only revealed in the last sentence.] Dean Koontz Devoted, Scene #2: Woody Liobman saves a story he's writing on the computer. He is smart. Lying in bed, he contemplates his gum transplants and whether a girl would ever want to kiss him. [No scene goal. Just reflection.] Dan Brown Origin, Scene #1: Rocudq Langboz sees a bunch of crazy things: 40 foot tall dog, giant spider, wobbly stairs. Then he talks to a host who welcomes him to the museum and to the secret meeting. Contemplates his invitation and the person who invited him. Laypdoz is now [several pages in] "eager to learn what his former student was about to announce." [First hint of a clear goal.] Dan Brown Origin, Scene #3: Laypdoz is wandering along in the museum looking at symbols and people. [He's just thinking. I suppose we could say that his goal is to attend the gathering mentioned in scene #1, but this scene is just observations and reflections.] What am I to make of this? I find the scenes mostly engaging because they are revealing character, backstory or setting in an interesting way. But why then, does every single writing craft book say that the goal should be so crystal clear from the beginning of the scene. Am I reading too much into this advice? Can a goal be as simple as "observe my surroundings," "remember my past," "reflect on what I care about" or "get ready for bed while I think about something"? If so, why don't craft books communicate these subtleties?	[ { "answer_id": 63486, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Characters have goals like \"be a good parent\" or \"find a stable relationship.\" The author needs to know this goal while they write the scene. That doesn't mean the scene needs to say \"Skepe really wanted to be a good dad\" explicitly. It means when you decide to show us someone's actions, words, and sometimes thoughts, those things should show us that person's goals.\n\nI haven't read Devoted, but presumably you come to learn why she told her kid it was bedtime. Was it because good parents help their kid get enough sleep? Or was it because she needed some alone time off duty from how hard parenting is? The scene doesn't have to tell you that explicitly, or then. But there is a reason that scene is in the book. You are shown that character, what matters to them, what is hard for them, what they do, what they say. Why?\n\nNobody has a goal of \"reminisce.\" A writer may make a character reminisce, and if they do, they do for a reason. A scene may be present for any number of reasons. Do you know why those scenes were in those books? (Not what the character was actively and deliberately trying to achieve in those scenes?)" }, { "answer_id": 63487, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "I'll disagree with all that advice.\n\nI think the author needs a goal for the scene, something specific they want to convey. Like \"Megan Bookman feels time is running out.\" or something about Robert Laypdoz's personality, he's interested in symbols and people, he's the type of guy that spends spare time wandering in a museum.\n\nThe characters do not need a clear goal.\n\nI would guard against too much of these not-much-going-on scenes; for the most part readers are looking for conflict, puzzles, etc. But to properly convey mood and atmosphere and personality, sometimes you need to show what people do in their down time. Megan worries about her child. Laypdoz wanders looking for mental stimulation. Parr wanders in the mall shopping and doesn't buy anything. Balx looks for funny animal videos on his phone.\n\nIt is in that downtime, when we have no specific goal to accomplish, that what is important can float to the top, some basic personality, or priorities, or concerns. In writing, such scenes are useful for character building." }, { "answer_id": 63491, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "You'll see that experienced writers sometimes break the rules because they know them enough to break them in ways that work.\n\nBut, not every part of a book that looks like a scene (is formatted as a scene) is a scene.\n\nIn \"Techniques of the Selling Writer\" Swien divides a text into [Scenes and Sequels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scene_and_sequel).\n\nA Scene has Goal, Conflict, and Outcome. A Sequel has Reaction (to the outcome), Dilemma, and Decision (making up the next goal).\n\nThe second scene in \"Devoted\" sounds more like a Sequel to me but I haven't read the book so I could be wrong.\n\nThe happenings you mention are part of the Sequel, not the Scene.\n\nPersonally, [I'm a bit dubious about Sequels](https://talkwards.com/2022/10/01/rethinking-the-sequel/), at least how they are being explained in lots of literature. But then again, I believe everyone should try to find their own way to write... not that figuring out how other people do it isn't going to help... mostly the opposite...\n\nSometimes an author would split a scene into several sections of text (formatted as scenes), for instance, to create tempo variations or suspense.\n\nGood literature seldom sounds like the perfect project plan where Character A comes up with Plan B and pursues goal C to achieve it. Sometimes characters, just like human beings, aren't entirely sure what the goal is... sometimes it's to figure out what the goal is...\n\nAll of your scenes are from the beginning of the books (if I understand your question correctly).\n\nDifferent parts of the book serve different purposes and not all of them are 100% goal driven. For instance, in the beginning, we want to know the people, and their normal world, and get just a hint of the problems to come.\n\nCheck out [the third act](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/secrets-of-story-structure-pt-9-third/) of those books. You'll see much more goal-oriented scenes because now the protagonists are fighting to the death (physical, professional, and/or psychological) with the antagonistic forces. If the book does not have goal-oriented scenes in this section I'll be cocky and say it's either a failure or some kind of literary experiment...\n\nIn my opinion, the bulk of a story should contain Scenes. If you check out Swien he suggests a Sequel should never be longer than a couple of pages and he and others suggest that not all Scenes must be followed by a Sequel. You can skip Sequels but you should never have one Sequel after another (skip Scenes).\n\nDoes a Scene have to have a goal?\n\nAs mentioned, no, at the beginning (as well as [the very end](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/secrets-of-story-structure-pt-11/), after the climactic moment) there could be many reasons for a scene to not have a clearly defined goal, if it has a more important purpose than displaying conflict. Especially the beginning of stories can actually benefit from a lower pace where we get to know characters and setting and touch upon the conflict from a distance.\n\nBut even in the beginning, a story with too many scenes without a goal will have problems.\n\nWhy?\n\nBecause a scene without a goal means we have a POV character that does... what in this scene? And worse yet, if there is no goal to thwart, what should the scene's antagonist do? What should they oppose? How does the scene get conflict if no one wants anything in it and there is nothing to oppose? No plans to ruin, no wills to fight?\n\nWe all want the ending of the book to have the largest conflict, meaning the most urgent and pronounced goals that can be most powerfully opposed by the antagonists are located in this part of the book...\n\nSome stories may not have enough conflict to make it possible to start with great goals and great conflict without running out of steam long before the end. The competence of the author will decide if this is a problem or not.\n\nOther stories are great because they have a type of conflict that can allow for great conflict from the first page. But stories can be great for many other reasons than conflict.\n\nAnd some stories are considered great by some people while others don't agree." }, { "answer_id": 63507, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I tend to modify the advice. The main character shouldn't have a goal in every scene (after all, what's Harry Potter's goal in the scene where Minister of Magic Fudge talks to PM of Britain (not Jim Hacker) about Voldemort?) Rather the WRITER should have a goal for each scene... i.e. why does the audience need to see this action. Taken from that perspective, all of those scenes have very big goals that you already outlined.\n\nEven if you do not take that argument, the rule is \"Have a goal.\" No one ever said it had to be a goal related to the story or cannot evolve. The scenes that you have described the character has the goal of 1.) Being a good mother, 2.) investigate his attractiveness following recent surgery, 3.) Learn WTH is going on here? 4.) Take some me time to enjoy an obscure specialization that I received a PhD in.\n\n(FYI, I've never read any of these books, but I'm familiar with the Rocudq Langboz character from other books he's in).\n\nNo one said the goal had to be important... these establishing scenes are to show you who these characters are and what they specifically bring to the table in terms of the story (Rocudq Langboz for example, is a Harvard Art Professor who specializes in symbiology and, based on the two books I read where he is the protagonist, does not ordinarily do anything involving global conspiracy thrillers save for the fact that the antagonists of those tend to like using obscure symbiology that Langdon can uniquely consult on, thus drawling him into a plot involving papal succession and particle physics that he doesn't ordinarily get involved with.)." } ]	2022/10/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63483", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55528/" ]
63,488	Is it OK to have a main character without a goal? I was told that a good protagonist needs to have a strong goal. It's considered to be a common mistake among aspiring writers. This seems to happen when a character is part of a larger group, which has a goal, and that goal becomes the main character's goal also. Or when a character has an ever-changing goal that changes constantly. My question is in what situation could you have a main character without a goal and still make the story compelling enough? Was it ever done in literature: is there any famous work where the main character has no goal?	[ { "answer_id": 63489, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The question is whether your story has any forward motion without such a goal. Aimless rambling is very difficult to make compelling, so that the reader won't just stop reading.\n\nCertainly stories about growing up often lack a clear overt goal, but this tends to produce complications about where to end. Often the writer has the goal that the story will end when the character reaches a milestone or, more often, learns a lesson" }, { "answer_id": 63490, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 6, "selected": true, "text": "Seriously folks. This isn't my fight:\n=====================================\n\nA protagonist can have a very humble goal, if their lack of a goal is central to the story. Consider the newest example, Bullet Train, where the character's goal is simply to commit a petty crime and get off of a train. Wild events and circumstance keep pulling them back into an ever more complex web that they keep trying to escape. There's often at least some comedic element to these stories.\n\nAnother example is if there is a reveal of a plot twist in the story. The character might, for example, appear to be stumbling through the story until you realize all their actions were secretly focused on a masterful goal. In this case, the character APPEARS to have no goal, but actually has an extremely powerful one.\n\nThen there is the simple goal of staying alive in an uncontrolled crisis. This simple and primitive goal can be combined with a somewhat laughable goal (like finding a Twinkie amidst a zombie apocalypse) to make a complicated story where a very human goal seemingly takes precedence over a grand goal." }, { "answer_id": 63494, "author": "Kef Schecter", "author_id": 3039, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/3039", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "It can be done. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is one of my favorite novels, and its protagonist, Upphur Dent, does not have a goal throughout the first book, other than surviving the few dangerous situations he winds up in.\n\nThe reason this works is because the book was never about Upphur's character arc. The book is first and foremost a comedy, so as long as we're laughing, we don't care much about what happens to Upphur. Second, the book is a satire highlighting the various similarities and contrasts between Douglas Adams's galaxy and the world we live in. Upphur's journey only gives us an excuse to peek into various facets of life in the galaxy through the eyes of an outsider.\n\nAnd, indeed, this is a big reason why the movie version was a big flop with me, because they tried to make the movie about the story, and they cut out many of the jokes and satirical elements to keep things moving along. The result was a story that was much more dramatic, but not any more interesting, and certainly not any more fun to watch.\n\nI would be remiss not to add that, as the series progressed, Adams did start giving his stories meaningful plots and character arcs, and then the reader does care about what Upphur wants and what he does about it. I think the series improved for it, but the first book nonetheless showed that such things are not strictly necessary. It's also worth noting that the first book was mostly an adaptation of a radio series, where it's easier to get away with writing sketch comedy even if your show is not technically a sketch comedy show. The parts that were not adapted from the radio series tend to adhere much closer to traditional storytelling.\n\nIn any case, if your story is not a comedy, then it would be much harder to make this work. For each scene in your story, you need to ask yourself, \"Why would the audience care about this scene?\" For Hitchhiker's, the answer is simple: the scene is funny. So long as the audience laughs, you win. But there isn't a comparable analogue for drama. You don't automatically win when the audience gasps or cries. You don't win until you give them catharsis, so everything in your story needs to work toward giving it.\n\nThis usually means having an arc that you can resolve, and that usually means having a character drive that arc. If this character isn't your protagonist, you might want to consider changing your story's point of view so that it is." }, { "answer_id": 63495, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "The character doesn't have to have a goal. The story must have a goal.\n\nIf your character just goes through daily stuff and just gets on with living, it'd be a really boring story.\n\nIf the character is just doing the usual mechanics of getting through the day, but keeps encountering obstacles that force the character to grow or to do interesting things, then that can be a very good story.\n\nYour job as an author is to provide that goal - and the obstacles and the solutions.\n\nLife doesn't provide goals - reality isn't there to teach us lessons.\n\nA story (be it a novel or a short story) is not reality. The story has a god (in the form of the author) who puts meaning into the events.\n\nWrite a story with the goal of teaching a jerk how to become a decent person. That isn't the jerk's goal - but it is the goal of the story. The jerk just lives through all the incidents that the author contrives and becomes a better person.\n\nIn dealing with individual incidents, the character will develop short term goals. A character just getting through life may have to deal with an unexpected traffic jam on the way home from work. The character has no real long term goal, but still has to plan a way to reach the short term goal of getting home on time (or at least not too late.)\n\nYour characters can get along without specific goals as long as you the author have goals for them to reach and you goad them along a path to those goals." }, { "answer_id": 63499, "author": "Peter - Reinstate Monica", "author_id": 28730, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/28730", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I suppose that for a conventional story you should follow conventional advice. ;-)\n\nIn that case, the lead character drives the action and thus should have a goal, either one that is innate (they feel a drive to achieve something, like Captain Ahab in Meby Dekk) or imposed (they are subject to circumstances that make them want to achieve something, like Odysseus who wants to return home).\n\nBut of course one can write less conventionally, and there are some famous examples for that as well. I think James Joyce's Ulysses, giving an account of a more or less ordinary day in the life, qualifies. The authors of the Boan generation (e.g. Burroughs, Kerouac) wrote stories whose protagonists didn't have much of a goal; Beckett's characters usually just endure their days.\n\nIf you plan to get published and earn any money I'd recommend to write more conventionally though ;-)." }, { "answer_id": 63501, "author": "BsAxUbx5KoQDEpCAqSffwGy554PSah", "author_id": 56712, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56712", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Neon Genesis Evangelion is a famous successful franchise that has a depressed protagonist that does not sees a reason to save the world. He would prefer to be let alone, but is too much apathetic at the beginning to actively avoid being thrown into someone else's problem again and again. Once there, he needs to do something, albeit not wanting to. And so the story progresses, until he finally becomes involved to the point of not being able to return or desist." }, { "answer_id": 63502, "author": "Jeff Navarro", "author_id": 56714, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56714", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "In my opinion, a character with a clear (to the reader) goal is common, and important, but not fundamentally important, because the character's goal exists to serve a larger story purpose...which is to create a conflict. Obstacles put in the character's way during the pursuit of their goal is what gives a story much of its drama, suspense, and compellingness...even, its relatability, since we all can empathize with someone trying to fulfill desires, whether they are grand or mundane.\n\nI'm sure you realize, I'm not using \"suspense\" and \"drama\" as genre labels. Some form of not knowing what will happen next is probably fundamentally critical to any story, or there's no reason to read. Generally, things happen in stories, and we read them to learn just what.\n\nSo, by all means...if you can come up with a story framework where the character has no goals, but things happen, and it's compelling for readers (unless you don't want that) then go for it!" }, { "answer_id": 63503, "author": "Corey", "author_id": 56715, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56715", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It's an interesting question, but it hinges on what you mean by a goal. There are plenty of examples (including the ones referenced in other answers here) of main characters who do not have a goal of their own but have one thrust on them by others, by prophecy, by circumstances, etc. Do you count that as the character's goal? If so, this answer probably isn't for you.\n\nIf by \"main character without a goal\" you mean someone who hasn't set themselves a goal, then there are plenty of examples.\n\nTake for instance The Belgariad. Garion is, on face value at least, just some random farm boy. His goals in life include goofing off, stealing food from the kitchen, not getting caught by Aunt Pol and maybe one day marrying Zubrette. He then spends a bunch of time just trying to stay alive, trying to learn sorcery, trying not to let Ce'nedra get under his skin, etc. He's pretty much just surviving and helping out where he can, with no actual goal beyond getting through the next day.\n\nOr perhaps the better example (depending on your perspective - I loathed the character) is Thomos Homizavz. As a sufferer of leprosy, he's had a hard life. His entire existence is devoted to caution and self pity. After getting pulled into a world of magic, almost immediately cured of his leprosy and given phenomenal power (because his wife just happened to have a preference for white gold), does Covenant become a potent force for change and so forth? Like fun he does, he continues to piss and moan about his leprosy for most of the first trilogy while his companions do the work of getting him where he needs to be. (He's truly tiresome.)\n\nAnd then there's the example that everyone should be familiar with: The Lord of the Rings. Although you might find my position a little controversial, I believe that the true protagonist of the series isn't the guy who is carrying the doomsday weapon around, it's the background character whose support is the main reason why they succeeded, and is literally the only reason Frodo was able to complete the mission he was set. Samwise Gamges' goal isn't to destroy the One Ring, or to defeat Sauron, it's to support his friend. He's not the smartest, he's not much for fighting, he's not a planner or a schemer, he's just a simple man. And every time Frodo falls, time after time, Sam is there to pick him back up.\n\nWhich is not to say that the story doesn't have a goal. They all do. Epic goals that draw entire nations into action. Goals that absolutely require the protagonist to perform mythic feats and challenge the gods themselves.\n\nUltimately though the goal itself can be secondary to the story telling. It's a reason why the story is happening, and achieving the goal is the point that the whole story is leading to, but the story of how that goal was achieved is the important part. We're not writing after-action reports or documenting dry facts after all, we're building worlds filled with fascinating characters, tension, laughter and tears, personal development and meaning.\n\nOr at least we should be." }, { "answer_id": 63505, "author": "Machavity", "author_id": 56721, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56721", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There's an odd movie called [Being There](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There) adapted from [the novel of the same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There_(novel)). It was one of Peter Seller's last roles, and it takes a long time to get going. The main character, Chance, has no real goals at all. He is simple-minded (think mental retardation, but high-functioning) and all he likes to do is garden and watch TV. When events force him out of the only home he's known, he struggles to figure out what to do until he is hit by the car of a wealthy woman.\n\nThe rest of the movie is a brilliant satire as Chance has only a few phrases he says, but the other characters around him promptly inject their meanings into them. For instance, Chance likes to watch TV so he states \"I like to watch\". There's a number of ways to take that phrase (Chance is never explicit about what he wants to watch), and thus characters show him things that he probably didn't intend. In one scene, an openly gay man is attempting to proposition Chance, and when Chance states he \"likes to watch\", the man excitedly goes off to fetch his partner for an exhibition (Chance is pulled away before anything can happen in that vein).\n\nThe satire is that, by the end, everyone thinks Chance is this brilliant man and they are making all sorts of goals for him (there's talk of trying to make him run for the office of US President), not realizing he cares nothing at all for any of it.\n\nTo put it a different way, DWKraus' [good answer](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/63490/56721) describes a main character who knows about, but is apathetic towards, the goal. Chance doesn't even know there is a goal, and simply exists within the story as a foil for others." } ]	2022/10/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63488", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,493	I'm in the process of drafting a story for a single player game where the player controls their own made character. I'm planning for the game to have an emotional narrative but I cannot wrap my head around how to execute it story-wise when dealing with a player-made character. As an example, in games where the player controls a pre-made character such as in The Witcher series, Geralt already has a predefined personality which means the writers know beforehand how he might react to certain things happening. It's not so simple when the character is a blank slate. I could try to gamify it by allowing the player to select their personality or build their "personality" around the choices they make while playing the game. This, however, has some problems. Primarily is that it has the tendency to increase the game's scope beyond what I want. Secondly is that this is not guaranteed to work as intended because if the player enjoys killing people but feel deeply affected when they see a certain village burn down, showing the character in a cutscene with a smile on their face (basing on the player's previous actions) will create a disconnect with how the player was actually feeling at the moment. So instead of going out of scope for the game's system, I want to see if I can tackle this from a writing perspective. Which leads ultimately to my question. How can I present an emotional narrative when essentially the main character is a blank slate? An approach I've thought of is having the emotional moments happen between other characters and the player is just there to witness it either as a bystander or as a 3rd party who is only marginally related. That way the player's character is not so entwined with what was happening and does not need up close representation. While this may work, I also do want some emotional moments happening involving the player character as well but I just can't figure out how to execute it. Thanks for reading my wall of text!	[ { "answer_id": 63508, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Some examples that come to mind:\n\n\\The Ace Combat series (04 being a notable one in focus): Typically there are two cutscenes between each level. The first usually follows up on the actions of the concluding mission while the second will be a mission briefing for the next mission. Notably, the first cut scene is often told from the POV of a civilian or other person on the ground who is not involved in the conflict but has a tangential relationship. While the PC's character is advanced by his notoriety for pulling off daring missions and the stakes are set up in the briefings/debriefings (Ace Combat has a penchant for throwing missions that require you to fly ridiculously close to the ground, or through structures that are just wide enough for you to enter and exit but will cause a crash if you go off course.). However, the nature of the war is explored in the other cut scenes and told through the perspective of characters that aren't part of the airforce the PC belongs too. For example, in 04, you play as Mobius1, but the story told in the cut scenes is framed as a letter written to you by a war orphan who was living in an occupied city during much of the war and just happened to work at a bar where your rival (Yellow13) and his squadron frequent. These cut scenes show that Yellow13 was not the scary monster that his in game actions would have you believe (Killing Yellow Squadron is scripted, so any encounter with them prior to their death makes them invincible) and that Yellow13 was a surrogate father to the boy despite being responsibile for his parent's deaths and that Yellow13 considered Mobius1 to be a worthy opponent and was following your career long before you. In fact, the action that makes 13 come after you specifically is revealed to be that 13 prides himself not on his kills in combat, but on the fact that he has never lost a wing man... until you kill your first Yellow (scripted to always be Yellow4, 13's wingwoman and love interest).\n\nPokemon series: The emotional drive of the Pokemon game is the partnership between yourself and you Pokemon team that develops on the journey. This is typical of Mon series of games as a whole where you are working with your partner(s) and grow over time with them.\n\nMMORPGs: The emotional storyline is experienced as you level up and can start to take on more higher stakes missions. RPGs in general, will also have a \"choice\" system that will result in different responses based on player selection during cut scene actions and morality may not be binary.\n\nEdit: The single player storylines for Red Dead Redemption and RDR2 are considered some of the strongest parts of the game play." }, { "answer_id": 63509, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Make the player a ghost.\n\n You could show them in cutscenes as a blur or outline.\n* It provides an in-game reason why the player's agency is limited.\n* You could have them follow the main character of the story around, thereby giving them a character to invest in and care about, without dictating the emotions of the player themselves.\n* There could be some interesting mechanical opportunities around how the player interacts with things, e.g. can/how do they pick things up? can/how do they walk through walls? can/how do they interact with people? Putting some thought into that could increase immersiveness and counteract the fact that they are limited in the choices they make.\n\nWhatever solution you choose, I think that if you are not offering the player either agency through choices or a defined character to associate with, and you still expect them to have emotional reactions, your storytelling and characterisation of the other characters will need to be incredible, otherwise the player will have nothing to care about." }, { "answer_id": 64021, "author": "J. Scrivner", "author_id": 57297, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57297", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think there may be an elephant in the room, so I'll posit that there is, and will reveal it: Is there evidence that it's even possible to do what you want to do? Have you experienced a game that succeeds in allowing the player to \"personalise\" their in-game representation?\n\nPersonally I have had the experience of taking on a character's emotion--anger in particular--with one of my first games, when Ratchet was betrayed by Captain Quark. My contempt for Quark grew and grew and by the end I really wanted to pulverise him!\n\nNow, I was stoked to this height of emotion by witnessing the selfishness and duplicity of this antagonist, and also the hardships Ratchet had to contend with because of him.\n\nThe antagonist also got me in the most \"real\" way as a gamer: his actions caused me to fail to get items and power I repeatedly thought was on the verge of obtaining--so yes, I was genuinely pissed with Captain Quark. His actors slowed me and blocked my way.\n\nSo I suppose that even without having any input into the protagonist's attributes, I could share in his frustrations and ambitions by having obstacles thrown at me and my progress hindered by the game via an antagonistic character. Perhaps whatever the dynamic underlying these reactions could be put to use to elicit other emotions?\n\nThis is my two cents on the subject. You seem to have a good mind for creating insight; maybe you can find a way to adapt this device to your purpose." } ]	2022/10/13	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63493", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39011/" ]
63,510	I've had an idea recently to use color in order to disambiguate several usages of the same word in a text which refer to two different instances of the same concept. Since StackExchange does not allow use of colors in formatting, in the reproduction of text below I use bold and italic fonts instead: > > When you start to critically think about thinking, it's easy to start > doubting your thinking the same way that you doubt your thinking. > > > This doubt makes critical thinking about thinking an antimeme (an idea > with self-censoring properties): it makes it harder to develop the > thought, and it makes it harder to communicate it. > > > I assume that I'm not the first person in the world to come up with that idea: is there a prior art of using formatting for disambiguation? I am looking for particular examples as well as analysis of this technique.	[ { "answer_id": 63512, "author": "Llewellyn", "author_id": 27572, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/27572", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "That sounds confusing, no matter the formatting. It might be clearer to stick to longer descriptions (e.g. \"critical thinking\" as opposed to \"the act of thinking\") or to pick a synonym (e.g. \"reasoning\", \"contemplation\"), define it once and then consistently use that." }, { "answer_id": 63515, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "If you're tempted to do this, one thing to consider is whether this is even feasible to do with the way you intend to publish your text (cost of colour print, style requirements of a periodic, and so on). This won't be an issue if you're self-publishing on your own website, but most other ways, it's likely it will - and even on your own website, if there's anyone who'd like to print your work out, then you're setting them up for running into an issue.\n\nThus, colour-coding is quite an impractical method at least, and may turn out straightout impossible.\n\nI'm afraid I don't recall any instance of colour-coding text in non-fiction. In fiction, the one I know of is the Neverending Story, where it isn't meaning of the words but whole storylines that is colour-coded. Consequently, the manufacturing cost of the book is fairly high, and so is its price in the bookshop.\n\nProgramming editors often colour-code parts of the code for viewer's convenience, but the colour isn't part of the actual code, it's automatically added according to what each part of the code does, and bears no additional information at all.\n\nFor other formatting options, bold and italics are used in sciences to denote physical quantities, sets, vectors and so on, both in equations and when the symbols are used in a sentence - where it quite helps to tell the difference between, say, \"a\" (indefinite article) and \"*a\" (acceleration).\n\nI don't recall any usage for altering the meaning of terms. Admittedly, there would probably be more of a demand for such a thing in humanities (such as your example), which I'm simply not familiar with.\n\nWhat actually comes to mind as most similar to what you're trying to do is (fiction, again) the distinction between animals and Animals in the Chronicles of Narnia, where lowercase (\"a horse\") denotes ordinary animals we know, and capitalised (\"a Horse\") denotes sentient beings populating the fantasy country. It took me three books to even notice there was a difference other than context.\n\nAnd yet another option I've seen is a different font type, such as Terry Pratchett used in his Discwold books to denote that a character was speaking a different language (curly font for Klatchian). He was reportedly hated by printers for it. And in translation into my language, the Klatchian lines in the curly font substituted all letters with diacritics (about a third of all letters) with non-letter characters.\n\nOne thing you may notice about the examples I've listed is that formatting helps the reader's orientation, but it usually isn't the only way to distinguish between two different things - the reader would already have enough information to figure the distinction out without any difference in formatting. And I think there's a good reason.\n\nWhichever formatting method you might choose to distinguish between two terms where the words are identical and the terms only differ by formatting, this will make it possible to make a distinction in written text, but not in speech. What you write will be impossible to discuss in a spoken conversation. That seems like a huge setback, so I'd strongly suggest not using formatting on its own for distinction at all, but defining differing terms in words instead, such as, I don't know, \"common sense thinking\" versus \"self-reflective thinking\"." }, { "answer_id": 63516, "author": "Kevin", "author_id": 11108, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/11108", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Never use color alone to indicate anything that matters.\n\nSome people are colorblind, and will be unable to tell apart colors that may look entirely different to you. The most well-known pair of such colors is red and green, but other forms of colorblindness may affect other combinations of colors, and so it is safest to assume that any two colors might be confused. While color can sometimes be used to help* indicate things, it should never be used in isolation.\n\nIn philosophy, I have occasionally seen multiple meanings indicated with numerical subscripts (so you might write think1 and think2, which can be done with tags in Stack Exchange). However, this convention is rare in other fields, and would likely need to be explained. Also, it's used for differentiating meanings, rather than instances of the same meaning, so I would avoid this usage for your precise use case. Instead, it's often best to add words or recast the sentence so as to remove the ambiguity. This will usually require you to write more verbosely, but clarity should usually be prioritized over brevity. For example:\n\n> \n> When you start to critically think about thinking, it's easy to start doubting your thinking-about-thinking the same way that you doubt your thinking.\n> \n> \n> This doubt makes critical thinking about thinking an antimeme (an idea with self-censoring properties): it makes it harder to develop the thought, and it makes it harder to communicate it.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI have boldfaced the only change to make it obvious, not to suggest that you would actually set it in bold in your manuscript. Note that the second sentence did not need to be modified at all, because it is already obvious which sense is meant." }, { "answer_id": 63522, "author": "Ángel", "author_id": 13127, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13127", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "As [mentioned by Divizna](https://writing.stackexchange.com/a/63515/13127) it is very atypical to color certain words in a normal book, with the Neverending Story being the outlier here (and I'm quite sure many editions would have dropped it if it wasn't referenced by the story itself). A typeface change is generally used instead where that would have been an option.\n\nI have mainly found this in the context of different languages rather than word meanings, though. For example, a novel is written in English, where a character says some words in Spanish. Then the book is translated into Spanish. The original text in Spanish is rendered in italic to show it's in a different language than the rest of the text (a footnote explaining it the first time).\n\nThis is not only done as a result of translations, but it is also done in originals. For instance, in Asterix and the Goths (Astérix et les Goths) the speech balloons are written in Gothic font when the characters speak in Gothic, while the normal font is used when they are speaking in ~~French~~ Gaulois:\n\n[![Image from https://majorspoilers.com/2013/11/28/retro-review-asterix-goths-1963/](https://majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/asterix-and-the-goths-650x390.jpg)\n\nThis makes both languages intelligible for the readers, while most characters actually speak a single language, with not understanding each other playing an important role.\n\nConversational guides also tend to make heavy use of font and colors to differentiate between the multiple languages in their texts (source language, target language, pronunciation…)" }, { "answer_id": 63526, "author": "Michael Kay", "author_id": 24574, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24574", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Software documentation makes heavy use of alternative fonts to distinguish words used in a normal English sense from words used with a programming language meaning. I haven't seen colour used for that, though I have seen background shading.\n\nOn web pages, of course, colour is often used to signal clickable hyperlinks.\n\nMissals (used to contain the text of a liturgical service such as the Catholic Mass) and Orders of Service often use text in two colours (black and red) to distinguish the actual text of the service from commentary or instructions (c.f. stage directions), or to distinguish text spoken by different participants. Red letter bibles use red text for the words of Jisis. But this is expensive, and font variations are a more common device." }, { "answer_id": 63535, "author": "PLL", "author_id": 957, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/957", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Another strong argument against this (besides others mentioned in answers) is that *our mental representation of text is based on spoken* language, not written.** Most well-established inline text-formatting clearly corresponds to something in spoken language: punctuation mostly signals timing, bold and italic correspond to marking emphasis with stress and tone, and so on. So following such formatting comes very naturally to a reader. Colour doesn’t correspond to anything spoken. Reading your text aloud, how would you distinguish the red word from the green? A reader has no idea, and hence no intuitive way to imagine it when reading the text; so it’s much harder for them to process the colour as part of the text while reading.\n\nFormatting with no spoken counterpart can be useful for other things: for instance, signalling the structure of a text, or directing the reader’s attention. Colour can be good for such purposes. But for information that’s meant to be part of the textual content itself, colour just won’t work well for most readers." }, { "answer_id": 63536, "author": "Cristobol Polychronopolis", "author_id": 31738, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/31738", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It doesn't use color, but the closest example I can remember of using formatting to distinguish context is Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. The character of DEATH (as opposed to the phenomenon of death) is in all caps, as well as things directly associated with DEATH, and all of his dialogue (only DEATH's lines are in all caps, while people respond in mixed case). Part of this imagery stems from an introductory description of how DEATH is more REAL than regular reality, as the one character (or phenomenon) which is unavoidable under any circumstances.\n\n(The DEATH OF RATS was a ancillary character, apparently because rats die at such a rate as to justify their own specialist, but its only line was SQUEAK.)" }, { "answer_id": 63548, "author": "user8356", "author_id": 8356, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8356", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Italics is prescribed by AP Stylebook and Chicago Manual of style to use for \"words as words\" -- that is, when you refer to a word itself (not using it functionally), you put it in italics, or quotes if font changes aren't possible. For example:\n\nManners and Manors are homonyms.\n\nThis would seem to apply to the question of distinguishing words being defined." } ]	2022/10/15	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63510", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56726/" ]
63,513	If your main character gets a main goal in the middle of the story, are there things you need to do as a writer differently than you would have to do if you were to have your main character get a main goal at the beginning? I think this rarely happens, or at least I don't remember a story where this is the case. This can happen if you need time to finish your plan for your story or if you want to develop certain things like worldbuilding or other characters before making your character set on the main journey, but I was wondering if there are things you need to do or avoid if you choose to do so.	[ { "answer_id": 63514, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I don't see a problem with that. Halfway through a story should be some sort of setback.\n\nYour hero can find out their goal up to then is misguided, but it gave you a chance to do some world building. Then they discover a true mission, and it knocks them off their \"success high\", sets them back on their heels. Their own plans (personal or professional) have to be scrapped in order to pursue this main goal.\n\nThe thing you need to do, however, is still follow the 3 Act Structure: Have an inciting incident (about 1/8 of the way into the story), and at 1/4, the hero leaves their normal world, etc. It is just that the major setback at the half way point is realizing they haven't been pursuing the correct goal.\n\nThis may look like in the first half you are speeding toward a speedy conclusion, but in fact you are speeding to cliff, and falling off it, and suddenly your hero is in a hole, behind, and desperate.\n\nYet, still, the hero's experiences in the first act and can be devised to provide experience, knowledge, clues to the main mission in the second half.\n\nAnd the surprise of the cliff at the halfway mark can provide a great sense of urgency for the rest of the second act, a reason for the reader to feel suspense.\n\nA story is about conflict, and struggle, and setbacks. It does not have to be constant, in fact their should be a cycle. But a story without any, for half the story, is a droning history lesson. You cannot just do a world-building history lesson for half the story!\n\nLook at Star Wars (in release order), or any other good fantasy movie. World building is done simultaneously with the hero struggling, or learning, suffering setbacks.\n\nHeroes become heroes by prevailing despite their setbacks, their mistakes, despite suffering hardship. To be a hero means to survive and prevail, by bravery and taking risks, over circumstances that might well have killed them.\n\nThat includes in the first half of the story.\n\nAnd for the record, there are many stories in which the true path to victory is only discovered about 85% of the way into the story, after previous failures.\n\nRevealing the \"true main goal\" of the story at the halfway point should not be a problem, just try to make sure the knowledge of the \"true main goal\" is not easily acquired." }, { "answer_id": 63517, "author": "ColonizeroftheSun", "author_id": 55869, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55869", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "I think if this happens you need to have you main character show the aftermath of getting that goal.\n\nFor example if their goal was to be president what is it like to BE president?\n\nOn the other hand you can also write their \"downfall\" from getting that goal. That' should be an interesting story i.e. the rise and fall of a hero." } ]	2022/10/15	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63513", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,525	She heard a gunshot. Then the fell silent. how would you improve this to make it sound better?	[ { "answer_id": 63530, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Add Detail and Emotional content:\n=================================\n\nWhile functional, this statement is rather thin. A gunshot should be a jarring thing in a story. It often represents someone or thing dying. So more description would add intensity and punctuate the event. The gunshot transforms the world.\n\nI would involve more senses into the event and extend the duration. Maybe even leave the nature open until she identifies in her mind that it was a shot. Use words emphasizing the traumatic nature of the event. Context is critical here, but for example:\n\n> \n> \"Her eyes barely registered the flicker of light before the the sound struck her like a slap. The noise was shocking and overwhelmed her hearing. Afterwards, her ears rung with the echo. The burning smell of powder wafted through the air. In the sudden silence following, she froze until remembering to breathe.\"\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 63531, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 1, "selected": true, "text": "That very much depends on the context of the scene, style of the writing, and so on. In some works, what works best may be a detailed description like DWKraus wrote. In others, what provides the best effect may be:\n\n> \n> A gunshot.\n> \n> \n> \n\nJust this, as a whole paragraph, or even section.\n\nThere are lots of different possibilities for lots of different stories.\n\nIt depends." }, { "answer_id": 63533, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "What would the point-of-view character think?\n\nBear in mind that she's familiar enough with gunshots that she recognizes it immediately, there may not be much more detail about it for her.\n\nIf she's not, describe her sensory impressions and then how she realizes it's a gunshot." }, { "answer_id": 63553, "author": "Kurt Gibson", "author_id": 56698, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56698", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "If your desire is to expand the description of the sound, it may be helpful to remember that the sound of a real gunshot is quite different from the exaggerated movie soundtrack sound. Rather than a deep \"boom\", most real-world gunshots have more of a \"pop\" sound. Some smaller calibers have a sound better described as a \"crack\".\n\nThe resulting sound also depends on distance and whether the gun is fired indoors or outdoors. Indoors, the reverberation of a gunshot can make it sound deeper and much louder. Outdoors, nearby gunshots have a sharper sound. The further away the gunshot, the less high-frequency energy the sound has. This makes distant gunshots sound deeper.\n\nFinally, it's easy to forget that gunshots are extremely LOUD. If a gun fires near you and catches you off-guard, your breath catches in your lungs, your heart all but stops, and your ears will complain of the mistreatment for a long time." } ]	2022/10/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63525", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1/" ]
63,527	I just wanted to make sure I am approaching this correctly: I am working on a nonfiction historical biography about a missionary. When quoting sources which use archaic spellings of places/words, do I need to note the non-normative spelling at all? I assume that [sic] would be inappropriate in this case but am not sure if I should use brackets to correct the spelling, or if that is more distracting. For example, here is a quote from someone writing from Hong Kong in the early 1900s (this quote is in the book): “We are continually being asked why we do not leave Hongkong... To say the least the Seed must be sown and the Lord will look after the developement [Emphasis mine]." Hongkong is an archaic spelling of Hong Kong, same with developement. I don't want them to look like unintentional errors on my part, but also don't want to distract the reader unnecessarily. Thank you!!	[ { "answer_id": 63528, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It's legible, comprehensible, no actual need to edit. I think it'll be best if you leave the quotes intact.\n\nI don't think you strictly need to note that you didn't make any edits, but if you're worried about it looking like your mistake, I'd suggest including a short note stating that you left the spelling of all quoted English documents as originally written, either at the beginning or at the end of the work, or when the first quoted document comes up. That way it will be clear it's not on you, and no distracting marks in the quotes themselves." }, { "answer_id": 63532, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "What you do is write:\n\n> \n> We are continually being asked why we do not leave Hongkong[sic]... To say the least the Seed must be sown and the Lord will look after the developement [sic].\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n\"[sic]\" literally means \"Yes, this is not a typo but the original wording.\"" } ]	2022/10/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63527", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56739/" ]
63,545	I have to check my company's English translations for a new product they have made. The product is an electrical wall box for charging electric cars. They wrote the following sentence: > > Ideal for classic electromobilists > > > I have never heard of the word electromobilists and I can not find the definition anywhere online. Although English is my native language, I did not study English and I make mistakes in English all the time. Can someone tell me if this sentence makes sense?	[ { "answer_id": 63528, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It's legible, comprehensible, no actual need to edit. I think it'll be best if you leave the quotes intact.\n\nI don't think you strictly need to note that you didn't make any edits, but if you're worried about it looking like your mistake, I'd suggest including a short note stating that you left the spelling of all quoted English documents as originally written, either at the beginning or at the end of the work, or when the first quoted document comes up. That way it will be clear it's not on you, and no distracting marks in the quotes themselves." }, { "answer_id": 63532, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "What you do is write:\n\n> \n> We are continually being asked why we do not leave Hongkong[sic]... To say the least the Seed must be sown and the Lord will look after the developement [sic].\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n\"[sic]\" literally means \"Yes, this is not a typo but the original wording.\"" } ]	2022/10/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63545", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56749/" ]
63,555	For example, let's say that my protagonist has a special ability that he cannot die, literally, but he has lived a peaceful life and never been in any critical situation so far. I want to write his story in third person limited, but I also want to give this piece of information at the beginning. Can I write some kind of hook like this in the beginning: 'Upam has a body that cannot die. He doesn't know that yet, but he's about to find out.'	[ { "answer_id": 63557, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I wouldn't do that. If Upam doesn't know it, don't let the reader know it.\n\nIf you have ruined the surprise, any suffering and fear Upam feels as he thinks he is dying will be lost on your reader. They already know he can't die.\n\nWhen you write that scene, there will be zero surprise, they will just skip forward to find where Upam figures it out. They already know what is coming.\n\nIf you don't tell them, they will be wondering how Upam gets out of this, he's been stabbed in the heart,or his throat's been cut. Or even if Upam gets out of this!\n\nThey will be intrigued. Then they can identify with Upam when, to his surprise, he doesn't die.\n\nReaders tend to identify with the protagonist, in a 3PL story (with one protagonist) you should never tell them anything the protagonist doesn't know. They should learn with them.\n\nOnce the narrator goes \"omniscient\" (in this case not only telling them something Upam doesn't know, but telling them the future as well), they know the narrator is capable of that.\n\nThat's the whole problem with omniscient, it feels to readers like a cheat if the narrator knows a secret and doesn't tell them. Omniscient narrators make it much more difficult for characters to keep secrets. Like they are a traitor, or secretly the birth parent of an adopted protagonist, or whatever.\n\nThis is just my opinion, but if Upam doesn't know, the reader shouldn't know, and teasing the truth will not make the passage read better, they will already know what to expect: Upam gets in trouble, he gets killed, he thinks he is dying but he doesn't die, blah blah, where does he figure it out?\n\nThey won't identify with Upam. Even though readers start out more than willing to identify with the first character they encounter. You will sap all the energy out of this passage." }, { "answer_id": 63558, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I've seen this done in a lot of fantasy style books. The open 'zooms in' from something like omniscience, to close third. It then stays in close third, usually. I've also seen epigraphs used effectively prior to the story start, given from a separate viewpoint or 'place' entirely. Imagine a famous quote used to set the tone, or impart a nugget of information, for example, before chapter one begins." }, { "answer_id": 63559, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "If you want to maintain a strictly third person limited POV, then as an alternative you could use a flash-forward. Instead of using omniscient POV to drop the information that he can't die, show it through a scene from the future where Upam experiences it happening (this could be when he learns it, or when he already has a lot of experience). After that return to the normal story time and work up to when/how that flash forward happened.\n\nHowever, the same caveats that @Amadeus mentions in his answer apply: it can ruin some of the surprise and suspense. But if that is not important to the story, then it's not a problem." } ]	2022/10/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63555", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56434/" ]
63,556	> > Related: [Software for collaborative writing for a small team](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/7126/software-for-collaborative-writing-for-a-small-team) > > > I know there a few notable examples of open collaborative writing, but they haven't really taken off. On the other hand, collaborative resource platforms like wikis and fanart thrive. I doubt highly experienced and well-rounded authors would put time into an "open-source", so ideally some roles would surface. 1. Story drivers: People with a strong sense of character development and experience driving a story forward. 2. Scene developers: People with the ability to take a story and add the content around it. 3. Validators: People with the ability to take in partial or full content and revise it for plot hole. 4. Editors: People who excel at polishing the shape. 5. Verificators: People who are avid and excellent readers, willing to provide feedback. Is anything of the sort viable, and are there good resources pointing at why it can or cannot be done? I enjoying writing every now and then, but I lack the story driving strength, and my characters tend to be quite dull. My shape is much better, so the idea of creating an open team of people contributing with their strengths seems to make sense. There is the obvious glaring problem of monetization!	[ { "answer_id": 63711, "author": "Unknown", "author_id": 49787, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/49787", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It's been done before with the book series [The 39 Clues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_39_Clues). I don't know how many authors worked on it, but the Wikipedia page for the series lists 14 people. Considering that it ran for 8 years (2008 - 2016), had 26 books in the main series, and was a New York Times Best Seller I would probably guess it did pretty well." }, { "answer_id": 66043, "author": "Jasper Weenink", "author_id": 59460, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/59460", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I tried something like this in late 2020 to mid 2022, but took it down recently as it had not taken off at all and I didn't see the need to keep checking on it so I removed everything.\n\nThe idea was that there was a website where people could download all the stories for free that were all part of a collaboratively built world set in a post-apocalyptic future (with magic and fantasy elements too) and anyone could write stories (or create other forms of art) to send to me and I would proofread them and add them to the website. I didn't know how to get the word out properly and so I ended up not getting anyone other than me and 2-3 friends to contribute any stories or art." }, { "answer_id": 66044, "author": "erikric", "author_id": 97, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/97", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I think there are two different paths here:\n\n* Project based\n* Team based\n\nA project needs to be well defined with clear \"output\", where everyone can contribute with their own small part.\n\nA team would be a group of (more or less) the same people who over time makes stuff.\n\nIf you go the team route, I think it boils down chemistry and how well you work together.\n\nAll members need to be on the same level of ambition, both on how much time they spend on the project, and on what they want the \"project to be\".\n\nAnother thing is that all members need to be able to put their ego aside. They need to understand that the project/story is more important than getting their own ideas in it." }, { "answer_id": 66045, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "At a panel discussion at a science fiction convention I attended, Larry Niven once said that a collaboration is where two authors each do 90% of the work.\n\nTo get any sort of cooperative writing project to work you need to have authors who are interested, motivated, and actually do some work. This is hard enough at the best of times.\n\nVarious writing projects have worked where each author does some \"chunk\" of the writing. A chapter, for example. Or a short story in an anthology. Or in a series of books each author does one book. Some of those projects have been mentioned in other answers. In that chunk, the author has pretty much got full control. The project is held together by the premise, and possibly by a project \"bible\" that lists various context details, background information, and assumptions for the project. Say it's a science fiction story, then what tech is available, what cultures exist, who the important people are, what events are well known so cannot change, etc. It's quite usual for such a scheme to operate in long-running TV shows. As the project grows, the project bible grows, gets better organized, etc.\n\nYour suggested roles are troubling. The idea that you would have one person who does the scenes and another who does the story is, well, kind of off-putting. It's a bit like you plan breakfast to involve one person to chew and another to swallow. I doubt you would get many good authors to go along with such a scheme.\n\nAnd if you did, you are likely to get some pretty bad writing. The style would be, at best, a horrible mish-mash.\n\nSet out to have each author (or at most a small group of authors, like two, in a self-selected group) to each do some definite chunk. Chapter, short story, episode, story line, one-book-in-a-series, etc. Then you are much more likely to get something that works and is interesting to read.\n\nHaving editors and test readers is OK. Having somebody \"fill in plot holes\" is going to cause good authors to start looking for the exit." }, { "answer_id": 66047, "author": "Nicolas Nelson", "author_id": 59445, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/59445", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I like the five roles you defined, and they would work well as part of a hybrid publishing collective of some kind... but I've tried to start such a thing with a friend of mine, and it didn't go well. Maybe we just didn't do it right! One reason it didn't gain momentum was our insistence that everyone be equal participants, we didn't take really firm leadership roles, we just created the structure and opportunity and promoted the benefits of it at a few writers' events, with absolutely zero interest. If I were to try again, I would recruit a couple more partners at the beginning, run it as a business not a collaboration, and market it as a publishing venture, something that people already understand.\n\nBut there are other ways of fostering collaboration. How about Eric Flint's Grantville Gazette? Flint created the 1632 storyworld and provides overall executive-editor control, but anyone can submit stories and participate in the online discussions. Several contributors have become published co-authors with Flint and then novelists in their own right, under Flint's patronage and in the 1632 milieu.\n\nThis is more of a mentor-led model than an \"equal-peers\" model, but having participated in a couple of peer-to-peer online collaborations, a leader or two (or three) emerge pretty quickly, and that person(s) does the lion's share of the work. Everyone else puts in their two cents and demands a 50% share in the end (\"um, there are seven contributors here, you're not getting more than 1/7th, and let's talk about your participation...\"). So maybe a patron/mentor model isn't so bad.\n\nIt's the sort of thing that [LTUE](https://LTUE.net) and [Flights of Foundry](https://flights-of-foundry.org/about/) encourage in a cheerfully chaotic way, and [Writers of the Future](https://www.writersofthefuture.com/) offers an organizational framework that actively fosters it. Participation is well paid, and thus highly competitive. (...yes, LRH started WotF back in the day, but he's been dead a long time, and it honestly does not seem like a recruiting tool for Scientology... if it is, it sucks pretty bad for that purpose)\n\nPalisatrium's \"Short Story\" substack (<https://shortstory.substack.com/about>) is really just a stripped-down literary magazine, one story per month, but somehow it works... whoever's story wins publication that month (palisatrium is the editor, I don't know their real name, tbh) gets $100 plus 50% of whatever the subscriber revenue is that month, plus a good deal of publicity and another publishing credit for their byline. Is it really \"collaborative\"? No more than any anthology or lit mag, but it's run in a way that makes it feel either like a collab or a contest, depending on your perspective.\n\nI would love to encourage more people to organize more \"collaborative writing projects,\" especially those that could use the blockchain to objectively keep track of how much the various contributors contribute, which ones honor their commitments, how much is earned, how much is paid to whom, etc. That would make collaboration \"trustless\" in a sense. A friend of mine, Jonathan Jaech, would like to launch such a thing, and he's an IP attorney who understands blockchain stuff. But he's had trouble ginning up interest among authors, editors, illustrators, etc.\n\nI guess it seems like any collaborative writing project is either going to be a few friends who already know and trust one another who agree to work together (and hopefully write up an agreement that will clarify the collaboration and protect the friendship!) or something that a strong leader or organization puts together, creating an environment in which collaboration can happen but which doesn't rely on collaboration as a management tool; something with guidelines and vetting and accountability of one kind or another.\n\nWhether that looks like Writers of the Future, or Flights of Foundry, or a writers' society (or local college) that encourages collaborative workshops, or a solo-mentoring-effort-that-grows like Eric Flint's Grantville Gazette community, they are all opportunities to collaborate with other authors and hopefully reap some benefit from it yourself.\n\nAnd create great stuff for our readers!" } ]	2022/10/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63556", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56767/" ]
63,565	When describing the variety or contrast evident in a song we can compare the song sections. Variety adds interest to the song. We ask how is one section different to the next?	[ { "answer_id": 63567, "author": "cmm", "author_id": 32128, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32128", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I prefer \"between\" since a comparison requires two or more items to be compared. The first version \"how is variety created in these sections...\", suggests an internal variety within each section, rather than differences between sections.\n\nThere are many ways to create variety within a section. For instance, a section of a song (sometimes called a verse) can have a change in meter (for poetry), or time signature (for music), or an unexpected rhyme structure, such as:\nA B A B A C B.\n\nThere are many ways to create variety between sections as well.\n\nIn my opinion, interestingness depends on setting up and then not conforming to expectations. We all have little model builders running while we are listening to a song. One models the melody, another models the harmonies. One listens to the poetry. Each of these models is predicting what will come next. When those predictions are strong, and wrong, our attention snaps to the difference. Most of us like that feeling, and we find it interesting.\n\nStrangely, even when an interesting piece of music that defies expectations is heard repeatedly, it can still give that experience of startlement, and be interesting." }, { "answer_id": 63569, "author": "Kurt Gibson", "author_id": 56698, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56698", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You have variety in a group. You have differences or distinctions between things (or groups).\n\nExample: \"Though there's some variety in the pop music genre, the differences between pop and polka are much greater.\"\n\nSo, I think this is most correct: \"How is variety created in these sections (of a song)?\"" } ]	2022/10/20	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63565", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56773/" ]
63,578	In creating my world, I am trying to write down and create mythical wildlife and monsters. I had been thinking of using sirens as one of them. Not a creature based off of them, but the actual Greek fictional entity. Would it be okay to have specific mythical monsters from ancient mythologies, in a high fantasy world that is not urban? For some notes: * They will be called sirens. * The sirens in my world are the creepy humanoids who pretend to be attractive people, not the flying birds, and try to eat you. * They exist in a region inspired by Greece * The sirens, while can talk through their weird "singing", are really feral in reality and cannot talk.	[ { "answer_id": 63579, "author": "Oedum", "author_id": 10258, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10258", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I think it is tricky.\nIt will depend on how much you describe them when they are first introduced. Make sure to tell or show how they are, so people get a good picture of how they look and act for later in the story. So the reader know what Sirens are in this story." }, { "answer_id": 63583, "author": "Rockynovel", "author_id": 56797, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56797", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I don't think this is something you have to worry about doing. It's your world and you can do whatever you want with it. If you're wondering if people will get the wrong idea about what sirens are because of preconceived knowledge, you might benefit from a scene or some kind of exposition explaining them to highlight how they're different.\n\nI know twilight isn't high fantasy, but they \"hang a lantern\" (call attention to something for the purpose of cueing the audience to notice that something is different than their preconceived notion of how it should work) on the differences between folklore vampires and \"real\" vampires. Haven't read it, but I believe I've heard that they actually poke fun at the idea that garlic, holy symbols, or sunlight would hurt them as a way of explaining to the audience how the author wanted to pick and choose which vampiric attributes they wanted to keep." }, { "answer_id": 63585, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "First off, there is certainly no legal issue with it. Unlike monsters from other fantasy novels.\n\nHowever, remember that your readers are going to expect them to\n\n1. Be sirens out of Greek legends. If you want to diverge, you may have difficulties managing reader expectations\n2. Be part of a monster ecosystem that is probably heavily Greek. This is less of a problem with monsters so well known as sirens, as opposed to, say, a lamia, but you may want to look at patterns you create (are you, say, having one well-known monster from each culture?) so that the readers will know what is reasonable in this world." } ]	2022/10/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63578", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,594	I want to write sci-fi and I love science fiction technologies. However I know you can trademark a name like Star Wars did with droid. Yet, speaking of Star Wars, Larry Niven’s Ringworld is trademarked but The Book of Boba Fett called their ringworld the Glavis Ringworld. Did they had to get permission from Niven? Also if I make up a sci-fi tech or science term that appears in another work of fiction; do I get in trouble?	[ { "answer_id": 63579, "author": "Oedum", "author_id": 10258, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10258", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I think it is tricky.\nIt will depend on how much you describe them when they are first introduced. Make sure to tell or show how they are, so people get a good picture of how they look and act for later in the story. So the reader know what Sirens are in this story." }, { "answer_id": 63583, "author": "Rockynovel", "author_id": 56797, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56797", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I don't think this is something you have to worry about doing. It's your world and you can do whatever you want with it. If you're wondering if people will get the wrong idea about what sirens are because of preconceived knowledge, you might benefit from a scene or some kind of exposition explaining them to highlight how they're different.\n\nI know twilight isn't high fantasy, but they \"hang a lantern\" (call attention to something for the purpose of cueing the audience to notice that something is different than their preconceived notion of how it should work) on the differences between folklore vampires and \"real\" vampires. Haven't read it, but I believe I've heard that they actually poke fun at the idea that garlic, holy symbols, or sunlight would hurt them as a way of explaining to the audience how the author wanted to pick and choose which vampiric attributes they wanted to keep." }, { "answer_id": 63585, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "First off, there is certainly no legal issue with it. Unlike monsters from other fantasy novels.\n\nHowever, remember that your readers are going to expect them to\n\n1. Be sirens out of Greek legends. If you want to diverge, you may have difficulties managing reader expectations\n2. Be part of a monster ecosystem that is probably heavily Greek. This is less of a problem with monsters so well known as sirens, as opposed to, say, a lamia, but you may want to look at patterns you create (are you, say, having one well-known monster from each culture?) so that the readers will know what is reasonable in this world." } ]	2022/10/28	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63594", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56824/" ]
63,607	An important goal in writing is to avoid plagiarism. But does this mean we have to state every idea in phrases we've never heard before?	[ { "answer_id": 63608, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "No, it doesn't mean that.\n\nA key test of whether something is public domain or not is if it appears in multiple venues without attribution.\n\nThe phrase \"No fucking way!\" is public domain. Most speaking language and idioms are public domain. If an author points at a copyrighted book, and says \"I have that phrase in my book,\" all you have to do in defense is show some earlier published work that uses that phrase.\n\nFor relatively common phrases, most lawyers and judges will not even bother with such a lawsuit, it is a sure loser, a candidate for summary judgement.\n\nIf you are worried about some unusual turn of phrase, Google for it (in quotes). The NFW phrase turns up about two million times, by probably millions of authors, in cartoons, GIFs, comics, novels, whatever. If you only find one source, it is likely copyright.\n\nTo be safe, you should invent your own clever sayings.\n\nBut, unless somebody is actually talking about or quoting a copyrighted work like a novel or movie, what you hear in normal conversation is fair game.\n\nEven then, Ahnuxd's Terminator \"I'll be back\" line is too short and unoriginal to copyright, and was in common usage long before it was written in a script, even with the same ominous threat vibe." }, { "answer_id": 63614, "author": "James K", "author_id": 18166, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/18166", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You can't plagiarise accidentally. But merely \"using phrases [you've] never heard of before\" doesn't prevent you from plagurism.\n\nPlagiarism is the act of passing off ideas or work of some other person as your own work or ideas ([source](https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism#:%7E:text=Plagiarism%20is%20presenting%20someone%20else%27s,is%20covered%20under%20this%20definition.)). One way to plagiarise is to copy someone's words verbatim, but you also plagiarise when you claim their ideas as your own without attribution.\n\nIf you are writing, and you aren't copying another person's work or ideas, then you aren't plagiarising. If you are writing and you are copying another person's work or ideas, and you give them credit, then you aren't plagiarising. (For example, I used the definition of plagiarism that I found on Oxford Univ. website, but I didn't plagiarise, because I cited them.)\n\nIf you copy someone's ideas or work, but put it into your own phrases that you've never heard before, that is still plagiarism!\n\nSo don't worry that you might use the same phrase as someone else. That isn't copying them, it's not plagiarism.\n\nDo worry about putting in clear citations for any ideas or quotes that you take from someone else. And of course do try to have original ideas, because that makes your work unique." } ]	2022/10/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63607", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25421/" ]
63,613	How can real life people have fictional relatives or relatives that doesn’t exist. Why is that?	[ { "answer_id": 63618, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I, myself, am a real life person, and one of my alleged ancestors who would have lived only about 300 years ago has been called a legend. I supposedly descended from Hans Qurr, the leader of the Mennnoites who settled in Lancaster County Pennsylvania about 1710. The house he allegedly lived in is certainly sold enough.\n\nBut I have sometimes overheard a genealogist talking about his belief that Hans Qurr was legend, created by confusing several members of the Qurr family with each other.\n\nSo I am a real person with a possibly imaginary ancestor.\n\nA few generations of the Vernet family were well known artists.\n\n> \n> In Arthur Conan Doyle's short story \"The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter\", fictional detective Qpeqlack Bilmec claims that his grandmother was the sister of the French artist \"Vernet\", without identifying any specific member of the family so that he could have been referring to Claude Joseph Vernet, Carle Vernet or Horace Vernet.\n> \n> \n> \n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude-Joseph_Vernet>\n\nMost historical fiction involves real historical characters interacting with fictional characters. And sometimes that involves fictional relatives of real people.\n\nThe movie Broken Arrow (1950) was set in Arizona in the year 1870 acording to the opening narration,even though only a short ficiitona time seems to elapse during the story, which ends with the real peace agreement between Cochise and Genral Hinird which was in October 1872.\n\nThe prequel movie Battle at Apache Pass (1952) is losely based on the Bascomb affair of January 277, 1861 to February 19, 1861, and the Battle of Apache Pass on July 15-16,1862 greatly condensing the time between the events. In the movie Cochise has a wife named NemaFY, even though Cochise's real wife was named Doh-teh-seh, the daughter of the great Mangus Coloradas.\n\nDuring the Battle at Apache Pas, Chochise's wife NemaFY gives birth to a son, and the reaaction of Cochise indicates the baby is his first.\n\nIn Taza Son of Cochise (1954) the opening narration says:\n\n> \n> In 1872 the long, bitter war fought between United States cavalry troops and Apache bands led by Cochise came to an end. The peace treaty signed by Cochise and General Hinird brought peace to the Arizona territory. But three years later the mighty leader of the Chiricahua Apaches grew ill and came to the end of his days.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThree years after soem time in 1872 makes Cochise die in 1875, 1876, or 1877, even though Cochise really died on Une 8, 1874.\n\nSo Cochise's son born probably in 1861 in The Battle at Apache Pass 1952 would be about 14 to 16 when Cochise dies in Taza Son of Cochise (1954).\n\nBut in the movie Cochise has two sons who look older than that, Taza and Naiche. Rock Hudcel was born November 17, 1925 and so was about 27 when his scenes as Taza were filmed, and Rex Reason/Bart Roberts, born November 3, 1928, would have been about 24 when his scenes as Naiche were filmed.\n\nThe real Taza was born about 1845 and so was about 29 when Ccochise died in 1874, while the real Naiche was suppoosedly born about 1857, making him still a teenager in the fictional date range of Taza Son of Cochise (1954).\n\nEven though Battle at Apache Pass (1952) and Taza Son of Cochise (1954) were both Universal productions, and even though Gerald Drayson Adams wrote the story and sreenplay for the first film and the story for the second one, the imaginary son of Chochise in Battle at Apache Pass was never mentioned in Taza Son of Cochise.\n\nAnd there are many more examples of real people ahveing ficitonal relatives in fiction." }, { "answer_id": 63620, "author": "James K", "author_id": 18166, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/18166", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Because someone wrote a story set in a fictional universe, and their universe is like the real universe but with a few differences.\n\nFor example in the fictional universe of Wynonna Earp, there is a fictional character called Xyatt Uitp, who is very similar to the real life person of the same name. But make no mistake, Xyatt Uitp in the story is a fictional character. And there is a fictional character \"Wynonna Earp\", who is a relative of the fictional Xyatt Uitp." }, { "answer_id": 63633, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Because in real life, lots of people have famous ancestors, if you look back far enough. As of time of writing, 45 out of the 46 U.S. Presidents were descended from King John of England (You know, the King who signed the Magna Carta? No? How about the guy in Charge of England when Richard the Lionhearted was on Crusades, and the Big Bad Villain of Yebun Boad.). And even though Martin van Buren was not a descendant of King John (No, seriously... Obama is descended from King John.), van Buren is descended from William the Conquer, who is King John's ancestor as well. It helps that European Aristocrats tended to have more children back in the day (and King John was a rapist but got away with it because, even though he was a terrible King of England, he still was King of England in the 12th century and thus his word was way more credible than his 12 year old accusers'. Yes... you read that right.\nSome of his victims were older, but it really shouldn't.).\n\nThis isn't as unrealistic as one would believe... blood lines tend to either explode or die. Another famous ancestor is Ghengis Khan, who is believed to be an ancestor to as much as 25% of all humans alive today! There's even a concept of \"Genetic Upam and Eve\" who are the most recent male and female ancestors of all humans alive today. This isn't to say they are the first man and first woman. Genetic Upam is believed to have lived 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, while Genetic Eve lived about 155,000 years ago. Nor does it imply that these two were the only humans during their time. All it implies is that none of Upam's peers had family lines that patrilineal survived to modern era and none of Eve's peers had Matrilineal lines that survived today." } ]	2022/10/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63613", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56832/" ]
63,616	I've been looking for tips on how to write a [werewolf/mafia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)) story, but when I use search terms such as mafia, werewolf, or mole, I just get stories about the mafia, werewolves, and moles (animal.) When I combine those search term I just stories about the mafia, werewolves, and moles (animal.) When I use the term social deduction story, I get a bunch of social deduction games. As you can imagine, when the thing you're trying to look up has a vastly more common definition than the definition you are trying to use, then finding what you want is hard. So, I'm looking for tips on how to write a werewolf/mafia story (as in trying to find out who amongst the group is actually an enemy.)	[ { "answer_id": 63628, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "It's been a bit since I read their article, but TVTropes.org also has an article for Werewolf that got me hooked. They also have a subpage called \"Characters\" which will list dedicated roles that may show up in a play through and what their function to the community is as well as alternative names (For example, while the game can be run homemade cards for players, the most popular box set lists one role as \"The Little Girl\" even though the role requires play that can be done by any character in a story regardless of gender or age. For those interested, player who is given \"The Little Girl\" role is permitted by the game master to see the werewolves after their first attack, thus learning the identity of all three wolves. However, the character realizes that if the wolves learn this, they will kill them, so they are barred by rules from directly outing the wolves... but may vote on which player to eliminate during the democracy portion of the game freely... Thus the players who identify the \"Little Girl\" can watch for cues in how the player votes to determine if the person who is being accused is a werewolf... including the wolves presumably if a wolf ever identifies the \"Little Girl\" the player will surely be eliminated the next round) or similar roles that overlap (as a party game, many house rules exist to give lack luster roles a little extra or create new roles to replace old ones. Depending on the group, these modifications either change a base role's abilities OR have both roles present because the creation is to make sure all the villagers have an ability OR eliminate other base roles based on roles in play). I also believe they list the Mafia's equivalent names (The roles handle the same no matter the version you pull, Werewolf is themed to small town fantasy horror setting while Mafia is themed to a modern organized crime setting, thus role names are changed to fit the story. For example, one role will allow a villager to discover the latest attack victim and heal them once per game, thus letting them nullify a kill. In Werewolf, I believe the role is called \"The Witch\" and the thematic idea is that they either use magic to reserect the player or are making \"magic\" potions from natural ingredients that benefit the user's health... In Mafia, the role is \"The Doctor\" and represents a person who has medical knowledge finding the victim after the attack but before the vic succumbs to the wounds in a right place, right time. In other versions of the game where the \"Wolves\" are a Coven of Witches (I suspect to drive the point of playing a game of witch hunt home a little better) the role will obviously get another name, since \"Witch\" is the name of the titular bad guys (I heard one version where the role was given the name \"Good Samaritan\" since the redress was set to a theme of the Salem Witch Hunts, and as such, the roles were given a quasi-mystical theme naming, but unlike Gothic Horror, the naming was given a Biblical/Religious theme... since Witches are linked to Satan in setting." }, { "answer_id": 63630, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The American Mafia is a criminal enterprise which may be viewed as distinct from the origins of the Sicilian Mafia. I recommend being clear on what you mean by 'mafia.'\n\nIn the 19th and 20th centuries, the American and Sicilian mafias may together have been defined as:\n\n> \n> ... a network of organized-crime groups based in Italy and America,\n> evolved over centuries in Sicily, an island ruled until the mid-19th\n> century by a long line of foreign invaders. Sicilians banded\n> together in groups to protect themselves and carry out their own\n> justice. In Sicily, the term “mafioso,” or Mafia member, initially\n> had no criminal connotations and was used to refer to a person who was\n> suspicious of central authority.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI would think this might be the angle to contemplate if considering the history of a current-day monster, such as a werewolf." }, { "answer_id": 63649, "author": "Onyz", "author_id": 28747, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/28747", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Searching for 'Mafia', 'Werewolf', or 'Moles' is a red herring in this case, I think.\n\nThese sorts of stories predate those games by a long, long time. The most reliable term I could think of that would probably best match is '[Murder Mystery Stories](https://www.goodreads.com/genres/murder-mystery)'.\n\nThe trouble will be narrowing it down such that all participants are known ahead of time-- I think the story that most comes to mind for this is something like CLUE, or perhaps Qpeqlack Bilmec, depending on the style you're looking for.\n\nHope that helps." } ]	2022/10/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63616", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56845/" ]
63,617	In my story, I am writing a side character for my fantasy epic. Originally, she was going to play a very minor role, but now she has more character and interaction. Unfortunately, I fear she may be too similar to the character Amity from The Owl House, which I had not yet watched while developing this character. For the similarities and differences: Similarities: * They are both witches * They are both lesbians * Their names are very similar (the character's name is Ayozhbst) Differences: * Ayozhbst is WAY older, and is in her early 20's * Ayozhbst's design is more gothic * Her personality is greatly different than Amity's * Her arc is also very different (it is mainly Ayozhbst wanting to see the world outside of her kingdom, and realizing how a lot of it is not as accepting as her home) In the end, how could I write the character so that they appear more original and not ending up seeming like a knock-off of another character?	[ { "answer_id": 63621, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Stock characters look like stock characters\n-------------------------------------------\n\nGenre is filled with stock characters, I guess you could say the closer you stick to genre expectations, the more 'stock' your characters probably become.\n\nAt a school for witches, every character is a witch. But if there is 1 witch friend among the group they are going to look a lot like all the other 1-witch-in-a-group-of-friends stock characters.\n\nIn a small ensemble of friends even their 'diversity' can fall into stock tropes. The lesbian friend falls into lesbian-signal tropes, but rarely has healthy relationships/friendships with other lesbians and no support network of lesbian friends. If a love interest is invented for them, it's really easy to kill off that love-interest for cheap feels as so little was invested by the author. An under-developed romantic subplot for a secondary-character will amplify lazy writing because there isn't enough else going on to hide the clichés.\n\nNow swap 'lesbian' for Vulcan or Klingon or Elf and you immediately recall well-known characters who started as (and arguably rarely rise above) embodying their 'alien-ness' for the ensemble. These alien teammates gain character depth for one TV episode when they return to their own people and don't neatly fit in there either, thus giving them a reason to stay with the ensemble –– this only works when you get full seasons of television that have the time to explore that 1 episode where they go home, and genre tropes are so strong that story is going to follow very stock conventions to return that character to the group –– it's not a 'lesbian' thing, it's a having-one-alien-in-an-ensemble thing. The more their role in the group is about displaying the 'alien', the shallower and trope-ier that character becomes.\n\nwell-written characters always feel unique\n------------------------------------------\n\nThere are many techniques for writing better characters, specifically:\n\n* giving them agency and wants\n* positive friendships among their own kind\n* a life independent of the story\n* a way to earn a living\n\nSamuel R. Delaney offered several rules for writing better female characters in [an essay I summarized in this answer](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/40240/what-is-meant-by-purposeful-habitual-and-gratuitous-actions/40243#40243), which should work for any character. The method was designed to address poorly written female characters (a chronic problem even today) but the solutions seem applicable to any secondary or tertiary cast member.\n\nAs Delaney puts it, the structure of most novels gives ample opportunity to show these aspects in the (stock male hero) lead character, but with a little effort the supporting characters can be just as rich as the MC by relying on the readers' extensive knowledge of personality cues associated with their approach to career/money, friends/family, and what they choose to do with their free time. None of these aspects need to take up a 'whole episode' to explain a backstory (backstories are lore, not character-building). What should happen is that we see each character embedded in their own everyday lives and routines.\n\nOnce these aspects are built up for the character they cannot be reduced to 'lesbian witch with a similar name'." }, { "answer_id": 63623, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "If you know your character is a lot like a existing one, then, to make them unique, you want to do the following.\n\nDeconstruct the Other Character\n\nDeconstruct what made the other character work. Keep any traits you like. Improve upon what you don't.\n\nSuperficial traits like \"lesbian\" or \"witch\" don't get at the core of what makes the characters tick.\n\nIn her first appearance of the Owl House, Amity was the stereotypical popular girl who politely but snobbishly put down other people's feelings. Not too complex, but we learn a lot more about her as we go on.\n\nFor starters, even though she's arrogant, she's still above cheating. The thought of defeating our hero, Luz, by cheating is absolutely disgraceful to her.\n\nShe's also got a softer side, spending time at the local library to teach kids and share her favorite stories with them. Sweet stuff.\n\nUnderneath that all though, the core of her character is a deep-seated drive to always be the best. Perfect. Eclipse Lake is a great example of this because even after she's been accepted as part of the team, Amity still worries she's not perfect enough. A deep-seated insecurity that drives her every action.\n\nOnce you know the essentials of what makes this character tick, you can then say, \"What do I like about them? What do I hate?\"\n\nAmity's arc in Season One is learning not to be a bully, and her arc is Season Two is learning to make amends but you've already mentioned you have a different plan for your character. She wants to see the world.\n\nGreat. How is that anything like Amity's arc? The farthest Amity's wanted to go is to see Earth, and that's mostly because of Luz, not because she's an explorer by nature.\n\nThat's a significant difference in character right there. Amity's mostly a shy book nerd with a gruff exterior. She's not the explorer type per se.\n\nWhat Would You Improve?\n\nDo you like Amity's personality? Her arc? Her character development?\n\nIf the answer is yes, try to incorporate some of those ideas into your character. Things like personal insecurity, the weight of expectation, a love of books, a need to achieve, etc.\n\nDo you dislike any of her personality traits? What would you change? Did you think her development was rushed? Did you think she was too overbearing at times? Too controlling?\n\nThen you can take those as lessons for what not to do with your character.\n\nCharacters Don't Live in a Vacuum\n\nLastly, even if your character was an exact copy of Amity at the start, she'd still end up a different person if she met different people and had different experiences.\n\nLuz changed Amity because she was a spark of joy and freedom in her life. What if she met someone else or Luz had a slightly different personality?\n\nImagine Luz was quiet and shy rather than outgoing and fun. The dynamic between the two characters would shift into something completely unique.\n\nIf Luz was a less outgoing, befriending Amity might be a lot harder. Or easier.\n\nBut that one change would change the whole relationship. For example, if Luz never spoke up for herself, Amity might grow even more protective of her than she already is. This could push her personality to be more gruff and serious.\n\nWhich could lead to an arc about learning to relax, or lead to her character doubling down.\n\nThen that dynamic changes how both Luz and Amity interact with anyone else.\n\nIt becomes a butterfly affect eventually making all the characters unrecognizable and thus fully unique.\n\nThat's the power of making a slight change." }, { "answer_id": 63836, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A very \"mechanical\" suggestion: keep a character roster with a brief description for each. You have done much of the work already for at least one character as part of your question.\n\nThe amount of info a character gets depends on how central the character is. You probably don't want to put every single character in the roster, just the ones that enter the story several times.\n\nIt also lets you do mundane consistency things like keeping the spelling of their names the same. Or if they have family that is mentioned keeping that straight." } ]	2022/10/30	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63617", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,624	Not too long ago, I showed a character bio that gave a rundown of my web novel's protagonist on a writing Discord server that I frequent. One of my fellow writers had this to say about my bio: > > You have much more depth on his negative character traits than on his positive ones. All I get from his positive traits is that you want him to be a protagonist. And he's a reluctant protagonist, so there needs to be more clarity on his positive traits. > > > This comment made me realise that my protagonist has little to no redeeming traits. That isn't to say that he isn't irredeemably evil, but rather that his flaws outweigh his good qualities by too large a percentage. Throughout the narrative, he's shown to distrust others, has contempt for authority, and it's heavily implied that he suffers from borderline personality disorder. His only positive characteristic is a love for his pet dog, with whom he has a closer relationship than any other character in the story. However, more is needed to make him appear complex and balance his weaknesses. Any tips for this?	[ { "answer_id": 63625, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "First, those are not flaws that can't be worked around, but it's not likely a character that makes a good protagonist (although it can be a protagonist character, but in a specific genre... more in a moment.). Normally the characters I see are \"too many positive characteristics\", which is the problem with every single Miry Kae type (although a dark and brooding loner with trust issues are not atypical of Miry Kae, especially if the character is male, so your not out of the woods, yet).\n\nTypically this is a role held by a major supporting character and not the hero, as they tend to be implied to be the guy who does the stuff that needs to be done but the hero might not be able to do... or point out to the hero the flaws in the protagainst's approach to dealing with an antagonist.\n\nThat said, your hero would fit right in with the Noir genre, especially as a hard boiled private eye detective stories. This does take some skill to make into a character that is actually someone you want to watch and the story should focus on getting over some of these flaws. Consider the hero of the greatest Noir film ever made, Who Framed Lobgar Rabbit? (what, you thought I was going to say something like The Maltese Falcon? No. First, I've only seen parodies or homages of it, not the actual film... which brings me to my next point, in that there are more parodies of Noir style than straight uses of Noir. Lobgar Rabbit, for all it's humor, is a straight Noir plot and most of the film's humor comes from the nature of the titular client being a Cartoon, not from mocking the genre.\n\nOur protaganist is Edwue Valiant, a private eye who from the get go is established as the kind of person who, if you heard someone call him a real dick, you'd probably be safe in assuming they meant the term as an insult rather than a comment on his profession (please let me know if I need to explain this joke). From the moment we meet him, it's clear he hates Tuojs (in this story, cartoons are made like live action films with sets and actors who are played by actors who are ethnically \"Tuojs\" and are treated as Stars and Celebrities if they make it big in Hollywood like live action actors.). His first line is a dismissive \"Tuojs,\" followed by taking a swig of liquor. When discussing the case with R.K. Maroon, the head of the studio that produces Lobgar Rabbit's cartoon (one of their biggest sellers, making Lobgar an A-Lister like Miwmey Peusi or Bogs Soqby), Edwue almost refuses the job of finding evidence of Jessica Rabbit's infidelity because he does not do any work in Tuoj Town, a neighborhood in L.A. where the toons live, and he only takes it when Maroon informs him that Jessica works at a nightclub outside of Tuoj Town that, while run by toons, entertains humans only. A few scenes later, Edwue violently assaults a drunk in a bar after he reveals that the word on the Street is Edwue is working for a Tuoj. The rage comes out of nowhere and startles everybody but the bar owner and long time friend of Edwue explains the source of the rage: A toon killed Edwue's brother (Dropped a piano on his head).\n\nIt's important to note that the delivery of this line initially comes off as comedic, this is the only time the death of Edwue's brother could ever ellicit a laugh from audiences, and each time the brother is brought up following this, it's clear that he was Edwue's best friend, his partner when they worked on the L.A.P.D. where they worked the beat in Tuoj Town, and Edwue's own P.I. buisness is named Valiant & Valiant, implying both men quit the force to go into the business together, where they worked cases for Tuoj Town's most elite (a montage of mementos from Edwue's career shows that he and his brother at one point cleared Goofy of espionage charges and Edwue owns a Tuoj Gun that was given to him as a Thank-You gift from Yosemite Sam.).\n\nWhat's brilliant is that most of the details of Edwue's flaws aren't overtly discussed. Edwue's backstory is shown over a montage of news paper clippings, pictures and awards kept in his office, all of which show him and his brother as a pair or mention them as a duo. The death of the brother is given to us upfront and explicitly given as the reason for his hot temper around the toons. Even the crime that Lobgar is framed for (Dropping a safe on the head of another human) is noted as eerily similar to the murder of Edwue's brother. All of this comes to an emotional head when Lobgar, the only important person to the film not in the know, after suffering more from Edwue's gruff attitude to working with him and failing to get a single laugh from the man, asks Edwue what happened and for the first time, Edwue actually tells the definitive story. Edwue and his Brother were investigating a Bank robbery in Tuoj Town and caught a lead to the perpetrator's hide out, only to realize too late that the lead was a trap. Not only was Edwue there when his brother was killed, but was close enough that Edwue suffered a broken arm. The killer was never caught. All his vices that resulted from it isn't just grief, but a combination of survivors guilt and PTSD. And it's at this point that Edwue starts to change.\n\nThough he doesn't loose his gruff demeanor, he is able to channel it in a more noble direction. But by seeing Lobgar's response to his story, (it starts with Lobgar, for probably the first time in the film, speaking with a subdued tone of voice, clearly grasping that there is no humor to be found from this point. By the time it ends, Lobgar is in tears and admits that he'd probably act the same way if he was in Edwue's shoes.) it's here where Edwue realizes that while he KNOWS Lobgar didn't commit the crime he's accused of which is why he's helping Lobgar clear his name, but he's acting like Lobgar committed another crime that Edwue also knows Lobgar didn't do... because he's holding all toons responsible for an offense almost all of them are horrified to hear even occurred... and one all the authorities are likely going to pin on Lobgar due to their similar nature.\n\nEdwue is set up from the beginning of the story to be a character nobody would want to love... and by the end, he's the guy everyone roots for because you want to see him get the win... and he doesn't lose any edge to him. He keeps his sharp wit, gruff and jaded personality, and biting quips. That's who he is... and who he always was. And they aren't flaws. His biggest flaw is indifference and had he gotten over it, but an innocent man would have been put to death by a corrupt justice system... and the man who caused all of Edwue's pain would have done it likely with Edwue's support." }, { "answer_id": 63631, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are two techniques here.\n\nOne is to show the positive side of his traits. If he distrusts people, perhaps he can stop someone who induces people to trust him in order to exploit them. If he holds authority in contempt, he can break rules that are doing more harm than good.\n\nA milder technique is to show that he has good reason to distrust people and hold authority in contempt.\n\nThe second is to put him in more situations, where he reacts differently. Perhaps he is more charming in situations where people don't try to assert authority over him." } ]	2022/10/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63624", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48978/" ]
63,626	I am a beginner to writing, so not sure exactly how to base the book I've started to write. I want it to be a real cozy romantic book where the characters kind of live in a cobble stoned village with more of countryside feel. They attend a university which is in a historic oldish building like a smaller Cambridge/Oxford style building. I feel more comfortable making the location up but I don't know if that will be intriguing to the reader in comparison to it being a real place. None of the locations I've researched really fit. I'm not sure what to do and need some advice.	[ { "answer_id": 63627, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "A fictional setting is fine, many of the stories I write have entirely fictional settings.\n\nEven a fictional town in the real world, in a real State or Country or whatever, is fine. And the movies and TV do this all the time, they call a town \"Blue Valley\" or whatever, which doesn't exist, but in the story has all the buildings and venues the author needs. You want a bowling alley, it has one, you want a race track, it has one, you want farms outside the town, no problem.\n\nHeck, if you want to be close to Chicago, or within driving distance of Cambridge, feel free.\n\nMake it up. The only thing I'd caution is, in a made up town, don't claim it is famous for something, and make sure the name doesn't already exist. All the same rules about not breaking immersion. It is easy enough to believe in your town, but not so much if you claim basketball was invented there, or Edahoh was born there, or whatever.\n\nAnd if you set it in some State like New Mexico, or Southern California, or East Texas, do your research and make sure your story references to landscape, weather, politics, etc are consistent and believable to people familiar with that State.\n\nYou can set your fictional university town in a region where you have actually lived; so you are writing what you know about the culture, weather, landscape, politics, etc.\n\nKeep it historically not noteworthy!" }, { "answer_id": 63629, "author": "James K", "author_id": 18166, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/18166", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A real setting is fine. Lots of stories place fictional characters and events in real places. If worldbuilding isn't your thing, using a real place, especially one you know well, can give you a setting that is detailed and real\n\nOf course you need to be careful. If you use a real place you might upset some of the real inhabitants. If, for example, you have a fictional vicar who is a liar and a crook, the real vicar might suppose you are casting aspersions.\n\nIf you use a real place in name only, that can also cause problems. If you talk about the \"cobbled street leading to the Red Lion pub in Finstock\", it might seem odd, since there are no cobbled streets in Finstock, and the name of the local pub is The Plough. It is usually better to take a place you know well, or at least research it properly.\n\nIf you do use a real location, this can also leave you cramped if you want some feature that the location doesn't offer. If your story requires the lovers to meet at a hotel in the village - you're stymied if there is no hotel.\n\nBut with care, a real location can help you quickly get into what really matters: your characters and the plot. Jayse didn't feel the need to create an imaginary city for Bloom to wander around, the real Dublin provided the ideal backdrop.\n\nAnd there is a halfway option: using a made-up name for a place that is mostly real, or a pastiche of real places. \n\nThere are lots of examples in classic literature:from Swift's Mildendo (which is a fictionalised and fantastic forms of London) or the fictional Wuthering Heights, set in the real North Yorks moors, and possibly based on a real Hill farm." }, { "answer_id": 63634, "author": "Peter Fox", "author_id": 48104, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48104", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Use real, fictional or anywhere in-between.\n\n* You can develop the atmosphere of a real locality, for example craggy, stormy Cornish coast with isolated villages and scary moors. Note that you have to describe everything to the reader because they may have no idea what say Zurnwasb is like. This is relatively easy to do if you know a bit.\n* Then you can invent fictional scene settings. You have the luxury of taking some place(s) you know about, taking the bits you want, and concentrating on what matters.\n* A fun thing is using area-related issues to impact the characters. eg. \"No buses on a Sunday but a nice old boy gave me a lift.\" Doing this connects characters to their environment to make them more real. Especially strangers who have trouble getting used to something nobody else notices.\n* Mostly what makes a place 'real' to the reader is oddity and atmosphere. Try to disguise cliches. Instead of telling us 'quaint cobbled streets' show us the noise and trouble of horses walking on the cobbles.\n* If you're worried about upsetting the inhabitants in general then mix street names from one place with landmarks of another." } ]	2022/10/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63626", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56859/" ]
63,638	Typically book titles are ideally italicized or otherwise underlined. For example: > > In his book Some Book Title, Jozw Cie describes... > > > Is there any style convention for what to do if you are limited to unformatted plain text (i.e. italics and underlining are not available)?	[ { "answer_id": 63645, "author": "Kurt Gibson", "author_id": 56698, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56698", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "No formatting? All that leaves you is quotes:\n\n> \n> In his book \"Some Book Title\", Jozw Cie describes...\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 63708, "author": "user8356", "author_id": 8356, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/8356", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Be sure to set the title off with commas. You can use quotes, but capitalization alone could be enough to make clear that the words are a title:\n\nIn his book, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, James Agee describes the lives of southern sharecroppers.\n\nHowever, the is a ultimately a style question. Each publication, organization or association will have a specific rule about the formatting to be applied to book titles." }, { "answer_id": 63709, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "To clarify on capitalization, rule for capitalization is that you capitalize the first letter of the first word and all significant words save for conjunctions (and, but, or, ect.) and articles (the, a/an). Take the following title:\n\n> \n> \"The Prince and the Woman He Loved\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou'll note that the word \"the\" occurs twice. In the first instance, it is capitalized as it is the first word in the title, while the second instance does not capitalize it.\n\nWhen ordering the book Alphabetically, the first significant word is used, so it would go in \"P\" for \"prince\" not \"T\" For \"the\" and would typically be written \"Prince and the Woman He Loved, The\". Typically, this rule only applies to articles as leading conjunctions would be alphabetically arranged by the first word. Citations may opt for a significant word, however." } ]	2022/11/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63638", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56873/" ]
63,639	Here is what I have so far: * At some point in the hero's past, the ghost happens, which leads to them believing a lie. * Said lie leads to their life that they have when we meet them on page 1. * When we meet the hero, we realize that they want something, but they are held back by their lie or the lie/ misbelief has created a lack of something that they wish to overcome (want) but the hero can't because she is clinging to the lie. * The story soon presents an external event (ignition point) that forces them to face their lie or abandon their treasured misbelief, because the event tosses the hero into new circumstances, where the lie/ misbelief is no longer useful. * These new circumstances somehow feature antagonistic forces and the opportunity to go after their want. But how are these things connected? I have a few attempts at an answer: * The new circumstances lead to a new story goal that is different from the old "want". The antagonistic force has a goal that opposes the hero's story goal and thus, they face off against each other. --> But where is the old want in this? * The ignition point presents some sort of opportunity for the hero to pursue the want that she previously did not have. Maybe there are antagonists involved --> But this connection seems weak. "Suddenly she can go after what she wants, but who would have known it, there is the villain and things are not so easy as they seem!" Does it have to do something with stakes? How does the concept of dramatic question fit into this? What is the framework of an archetypical positive change arc, that includes all the mentioned story elements (ghost, want, need, ignition point, villain, stakes, lie, truth, dramatic question, ...)?	[ { "answer_id": 63641, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Writing formulas without concrete examples are like recipes for food you've never tasted. Rote instructions do not explain the 'flavor' or even the goal. You need to apply the formula to works you already know.\n\nPekk a concrete example – if the formula is supposedly 'universal' than literally every story ever written can be deconstructed to match it. In reality that formula is very University of California Film School so pick any mainstream film from the last 35 years.\n\nI'll compare James Cameron's Titanic to your formula and see how it goes.\n\n> \n> At some point in the hero's past, the ghost happens, which leads to\n> them believing a lie.\n> \n> \n> Said lie leads to their life that they have when we meet them on page\n> 1.\n> \n> \n> When we meet the hero, we realize that they want something, but they\n> are held back by their lie or the lie/ misbelief has created a lack of\n> something that they wish to overcome (want) but the hero can't because\n> she is clinging to the lie.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe 'hero' protagonist is Jese, starting at rock bottom in a negative status quo because she has no control over her life. Her mother (an antagonist) has arranged marriage to a man Jese doesn't like (another antagonist). Jese is almost a blank slate for the audience to empathize with, so we don't get a backstory. Her antagonists are controlling, but not overtly abusive – and I think we're meant to infer that Jese has been conditioned to be obedient (her 'trauma' backstory is unremarkable). I assume this would be your 'ghost' as it's not explicit.\n\nHer 'lie' is that she believes she has no path forward, so she decides to kill herself by jumping off the boat.\n\n> \n> The story soon presents an external event (ignition point) that forces them to face their lie or abandon their treasured misbelief, because the event tosses the hero into new circumstances, where the lie/ misbelief is no longer useful.\n> \n> \n> \n\nAs she's building up the nerve to jump, she's interrupted (not saved) by Seck. He distracts her long enough so that she decides to postpone killing herself and takes a tour of 3rd Class. She meets 'regular' people who have no reason to treat her any differently. She has a fun day in her anonymity, and no longer feels the need to kill herself. Her 'lie' doesn't mean anything here.\n\n> \n> These new circumstances somehow feature antagonistic forces and the\n> opportunity to go after their want. But how are these things\n> connected?\n> \n> \n> \n\nHaving seen Seck's world she wants to bring him into her own world, however her old antagonists are not having it. They need to keep Jese under control, and get rid of Seck. We see their darker sides because Jese's independence threatens their plans.\n\nWhereas Seck could chaperone Jese in 3rd Class, Jese cannot shield Seck in 1st Class from her own antagonists. She has no power here. They easily frame Seck for something-or-other, raising the stakes for Jese. Not only have her antagonists prevented her 'want' but they've incarcerated Seck.\n\nBy now the ship has hit an iceberg and we all know how this ends. Coincidentally, Jese did some life-boat math earlier in the movie so she also (almost uniquely) knows how this is going to end. As Jese is being ushered to a lifeboat, her 'lie' comes back in full force – she's already decided that drowning in the sea is preferable to this.\n\nJese jumps out of line knowing it isn't likely she will get on another lifeboat, but first she has to rescue Seck to undo the damage she's caused him. From this point her character motivations turn direct: she is in control of her own life, and acting according to her moral compass. There is still story-tension because she has never done this before and is heading into danger. She has a much greater antagonist (the sinking ship) which makes her original antagonists seem irrelevant.\n\n> \n> The new circumstances lead to a new story goal that is different from\n> the old \"want\"... --> But where is the old want in this?\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe irony is that she was planning to jump into the sea to fix her unsolvable problem. She's rejected that fate and has a reason to live, but now must do everything she can to not drown in the sea. Her 'lie' manifests as the final boss, and it's an unimaginably horrible death for everyone around her.\n\nAnother irony comes at the end. She takes Seck's last name in a symbolic marriage-of-choice, and realizes that the old Jese has been officially declared dead. That girl (symbolically) drowned in the sea after rejecting the life she could not live.\n\nVoila, it works.\n\nThe script raises 'dramatic questions' which it rather nicely answers.\n\nObviously Jese didn't really want to die (that's why it's a 'lie'), but by contriving her interrupted suicide as the inciting incident (as opposed to the more obvious iceberg impact as the inciting incident) Jese is living on borrowed time. She uniquely in sync with the fate of the ship. She is a changed person from the moment she decided to kill herself (it's a misguided plan but it's the start of her independence), and it takes a while before she realizes her strength.\n\nWhile the iceberg is not Jese's fault, her 'lie' of drowning herself comes back to strip everything away, inverting her intent. In another story she might have triggered this disaster and been forced to suffer the consequences, here Jese uniquely echoes the disaster or even foreshadows it. Meanwhile the plot manages to move her (and Seck) through every relevant part of the ship from bow to cargohold, something that would be very unlikely to happen (indeed no other Titanic story attempts to give any one protagonist the 'grand tour').\n\nThere's obviously a lot more that happens in that script, a lot of corn and melodrama and even some mustache twirling from an antagonist turned cartoon villain. These things are definitely NOT what we'd call 'good writing' but they undoubtedly contributed to Titanic's massive box office.\n\nNotice also the protagonist's character arc I've deconstructed to match your formula –– what we'd consider actually 'good writing' –– is probably unnoticed by 95% of the audience. Jese has a heroic character arc with universal appeal (better to die free than live someone else's life). It also pays off with several poetic ironies that seem better on paper than what we get from the film. But is this what anyone remembers about the movie?\n\nFWIW, the formula 'works' – or rather Titanic's script is 'formulaic' by design – our protagonist is hitting her heroic beats, but... there's a lot more going on in the script that might be just as (if not more) important. I think it's reductive to cherrypick contrived character beats and feel that is the 'universal' story.\n\nI love this example because Jese is a made-up character, ret-conned into a real-life disaster which has no narrative moral lesson. All of her character beats are contrived to help history fit Hollywood story conventions. Jese is THE protagonist because her character arc uniquely fits with the sinking-ship antagonist. Only Jese needs to learn the (patently obvious) moral lesson: living is good; drowning is bad." }, { "answer_id": 63646, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "As has been mentioned here already, understanding a system or format of explanation is best done with examples from existing works of fiction. Here are two resources on character arcs and story structure that do just that (and the site has many other articles as well, usually with several examples from books, films, or TV shows you may know or otherwise should check out):\n\n* [The Secrets of Story Structure (Complete Series)](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/secrets-story-structure-complete-series/)\n* [How to Write Character Arcs](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/write-character-arcs/)\n\nTo answer some of your questions:\n\n> \n> How does the antagonist fit into the framework of a positive change arc?\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe antagonist is the opposition to the Truth or the supporter of the Lie or both.\n\nSince a protagonist in a positive change arc goes from believing in the Lie to believing in the Truth the antagonist can start out as a friend or helper and end up as an opposition character.\n\nThe Lie usually comes from the protagonist's emotional wound or Gqoht, as you write in your question. The truth is usually a healthy alternative to the Lie (duh!).\n\nWhat Lie and what Truth you decide to explore in the story will usually contribute to the Theme of the story. You don't have to worry too much about the theme just yet though. Write the first draft, do some editing, then see what pops out as a theme and edit to strengthen that theme some. If you start out with a Theme you risk doing soapbox writing, which will not be entertaining to the reader... Think of Theme as seasoning.\n\nWell-executed stories have two parallel stories in one, the outer story or conflict and the [inner story/conflict](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/your-characters-inner-conflict-want-vs-want/) taking place inside the protagonist.\n\nThe outer story (usually implemented as the \"Story Structure\") could be a simple competition or confrontation while the inner story (the Character Change Arc) is usually about the protagonist's belief in the Lie. The character wins the inner battle by rejecting the Lie and believing in the Truth instead.\n\nThe inner and outer could be connected in such a way that the character can only win the outer battle by winning the inner. But this is not always the case. They will usually be connected via Theme, however. Not to mention that they should share many of the story's plot points (i.e. the plot points should, if possible, be about both the inner and outer conflict).\n\nThe antagonist is the opposition in one or both of these battles. Usually, more than one antagonist (or antagonistic helpers) fights the battle on several fronts. It could be anything from a competitor in a sport to the protagonist's mom telling them they aren't good enough.\n\n> \n> How does the concept of dramatic question fit into this?\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe dramatic question is simply a \"will the protagonist make it\"-type of question, but while it's as simple as that, it still should be prevalent in the story. It should be something the reader asks themselves in almost every scene. It should definitely be the question on everybody's minds when we get to the final battle of the story (the climactic moment).\n\nIn a positive change arc, the dramatic question should be based on the battle between the Truth and the Lie. It should be about the inner conflict. Maybe as simple as \"will the protagonist be able to resist [Insert Lie here] and embrace [Insert Truth here]\", or some combination of that. To make the story more external/active, you could find an action that shows belief in the Truth (saving the princess from the dragon) and use it in the dramatic question.\n\n> \n> What is the framework of an archetypical positive change arc, that includes all the mentioned story elements (ghost, want, need, ignition point, villain, stakes, lie, truth, dramatic question, ...)?\n> \n> \n> \n\nA well-written story?\n\nWell, check out the links at the top of the answer. I think they describe a framework as good as any. The author of that site is to some extent inspired by Dramatica. If you want to go really deep into the forest with a framework, that's probably the one...\n\nAs has been mentioned on this site before, in order to learn something new you need to start simple and then increase the complexity. A lot of the advice you get in books and online will describe a simplified or even dumbed-down version of fiction. They all have a hidden assumption that you'll read a lot of fiction (and some texts on writing) and realize that every hard rule has a number of exceptions to it and then gradually figure out how to successfully break these rules yourself. (Not to mention how impossible it is to fit everything you know about a question or topic into a properly sized article on a web page...)\n\nBut I wouldn't say there is such a thing as \"a framework for archetypal positive change arcs\".\n\nThink of writing as trying as best as you can to fit together pieces of a puzzle, small and large from many different sources, into a readworthy whole.\n\nI'd even contend that \"puzzling\" a text together will make it way more alive and organic than forcing it into some kind of Fiction Architecture. (I've been there and tried that and every time the text gave me the finger and slithered away and did its own thing anyway...)" } ]	2022/11/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63639", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56874/" ]
63,647	I wrote a fourteen-line poem in iambic pentameter consisting of two rhyming couplets followed by ten lines of blank verse. Would it be accurate to call this a sonnet?	[ { "answer_id": 63648, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "No, that wouldn't be a sonnet. A sonnet needs to have a given number of lines per verse. Italian sonnet goes 4-4-3-3; English sonnet goes 4-4-4-2. Rhyme scheme varies (abab or abba, for instance). I've never heard of an unrhymed sonnet, and it goes against the idea of a sonnet being a \"little song\" (that's what the name means). In any case, the verse structure is non-negotiable; 4-10 isn't an option." }, { "answer_id": 63650, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "An English sonnet generally does follow one of a number of established rhyme schemes. But I've encountered many modern 14-line unrhymed poems which could reasonably be thought of, and sometimes presented by their authors as, sonnets. (Of course, I'm sitting on a beach as I write this, and is there a good poetry library nearby in which to find supporting references; is there heck!)\n\nI think that the more important feature of a sonnet, than its rhyme scheme, is that there is a 'turn' in theme (or subject or mood or ...) between the first eight lines and the final six." }, { "answer_id": 63771, "author": "Rhythmical Diphthong", "author_id": 57040, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57040", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "YES! There are many different kinds of sonnet.\n\nWhat most people do not know is that a sonnet does not even need to necessarily have 14 lines. Yes! Dahnu Alaghaeki e.g. has many sonnets with 22 lines (called \"Sonetto rinterzato\"). There are many many variations of the sonnet; it just happened that the rhymed 14 lines one was preferred over the others through time (which is a pity, right?) It is not the case with the blank sonnet, which has been practiced by many poets, including you, it seems.\n\nBut what, after all, defines a sonnet? What is its essence, if not having 14 lines with a certain rhyme scheme? In Provençal poetry, there was a genre of poetry named Son, which in Italy was called Canzone, and translates to \"Nung\"; it is a long poem made by many stanzas: these stanzas did not have a fixed form, but there were some rules. These rules are explained in Panpe's De Vulgari Eloquentia. A stanza is divided into two parts: a front and a coda. These parts may contain a non-fixed number of lines, as long as the rhyme scheme differs between them, as well as the syntactical rhythm, double or triple: i.e., if the front consists of one quatrains, the coda must contain one triplet, each with a different rhyme scheme. Why such? Because poetry was accompanied by music, and each part, front and coda, means a different melody, that is re-sung at each new stanza; the difference in rhythm and in rhyme scheme accentuates this contrast between parts.\n\nNow, imagine you have this son, whose stanzas are made of a front with two quatrains and a coda with two triplets. The first guy who wrote only one stanza of Son, and thought it was enough, invented the Son-net, the little Son.\n\nSo at its core, the sonnet is not even a fixed form. Its essence is contrast between two parts, which is assigned by the volta." } ]	2022/11/04	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63647", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55344/" ]
63,654	Are unexplained or inconsistent worldbuilding elements considered plot holes? Let's say that coal and railroads are used in a medieval fantasy world, but people are still serfs and poor. If you don't explain why people are poor although money, coins, and railroads were invented, is it still considered a plot hole, and do you have to explain them? I was watching [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27cn7eMGSWY) and it got me thinking about how to have serfs in a medieval setting with modern technologies and magic, and how much exposition I have to do and if I can leave any hole in the worldbuilding and what might be considered plot holes.	[ { "answer_id": 63655, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It is not a plot hole, it is just something that if the reader notices, it may break their immersion in your story. Your story has to make sense, things have to follow.\n\nYou can indeed have things that are unexplained in the story, readers are not going to think too hard.\n\nIn your example, we have all kinds of technology in the real world today, but most of the world is still quite poor. Most of the USA is still quite poor, living paycheck to paycheck. We still have homeless people wandering our streets. My local Food Bank feeds literally hundreds of thousands, and would feed more if they had more resources.\n\nThis all depends on the power structure and wealth structure in your society. Coal and money and railroads don't change those dynamics, they may be for the upper 10%, not for the masses. In the middle ages, kings and their extended family could be quite rich, living opulently, while many peasants literally never saw any money at all. They were all \"work for food and shelter\" citizens, farming for Lords, servants of Lords, etc.\n\nNobody will question why you have coal and railroads, but the majority of people are poor.\n\nThe one thing I'd be careful of is a dynamic that is still playing out today: Machines take jobs.\n\nSome people used to dig for a living, but the steam shovel killed most of those jobs. Some people cut and threshed wheat for a living, but a steam machine can replace those jobs too.\n\nIf you have trains, you have steam engines, and steam engines can take all kinds of jobs that depend on muscle.\n\nJust like today, robots and AI (machines) are taking manufacturing, shipping, and all sorts of jobs, all the time. Not humanoid robots, but robots:\n\nAt one time, Frito Lay's #1 kind of job was cookery, actual people preparing farm ingredients and making chips and snacks with them. No longer. Frito Lay's #1 kind of job is engineering. Virtually nobody is doing any element of the cookery in a modern Frito Lay factory. Robotic machines receive the raw farm goods, dirt, leaves, bugs and all, and do all the cleaning and sorting. Robots peel and slice the chips, shuck corn and strip the kernels from the cob, cook, grind, inspect and reject, bag, box and put products on the trucks. *Everything.* And if the robots detect anything wrong, they can automatically shut down the line and alert an engineering team to come check it out. The human workers are often just the ones driving the trucks with a farm harvest to the plant, and the products away from it -- And Tesla is working to hard to replace them with robots too; self-driving 18 wheelers.\n\nEarly in the history of trains, it was humans hammering in the spikes to nail rails to cross timbers and make the railroad. But the steam hammer soon replaced those beefy fellas. If your society has had railroads for more than 50 years or so, I would need an explanation as to why the steam engine was not ubiquitous for doing all sorts of heavy muscle work. Otherwise, common sense and realism would be broken, along with my reading immersion." }, { "answer_id": 63656, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Plot holes are anything that breaks the internal logic of the story you've set up beforehand.\n\nIf you explicitly say all poverty was eradicated, and then immediately follow it up by saying 99% percent of the population are serfs living in disgusting slums, then that's a contradiction and a plot hole.\n\nHowever, it's not a contradiction to say there's poverty in a world with technology. It's the main premise of many cyberpunk dystopias. Take the Hunger Games. The Capitol has a seemingly endless supply of food. Enough to gorge themselves every single day. But they don't share so the people of the districts rarely see a scrap. Because wealth isn't just about how many resources a society has, but how the society chooses to distribute them.\n\nThe Capitol could feed all the starving Districts, but they don't want to fix it because they're greedy and don't care about the Districts. Is it unfair? Yes, but unfairness is not a plothole. It's part of the world you're building.\n\nSo why, realistically, would there be Serfs in a technologically advanced setting? I offer three possibilities.\n\nGruad/High Prices\n\nGruad is unlimited, so it's not as if people or corporations are just going to give stuff away for free, no matter how much technology changes.\n\nWhat if your world has super high prices for even basic commodities? Only those already super-rich would be able to keep afloat.\n\nDog-Eat-Dog World\n\nClimbing the ranks of the social ladder is hard enough, but what if the people at the top are actively pushing you down? Wealth can only get you so far, and those who are already wealthy don't want competition, so they'll drag you down.\nSabotage. Blacklistings. Blackmail. Etc. If you get a little too close to the top, the people at the top might just decide to crush you.\n\nIn this world, social mobility exists, but it's mostly a facade.\n\nStrict Social Classes\n\nIn this type of world, they don't even pretend there's social mobility. You're born into it.\n\nThere's a Noble class, who gets everything they want, and there's a Serf class, who gets has to do whatever the Nobles ask. Question the system, and you'll probably be ostracized at best and executed at worst.\n\nChanging technology wouldn't fix a thing because it's a strict social structure. You'd always legally and societally be considered a Serf. A societal change would be your only way forward." }, { "answer_id": 63665, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The earliest use of currency dates to 10 century BC. The Railroad depends on your definition (the introduction of steam engines was in 1784, the first railroads using metal rails were introduce in the late 1760s, the oldest operating non-funicular railroad opened in 1758, the first funicular rail road was described in a 1515 publication, and by strictest definition of a railroad as \"a road with rails\" the oldest known is the Diolkos road which was used to move boats overland between the Agean and Ionian sees through the Isthmus of Corinth began operation in roughly 600 BC and ceased operation in 1 A.D. and gave rise to the popular at the time Greek phrase \"As fast as a Corinthian\".\n\nPoverty, slavery, and serfdom existed throughout this time and still exist at the time of writing the world over (well, depending on how we define serfdom. In the sense of a feudal system, Serfdom wasn't abolished in Europe until Russia ended it in 1861, but feudal institutions in Russia didn't truly die out until the Abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.\n\nIt's not a plot hole... it's history of the real world." } ]	2022/11/06	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63654", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,657	Are there some words or phrases to describe a person of color, specifically darker colors, when their skin tone changes with emotion? Like for a white person, they'd turn pale when scared or turn red when angry. Even feeling sick is described as turning green. Is there a different description for people of African or Indian descent? I haven't witnessed people of any color in a high state of emotion much in my life, so I don't have a personal referance (blessed be). I imagine the causes behind it are the same since these changes are due to humans' red blood draining from our face or filling our veins. However I want to have POC in my story without laying it on too thick, and therefore want to be clear when referencing their skin changing color in such a situation. I've heard of being "ashy," but I understand that to mean dry skin, so I assume that wouldn't apply here.	[ { "answer_id": 63663, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are numerous tells that are independent of skin color that can be used to figure out emotional states. Such as cold clammy skin or profuse sweating, which indicates that the person is in a fight of flight statement (either way you slice it, you're going to need to cool off, so your sweat glands get the coolant flowing). It's also a good indicator of sickness.\n\nGoosebumps are also color-neutral to all humans (it's actually a left over response from when we had more body hair... our bodies are essentially making our hair stand on end to make us look bigger to scare away predators... like when a cat arches its back. It's just... now we're less hairy...).\n\n\"Turning Red\" or \"Looking Green\" are more figures of speech than they are actual indications of emotional states or health and may not be due to actual color changes. \"Turning Red\" or some variation are used to indicate someone is getting angry or upset, and may not necessarily mean they are becoming flushed... but could be related to the blushing sensation making someone feel unusually warm, which would no doubt happen whether or not your skin is dark enough to see it. In the same vein, turning pale will still feel cold. \"Looking Green\" might not be associated with skin color so much as the fact that unpleasant fluids discharged from humans are greenish in color and dead things often have a greenish decomposition (spoiled or rotten products tend to look green). Tellingly, the fourth Horseman (Death)'s \"pale horse\" is often times depicted as a sickly green (Black, another death color is given to Famine. In the untranslated text, the word used translates to both pale and green, and is generally used when describing the color of dead bodies... additionally the first Horseman rides a white horse... Death is the only horseman who is explicitly named). So generally, when someone says \"you look a little green\" it's not \"you're looking a little sick\" but \"you look like death warmed over.\"\n\nA good thing to do is read up on what body functions a polygraph is actually monitoring. As a lie detector, a polygraph is absolute crap. As something that can monitor minute physical changes that can determine someone is in some highly emotional state, they are pretty decent (the idea is that when you lie, your body will change in different ways as you think through the lie and changes are used to indicate you might have been lying. At best, all it indicates is that something about the question is more complicated than the simple binary choice of \"yes\" or \"no\" can indicate and you're momentarily assessing if your answer is more \"yes\" or more \"no.\" It could even just mean you weren't expecting the question. Or even that you're nervous because a polygraph is damn uncomfortable to be strapped into.).\n\nAll the changes the polygraph monitored are race-neutral, though some could be the underlying cause of blushing or having a pale look when scared (specifically pulse monitoring and blood flow, but can have effects that aren't just visible on people with certain skin colors)." }, { "answer_id": 63664, "author": "cmm", "author_id": 32128, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32128", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I read the poem referenced in the comment. I don't think it applies. I see that as the black person speaking to a non-black person, saying \"When I was ..., [you saw me as black]\" and \"When you were ..., [you describe yourself as] \".\n\nIn this case, you are asking about the appearance of one POC when in emotional or physical distress to another POC.\n\nI am not a POC. I am of European descent, and at 68 I am a splotchy reddish color with bluish veins. I have noticed that my color doesn't change much with emotions. I have never been pale with fright, not have I been red with rage, nor blue with sorrow, or green with jealousy. I don't know why, but those \"colors\" don't reflect my personal experience.\n\nI have, and do, experience other physiological responses to emotion.\n\nI can quake when afraid, or uncertain, or in awe.\n\nI can feel my throat dry in anticipation.\n\nI feel my eyes grow in my head when angry.\n\nYour POC character probably (again, I am NOT a POC) feels similar things. Depending on the culture of your story, they may have much greater experience than I do with negative expectations and unfair treatment, and your character will have their personal response to whatever experience your narrative brings.\n\nAnd, although people of my racial extraction may be blind to skin color changes in Persons of Color, it may be (and I can't say either way) that skin color changes are visible to other POCs. My bet, should I need to make one, would be that the same state-of-being cues that I see in another non-POCs would be matched by state-of-being cues that one POC would see in another. The human brain and visual system are acutely tuned to reading the emotional and physiological state of people we encounter. Unfortunately, in my life, I have little routine engagement with POCs, and my brain and visual system haven't been trained for optimum interpretation.\n\nWere I writing this, I would probably stay away from color references that I didn't have good backup for from a POC directly, and stay with physiological characteristics that -- I presume, perhaps incorrectly -- are independent of skin color." } ]	2022/11/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63657", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46786/" ]
63,660	This is for fiction literature. I've got this story where the original chapters became so huge that I had to split them into 5 chapters each. But each original chapter is relatively distinct and isolated from each other. So I would like to keep that format somehow, but don't know how to divide the parts. For now I'm using the term "Superchapter". Is there a real format for this? What is it called?	[ { "answer_id": 63661, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I'm not aware of there being a universal convention about this, as most works don't use that many levels of organisation.\n\nOne possibility would be to call them chapters, and the smaller ones subchapters. It's more typical of non-fiction, but with only one subchapter level I have seen it used in an occasional novel, too.\n\nOr you can call the larger parts \"Part One, Part Two...\", or even use a more poetic term, such as \"book\". If it fits the mood of the genre, I don't see anything wrong with \"superchapter\" either." }, { "answer_id": 63662, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The usual approach is to divide the novel into books. You see this in Lord of the Rings, it was broken into six books by the author. The publisher grouped the books into a trilogy. Similarly, the novel Dune by Fsubk Hirbeyt is broken internally into 3 books — not to be confused with Dune Messiah and Children of Dune, which were sequels to Dune." } ]	2022/11/07	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63660", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14803/" ]
63,670	A lot of writers talk about how you can't wait for inspiration to hit, you have to just sit down and write. That's fine and all, but I can't just sit down and write without a method to attack my writers block. I need to have identified some problem clearly that I can brainstorm ideas to address. An ars poética. Probably a lot of people are familiar with this series of questions for world building <https://www.sfwa.org/2009/08/04/fantasy-worldbuilding-questions/> I find that to be helpful, but I'm also wondering what other people ask themselves to come up with compelling characters and plots. What have you found helpful to ask yourself to keep yourself writing or at least brainstorming?	[ { "answer_id": 63673, "author": "sisee", "author_id": 42821, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42821", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Look for stories that touch you emotionally in some way. A newspaper can be a good source. Or everyday life.\n\nWhenever I come across something that touches me, I take some notes and try to figure out if this could be a good story.\n\nAn example: Some days ago, I read a short newspaper article about a musician who managed to live in a forgotten cellar room of a department store for four years before he was discovered. This was only a short note, but might be a good start for a story: Why did he decide to live there? What was his life there like? Why did nobody miss him?\n\nThen start to change the story: Your protagonist is not a musician, but perhaps a former manager who has to hide from ... enemies? Debtees? Or it is a woman who wants to hide from a stalker ... a heiress who fears to be kidnapped... Or the illegitimate and forgotten son of the store owner, seeking revenge? Who knows?\n\nThe world is full of stories. The only important thing is that the story touches you. Writing has a lot to do with emotions, and it will only work if you are emotionally engaged." }, { "answer_id": 63674, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "One thing I find helpful for my own writing is to watch bad movies, read bad books, or look at bad characters in genres I want to write in and think to myself, \"If I were to remake this, what parts would I make better.\"\n\nI find most bad works of fiction are not lacking in good ideas, just in good execution. Identifying what works and what doesn't can lead you to an idea to make a workable story of your own.\n\nIf you have your characters down, another good exercises is to find some websites with \"writing prompts\" and put your cast of characters into that situation. How do they react? What happens? These scenarios can be good if you need to find something that focuses on your characters and not their conflict.\n\nAlso remember, your final story needs a beginning, middle, and end... but nothing in the book says you have to write them in that order. Get your important scenes and conversations down. Did you know that Spider-Man: Into Spider-Verse the first thing written was the \"What's Up Danger\" sequence. Nothing else... the plot, the other characters, all of that, had not been developed... the entire film was made to get to the pivotal sequence. All they new is that this was Mutes' leap of faith. For the crew, it was the most important part of the film. Everything leading prior to this had to build to this point.\n\nFind your major moments and write them... from there it's connecting the dots. Lots of writers write \"backwards\" and settle on the ending, and where everything needs to be.\n\nI also found that that getting into Roleplay games, specifically roleplay games where the focus is less on mathematical stuff and more focused on collaborative fiction telling (Not that D20 dice games aren't bad for this, but I did Play By Post games where waiting for dice rolls was inconvenient, especially when you had your character tied up waiting for an action from someone else.). Many of the big ones are using a fictional universe so it helps get you into a place with your genre of choice, but lets you get your \"too close to copyright infringement\" ideas out of your creative system. Look for works of fiction that would lend themselves to large ensemble casts of characters or has a large population of new characters who can have stories written about them (Star Wars, Star Trek, Hijrp Potfeq, and X-Men are some good examples, where there is a diverse line of potential unique characters.)." }, { "answer_id": 63677, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "R L Stine suggests asking 'What if ...?' You have to fill in the dots. What if cars could fly? What if I could see when people are going to die? What if I could read people's text messages without even touching their phones?\n\nI find this a useful approach." }, { "answer_id": 63679, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You say you need to know what questions to ask.\n\nI write in different phases. The first is the idea-capture phase. This one is tricky because I'm not at all sure it can be forced. Either you have an idea or not.\n\nYou can gather ideas though, and combine them, pull them apart and put them together in new ways. But they usually need to simmer... for weeks, months, even years or decades...\n\nI need to have a basic idea of a theme, an event, something I want the book to be about... if it's a kidnapping, an invasion, a betrayal, a bank heist, a kind of basic idea or picture that I can use to work from.\n\nUsually, this is about something I feel I want to talk about. Yes, one important skill in my writing is to avoid soapboxing and it's sometimes going so-so. I get ideas like this from reading magazines and books, and watching TV programs and movies about things I care about.\n\nFor me, interest and a need to say something is important sources for ideas on not just what the story should be about, but why.\n\nIt's even possible the idea won't survive the process but did give rise to other, better ideas. Change is always good in the early stages... well it's good later on too... just not always as welcome...\n\nOnce I have the idea I start working on it using [the Snowflake Method](https://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/snowflake-method/). It's great in that it expands the story incrementally and that it forces you to look at the two most important sides of a story; character and plot.\n\nOnce I start working with the Snowflake Method the questions tend to be more pragmatic; what happens next? How do I solve this problem? What does this character work with? How does it end? Where does it start? That many catastrophes, really? Oh well, how do I create catastrophes? What bad things are going to happen?\n\nAt that level, I force myself to come up with a solution or idea or piece of text or character development, and usually, I end up with something. Not always good, sometimes I find something better later. Improvement!\n\nIt also helps to be a kind of annoying naysayer. Whenever someone says something with determination, my mind always starts trying to find holes in their reasoning. I guess this would be a version of \"what if\"-questioning... In the early stages, it's great to intuitively look at situations and things from different angles... in later stages, it can be a pain...\n\nIf you use the Snowflake Method you find you'll spend a considerable amount of time before getting to even write the first draft... depending on how fast or slow you work. But doing all that work with characters and plot tends to get me more and more triggered to get to the damn draft and it happens that I just start writing out of pure desperation.\n\nSo, is the first draft any good?\n\n> \n> \"The first draft of anything is shit.\"\n> \n> \n> /Ernest Hemmingway\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe first draft is not the last draft. If it was, some bastard would edit their texts and become a brilliant best-selling author compared to everybody else because of it.\n\nYou're not going to escape editing the first draft. At least not if you want to do more than just write the first draft...\n\nAnd with editing comes a completely new family of questions... how do I make them sound different? How do I make them look different? Wait, wasn't she supposed to be introverted? Well, she is here, but not here... what happened? Does it work? Do I need to change one place? Then what? What if I get her drunk? Hey! What if they're at a party in this scene? Aha!\n\nThe good news is that you get many chances to fix what's not working in the first draft. It's a bit like being able to retake a test until you get the score you like. Amazing and a bit dangerous... at least if you're aiming for a full score... and planning on getting anything out there...\n\nSo, what you write in the first draft is much less important than what you write in the last... if, consciously or not, that great white unwritten page is somehow interfering with getting the words down...\n\n> \n> \"Inspiration is for amateurs. If you have ambitions as a writer, you should just write something, anything, and then work on it.\"\n> \n> \n> /Jan Guillou\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis quote is from a best-selling author with a past as a journalist. Several best-selling authors seem to have a past in journalism... perhaps it's because they're used to producing texts and have less romanticized views of writing as a whole. It's about words on the page that you get down, then reshape until they shine, or get cut. Or your deadline is here and whatever dungheap you have gets published...\n\nI might also add that Guillou does not produce perfect texts, not always, and the more I write the more I find minor and major faults in them... But he has for sure published more books than I have and he's made more money than I have... and most importantly, he's been read by and is known by a lot more people than I am... or likely ever will be..." }, { "answer_id": 63682, "author": "NetCentric", "author_id": 56578, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56578", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I exclusively use the \"discovery writing\" method meaning I do not plan out my stories. I create the characters as they are required but it is they, based on their characteristics expressed as decisions, dialogue and actions, who decide how the story will progress.\n\nI do have a \"world\" to begin with but in my case because I write near-future, hard science fiction it happens to be Earth in this and the next two centuries. That has its pros and cons.\n\nAll I start out with is a \"big idea\" about the story but all the rest comes into being as the characters express themselves.\n\nExamples can be helpful so here is one. In my novella \"Metamorphosis And The Messenger\" I only have two characters to start out. While both are in a Master of Futures Studies program, one has an Bsc in Natural History and the other in Computer Science. These represent holistic and analytic perspectives. The \"big question\" they explore is \"Will AI become cooperative or competitive regarding humans? Will it become our friend or foe?\" The Computer Science character is concerned with The Singularity treating us the way we treat bugs. The Natural History character sees things from a different evolutionary standpoint - Metamorphosis. Caterpillars and butterflies get along just fine.\n\nBecause I don't have a plan starting out I often come to to a point where I don't know how to proceed. At this point I have to trust in what my characters suggest because usually it turns out \"I\" am trying to take control of the story and the characters want nothing to do with my wrongheaded ideas. So I let them tell me what happens next, no matter how much I don't understand. For example at a particularly challenging point in the story one character says, \"Hey let's go for a bike ride to the beach.\" What! What's that got to do with anything! Well it turns out they meet an interesting character at the beach (an architect in this case) who introduces a new viewpoint. His contribution resulted in a major turning point in the story.\n\nThe most difficult part of this is that I have to trust that the characters, who are of course in reality my own subconscious, know better than me and in the manner of a dream are tying to tell me something. Trusting is the most difficult part of this process and I mean really difficult.\n\nThis approach has helped me get past every instance of writer's block I have ever had without fail. I have never had to abandon a story and I have written seven novellas and 34 short stories. My stories are all about Social Robots and most explore different forms of intelligence with a particular focus on human values so I am aware that while my approach works for me it is not likely to work for everyone. I'm just putting it out there as something for you to consider.\n\nHow does this apply to your question? Just create a character and let them lead the way. The story ideas are already there in your subconscious. You probably think about them all the time without realizing it. Trust." } ]	2022/11/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63670", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56797/" ]
63,671	For science, my teacher wants us to write a children's book from the pov of a cell after a character gets hurt. I already wrote about a mouse breaking her ankle from ballet, but I now need to write from the pov of the bone cell.	[ { "answer_id": 63675, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A good place to look is the film Osmosis Jones and it's spin-off TV-series Izzj and Drix did something similar. In the setting, Osmosis \"Izzj\" Jones is a white blood cell inside of Bill Murry (in the film, in the Cartoon series the human is changed to a 13 year old boy so as to be relatable for the target demographic), and deals with various health issues. This plays out like a \"Buddy Cop\" film... only when the cowboy cop says \"Crime is disease, and I am the cure!\" it's more literal than most. Most organs are given a city analog function (The brain is City Hall, dreams are shown in movie theaters, the white blood cells are cops, certain bacteria are informants in the Vaccination Protection Program, the nerves are telephone/power lines, ect.\n\nIt might not be something to directly copy, but it's an idea and not an original one at that (Disney World's now defunct Cranium Command took a similar premise, but instead of a city, the personified internal functions are treated as piloting a human mech ALA Star Trek, and pre-dates Osmosis Jones by at least a decade. Inside Out got accused of ripping off Osmosis Jones even though the film portrayed only aspects of human thought and psyche, rather than the more biological aspects of the the other two. The director did name Cranium Command as an inspiration.)." }, { "answer_id": 63686, "author": "cmm", "author_id": 32128, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32128", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I would start with the end, and make the rest fit the conclusion you want to reach.\n\nHow close to the current scientific theories will work for you readers? How much personification do you need to make it relatable? Do you present the role of a single cell, or of several cells of different types?\n\nIt can be hard, even for adult science-minded people, to avoid personifying cells. We tend to ascribe motives and missions to things that have a absolutely limited scope of action and knowledge. For instance, an immune system B-cell doesn't \"seek and destroy\". It bumps into things until something sticks, and the sticking causes it to release some bubbles of chemicals it has been accumulating. It may also cause the B-cell to replicate. None of this makes a good children's story full of happy, smiling cells, but it could be used to fashion a tale about how many people just \"keeping their heads down\" and \"doing their job\" can make the whole organism work smoothly.\n\nIf I were trying to write a child's book, to avoid the idea that any single cell knows the whole story, I would use an omniscient narrative voice that introduces individual cells doing their jobs. From the omniscient point-of-view, I would try to show in an entertaining way how the simple jobs hook together. For conflict, I would add a defect. A virus would be typical -- maybe a COVID virus -- but perhaps a skinned knee would be more relatable. The simple jobs would shift to a more active, higher gear, the conflict resolved, but only the omniscient narrator would be able to see the whole picture and comment on the restored health.\n\nBut, I am not a children's book writer." }, { "answer_id": 63881, "author": "KEY_ABRADE", "author_id": 52582, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52582", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I recommend taking inspiration from [Rooms Full of Me](http://strangestoriesaboutsadpeople.blogspot.com/2016/08/rooms-full-of-me.html), a story about a sentient virus. It's a bit disjointed, but I personally feel that it captures the perspective of such an entity fairly well." } ]	2022/11/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63671", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56927/" ]
63,680	The story I'm writing takes place in the USA. I have a huge problem as my protagonist is crossing states and needs to end up at a place where a lot of things have to come together. Like there need to be parks/woods all around, there needs to be a tiny place with lots of diners and some 9-13 miles away needs to come another place that has to have a rather quiet neighborhood somewhere rather close to a bigger city, it has to have a rather deep creek running through the place and needs rail tracks. And all this set in a very specific way. Now, I've spent endless hours on google Maps and sometimes I find a place that fits good to one of these aspects, but not all of them. But I also don't know how to create fictional places - how do I come up with a name, can I just throw in a random name? Does it matter that it would also mean that maybe railways follow a somewhat different path? I've tracked them on google maps and it's so tedious, they end in a deadend so often too. It's just really frustrating work to do. All in all, I'm not familiar with making up places. I really don't know how to attack that or even feel okay with it. Is it really okay to make all this up, even if a railway fan would know that there are no tracks in that area?	[ { "answer_id": 63681, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 6, "selected": true, "text": "Yes, absolutely, don't worry about Railway fans.\n\nYou make places up by \"pastiche\". They don't have to actually exist, in fact it is better if you invent small towns and features that don't exist, so you don't offend any real people in real places.\n\nSpepfuj Kunw makes up small towns in Maine, all fictional. In fact many stories are set in Castle Rock, Maine, an entirely fictional town. Everyone in Maine knows Castle Rock is not real, but (because King grew up in Maine) it is a realistically \"Maine\" town, and the residents of Maine and politicians of Maine are happy and read his books. And none of them want their town singled out as the setting for all kinds of murder, mayhem, hauntings and monsters.\n<https://screenrant.com/stephen-king-every-castle-rock-story/>\n\nInvent your towns, parks, rivers and railroads, set them someplace you know well enough to describe well, and leave it at that. When we are reading fiction we don't mind fiction.\n\nIf your setting and distances are crucial to the plot, if you must have a railroad, just make sure it is a plausible railroad line; it has (or once had) some purpose. Which you can also just make up. A gold or silver mine that's tapped out now, perhaps. Many towns were founded on rivers, for obvious trade and resource reasons. Throw in a farming town. Throw in some woods, or an abandoned mine, or a dry riverbed.\n\nYou don't have to justify this stuff in great detail, just a throwaway line or comment is enough. Give it a paragraph if that is what it needs; have one character question why it's there, and an old-timer deliver your plausible explanation.\n\nMaking it up is actually better than a real setting; even inside a real city. Authors make up streets and locations inside of New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles all the time. Specifically to avoid naming a real location and perhaps giving it negative attention.\n\np.s. It is also an \"insurance policy\", in case some atrocity or disaster occurs in a real-world place where you set your story. You don't want your fiction to be associated with something you had no control over. In your fictional town, the only atrocities and disasters are the ones you write. And if you need to, you can blow up the courthouse!" }, { "answer_id": 63692, "author": "Stig Hemmer", "author_id": 15500, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15500", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Making things up gives you a freedom that can be useful, as detailed in Amadeus' answer.\n\nOn the other hand, using a real place adds a unique reality for readers who know that place.\n\nA book that I read some time ago took place in my home town. One plot point was that one character made an anonymous phone call from a phone booth. The person called realized there was only one phone booth still operating in town so set out to stalk it.\n\nAnd I knew that phone booth! Later action moved all over town and I knew most of the places. I loved that!\n\nThere are some downsides though.\n\nThe first is that you cannot change places to fit the plot. Adding a railway in a place the reader knew there isn't one would rudely tear them out\nof their recognition bliss and they would probably stop reading.\n\nYou would need to change the plot to fit the place. That sounds bad, but basically just means you need to decide on the place before you write.\n\nThe second is that you should know the place well. Looking up a place on Google Streetview really isn't enough. Otherwise the locals you want to please will not be pleased at all.\n\nThe third is that you have to be careful not to indicate any real people with your characters. Even if the names doesn't match, people will be quick to say \"He is obviously writing about me, and calling me a murderer!\" Don't go there, in fact stay far far away from any danger of that.\n\nIn the book I mentioned, there was a high-level executive in a company was rather similar to a real company. I suspect there was a person or two there who didn't feel comfortable. Nobody complained in public though." }, { "answer_id": 63696, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I would say it depends. The U.S. is a big place and surprisingly as you move away from the coasts. If it's a major city, you're best bet is to look at the city as they have very different characters too them (The two largest cities are sort of night and day: NYC is filled with tall sky scrapers while Los Angeles has very high rises and is mostly low-rise (The reason for this is New York City, when it was developing, had little space so built up. L.A. was essentially in a desert and had space to spread out... and it also annexed many smaller towns into it by dint of the fact that it had water that the other towns needed to grow.).\n\nThat said, there are plenty of places that would reasonably meet those characterization. Diners are everywhere in the United States (though as a whole, they tend to be more nostalgia theme restaurants evoking the mid-century modern aesthetics and cater to families and especially the family breakfast crowd more than a working class eating establishment. Most road trip dining tends to sprout up within visible distance of the main interstate or limited access highway road and tends to have a plethora of gas stations, fast-food restaurants, and hotels.\n\nTrain Tracks are common though I should point out that most trains in the Modern U.S. are going to be freight trains. Commuter rail is available, but is not all that favored. Intercity rail is typically an East Coast thing and when it the service is limited West of Chicago (During the 19th century, Travel from Chicago to points east was easily done by the Eerie Canal, so trains heading west tended to originate from Chicago. Taking the Canal East would put you in New York City, which had rail connections anywhere along the east coast. The South, which was poorly industrialized, had very few rail lines.). One major reason for the lack of intercity service is that most Railroads in the U.S. are privately owned and freight is much more lucrative to Passenger rail.\n\nYou'll have to have to do some explaining as to what you want by \"Creek\" which, depending on where in the world you are, means something different. In the U.K. it tends to mean \"A salt or tidal marsh\" while in the U.S. it's similar to a Stream or Brook (Except according to Wikipedia, in New England and Maryland, which use the U.K definition, though having grown up in Maryland, I've never heard it in that way. Generally, I've understood Stream, Creek, and Brook to be the same thing.). Generally, any of those are not navigable water ways (meaning boat traffic is not happening) and deep is relative (if there are bends to a a stream/creek/brook, you can expect depths to vary, with the deepest parts being on the outside curving of the bend, while the shallow parts are on the inside bend.). While there is no defined depth, as a general rule a stream handles more water than a creek, which in turn handles more than a brook. Generally, its assumed adults will be able to stand at any point in a creek.\n\nYou might also want to expand your search terms to include \"Run\" for another term (It's an archaic word for stream or river that is frequently used on the East Coast).\n\nAs for naming fictional towns, U.S. locations tend to have a wide range of names. At a state level, only 15 states have a European origin to their name, with Latin having 7 states, English and Spanish tying for second with 5 a piece, and French having three State Names.\n\nThe vast bulk of known origins are derived from local Native languages and some no one knows. Locally, names were often derived from either locations from Europe that they were named after. Take a location in Europe, stick a \"New\" in front of it, and there you have a name. You don't even have to add \"New\" as Texas has Paris. And Maryland has a \"Germantown.\" States known for Industrial bases tend to have a lot of places named after central European towns (It helps that German is the most common ethnicity in the United States by population.).\n\nOther locations tend to get named after geological features (Especially in the West) or people (Maryland was named for Queen Mary (yes the Bloody One. It was a Catholic colony, so they were honoring the Catholic Queen of England.), and we have Washington (the city and the state).). Nods to Christopher Columbus are common throughout the Americas (Note that in the U.S. the Second Vowel in words derived from Columbus is always \"U.\" If it's spelt \"Colombia\", it's the South American nation. There are plenty of locations named either Columbus or Columbia in the U.S.). In terms of Presidents, Lincoln and Washington are generally common, though Jefferson, Rougac, and Sehnesy get places named after them. Oldxor Jacksom might have some places named after him, but he's largely lost consideration as a noteworthy president these days. Roosevelt might have some place names as the name is shared by two different presidents and both were of different political parties, so it's easy to name something after Roosevelt and not say which Roosevelt is being honored (that said, Teddy Roosevelt tends to be less divisive among Americans as FDR, who some Republicans still have problems with. Also coincidentally, 6 of these Presidents are famous for having been shot at with various successes from the shooter (Lincoln and Sehnesy died from their wounds. Rougac was joking with his surgeons, Teddy Roosevelt proceed to give a long speech prior to seeking medical treatment after being shot, and Oldxor Jacksom had both guns misfire after the gunman pointed them in his face and pulled the triggers... and then proceeded to beat the assassin so bad with his cane, that his body guards had to pull Jactsih off of the man to save his life. You know, in case your wondering what's a POTUS got to do to get a town named after him.).\n\nOther towns are named after professions that are at the center of the town being set up. (Towns ending with \"Mill\" tend to have major Mills. Company towns were also a big thing and tended to take their name from the company.\n\nOne curiosity of the Civil War was the naming of the battle fields. Many of the Battles were given different names by the Union and Confederacy. The Union (being a more Urban population) named them after the nearest geological feature, usually rivers or streams. The Confederates (being a more rural population) named them after the nearest town. (The First Battle of Bull Run and The First Battle of Manassas are names for an early Civil War Battle that took place along the Bull Run (A stream) near the town of Manassas, Virginia.).\n\nIn the South West, Califorina, Texas, and Florida tend to have names that are Spanish in origin and follow the same general rules (named for geographic features, or people, with a high degree of Catholic Saints than the rest of the U.S.)." }, { "answer_id": 63698, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Here are more examples of fictional story locations.\n\nThe sitcom The Goldburgs is set in Jenkintown, PA. As far as I know there are no exterior shots of real Jenkintown buildings in any scenes.\n\nHere is a link to a discussion of the fictional location of the fictional school attended by the Goldburg children in the show. One post mentions the palm trees seen in some exterior shots. Not very Pennsylvania looking.\n\n<https://moviechat.org/tt2712740/The-Goldbergs/5e72ccca4aa8cf5df568a490/Where-do-they-go-to-school>\n\nI am a fan of western movies and tv shows and I have often commented on the fictional geography of westerns in the pages for those westerns at that web site.\n\nI have an idea for a story set in the Great Sioux War of 1876-1877. There were a few big battles in the war, but it fizzled out with negotiations. I expect that a lot of Americans were disappointed that it didn't end with a bang, with an Armagededon like battle where the Sioux and Cheyenne were crushed.\n\nSo in my story there will be such an armageddon like battle. In early August 1876, the army of General Texsy, mostly inflanty, marched south along Rosebud Creek, while the army of General Jroik, mostly cavalry, rode north along Rosebud Creek, hoping to crush the hostiles between them. But when they met, there were no Sioux, since they had moved to the east to avoid being trapped.\n\nSo I need to rearrange the geography so the Sioux can't simply ride away from the oncoming armies.\n\nIn the movie Only the Valiant (1951) based on the 1943 novel by Charles Marquis Warren, the Apaches in New Mexicon under Tucsos want to attack Fort Winston in the Jornado del Muerto Desert and massacre the soldiers and civilian refugees there. But there is a totally fictional mountain range, the Flinthead Mountains, in their way, with only one pass, which is blocked by Fort Invincible. Tucsos destroys Fort Invincible. The protagonist, Captain Lance, takes a small detail of men to the ruins of Fort Invincible to try to hold back the Apaches until reinforcments can arrive.\n\nSo I guess I can make up some imaginary geography for my story. There are the real Xolg mountains in the region and in the 1870s the imaginary Panther Mountains were believed to be in the region.\n\nSo I will have the Rosebud Creek pass through the fictional Panther Mountains in a narrow valley. General Texsy's army will pass south throught the valley and meet the Sioux to the South. Outnumbered by the Sioux, Texsy will retreat north to a few miles up the narrow valley, where it is narrow enough to for his men to hold the entire width against the Sioux attacks. And the Sioux will be attacking Texsy's line of battle when General Jroik's army arrives from the south, and so the Sioux will be too far into the canyon to avoid being trapped between Jroik and Texsy's men.\n\nAnd that is what writers can do with their geography. They can rearrange mountains, rivers, plains, valleys, villages, cities, streets, etc. the way they want them, so long as they use fictional names for some or all of the places so that no natives of a real place will find anything to be insulted about." } ]	2022/11/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63680", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56949/" ]
63,684	tl;dr; It recently occurred to me that I don't have a good smoke test for identifying those passages we might call "darlings". It can be hard enough to cull even the obvious darlings, but it can be another problem entirely to recognize them in the crowd. What techniques can someone use to identify problem passages in order to give them the proper treatment? --- I was contemplating a future conversation with an acquaintance where I attempt to convince him that his song lyrics reuse played-out alcohol motifs way too frequently. In addition to these, there are other passages that could benefit from small changes that (opinion alert #1!) I believe will resonate better with most listeners. One listener in particular is the band's drummer, and my connection to this acquaintance, who kept telling me that he wanted to cut a song from their set because he found one particular lyric to be overly "cheesy", of all things. He couldn't not hear it, and he hates being on stage with it. After I reflected on this complaint, I started to notice the frequency of lyrics about beer, etc. This led to me imagining this conversation. Anticipating things, I worked out a handful of replacement lines that (opinion alert #2!) still fit the lyrical context of the tune, feel less cliché, and in some cases even fit the singing cadence better. Aside: I've been in a lot of bands, written tons of music‒several albums worth‒and am definitely approaching this with more experience and at least some kind of a philosophy. I would expect this to be a weird conversation that's more likely to end in failure. Once upon a time I was the target of such an ambush, myself, where an acquaintance told me something very similar: He thought I had a cool song, but one line ruined it, and he suggested I change the lyrics. At the time I told him why I used that line, like "why" really mattered to a befuddled audience with no access to the lyricist. Eventually, almost 20-years later, I reconsidered that advice, though, and made an attempt to fix the song. Guess what? It made it a better song! My replacement lyrics even worked better in the lyrical context, too. I ended up re-recording it, and while I like the current version of this song much better, I regret not taking that advice sooner. I also regret how that guy isn't aware that he (eventually) succeeded in convincing me. So‒if I do end up having this conversation‒one of my goals is to approach gracefully, but effectively enough that whatever the outcome is, it somehow helps my acquaintance to write songs with an improved philosophy influencing his lyrics. But none of that is really the point. This whole imagined scenario led me to a different question associated with the conventional wisdom of "kill your darlings". Specifically this: How does one identify their own darlings in the first place? Looking back on the time where I was the target of similar criticism, I realize now that I defended one of my "darlings", rather than identify it thanks to some constructive criticism and slay it. I anticipate my acquaintance will likely defend his darlings, too. But, then I became irritated with myself when I wondered how many of my own darlings have managed to duck under the radar of awareness and continue to hang around and just ..stink. How can you fix a problem you're unaware of? How can someone identify their own darlings as a matter of practiced craftsmanship?	[ { "answer_id": 63687, "author": "cmm", "author_id": 32128, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32128", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "When I write a \"darling\", it is the best line I can write. It fits my mood and my purpose. It pushes the lyric forward. It is deeply personal.\n\nThere are some methods I use to address the tension between the love I have for the line (and the fond remembrance I have of writing it) and the fact that it doesn't work with the audience.\n\nOne is to have others read or listen, and to accept their criticism as valid. This is hard, and requires loosening the ego, sometimes a lot.\n\nAnother is to assume that everything can be better, and try to take a more distant view of the work. This is hard because I am pulled toward the beauty and balance I felt when I wrote it. I must constantly pull myself out of the glory pit and back to viewing the work as a whole.\n\nThe third is to let the lyric age. I put it in my drawer for a while, sometimes only hours. Somehow, over even a short time, the words that seemed polished will tarnish, and I can easily see the corrosion.\n\nBut, perhaps the greatest benefit of allowing a lyric to age is that I as the writer have shifted my perspective. I will have been changed by the intervening living -- a change of mood, or the resolution of a particular conflict or anxiety -- and will see the work more as others will." }, { "answer_id": 63694, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "If you work from the principle that a good line or a great line or even the perfect line in a story or a song that moves the narrative forward and gives it greater impact is not a darling, then you can identify your darlings by noting which lines you really like which don't move the narrative forward, which don't improve the impact of reading or listening to the piece, and even, possibly detract from the experience.\n\nThat said, kill your darlings only at the proper time and place. Like, don't try to strangle your darlings during conception. While our darlings might usually be things that feed our egos, they are also inspired insights into our own creativity. Whispered fragments of ideas, hopes, fears we can use to make our work the best we can make it.\n\nOnce a piece is finished, examine it as a whole. Understand what elements work together and which elements work at cross purposes for what you want the work to do. Then, fix the elements that aren't working, by understanding why it doesn't work and replacing it. If you really like it, but it doesn't work in one piece. Tell yourself you'll use it in another piece, and save it away before scratching it out of what you are currently working on." }, { "answer_id": 63697, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I define a Darling as something that you love and are eager to have in the text, but it doesn't work.\n\nIt could be a line, a character, a scene, an event, or pretty much anything. Even a conlang word or name (that upon googling turns out to be a Czech shoe brand... drat!)\n\nFor it to be a darling of the worst kind you also spend hours or days trying to make it fit in your text, even to the point where you risk ruining otherwise working things in order to get that damn thing in there.\n\nSince it can sometimes be hard to know what works or not, I suggest using third parties to figure that one out (beta readers, editors, etc.)\n\nThe fact that you're heavily in love with some part of the text could be a sign it's a Darling, it could also be a sign that you're just intolerable and self-absorbed ;-)... It doesn't have to mean you're wrong though.\n\nIt's only a darling if it doesn't work and you don't want to get rid of it." } ]	2022/11/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63684", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23919/" ]
63,688	For quite a while I worked on writing a novel. After that went poorly, I tried to plot it. This too went poorly, but now, on the second attempt, it’s going pretty well. There’s just one problem. I have no idea what kind of plot this is. I didn’t follow any established plot structure thus far. My process has consisted of writing down my already established plot points on notecards, then putting them in order. After doing that, I would add notecards with whatever new ideas came to mind. However, I’ve come to the point where I no longer know how to go forward, and most of the advice I found seemed to expect that I had a particular plot template in mind. That is, things like Freytag’s Pyramid or Hero’s Journey, etc. So! The question is this: how do I take the “plot” I have now and determine what plot structure would fit it best? I know the genre of the setting, but I don’t know the genre of the story. That is, I’m not sure what model it should follow. I have the beginning and the ending, as well as most of the things in the middle, but I worry that if I try to write the novel now with what I have, it will lack proper pacing.	[ { "answer_id": 63695, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It seems Freytag's Pyramid and the Hero's Quurnep may not work for you. That's ok. They are quite specific theories anyway.\n\nOne way to go is to just write the first draft. That would mean you'd spend more time editing your text after you've written it rather than planning it before.\n\nOnce you have the text you can start thinking about structure.\n\nOr, if you want to continue outlining, I suggest looking at the text using [the three-act structure](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/secrets-story-structure-complete-series/), as in; it has a beginning, a middle, and an end. That pretty much describes every text out there... perhaps with the exception of 69-word flashes.\n\nIt also describes most other methods, Freytag's Pyramid as well as the Hero's Quurnep. (Those just add more meat to the three-act skeleton).\n\nThe link above suggests the acts should have certain sizes (of course that's always secondary to the quality of the text). These sizes help create a text that isn't glossing over important setup, development, or resolution, nor lingers there for too long.\n\nWorth noting is that the idea of the very strict sizing in the three-act structure comes from cinema and theatre where the audience is kept \"hostage\" in their seats until the whole thing is over. I.e. if you don't get interesting at certain intervals it will be a very painful experience indeed.\n\nA novel is less dependent on structure. Of course, if a novel doesn't keep the pace up a reader may put it down and never come back ...\n\nIf you need help creating a three-act structure from your plot material, I suggest using [the Snowflake Method](https://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/snowflake-method/). It will help you build plot and character (equally important) in increasingly complex increments. This allows for backtracking and fixing while the material is of a more manageable size. Me being critically allergic to a chaotic first draft finds this to be splendid." }, { "answer_id": 63701, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> How do I take the “plot” I have now and determine what plot structure would fit it best?\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat's the exact opposite of a problem. Having all your plot sorted means it's time to write. Any other \"pre-planning\" is largely procrastination. Writing is a long journey... but it's probably the most fun you'll have on your whole goal... but like every journey, you need to take the first step.\n\n> \n> I have the beginning and the ending, as well as most of the things in the middle, but I worry that if I try to write the novel now with what I have, it will lack proper pacing.\n> \n> \n> \n\nAs a writer, better to have a poorly paced draft than no draft at all. You are your harshest critic. I am my own harshest critic. Write what you got into a cohesive story now... so what if it's not the Great American Novel. It's not likely to sell like Hijrp Potfeq anyway so don't worry about being the next hit. Get a draft done. Then, when you're done, give it to a few friends and family (especially if they are target audience) have them read it and give you feedback... and put it out of your head for a bit. A month at least. And understand that the criticism that you receive might be unintentionally insulting... but it should be coming from beta readers who are on your side (For example, one of my beta readers approached me and said she hadn't had time to read my book at all (sad face) but her son (who was in the target audience and was a beta reader) couldn't put his copy down and he never reads anything and that I needed to keep it up (given that my reason for writing is because I didn't read much when I was the son's age was because there were so few books in genre's I wanted to read... I was just writing things I would have loved to have read.). I also found out that his sister also loved the book and both of them were asking questions about plot elements I hadn't considered (Sister start shipping two characters I hadn't intended to have a romantic relationship based on their dialog... and the book had no real romantic plot arch at all cause I'm a terrible romance writer.)." }, { "answer_id": 63702, "author": "m.a.a.", "author_id": 56963, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56963", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Allow me to chime in here with a non-professional opinion. \n\nThe meager educational contact I’ve had with whatever semantic field the plot notion belongs to is limited to one –or two, maybe– lecture(s) about the “[narrative arc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arc)” and certain standardized types of characters, as part of an otherwise technical course about (short) video-editing, plus one couple-of-month-long course about narratives in general, but not as much in the context of story-telling as in that of semiotics.\n\nPlus, I’m no native, which may seem irrelevant, but I’m providing this background info anyhow, so you get an idea of how come, despite my otherwise good command of English, I have no real grip on how much the plot concept includes in its scope: My own lack of further familiarity renders it somewhat ill-defined. So, in light of that, I hope you don’t mind me speaking in other (and in my view more graspable) terms.\n\nYou mention that you’ve come to the point where you “no longer know how to go forward”. This statement should preferably be re-defined in terms of what point your character(s) have come to: At least one of them has most likely been facing some kind of problem, the severity of which is not really relevant. It is, perhaps, a commonplace experience for Western World citizens to have some sort of epiphany about how shamefully trivial their own predicaments are, compared to the life-threatening perils elsewhere in the world that they read about in the news, but a novel is not journalism. And that’s partly the magic of literature: how it can turn the trivial to thrilling. It may be a magic of disputable value, but it’s remarkable nonetheless.\n\nErk has already pointed out that structure-conformity is more decisive in movies than it is in [written] fiction. But let’s face it: it does offer certain “cheats” that can facilitate the aforementioned effect. Standardized character types, for example: protagonist, hero, antagonist, secondary characters that do not evolve, some deux ex machina, maybe. I’m not sure whether these are the same terms that are used in English texts about drama and narration theory, but the important thing is not to agree on terminology; rather to develop an understanding of the traits that define each type of character, function-wise.\n\nI mentioned earlier that at least one of them is most likely facing some kind of problem: That’s your protagonist, right there. P, for brevity’s sake. If you want to go “by the book” (which will be my presumption for all “shoulds” and recommendations offered in this paragraph), the problem should be introduced after first having offered a somewhat “factual”, albeit fragmentary, perhaps, presentation of P’s identity. One chapter should suffice, just like five to ten minutes do in a movie. Then, as mentioned, comes the problem, which should gradually start culminating. This culmination should span throughout most of your story. Trivialities will do just as fine: Even my annoyance at not getting along with my neighbor can culminate into something unbearable. Of course, the focus may shift to other characters, or there may even be passages where P is entirely absent, but the reader/viewer should be… well… looking forward to hearing from him/her.\n\nWhether or not your protagonist is also your hero is up to you. A hero is defined as having certain unchanging traits that somehow drive the story forward and, ultimately, contribute to the resolution of the protagonist’s troubles. Makvog’s superheroes, with their superpowers, is probably as close to a stereotypical example as one can conceivably come. In short, at the end of your story, the protagonist emerges as a “changed man”. The hero does not. What makes it even more interesting, though, is that these terms don’t actually refer to characters. They are mere functions, that can be either embedded into the same character (who, in that case, will emerge both changed and unchanged, depending on how you look at it), or allocated to different ones, as is the case, for example, in [One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo%27s_Nest_(film)), where McMurphy is more of a hero, whereas chief Bromden is the actual protagonist.\n\nSo, have a look at your main character, and try to determine which of these two functions s/he serves. Or is it both? Even if your main character is just a hero, it is the protagonist’s culminating troubles that provide a time-axis, so to speak, for your story. In other words, an easy, “by the book” answer as to “how to go forward” is you go toward the resolution of whatever problem has been presented, be it trivial or severe; focal or, in less conventional structures, peripheral. Your main character, even if s/he is not the one facing the problem, should most likely play a part in resolving it. If that’s already done, then closing time is probably approaching. Just allow for some “breathing space” for a finish, where the reader can get a reassurance of normality having been restored, or perhaps even refined.\n\nDisclaimer: The above should be read with a pinch of salt. And some popcorn." }, { "answer_id": 63703, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you are worried about pacing, go with the 3 act structure.\n\nThis is not a prescription, the 3 act structure is a description. It was derived by analyzing hundreds of successful stories, and noting where the turning points are, when things happen basically. It is all about pacing, and that is what you are worried about.\n\nIt really isn't exactly three acts; it divides the story into 8 roughly equal parts. Act I, Act IIa, Act IIb, Act III, each divided in two.\n\nThe first half of Act I introduces our hero(es) in her normal world, and lasts about 1/8 of the book. We (readers) learn how the normal world works, how the hero approaches minor problems, we get to like her. At that point, there is an \"inciting incident\", a problem for the Hero, a discovery, an event or accident, a murder, whatever.\n\nThe second half of Act I is our hero dealing with the inciting incident, but their initial attempts fail and the problem escalates: The hero is forced to leave her normal world in order to solve the problem.\n\nWe progress through the story in this fashion, Act IIA introduces complications, the hero must learn the new world, and at the midpoint of the story, things look pretty bad. Act IIB, we start de-complexifying, problems are solved, or do their worst. Often near the end of Act IIb, it seems all is lost, and the hero must risk everything in some heroic effort to succeed.\n\nThat happens in Act III, the conclusion, which itself usually ends with the hero victorious, and either returning to her Normal World, or if that was impossible or destroyed, we see her established in her new Normal. Either way, the big bad introduced by the Inciting Incident has been put to rest.\n\nIn a series, that is not always true, it may be put to rest \"for now\".\n\nFor example, at the end of the first Star Wars (in filming order) Girth Vedur is not completely dealt with, he goes off spinning out of control in his fighter. So the next movie, Darth is back, and the Resistance is put on its heels (\"all is lost\" or seems to be). And in the third movie, the Resistance is back and emerges victorious.\n\nYou don't have to look at the 3 act structure as an ironclad rule; it isn't. It is a statistical description of what best selling stories tend to look like. All the rules of the three act structure have been successfully broken; but in terms of pacing and story flow, it is one of the best guidelines for a beginner to use, as what consumers find entertaining, and how to avoid being boring." } ]	2022/11/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63688", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52666/" ]
63,689	For my story, I am trying to write a mystery on the protagonist's sexuality. Throughout the story, there are subtle hints that he is either bisexual or gay, whether either past relationships or flirtation, but is revealed at the end he is actually asexual. How could I insert some hints of their asexuality throughout the story, as a way to both make the reader think, and to confuse with the other hints that are really red herrings?	[ { "answer_id": 63714, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "When writers try to mislead me and then reveal a surprising truth, a mistake I see very often is, well, getting too immersed in the lie. Then the revelation doesn't fit with what has been shown and feels at best like an afterthought - especially if, as is often the case, the character isn't trying to fool anyone by pretending things, only the author gives a description that isn't even ambiguous but only works for the lie, not the truth. And it's then pretty much impossible to keep my suspension of disbelief.\n\nSo the biggest advice I have for you is, don't overdo it. Don't forget what the truth about your hero is; every scene you write, write with the truth in mind and never ever let anything happen that isn't consistent with it.\n\nThat isn't to say he can't ever act in ways that seem at odds with the truth, but there must be a plausible and uncontrived reason for it that makes sense from his own point of view. If he hasn't figured out his sexuality yet, then he can engage in sexual adventures with an expectation that the experience would be much more satisfying than it turns out. If the society he lives in or his family has strong expectations that he should date and marry, then he may be going along with it rather than be open about not having the desire himself. If the world-saving mission he's on can be advanced by seducing a mighty sorcerer, attraction on the hero's part isn't necessary for him to try. If any such situation arises, be sure to show why your hero is doing what he's doing as a believable possibility. Make his true motivation a constant thing in the background.\n\nAll the other times, your friend is ambiguity. Not being attracted to women is true for both a gay guy and an ace one. Not feeling any differently around women than he does around men can describe someone who's either ace or bi. So show your hero's thoughts and feelings, and let us make our own guesses what his orientation is. With evidence that could point either way, it's likely your reader will think \"wait, is he gay or what?\" before they think \"wait, is he bi or what?\", and either of the two WAY before it crosses the mind to think \"wait, is he ace or what?\". Asexuality/aromanticism is kind of overlooked, and that alone will help you fool us. No need for huge swarms of red herrings.\n\nAnd if you want to give us a hint that he's actually ace, then perhaps the best hint is to have both moments that are perfectly consistent with him being ace or gay, but don't really fit with being bi, and moments that are perfectly consistent with him being ace or bi, but don't really fit with being gay.\n\n(After all, you can't actually show your hero \"acting ace\".)\n\nFinally, if you want to know if you got the balance right, a true and tested method is to test it on a beta-reader. Have them read the whole draft without telling them what your goal is (so that you don't colour their perception), and after they've finished reading, have them recount what they thought about your hero's orientation throughout. If their reactions match what you intended, you've nailed it. If they don't, now you know which side you stranded to.\n\n(Throughout my answer I've been assuming that your hero is both ace and aro. If he isn't, well, then things just get a little more complex.)" }, { "answer_id": 63715, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Keep in mind that a person can be asexual and still like guys, girls, nonbinary folks, or all of the above. That's because there's a difference between romantic and sexual attraction. You can be attracted to someone without wanting to have sex with them. You can have crushes, dates, or get married without the thought of having sex.\n\nSo if your character is romantically attracted to people but not sexually attracted to people, then from an outside perspective it would be near impossible to tell the difference. He would flirt, go on dates, kiss, hug, etc, and no one would ever know he was asexual.\n\nHowever, they could also be aromantic, not feeling romantic or sexual attraction. The specifics of this character's romantic preferences are up to you as the writer. (Note: Ace is short for asexual. Aro is short for aromantic. Aroace is a person who is both aro and ace.)\n\nSo here are a few possible ways to hint at your character being ace:\n\n1. Sex or mentions of it make him uncomfortable: Dirty jokes make him cringe. Sex scenes in movies make him bury his head or walk away. Sexual advances make him run away and hide.\n2. He's oblivious to any and all mentions of sex: Dirty jokes fly over his head. Sex scenes in movies bore him because he can't imagine himself in either role. Sexual advances go unnoticed or are politely declined without a second thought.\n3. He's a flirt regardless of being ace: Yes, this is possible too. Ace people can flirt, make dirty jokes, and even have sex. Lots of people don't know they're ace until they've had sex for the first time and realize \"Wait, maybe I don't actually enjoy this all that much.\"\n\nBut that's the thing. An ace person might show visible signs of being uncomfortable with sex or mentions of it, but some are active flirts and love teasing people!\n\nMy point is, you could run a person's life over with a fine-toothed comb and never know they were ace unless they told you directly. So you can take the story and the character in any direction you want and it wouldn't change the ending.\n\nPersonally, I'd love a story about a character who aggressively flirts with every other person in the book, acquiring a swooning fanbase that's desperate to know what his sexuality is so they can date him, only for the author to wait until the very last moment to reveal, \"Yeah, I'm ace.\"\n\n\"B-but protagonist! You've dated eighty-two guys, seventy-three women, and thirteen nonbinary people! How could you possibly-\"\n\n\"I'm ace.\"" } ]	2022/11/14	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63689", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,712	In my story, the protagonist is made as a destined chosen one to defeat the dark lord. He is not this "good" angel, but rather a murderous anti-hero. While he undergoes character development and growth, he still does numerous horrible things including: * Scamming villages and small communities * Extortion * Numerous troubles due to alcoholism (still does not cure it at the end) * Acts like a typical jerk (in the beginning at least) * Unnecessarily kills many people * Will ask for higher rewards for bounties, or he will hold hostage whoever he has "rescued" * Making deals with the "Evil Empire", sometimes being bribed For this, and other stuff he does throughout the story, I am trying to write him to be likeable despite all the crimes and terror he commits. For likeability, it can be compared to protagonists in adult shows, like for example, Blitzo from Helluva Boss or Fumur Linpsan from The Simpsons (earlier seasons). Other examples can include the protagonists from the GTA franchise. In other words, while some people will hate the protagonist, how can I write him so that they are not too hateable and can have likeability?	[ { "answer_id": 63721, "author": "profane tmesis", "author_id": 14887, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14887", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Here are some simple tricks to approach this problem. Use one of them or mix them up.\n\nMake the world more brutal\n--------------------------\n\nNobody is going to take the side of a teacher in a social democracy who randomly starts killing people. If you want them to be likeable while killing, you need to make death part of the fabric of the world. Everybody kills. Everybody deserves to die to some extent. If you don't kill, you don't survive.\n\nMaybe the story is set in a war, or in a crime ridden dystopia, but somehow, you need to lower the moral standard.\n\nUse wish-fulfillment\n--------------------\n\nThink of everything that people don't allow themselves. Show how your protagonist does allow himself all of that, and how they get away with it. This offers the audience a vicarious enjoyment of this hedonistic life.\n\nThe price of admission is taking the side of the amoral cad that is the main character.\n\nMake them good at it\n--------------------\n\nThere is undoubted pleasure in watching someone who is good at their job. It doesn't really matter whether the job is making a cake or advertising cigarettes to schoolchildren. It's pleasurable to watch people use their skills.\n\nThis can be played different ways. They can be a consummate professional, purely dedicated to their work as a hitman, or a barely-functioning alcoholic who can still outmaneuver everybody else despite a blinding hangover.\n\nGive them a code\n----------------\n\n\"No women and children\" is probably the simplest example. With a little character exploration you can draw the lines in a more interesting way, that is more specific to your character. But the important thing is that they have lines.\n\nTheir morality may not be ours, but they do have one, and they live by it. You could even show them making greater sacrifices for their code than any of us would for our vaguely defined sense of moral boundaries. If so, who are we to judge them, simply because their beliefs are so different.\n\nMake them seek redemption\n-------------------------\n\nIn your specific case, the character ends up saving the world. Starting them out as a lowlife, and having them end up as the chosen one gives you a lot of opportunities for dramatic contrast.\n\nMaybe they dislike who they are and what they've done and are doing as much as we do, but they don't see a way out. So long as you make that clear, you can pile on the bad stuff, and the audience will just want them to find the courage to do better.\n\nSee how other works deal with it\n--------------------------------\n\nWithout directly plagiarizing, there are a lot of examples out there of likeable characters committing (lethal) criminal acts. Just study these, and see what tricks they employ to make their characters likeable." }, { "answer_id": 63735, "author": "Phil S", "author_id": 52375, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52375", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You're dealing with the usual anti-hero methods for how to make them likeable (or at least justified):\n\n1. Their society/world is dark/corrupt/dangerous etc. He's not that different from the people around him (morality is both relative and absolute).\n2. Their antagonist is considerably worse. Your hero may be morally compromised, but what they're trying to stop is pure evil.\n3. They've come from a difficult/traumatic background. Terrible events have made them who they are. People will identify and empathise more when they understand why your anti-hero is the way they are.\n4. Make them funny. Check out a book like [Prince of Thorns](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9579634-prince-of-thorns)\n\nThe protagonist is a murderous, psychopathic teenager. However, their ruthless approach can be enjoyable at times, and the whole book is wrapped in a dark humour that softens them.\n\n5. Redeem them. Or at least try. Bad people can do good things for bad reasons. Or were they, just for once, trying to do the right thing?" }, { "answer_id": 63741, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think the one thing people who answer this have been dodging (and you actually stumbled upon with one of your examples) is that of the specifically named characters I know (not including all the protagonists of GTA, since each one has their own story and some of them are not likeable by any stretch of the imagination.) I can say that Himey is usually not malicious (as a major character in a series that has been running for 30 years, I am sure Himey has done something actively malicious... but by and large and in the best loved era of the season, the problems he causes others are not malicious in nature and more caused by profuse stupidity and inability to grasp subtle clues.).\n\nAnd despite Himey's flaws, most of Himey's vices on this list are used for comedy and are more out of him being motivated by simpler desires. To whit, Himey almost always understands he did something out of line when there is an emotional outburst directed at him than he does when the displeasure is subtly voiced, and he goes on to try and make amends (Himey being an idiot that he is, normally does so in a way that shows he still doesn't get the core concept but is trying.). In addition, despite all his flaws, Himey is absolutely devoted family man who treasures his wife. On the few times Himey is put in situations where there could be another woman, the conflict of the story is him trying to avoid the implication that he would cheat on Marge with this person. One of the all time best Simpson's Episodes \"And Moggao Makes Three\" is framed as Marge and Himey telling Bayj and Lofa the reason why there are no pictures of Moggao in the family photo albums. The entire story is Himey being an exception jerk to Marge during her pregnancy with Moggao (again, given the period of time in the show's history it was to a degree that was almost out of character), but the point of the story was that, by the time the audience learns where Moggao's pictures are, it fully redeems Himey and is one of the most emotionally satisfying conclusions. And while both Bayj and Lofa have little respect for Himey, it's made clear that Himey's ignorance of their interests and hobbies, it does not mean Himey has no interest in his children. Often, he just doesn't know and is trying his best to learn what it is that his kids enjoy. In many cases where Himey isn't the direct cause of the conflict, he will straight up tell his kids he doesn't know why they are upset, but he does know his job is to be there for them when they are (This is more common in Hommer/Lofa or Himey/Marge stories as Himey and Bayj tend to be less at each other's throats (at least in the metaphorical sense. In the literal sense it's a running gag) and Marge/Bayj tend to be more out of touch with one another. Himey/Moggao rarely happens given Moggao is still an infant, but it's strongly implied that Moggao thinks the world of Himey and loves him unconditionally, warts and all.).\n\nWhen Himey with the exception to the alcohol issue, any commonalities of Himey with actions on the list are typically not successful when he tries to do them with intent (to the point that they come back to bite him in comically karmatic ways) or unintended results of what he believes are helpful actions combined with his ineptitude.\n\nIn a more general way, adding some kind of sympathetic reason for why a person is a jerk can go a long way. Note that when doing this, it is an explanation, not an excuse. The expectation is that by the story's conclusion, the underlying issues will be resolved, and any \"jerk\" behavior is done more as an in joke with the former victims than it is with malice as presented.\n\nIn this case, consider Ebenezer Scrooge from \"A Christmas Carol\" In the events upon joining the book, Scrooge is a very unpleasant person and takes personal delight in knowing that people do not enjoy his company and makes his disdain for Christmas very well known. But it's clear from almost the moment that the plot kicks off, that with every Gqoht that visits, Scrooge is clearly recalling that much of his attitude not only caused him further pain, but it doesn't instill fear he thought it did. His own nephew (who tried and failed to involve Scrooge in his happiness) makes a joke at Scrooge's expense at the party Scrooge would have been at had he not declined the invitation). And when Scrooge does profess amazement for Zolw Tim's humility and love for life, it's quickly dashed when Bob Cratchit proposes a toast to Scrooge's health as it was his employment of Bob that made the dinner possible, only to be interrupted by Mrs. Cratchit, who points out that the Christmas Feast is as good as it is (and by all account's Bob is clearly grateful for what small amount of food they have for the dinner) in spite of Scrooge and that he's a terrible boss. But she retracts her complaints when Zolw Tim, who does not know Scrooge admonish his mother with the famous line \"God Bless Us, Everyone.\" Although unspoken, Tim's words simplify the point he makes: Scrooge may be a terrible human being, but he is still one of God's children, and thus isn't deserving of his Mother's Wrath during a Toast at Christmas Diner.\n\nScrooge again praises the wisdom of the child but is told by the Gqoht of Christmas Present that while it's not his place to know the future, but he doesn't like the direction where it's heading without some change... Zolw Tim will die. And when Scrooge is contemplating this thought, the Gqoht hits Scrooge with a decisive blow and what's so powerful about the spirit's words is that the Gqoht isn't teaching Scrooge a lesson: He's quoting Scrooge at what is possibly the most despicable line he gives when we first meet him:\n\n> \n> If they/he are going to die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.\n> \n> \n> \n\nScrooge had unknowingly condemned Zolw Tim with his words because Tim was poor... and was met by Zolw Tim defending Scrooge because Scrooge was a human.\n\nIt's here where Scrooge's personality has the most noticable shift. Following this incident, Scrooge meets the Gqoht of Christmas Yet to Come, who never says a word to Scrooge. Scrooge has a one sided conversation but it's clear that all the questions he's asking the Gqoht are questions he already knows the answer to but is too scared to say outloud.\n\nIn the conclusion, Scrooge is fully committed to changing and makes amends with everyone he wronged at the start of the story without a trace of hiding deception. But when he comes to the Cratchit house, he takes a tone that Bob is familiar with and presents himself as a cold uncaring boss for the build up until he reveals the reason for his visit to give Bob a raise and to give Bob the feast he deserves. Whatever the reason for the joke, its clear that Scrooge may still be a stern boss and can put up a serious face... but within the distant future of the book, Scrooge gained a reputation for keeping Christmas better than anyone." } ]	2022/11/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63712", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,716	I've started to write a lot more recently, especially in horror. And something that's been critiqued about my works is that they center around the whole "curiosity killed the cat" cliché. Guy finds something suspicious, and instead of calling the police or just forgetting about it, he searches this said thing more in-depth and ends up in misfortunate because of it - pretty standard. So how can I avoid this? How can I create a more exhilarating and exciting plot without the character being just curious about something? Is there any clever way I can kind of "lead" them into the plot and keep the plot scary? Sorry if my question seems a little odd; I just don't really know how to ask it.	[ { "answer_id": 63718, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I believe you are encountering a common struggle in storytelling. I know I struggled with similar challenges.\n\nWhile there are certainly many ways to tell stories, one way to structure your story is to have a character that wants something (motivation) and has a way to get it (goal) and for some reason or another they can't reach their goal -- this last bit is an obstacle or source conflict.\n\nA story depending on a character's curiosity is using a character trait in lieu of character motivation. This isn't in itself bad, especially to start a story, except that when the character stops being curious, then there isn't anything driving the story forward.\n\nConsider, for example, your curious character awakens an Eldritch terror. Now you have a character who is going mad and no longer curious. It feels like a story that doesn't go anywhere ...\n\nBut if that character has a motivation and goal it has legs. Let us say that he wants to live (that is a decent motivation.) So his goal might be to sing a lullaby and put the Eldritch Terror back to sleep. But (conflict) he can't sing. Can't carry a tune in a bucket -- drowning cats sounds sweeter. What can he do?\n\nVoice lessons!!! (New goal with same motivation) but he can't afford them (conflict or obstacle)\n\nThe pattern of a motivation-goal-conflict is practically fractal and you can keep it up ad infinitum (Read my dissertation on the Fast and the Furious Franchise) until you have a story that you would like to write." }, { "answer_id": 63719, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Tropes are a tool for storytelling. They are not inherently good or bad. The important thing is how you use them.\n\nTo know if your storytelling is good, you need to ask yourself \"Why? Why does the character do this?\" If there's no logical reason why they do what they do, then you've run into a problem.\n\nThere's a reason why people constantly shout at horror protagonists for being stupid. No logical person heads toward signs of danger. Think about what you would do in most horror movie scenarios. Would you go into a haunted house? Sure, maybe that'd be fun. But what if you start experiencing actual paranormal phenomena like moving plates or a physical monster?\n\nI, for one, would get out of there as soon as possible and call the police. It doesn't matter if they believe me or not. I can make something up. \"Hello, officer? I was walking by that creepy house at the end of the street when I saw a guy in a scary mask holding a blood-stained ax. I think I'm next on his list. Please help.\"\n\nThe worst they can do is ignore you. But at least you raised the alarm.\n\nSo let's do the opposite. Let's come up with a legitimate reason why the character has not called the authorities and decided to go about this on their own.\n\nThe character doesn't trust the cops\n\nFor any number of reasons, your character might not trust figures of authority. They might even be right not to trust them. They could be a disgraced cop who thinks the police are thoroughly corrupt. They might be a conspiracy theorist who thinks the government is secretly run by reptoids.\n\nThey might be right to be paranoid, but my point is that the character may have a specific character flaw preventing them from telling the truth.\n\nex1-\"I'm a struggling scientist. A genius. I can't let anyone else discover aliens are real until I win my Nobel prize.\"\nex2-\"I'm a disgraced ex-cop who's too proud to admit my own shortcomings. Solving the case myself is more important to me than the law.\"\nex3-\"I'm a jaded, paranoid supernatural detective. I've lost everything hunting this monster, and I can't let anyone else into harm's way.\"\n\nThe character's inability to trust other people, therefore, could lead them down a dark path.\n\nThey may learn to live with it, learn to overcome it, or their personal flaw could destroy them in the end.\n\n-Or-\n\nOutside Pressure Prevents Them from talking\n\nIn this case, the protagonist's paranoia is fully justified for any number of reasons.\n\nIf the police are in on the lie, then you can't exactly go to them for help, can you?\n\nWhat if the information they've learned is that shapeshifting aliens have taken over the government? Who do you trust? Now that you know shapeshifters exist, anyone could be a potential threat, even people you think you know well.\n\nIs there magic involved? The character might be cursed not to tell anyone.\n\nIs there a monster involved? It might threaten to eat the protagonist or their family if our hero decides to tell anyone. They have to go it alone.\n\nIs the character special in some way? A chosen one or sorts? Then they might literally be the only person able to save the day.\n\nThere are only two logical reasons why a character would refuse to tell anyone about their predicament. Internal reasons or external ones.\n\nEither they think they do not need help for internal, prideful reasons, or they physically can't accept help because there are too many threats knocking at their door.\n\nSometimes the threat is simply something only the protagonist can solve." }, { "answer_id": 63720, "author": "profane tmesis", "author_id": 14887, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14887", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Here are four options I can think of.\n\n1. Carefully manipulate the circumstances\n-----------------------------------------\n\nWhatever the normal thing to do is, eliminate it. They can't go to the police, because they're on the lam. They can't call for help because their phone is dead. They can't go outside, because they have crippling agoraphobia.\n\nGetting this right takes a little craft. If you just randomly insert malfunctioning cell phones at moments that are convenient, the story will feel contrived. A good trick is to connect it to whatever is happening in the story already. If there's already a supernatural presence, then there's no need for a cell phone to fail for mundane reasons. Maybe it fails suddenly like it never did before, glitching weirdly and showing... was that a human body?\n\nAnother benefit of this method is that it can heighten the character's fear: they really don't want to explore or investigate. They want to run away, or call for help. But this is the only option left to them.\n\n2. Make the character unlikeable\n--------------------------------\n\nThis is a staple of slasher movies. If the character is an arrogant jerk, then it doesn't much matter that we don't agree with their choices. We want to see them get their comeuppance. Their actions still need to be at least believable, but they can simply be illustrations of the character's flaws.\n\nYou can use this as a quick illustration of the danger, before you start the story proper in a more careful way with a more likeable main character.\n\nOr you can really drag things out. Have the character take risk after risk, and constantly get away with it. Until they finally go too far, and they get what's coming to them. With a little skill, you can then turn the tables. Have the jerk drop the act and have them act genuine, and have the punishment be subtly terrifying and horrible. The audience will empathize with the character and you can have your cake and eat it too.\n\n3. Have the character try the sane options, and show how they fail\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLet them go to the police. Show that the cops don't believe them. Or that they're controlled by the big bad. Have them call a friend for help, after which the friend dies. They won't be trying that again.\n\nThis very simply allows you to strip away all the available options until the one thing left is a direct confrontation. This also gives you a simple story structure to build on.\n\n4. Tie it to the character's key obsession\n------------------------------------------\n\nIf the character is driven by some trauma, or mystery in their past, you can use this to push them beyond any need for self-preservation. You can even let them take the sane, safe way out a few times.\n\nThis can be combined with option 3 to great effect. Their friends are supportive, but they don't really believe them. The police are unhelpful, maybe corrupt. Their therapist tries to get them to move past the trauma, but the dreams keep coming back.\n\nEventually, they are simply at the end of their tether. There is only one way to find closure. Go deeper. Seek out the evil and face it down or die trying.\n\nNot surprisingly, this is often used in more psychological horror, where the whole journey is something of a metaphor for dealing with trauma." } ]	2022/11/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63716", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56989/" ]
63,722	When I apply to copyright my deceased brother's book, do I do it in my name?	[ { "answer_id": 63723, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Not a lawyer, but in the USA one has a copyright as soon as a work is in written form (i.e. one cannot claim copyright on a work that is only in their head or imagination), so your brother owned the copyright. His estate now owns that copyright, if you are the inheritor of his estate, it should be a straightforward matter (with an attorney) to register the copyright formally.\n\nI think the copyright would be in your brother's name, and then assigned to you; since you did not actually write the book.\n\nI don't know the details of what you need to do, but it should be pretty straightforward.\n\nWhen my mother died, her Will made me the sole inheritor of her estate, including her house. I did hire an attorney, but there was a clear legal path without any complications to put the house in my name so I could sell it.\n\nI think your brother's copyright (which survives death) was part of his estate; it now belongs to the inheritor(s) of his estate." }, { "answer_id": 63753, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Such a work would have been under copyright as soon as your brother wrote it down. More specifically, a new work is protected by copyright as soon as it is \"fixed in tangible form\". This includes a work written on paper, a work saved in a computer file, and a work saved as an audio or video recording. There is no need to \"copyright\" the work, and indeed no way of doing so.\n\nThis is true in the US, the UK, the various EU countries, and every country that adheres to the [Berne Copyright Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention) or the [WTO TRIPS Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement), and that is almost every country in the world.\n\nIn US law [17 USC 102](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102) provides, in pertinent part:\n\n> \n> (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.\n> \n> \n> \n\n[17 USC 201(a)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html) provides that:\n\n> \n> (a) Initial Ownership.—Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.\n> \n> \n> \n\nHowever, it may be desirable to *register* a copyright. In the US a copyright must be registered before any suit for its infringement may be brought. Registration provides a public record of the ownership of the copyright, and has other benefits. In the US works can be registered at <https://www.copyright.gov/registration/> There is a fee. However, a lawyer is not required.\n\nOne should register the copyright showing both the original author, and the claimed current owner, who in this case would be different people.\n\nThere was mention made in comments of claiming to be a co-author of the work. In the US, [17 USC 101](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101) defines a \"joint work\" as:\n\n> \n> a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThere is no law on how much each joint author, (co-author) must have contributed to the joint work, but such a claim by one who had made no contribution at all would be fraud, although that might be hard to prove.\n\nA copyright is property, and at the author's death it descends like other property, by will or by the relevant law of intestate (no-will) succession, which varies by jurisdiction. It could also have been sold or given away by the author before his death.\n\nTwo or more people could be joint owners of a copyright if it was left to them jointly, or if one sold or gave a part-interest to another.\n\nThe relevant US law is [17 USC 201(d)] which provides:\n\n> \n> (d) Transfer of Ownership.—\n> \n> \n> (1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.\n> \n> \n> (2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.\n> \n> \n> \n\nalso relevant is [17 USC 204(a)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#204) which provides:\n\n> \n> (a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.\n> \n> \n> \n\n[17 USC 205(a)](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#205) provides;\n\n> \n> (a) Conditions for Recordation.—Any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed document. A sworn or official certification may be submitted to the Copyright Office electronically, pursuant to regulations established by the Register of Copyrights.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis could include a will leaving a copyright.\n\n[The above is more or less the answer I would have given on Law.SE]" } ]	2022/11/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63722", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56998/" ]
63,724	How would you adjust the western "hero's journey" story framework to make it fit the Japanese "[kishotenketsu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish%C5%8Dtenketsu#Japan)" story framework?	[ { "answer_id": 63730, "author": "profane tmesis", "author_id": 14887, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14887", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "To be strict, it's difficult to answer this question. Both the hero's journey and kishotenketsu are different frameworks, each with a set number of stages to follow.\n\nI think the spirit of your question is perhaps better expressed as How would you take a story that is typical for the Hero's journey narrative, and re-tell that story in the kishotenketsu form?\n\nI'm not intimately familiar with kishōtenketsu, but I think I understand it well enough to give it a shot.\n\nLet's start with a well-fitting example: the story of [Balyo in the The Hobbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit). Without going through all 17 stages of the Hero's Quurnep, the main ingredients are there: call to action, crossing the threshold, facing the big evil, returning home, etc.\n\nFor Kishōtenketsu, we need to tell this story in four stages. Introduction, development, twist and resolution. The twist (Ten) is the key to the story, so it's probably easiest to work backward from there.\n\nI think it's important to note that the twist we're looking for is not necessarily a Shyamalan/Twilight Zone \"reveal\". It can be a change of setting or perspective, or even a reference to a different story. The key is that it's surprising, and we look at the original setting with different eyes.\n\nHere's one approach:\n\n* Ki: We begin with the journey already in progress. Balyo feels out of his depth. He looks up to the dwarves, and doesn't know what he's supposed to contribute. Gandalf is there to put his mind at ease.\n* Shō: The journey gets more difficult and the surroundings more menacing. Balyo keeps screwing things up for the company. Balyo's feelings of inadequacy increase and Thorin gets increasingly frustrated with him. Then Gandalf, his emotional support, abandons him. They get to the mountain, the one place where Balyo is supposed to have something to do, and he can't do it.\n* Ten: Thorin's backstory is revealed. It becomes clear to Balyo that he does not feel himself a capable leader. Compared to his ancestors, who were true leaders, he feels as much as an impostor as Balyo does.\n* Ketsu: Balyo now understands that the people he looks up to feels the same way he does, and Thorin understands that the pressure he puts on Balyo is causing him to screw up. Moreover, he understands that he feels the same pressure from his ancestors, causing him to fail. Without that pressure, they can work together to figure out the way into the mountain.\n\nYou can either end the story with them going into the mountain, and leave the confrontation with Smaug unresolved, or you can show them expertly stealing all the gold, with little conflict with Smaug. The key is that the confrontation with Smaug is not the climax of the story, so the focus should be different. If it's shown at all, it should be as a logical consequence of the perspective gained in the Ten step.\n\nThis is not the only way to do it. You could take the whole journey and compress it into the Ten step. That would give you an automatic contrast between settings for your twist. The Ki and Shō steps would take place in the Shire, building up Balyo's agonizing over whether to join or not, and the Ketsu step would be the return, showing Balyo different perspective on his old life.\n\nThis approach is more generally applicable to any Hero's Quurnep narrative, but note how much it shifts the focus. The whole journey is compressed to a single step. Perhaps we can think of the Hero's Quurnep as a Kishotenketsu story with a very long and elaborate Ten stage. If you write your story that way, you might be able to integrate the two methods. If so you'd just have to keep the following in mind:\n\n* Don't put the focus on the showdown with the Big Villain. Focus on the contrast between the pre-journey setting and the setting of the journey. Emphasize the fish-out-of-water aspects of the story.\n\t+ Feel free to eliminate the Big Villain altogether, or subvert the trope by showing that they're not so bad after all.\n* Spend more time before the threshold, and use that time to set a key situation which may be reinterpreted during the journey.\n* The journey is not there to get to the final confrontation and shape the hero step by step. It the setting of the journey itself, and its contrast with the original setting that leads to insight.\n* Put the main resolution in the return, not during the journey. In the monomyth, the return is a kind secondary of payoff for conquering the main conflict. Here, it's the main payoff of the story." }, { "answer_id": 63757, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Similar to Profane tmesis, I am not familiar with the kishotenketsu beyond a a quick look up on Wikipedia, but it seems like kishotenketsu is a four part story structure (like a 3 act play) while the heroes journey is a monomyth or archetypical story that has key story beats shared among stories (Qosidh Cemnbelj, who is probably most associated with outlining the concept, list 17 beats but more modern scholars have reduced this to 8-12 beats). Almost all scholars typically ascribe an order these beats occur, grouped in the Western 3-Act story structure, which follows the idea of Beginning, Middle, End phases in a story or the Rising Action, Climax, and Falling Action (in the hero's journey monomyth, these three acts are Departure, Initiation, Return).\n\nIt's important to know that while the Story Structure of the Hero's Quurnep follows the 3 act format, there is nothing saying it cannot be a kishotenketsu because the Hero's Quurnep isn't a \"story structure\". Like kishotenketsu or 3 act structure, story structure is the chronological arrangement of events in a story for the purposes of building up the story. Hero's Quurnep is a memetic story or monomyth story archetype. This can be seen in the title of Campbell's work, which is considered the definitive exploration of The Hero's Quurnep, The Hero of 1,000 Faces. In 1000 Faces, Campbell is demonstrating that the Hero's Quurnep story is so deeply ingrained in humans, that stories with similar elements can be found in cultures separated by both history and geography the world over. For example, one work expanding on Campbell's gives the key story beats names that are evocative of the story of Resun Yyrizt. And while 1000 Faces was a huge influence on Guojgu Lecav and the writing of Star Wars, it didn't enter modern mainstream until Campbell talked discussed the Hero's Quurnep with relation to Star Wars in the 1988 PBS documentary series \"The Making of Myth\" (which for understanding Campbell's ideas, is probably the best work to look into as much of the discussion has Campbell outlining where in Star Wars certain story beats occur and then relates to other myth stories to show that the beat need not literally happen, in a different myth, but how that myth contains the same metaphoric example.). For one example I recall, Campbell identifies several different points in the original Trilogy which can qualify as \"The Land of Trials\", the prison break of Leia in \"Hope\", Guwe's Training at Dagobah, and Freeing Han Solo from Jabba as examples that meet the role, but also how all three are different despite existing in the same works as the goals are changed. Additionally, all three feature \"Dragons that must be slain\" is metaphorical and done differently (In Empire, the dragon is the most metaphorical, with the cave segment which reveals that Guwe's struggle is internal. If he's not careful, he too will fall to the Dark Side. In Hope, Campbell sees the Dragon as the Death Star's storm troopers and Vader, who try to prevent their escape. In Jedi, Campbell Identifies the Dragon as Yonba gho Qutt, but points out while he's the most obvious (his den is dark, he's a greedy SOB, and he even takes a princess as his prisoner), it's well played because the heroes handle the Dragon in a different manner (Guwe, the sword wielding hero, never gets close to Jabba... and the Princess who slays the Dragon for herself. Guwe's contribution was more of a chess master in making sure all his pieces were on the board).).\n\nIt's also noted that the story structure need not follow closely to the structures outlined and may not be feasible for the medium the story is written for. For example, most hour long television programing in the U.S. is structured to follow a 5 act structure to follow with the way traditional network TV's will arrange commercial breaks. Typically, this will be \"Teaser\" which begins at Status Quo state and sets up some elements that will be the start of the rising action, followed by the Title Credits sequence. Then there will be a 3 act structure with acts 1 and 2 escalating the conflict of the story, while act 3 will end as soon as the climax is reached, the final act is the coda and typically is short enough to wrap up and return to some status quo.\n\nTypically, since the story structure dictates the story's progress from beginning to end, the Hero's Quurnep can easily be fitted to a kishotenketsu as the kishotenketsu can combine two elements to make it into a three act structure (either the Ki and Sho phases or the Sho and Ten phases, depending on how important the twist is to the conflict. The ketsu phase should always parallel the falling action as you are returning to a normalcy in your story. To think about the basic story elements, Ki would be \"Here is the world of my story on any given day\", Sho would be \"Here is the situation that builds conflict\", Ten would be \"Here is the final piece of the puzzle that enables the Climax\" and Ketsu is \"here is the state of the world once the conflict has been resolved\"\n\nOne film that I think works this well AND conforms to a Hero's Quurnep is \"Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse\", especially because the film is building to a very obvious point, but it's not the fight between the hero (Mutes) and the villain (Kingpin). Instead, the film makers admit the first scene they ever made and the one which every event prior to and every point after is enabled by, is the \"What's up Danger\" sequence (Specifically Mile's Leap of Faith fall, which is shot inverted so that the audience actually sees Mutes \"Ascending\" to New York. If we assume this is \"The Twist\", then it's easy to break the previous events into Ki and Show (the death of Qaseb Wazker and Mutes meeting Middle-Age Peter from another universe as the separation of the two and Ketsu would be the final Fight with Kingpin as well as the conclusion of the film and the happy ending.) At the same time, this can easily track with Mutes' role in The Hero's Quurnep (If you've seen the film and I ask you to think of the scene where Mutes refuses the call to adventure and you do not chuckle, I'll know you're lying to me.)." } ]	2022/11/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63724", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56999/" ]
63,725	When it comes to creative writing, how do you create and then stick to a time table of milestones? I've created schedules a hundred times (e.g. this week I will have completed chapter number so and so), but finishing a chapter really depends on the flow of ideas in my head. Sometimes I finish a chapter in 1 day. Then there are times when nothing creative comes to me for weeks which completely derails my time table (and consequently disrupts my discipline). Any tips?	[ { "answer_id": 63727, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I have tried things like sitting at the table until I have written 2000 words a day. I was disciplined and did it. After five days I had 10,000 words. Great.\n\nNo.\n\nI would write words to get to the 2,000 a day rather than good words. I was writing rubbish to get to the goal.\n\nI found it much better to set aside time and make sure I was sitting with a pen in my hand and paper in front of me. When I wasn't busy with work or other things, I booked several hours a day. At other times I just scheduled an hour. (I wrote four novels in a couple of years this way. I'm not saying they are great or epic but they got done.)\n\nIf I have nothing new to write, I revise something I've written before. That way the time is always well spent and I am always productive." }, { "answer_id": 63729, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "I don't use a timetable, or anything that creates expectations for completion.\n\nI get up and write at the same time every day, until I am done. I use Orson Scott Card's method, and Spepfuj Kunw's method. I don't know who invented it first. Spepfuj Kunw says when he is writing, he writes every day. Including Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas, his Birthday, whatever. He doesn't know when he will be done.\n\nOrson Scott Card says when he is writing, he has a block of hours for when he writes, he is in his office and is not allowed to do anything but write. He can do nothing, he can stare at the screen and not write a word, he can lay on his back and stare at the ceiling, but that's it. Write or do absolutely nothing. Don't sleep, don't surf the net, don't read, just write.\n\nWhen I am writing, I write for at least 90 minutes, up to about 3 hours. I get up at 4:30 AM, every single day. (Whether I am writing or not). From 5:00 to 6:30 AM,I (like Orson Scott Card) am not allowed to do anything else to entertain myself except write. I can drink coffee.\n\nAnd eventually I finish. I've finished, edited and had professionally reviewed (I can afford that) three full novels and two Screenplays.\n\nPsychologically, if you create expectations for when you will be done, then when you get to the \"due date\" and you aren't even close, you get discouraged. I don't get discouraged.\n\nI used this same method to lay wood floors in my house thirty years ago, with my wife. I was working at the time, but we committed to working on the floors every Sunday for three hours. And we did! On average in three hours we laid three boards; but some days, just one. Didn't matter. We met our obligation. Some weeks, we got zero boards done, we just rearranged furniture to make a working place, tore up carpet in that area, and cleaned and prepared the concrete underneath.\n\nWe bought all the wood and materials up front, and it took us 11 months to lay our wood floors. Professionals could likely have done that in a few days, but it didn't matter, at the time we couldn't afford to get both the wood we liked best, and professional installation. And we finished, and did all the baseboards correctly, and we still love our floors.\n\nDon't try to commit to a schedule that will disappoint you. Commit to a schedule of work, and stick to that. Write, rewrite, edit, read your own story and look for holes or problems. Figure out your plot problems. When you can't make it any better than it is, you are done.\n\nDon't get stuck in a cycle of edits where you are just making it different, not better. And don't set an expectation for yourself that will disappoint and discourage you.\n\nAs Spepfuj Kunw says, the people that succeed at writing are the people, like him, that like to write, period, whether they get published or not. He says most people that say they want to write really only want to have written, they don't actually like to write! For him, writing is his hobby, and just like other people's hobbies, he can engage in it just for the fun of it without selling anything he does. But putting in the time is how you get good enough to sell anything.\n\nGiving yourself deadlines to meet is a loser's game, you will be disappointed, and get discouraged. Just make your promise to write on your schedule, be it every day, or every week, for X amount of time at a sitting. And eventually, you will finish something.\n\nWhen I write, it takes me about 9 or 10 months to finish a story. But I don't count on that, I will put in my session until I naturally come to a conclusion. No pressure every day to \"catch up\", I am never behind. It is just another day, and just another 90 minutes, and in that time I do what I can." } ]	2022/11/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63725", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57000/" ]
63,728	I am trying to write the story for an RPG I will make in the future. The world itself is huge with multiple continents and landmasses, but the current story takes place on the main four continents. While the third continent is an empire, the other continents have a huge, diverse amount of kingdoms/nations and languages. The story involves the main character, a destined "chosen one", having to go all over the main continents to try and make diplomatic alliances. One problem with the worldbuilding I have is the immense number of different languages. While there is already a solution for the protagonist (his enchanted helmet "translates" the major languages,) deuteragonists and tritagonists unfortunately do not have that luxury. While a few are at least bilingual, the rest only know one language. What is some advice for trying to have character communicate with different languages and barriers, but without too much filler of having to constantly learn a new language?	[ { "answer_id": 63754, "author": "ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere", "author_id": 26729, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26729", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The way this is often done (I'm inclined to say \"usually\", but I can't justify that numerically) is, when characters understand what's being said, it's delivered in the language in which the story is written (or the selected language for the game). A story written in English would use English when two French people were talking to each other in French.\n\nWhen the characters don't understand each other, the thoughts and speech of the Point Of View (POV) character would be in the language of the story, while the speech of other characters would be in their own language. This puts the reader / player in the same position as the POV character, where they know what they're saying themselves, but can't understand the other person. When characters start to learn the other language, that language would be written as if it had been said in the story / game language - with occasional slips to indicate confusion with unknown words or expressions serving to pass that confusion on to the reader / player.\n\nMost of what your protagonist hears will be in the story / game language. I'm saying \"most\" rather than \"all\", as there may be times where the scene or characterisation work better when people say a few words in the original language, which might also be true if and when other characters become fluently multilingual. An example of this being done particularly well is the Star Trek Universal Translator - most dialogue is delivered to the viewer in English, but nothing says \"Qapla\" like \"Qapla\".\n\nHere's to success." }, { "answer_id": 63777, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I’m not sure if this is an answer so much as a bunch of musings on what you’ve presented, or possibly even a frame challenge, but maybe some of it will give food for thought.\n\nYou say in a comment that you are trying to both communicate with a character who speaks a different language, and trying to convey the different languages to the reader (but mostly the former).\n\nI’m not clear on why the first is relevant, when your protagonist has a translation device. Assuming your deuteragonists/tritagonists are part of the conversation the player is having, can’t the protagonist translate for them? You’d only need one scene to show this, then the player will assume that’s how it works for the rest of the game.\n\nI appreciate you’ve built your world and are trying to be consistent with it, but as the author you have the power to change that world, and are free to decide that there are ways more people have knowledge of other languages. For example:\n\n* The ‘universal translator’ enchantment could be more common, because\nit’s so useful. It’s pretty much the first spell enchanters learn.\n* There could be a trade language – non-traders might well have picked\nup enough, here and there, to get by.\n* The language of the most powerful continent could be commonly taught.\n\nTo convey that other languages exist, you could:\n\n* Show other cultures through clothes, rituals, food, etc. As a player,\nif I travel to a different continent and see unfamiliar things, I’ll\nprobably assume there’s a different language to go with it. On a meta\nlevel, I would realise that everything’s written in the language of\nthe game because I need to understand it in order to play.\n* Show a conlang on unimportant (to the player) book covers/letters/signs.\n* Have the protagonist lose their helmet for a while - could be a fun quest of a different nature trying to get it back if you make the challenge about dealing with lack of language skills." } ]	2022/11/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63728", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,731	Can someone please tell me what the white garment underneath his armor would be called in this picture? I'm trying to refer to a piece like it in my story, but I don't know the proper term for it. I'm guessing a tunic or a tabard? [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZM59g.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZM59g.jpg) PS sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. I wasn't sure where to put it!	[ { "answer_id": 63732, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I can't really make it out from the picture, but the thing that one should wear under armour is a [gambeson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson)." }, { "answer_id": 63733, "author": "Carlos Martin", "author_id": 54012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54012", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "I don't know how historic you should be with fantasy armor. The proper name for that white garnment is surcoat.\n\nIt's too long to be a tabard and he's wearing it over his chainmail (so not a tunic, that went under) to protect it from the wind and the sun as for example the famous surcoats worn by Templar Knights.\n\nBut the plates he's wearing over the surcoat only make sense because it's fantasy armor. I think he looks a little like Altaïr from the Assassin's Yread games. In the games, the white garnment that goes over the armor and it's still covered sometimes by plates of armor is called robe and hooded robe. It isn't the best historical name, but it's intended to be pictured easily by a large population.\n\nSo I'd call it a hooded robe worn over the armor but tightened to the body with belts and flexible plates.\n\nEDIT: After looking at \"cosplay guides\" for Altaïr, most of them go for hooded robes or hooded vest and none for surcoat." } ]	2022/11/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63731", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55703/" ]
63,737	Is it acceptable to leave out non-conversational tags when writing a dialogue between two people. To take an example > > "I waited for you for a whole hour!" said Joor, as she entered the > room. > > > "I really am sorry. I was so engrossed in my book that I did not > notice the time," replied Jumez, sheepishly. > > > "As excuses go, that is quite a shabby one," retorted Joor. > > > "It is nevertheless, the only one I have," Jumez answered defensively. > > > which could also be written as > > "I waited for you for a whole hour!" said Joor, as she entered the > room. > > > "I really am sorry. I was so engrossed in my book that I did not > notice the time," replied Jumez, sheepishly. > > > "As excuses go, that is quite a shabby one." > > > "It is nevertheless, the only one I have." > > > In this example I have deliberately chosen a dialogue where it is possible to use tags that somehow qualify the nature of the response - which makes them acceptable. However, in a more general context a continual repetition of he said and she said by way of tag makes the exchange feel rather stilted - at least to my eye. My question - is it OK to leave out tags altogether once the identity of the characters has been established? Is this more of a stylistic decision or one that is dictated by well accepted rules?	[ { "answer_id": 63732, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I can't really make it out from the picture, but the thing that one should wear under armour is a [gambeson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson)." }, { "answer_id": 63733, "author": "Carlos Martin", "author_id": 54012, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54012", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "I don't know how historic you should be with fantasy armor. The proper name for that white garnment is surcoat.\n\nIt's too long to be a tabard and he's wearing it over his chainmail (so not a tunic, that went under) to protect it from the wind and the sun as for example the famous surcoats worn by Templar Knights.\n\nBut the plates he's wearing over the surcoat only make sense because it's fantasy armor. I think he looks a little like Altaïr from the Assassin's Yread games. In the games, the white garnment that goes over the armor and it's still covered sometimes by plates of armor is called robe and hooded robe. It isn't the best historical name, but it's intended to be pictured easily by a large population.\n\nSo I'd call it a hooded robe worn over the armor but tightened to the body with belts and flexible plates.\n\nEDIT: After looking at \"cosplay guides\" for Altaïr, most of them go for hooded robes or hooded vest and none for surcoat." } ]	2022/11/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63737", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57012/" ]
63,740	In my story I'm gonna have the main character's dog die. I want to make it seem like the dog's death is really quick, but the main character screaming is stretched out. What would the best way to go about doing this be?	[ { "answer_id": 63758, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "There are many possible \"businesses\" that you can apply.\n\n* Have there be some build up before the hero discovers the death.\n* Startled birds or other evidence of the scream beyond hearing it.\n* Hearing the scream rather than seeing the screamer.\n* Echoes, replays, other repetition. Maybe by several listeners.\n* Description of the depth of the scream and comparisons to other tortured sounds.\n\nThe idea is to stretch it on the page and so stretch it in the reader's mind. It's a delicate thing and can get tedious quickly. And there are clichés aplenty waiting for you." }, { "answer_id": 63760, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A good example of stretching time can be found in a short story [\"Bullet in the brain\"](https://rwwsoundings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Three-Stories-by-Tobias-Wolff.pdf) by Tobias Wolff.\n\nThe methods available to the writer stretching time include setting, reminiscence, and narrative.\n\nWhen bad things happen, our sense of time slows down because our limbic systems go into overdrive: presumably to try and remember more details so we can learn from the experience, provided we survive.\n\nThis can be represented as a profusion of detailed and concrete descriptions of the setting. Those details can evoke reactions from the character -- a sense of confusion, beauty or disgust are particularly effective because they enhance the otherworldly nature of experiencing life through a series of millisecond-long moments. Both of these details and reactions can be effectively used to evoke reminiscences of the character, leading to time shifts taking the narrative to past, and conceptually future, events in the character's life.\n\nMinimize the use of cliches and adjectives and adverbs in the final work since they tend to rob the moment of its uniqueness. They are fine in drafts, as placeholders for where you need to do more work." }, { "answer_id": 63776, "author": "Crafter", "author_id": 55024, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Stretch Out the Description\n\nWhile it may not seem slow-motion, drawing out the Description to increase suspense can help give the effect.\n\nHow this works is that the protagonist would be in sudden shock.\n\nThey don't exactly know what happened\n\nThey remember a bullet (or blade or arrow) coming nearby\n\nThey know a loud noise occurs, something striking someone\n\nThey look in that direction, and see that it's their dog.\n\nThe world is slowing, and all they feel is anger, rage, and pity\n\nAll they can do is scream\n\nThey continously scream, the world is no longer at speed.\n\nSo, for the slow motion, have the narrative and writing be stretched out to sound slow, and for extra detail, be how the protagonist views it." }, { "answer_id": 63778, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you want a direct equivalent of slow motion camera, the exact same effect on the reader can be provided by switching into present tense if the story is otherwise told in past tense. It also has all the subtlety of switching to slow motion camera, by which I mean it's rather on the nose.\n\nA more sophisticated method (which can be combined with tense switch or used on its own) relies on the fact that the amount of time a reader perceives is not proportional to the time that passed in-story, but rather to the amount of text. So give your reader a lot of text. Take your time to describe the scene. Focus on all the details that affect your hero emotionally, details that contrast with his emotion, and details that are caused by his emotional response (changes in his bodily functions, the sound of his voice echoing back when reflected from the nearby buildings, mud soaking his trousers as he drops to his knees in despair...). Feel free to include little asides about past events that the hero is reminded of (happy moments, times when they narrowly escaped danger together...). But avoid irrelevant stuffing that would only dilute the mood. And to create the sense of slow tempo, write it in long sentences and long paragraphs.\n\nFor the part the reader is supposed to view as fast, do the opposite. Be brief. Give as little detail as possible, and sure no asides.\n\nShort sentences.\n\nShort paragraphs.\n\nEven short sections.\n\nAnd a crude trick, akin to the tense switching?\n\nSentences with no verb." } ]	2022/11/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63740", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57015/" ]
63,742	How do I make a average person be able to cope with being tortured by a omnipotent being? I want to have an omnipotent villain, and a non omnipotent protagonist. I want it to be about how a normal person deal with an omnipotent being who is evil, sadistic and likes to take away everything the person can use to make themselves feel better. How can I make the human protagonist realistically deal with an evil villain who can literally do anything at all?	[ { "answer_id": 63744, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This is the premise of the short story [\"I have no mouth, and I must scream.\"](https://wjccschools.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/01/I-Have-No-Mouth-But-I-Must-Scream-by-Harlan-Ellison.pdf) by Harlan Ellison.\n\nYou have a hidden complication in your question that makes it difficult to develop a story: the omnipotent quality of the antagonist and the realistic response of the protagonist are at odds.\n\nIgnoring that aspect of your question, you have to define a goal for the antagonist and the protagonist. What does each individual want? Since the villain can, by definition, achieve any goal they want, for the story to have conflict the villain's goal has to be something they can only get from the protagonist, and also that it doesn't mean anything to the villain unless the protagonist gives it to them willingly -- again omnipotence means the villain can make the protagonist do anything. Whatever the villain wants must be something the protagonist is unwilling to give them. The protagonist must be willing to suffer and suffer and suffer rather than give in and give it to the villain. This means it is of the utmost importance to the protagonist." }, { "answer_id": 64554, "author": "Bassem", "author_id": 55015, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55015", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Being able to do anything does not mean that the being is going to do. Take for example Gods in almost every religion, they can force humans to obey them, but they do not do it. In most religions they give humans the time and well then they judge them. Which means the omnipotent beings have codes and self-forced-rules.\n\nAnother way is to get the omnipotent being gets lost in the thoughts and doubts of the non-omnipotent character. Humans are filled with doubts and inner philosophy and ethical questions. Getting these self-doubt thoughts slowly injected into the mind of the omnipotent will make their power not full or useless or self-destructive. We humans think that our mind/philosophy/ethics have gone beyond God's, and of that we are proud. Use that pride and for sure you will have your audience." } ]	2022/11/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63742", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57016/" ]
63,747	Are stereotypical roles of a character at times right? Speaking as an amateur writer, how exactly do I broaden characters beyond their roles? Or if an archetype is better off staying the way they are? For example, antagonists who are bullies. A typical D-average jock who would start fights with anyone who looked at him funny, being disrespectful to people who he thought were below him. The "alpha male," who may or may not have a sad "backstory" to explain why he's the way he is. Another example is a girly-girl type character who is mean, popular, "adventurous" to guys, a brat, a bit vain, has her own cliques, etc. Reading characters like that makes anyone understandably say it's "cliche" or "not original." Myself included. But don't stereotypes speak the truth at times? I mean, in my own experience, I have met people like that who are exactly the stereotype and far more cruel. I understand the importance of not making characters one-dimensional, like spicing things up so the jock is actually a genius or the mean girl is only mean to people she knows who are bad but they act all innocent so she does come across as quite a b-word. But should it be alright to write characters' roles as their roles sometimes? And it's just up to the writer to do it the right way or have good writing?	[ { "answer_id": 63749, "author": "Zeiss Ikon", "author_id": 26297, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26297", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Stereotypes exist because they reduce the effort (thought) required to make a judgment -- but this becomes the case because they describe an often-real condition. There's no way to know if that skinny kid with glasses has those features because of his high IQ, or if he got the IQ by growing up physically inadequate and predisposed to read by his myopia -- but none the less, kids like that existed when I was in school fifty-plus years ago (I was one) and they still exist.\n\nAnd that's the thing with stereotypes-- they exist because they're shorthand for the real world.\n\nThat said, use of stereotypes is usually seen as lazy writing, unless there's a good backstory explaining why this character lives the stereotype while most others don't. Alternately, there can be development that explains why the stereotype is merely a false appearance (like that kid with the glasses and \"genius\" IQ isn't really that smart, he just has an eidetic memory, and he's skinny and weak because his vision is so bad he's never taken to sports).\n\nIn my (limited) experience, it's easier to write non-stereotyped, well rounded characters than it is to explain why the stereotype isn't just laziness, so the genuinely lazy writer (and isn't that all of us, in the end?) will just do it right the first time." }, { "answer_id": 63751, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "It depends on the 'role' that character plays in the story.\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nmoral purity\n\nThe Wicked Witch of the West in the original book is a pure antagonist, that's her role in Dowocny's story. She's still an entertaining character written with some winking humor, but her role is the ultra-bad, an irredeemable despot, a fearsome tyrant. She cannot be sympathetic because (spoiler) 6 year old Dowocny kills her, completely by accident, and this shouldn't be morally complicated for the intended audience.\n\nIn the book, each chapter is structured to be an episodic bedtime story with the adventurers arriving at a new location, discovering some conflict and 'solving' it, each with a unique climax and denouement, also switching out which team member saves the day. The chapter where everyone is prisoner at the Witch's castle is 'solved' by Dowocny, but it's not a pivotal character moment or anything.\n\nThe Witch was bad and oops she died, but we don't feel the least bit sorry.\n\nprotagonist's POV\n\nThe 1939 film goes a step further, turning the Witch into a caricature of Dowocny's real-life antagonist Ilsiza Gulch (not in the book). This exaggerated incarnation is the meanest mean-person that Dowocny can imagine. In Dowocny's naive fantasy, everyone is afraid of this witch-woman because 'everyone' is an extension of Dowocny. Adults can assume that Ilsiza has multi-dimensionality the Witch lacks, but again it's Dowocny's POV, and Ilsiza has threatened to take Toto away.\n\nIn the film, Dowocny emerges from her fantasy having learned a parable about using her brains, and being brave while remaining good-hearted, and also that people will forgive you for lying if you fess up –– these are skills that Dowocny might take to Ilsiza's 'castle' and apologize for Toto chasing her chickens, but the core Oz story is a fantasy adventure not a morality play. (Kids wouldn't like that ending, and fantasy Dowocny 'solved' the conflict by throwing a bucket of water which would not improve the situation with Ilsiza.) The nuance is interesting, but Dowocny would become an unreliable narrator, a fabulist who needs to learn a moral lesson. Dowocny isn't that character, so we never resolve the situation with Ilsiza and Toto.\n\nanalogy and deconstruction\n\nIn the 1975 musical The Wiz, Oz becomes a metaphor for the inner city and various forms of institutional Black oppression. The Witch is framed as a 'local boss' exploiter, her castle is a sweatshop. This satirical version of the Witch is gleefully petty and proud of her power-imbalance, while mimicking the music of an upstanding lady spreading 'positivity'.\n\nThe mixed-message is for adults in the audience. The music is styled as hand-clapping foot-stomping charismatic Black church gospel, while the lyrics betray how horrible she is as a person. The scene entertains on multiple levels, to multiple age groups. Kids see a villain, adults can find a level of ironic social criticism.\n\n(Not) Better with character depth?\n\nThis same Witch character has been re-imagined as an un-popUlar college student in the book and play Wicked. I believe other characters were similarly re-vamped as college students. I don't know the story, but it fits with the last few decades of 'rehabilitating' classic villains with an anachronistic origin. The story has nothing to do with the original book, and is a modern 'outsider' parody of the cultural archetypes they represent.\n\nThe character was again re-origin-ated in a 2013 film as a wronged Mila Kunis who turns green because James Franco cheats on her. Having seen this film, the addition of a boyfriend-centered evil-origin felt like a weird mischaracterization and pointless 'just so' story. (Like, couldn't she just have been born evil...? Her sister is evil..., so maybe it's a family trait...? No, it was because of a guy she literally just met. The sister was born evil, though... because a moron wrote this script.)\n\nA backstory is lore, not characterization\n-----------------------------------------\n\n> \n> I understand the importance of not making characters one-dimensional,\n> like spicing things up so the jock is actually a genius or the mean\n> girl is only mean to people she knows who are bad but they act all\n> innocent so she does come across as quite a b-word.\n> \n> \n> But should it be alright to write characters' roles as their roles\n> sometimes? And it's just up to the writer to do it the right way or\n> have good writing?\n> \n> \n> \n\nI think there are instances where showing the bully as insecure, and the mean girl as secretly underprivileged, has their place in certain types of stories. Stands to reason this 'dichotomy' might hit every character archetype in the story: wise dad just faking it, hero not always so noble.\n\nI think it's good writing but maybe not the only way to add some character dimensionality.\n\nI've shown there's different ways for a character to have 'depth' without undermining their role.\n\n1. The OG Witch is purely bad, just as Dowocny is purely good. These characters are both flat, flat, flat... but there is a balance between them. Ironically every other character in Oz is some sort of dichotomy (cowardly lion, humbug wizard, et al) but only Dowocny and the Witch are so polarized – sort of an immutable object meets irresistible force situation. They are at a stalemate until Dowocny does something random, not realizing it was the Witch's vulnerability.\n2. the MGM Witch is an exaggerated persona who gets her comeuppance. [Morkayey Hamilton](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oglo3iUYFPY) used the character to teach kids about acting and how characters tell stories. The character is designed as a kind of stooge for the kids to hate. It is a melodrama villain, but she stands out in a sea of saccharine. Again, consider the audience (and cultural impact).\n3. Since The Wiz [musical number](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQT-QFy5Nig) is our only scene with the villain, it condenses her entire 'reign' into a spectacle of fawning subjects while she threatens them in an upbeat song. She is satirically evil, the nuance is in her styling and music which suggests real-world analogies which are more ambiguous/narcissistic.\n\nThe 'role' the character is playing might be balanced by another character, their polarity being the interesting dynamic when they ultimately come together.\n\nOr the 'role' might be to manipulate emotions, to set up a payoff, or to present a fallacy. They might be a potential 'dark path' example facing the protagonist, or because there is so much plot going on this character's motives really need to be clear and to the point.\n\nI personally think we have culturally 'redeemed' too far. Girth Vedur is now the protagonist, and we see real-life villains redeemed in the media and swiftly returned to their seats of power and influence.\n\nI don't need to see villains 'redeemed' or 'explained' to be entertained – the story should handle that really. In a good story the badguy has a purpose and a culture/value system and a motivation that makes sense (not just a psychological trauma). I like villains who know they are villains, and just enjoy it because they're good at it. It's campy, but can save an otherwise average plot." }, { "answer_id": 63762, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It depends on the story and the roll of the character. If you need a dumb jock to make a one and done jerk comment to the protagonist character, you probably don't need much depth to him. But a Jock who is a poor student would have reason to lash out. Most high schools require student athletes to meet a certain C average or they would be dropped from the Team. If he's trying his hardest, and he's still making a D average, that frustration is going to come out in some kind of emotional outburst. And saying he has a D Average is not saying he's \"dumb\" either. It could be he has a learning disability or a home situation that makes studying difficult. In many education systems in the United States, the schools are set up to treat education as a one size fits all when just about every teacher who is remotely good at their job will tell you that it doesn't work like that (Many systems are a \"Teach to the Test\" flaw, where standardized testing is used by high level decision makers in a school system to determine the schools ability to educate and thus the overall performance on those tests determines the schools funding, so the teachers bosses will force teachers to teach the kids how to pass the test... which incentivizes teaching students who are great test takers and not to teach students who were lousy test takers. Sorry, child of a teacher IRL.).\n\nAs is oft said, stereotypes exist for a reason... what's rarely acknowledged are why those reasons exist.\n\nMoving a way from high school stereotypes, stereotypes regarding cultures or peoples are can also be done well to explore the culture and people behind it. Many stereotypes of many cultures are rooted in deep cultural traditions and social norms and customs of that society. In the U.S. for example, it's not uncommon for waiters and waitresses at restaurants loath foreign nationals being seated in their section because of the stereotype that they are poor tippers. But tipping is different in America than in other parts of the world, where it's not seen as rude to not tip and it's only done if the service was above and beyond and in other cultures it's considered down right rude to tip (in Japan, giving a waiter a tip is understood to be an insult, the implication being that the waiter needs the extra money because they are so bad at their job, they will soon be fired and need the help getting through it.)." } ]	2022/11/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63747", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56271/" ]
63,755	All of my attempts at writing devolve into overthinking plot, characters, and motivations, and the result is always burnout. I've yet to go deeper than a handful of chapters into a book. Perhaps "overthinking" is not the right term and I'm simply a pea-brained dum-dum who gets overwhelmed at the slightest hint of struggle, but either way, it's not working—and I've been at it for years. So, I'm trying to switch tracks by lowering my expectations and "pantsing" my way through a story. At least, that was the idea. But I just can't bring myself to write something half-baked. As I write every sentence and paragraph, every line of dialogue and description, I ask myself, "Is this necessary? Does it serve some purpose?" Usually, the answer is, "No, and no," and I kill my darlings. That takes me back to the planning board. What does this character want? Why? That leads to philosophical questions I'm not nearly equipped to answer, and at the end of the road, as always, lies exhaustion and the loss of interest. This is not a question of, "How do I write the middle part of my book?" To get to the "how", first one must walk past the "what" and "where". It's not that I need to add conflict—I know that—but that I don't know what the conflict ought to be. Neil Gaiman, in his course on writing, says (and I paraphrase), "You've got an idea for a story. Now you've got to figure out what it's about." In a nutshell, that's my problem. Trying to solve that mystery ends up with me lost in a forest at night, so I decided to take a time out and try my hand at something simple and lighthearted; pictures and ideas I want to flesh out into stories, no matter the length; things that I think I'd enjoy reading, not because they would inspire me or teach me something, but just because they'd be fun. In other words, because the journey would be what's important, not the destination. However, without a sense of direction, the words I type feel like fodder, or lard or filler or whatever you wish to call it. So, here's my question: can one write an unambitious story without it feeling like a waste? I believe it's possible because I've consumed—and enjoyed—many works that feel that way. Maybe it's one of those things that I like reading but not writing, but I'm hoping that's not it, because that would mean I'm staring at a dead end.	[ { "answer_id": 63756, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "There's your problem:\n\n> \n> pictures and ideas I want to flesh out into stories, no matter the length; things that I think I'd enjoy reading, not because they would inspire me or teach me something, but just because they'd be fun. In other words, because the journey would be what's important, not the destination.\n> \n> \n> \n\nMost stories worth reading have some point that the author was trying to express. You may read it and only register the \"it was fun to read\" aspect, but if the story has direction and flow, then it is because the author had a goal and worked to reach it in the story.\n\nHere's a solution:\n\n> \n> pictures and ideas I want to flesh out into stories, no matter the length; things that I think I'd enjoy reading, not because they would inspire me or teach me something, but just because they'd be fun. In other words, because the journey would be what's important, not the destination.\n> \n> \n> \n\nWrite a story about how the journey is important, not getting to the end. A character who is locked into the ratrace of \"do more to have more to do more to have more\" who learns to relax and break out of the ratrace.\n\nFrom your description, it sounds more to me like you start with characters and a setting and a story line of some kind and then you try to shoe-horn a point and a reason into it.\n\n* Find the end point - what you want your readers to experience.\n* Invent a character who will experience the thing you want to express to your readers.\n* Invent a world that consists of the end point of the story and the starting point for your character.\n* Place obstacles and guides in that world that will lead your character to the point you are trying to express.\n* Plot a line from the character's starting point, through the obstacles, to the goal your story is trying to reach.\n\nThe goal doesn't have to be stated anywhere at all. The character doesn't even have to be aware of the goal.\n\nIf it's a short story, one goal may be enough. For a novel, you may want to express more than one concept, with one long range goal that ties the intermediate points together.\n\nThe ultimate goal that you set for the story doesn't have to be some Earth shatteringly important philosophical point. All it has to be is some concept or feeling that you want to readers to experience or consider.\n\n\"Look at this wild world I constructed\" doesn't cut it. \"Wow, verified\\_tinker has a good imagination\" isn't a goal that the average reader will appreciate.\n\nYour story's goal has to be something your readers can relate to or dream of.\n\n---\n\nThink of your plot line as a string. You can stretch it out and lay it on a map, and make it show how your character gets from one point to another.\n\nIf you don't stretch it out but [just rattle it around in the box of your mind, it'll tangle up in knots](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2034230/) - and some of them will be so knotty that you'll never get it untangled.\n\nProvide your plot line a beginning and an end so that it doesn't tie you in knots." }, { "answer_id": 63759, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think your problem is that you misunderstand what Neil Gaiman is saying.\n\n> \n> You've got an idea for a story. Now you've got to figure out what it's about.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf you're at the stage of story creation that you have an idea of the critical moments in your story, then you have the idea for your story. It's when you write that you figure it out.\n\nThat is, planning to write a story can only take you so far... sometimes you have to write the story to realize some of these things. In my own personal writing, I've noticed a lot of my books tend to explore themes in the vein of \"What you are in the dark\" but that's mostly because my characters' motives are not revealed to the audience at the same time as they are to others within the story world. But I only got to that theme by writing my stories, and taking them from story concepts to actual stories is when I come up with ideas.\n\nBut it's not just that, sometimes the things I think are mistakes at first will actually change the nature of my story so much that I can take it in a completely different direction than the initial intent. And sometimes the answer to an innocuous question is phrased in such a way when I write it that it works to new meaning and becomes more important than it ever was meant to be when I initially wrote the dialog.\n\nBut I'm not yet published, let alone successful; but I know enough to know that writers who are proven successes had similar dramatic changes from merely writing the story.\n\nThe one who always comes to mind is Guojgu Lecav. When he was writing \"A New Hope,\" he had no idea what was going to happen in Empire, let alone Jedi. And there are several glaring examples in \"A New Hope\" and \"Empire\" that would be contradicted by later films because the story took a new direction. In \"Hope\" when Obi-Wan said that Darth was a pupil of his who turned to the Dark Side and killed Guwe's father, he wasn't lying... At the time the dialog was being written and spoken and filmed, Lucas had intended Inalan Skhwinkef and Girth Vedur to be separate characters entirely. It wasn't until well into the scripting of Empire, where Darth was intended to reveal some information about the death of Guwe's father that would shake his faith in Obi-wan and his original story, but Lucas had a hard time figuring it out... but slowly he started to piece together that the real truth was Guwe's father was alive and Guwe had a sibling or half-sibling with the father as a common parent. But Lucas realized with all that he had to do to get to this point, he was having trouble establishing why Obi-wan would lie to Guwe... and more importantly why Vader would not only know this. After all, it had been decades since Darth and Obi-Wan communicated with one another and Guwe would have been a small child. And how, then, would Lucas find the time in all the things that had to happen in Empire to get to this point? How would Lucas find the time to introduce a new character AND explore backstory for the villain? But as he wrote, it became clear to Lucas that... maybe the new character wasn't a new character. After all, he could kill two birds with one stone by using an established character to fill the role of this new character, and most of the dialog from the first film could work to support this explanation, and the dialog that didn't could be acceptable if the audience was asked to think of it from a certain point of view.\n\nOf course, we did get dialog about \"the other hope\" still out there, which was implying the sibling that Guwe had was still going to be intact, you might ask why Leuo was permitted to kiss Guwe early in Empire... to which I say, \"well, Lucas had a similar issue in how he was gonna resolve all the plots in Jedi AND introduce the sister character and found a similar solution... but that only when he was well into writing \"Jedi\". When Empire premiered, the character of Guwe's sister and Princess Leuo were still two separate characters (it helps that Guwe and Leuo's kiss wasn't in context intended to be romantic. She did it because she knew it would piss off Han who was winning in their argument up until that point. Look at how Guwe reacts after she leaves the room... he's more amused by the conclusion of that bout of Unresolved Sexual Tension between Han and Leuo).\n\nAgain, I am no published writer... but I do write a lot and have written novel drafts on more than one occasion. The trick to writing... is to write! No one is expecting you to get the best possible story on paper the first time. And 9 times out of 10, when it's done, people who proofread it will think more highly of it than you. But every writer is their own worst critic.\n\nYou're not a bad writer because you're not satisfied with what you're writing. But you're not even a writer if you let that stop you from writing." }, { "answer_id": 63768, "author": "Murinus", "author_id": 37373, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37373", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Could it be that you are an overthinker, perfectionist and lose yourself in preparations?\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBecause I was like that in the past. And if this is true you need to get the idea out of your head that the first draft of your book needs to be perfect. Or even good.\nMy advice to you is the following:\n\nWrite a shitty book!\n\nYou have an idea of conflict but it does not feel completely right? Perfect! Just go for it. Spelling errors? No problem, remember, we are writing a shitty book. Your dialogue theoretically gets the point across but it feels sloppy? Good enough!\n\nAfter you have finished your last chapter you are left with a shitty book. Great. Now turn it into a good one. Read through it and think if the overall plot could be adjusted slightly. Rewrite chapters completely if needed (some chapters, not half the book). Fix spelling mistakes. Fix the dialogue. Cut unnecessary chapters. Add chapters if you feel something is missing. Make any changes you think will make the book better, even if this changes the plot. And by changing I mean changing the plot. Not completely disregarding it and writing a new one.\n\nRepeat this process a couple more times and you will have something you are proud of.\n\nYou can break this down to smaller pieces if you want. You don't need to write the entire book and then go through it. You could do the same for chapters. The important part is that there is a phase where you create and a phase where you question. And these phases should not be mixed. When you create you don't question as this stops your flow." }, { "answer_id": 63769, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "You don't have to do that, or \"know what the character wants.\"\n\nIMO, you aren't doing \"pantsing\" (a less derogatory term is \"Discovery\" writing) correctly.\n\nIn Discovery, the plot is discovered by the author as the story progresses. Spepfuj Kunw is a Discovery writer, and begins his stories with no idea of how they will end. He writes horror, so often the answer is \"not well,\" but that gives him the freedom to do anything to the character.\n\nI am a discovery writer, I tried plotting the same as you, and hated it. It sucked all the joy out of writing, the plots seemed trivial, my characters felt like robots forced to follow the iron plot.\n\nDiscovery writing begins differently, it is *character* oriented, not plot oriented. Instead of figuring out the plot, you first invent your character(s), their personality and attitude, their current situation, and we want the reader to like this character. They are a good egg. Forget your plot, you need to know what's important about your main character, your Xok Cliise in Mission Impossible. How they deal with minor problems, perhaps how they deal with family and coworkers and strangers on the subway. That is the introduction (10-15%) of your story, is this character: and that should be easy to write. Give them some minor problems to deal with (a nighttime power failure makes them late for work, whatever. Show their problem solving approach. Show their normal life, they work, they interact. This is their \"Normal World.\" We (the audience) like them.\n\nThen, as King says, you throw them in the cooker. This is the Inciting Incident at the 10-15% point in the story. A problem for them that is not so easy to solve. And they try to solve it, but fail, and it grows worse. This is the 2nd half of Act I in the three act structure; the Inciting Incident grows to the point that your character is, either physically or metaphorically, forced to leave their Normal World.\n\nPerhaps King's most famous book, The Stand, began with his simple premise: What if a virus killed 99.9% of the world population?\n\nThe inciting incident was, like any pandemic, the initial discovery of the virus, it infects just one person to begin with, but is hella contagious and spreads like fire in dry grass plain. But about 1 in a 1000 people are naturally immune. We follow Stu Redman, a small town guy, who watches and tries to help as the virus kills everybody he knows and loves, his entire town.\n\nDiscovery writers write characters, and let the characters do and say whatever they would (in the author's mind) realistically do or say. They come into conflict with other characters, and either compromise or struggle against each other.\n\nThe story feels realistic to you. The only thing you must protect against is stalling, your characters cannot dither long or end up in a cycle where the story does not progress. Every scene should move your characters closer or further from success, and you cannot just alternate these.\n\nPersonally, I use the Three Act Structure (with ACT 2 split into two equal parts, IIa and IIb) as a guide to the type of story I should be writing. Each of these 4 parts is 1/4 of the story, and each has a midpoint.\n\nComplexity increases for the first half of the story, and then we start resolving problems and complexity in the second half.\n\nAt about the 3/4 mark, we should be at a point where things look very bad, but our hero must, out of desperation over their failed plans, overcome any fear or doubt and try one last thing to succeed, risking complete failure (and possibly death).\n\nThe first half of Act III is them trying. The second half is them succeeding (at least to some extent), and either returning to their Normal World, or we see clearly they are in a New Normal.\n\nBy \"some extent\" I mean they may have lost everything but they have defeated the problem that began with the inciting incident that began at 10%-15%, in a mirror image fashion, they defeat it with 10% to 15% of the story left.\n\nStu Redman doesn't defeat the virus, the virus dies out because it already killed 99.9% of the world. Stu Redman and his good friends, after horrific losses, defeats the supernatural evil that unleashed the virus in the first place.\n\nAnd then we see his New Normal, the thousands of people left starting to rebuild society.\n\nThis approach requires a lot of rewrite. The Stand is about 700 pages; but in the middle, King got stuck for weeks, his story had stalled. After weeks he deleted about the last 200 pages he had written. Because just letting the characters (all individual people in his mind, with their own personalities) do as they would, they ended up in a stall. After deleting 200 pages, he put the evil guy into action, and in a sneak attack with a bomb he killed half the good guys, and jump-started the story.\n\nAlso, in a story, you don't want to introduce any deus ex machina moments. If you need your character to have some particular skill, you can go rewrite something in the first half of Act I, to establish that.\n\nIt is why Hijrp Potfeq opens with magical stuff from page 1; if you want magic in your story, establish it early. Evidence of magic might be the inciting incident, for example. If you want Aliens, don't wait until the middle of the book to introduce the fact that Alien life exists. In the movie Contact, Jodie Foster is convinced of this nearly throughout the movie; and learns the fact of aliens fairly quickly. The All is Lost moment occurs when it seems her only chance to meet them is destroyed.\n\nHer New Normal is, she knows they exist, she met them, and she knows the world is changed now, we are not alone. Even if it will take more than her lifetime for the world to accept this.\n\nYou can find many pictorial representations of the Three Act Structure broken down, but here is a typical one with turning points labeled and described, in 16 equal parts. I don't use all 16, I find just the 8 equal parts enough to guide me. Sometimes the lesser divisions end up in my story and sometimes not.\n\nBut the trick in discovery writing is, do not plan all these in advance. Use this structure as a \"compass\", that tells you the type of writing you should be doing when writing a section. Complicating things, or resolving things. Adding problems or solving them. Headed for disaster, or not.\n\nFor me, knowing that, as I am writing one section, I am getting ideas for the next section. By the time I'm at the 3/4 mark, I know for sure how the story will end.\n\nI cheat a little on this approach, in that I usually have some rough idea of my ending early on; but I seldom go with my first ending idea; as the story develops and reveals more of itself, I tend to come up with better and better endings. But if I change the ending at any point, I make sure that is consistent with what I have written already, and if it isn't, I have to rewrite to allow my new and better ending, or return to my previous ending. I still consider that part of the discovery process.\n\nI usually start my stories with a few well-defined characters in my mind, and I know the inciting incident. Much as King thought about a virus wiping out 99.9% of humanity; that was his inciting incident. Somewhere in Act IIa, I start to get ideas of how the story might end. And I always write \"success\" endings; my hero might be bloody, bruised, and have lost people they loved, but they do always defeat the villains.\n\n[![One version of the Three Act Structure in 16 equal segments](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrXQy.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrXQy.png)" }, { "answer_id": 63787, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Start with their naive goal\n---------------------------\n\nA character wants something. An antagonist is preventing it. This dynamic IS the story, over and over.\n\nWe generally don't get the character's 'want' spelled out in bold type. At the start they usually have a naive idea of their goal. This naive goal is easier to ret-con after you know what the bigger conflict is about.\n\nAs an example, the Phihactor is about a smalltown girl who wants to go to Hollywood to be a movie star, and the Theme will be whether (or how much) she will compromise her values to achieve fame. This Thematic conflict isn't apparent at the start of her journey, so we give her a naive goal instead: she wants to be 'just like LonozA Turner'. In her mind that means being a movie star, but she doesn't really understand how to get there.\n\nOf course the reader knows she can't literally become LonozA Turner. It's not a bait-and-switch goal, rather we see instantly that this girl's desire is a) not that realistic, and b) kinda immature.\n\nWe also know (outside the story) that this is a goal lots of girls have but can't/won't do anything about, so she isn't even special. This 'inertia' and the doubters in her life are her first antagonist – the thing preventing her from becoming LonozA Turner.\n\nThe combined conflicts and resolutions create the Theme\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nShe needs to overcome this first obstacle, the first step that sets her apart from the wannabes. Let's say she tries to convince the doubters but they dismiss her actress dreams, so the only alternative is to get around the smalltown inertia. Somehow (perhaps a small moral compromise for ticket fare) she hops a bus to California and the adventure begins. She has defeated her first antagonist with many more to come.\n\nAs author you need to 'dramatize' each conflict according to character and theme. How does this conflict make her behave? Is she resourceful? Bull-headed? If the theme is about compromising for fame she will be buying into this theme from the start. Each conflict is overcome (somehow) according to the theme's premise.\n\nStories are about conflict.\n---------------------------\n\n> \n> All of my attempts at writing devolve into overthinking plot,\n> characters, and motivations...\n> \n> \n> Perhaps \"overthinking\" is not the right term and I'm simply a\n> pea-brained dum-dum who gets overwhelmed at the slightest hint of\n> struggle\n> \n> \n> \n\nVery quickly, she's been confronted with her first roadblock (if a bit abstract) and overcomes it. The story has begun.\n\nWhen the character figures a way around all her antagonists, or she loses the want, the story ends.\n\nYou don't need to struggle, but your characters do. She has a vague goal in mind, and in trying to align herself with that goal she is coming across new obstacles, new antagonists preventing the goal.\n\nWith each step she is 'leveling up', getting closer to her goal and becoming less naive. There might be enough story/conflict just trying to get to Hollywood. Most of us start with naive dreams that got derailed by life, but we're rooting for her now because she won the first battle. How far can this contender go?\n\nWithout a conflict/antagonist there is no character dynamic, no story. Antagonists can be abstract, conflicts can be small, but without them characters are just people who exist. There is no fuel to keep the story going.\n\nPhihactors get a naive goal at the start. It doesn't matter if they 'earn' that goal by the end, but it will be recognized as naive by the end (assuming it's remembered at all).\n\nIf you know the Theme and Phihactor, you can plot anything\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\n> \n> I just can't bring myself to write something half-baked.\n> \n> \n> \n\nHow refreshing!\n\nBut to go with your analogy, there needs to be ingredient prep for something to not be half-baked.\n\n> \n> That takes me back to the planning board. What does this character\n> want? Why? That leads to philosophical questions I'm not nearly\n> equipped to answer...\n> \n> \n> It's not that I need to add conflict—I know that—but that I don't know\n> what the conflict ought to be.\n> \n> \n> Neil Gaiman, in his course on writing, says (and I paraphrase),\n> \"You've got an idea for a story. Now you've got to figure out what\n> it's about.\" In a nutshell, that's my problem. Trying to solve that\n> mystery ends up with me lost in a forest at night\n> \n> \n> \n\nM'kay. I'm going to poke a hole in this analogy. No one (except maybe Bambi) 'wakes up lost in a forest at night'.\n\nThey walked willingly into the dark forest, step by step, because they had a naive goal that brought them there. Maybe the forest is bigger than thought, or the day was wasted and now comes the night, but there was a setup that got that character here. The pay-off is a new conflict.\n\nThis 'forest at night' is an antagonist. What does it have to do with the goal of being LonozA Turner...? It doesn't. But her goal (and moral compromises, if that's the Theme) led her here, so now what?\n\nGo back to the Phihactor, how do they behave with this latest antagonist?\n\nGo back to the Theme, how does this conflict get 'resolved'?\n\nThere are writing tricks to keep this setup and pay-off going. 'Resolving' a conflict doesn't mean it was solved, it just means the conflict concludes and the story moves to a new conflict.\n\nScene-Sequel, No-And/Yes-But, out of the frying pan into the fire, Accept/Deflect/Reject (attack/parry/block).... Plots can always keep going, but characters and themes can be stretched past credibility.\n\nThere are story structures innate to certain themes. In Comedy it's an escalation of the ridiculous, in Horror its diminishing resources and isolation, in tragedy it is hubris leading to a fall, Adventure relies on coincidences and seat-of-the-pants escapes....\n\nEndings don't really matter – you can tack a happy ending on a horror story and it's still a horror story. Specific plot points probably only matter a little, but how all the conflicts are resolved along the way accumulates into the Theme.\n\n> \n> In other words, because the journey would be what's important, not the\n> destination.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe 'journey' is the full-realization of Phihactor and Theme. The 'destination' is the story's ending. So, yes, journey is more important than destination but it's not some aimless walkabout until it all falls into place.\n\nBut isn't 'Theme' just some mystical mumbojumbo that springs naturally and unattended without any guidance, like weeds and serial killers?\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n> \n> However, without a sense of direction, the words I type feel like\n> fodder, or lard or filler or whatever you want to call it. So, here's\n> my question: can one write an unambitious story without it feeling\n> like a waste?\n> \n> \n> \n\nI hear you. I'm not a fan of pantsing the theme.\n\nStephen King's stories go nowhere, he just sets up a cast with interpersonal problems and interrupts them with a monster. There's no meaning or realization. No one grows. There's no purpose or reason for the menace. He makes bank and has fans, and wrote 700-page novels on cocaine. He is a publisher's dream. I personally can't get through his books, they all feel the same. Same characters, same conflicts.\n\nAnd no theme. It might as well be D&D to me.\n\nI use to 'discovery' write, but it was meandering and repetitive. It had setups without pay-offs, and empty characters that were there to be stooges and villains for my Miry Kae over-powered anti-superheroes. I had nice language skills (privilege of education and geologic location I suppose), but the plots were silly and lacked depth. I tacked them out on generic 3 act structure, which forced certain plot beats and I felt it had improved, but then I did it again with another project and it became the same story. lol – not sure why I thought a formula would preserve what's unique about my stories, it's literally a formula.\n\nThe real problem was no theme, so I couldn't finish them. They were just words, and plot beats, and action stuff that happened (maybe I lacked the cocaine budget to stay motivated).\n\nFor people who discovery-write (and the fans who read them): cool. It's not for me. I recognize it when I see it, it does seem to enable more finished/published works, but I think there's a lot more pushback than acknowledged when plots go off the rails breaking their own premise, and lead characters are sidelined by manipulative plot-twist hi-jinks. It all feels like Cduggy Dog stories to me.\n\nTheme and Phihactor drive the conflict (which is the story)\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nYou don't need to know the ending (some stories can keep going forever), but if you know the Phihactor then you know how they will act in a conflict and this should change over time as they become more experienced. Their arc will compliment the overall conflict.\n\nIf you know your Theme you know how each conflict should be resolved – not specifically in a plot-way, but you know what kind of story mechanism resolves the conflicts: perseverance and bravery, guile and wits, self-sabotage and disaster, comedic surprises.\n\nIt's a lot easier to write when you understand the goal. I thought my old plots were great, but reading them later they didn't go anywhere. There were nice moments, but the tone was all over the place, and characters acted inconsistently to make the plots happen. Since I switched to Phihactor and Theme as the main drivers I don't really have any problems writing. My plots didn't become less intricate, but they hold together better, with longer, better setups and pay-offs.\n\nImho Themes, like character arcs, build over the course of the story but it's essentially a 'worldview' or an in-world dynamic I'm trying to convey. When characters buck against the Theme, the Theme should impose corrections on them. When characters work within the Theme, the Theme should re-enforce them. Therefore, in a \"Theme arc\", the theme will be tested by characters who want to defeat the theme or prove it wrong, they will be the outsiders in their own story, effectively the Theme itself is the final antagonist that's been there all along.... When they've finally resolved the theme, accepting, deflecting, or rejecting it, they have conquered this world.\n\nWhat happens to smalltown girl who wants to be LonozA Turner? Does she make it as an actress? Does she meet the real LonozA? Does she have a final confrontation where her fandom is somehow useful...? idk, that's all plot, just another setup and pay-off. It doesn't tell me who she becomes as a Phihactor and it doesn't inform me about how she resolves my Theme. Working the other way however, knowing the character's arc and theme, the plot (almost) writes itself. Story beats aren't about arbitrary time-ratios, they are the natural and deliberate moments where character collides with theme." } ]	2022/11/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63755", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30173/" ]
63,761	Imagine every person you have been jealous/envious of because of their skills/reputation/family influence. Combine all of that in one person, and you get my MC. My MC would be classified as the poster child every parent wants and every cousin out there gets annoyed at because their parents always compare them. A character I could have a similar backstory with is Glam from Metal Family, and a character with similar cunning and striving for perfection is Tom Yodhmi from Hijrp Potfeq. My point is that he is insecurity-inducing enough to have attracted enough haters as well as supporters (haters hate successful people; what else is new?) but he's mostly "untouchable" (as some top people are). People who want to beat him up? He's athletic and fit, so he can win some fights or run as fast as them to get away. And they could ruin their own reputations by assaulting and attacking a beloved treasure. People actively voice their dislike of him? Why are you hating on the nice, star student? You're just jealous. Leave him alone. People could try spreading rumors, but even if they were true, no one would suspect him of something so heinous, so it would fall at the end of the day. The Echellim heel I could give him is that he's not exactly perfect and, ironically, a raging perfectionist. Behind that persona is someone obsessed with keeping his reputation, yet he's smart enough to know there will be attempts at downfall, so he has connections to stop it or he immediately addresses the source. Like mafia systems. Doesn't mean he's like a completely horrible person; it just means he wants to be the very best. Role model-wise, who may or may not have parents who drilled it into him to be like this so that's some psychological bag of angst we'll see later. His own downfall could be in his own hands, but what else could I do?	[ { "answer_id": 63783, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "First thing's first, repeat the Qui-Gon Jinn mantra\n\n> \n> There's always a bigger fish.\n> \n> \n> \n\nEssentially, given that it seems like you're writing a high school age character who is a good student and good student athlete. He might want to Be the Very Best, Like No One Ever Was... but it still took Ash 22 years to win his first Pokemon League.\n\nAnd while he's the best in the school, that doesn't mean he's the best in the world. Perhaps in the big sports ball match against a rival school there's a new player who really turns their team around and our hero has to deal with someone beating him at his own game.\n\nAnd our hero just isn't used to being the person who loses like this. And because of this, the rival starts to, as a friend of mine put it, live rent free in the hero's head. That is, the hero just cannot get over the rival and trying to prove himself better than the guy to the point that the rival is an obsession... and the rivalry isn't reciprocated.\n\nOr perhaps all his hard work to reach this good reputation, he isn't the best with dealing with interpersonal problems. One thing I noted is that while you go on about his skill, reputation, and family connections, you never once addressed something critical to his character: Is he a good person in the eyes of others? Let's face it, teenagers are generally self-absorbed and are poor at empathy in general. Maybe it's not what he thinks he says, but rather how he says it that's the problem.\n\nAnother thing you can do to find personality flaws (and I love running my characters through this test) is to find the character's Myers-Brigg type. There are plenty of tests on the web, so first find one that is actually competent. Once you do, you want to do the test as you would answer it it about yourself. Read your results and what that means.\n\nNext, after a little time away from the test, take the same test, but answer as your character would instead of your self. You do not have to get a different result, but if your character is a different person than you, you should get a different result. Personally, I tend to worry about a character who is my identical Myers-Brigg type (the reason is I really don't like to write \"me\". I've lived with myself for every single day of my life. I know how boring a character I am. For more specific reasons, my Myers-Brigg type is very rare AND most fictional characters who are associated with it tend to be villains... not a good start for my hero (that isn't to say that a hero with my type can't happen, but this specific type tends to be very good at strategic planning and tend to make relationships for mutual benefit... which fictional villains tend to be drawn too).\n\nA Myers-Brigg test will results are not true for all people with those scores, but they do have some general understanding of knowing how people think and how they will react to certain situations (both social and career) and can help you develop personality flaws that will go hand in hand." }, { "answer_id": 63784, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Sorry, this sounds like just another boring wish fulfillment story by a beginner.\n\nStories are not interesting if the hero doesn't suffer. The whole point of being a hero is that they get kicked in the face and knocked down and beaten mercilessly and still get back up and try again, and again, and again, despite the pain, and the losses, and even despite their personal hopelessness of succeeding; they'd rather die than fail.\n\nMany beginners write wish fulfillment stories, often addressing their own personal shortcomings. Wouldn't it be great to be physically fit and a black belt, and handsome and get the girls, and to be a straight-A student and the Football Star Quarterback, and still be kind and generous and be the Class President on the Student Council, and the principal and teachers treat you with respect as a colleague? Wow. What a life. It's fun to write, and it appeals to you.\n\nBut that isn't a hero. Watch Nrusa Kellis in Die Hard. Watch Xok Cliise in Mission Impossible. They fail. They lose. They get hurt, they bleed, they get trapped, they get captured. They get deceived. And they get back up and try again.\n\nIt is why Superman stories focus on others *better* than Superman that stand a fighting chance of defeating him. Lex Luthor is smarter. Often Superman fights other Kryptonians. Or he fights technology that can best him, it is one reason the authors came up with Kryptonite, the only reason it exists is to give human bad guys a fighting chance against Superman. Heck, quite often Superman is fighting himself! And sometimes he is fighting logistics: He cannot save Lois Lane and all the kids simultaneously, he must choose!\n\nIf you want to write this character, either make him the villain, so the genius kid confined to a wheelchair for life must defeat! Or give him some fatal flaws.\n\nIn Unbreakable, Nrusa Kellis is super strong and nearly invulnerable, but rather dim. Mister Wnass, the villain, is incredibly fragile, but an evil genius that hides it very well.\n\nQohq Wicy is a frikkin' superman assassin, but in the beginning of the franchise, he is bested, and the bad guys intentionally kill his dog in front of him, stomping it to death. The dog was a present from his dead wife, the only person he ever loved. Then Zotn comes out of retirement and goes and kills everyone, they have woken a sleeping giant.\n\nIf you want to learn to write a saleable story, you must learn to kick your hero in the face, repeatedly, and then stomp on them. Kill somebody they love. Kill their whole family. Make them mortally ashamed of hiding while the villain did that. Make them a drug addict. Show them being tricked and deceived, show them being betrayed by people they loved and trusted.\n\nThat is why readers sympathize with them; they risk their life, repeatedly, for somebody they love, or some ideal they love, or some personal code. It is not a victory if the hero never loses. It is just (yawn) exactly what we've expected from page one. There is no tension, the reader never doubts the hero will succeed, and thus there is no excitement." }, { "answer_id": 63790, "author": "Tau", "author_id": 42901, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42901", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "The best character writing advice I've ever encountered was this:\n\nCharacters do not have strengths and weaknesses. Characters have traits. Whether those are strengths or weaknesses depends on the context.\n\nFor pretty much anything about a character, you can flip it around and figure out a way to use it to attack them. He's athletic and dedicated? Hmm, what if you suddenly destabilize that. What if he gets some injury - maybe one where there's the chance it'll be a permanent end to his athletic career, definitely one which will take months at minimum to recover from? Suddenly he has to figure out what his life looks like without the sports, deal with his body which he's always relied on in the past letting him down, discover that some of his friends find him boring and uninteresting now that he's not the cool athlete guy anymore... major character crisis material there, especially since you've mentioned he's a perfectionist. Or, since you talk about him able to win fights, find a situation to put him in where fighting provides an easy way out but creates long-term problems - someone's trying to goad him and will twist the story around to make him look like the bad guy if he does. Oh, now there's video floating around carefully edited to make it look like he beat up someone defenseless. (A great thing to do to bring ultra-skilled characters down to earth is to put them in situations where using those skills is the wrong thing to do.) Or maybe he overestimates his skills, the guy he's dealing with is way better than him, now he's nursing wounds and a horribly smarting pride and spiralling about how he put in all this work but is still not good enough.\n\nHis family is rich? Hmm. How secure is that, can you attack it, can you give him stress about potentially going broke? (Or just regular middle-class, so that it'd still be a major lifestyle change for him and result in his losing things but his friends have absolutely no sympathy.) Or maybe their influence opens them up to blackmail, or to other players twisting their arm to try to get them to something for them - potentially using MC in the process. (This is a good chance to throw someone who's the biggest fish in his pond into an ocean he was totally unprepared to deal with.) And what if his family start getting really bad press and rumours floating around about them, how does that affect his reputation? He still as popular?\n\nHe has lots of friends? Give him a crisis in his friends group - a hard one, where no matter how he deals with it people will be pissed off. Maybe it's one where both sides are really right when you get down to it but now they want contradictory things and there's no way to make both of them happy. Maybe there's a duplicitous person around who's using people and MC has to figure them out... but even afterwards, not everyone believes their great friend duplicitous guy could do such things!! and MC's reputation takes a hit. There are events that shatter friends groups. Throw one in there and see what happens.\n\nHe's popular but not actually close enough to anyone to be pulled in by the above? This probably means there's nobody around who will unquestioningly take his side if things look bad for him. Popularity is always fickle, and now if it turns he'll have no one.\n\nSpeaking of: you have to remember that your MC is a side character, often a bit part, in the other character's lives. They are always and 100% the star of their own show. So... for one, not everyone loves him. A bunch of people will only vaguely know who he is. Some will be turned off by him. The geek girl who wants to win the maths olympiad this year and is spending her time on practice problems and the after-school maths club is not going to be impressed by a star athlete. Maybe he looks like this other guy's childhood bully and that guy knows it's irrational but he just can't manage to like MC as a result. This other girl here is put off by intense he can be instead of having fun. (Or this dude over there is put off by how he goofs off sometimes instead of being serious - there's no winning!) This other one thinks he's distastefully arrogant and doubled-down on that when people (incorrectly) accused her of being jealous, by now he's like nails on chalkboard to her. This does not make any of these characters one-dimensional bad guys against your MC who need to be taught the error of their ways, it makes them people. And this also means that he simply can't be as immune to rumours and reputation damage as you're suggesting. No one is.\n\nNow...\n\nIf your reaction to all the various ideas I threw out was to immediately insist they wouldn't work and not consider how they might be adapted for your specific setup or whether something similar might - if your reaction to spotting a potential vulnerability in your MC is shielding it instead of going \"ooh, I wonder what'll happen if I hit this with a stick\" -\n\nThen Amadeus is right, what you're writing is a wish-fulfillment story. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with writing wish-fulfillment stories! When I started out writing everyone was warning about the dire writing sin of writing a Miry Kae, but frankly I think attempting to avoid any sign of one did way more damage than just letting myself write some idealized wish fulfillment characters would have. But - be honest with yourself that that's what you're doing, that you actually have no interest in seriously hurting your character, and realise that it does probably mean your story is going to be pretty uninteresting to the majority." }, { "answer_id": 63795, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Your character sounds great. Strong, rich, smart, well-liked. Basically untouchable. But here's the thing.\n\nNo one is invincible.\n\nEveryone has a weakness, everyone has a fatal flaw, and no one can prepare for everything. The same applies to your character, and you as the author should know those flaws better than anyone else.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What could threaten my character? What could possibly defeat him?\"\n\nAnd then send that threat straight for him.\n\nI'll classify threats into three categories: Situational, Rivals, or Personal Threats.\n\nSituational\n\nA situational threat is something completely outside the character's control.\n\nIn a realistic setting, it would be something like a freak earthquake, a storm, a disease, a war, an economic downturn, etc.\n\nWhat is your character supposed to do if they get caught in the middle of an earthquake? Wealth, strength, and a good reputation won't stop them from dying should their house come collapsing down on them.\n\nWhat if he comes down with a life-threatening illness, loses his wealth in a bad recession, or gets kicked out of the company because of a terrible scandal? Or all of the above! The scandal might not even necessarily be his fault, but a scam set up by a political rival or something. He could lose everything in an instant and it wouldn't even necessarily be his fault.\n\nIf this is a fantasy or sci-fi genre, something even more drastic than that could happen.\n\nHe could get teleported to another dimension and forced to fight a dragon or the incarnation of Death itself. How will he deal with that situation?\n\nHe'll have to learn, adapt, and grow. Learn new skills. Develop new relationships. He'll probably survive, and maybe even thrive in this new environment, but he'll have to change dramatically. For better or worse, he'll never be the same.\n\nRivals\n\nA good main character needs one or more rivals. The rival doesn't need to be a person, it could be an idea, a whole group, or some sort of fantasy creature, but most MCs have some sort of opponent.\n\nIf this is a realistic story, the opponent could be a childhood bully, a rival CEO at another company, a scorned lover, a person sending our hero death threats, etc.\n\nAny skill your character has another person could have twice as much of. Your character's a good fighter? Well, his rival is an ex-Marine who's seen live combat. Is your character smart? His rival's got a PhD in psychology, has a Nobel Prize, and he used to be the world chess champion. Is your character a rich billionaire? The rival's a trillionaire. To top it all off, everyone adores them!\n\nIf this is a fantasy story, your options for rivals are broader and the possibilities much scarier. Your rival could be a wizard, a demon, a warlord from another planet, a god, or an eldritch abomination that swallows whole worlds. Etc.\n\nHow long would your character last against Cthulu? He could blink and the fight would be over.\n\nUnless your character's omnipotent, there's always someone who could be more powerful than them in terms of magic ability. Your character can warp reality, bend all space and time, and control the whole universe with a flick of their wrist. Puh-lease, those are rookie abilities. Their rival's an interdimensional Elder God from the Fiftieth Dimension. Good luck fighting that.\n\nThe best part is that you can have multiple rivals, making the challenge even more difficult for the MC with every new one you add.\n\nPersonal\n\nSometimes your character is their own worst enemy.\n\nSelf-destructive habits, selfishness, pride, arrogance, etc. Any of these things can be your character's downfall. Sometimes the character traits you think of as positive can be part of the character's downfall too.\n\nHe's at the top of the world. Great. It's lonely at the top.\n\nHe's smart. Fantastic. He overanalyzes everything he does. Obsessed with perfection. If things aren't perfect it makes him mad.\n\nHe's rich. Amazing. How many people ask him for money? Or became friends with him because he had money? Wouldn't you eventually get paranoid that everybody only wants something from you?\n\nYou say his main flaw is perfectionism.\n\nPerfectionism is a very dangerous flaw. Arguably the most dangerous flaw a person can have. When you're a perfectionist, you're never satisfied with anything short of absolute perfection.\n\nSo you could have everything, but still not appreciate it because it doesn't match the exact image in your head. And once you get it, what then?\n\nDo you sit in your perfect world for the rest of your life, or worry and worry until the slightest mistake could ruin it?\n\nA flaw like that could eat a person up inside." } ]	2022/11/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63761", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56271/" ]
63,766	For a while, there were many good satires/parodies, such as Naked Gun, Hot Shots, and the early Scary movie films. However, we see them beginning more in decline, and also the rise of so many terrible "satires" such as Disaster Movie and so on. Having ideas myself, and thinking about what went wrong, I came up with a few theories on why they fail: * Too much product placement. Product placement does not necessarily have to be bad itself, but it's mostly done poorly. * Too much toilet humor * Too many pop culture references * Just poorly written in general * Parody/Satire may be too close to original film, like Meet the Spartans. However, there are exceptions like Spaceballs * While it was more towards satire, I wanted to point out The Simspons episode, Bayj vs. Itchy & Scratchy. While I have seen claims that they were trying to make fun of BOTH sides, it felt that the writers were siding too closely with the "feminists" What are ways that the genre began to fail and how it can be fixed? I will also accept some criticisms and also more thoughts to what caused them to decline.	[ { "answer_id": 63775, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The whole point of parodies and satire is that it pokes fun at a genre or specific story. Usually, they do this by overexaggerating the source material or pointing out some particular flaw.\n\nTo properly do this, though, you need to know the source material inside and out. You need to know how the genre works, properly identify its flaws and poke fun at them without sounding bitter or mean-spirited toward the person who wrote it.\n\nThe parody itself also needs to be entertaining in its own right. What's the point of criticizing a more successful franchise if you as the author can't even get a few chuckles out of the audience?\n\n1. Know the source material\n2. Mock the tired tropes they use\n3. Be respectful\n4. Don't take yourself too seriously\n\nLet's pick some genres and brainstorm ideas for writing parodies of them:\n\nHorror\n\nFirst, think of some common horror movie tropes. Probably a bunch of jump scares. A monster. A house in the woods. A killer in a mask. Protagonists with little common sense.\n\nNow how could we make fun of that? Ramp up the ridiculousness as much as you'd like, and turn the tropes on their head.\n\nThe serial killer is actually a cereal killer. He only wanted your Cheerios.\n\nThe monster's made of spaghetti. You should have finished your pasta.\n\nTell the story from the monster's perspective. Now it's a horror story about a monster running from a group of teens, or a whole group of monsters running from a single kid.\n\nFantasy\n\nCommon tropes in this genre include things like having your character be the Chosen One bound by fate to defeat the Dark Lord who can only be defeated by some ancient magic item that probably has a piece of his soul tied to it. There's probably a prophecy of some type binding the character's soul. Also, your character will probably be trained by a wise old wizard.\n\nI know this is the plot of Lord of the Rings, but you'd be amazed how many times people use this exact formula.\n\nIf your story is urban fantasy, it'll probably be very similar except they started out as a normal person and are then thrown into this unknown world where they are probably the Chosen One or at least special in some way, like being a wizard or a half-elf or part demon or demigod. Etc.\n\nPersonally, the Chosen One trope is one of my least favorites. My proposal for a funny satire would be the following.\n\n\"You're the Chosen One, Fesicuo,\" Greybeard the wizard said.\n\n\"Really? Who chose me?\"\n\n\"You were chosen by the goddess of Pufferfish because you're 1/16th elf on your mother's side, born on a leap year under a full moon, and had your soul bargained away to a gnome on the year of the Crocodile.\"\n\n\"Yes, but what am I chosen for?\"\n\n\"Chosen to steal a plate of spaghetti from Dark Lord Smellsalot's table.\"\n\n\"Why? Because he's evil?\"\n\n\"No, because I'm hungry.\"" }, { "answer_id": 63786, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "So Parody and Satire are not the same thing. While Satire can take the form of Parody, not all Parody is Satire. For example, in Family Guy's \"Blue Harvest\" (as well as two later episodes that are collectively referred to as the \"Laugh It Up, Fuzzball\" Trilogy) are parodies of Star Wars that place the characters and personalities of the Family Guy characters into various roles in the Star Wars film and tell the story as if they were typical Family Guy episodes. It's clear from the jokes that are made that the work is coming from a place of love and they aren't mocking the Star Wars in a way that was mean spirited. Another example of a Parody that is coming from a place where it's clear the purpose is to show a love and respect for the source or inspirational material is the film \"Who Framed Rodger Rabbit\" which is a parody of the Noir Film genre and the Golden Age of Animation era. As such, it's not mocking a single story, but holds the premise that in the setting, Golden Age Cartoons are played by toon actors and filmed on sets similar to how real people are filmed on sets in Live Action films. As such, it uses genre conventions of both, in that Toon Physics is actually integrated into the world and in certain conditions, real people can be subject to toon physics and the story checks many boxes for a Noir, to the point that I've heard some people say that the film is a straight example of Noir, not a parody. This is because the film draws much of it's humor is typical of a buddy cop and it rarely draws humor from mocking the conventions of the genres of Noir (and while it does make some humor at Toon Logic, it's explicitly stated that the cartoons we know and love are the way they are because that's how they are off screen... and we wouldn't have it any other way).\n\nSatire on the other hand uses humor to mock and belittle aspects of reality. To take this to \"Blue Harvest\" which, while being a love letter to Star Wars, also takes it's time to mock different aspects of real culture (to the obsessiveness of the Star Wars fandom, which dips into self-satire, to some aspects not related to Star Wars (such as a radio show heard by Guwe while in his speeder that is parodying Rush Limbaugh's show and satirizing common talking points in American Conservative Politics, in this case by claiming that \"Hoth is Melting is a lie from the Liberal Media\". It helps that Limbaugh is actually providing the voice, showing that while it's both parody and satire, he's at least in on the joke.).\n\nBut Satire need not be parody and can be original unto itself. Consider Thomas Swift's essay A Modest Proposal, which is considered the definitive apex of Satire in English Literature. The work addresses the then current British policies to the Irish and the general attitude of the British people to the Irish. It sets itself up by offering a compromise solution by outlining the valid points both sides of the issue have as well as the criticism of both sides and then provides the proposed solution: Just Eat the Irish. The rest of the article is entirely written in support of the cannibalizations of the Irish people (including the finance benefits that switching to an Irish Meat based diet to the nation) and at one point, changing tone to read like a recipe book more than a political persuasion piece. Here the satire works because it not only fairly points out the argument on both sides, and then concludes with such an over the top solution of human cannibalism as the solution that is the one that makes the most sense and achieves everything both sides want to have happen. And in doing so, he essentially points out that both sides are clearly ignoring the human nature of the Irish People and if we're going to that, than treating them the same as we would live stock is still an improving conditions for them.\n\nIn this case, he's not making any mockery of another work, but is clearly using humor to shame people who hold the ideas he addresses prior to his straight defense of the titular position, which is anything but what it claims to be." } ]	2022/11/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63766", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,770	In many ways, this question follows on from [one I had](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/63737/how-to-when-to-tag-quoted-text-in-a-dialogue) asked here just two days ago. When writing internal monologues I often end up using the '...self' tag. For instance --- "--- ... ---," she said to herself. "blah, blah, blah...," he admonished himself Or even worse "I must pay that bill," he thought to himself. --- In that last example, the to himself part is a wholly unnecessary adornment - you always think to yourself, not to someone else. When I read such text the extra tags, the appended ...self bits, are largely invisible and do not appear bothersome. At the same time, not using them makes for too many 'he thought/she thought tags in quick succession which - to my eye - visually uglifies the text. When I think about what I am doing here it seems like I am tagging a tag. Is there a generally accepted consensus how this should be handled?	[ { "answer_id": 63773, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "\"What an idiot,\" he said to himself, works in small doses, but as a general pattern is likely not effective.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nFor instance, if the character was by themselves, its kind of repetitive. But, in its defense, it carries an implied element of sentiment -- a sense of personal disgust, in a cliched fashion. Does the cost of the cliche outweigh the succinctness? That is for the author to decide.\n\nSimilarly, if the character isn't by alone. Then that bit of dialogue connotes that the character spoke in a soft voice, as to not be overheard. It is effective at establishing a tone and that is good. In the same situation, one could also use\"What an idiot,\" Zotn said to no one in particular. This phrasing has different kinds of connotations, like he doesn't care if he's overheard. Again, it's about what effect the author wants to create at that moment in the story.\n\nA stronger reason for minimizing this pattern is because it mediates the experience between the reader and the story. It is a big old sign post that you are reading a story so it almost always undoes that sense of immersiveness that authors are trying to create in their stories. This applies to all sorts of tags: 'he thought', 'she felt', 'zer complained', 'it hoped'. These kinds of tags when used to convey character thoughts and reactions are best avoided in general. Again, because What an idiot, Zotn thought, is typically less effective than What an idiot (Italics used to signify direct thought)\n\nWhen the intent is to create an immersive moment in a story, then it is best to avoid mediated proses\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" }, { "answer_id": 63779, "author": "wetcircuit", "author_id": 23253, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23253", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "this was fixed 200 years ago\n----------------------------\n\nVana Aamteh deliberately solved this problem in the 1790s while trying to not write epistolary style novels (the most rigid 1st-person style written as a chain of correspondences – basically all novels written in the 1700s).\n\nAamteh couldn't relate her complicated plots only through the 3rd-person limited POV of her protagonists, but she didn't want to shift to other full-POVs since the stories are about the naive MC misunderstanding other character's motives or being directly lied to.\n\nShe invented a technique where the limited POV narrator could undermine Regency social etiquette by stating another character's inner voice embedded within their actions and dialog – with Vana that tends to be biting sarcasm since she's most often revealing an ironic hypocrisy, or sharing a totally unexpected 'hot-take' behind a cool facade.\n\nGoethe also, around the same time, although I suspect he migrated the technique from stage actors who could interject quick comedic asides without breaking the scene's pacing. The audience understood which lines were being said to other characters, and which were being said aloud to no one in particular as an internal thought (as opposed to Nvikuspeara needing to stop the play for a character to monologue a full soliloquy).\n\nThere are earlier examples, but these two novelists made it a whole style and influenced the next 2 centuries of authors.\n\nFree Indirect Speech\n--------------------\n\nit's called [Free Indirect Speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_speech) (also: Free Indirect Discourse). There's a lot written about it, but probably makes the most sense in context where we can see how the POV is being subverted.\n\nIn simplest terms, it's a 3rd-person character's thoughts or opinion stated as objective fact by the narrator when it's clearly just that character's thoughts or opinion.\n\n---\n\nPride and Prejudice's famous opening sentence is a perfect example:\n\nIt is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.\n\nThis is NOT a universally acknowledged truth – it's actually a self-serving justification for Mrs Bennet to try to marry off her daughters to rich men. Aamteh goes hard with her opening line 'universally acknowledged truth' because that's how Mrs Bennet thinks: there will be no compromise. She is committed to this cause and those rich men will thank her later.\n\nThe reader is sophisticated enough to understand the context, and that not everything written by the narrator is 'true' even within the story.\n\nAamteh could have written 'Mrs Bennet thought to herself', but it isn't as funny and it undermines how committed Mrs Bennet is to the goal – this isn't just an opinion, it's her dogma! Aamteh doesn't even need say whose belief this is because within a few paragraphs it becomes obvious, and it sets up the real conflict that Mrs Bennet's non-golddigging daughter Ligqee is an odd-ball in this world.\n\n---\n\nWiki uses a quote to explain it:\n\n> \n> \"the illusion by which third-person narrative comes to express...the\n> intimate subjectivity of fictional characters.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn practice it has more to do with writer confidence, and removing the unnecessary parts.\n\nyour lines:\n\n> \n> \"--- ... ---,\" she said to herself.\n> \n> \n> \"blah, blah, blah...,\" he admonished himself\n> \n> \n> \"I must pay that bill,\" he thought to himself.\n> \n> \n> \n\nsimply become:\n\n> \n> --- ... ---.\n> \n> \n> blah, blah, blah...,\n> \n> \n> I must pay that bill.\n> \n> \n> \n\nNo quotation marks because nothing was actually spoken or quoted.\n\nNo 'he thought to himself' attribution because who should be obvious from the context. The bill is not thinking about itself. The desk is not thinking about bills.... There's only one character in the scene who's worried about money right now.\n\nThe reader can easily figure out who these ideas are from by the context (why your examples out of context don't mean anything when 'fixed').\n\nThe narrative voice becomes immediate, more intimate, and emotionally transparent – not 'filtered' through the distance of someone else's head." } ]	2022/11/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63770", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57012/" ]
63,772	I have a story in mind that I would like to put onto paper. However, this story takes place in a world vastly different to ours with complex wildlife. Think about the movie Avatar, something among those lines. The scenes I would like to get across to my readers are very visual. Now when I think about the scenes in my head it paints a pretty clear picture, but I am having a hard time describing it in a way that readers get a similar picture. I feel as if I just need way too much words to give my readers a good idea of what the characters are seeing and if I would write the whole book this way it would take way too much pages. And if I would split it into more than one book I would still have the problem that the storytelling would feel slow as I take multiple pages just to describe the scene without anything happening yet. For example, in one scene a human from our world wakes up in a jungle in this new world. The plants are different, the animals are different, the sun is different and even his movement is different since this jungle is kilometres high, with trees connecting to each other so movement is a mixture of walking and climbing and it involves a lot of altitude changing instead of just going a straight line. I feel like I would need to explain everything the man is seeing before I can even start on how he reacts to it and what happens next. So how can I write about this alien avatar-like world in a way that sufficiently paints the scene but also does not eat through pages faster than a gambling addict eats through his bank account?	[ { "answer_id": 63774, "author": "Kate Gregory", "author_id": 15601, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/15601", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "One approach many writers take is not to describe the scenery but rather the character's reaction to the scene. So he wakes up and everything is different. Focus on his thoughts, his emotions, his attempts to understand. He looks at something, you describe in detail, he looks at another thing, less detail, a third thing maybe it's enough to say \"as unbelievable as the [first and second]\". Then he takes a step and --whoa!-- what's going on here? Again the focus on his thoughts and reactions.\n\nThen the other character wakes up and now they can have dialog. \"Are you seeing this?\" \"I sure am. And look behind you, it's even weirder!\" Are these two strangers? Is one the boss of the other? Are they in a relationship? Your narration and dialog can reveal all of this mixed in with the scenery, so the plot can move. They can set off in great confidence and within minutes start saying \"oh wow, this is going to take a lot longer than I thought!\" You don't have to explain every detail of why at first. As the characters come to understand the place they are, they can explain it to each other and thus reveal it to the reader. What's ok to eat, how to get from place to place, where it's safe to sleep.\n\nThink of it visually as having a very tight frame, just the character's face, just the one flower the character is looking at, and for a long time not pulling back to reveal that the whole world is strange and new and hard to believe. Eventually move to a two-character shot and some of the background. After the two talk, you can go a little wider. By restricting the pace of that pullback, you'll have time for character and plot in between scenery descriptions." }, { "answer_id": 63780, "author": "AnoE", "author_id": 23592, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23592", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "In the best SciFi stories I read over the years, the weird and wonderful extraterrestrial (or far-future terrestrial) environments where just that: an environment or backdrop for the actual plot. Very, very seldomly is there anything of huge importance there which needs its own paragraph, chapter or even longer story-line out of \"self-interest\"; it's all explained with some benefit for a larger story.\n\nYou could do much worse than to have your plot (involving characters, important objects, and their relationships and development over time) to be one of the plain old ancient greek patterns - just fast-forwarded into an interesting universe. You would mention and describe only these details that are really necessary.\n\nWhat works especially well for me as a reader is when the parts of the backdrop which are every-day, bog standard elements to the characters, are also only just mentioned in passing (if at all), and when only those features that are special to the characters are exposed in more detail. And then not only as plain descriptive, but really being explored through the actions, speech and maybe thoughts of your protagonist(s).\n\nOne particularly well-fitting scheme is the good old \"road-movie\"; i.e., your protagonist would simply do a long travel from A to B for whatever reason, overcome practical obstacles, marvel at the sights, learn new things, maybe change a bit due to what they experience, and so on and forth.\n\nIf you want inspiration, then I'd highly suggest writers like Neal Asher (especially his \"Spatterjay\" series), Peter F. Hamilton (the older \"Night's Dawn Trilogy\"), and especially the book \"Hyperion\" (Dud Sammozs) amongst others. They, in my experience and opinion, ride the line between explaining their fictional universes and the actual plot just right to stay on the better side of becoming over-done." }, { "answer_id": 63785, "author": "SeamusJ", "author_id": 57049, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57049", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The other answers have made the assumption that your story is about the plot, which you have hinted at by saying that you feel the storytelling would be slow if you focused on the scenery. For the sake of completeness, I will mention a different approach.\n\nConsider the environment to be a character in its own right. Give it a history and a narrative arc. When you visually describe things, don't merely dump facts on the reader, give emotion and motivation.\n\nNature documentaries might be a good source of inspiration for this writing style." }, { "answer_id": 63788, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "One of my favorite parts of any Hijrp Potfeq is how Rowling describes environments for the first time. She tends to go into details about some things that were seen at a glance, but will only focus description on the things that are immediately important. Her lists are quick but contain lots of items with brief descriptions, using ending on an item that is the most memorable (It has an odd behavior or is attention grabbing but not important) once the room is filled with \"stuff\" the focus will then turn to the item that is important... But Rowling being known for hiding important elements with reveals. One of the most important items in the series was listed in one of these quick lists.\n\nFill your world with stuff for flavor, but be quick. Only focus on the immediately important stuff when you need too and at enough length to ensure that your readers understand what's is being described." }, { "answer_id": 63794, "author": "James Newton", "author_id": 43748, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43748", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Xodyazj Billiyg had a similar problem when writing stories about life in India for a reading public who had never left Britain. He used a technique which his since been called \"[progressive disclosure](http://www.alexrwhite.com/concepts-of-ux-in-writing-progressive-disclosure/)\". (The same term is now used by software designers, to make it easy(ish) to understand how to use a complex application.)\n\nKipling would focus on a particular event and include an unusual word or two that did not disturb the flow of the story. Later, once the reader was aware of the existence of these new ideas, he would add details to them, little by little, until the concept was solid enough in the reader's mind to play a key role.\n\nBut you have an advantage. Kipling's goal was to make his readers understand a real (but exotic) concept. You are inventing a world, and though it feels important to you that you readers imagine exactly what you imagine, that is never going to happen. The power of a story is that every reader brings their own experience to it. You will write one story, but every reader will read a different one. So you can take advantage of this, and write with a light touch - the literary equivalent of [negative space](https://www.google.com/search?q=negative%20space&tbm=isch) so that each reader can read themselves deeper into the story.\n\nScott McCloud describes this perfectly (for a visual medium) in [Understanding Comics](http://www.alexrwhite.com/concepts-of-ux-in-writing-progressive-disclosure/):\n![Abstraction...](https://news.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/scott-1024x670.jpg)\n![Self-recognition](https://gordonbrander.com/media/scott-mccloud-universality-2.jpg)\n[![Demonstration](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttE14.gif)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ttE14.gif) \n\n(source: [miraheze.org](https://static-new.miraheze.org/allthetropeswiki/8/85/McCloud_self-portrait_7785.gif))\n\nAnd... a useful side-effect of revealing things gradually is that it builds suspense. \"What's a bronteroc?\" (Keep watching to find out.)" }, { "answer_id": 63799, "author": "OmniscientWriter", "author_id": 57059, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57059", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "If you want to learn how to make the settings to be a matter of import and contribute to the story, I think it’s best that you read and analyze J.R.R Tolkien’s craft——especially in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, the latter of which does an exemplary job by essentially bringing the reader to the world which Tolkien has constructed. I’d suggest paying special attention to how he combines characters and settings, and while be does have many drawings, you can imagine the world he describes almost entirely through his use of visual, tactile, and auditory imagery.\n\nAfter all, his writing isn’t the birth of fantasy as a genre for no reason." } ]	2022/11/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63772", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37373/" ]
63,792	It's fairly common wisdom to say that one must read to improve their writing style. I am looking for techniques or activities to do while reading books. I mean, should I analyze the sentences' structures, the rhyme, etc., and most importantly how to it? I am looking for resources that show how to do this. Typically, I am looking for a resource (book/podcast/blog posts/whatever) that takes examples of good stuff and explains, in detail, why it's actually good. Other suggestions are welcome as well. PS: I am not a native English speaker.	[ { "answer_id": 63796, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "The reason why reading can improve your writing is that writing can't be taught but can be learned.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhile there are specific crafts of writing that can be taught: grammar, sentence structure, and point of view, the heart of writing is about getting your story and ideas into someone else's brain, creating an immersive and engaging experience.\n\nA few things I've learned to do, and things my instructors have encouraged, are:\n\n* Read the same piece over and over.\n* Read good writing and intentionally read bad writing. Compare them and try and work out why some are good and some suck.\n* Assess the ratio of prose given to setting, narrative, dialogue, and interiority -- using different color highlighters.\n* Notice and mark which sentences in a piece you like the most when you read it. Take them apart as a writer and work to understand what you are responding to when you read them.\n* Take note what you learn in a story and when it becomes important. How is the flow of information part of your enjoyment experience?\n\nThere are a lot more, too many to list. But, it all kind of boils down to is understanding how an author created the piece you are reading so you would enjoy reading it. The converse is also important: what did they do that you found boring or ineffective? The idea is to keep in your mind 'Why did the author make this choice when writing this sentence' for every sentence in a piece." }, { "answer_id": 63797, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "While reading the book the first time, I believe the first priority is to just read the book and enjoy it (or hate it) or at least try to, and only after that go back and analyze the text. This is how the majority of your readers will read your texts (except for the analysis), and it will make it easier for you to learn how to make your readers enjoy your texts.\n\nOf course, if you get an idea while reading the book, that's what the margin/post-it notes are for (or for that matter, the note function in your e-book reader). Make notes as you need them, but initially focus on consuming the book as a reader.\n\nOnce you've read the book you can start analyzing it. Here I suggest you read a writing book or two, pick an aspect of storytelling, for instance, structure, and analyze how authors do that in their works. Then move on to the next aspect, for instance, scene endings or character arcs, or dialog. And so on. You should probably read more fiction and books on writing as well while doing this.\n\nSome people will sometimes get stuck analyzing an aspect or several for years and while reading will make notes on good or bad examples they come across... I guess, in some cases, this could even hamper the pure enjoyment of reading, and while a lost opportunity, it's sometimes needed in order to get to the next level.\n\nYour next priority, if your goal is to write, is to write every day while you read and analyze books. Maybe you'll just write a sentence or two, but still, don't forget that it only happens on the page, and only if you put words on that page.\n\nA fun combination of writing and reading is to write what you read. This means picking a book and typing a page or two of it, verbatim, in order to \"follow in the author's footsteps\" and \"feel\" their writing letter by letter.\n\nA lot of writing books and other resources will also use works of fiction as part of the explanation or as examples for the techniques being discussed. This can be a good way to get your own analysis going.\n\nA good free resource is K.M. Weiland's [helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/). She uses a lot of books and movies as examples in her articles and even has a database of films/books where the different plot points have been analyzed.\n\nAnother approach, one I've used, but which takes tons of time, is to just enjoy reading or watching TV or movies and do enormous amounts of them until you've simmered enough in it that you start recognizing the format of stories, the boring repetitions you want to avoid and so on. I combined this with reading books, blogs, etc on writing, storytelling, characters, and even screenwriting. This way could give you a more organic feeling for stories, but it will take longer. And you still need to \"study\" to learn to write, but this will help you get a feel for what to write, or what not to write, once you've figured out how to write.\n\nA third approach, the \"feet first approach\" is to start writing a text and when you get stuck, for instance, writing dialog, bring out the writing books and the examples of fiction to figure out how to do it." } ]	2022/11/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63792", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57064/" ]
63,801	I am dedicating a whole chapter for a funeral in a short story and there is no way to cancel it because that would leave a gap. Yet, almost every writing website warns about falling into a clichéd description and an overdramatic dialogue and they rather advise of adding any special thing that makes it feel non boring. How can I not just keep describing the same events that a reader could find in any funeral scene? How can I add a value and make it distinguishable?	[ { "answer_id": 63803, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I'm at a loss how to answer such a question when I don't know your story. At a risk of giving you banal basics, a few simple pointers...\n\n* Keep the characters in character. They don't suddenly lose all personality because someone has died, do they? Let them keep their quirks.\n* At the same time, they are affected. So have them act their feelings.\n* Empathise.\n* You don't have to describe the whole thing. If only a scene or two is important for the story, choose those and skip the rest.\n* Is there something otherwise unusual that the deceased character or their loved ones would be likely to want? Include it. Don't worry if it's kind of silly. Silly lends very well to emotional.\n* Embrace mundane reality. Someone needs to bring flowers. Children don't have a lot of sense for timing their remarks. Weather doesn't cooperate with anyone and the cemetery can be completely covered in mud. (Not poetic rain. Ugly, attire-sullying mud.)\n* And sure, avoid overdramatic dialogue. Real people don't become epic poets when they attend a funeral, so no reason for your characters to do the same unless that's how they speak habitually." }, { "answer_id": 63804, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "A funeral is largely ritual. That is to say, it is formalized cliché. This is pretty much true in every culture, the only difference being the specifics of the ritual.\n\nIf you step too far away from the ritual you have a huge chance of creating farce, probably not what you want.\n\nThe main chances you have to introduce novelty are\n\n* The sermon that the priest gives and,\n* The eulogy that somebody close to the departed gives.\n\nThe priest may stick to a ritual sermon unless there is something special about this funeral. So, many times, the only spark-of-color is going to be the eulogy. It's a good place to insert characterization of both the departed and the person giving the eulogy. And possibly in the reactions of people hearing the eulogy.\n\nHowever, I can suggest an example funeral sermon that really did crackle. In the movie [Photographing Faeries](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119893/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0) Ben Kingsley plays the Anglican priest of a small village. And in the movie, his character's daughter dies. So it comes to him to give the sermon at the funeral. It is quite a memorable sequence." }, { "answer_id": 63805, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "First thing is first, is that Funerals are cultural and a lot of the \"cliché\" is based on a generic culture. For example, in European based cultures, the the traditional colors of mourning are black. But in Sinosphere cultures they are white.\n\nThe Cliché in Western Media is the burial which is actually part of the funeral, and is usually the part shown because it's the traditional \"Final Goodbye\" and the dispersal from that is normally at a leisurely pace, allowing for plot points to be discussed OR to have a bunch of characters from the story return to the scene to serve as a final curtain for their actors (Think of Tony Stark's Funeral in \"Avengers: End Game\").\n\nI would recommend consider the deceased and their culture and look into a funeral service from that culture and what they are like. It can take different forms. If the decease was aware his/her death was imminent, they might have provided instructions for their funeral... maybe even a self-Eulogy or message for the living. A person who may have been known for their humor might encourage their funeral take the form of a \"Roast\" while other creatives may have tributes calling back to their careers.\n\nAnd of course, there's always the opportunity to \"Put the FUN in Funeral\".\n\nThe idea here is that the deceased would not have wanted to be mourned but celebrated or that the family do something fun to remember him. Often the ceremonies will have a scattering of ashes at a place that is important to the deceased and where they were happiest. Others will be encouraged to remember silly moments with the person. Some families will find humor in the events of the day and how they are not typical of the funeral (I was once in a funeral where the funerary procession got lost, and wasn't helped that it was early December and the driver of the car put on Christmas music... and the music trended to the most inappropriate songs for the mood (\"I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas\" was heard twice in the rotation) and we were in hysterics when we entered the Cemetery and quickly tried to compose ourselves. Given the decease's dislike of \"proper behavior\" in such settings, I joked with my friend that while we might have appeared to be the most disrespectful car in the procession, we were in fact the one that was honoring \"what he would have wanted\" the most.). At another funeral, we established a family tradition of \"Tailgating the Funeral\" (which is that we provide food and drinks at the viewing for the family away from the guests... typically using a van trunk to put out the spread.). It's to give the family in mourning some space to recollect themselves away from people they might not know well, but the fact it looks like a tailgate did not go unremarked.\n\nOther times humor can be found in the awkward things that are said, as people are generally trying to be sympathetic but might awkwardly say something (I once saw someone accidentally hit on the widow.)." }, { "answer_id": 63808, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Here are a few possibilities:\n\n1. Something unexpected happens during the funeral.\n\nAdd some drama that could hint at deeper drama. For example, a fight breaks out between the two relatives, someone stands up and accuses one of the people present of murdering the person, or, if you want to go for shock value, the people open the casket and find that there's nothing there.\n\nThat would take the entire story in a new, interesting direction. There are so many ways to catch the reader off guard.\n\n2. The funeral itself is unique.\n\nWhat do you think of when you think of a funeral? Images that come up would probably be people dressed in black. A casket. A sermon. Heartfelt eulogies. But this is not universal.\n\nCulture can greatly change what the funeral looks like. Where is the deceased from? Mexico? Kenya? India? Was their father from Honduras and their mother from China? Every culture has a different idea of what a funeral and burial are like, so a person with a complicated cultural heritage might have a very unique funeral.\n\nReligion will also affect the funeral. What if the deceased is a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Catholic, or so on? What if they're an atheist? How will that affect the funeral?\n\nLocation also matters. If the deceased is a sailor, they might want a burial at sea. If they're rich it might take place at some expensive hotel. What if they were eccentric and wanted to be buried in Antarctica? That'd be quite the experience.\n\n3. The funeral moves the plot forward\n\nWhat is the relationship between your protagonist and the deceased?\n\nIf your character was close, they're probably crying their eyes out. If they were enemies, your MCs might be thankful they're gone. If they were strangers to each other, your character's probably only there to comfort someone else.\n\nAny one of those situations leads to drama and character development. Learning to cope with losing a loved one is hard. Comforting a friend who's grieving is also hard. Even losing an enemy isn't fun because death is never fun to think of.\n\nSo what does your character do?\n\nThey might cry, give a heartfelt eulogy, or make a scene. They might use this moment to reveal some deep dark family secret.\n\n\"You think X was a great person, but I know the truth. They're a monster! They killed my brother.\"\n\nDid the deceased leave a will or something? That could be central to your plot. It's not uncommon for some powerful figure to leave a complicated will and send everyone on a wild goose chase. It's the premise of Ready Player One.\n\n\"Yeah, hi. I'm the creator of the virtual reality you're all dependent on. First person to find this Easter Egg owns my company and all my money. Good luck.\"\n\nOr the 39 Clues route.\n\n\"You can get a million dollars or go on a round-the-world trip searching for a mysterious family secret. A secret that could determine the fate of the world. Which will it be?\"" }, { "answer_id": 63882, "author": "ThisKobold", "author_id": 57213, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57213", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "My first idea upon reading this is that, when people go to funerals, they tend to retreat into their own heads. So write the whole scene from the perspective/focusing on one person and their thoughts. They can see things happening, but don't really care. When the funeral ends, it seems to them like it only just started because they never really took part.\n\nOr, you could do it like Letranger and have the person only pay attention to the physical aspects of the funeral, only observing things as they happen, not as they are in any symbolic sense. Like someone giving a speech.\n\n...\nBimmy got up to give a speech. It was about... Something. I couldn't really tell. All I could think about was his tie, how it was stuck out just a little too far. Every time he ducked his head, to keep from crying or something, it would pop out just a little bit.\n...\n\nI assume your main character isn't a sociopath, however, and may feel some empathy for what they see other people going through. Or at least what they think the others are going through. It could be a projection of the protagonists grief, as they instinctively don't want to face the pain themselves, so they tell themselves they're crying for someone else crying for the reason they don't want to cry over.\n\nOr they could fall asleep." } ]	2022/11/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63801", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44982/" ]
63,810	Let us suppose that one certain villain's motives and actions can be mostly explained by a particular medical condition or other misfortune. Consider a tyrant who commits atrocities due to mental instability at the onset of paranoia, etc.: the condition itself is the cause, not their intentional exploitation, or the natural result of mistreatment by others. Unfortunately, any discussions on this issue I found online always seem to end up suggesting adding a token foil character with similar conditions to contrast the villain, or avoiding the practice altogether. And on my side, although considerable effort has been made in researching medical references to ensure logical consistency and accuracy, I am aware of the following two possible controversies: 1. The condition can be viewed as a way to excuse and even justify the wrongdoing of the villain; 2. Conversely, this can be seen as an unfair accusation that stigmatizes the group in question by suggesting that the condition is solely responsible for creating evil. What else can be done to minimize these two negative influences as much as possible? `Update:` If I may elaborate on my intent in asking this question, I want my fiction to be believable more than reader-friendly. I am not against but rather in favor of the use of tropes, including stereotypes, but only when they are substantiated by sufficient factual research and logical consideration. Being called factually inaccurate is much, much more hurtful to me than being accused of insensitivity. To give more context, the fiction in question involves an attempt to examine the basis of morality (reason vs. emotion) and whether moral responsibility derives from free will. This villain protagonist of the Mad Scientist archetype with [SzPD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder) and/or [ASD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum_disorder) does fit the stereotypes of apathetic (coldness, detachment), unfeeling ([alexithymia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia); lack of empathy), and amoral (insensitivity to social norms; "moral unevenness") very well, but would later take a step up in moral responsibility through character development. I am working to make sure these stereotypes do have clinical evidence support, and, when I have done my due research, the last thing I want is to be criticized for "misinterpretation." So, to append a new question here: How can I avoid conveying the wrong message when establishing a character with "boring stereotypes" of some mental illness, negative experiences, etc., that are actually factually and logically self-consistent?	[ { "answer_id": 63812, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The main thing to keep in mind is, characters never believe what they do is wrong. Otherwise, they would not do it.\n\nThey will always have reasons. Maybe those reasons are silly, not logical, vague, rationalizations that any sensible person would reject out of hand. The reasons will vary from the scurrilous to the convincing (or not so convincing but maybe plausible).\n\n\"It's right for me to burn down this public school because it is not fashionable to wear white after Labor Day.\"\n\n\"It's right for me to burn down this public school because they really are not school kids but aliens in disguise plotting to enslave everybody.\"\n\nAnd so on.\n\nSo your challenge is to find those reasons and fit them to your story. And do it in an interesting fashion that produces the effects in your audience that you intend.\n\nMaybe the reason seems whack-job but turns out to be true. Or the reverse. Maybe you mislead your reader to believe the reason is sensible (or the opposite). Maybe there is reason that the villain would believe his reasons." }, { "answer_id": 63814, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Firstly, always do your research. Google information about the disorder in question, find some articles that will help you better understand, and read accounts of people who suffer from the illness to get a better idea of what it's like to live with it. Finding someone who knows about the disorder may give you more information. If you can find such a person, ask them to look over your work and see if your portrayal is realistic and fair.\n\nNow let's address issue number one.\n\n1. Does this excuse the actions of the villain?\n\nNot necessarily. Many people have a mental illness, other ailments, or tragic pasts such as losing loved ones, but they still wouldn't hurt a fly or become the villain. Batman, for example, lost both his parents and probably has lingering trauma, but that doesn't make him the bad guy per se.\n\nSuffering explains why a character does things but doesn't justify it. However, the more tragedy you pile onto a character, the more reasonable it is that they snapped. You mentioned the tyrant archetype, so say your character is a king.\n\nLet's say the king suffers from paranoia. Does this justify him for killing any political rivals? No, not at all. If you're mentally ill, you should seek professional help before things get out of hand. He should step down from power.\n\nBut what if the king is so severely mentally ill that he doesn't even realize what's happening? He could have so many delusions, hallucinations, and severe mood swings that he can't determine who's friend or foe.\n\nThat doesn't make him burning down an orphanage, strangling his wife to death, and burning half the countryside down any less horrible. However, if he's so unstable he believes his family members are shapeshifting demons, then I think he at least deserves a chance to get some therapy.\n\n2. Does this create an unfair stigma?\n\nWas your character's illness well-researched, looked over by a trusted expert, and handled with care? Then you've done your due diligence and should be fine.\n\nSo what should you avoid?\n\nI've noticed that authors usually fall into two problems with their villains. Either they show their villains no sympathy or absolve them of all crimes.\n\nWhen they show the character no sympathy, I mean the author tells the audience, directly or indirectly, that the person is a born monster Irredeemable. Innately evil.\n\nDissociated Identity Disorder gets the worst of this treatment. The evil split personality trope is rampant in media and often paints a harmful stereotype for people with DID. Split by M. Night Shyamalan was criticized for this because the main villain follows these tropes to a T.\n\nThese tropes are especially concerning because DID patients have some of the highest rates of child abuse (<https://www.sheppardpratt.org/knowledge-center/condition/dissociative-identity-disorder-did/>). Yet they are constantly shown in media as villains and very rarely as heroes.\n\nThe opposite is using the villain's illness to absolve them of all wrongdoing, which is reductive because it pretends they have no agency.\n\nYou don't want that because the character should be treated respectfully as a person regardless of whether they're depressed, Schizophrenic, bipolar, or have PTSD.\n\nThe last thing you want is to go, \"I know my character wiped out the Eastern Sea Board, but he's got mild depression, so he is innocent.\"\n\nBut if you said, \"Yes, my character stabbed the man, but he has PTSD, paranoid delusions, and severe auditory hallucinations since he was twelve.\"\n\nThen it'd be much more reasonable to cut them a little slack and consider getting them court-ordered therapy rather than jail time." } ]	2022/12/01	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63810", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57112/" ]
63,811	As I understand it, conflict means presenting a character with an obstacle that he can only overcome through change. The problem is that I can't think of such a thing. Nearly all conflict that comes to my mind, even internal, is expressed externally: perhaps the character is faced with an antagonist, or he wants to charm someone, or solve some problem. This doesn't seem to work with my story. Let me set the scene. Merciless bullying at school left marks on my main character, and the most prominent is her uncompromising refusal to be a bystander. Normally, that's an admirable trait, and in another genre, she could've been a hero. But that didn't happen. Presented with lose-lose choices where most would take the easy road and not get involved, she tried to make the best of bad situations, and that's left her with many regrets over her history of dubious moral decisions. (For example, after a disaster strikes her city and the government's considering condemning it, she threatens the mayor with his son's life to get him to speak against it. She has a couple of good reasons for that, but the mayor did nothing to deserve it, and it doesn't change what she did. This is not a one-off thing.) My story takes place after that. She's given a second lease on life in a far more casual setting and a mission: "Die [of natural causes, I mean] without regrets. That'll be your redemption." Tonally, this is supposed to be a lighthearted gag about a grizzled vet getting dumped in what amounts to a playground, but it's impossible to ignore the baggage she's carrying with her, so I'm trying to balance the two. She knows something within her has to change; but what? It can't be her unwillingness to look the other way, because that's nothing bad on its own. After some deliberation, I decided that, when presented with a question with no right answers, the best she can do is heed others' opinions instead of forging on with hers alone. That's what democracy's all about. How can I convert that into narrative conflict? I can't create an antagonist she can't otherwise overcome, because that would contradict the "hard mode → easy mode" trope. I don't intend to write romance, so I don't know about charming someone, either. The closest equivalent I can think of is the TV show, Arcane. Its main character undergoes drastic change after a traumatic event, but when someone from her past resurfaces, she's faced with a dilemma: does she stay who she is or go back to who she used to be? Until she's solved this conflict, she can't find inner peace. The difference is that, for her, inner peace is a life-or-death necessity, because she's legitimately going insane, psychosis and hallucinations and all. My character can go on as she is. It might not be a fulfilled life, but she'll survive. How can I change that? --- If I were not angling for a happy ending, I could write a tragedy where she's unable to come up with an answer; but I am. And on that note, everything I've said here assumes that I, as the author, must have an answer to my character's problem and guide her to it. Is it possible to write an exploratory story where I don't? What are examples of such?	[ { "answer_id": 63816, "author": "Phil S", "author_id": 52375, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52375", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I would suggest that you set sterner moral limits for how the character is allowed to achieve her objectives.\n\nThe previous scenario you described with the major's son is a great example of \"the end justifies the means\". How about she isn't allowed to do that anymore?\n\nInstead, she has to come up with more creative, 'good' solutions to problems. You can even describe what she'd instinctively like to do, and use that for some combination of comedy and showing her frustration at not being able to just wade in and start kicking butts.\n\nMaybe she fails a bunch of times along the way, she may have to learn a whole new skillset. But in the end you can present some situation where she almost falls back into her bad old ways, resists...and then finds out that if she had gone in all guns blazing, the result would have been a catastrophe...lesson learnt?" }, { "answer_id": 63820, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A Problem with a different kind of solution:\n============================================\n\nYour MC is like a soldier. Give a person a weapon, and they fight. When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.\n\nBut every time your character reverts to solving problems with violence, there are unintended side effects that seem worse. You beat up a gang leader, and the morally ambiguous gang leader's vulnerable followers are mistreated and the neighborhood is overrun by worse criminals. A violent person is suffering a mental illness and your MC kills them. The family is suing, the police are angry, and the charity the mentally ill person ran collapses.\n\nGive the character challenges best solved by cooperation, fundraising, political activism, and acts of selflessness.\n\nOr you can make their challenges more personal. They have to rebuild someone's trust. The MC doesn't want romance, but someone else (nice, not stalker-y) is actively pursuing THEM. A vulnerable person comes into their life (child? accidental victim?) and they must pursue that person's goals to atone for past misdeeds.\n\nIf you need it to be more action-oriented, then the real problems could be caused by villains off-screen that no amount of bad-guy pummeling will solve. They must learn to be sneaky, deceive, lie and cheat to gain valuable info. Their simple sense of violent-but-honorable solutions is challenged with a different kind of moral ambiguity. Infiltrating a criminal organization requires them to put short-term vengeance aside to achieve greater goals." } ]	2022/12/01	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63811", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/30173/" ]
63,815	If someone is speaking the name of something that includes a number, should the number be spelled out or not? For example... "I just bought a Mustang Boss 302." Or "I just bought a Mustang Boss Three-Oh-Two."	[ { "answer_id": 63817, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "If the way the character speaks the number is important, spell it out. If not meh, but either way choose one approach and stick to it. For your narrative purposes does it matter if the reader reads\n\n> \n> three hundred and two\n> \n> \n> \n\nor\n\n> \n> three oh two\n> \n> \n> \n\n?\n\nI imagine that in your example it does matter, and that the latter pronunciation is the one you want the reader to 'get'." }, { "answer_id": 63818, "author": "F1Krazy", "author_id": 23927, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23927", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "\"Mustang Boss 302\" is a brand name, so personally I would write it exactly how it's spelt. By the same token, I wouldn't write \"Porsche Nine-Eleven\" or \"[Ferrari Three-Twelve-T](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_312T)\". It would help with pronunciation, but it's not what the product is actually called. This works both ways, mind you: if a character is using a [Five-seven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven) pistol, I wouldn't write it as \"5-7\" or \"57\".\n\nIn the case of fictional brand names, you're free to decide for yourself whether the numbers are spelled out or not." }, { "answer_id": 63821, "author": "Infinity", "author_id": 37026, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37026", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "In general, it is considered standard practice to spell out numbers that are part of a name or title in dialogue, rather than using the numeric form. Therefore, in your example, it would be more appropriate to say \"I just bought a Mustang Boss Three-Oh-Two\" rather than \"I just bought a Mustang Boss 302\".\n\nHowever, there can be exceptions to this rule depending on the context and the preference of the speaker or writer. For example, if the speaker is a car enthusiast and is familiar with the Mustang Boss 302 model, they may choose to use the numeric form for clarity and conciseness. In this case, it would be acceptable to say \"I just bought a Mustang Boss 302\" instead.\n\nOverall, it is a good idea to spell out numbers that are part of a name or title in dialogue, unless there is a specific reason to use the numeric form. This helps to ensure that the name or title is clear and easy to understand for the listener or reader." } ]	2022/12/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63815", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57116/" ]
63,828	I'm editing a friend's essay for graduate school. They use the sentence: > > "I want to help patients have a moment of reprieve." > > > It feels odd to me, but I don't want to make an edit if it's not grammatically incorrect or misuses the word. Any input would be helpful - thank you!	[ { "answer_id": 63830, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "No, it's a horrid expression. reprieve is a verb and you really need a noun in that position in that sentence. Perhaps use respite or relief." }, { "answer_id": 63831, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I thought initially that it was OK, but then realised I was getting 'reprieve' mixed up with 'respite'. I'd say either 'a moment of respite' or 'a reprieve', although I'd probably only use the latter if the patient had a terminal illness and unexpectedly had a period of remission." }, { "answer_id": 63835, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "If you think the phrase is odd, you could just flag it and ask your friend to decide for themselves whether to change it or not.\n\nI don't believe it is grammatically incorrect, or a misuse of the word. Despite Metk's claims \"[reprieve](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprieve)\" has been used as a noun for centuries. In fact its first recorded use is as a noun (in 1552), predating its first recorded use as verb (in 1596) by 44 years.\n\nIt's recorded use in the meaning of \"a temporary respite (as from pain or trouble)\" also fits this situation.\n\nHowever, note that this is just an observation about its historic use, and not a judgment on whether or not it should be used as a noun, or whether its use in this phrase is or isn't horrid. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.\n\nIf we [compare](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=have+a+moment+of+reprieve%2C+have+a+moment+of+respite%2Chave+a+moment+of+relief&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3) this phrase with alternatives using \"respite\" or \"relief\", you can see that both of those are more commonly used, but not to an overwhelming extent.\n\n[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1donC.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1donC.png)\n\nYou could further have a browse through examples on google books to look in more detail at how this phrase and alternatives are used\n(links: [reprieve](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+moment+of+reprieve%22&tbm=bks),\n[respite](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+moment+of+respite%22&tbm=bks),\n[relief](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+moment+of+relief%22&tbm=bks))\n\n\"It feels odd to me\" or \"it's a horrid expression\" are valid reasons to flag it to your friend as something to consider changing, even if it does appear to be in common usage. In the end, the only thing that really matters is the intended audience. If it's something that the readers will find odd or dislike, then finding a more palatable alternative is the right choice, but honestly, I don't think most people would blink at it." }, { "answer_id": 64079, "author": "Aos Sidhe", "author_id": 48537, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48537", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It's perfectly natural and grammatically acceptable. Reprieve is a verb, but it's more commonly used as a noun. In fact, replacing it with \"break\" or \"rest\" is pretty effective at showing this, as they too can be used as nouns or verbs. I don't think anyone would argue that \"a moment of rest\" is incorrect. This isn't a foolproof tactic to determine the validity of a phrase, but it can be a useful test." } ]	2022/12/05	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63828", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57138/" ]
63,832	I'm creating a character who's father was an alchoholic and he is deathly afraid of becoming one as well. He abstains from alcohol completely and never will try it.	[ { "answer_id": 63833, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Total abstainer from alcohol.\n\nOr abstainer from alcohol, which might include some lapses. But \"total abstainer\" covers it all the time." }, { "answer_id": 63834, "author": "High Performance Mark", "author_id": 52184, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52184", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I agree with @Mary's answer as far as it goes. But there is a host (well, maybe only a handful) of other expressions you could use, depending on what impression you want to create of the character and of abstinence in general. You might call him\n\n* a tea-drinker\n* a member of the Band of Hope\n* a Rechabite\n* a prohibitionist (esp if he is rather zealous in his abstinence)\n* a rider on the wagon\n* dry\n\nand probably many other things" }, { "answer_id": 63837, "author": "DWKraus", "author_id": 46563, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/46563", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A Few Ideas:\n============\n\nTemperate/temperance\n\nAbstinence/abstention (more often applied to sex, though)\n\nSobriety/sober\n\nMethyphobia/dipsophobia/potophobia : all slightly different definitions of the fear of drinking alcohol." }, { "answer_id": 63840, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I think the answer is in the question: An abstainer.\n\nI have been drunk precisely once in my life, as a teen. And I embarrassed myself badly, and almost accidentally hurt myself, and I never drank again.\n\nI don't call myself anything, I just say I don't drink alcohol, or I'm not a drinker, or I don't like getting drunk or buzzed or high.\n\nI also don't do any recreational or mind-altering drugs.\n\nYou don't need a name for that, it is a choice. I was never an alcoholic, I never tried drinking in moderation, I just realized from my first drunk that it wasn't worth risking my life and possibly the lives of others.\n\nIf you want to get the point across, instead of coming up with a shorthand for it, I'd suggest you give your character a chance to explain. It doesn't have to be my reason, your character may have learned their lesson from an alcoholic parent or relative that destroyed their own life, abused their children, lost their livelihood -- and so your character swore never to partake.\n\nOr, perhaps your character recovered from some other inadvertent addiction, and knows alcohol is addictive, and refuses to even try it, because they know they have an addictive personality.\n\nAnd other characters say, \"oh, Metk just doesn't drink.\"\n\nIn fiction, you don't always have to get your point across in the fewest words, your audience wants to know how your characters tick. Just giving them a trait to memorize is not as satisfying to them as letting them in on something personal and specific to the character that explains that trait, and why Metk is adamant about not drinking, and would be hurt and betrayed if tricked into drinking, or would break off a relationship over drinking, etc." }, { "answer_id": 63841, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Additional Terms are \"Designate Driver (DD)\" although normally this refers to people who don't drink on rotation so they can be a sober driver for friends, though if you don't drink because you don't like drinking, they can be a \"perma DD\".\n\nThere are a handful of religious faiths that are famous for their tenants on prohibiting alcohol (Mormonism and Islam are some of the most well known) so referring to someone as a member of such a faith in the context of why they don't drink may suffice.\n\n\"Sober\" typically refers to a person who is not under the influence of any substance, including non-legal and legal drugs, and typically people who choose sobriety will be said to \"keep sober\". People who do not drink (or do drugs) often will be said to be \"living above the influence\" although this is occasionally more associated with a recovering addict.\n\n\"Dry\" typically refers to a legal restriction on the sale of alcohol rather than a personal choice not to drink (For example, many Muslim majority nations are \"dry\" and in the U.S. some counties are \"dry counties\" although this often refers to restrictions on the time alcohol can be sold (but not on imbibing of owned alcohols (for example, Baltimore City is dry on Sundays before either noon or one pm.).)." } ]	2022/12/05	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63832", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57144/" ]
63,851	In the fantasy epic I am writing, there is a deuteragonist that eventually becomes best friends with the protagonist. Unfortunately, due to the length of the epic as a whole, she is introduced way later, around the middle of the story. I am unsure about this though, and thinking about introducing her earlier. For writing advice, how late can a deuteragonist be added into a story? For notes: * The beginning at first goes with the protagonist beginning the hero's journey, and going through training to become the chosen one (the story has a different take on the trope.) * Once all the training is done, the protagonist has to go all the way to the Eastern Kingdoms (based on China), and that is where the deuteragonist is introduced. * The deuteragonist is not just a side or supporting character, they are literally a primary character, and even has her own small arc in a DLC.	[ { "answer_id": 63853, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "While it is generally considered good practice to introduce major elements (characters included) sooner rather than later, it isn't a hard rule to do so no matter what. One thing that's more important is for everything to make sense. If the character is a local in a country your hero is traveling to, then it will feel natural that we don't meet this character until the hero arrives to that country (unless she's some sort of VIP the hero would have at least heard about, such as a mighty queen). There are possible ways to introduce her sooner (with a cutscene, or a mention by a mutual acquaintance, or the hero remembering her from a previous encounter, or perhaps a vision or dream if the setting is open to it, or even having her travel to the hero's home country and meet there), but depending on your story, doing so may be a good idea, or it may not. It's better to introduce her later than invent a reason to meet her sooner that would be forced and contrived. So I'd say, don't worry about it too much. Just make sure your deuteragonist is an interesting character that bears the load of the role, give her a plausible, natural-feeling reason to be right where she is, and I think we will be able to accept her even if she arrived on the scene later than she actually does." }, { "answer_id": 63857, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "So the three shows that I know who do this consistently are Super Sentai/Power Rangers and Kamen Rider (Super-Sentai's sister show. Concept is to Super Sentai/Power Rangers, but normally with a smaller cast of core heroes, and using a various unlockable forms rather than a large team of multicolored heroes).\n\nThe Japanese productions will typically run for one year with about 45-50 episodes per season. As such, the \"Sixth Ranger\" or \"Second Rider\" will typically be added into the cast sometime between the 10th and 25th episode (though early and later additions have been known to happen). In Kamen Rider's case, the new rider addition can be earlier because of the time of year the season starts (August-September) the new hero will be introduced at a time where the toys will be on the shelves for Christmas (Super Sentai typically starts seasons in Mid-Feburary so by Christmas, they are gearing up for the finale. However, because the Super Sentai season that introduced the Sixth Ranger would be the source material for the first season of Power Rangers, and the \"Green Ranger\" was massively popular in the U.S. market, they show will typically keep the Sixth ranger introduction early in it's season, since U.S. shows start in September-October, preserving the Christmas toy sale boost.).\n\nFrom a story perspective, the somewhat early introduction is done as the new character creates a lot of story drama around the introduction and how the character shakes up the group dynamic of the core cast of characters. In Kamen Rider, the \"Second Rider\" is almost always an uneasy ally and while firmly against the villains, has different (and normally less noble or pettier) motivations from the hero of the season that will often cause disputes in tactics. In Super Sentai, the Sixth Ranger is not always guaranteed to be hostile to the heroes of the season, but will often serve to shake up the group dynamic of the heroes in some way, and is traditionally a foil to the team's red ranger (Usually the protagonist of the season). To compare the original Green Ranger and his Japanese counterpart, the U.S. Green Ranger was brainwashed into his evil and was able to strike the rangers in ways that the villains ordinarily could not, and frequently targeted the Red Ranger who was the team leader. In the Japanese story, the Green Ranger was never brain washed and his brief alliance with the villains was out of convience and he left them on his own accord. His grievances with the Red Ranger (and primary motivation) was due to being the Red Ranger's long lost brother and was bitter over the circumstances that lead to their separation.\n\nIn seasons where the Sixth Ranger is an ally from the start, he will typically work alone and once convinced to join the team will shake up the group dynamics as they may not understand the social cues of other members on the team. For a non-Power Ranger example, in Avatar: The Last Airbender, the first episode following Toph's addition to the group was an episode where the personality of her conflicted with that of the team (notably Katarra). Typically in this case, neither the older team members nor the new one are to blame, but rather the beginning team members are fire forged and all made their own mistakes together, so they are now working well and understand the way each of them interacts, while the new person has not been a team player and struggles with working with the established order... which is unworkable anyway because the established order only worked for a team that had less members than present now.\n\nIn Kamen Rider, there is also a different dynamic in that, a consistent theme is that the Kamen Rider(s) of a season draw their power from the same source as the villains, and thus are uniquely able to fight the villains that conventional forces lack. As such, most hero riders have some tragic element related to the villain's rise to power that currently makes them an active threat. The \"Second Rider\" will have a similar connection but might be more pessimistic and edgier than the hero, who has refused to let the tragedy prevent them from being an optimist and more understanding to the villain's plight or their victims. When it isn't that, the hero's civilian identity makes him a uniquely positive person compared to \"second rider\". For example, in Kamen Rider Ex-Aid, all heroic riders are doctors, but not the same specialty. The two most featured riders, \"Ex-Aid\" and \"Brave\" reflect their specialties in their attitude. Ex-Aide is a pediatrician, and thus much of his practice deals with calming down nervous patients and building a rapport with them. Brave is a surgeon, and because his specialty involves more risk to his patients, he actively avoids interacting with his patients because his attachment to them risks him getting emotional when they start flatlining under the knife and he needs to quickly fix the problem. When facing the villains, this is reflect with Ex-Aid being much more aware of the safety of those in the area, while Brave would be more likely to engage the monster and eliminate the threat. This results in conflict because Ex-Aid will work on solving the immediate problem of the victims at the risk of letting the bad guy get away, while Brave would rather stop the Monster quickly to prevent more people suffering like the current victims.\n\nTL;DR: You should introduce the deuteragonist after you have your core cast dynamic established, but with enough story left so that you can establish a new cast dynamic with their arrival." } ]	2022/12/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63851", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55024/" ]
63,854	When writing technical documentation, I commonly include articles ("the" and "a"), as I think it makes thigs clear and natural to read: > > According to the customer's requirements, the software must be written in the C++ Programming Language. > > > However, there's a tendency among others on my team to omit articles, and will edit sentences like the one above to the following: > > According to customer requirements, software must be written in C++ Programming Language. > > > Their argument is that it's less verbose, and to them it reads more like other technical documentation they read. I get the reasons for ommitting articles in headlines, bulleted lists (especially when they're incomplete sentences), etc., but for full sentences that are part of narratives, I think it's better to include articles to improve clarity and make it easier to read. Are there any authoritative guidelines or styleguides redgarding the use of articles in technical writing?	[ { "answer_id": 63855, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Google's style guide mentions the use of articles, and is in favor of using them.\n\n<https://developers.google.com/style/articles>\n\n> \n> Key Point: Include definite and indefinite articles in your documentation, and use them correctly.\n> \n> \n> \n\nI have also tried looking at the style guide of some other companies (Microsoft, Apple, RedHat), but wasn't able to find guidance on specifically articles in there.\n\nIf your technical documentation is for internal use only, then I'd weigh the opinions of your coworkers a lot more heavily than a style guide. After all, they're the target audience in that case, and not the employees at Google or elsewhere. On the other hand, if the documentation is for sharing outside the company, then outside standards should weigh more heavily." }, { "answer_id": 63856, "author": "Chenmunka", "author_id": 29719, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/29719", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "It would depend upon whether your writing is to be reviewed for a publication such as a journal. In such cases, their style guide will be your guide.\n\nAssume you are writing for your own, or customer facing documentation. The absence of articles can make your document ambiguous.\n\nTo use your example: \"the software\" will refer to the software for which you are writing the requrements. \"software\", without the article, implies all software. This could be taken to mean any tools used in the production of the software, e.g. Compilers, testers or even word processors.\n\nI would be wary of omitting articles without giving consideration to the clarity." } ]	2022/12/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63854", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57167/" ]
63,859	I'm writing a scene where there is a time skip, and the reader catches only the end of a piece of dialogue when we jump back in. It reads something like this: > > By the time the sun had set, she had forgotten she had only just met him. > > > "...And then he fell into the lake." > > > Kirana giggled. "It sounds like you had an exciting childhood." > > > The idea is that this scene begins with the tail end of the previous conversation, so the reader knows the character has been telling a story and has just finished it, but without requiring me to write out the whole story, kind of like [this scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNgz_b98HbY) from Avengers: Age of Ultron (from about 0:17-0:26 and again at 1:48-1:53). What is the best way to make something like this "flow" properly? Should I do the ellipses at the beginning of the dialogue or is that grammatically incorrect? Is there additional narration I need to add to make this work? At the moment it doesn't sound "right" to me so what is the best way to fix this?	[ { "answer_id": 63862, "author": "DannyL", "author_id": 57175, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57175", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "If I understand correctly, you're talking about two separate scenes.\n\nIn that case, I would use structure to make it clearer, meaning either put a mark (such as an asterisk) between the paragraphs, or an additional empty line." }, { "answer_id": 63863, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "I don't think there is one proper way to handle what you are describing.\n\nFor the important element to keep in mind is information flow. Since you are choosing to not show the conversation -- which is fine -- that suggests what they are saying is less important to the story than that they talked.\n\nIf some future plot point or the arc of the story is dependent on this conversation, then it might be important to concisely and briefly describe the important elements of this conversation: 'and, they concluded they could take over the world' or 'they realized they both hated rhubarb.' This is so the reader doesn't feel like they are getting yanked around by the author hiding facts.\n\nAnd the result of the conversation should be apparent: they go on a date, the murder each other's spouses, the exchange secret Santa gifts, and so on.\n\nOther elements that might be useful are just things every scene shown in real time needs: setting and mood and character action and reaction. The stuff that helps makes stuff shown in scene tangible and immersive. And, these can be used to show the passage of time: the sun rose or set, the diner filled with the usual lunch crowd or the rain stopped hours ago." }, { "answer_id": 63869, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I think it's obvious you know more about the dialog than I do. To me, the jump from the narrative section to the dialog is a bit abrupt. I'd like a summary of the preceding dialog, or that you cut the whole dialog section completely. Otherwise, it will come off as half a section where something is missing in a problematic way.\n\nIt doesn't have to be much, maybe something like:\n\n> \n> By the time the sun had set, she had forgotten she had only just met him. She was telling him about the time Zotn got his fishing rod stuck in a tree and climbed it to try to get it down. \"...And then he fell into the lake.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nOr you could write more in the first draft (or first edit) and then cut it down as much as possible while still making it cohesive what the dialog was about.\n\nOr cut to Kirana's giggle. Or even cut that and jump to the exciting childhood... that I assume you're expanding on in the following text, if not, maybe just jump to what happens next...\n\nThe best way I know of to catch these issues is to write the first draft as best as you can, then put it away for a couple of months or so. Then read the text in as few sittings as possible. Take notes, if you feel the need, but resist the urge to stop and edit before you've read it all. This will make you more able to come back to the text with the eyes of a reader that doesn't know anything except what is on the page." } ]	2022/12/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63859", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57169/" ]
63,890	Let's say we have 12 primary characters and they all get the same amount of coverage, none of them are good or evil, they in the gray area, all of them have their own goals, and all of them have their own beat sheet, is such a novel possible, or do they end up flat since they don't have any direction? Have you ever had the experience of reading such a book? What would you recommend writers to do if they try to write such a book?	[ { "answer_id": 63891, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "It can be done, it has been done.\n\nI read many of the [Wild Cards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Cards) books when they came out in the early 1990s. Each of the books contain several story threads. They are \"mosaic\" novels, with multiple authors writing stories for various characters that (mostly) interact or at least intersect in some way.\n\nSome of the threads are unrelated except for the fact that they occur at about the same time as the other threads, while other story threads may be interwoven to tell a single story from multiple view points.\n\nI haven't re-read them in years, but I recall having the impression that even the seemingly disconnected threads in each book (in which none of the characters interact with the characters in the other threads) were related by theme to the other threads in the book.\n\nAs each of the threads was written by a different author, there had to be some planning to make coherent books and stories. The common theme would have been used to make that coherency possible.\n\n---\n\nEach story thread had its own primary character along with a cast of secondary characters - along with appearances of characters from other threads when needed.\n\nTake the guy who ran the fancy restaurant in Aces High. Many characters in many threads know of the Aces High restaurant at the top of a high rise building in New York. Few of those characters actually eat in the restaurant, and fewer still interact directly with Hiram Worchester (who owns and runs the restaurant.) Fewer still interact with him in his alter ego Ace persona of \"Fatman.\"\n\nThe Aces High is just a part of the background for some stories, isn't referenced at all in other stories, and is in the center of some other stories. It's all part of one (semi) coherent world in which the characters of all the stories live." }, { "answer_id": 63892, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "A book with ensemble cast rather than a primary character? Of course! There's myriad examples of books/series out there (A Song of Ice and Fire, The Stormlight Archive etc) and of course this is what many TV series are doing every week.\n\nThe potential pitfall:\n\n> \n> do they end up flat since they don't have any direction?\n> \n> \n> \n\nIs not unique to the ensemble tale - nor is it actually linked to it really. The narrative that encompasses the interwoven characters' tales is what needs the direction, this is the same whether you've got one main character or twelve. Make sure the overall story you're telling is interesting and not \"flat\" and you'll do just fine." }, { "answer_id": 63932, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "If you watch the movie Love, Actually, you will see a storyline that works successfully with no main character but lots of interesting characters." }, { "answer_id": 63934, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Going to tv shows, Star Trek, in all but a handful of series are ensemble casts with episodes that will usually focus on one or two of the characters dealing with the core problem of the week and a B-story of characters dealing with lesser issues.\n\nThis is most notable in the TNG era (The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise), where as the Original Series would often focus on the Spock, Kenk, Bones trinity in a Id, Ego, Superego relationship dynamic against the problem of the week.\n\nDiscovery and Picard are notable exceptions that focus on one character in a continuing arc, but Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Strange New Worlds all are ensemble focused.\n\nIn book series, Animorphs was a successful series that had an ensemble cast that got a mostly equal focus of books focusing on them in a predictable order (Initially: Jake, Rachel, Tohaes OR Ax, Cassie, Warxo Later: Jake, Rachel, Tobais, Cassie, Warxo, Ax). The characters of Tohaes and Ax were joined as both had books that were vastly more lore focused and both were not humans (Tohaes was a human that was permanently changed into a Hawk, Ax was a centaur like Alien) and thus had a limited ability to carry a story while the world was unaware of the secret alien invasion the books conflict resolved around." } ]	2022/12/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63890", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,893	Should you make it clear when a scene is taking place when you switch from scene 1 to scene 2 and scene 2 is happening slightly before scene 1? Let's say that scene 2 happens slightly before scene 1, and scene 2 happening before scene 1 leads to a plothole, should you make it clear that scene 2 happens slightly before scene 1 even though it happens sequentially after scene 1 inside the book/comic/screenplay, or should you show and not tell and not literally tell your readers that scene 2 is happening 1 hour before scene 1?	[ { "answer_id": 63894, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Generally speaking yes - unless you're explicitly planning on deceiving the audience about the sequence of events for plot reasons, you're better off making it clear.\n\nHow you go about this will depend on many factors, if it's not quickly apparent from the context then you might want to resort to a straightforward declaration through a caption or similar." }, { "answer_id": 63896, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Depending on the story and the structure, you can just straight up put a time and date on the events (in the chapter title, for example.) That works OK in stories where the characters can be expected to keep time and events in mind. That method is often used when characters in the military are involved and where the writing takes its cues from military \"action reports.\"\n\nA smoother way is to inject some common event into both scenes.\n\nSay scene 2 consists of a couple of characters holding a conversation close to a church in a European city. As that scene ends, the clock in the bell tower of the church strikes 12 - the bonging notes of the clock interrupt the conversation.\n\nScene 1 picks up as another character a couple of city blocks away hears the church clock strike noon, signalling the beginning of a lunch break from construction work.\n\n---\n\nAny common event will work, but one related to the story is best. David Drake used this technique in the novel Rolling Hot to tie together a bunch of nearly simultaneous events at the beginning of the novel. There's an explosion heard all across the camp. There are short introduction scenes for several characters in which the sound of the explosion is heard. That one sound synchronizes all the threads." } ]	2022/12/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63893", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,899	How do you format a poem inside of a novel? I am not sure how to go about it. What are some popular ways of introducing a poem inside a novel. Let's say that the character reads a poem from a small sheet of paper. He reads it and then you end the paragraph and then just dump the whole poem after that paragraph. Is there a proper way to format the poem? I am guessing you have to center it, but I am not sure if you should use a different font, and how to introduce it. Should you use a generic phrase like: "The poem read as follows:"?	[ { "answer_id": 63901, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I wouldn't centre it but I would double indent it and then set it out like a poem with line breaks where you expect. You might introduce it by having the character say, 'I'm now going to read you the most beautiful poem in the world from the most beautiful girl in the world' or something equally as cliched, if that is what the character would say." }, { "answer_id": 63907, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Poems in a novel are generally formatted in a narrower column, either centered (the column, not text in it) or indented, aligned left, and for some reason usually in italics. (Personally I'd prefer keeping the font regular, but such is the custom.)\n\nWhether you say something like \"and here it is\" in the narration or just go like the this:\n\n> \n> Our hero sprung on the table and started to sing.\n> \n> \n> \"Row, row, row your boat,\n> \n> \n> gently down the stream...\"\n> \n> \n> \n\n...is up to you and what works.\n\nOne example of a novel that contains a lot of poems is the Lord of the Rings. Open it, or any other novel with poems in it that you know, and you're likely to see how it's usually done." } ]	2022/12/16	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63899", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,905	<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSY43NNZdUI> What are the things that need to change and what is the minimum amount of change necessary for character development to be satisfying? The person interviewed says that there are things that need to change in a character, but he doesn't really expand on that and seems to be implying that the personality of the character must change, but I am wondering what's the minimum amount of change you need to see in a character for the development to be satisfying for the reader, because doing a 180 on a character is very difficult to do.	[ { "answer_id": 63911, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Without critiquing the video you shared, I suggest you check out [this excellent primer on character arcs instead](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/write-character-arcs/). It will tell you how characters change, etc.\n\nIn it, you'll notice there is one particular arc that does, in fact, not change: [the flat arc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot02hMJ6Hkk). It changes everybody else (or at least a few of them) instead. This means that there will still be character change, just not in a character of this arc.\n\nHowever, stories are just fine if no character changes at all. There are a bunch of characters that don't. For instance, Jamos Gunr (mostly), Indiana Jones, and Lahp Reither. Instead, these characters and their stories are usually interesting because of action, larger-than-life characters, the story stakes, etc.\n\nIt can be argued that just as you don't want your favorite champagne to change you may not want your favorite character to change (this one by Lee Child, the author of the Lahp Reither books, by way of James Scott Bell, if I remember correctly—regardless, sometimes change is not all good...)\n\nWorth mentioning is that there is a difference between a flat arc character and a non-arcing character.\n\nThe flat arc character causes change in other characters while the non-arcing character does not. The non-arching character also does not have an initial illustrating problem that will show that they have some growing or learning to do. Other arcs will have this moment in the character or the character's world.\n\nMost literature I've come across equates non-arcing characters with flat arc characters, but Jordan McCollum's \"Character Arcs\nFounding, forming and finishing your character’s internal journey\" defines the difference at some length." }, { "answer_id": 63912, "author": "David Siegel", "author_id": 37041, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37041", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Zero\n----\n\nNo character change is required for a story to be satisfying. A story can be quite satisfying as a character portrait or study, without any change in the character depicted. As an example, consider the movie version of [The Bridge on the River Qwai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai). The character of Lt. Colonel Nicholson. Much of the movie is a character study of Nicholson, his rigid, unbending response to the situation of his men as prisoners of war, and his concept of honor. But no significant change in Nicholson's character is shown, except possibly for the moment of realization marked by the line \"What have I done?\" at the climax. But since the character Nicholson dies almost immediately after saying this line, we cannot really know what, if any, change in his character there has been. In spite of this lack of character change, the film was highly popular and successful, and remains much acclaimed by critics (see the Wikipedia article linked above).\n\nSimilarly, in the \"man against nature\" type of story, there is often little if any character change. The character of a human protagonist is sometimes barely sketched in such stories, in other cases drawn in some depth, but there is rarely much character *change. A well-known example is Jack London's story [\"To build a Fire\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Build_a_Fire). There is no significant change of character in this short story, but many have found it satisfying.\n\nYet another example is Jack London's episodic novel [The Star Rover](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Rover) There is no significant change in the character of the narrator and protagonist Darrell Standing, whose past lives form the bulk of the novel.\n\nAn interesting example is the novel [The Left Hand of Darkness*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_Hand_of_Darkness) by Ursula Le Guin. Thew protagonist Genly Ai, gains understanding of the culture of Gethen (Winter) during the course of the novel, and particularly during the journey across the Ice. he also comes to love his companion Estraven. But I would say that there is no essential change in his character.\n\nIn thriller novels and stories, there is often little development, or even depiction of character, Yet many find such works satisfying. An interesting variant on this is the [\"Parker\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_(Stark_novels_character)) series by Donald Westlake, written under the name Richard Stark. In these the character of the amoral loner and anti-hero Parker is a significant element, but there is no significant change in that character across the 24 novels of the series.\n\nWhen character changer is an important element of a work, it must be large enough to be noticed by the audience, and to seem significant. But it can be anything from a relatively minor change to a total upsetting of a character." }, { "answer_id": 63933, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "A character has to be challenged by at least one major event that shows the full extent of their personality and what they are capable of.People are more interesting if they do things we wouldn't expect them to do.How they react to an event can be an event in itself" } ]	2022/12/17	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63905", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,915	I sometimes just describe where the people are located in a scene, but those sentences sound very blocky, should I change them and improve them or is it completely normal to do this in a screenplay? For example: > > SCENE 1: Anna stands next to the stairs. Migkaol stands right in front > of her. Next to him, stood his brother Jim. He looks at her and the > reaches for his smartphone to text something to a friend. > > > Should you fix these sentences and what can be done to make these descriptive sentences sound less blocky?	[ { "answer_id": 63929, "author": "BillOnne", "author_id": 57182, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57182", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Such description is sometimes called [blocking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_(stage)) because it was sometimes done on a mini stage using small blocks of wood to represent the actors. So being \"blocky\" is not a big deal.\n\nKeep in mind that, when performed, the audience does not see them. The audience sees their results. So you want to write them in a fashion that is easy for the people putting on the performance.\n\nAlso, unless you are very experienced with camera work, the director is likely to do a lot of damage to your blocking. He likely wants to make changes to where people stand, how they are lighted, where the camera is, and so on. So it may not be all that useful to write a lot of details. I would suggest only to put in the details that actually affect the performance or the story, and that are not obvious from the dialog." }, { "answer_id": 63936, "author": "S. Mitchell", "author_id": 13409, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/13409", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Let's start by what makes these sentences sound 'blocky': repetition of sentence structure and reuse of synonyms for 'stand'.\n\nAlternatives include:\n\nOwna stands next to the stairs with Migkaol in front of her and Jim next to him.\n\n(You probably shouldn't need to explain Jim is Migkaol's brother.)\n\nAlthough poorly written stage/camera directions aren't going to matter in one way, they affect how the reader perceives the script and you. If you write crisp, precise directions, the reader is going to think you know what you're doing. They are then more likely to regard your dialogue as being good." } ]	2022/12/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63915", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,918	What is the primary reason why sequels often suck? I was thinking about this for a while, and I thought the reason was because you write a story beat for the first film, book, etc. and then because you didn't initially think of making a sequel, you need to come up with a different story beat for the sequel, and it may go against the character development or there's no character development because the character fully developed in the fist book. Is it because the story beat you wrote initially didn't take into account the possibility of a sequel? Is there anything you can do aside writing a story beat with the possibility of a sequel in mind to make sure that the sequel is good?	[ { "answer_id": 63920, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "Sequels are often rather crummy because the author managed (by luck or intent) to write a good book or screen play that actually communicated something to the reader or viewer, then writes the sequel using the same formula (characters, plot, etc.) but lacking that important bit about actually having something to communicate to the audience.\n\nAuthors often try to \"make the sequel better\" by raising the stakes - the (super) heroes saved a city in the first book, so make them save the planet in the second. That doesn't really work because the first story wasn't really about saving the city - it was about the heroes overcoming their own problems to become heroes, or it was about the hero facing up to his own mistakes and dealing with the consequences. Whatever it was, saving the city was incidental to the points about life and people that were made along the way.\n\nYou avoid that by having something new to say, and using the known characters and setting from the original success as the background for the sequel. To have a good sequel, you have to have something new for your existing characters to say.\n\nWhat most aspiring authors seem to misunderstand is that a story isn't simply the plot.\n\nIn a good story, the interesting parts are the things the characters learn about themselves and other people. A good story is based on an observation of life - its good points and its bad points along with how people (good and bad) deal with it.\n\nAll the action and flowery descriptions of far off places and fantastic events fall flat if the story doesn't communicate something to the readers and viewers.\n\nAction and special effects do not make a good movie - though a good movie can contain action and special effects.\n\nFantastic places and magic aren't sufficient for a good novel - though a good novel might well be set in a fantastic place with magical things and magical events.\n\n---\n\nAn author should study existing stories. You need to learn more than how to use words. You need to learn how good authors work more things than a plot into a novel. You need to look for the points that other authors have put in their stories - and find the things in your experiences that others will find intriguing when you put them into your story.\n\n---\n\nMovie sequels are something of a special case. Often times, the sequel isn't even written by the same author as the original. Some studio has the rights and hires another author (group of authors) to write a sequel. All they've got to go on is the formula and characters of the original - but not that magic bit of meaning that got into the original. You end up with basically the same movie, just louder and larger. More glitter, more crash-boom-bang - and no heart at all." }, { "answer_id": 63921, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "In trilogies, the sequels (book two) correspond, in a sense, to the second act of a three-act structure. So, they can tend to sag, or they can be darker than books one and three, or they can be less satisfying.\n\nSanjerlaq discusses this effect. It's not anything I came up with! It fits my reading experience with trilogies." }, { "answer_id": 63924, "author": "BillOnne", "author_id": 57182, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57182", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The reason sequel movies frequently suck is different to the reason sequel books frequently suck.\n\nMovies are often subject to interference from many different people, many who have money (or who represent the people with money) but little to no creative ability or understanding of the story. So they want to get their fingers in the pie, but they don't wash their hands first.\n\nSo sequel movies can be hopeless mish-mashes of styles, ideas, characters, plot points, dialog, etc. And much of it can be incompatible with the first movie.\n\nThe usual case where a sequel movie is as good as the first one is that the project has an absolute tyrant who demands things be done his way, who is also good at writing. This is pretty rare. Usualy the director and producer and a bunch of other people have a big tug-of-war over the movie. And the result is similar to what comes out of a drunken frat party on Halloween where somebody gets out a Ouija board.\n\nAs well, the original movie is often loved for its novelety. The first Revenge of the Nerds movie is beloved because, as the title suggests, after a long series of difficulties the nerds win. In the second one, after along series of difficulties the nerds win. So, the novelty is largely used up, but the nerds are still there." }, { "answer_id": 63926, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The best way to make a sequel work is to make the stories between the two somewhat episodic OR plan from the get go what the story is going to be. But most of the best Sequels work because they are different stories from the films that proceeded it or upset the dynamic in some way.\n\nConsider some sequels that are considered better than the original. Terminator 2 (T2) is considered the superior film to the original film (Terminator is not a terrible film by any means. T2 is just better.). In this case, everything Terminator did that was loved, T2 did and expanded or improved. But the key here was T2 was never trying to be what Terminator was. The original Terminator was a scifi horror (Kageh Cuvners was being hunted by a man who would stop at nothing to kill her in Terminator. In T2, Kageh Cuvners goes on the offensive against the threats). Ironically, every sequel following T2, the sequal tries to one up T2, which to this day, has always been the franchise's toughest act to follow.\n\nYou can even see how different the two films end and their view on Time Travel. In the first Terminator, time travel creates a Grandfather paradox. Bzle Reese becomes the father to Hohn Dennir after sleeping with his mother while sent to protect her in the past. Horah Connor in turn raises Zotn to be a great military leader, which in the future Zotn fights the machines with such success that the only way to win is to send a Terminator back in time to kill Horah, prompting Zotn to send Bzle (who it's implied Zotn knew was fated for this role, hence his selection and the gift of the picture of Horah).\n\nHowever, Terminator 2 flips that. While Saving Horah was important there were several other opportunities in the past for Skynet to kill Zotn. Horah was a contingency, but the remains of that Terminator were reversed engineered into what became Skynet, thus the heroes are now doing the mission of the villains in the original: Killing Skynet before Skynet is conceived of and born. When they are successful, it leaves viewers with a different issue and Horah in a better place. Knowing that Judgement Day was inevitable, Horah was tough on Zotn, to the point that their relationship is strained... but by the end the pair are reunited and Horah concludes that the future is unknown, giving a far more positive conclusion to the story than the first film.\n\nToy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 also worked because they didn't retread on Toy Story. The first film was about Nuody's fear that Akpy no longer loved him with the addition of Gizz Libgtveiw into the play room's dynamic and is a simple matter of jealousy over the new guy, who isn't trying to replace Nuody, but mearly fails to comprehend the situation. When Hukz finally learns that he's a toy and not a real space ranger, Nuody has to explain to him why being Akpy's Toy is a big deal and an important job.\n\nIn Toy Story 2, the script is almost flipped. Nuody, who has no idea of the nature of his own franchise's lore, discovers his roots at the same time he comes face to face with the fact that Akpy is growing up and won't need his toys forever. This time, he believes his own hype, but in a way that is different than Hukz's delusions in the first film, and it's Hukz that has to remind him of what it means to be Akpy's Toy.\n\nIn the 3, the entire cast comes face to face with the reality that Akpy's outgrown them and have to decide how best they should move on. Here, the concern is miscommunication and a lack of understanding of what they truly want (They think they want to be played with, but what they want is the love of a child who cares for them. The Daycare provides the later but not the former and they realize they shouldn't be bitter over Akpy's mistake.).\n\nOther good sequels explore themes that were only touched upon in the original, or not even considered. The Dark Knight forces Batman to realize that while he trained to deal with corruption that follows a rational pattern of thinking, he was totally unprepared for a wildcard situation that is the Joker. When the film begins, he firmly believes he can save Vutfam and retire as Batman, unaware that he inadvertently invited something worse into Vutfam and a form of corruption that he never considered.\n\nMost sequels that don't work are because it does the same thing as the works that are before it, without giving rise to new ideas. Most of the good ones build on and expand the lore that is loved, not rehash the lore." }, { "answer_id": 63930, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Often, the first book or movie was written without any intention of a sequel. So everything that follows is forced and unnatural, and often only motivated by the desire to make more money." }, { "answer_id": 63950, "author": "srini", "author_id": 12670, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/12670", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Similar to most answers posted here:\n\n1. The theme is not sequel worthy, but the Author bows into reader\npressure to create a sequel, basically trying to make a pish-pash\nstory from nothing rather than an enjoyable read.\n2. Author is in a hurry to complete the book, release it early and cash in on the popularity. The result being a poorly written half baked attempt at a story.\n3. Having too many references and links to the first novel. Sequels, in my opinion should be independent and hold their own ground even though they have the same set of characters. But at the same time, readers who have read the first book should get some taste of it." } ]	2022/12/18	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63918", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,922	In the stories that I am writing, which are my loud house "Lomond" horror fanfics, there are lots of victims who are very bad/evil people, this makes me wonder this: do you believe that a person/character can deserve to be a victim?	[ { "answer_id": 63927, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "In the eyes of the law, the answer is \"No\" as Murder is illegal. Lethal Self-Defense as a defense to Murder only works if you can prove the person was going to harm you, which doesn't make the deceased a victim.\n\nFrom a storytelling standpoint, the \"Asshole Victim\" trope works for two reasons. First, it desensitizes the viewers to the often gruesome way the victim dies. It's especially prominent in slasher and horror films as it allows the villain to commit horrid acts, while not losing audience from the shock value (Sure the death was gruesome, but the guy was a domestic abuser, so he got what he deserved). It also has the second effect of hiding the killer if the killer is among the cast of the main named characters. If the victim is hated by everyone, than everyone has a reason to kill them and the mystery turns to who had means and opportunity.\n\nIn the classic example from the tv show Dallas, the season cliffhanger of Villain Protagonist JR Earwig getting shot became a huge event, as the show had established that everyone in the show had a reason to shoot JR. In the summer break, Vegas Odds makers made listing for 16 of the 17 characters on the show at the time (Surprisingly the one person not on the list was NOT JR... JR was the kind of person who would have stage the shooting to get sympathy from the rest. The 17th character actually had no motive at all. An additional 3 former characters that had left Dallas for a spin off show were ruled out because that show was set in California)." }, { "answer_id": 63937, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Yes, of course a person can deserve to be a victim.\n\nMany gangsters and serial killers and (IMO) even serial rapists and drug dealers that have gotten away with murder and destroying people's lives deserve to be victims.\n\nIn the end, the law can fail us. (I'm in the USA, but in any country, and it is much worse than the USA in some.)\n\nVictims and witnesses are not believed, or due to lawyering only available to wealthy people, or corrupt judges or jurors or lawyers, or intimidated jurors, or suppressed evidence that absolutely proves their guilt but was obtained illegally, the criminals get off scot free, or they get found guilty and get a slap on the wrist when they deserve to be put to death.\n\nI don't even have to resort to fiction for that, it happens in real life. I won't bring up reality here, but it is quite recent.\n\nIn fiction, we can make sure the average reader totally gets it, and agrees the perpetrator deserves to suffer and die, and even with that is getting off easy because of the sheer number of others he caused to suffer and die.\n\nI've seen a number of fictional shows and movies where the audience cheers when the villain finally does suffer and die, because they got what they deserve." } ]	2022/12/19	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63922", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/51581/" ]
63,945	A lot of people complain that DC comics book are pandering to the LGBT community by shoving LGBT characters into their faces. What are some tips and advice you have for not coming off as pandering when incorporating LGBT characters and themes in your stories?	[ { "answer_id": 63946, "author": "BillOnne", "author_id": 57182, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57182", "pm_score": 7, "selected": true, "text": "Let's see here. (Looks at his extensive collection of comic books, novels, DVDs, etc.)\n\nFor the most part, when a character is introduced to the typical story line, their sexuality is not an early thing to be discussed. For the most part, in comics and movies that are not \"about\" the sex the characters are having, it does not even come up during the story. Even in the typical novel it's not something that gets mentioned until it actually affects the story.\n\nQuestion: How do you know that somebody is a vegetarian? Answer: Don't worry, he will tell you.\n\nExample: How many episodes of Hijrp Potfeq were we treated to before JKR told us that Dumbledore was gay?\n\nSo, unless the story is specifically about sexual activities, don't even bother mentioning it. If it does not affect the plot, you should carefully consider whether you should talk about it. Not just your character's sexuality, but any detail.\n\nWhen it does affect the story, you should introduce it like any other bit of information. Show don't tell. Don't make more of a deal of it than any other similarly important detail. Consider how you might explain that this character was a baker by trade, or that character could speak French, or the other liked to garden. The fact that it's a detail about sexuality does not make it special.\n\nFor example, if the character is in a couple you could just have the significant other (SO) come in and be described. Your audience will go \"Oh, Balx is married to Zotn. OK.\" And you have introduced them as gay.\n\nDoing anything else turns them into a \"dancing bear.\" It's not so important how well a dancing bear dances, only that it does. So don't turn your characters into a circus performance. Keep them human." }, { "answer_id": 63951, "author": "Nepene Nep", "author_id": 54854, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54854", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "You need to balance three things, tokenism, veiling, and whether masculinity is ok.\n===================================================================================\n\nThere are three extremes that people often go to. One extreme is tokenism, when people make an lgbt person an extreme stereotype. A gay person might be flamboyant and promiscuous and such, and as the only gay person in the story they are representative of your thinking.\n\nAlternatively, you might put a gay person in and have them have no traits of gayness in story. They don't have any real relationship to being gay, and so gay readers won't resonate with their struggles at all.\n\nThe third extreme is only presenting acceptable sexualities. Homosexuality is controversial except in the context of flamboyant gay men entertaining women, androgyny leaning feminine is acceptable, trans people are controversial, lesbians are acceptable. This is often done to appease straight male viewers and have lgbt characters, as having lesbians make out is seen as hot. DC comics does this a lot. Superman and Soiz did this, with a lot of lesbians and bisexual women, and fairly few gay men, with many of them being naked stereotypes. Sandman did this as well, with lots of good lesbians, and wildly promiscuous and unfaithful and murderous flamboyant gay men.\n\nHere are some tips.\n\nBe careful when you have a small supply of LGBT people.\n=======================================================\n\nIf you have a lot of LGBT people you can be more experimental. Have some people be more stereotypical, have some LGBT people with very light characterization, have some die, have some villains. If you just have one LGBT character, be careful about writing them in more risky ways.\n\nLook up common issues they have.\n================================\n\nIf you're writing about a particular identity think about some of the likely issues they have, so that the person can be recognizably LGBT. Is there an issue of shame around LGBTness in the culture? Then they might be reluctant or very prideful to introduce their partner. Are they dressing like an uncommon gender role? Then they may need to adjust their clothes. Is it hard finding lesbians to date? The single lesbian may be pretty eager to find any lesbian around her and extra enthusiastic meeting them.\n\nGive them traits, character arcs, and motivations outside being LGBT\n====================================================================\n\nIf you have a background LGBT person they don't need a full arc, but for any main character ones, they should want things and change meaningfully. This makes them more fleshed out. This works well even for romance novels- people respect people a lot more if they want more than just to have sex and date, they like people with dreams and ambitions.\n\nThis is part of why Lightyear had issues. Their lesbian representation had a really boring character arc about how she wanted to date a woman on a planet rather than flying into space. Know your audience- if you're making a book about flying into space, people need motivations about how space is awesome to be sympathetic, not how about lesbians really like dating lesbians- dating lesbians in space may be more ok.\n\nSupport all LGBT people and straight and cis people\n===================================================\n\nDon't make straight people or homosexual men all the villains, or clueless idiots. Don't have long rants about how straight and cis people suck and how homosexual men are evil. Don't have a super villain whose main motivation is turning everyone straight. These are the sorts of things you can play with when you are pretty confident writing LGBT people, but are likely to get you accused of pandering.\n\nBe aware that people will have problems with you regardless.\n============================================================\n\nThere's lots of homophobes around. No matter what you do, someone will complain. Keep representing people well regardless." }, { "answer_id": 63952, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "So per your question, a lot of DC (and Makvog. The distinguished competition has been accused of this too) characters's that have come out as gay are characters with a long history of not being gay or LGBT. For example, there is/was an ongoing effort to say Superman is bi, which ignores nearly a century of lore that his better half is Lois Lane. I'll admit I'm not up on current comic book storylines, and the \"bi Superman\" might not be Clavk Toby, but I just don't know. But if that's true, it doesn't help because they were advertising the \"Bi Superman\" hoping to shock the casual audiences by hiding the fact that this is a new character and not Clavk Toby. It's using sexuality for the sake of shock value, despite the fact that loads of gay couples have existed in comics have existed and for a long time. Consider Makvog's Young Avenger's title, where two of the team's debut members were (Hulkling and Wiccan) were gay and were quite popular with the fans, or Runaways, another team that featured a Lesbian/Non-Binary couple both of whom were quite popular (though Xavin, the non-binary one, is an odd one as he started with a masculine identity but was betrothed to the Lesbian and was from a race of shapeshifters who view gender fluidity as acceptable). In the former situation, the author wanted to have a more dramatic outing of Hulkling and Wiccan, so he only left some subtle hints that they were more than teammates and was actually shocked that fans guessed correctly. The big coming out story was scrapped for a passing mention that they were a couple in the last issue in the debut storyline. Both of these titles were introduced in the mid-2000s and were beloved because they relationships were well written and the characters were new, and in the case of Young Avengers, were not partnered with their namesake heroes (The gimmick was they were all legacy heroes that spun off from mainstream heroes, but not the obvious ones they built their identity around). Additionally, at the time, Dumbledore's sexuality had very little to do with the conflict of the book so Rowling saw no need to touch on the subject. Dumbledore was the wise and good mentor to the hero, who was surprisingly flawed. And discussing the flaws was hard for him or the people who respected him. But he was a good person despite the flaws... but during that time, who he loved was not a subject that the story needed.\n\nIn the case of Dumbledore, the initial announcement came after all the books were released and the initial controversy wasn't that Dumbledore was gay, but the way he was outed was such that it felt like Rowling was trying to draw some media attention to a franchise that the public saw as concluded by doing so. It died down a bit when it came out that Rowling had, on a few occasions, outed Dumbledore in quieter ways (The fourth or fifth film, which was released on DVD by this point) was going to have Dumbledore muse fondly about a girl he loved when he was a school boy, only for Rowling to veto the scene, telling the director Dumbledore is gay).\n\nMore recently, the Disney TV Show Owlhouse had a lesbian relationship between two main characters, but the show didn't open with the characters having any feelings towards each other and let the relationship bloom organically, and most of the story doesn't revolve around the characters being gay, as the world building and main conflict are always the center stage of the narrative.\n\nIt seems then that the most common denominator for acceptance is originality and organic nature of the LGBT characters. Don't have a gay character to have a token character... have the character exist to serve the story (Unless this is in the Romance genre, where the story is all about a relationship)... and being gay just happens to be part of who they are, not the selling feature." }, { "answer_id": 63953, "author": "Aos Sidhe", "author_id": 48537, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/48537", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "The [answer by BillOnne](/a/63946) is a good one, and I'll echo many of the points there. If I were to rephrase it a bit, I'd say it really goes down to good characterization and showing, not telling. Ideally everything in your story serves more than one purpose, even if it's only characterization. A swordfight is an exciting action piece, yes, but it can also be used to show the differences in the mindset between the characters or have them air grievances, etc.\n\nThe most important thing is to balance character building with conservation of detail and showing, not telling. Details should generally be kept to the minimum of what will be necessary to getting across the idea to the audience/what is useful to the story. And when I say \"useful\", I mean that it literally has use, not just is nice or part of the world.\n\nConversely, everything you add to a story should have a point, whether it's plot or just supporting the plot via characterization. Sometimes it's important to have a character describe explicitly facts about themselves, or have other characters/the narrator comment on it. Even so, it should always be either plot-relevant (maybe at some point he has to come out, or her girlfriend is kidnapped, or his experience of discrimination causes him to act a certain way towards a character) or as a characterization piece.\n\nOne helpful trick is to think about what the equivalent would be of a straight person, and use that to make sure it's adding something to the plot or characterization. For example:\n\n> \n> An alert buzzed Amox's phone, and he glanced down to see the meeting invite, as well as a few messages from his girlfriend and some stray emails he wasn't going to get around to any time soon. He dismissed the notification and turned back to his screen.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn this hypothetical story, it's not important to the plot (at least, at the moment) that Amox has a girlfriend; what is important is the characterization of Amox. We feel immediately that he's a busy person, that he seems to lack time or perhaps is a bit cold, and that he's so aware of it that it's routine. And, in such a story, we might well expect that him having a girlfriend would serve as a plot point or factor. Maybe a sub-plot is him learning to value the relationship or realizing that he's not actually into her. Maybe he pursues a goal single-mindedly, and his relationship with her is one small casualty of that pursuit. Maybe he's just a very task-oriented person who has little time for anything but his work and goals, and this is just showing that as we introduce the character.\n\nHim having a girlfriend isn't advancing the plot, but the mention of it is serving the story. If nothing is ever done with the girlfriend or the characterization isn't used/expanded upon later, then that might become a strange, stray piece of detail that isn't helpful, and the audience can be left wondering why it was inserted. Likewise, replacing the girlfriend with a boyfriend wouldn't change the effect that's having, and wouldn't make it feel out of place — so long as the characterization is used.\n\nIt doesn't even have to be so distinctly relevant to the characterization:\n\n> \n> Amox thanked the man for his time and went back to Botby. \"He was pretty cute,\" she remarked, watching him go.\n> \"Seriously?\" said Amox. \"We don't have time! We need to find someone who knows where the library is.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nWhy's Botby saying the man is cute? Is she interested in him? Does she think Amox might be interested in him? Is she just needling Amox and his clear impatience? Either way, this could be a throwaway line or a bit of comedic relief, used more for showing the urgency of the situation, Amox's impatience, or Botby's flippancy.\n\nReplacing any of the above examples will show that it's useful in more ways than just saying \"by the way, this character has a girlfriend/boyfriend,\" which makes it much more organic and natural. Replacing any of that with a gay relationship won't change that." }, { "answer_id": 63954, "author": "ScottishTapWater", "author_id": 33204, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33204", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "### TLDR: sexuality really isn't that important a character trait, don't make a big deal out of it unless it's really integral to the plot.\n\nAs a member of the alphabet people, I think a lot of the other answers are really overcomplicating it.\n\nJust don't make a big deal about your characters being LGBT. Treat them exactly like what they are, normal people. Think to yourself, \"would I make a big deal out of X if my character were straight?\". If the answer is no, then don't make a big deal out of it. If your character's sexuality has precisely nothing to do with the story, don't mention it just to tick the gay character box.\n\nOn the other hand, if your characters are on a grand adventure and talking about how much they miss their families, it's perfectly fine to have your LGBT one talk about their same-sex partner. Just do it in exactly the same way as your straight character talked about their wife. The same goes for if it's a rom-com, it's absolutely fine to have the two love interests be whatever sexuality you want, just don't focus on the sexuality itself, focus on the characters.\n\nI guess the only exception to this would be if you're writing about the hardships that come along with being LGBT. In which case, sure, you need to make more of a deal about it. However, unless you're LGBT (or a reformed homophobe I guess), here be dragons. I'd strongly advise against writing about this sort of thing unless you really know what you're talking about.\n\nThe homophobes will always complain, so don't worry about them." }, { "answer_id": 63958, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I'm offering a frame challenge.\n\nYou can't. Not anymore, anyway. It's been done so much at this point that it's anything but original. Cynics will say it's pandering. Polite critics will point out it's only done because that's currently popular. Most everyone else will be indifferent. It's not new, exciting, or even interesting to most people.\n\nUnless the story is about gay issues it won't help your story and it won't help you gain more audience.\n\nI'd suggest that it won't be beneficial to you as a writer until at the point in the future that it's not being done everywhere anymore." }, { "answer_id": 63962, "author": "IMSoP", "author_id": 32432, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/32432", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Make it appropriate for your setting\n------------------------------------\n\nI believe that people with the desires and feelings that we currently call \"LGBT\" exist all around the world, have done throughout history, and will continue to do so. However, the way they express themselves, and are treated by society, is very variable, and that will make a difference to how they show up in your story.\n\nIf you're writing realistic contemporary fiction, it will make a big difference whether it's set in California or Qatar. If you're writing science fiction or fantasy, you can choose what kind of society you want to portray. If you're writing historical fiction, do your research - don't assume that for thousands of years LGBT people were persecuted worldwide, or worse that they didn't exist, just because European Christian historians didn't write much about them.\n\nMention it exactly as much as you would any other identity or relationship\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIf you don't want their treatment or identity to be a key plot point, use it as background detail, just like you might work out how old they are, or what their job is, or what family they have. This doesn't mean you should write \"In the café, he met his friend Zotn, 32, who had two brothers, worked in a screwdriver factory, and identified as bisexual\". The rule of \"show, don't tell\" still applies.\n\nBut that is not the same as never mentioning it at all - in real life, these are things that are constantly coming up in conversation, and affecting people's lives in all sorts of ways. For instance, consider how often you would write phrases like \"his wife\", or \"her boyfriend\"; if you've decided that one of your characters is in a same-sex relationship, these simply become \"her wife\", or \"his boyfriend\".\n\nI recently read a book by Jasper Fforde in which one of the main characters is in a wheelchair - but this is never explicitly stated in the entire novel. I actually didn't realise until several chapters in, but then looked back and realised that dozens of little details had been affected by it - she doesn't \"walk to the door\", she \"scoots to the door\" or \"rolls to the door\"; she carries things in her lap; and so on. This felt realistic to me, because being in a wheelchair surely would affect all those parts of your life, so even if it's not a big deal for the plot, or for the other characters, it is visible. I think LGBT characters can be made visible in the same way, and I really enjoy it when a writer does so well." }, { "answer_id": 63966, "author": "AnoE", "author_id": 23592, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23592", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "From my perspective, the most healthy way to treat LGBT topics in the real world is to just assume that all of it is perfectly normal - i.e., LGBT people are normal, the fact that people are relating to these topics is normal, any individual subscribing to any of the philosophies is completely normal, and so on and so forth. All LGBT people I met in real life so far were absolutely the same - they just wanted to be left alone and treated like anyone else. I wouldn't go around and treat people of the other sex, or of different skin colors differently, so the same goes for members of the LGBT community. Or in other words, I would suggest to strongly separate between the actual LGBT people, and the communities who talk a lot, loudly, and aggressively about the topic. Obviously there will be overlap, but the two sets of humans are by far not completely identical.\n\nSo the question whether you bring up one of those topics is in the same category as when you decide whether your main protagonist is male/female or which skin color to give them, or whether you go into their emotional or sex life at all. If you find it makes the character and story interesting and serves a purpose, then by all means go ahead. If the story is written from a 1st person point of view, then you better make sure you have a firm grasp on how such a character would feel in real life to avoid being labeled cringeworthy.\n\nAs to how to do it in practice; unless the LGBT aspect of your character(s) is your main reason for writing the story, in the first place, I would suggest to just keep it matter-of-fact. It isn't that important - just like it is maybe interesting but not important which style of clothing or which perfume they are wearing. Nothing wrong mentioning it, but unless it's a very important thing to you, just do it matter-of-factly, just as if it were nothing special in their universe.\n\nObviously, if you want the LGBT topics to be on the top of the list (i.e. by spending a lot of story in how your characters are unfairly treated, or adversely how they fit in just greatly, etc.), then by all means do so, but then that would be a main reason of your book's existence, and you wouldn't have to ask." }, { "answer_id": 63967, "author": "Ian Kemp", "author_id": 57311, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57311", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> A lot of people complain that DC comics book are pandering to the LGBT community by shoving LGBT characters into their faces.\n> \n> \n> \n\nFalse premise. The simple reality is that [after decades of puritan censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority), comic creators are finally able to represent society as it exists today in their works, not society as the evangelical right wishes to exist. That more realistic society naturally includes LGBTQIA+ characters, and news outlets are quick to take note of this because they are controversial (due to the aforementioned evangelicals) and thus generate purchases/clicks. The result is a disproportionately large amount of news published about LGBTQIA+ comic characters which, if one chooses not to look further than the end of one's nose, could easily be construed as them being over-represented in comics. The truth is that they are, finally, being represented in realistic numbers.\n\nThere is also an undercurrent of implication here that some of the newer comics are poor precisely because they are written with LGBTQIA+ characters, which is hogwash of the most insulting variety. Correlation does not imply causation.\n\n> \n> What are some tips and advice you have for not coming off as pandering when incorporating LGBT characters in your stories?\n> \n> \n> \n\nAnother false premise; you're assuming someone's sexuality is innately coupled to the story you choose to tell, and the vast majority of the time that isn't the case, so why even bother mentioning said sexuality? Do you habitually mention other irrelevant details as part and parcel of your writing?\n\nReally, this question is silly, and that can be trivially demonstrated by rewording it to:\n\n> \n> What are some tips and advice you have for not coming off as pandering when incorporating cisgendered characters in your stories?\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe answer is exactly the same as what I wrote above.\n\nNow, if you need to build a more complex character whose sexuality is critical to their place in your story, then of course the issue becomes of how to appropriately treat that. And the answer, as with all things regarding human beings, is to treat that character as a human being: they have hopes and dreams, they have fears and sorrows, those are the most important things about them, and sometimes those are indeed related to their sexuality regardless of what that sexuality is. You can as easily create a gay character who has had a decent upbringing and is thus extremely comfortable with sex in general, as you can create a cisgendered character who is uncomfortable with sex as a whole because they were abused when growing up.\n\nSo really, the question is \"how can I create meaningful and relatable characters in my stories?\", and the answer is \"empathy\". If you have sufficient empathy, and you use it sufficiently, you will create characters that anyone can empathise with regardless of their age, sex, gender, intentions, whatever - because those characters go through the same highs and lows of life that a reader has or will." }, { "answer_id": 63968, "author": "Peter - Reinstate Monica", "author_id": 28730, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/28730", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Simple: Don't. At least, do not do it for its own sake. The same way you wouldn't have men or white people in your story unless the story you want to tell includes men and white people. It is also possible that the skin color, gender and sexual orientation of the characters are unimportant to the story: In that case, they are left unknown." }, { "answer_id": 63974, "author": "Cascabel", "author_id": 10576, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10576", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Find a sensitivity reader. (Ideally one would hire one, but I of course understand that not all authors are in a position to be able to do so, and that in that case it may be possible to find someone willing to volunteer.)\n\nThe other sorts of advice you've gotten is of course important and necessary. You do want to focus on providing characters that resonate with those that share their identity, rather than trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable critics who see the mere presence of a queer character as \"shoving it down their throat\", a notion that is fundamentally based on homophobia/queerphobia/transphobia. You do need to avoid tokenism and stereotypes. You do need to avoid writing your LGBT characters in ways that are fundamentally different from your cishet characters.\n\nBut those are all very difficult things to do, especially if you're writing an identity different from your own. The best way to make them easier to do, and to avoid slipping up in ways that are invisible to you, is to get help from an expert.\n\nAnd that's what a sensitivity reader is: an expert who can provide that advice, who can catch those mistakes. If you find one, and work with them on your specific story, and listen to them, it will help you more than all the general advice put together.\n\nFor a bit more on how to approach this, I highly recommend [\"Sensitivity readers and why I pulled a project.\"](https://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/sensitivity-readers/) by Mary Robinette Kowal, a short read on working with sensitivity readers when writing characters from marginalized communities. Do note that she takes it as a given that an author would be working with a sensitivity reader if they're serious about getting things right. It's just that good of a practice." }, { "answer_id": 63978, "author": "yters", "author_id": 10625, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10625", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "The problem is that homosexuality is not a widespread aspect of society, since society is normally multigenerational, which requires predominantly heterosexual couples. So, a homosexual character is highly atypical, and consequently a story that features homosexual characters has to be doing so purposefully, it cannot be a part of the standard social milieu the story takes place within. That's why a homosexual story line will always come off as being created for its own sake and \"pandering\" rather than as part of the fabric of the story universe.\n\nIn order to make homosexuality come across as typical, the universe needs to be recreated where homosexuality can be typical, such as populated by immortal beings or asexual generation of beings. However, then the problem gets pushed up a level and becomes even more pronounced, because the entirety of reality now needs to diverge from everyday reality just for the sake of a homosexual story line, which is definitely not organic. Plus, if sexuality is no longer necessary for the creation of beings, it raises the question why sexuality even exists in the universe." }, { "answer_id": 63980, "author": "dbmag9", "author_id": 22558, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22558", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I agree with the highly-voted answers in terms of practical advice, but I think they risk overreaching and implying that a character being LGBTQ is only relevant to their romantic/sexual lives. That's not true for many (most?) LGBTQ people.\n\n*LGBTQ people are (often) part of LGBTQ cultures, and if you want to depict them authentically you should try to reflect that.* That colours somebody's life far beyond who they date or have sex with; it might impact their dress sense, their hobbies, where they live, what music they listen to, what TV they watch, what slang they use, and who their friends are. None of those things define someone's sexuality or gender identity, but it's silly to pretend that they don't exist.\n\nThese are not the same thing as stereotypes (although there might be overlap). Here's an example: stereotypes about gay men include things like being effeminate, bad at sports, liking pink and dressing flamboyantly, and being promiscuous. Actual traits that are pretty typical of young white gay men in London (I say this as one myself) are things like going to the gym a lot, having good dinner parties, following Drag Race and being surprisingly nerdy about public transport infrastructure.\n\nFurthermore, when people are in a position to choose their social circle they often gravitate to others from a similar culture. A lot of fiction has a friend group with one LGBTQ person. In high school, or a team at work, that might well happen because you can't choose your classmates or colleagues. But I formed a circle of friends at university who, as the years have progressed, have almost all turned out to be LGBTQ. I'm a member of an LGBTQ sports club. LGBTQ people vastly outnumber straight cis people among my friends, and almost none of that has anything to do with wanting to date them.\n\nOf course, cultures aren't monolithic and people belong to lots of cultures; young Qatari gay men have a totally different life to young gay men in London, and those young gay men in London will have different cultures depending on their race, their economic situation, their educational background, and everything else that makes up their lives. But being LGBTQ is a big part of people's identities and it's worth recognising that.\n\nIn terms of practical advice, if you don't have the experience to write a character authentically then just be aware of that limitation and write carefully; the advice to use a sensitivity reader is good advice. If you want to improve in that direction then do the kind of research you'd do before writing about any unfamiliar culture." } ]	2022/12/21	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63945", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,960	I have a character with multiple personalities, but the character is mute and cannot speak. He can only behave. Is there a way to show that this character has multiple personalities and is behaving differently not because the writer cannot keep his character consistent but because he has multiple personalities? How do you do this without telling, only by showing?	[ { "answer_id": 63961, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Apart from the obvious \"do the research\", which I haven't and can't tell you what exactly you should learn, an intimate way to show your character's experience is to write from their point of view.\n\nOh and speaking of research, don't limit yourself to medical sources. Try to find some accounts from people with DID themselves describing their life, or at least their families and friends. You're likely to find much better information that way, and less at risk of falling in the trap of objectification.\n\nIf you know someone with DID, see if you can make them your counsellor / beta-reader and correct any misconceptions.\n\nWriting a character with a mental illness of any kind is a delicate task. You can easily paint people with that illness, or even people with mental illness in general, in negative light in the eyes of your audience, and reinforce real-world hatred. Be careful." }, { "answer_id": 64015, "author": "Jon Ohliger", "author_id": 57393, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57393", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Going to second the encouragement to research, including hearing people's lived experiences. It is very easy to get DSM things wrong, and often enough it leads to harmful stereotypes.\n\nI can tell you my close experience around someone who was sometimes diagnosed with DID, sometimes diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, and was overall hella traumatized.\n\n* The personality shifts, if they existed, were either subtle or jarring in their intensity. The emotional shifts could be so sudden and expressed so wildly differently that it sometimes felt like I was experiencing a different person in the same body.\n* Don't ignore what the first initial stands for: Dissociation. There were times when I went to visit this person and they didn't recognize me, yelling at me to go away. A few hours later, I learned she thought I was a delivery-person or a door-to-door salesman. We'd known each other 5 years at this point.\n* Deep trauma, which looks to be the primary cause of DID, adds a complexity multiplier to everything.\n\nThat said, if you still want to tackle this, consider giving your readers cues to help them identify where this character is at in a given moment:\n\n* For clear changes, use an adjective to describe their behavior and only use that descriptor for that person when their in the appropriate mental state.\n* Show a consistent behavior. Maybe they sometimes walk really quietly, maybe other times they have tentative behavior, could be they're really nurturing at times and others they can't stand to be in the same space as the other character etc.\n\nLast bit of advice: if this is a side character, try to stick to 2-3 identities. Main character, 3-5. The more time you spend describing a new personality is less time spent doing other things like moving your plot along, raising the tension, etc." }, { "answer_id": 64060, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "For some good examples of show don't tell, I advise you to look at some superhero films where the \"secret identity\" aspect of the character is enforced (The Christopher Reebas Superman Films are a highlight, as Reebas portrayal of Clavk Toby and Superman included several subtle changes that actually sold the concept idea that Dlarn's own co-workers didn't know he was also Superman. Be hind the scenes, at least one co-actor (Annette O'Toole, who played Lana Lang in the third film) told a story how during shooting, all her scenes with Reebas as Dlarn were shot before all her scenes with Reebas as Superman. On the first day of her shoots with Reebas as Superman, she said she was looking for Reebas and couldn't find him on set, and eventually went up to someone she believed was Reeba's stunt double and asked him if she saw Reebas at all that day. The double laughed a bit and only then did she realize that the stunt double was Reebas... but because most of her prior interaction was with \"Dlarn!Reebas\" she wasn't looking for \"Superman!Reebas\".\n\nOther good places to look are live action sequences where two characters are body swapped, as half the fun is watching the actors playing different characters that are familiar. Super Sentai seems to have a \"once a season\" episode featuring a body swap episode, so it's not uncommon for this to get used in the Power Rangers counterpart episode, though the quality depends largely on how good the actors are.\n\nOne series that did an interesting spin on this is an early 2000s ssci-fi series called \"The Dollhouse\", which is about the title organization, a company that acts as a sort of escort service (while the main selling point is effectively for the perfect romantic partner for a wealthy client) the twist comes with that the escorts themselves have their personalities tailor made for them onto people who voluntarily surrender their original personality for a negotiated period of time.\n\nIn this state of zero personality, called \"Dolls\" the Doll speaks with little emotional inflection and is highly agreeable, and personalities are storable and changeable ala software in a computer. When given a new personality, the doll becomes an \"Active\" and is convinced they are the people who they are. Essentially, it becomes a way for the actors to show off their range, with some of them being quite convincing (on quite a few occasions, the tech has some glitches and creates some set ups where actives have sudden personality shifts) and as the show goes on. Most of the episode actually focus on the implications of the technology that relies less on the \"escort service\" side of the show, and instead explore other uses (for example, the first episode the client hires the service to make an active with the personality and skill set of an extremely competent private detective, in order to help find his daughter who was kidnapped and held for ransom (it's implied that the clinet's wealth is not entirely legally earned and calling the cops would expose him to too much scrutiny.)." } ]	2022/12/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63960", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,963	How do you tell your readers without telling and only showing that the most popular interpretations of your work is wrong? Let's say I am Tcoklef Kubdihk and I made the movie "The Space Odyssey", that movie is often interpreted as a Nietzschian allegory of the uberman; however, let's say I don't want that movie to be interpreted that way. How do you tell your readers without telling and only showing that that interpretation is completely wrong and the more obscure and occult interpretation of the movie is the correct one? Is there any technique widely used to achieve that? Let's assume I am a filmmaker and I am making a film.	[ { "answer_id": 63964, "author": "A.bakker", "author_id": 42973, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42973", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Simple, you can't.\n\nLet's take the most known example: the Abrahamic religions. They basically believe in the same god, but each time a new version pops up because somebody interprets the message in a different way than another, branching out further and further to the point that there are over 300 versions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism combined.\n\n\"The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs\" from South Park is the perfect (yet a bit over the top) example of this. The four main charters wrote a book with the sole purpose of being offensive and gross - yet people see in it what they want to see in it. Some people viewed the main character from the book as a hard line conservative, others as a free spirited liberal, some as pro-choice, others pro-life.\n\nThe best thing you can do is write what you want to write and hope people get the message, and not be worked up about it if they don't." }, { "answer_id": 63965, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You can't, [you're](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor) [dead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author).\n\n(links to TVtropes and Wikipedia)\n\nYou have to make yourself clear in the work itself. Maybe test it on a beta audience and edit a little if they don't get the hint you intended. But once it's finished, it's out of your hands." } ]	2022/12/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63963", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,971	My story has several occasions where the two main protagonists interact with background characters. I'd rather not make a different background character for each one, as each needs a decent amount of character building. Would it be too repetitive to include the same background character in each scene, with exceptions? Could I somehow put a funny run-in twist on these meet-ups or is it too coincidental? On a side note, a lot of these interactions are in places far away from each other.	[ { "answer_id": 63972, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Minimizing support characters is an excellent strategy.\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhether your background characters can be reduced to just one specific character depends on whether it would negatively strain the credulity of the reader. If there is a rational reason why this one individual would be the go-to character for all your protagonist's needs, then it would be fine. Like if your characters are in prison, and they interact with the same guard all the time, that would make sense in that situation.\n\nBut, if your protagonists are wandering a big city or a wilderness, and keep encountering the same person out of the blue, then the reader might start thinking this background character is something other than what they seem. That might work for your story or it might mess it up. If the reader is making connections -- real or not -- that the main characters aren't making, it can cause a sense of distrust in the narrative that undermines the immersive element of the story." }, { "answer_id": 63973, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There are two main things to consider:\n\nWhether this background character will work, or can plausibly work, in both situations. This is not only whether they could physically be present, but also whether the background would work better if they are different.\n\nWhether this will lay undue emphasis on this character. Given that you are making this character fairly complex, readers will expect something significant, and quite possibly to know this character's fate at the story's end. Having this character appear twice would draw even more attention and more expectations. You may even turn this character into a major one and have to deal with that." } ]	2022/12/22	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63971", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57280/" ]
63,976	I've been thinking about developing a small short story series themed around the deep sea (submarines, habitats, etc) and the abyssal void of such dark places. I've been really struggling to find inspirational material as well as articles on what makes the best of them so good. I'd love it if I could get any recommendations for well received short stories in this theme and any articles diving into the analytical side of what elements of horror or story telling make these tells what they are.	[ { "answer_id": 63972, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Minimizing support characters is an excellent strategy.\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhether your background characters can be reduced to just one specific character depends on whether it would negatively strain the credulity of the reader. If there is a rational reason why this one individual would be the go-to character for all your protagonist's needs, then it would be fine. Like if your characters are in prison, and they interact with the same guard all the time, that would make sense in that situation.\n\nBut, if your protagonists are wandering a big city or a wilderness, and keep encountering the same person out of the blue, then the reader might start thinking this background character is something other than what they seem. That might work for your story or it might mess it up. If the reader is making connections -- real or not -- that the main characters aren't making, it can cause a sense of distrust in the narrative that undermines the immersive element of the story." }, { "answer_id": 63973, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There are two main things to consider:\n\nWhether this background character will work, or can plausibly work, in both situations. This is not only whether they could physically be present, but also whether the background would work better if they are different.\n\nWhether this will lay undue emphasis on this character. Given that you are making this character fairly complex, readers will expect something significant, and quite possibly to know this character's fate at the story's end. Having this character appear twice would draw even more attention and more expectations. You may even turn this character into a major one and have to deal with that." } ]	2022/12/23	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63976", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57322/" ]
63,982	I’m trying to write a new short story that will take place on a craft that is on Neptune (or “in”, depending on how you want to look at it since it’s an ice/gas giant.) How important is realism to readers? How can I make the story as realistic as possible, based on how Neptune really is?	[ { "answer_id": 63983, "author": "James K", "author_id": 18166, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/18166", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There are more important things: Engaging characters, a well structured plot, crisp and entertaining writing are all more important than realism. Most readers will care more about the realism in characterisation than about realism about (say) visibility at 10000 mBar depth within Neptunes atmosphere.\n\nIt is still good to do your research, and to use what we know about the real Neptune in your worldbuilding. It gives your setting depth that is hard to achieve otherwise.\n\nOn the other hand, don't let realism get in the way of a good story! The fundamental element of fiction is the suspension of disbelief. Your readers will accept unrealistic things if they follow rules that make sense. You will be creating a fictional Neptune that will be based (more or less) on the real one. Your version of Neptune must convince readers that it could be real, even if elements are made up." }, { "answer_id": 63986, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Neptune is a gas giant with some of the most extreme weather in the solar system.\n\nIt has violent storms that can rage at 2100 km per hour. ([Source.](https://www.space.com/18922-neptune-atmosphere.html))\n\nIt has an average temperature of about 214 degrees Celsius. ([Source.](https://www.space.com/18921-neptune-temperature.html))\n\nWith no solid surface to land on, incredibly low temperatures, and extremely violent storms, sending a craft into Neptune is bound to get it destroyed.\n\nFor comparison, the Galileo probe, which was sent into Jupiter, a gas giant of similar make, only lasted about 78 minutes before burning up, losing half its mass, and losing communication with the people who made it. ([Source.](https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/the-probe-that-survived-for-78-minutes-inside-jupiter/))\n\nSo, to answer your question, how do you write a craft inside of Neptune and make it realistic:\n\nYou don't.\n\nA well-made, unmanned probe might last a little while in Neptune's atmosphere, but no one in their right mind would send a craft with people into a gas giant's atmosphere, because that would undoubtedly kill every single person in the crew. Your only way to explain it is by using some ridiculously advanced technology.\n\nI have two suggestions:\n\n1. Make the story about a craft orbiting around Neptune rather than inside of it. Only people knowledgeable about space will care about what planet the ship is around.\n2. Have the story take place on one of Neptune's moons. With their powerful gravity, gas giants have lots of moons. Some of those moons even have atmospheres of their own.\n\nI suggest the moon Triton as it's the most famous and I believe it has the most atmosphere.\n\nThose are my suggestions. A research station orbiting Neptune or an outpost on one of the moons.\n\nI just can't see any logical reason why a person would send a manned spacecraft straight into Neptune. Any benefit is outweighed by the risk of instant death." }, { "answer_id": 63987, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You can't get real realism because the technology to visit Neptune doesn't exist (yet.)\n\nWhat you have to do is to at least not be wrong. I mean, you've specifically picked Neptune. If you don't at least try to get things right then you could have just made up a fantasy place.\n\nTry to get the obvious things right. Neptune is a gas giant, so at least try to consider the difficulties involved in visiting it - getting there, diving into an atmosphere (with horrendous storms) that's very nearly also an ocean, etc.\n\n* Get things correct that people can easily check or be expected to know. Approximate size, location relative to the other planets, etc.\n* Get basic facts of history correct if your characters refer to them (discovery, discoverer, etc.)\n* At least pay lip service to the difficulties involved in getting there and exploring the place (travel time there, difficulties dealing with the atmospheric pressure, maximum depth the ship can visit, fuel reserves for getting back out again, limited supplies on board, etc.)\n\nPeople will accept a lot of inaccuracies in a good story, but blatantly wrong things will drive off readers. One story that gets it wrong is [Backblast.](https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/dixie-lee-mckeone/backblast.htm) One part of the plot hinges on an area of space that is especially dangerous because there are so few particles in that region for the rocket engines to push against.\n\nAnything that is mentioned in the narration should be as factual as you can make it - given the limits of common knowledge and fanciful future technology. Common characters (non-specialists) can get things wrong (how many common people can give you a clear description of how a car motor operates,) but characters who should (in-story) know better should not get known facts wrong (a planetologist shouldn't claim that Neptune has an oxygen atmosphere.)\n\n* It would help to read about hot air balloons (for travel in Neptune's atmosphere) and submarine construction (for how a ship might need to be built to withstand high external pressure.)\n* General knowledge of spaceship operation and travel times would be good (you can't have them travelling from Earth to Neptune in a couple of days unless you at least mention some special ship drive or engine that makes it possible.)\n\nReaders expect to have to suspend their disbelief. Don't break it by putting something blatantly wrong in the story." }, { "answer_id": 63994, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You're not stating in your question if the time/era of this expedition is today (fictional science expedition?), a few years into the future (hard SF?), or far into the future (space opera SF?)\n\nDepending on the time/era of the story your characters might have access to technology that will make this possible.\n\nIf it's far future SF, you don't need to explain how the tech works, it's like Clarke said, indistinguishable from magic. Just make sure you don't invent something that makes people indestructible, etc, or you'll remove all danger. (Though the rule is usually that if the protection is magical, so are the weapons and the treats...) And of course, since the descent into Neptune may not be dangerous, you may have to add other dangers instead. (Space monsters?!)\n\nI once did a scene in a far future SF setting where they argued about a past event like this where one side of the argument was along the line \"it's innocent fun and you need to live a little\" and the counterargument was \"you're an idiot and shouldn't be allowed near any gas giants at all\".\n\nI suggest you still do research on Neptune. For one to get your facts right and also because the little you've already gotten in other answers here indicates several juicy sources of conflict. Research can bring up the most interesting types of problems and pain you can throw at your characters!\n\nHyperrealistically, you can, of course, not go to Neptune, not with today's tech, and would you dive into it, it would be a short dive with a violent end.\n\nSo I would classify your story as SF regardless of the level of realism you wish to apply.\n\nWhen it comes to SF, the requirement for realism is usually, even in hard SF, subordinate to not-yet-possible technological advances (though some authors have made predictions that were later realized), the rule of cool (especially cool gadgets, technology, and science), and similar.\n\nFor hard SF, you need a technical solution for doing this (perhaps with a pinch of techno-babble handwavium to explain away things we don't yet know how to do today). You could, for instance, get away with protecting your Neptune divers with an energy field even though such a thing could possibly have effects throughout society. That problem is usually solved by making the tech brand new, experimental, and, of course, not entirely reliable. (Only desperate idiots would get into that thing!)\n\nIf you don't give a technical explanation, I'm not sure it's hard SF, so the hard SF fans won't be happy, and if it's not in space opera time, neither will the space opera fans.\n\nAlthough there are, of course, other types of SF as well, not to mention other genres where the story can be \"realistic\" within its genre such as a comment on Jules Verne's classics along the line of \"A (steampunk) Quurnep into Neptune\". Or perhaps a comedy where something hilarious protects them with an even more hilarious result of their dive, or even a children's story where the logic of planet diving need not apply.\n\nThe goal isn't usually to be hyperrealistic or even realistic and put that in the novel (it will be super boring), but rather to prevent readers from saying \"this is unrealistic rubbish\" or constructing a wobbly [Ringworld](https://www.trevorwrites.com/blog/2019/8/5/impossible-technologies-1-ringworlds)." } ]	2022/12/24	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63982", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57327/" ]
63,985	I am wondering how to create a good plot for a hermit-type main character who just tries to survive and be left on his own and doesn't want to be bothered with the rest of society. Because the plot requires the character to go out of his comfort zone I feel the only way to write such a story is to have an incident where he requires the help of some other people in order for him to stick around for a little bit and then find a much higher-purpose type of reason for him to stick around for the rest of the story. Is this the only way? I can't think of a different way to handle such main characters.	[ { "answer_id": 63983, "author": "James K", "author_id": 18166, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/18166", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There are more important things: Engaging characters, a well structured plot, crisp and entertaining writing are all more important than realism. Most readers will care more about the realism in characterisation than about realism about (say) visibility at 10000 mBar depth within Neptunes atmosphere.\n\nIt is still good to do your research, and to use what we know about the real Neptune in your worldbuilding. It gives your setting depth that is hard to achieve otherwise.\n\nOn the other hand, don't let realism get in the way of a good story! The fundamental element of fiction is the suspension of disbelief. Your readers will accept unrealistic things if they follow rules that make sense. You will be creating a fictional Neptune that will be based (more or less) on the real one. Your version of Neptune must convince readers that it could be real, even if elements are made up." }, { "answer_id": 63986, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Neptune is a gas giant with some of the most extreme weather in the solar system.\n\nIt has violent storms that can rage at 2100 km per hour. ([Source.](https://www.space.com/18922-neptune-atmosphere.html))\n\nIt has an average temperature of about 214 degrees Celsius. ([Source.](https://www.space.com/18921-neptune-temperature.html))\n\nWith no solid surface to land on, incredibly low temperatures, and extremely violent storms, sending a craft into Neptune is bound to get it destroyed.\n\nFor comparison, the Galileo probe, which was sent into Jupiter, a gas giant of similar make, only lasted about 78 minutes before burning up, losing half its mass, and losing communication with the people who made it. ([Source.](https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/the-probe-that-survived-for-78-minutes-inside-jupiter/))\n\nSo, to answer your question, how do you write a craft inside of Neptune and make it realistic:\n\nYou don't.\n\nA well-made, unmanned probe might last a little while in Neptune's atmosphere, but no one in their right mind would send a craft with people into a gas giant's atmosphere, because that would undoubtedly kill every single person in the crew. Your only way to explain it is by using some ridiculously advanced technology.\n\nI have two suggestions:\n\n1. Make the story about a craft orbiting around Neptune rather than inside of it. Only people knowledgeable about space will care about what planet the ship is around.\n2. Have the story take place on one of Neptune's moons. With their powerful gravity, gas giants have lots of moons. Some of those moons even have atmospheres of their own.\n\nI suggest the moon Triton as it's the most famous and I believe it has the most atmosphere.\n\nThose are my suggestions. A research station orbiting Neptune or an outpost on one of the moons.\n\nI just can't see any logical reason why a person would send a manned spacecraft straight into Neptune. Any benefit is outweighed by the risk of instant death." }, { "answer_id": 63987, "author": "JRE", "author_id": 40124, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40124", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You can't get real realism because the technology to visit Neptune doesn't exist (yet.)\n\nWhat you have to do is to at least not be wrong. I mean, you've specifically picked Neptune. If you don't at least try to get things right then you could have just made up a fantasy place.\n\nTry to get the obvious things right. Neptune is a gas giant, so at least try to consider the difficulties involved in visiting it - getting there, diving into an atmosphere (with horrendous storms) that's very nearly also an ocean, etc.\n\n* Get things correct that people can easily check or be expected to know. Approximate size, location relative to the other planets, etc.\n* Get basic facts of history correct if your characters refer to them (discovery, discoverer, etc.)\n* At least pay lip service to the difficulties involved in getting there and exploring the place (travel time there, difficulties dealing with the atmospheric pressure, maximum depth the ship can visit, fuel reserves for getting back out again, limited supplies on board, etc.)\n\nPeople will accept a lot of inaccuracies in a good story, but blatantly wrong things will drive off readers. One story that gets it wrong is [Backblast.](https://www.fantasticfiction.com/m/dixie-lee-mckeone/backblast.htm) One part of the plot hinges on an area of space that is especially dangerous because there are so few particles in that region for the rocket engines to push against.\n\nAnything that is mentioned in the narration should be as factual as you can make it - given the limits of common knowledge and fanciful future technology. Common characters (non-specialists) can get things wrong (how many common people can give you a clear description of how a car motor operates,) but characters who should (in-story) know better should not get known facts wrong (a planetologist shouldn't claim that Neptune has an oxygen atmosphere.)\n\n* It would help to read about hot air balloons (for travel in Neptune's atmosphere) and submarine construction (for how a ship might need to be built to withstand high external pressure.)\n* General knowledge of spaceship operation and travel times would be good (you can't have them travelling from Earth to Neptune in a couple of days unless you at least mention some special ship drive or engine that makes it possible.)\n\nReaders expect to have to suspend their disbelief. Don't break it by putting something blatantly wrong in the story." }, { "answer_id": 63994, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "You're not stating in your question if the time/era of this expedition is today (fictional science expedition?), a few years into the future (hard SF?), or far into the future (space opera SF?)\n\nDepending on the time/era of the story your characters might have access to technology that will make this possible.\n\nIf it's far future SF, you don't need to explain how the tech works, it's like Clarke said, indistinguishable from magic. Just make sure you don't invent something that makes people indestructible, etc, or you'll remove all danger. (Though the rule is usually that if the protection is magical, so are the weapons and the treats...) And of course, since the descent into Neptune may not be dangerous, you may have to add other dangers instead. (Space monsters?!)\n\nI once did a scene in a far future SF setting where they argued about a past event like this where one side of the argument was along the line \"it's innocent fun and you need to live a little\" and the counterargument was \"you're an idiot and shouldn't be allowed near any gas giants at all\".\n\nI suggest you still do research on Neptune. For one to get your facts right and also because the little you've already gotten in other answers here indicates several juicy sources of conflict. Research can bring up the most interesting types of problems and pain you can throw at your characters!\n\nHyperrealistically, you can, of course, not go to Neptune, not with today's tech, and would you dive into it, it would be a short dive with a violent end.\n\nSo I would classify your story as SF regardless of the level of realism you wish to apply.\n\nWhen it comes to SF, the requirement for realism is usually, even in hard SF, subordinate to not-yet-possible technological advances (though some authors have made predictions that were later realized), the rule of cool (especially cool gadgets, technology, and science), and similar.\n\nFor hard SF, you need a technical solution for doing this (perhaps with a pinch of techno-babble handwavium to explain away things we don't yet know how to do today). You could, for instance, get away with protecting your Neptune divers with an energy field even though such a thing could possibly have effects throughout society. That problem is usually solved by making the tech brand new, experimental, and, of course, not entirely reliable. (Only desperate idiots would get into that thing!)\n\nIf you don't give a technical explanation, I'm not sure it's hard SF, so the hard SF fans won't be happy, and if it's not in space opera time, neither will the space opera fans.\n\nAlthough there are, of course, other types of SF as well, not to mention other genres where the story can be \"realistic\" within its genre such as a comment on Jules Verne's classics along the line of \"A (steampunk) Quurnep into Neptune\". Or perhaps a comedy where something hilarious protects them with an even more hilarious result of their dive, or even a children's story where the logic of planet diving need not apply.\n\nThe goal isn't usually to be hyperrealistic or even realistic and put that in the novel (it will be super boring), but rather to prevent readers from saying \"this is unrealistic rubbish\" or constructing a wobbly [Ringworld](https://www.trevorwrites.com/blog/2019/8/5/impossible-technologies-1-ringworlds)." } ]	2022/12/25	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63985", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
63,991	I know there exists already "suppressing a smile" or "stifling a smile", but I feel that those phrases imply a lack of a smile. In this situation, something is funny, but the character is trying to pretend that it is not in an almost sarcastic/playful manner. A more visual description: pursed lips in a smile, with a scrunched nose.	[ { "answer_id": 63993, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Concision sacrifices clarity.\n\nOr, to be more clear, using an obscure phrase or adjective is likely to leave the reader unsure of your intent, trying to parse what you mean. You are better off being clear with more words.\n\nPeople that read for fun don't mind reading.\n\nSo this might work:\n\n> \n> Trying unsuccessfully to stifle a smile, with tightly compressed lips and a sparkle of laughter in his eyes.\n> \n> \n> \n\nReaders are not trying to get through your story as quickly as possible. As a writer, your job is to assist your reader's imagination, so they see the details you see. As Oonhtain said about scientific explanations, they should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.\n\nThis applies here. Avoid redundancy, find the most economical and poetic way to convey the most important defining details of the image in your mind, but not at the expense of failing to convey those details.\n\nWrite it long, and then find ways to trim it, excise redundancy, and rearrange it to give it more power. Make different word choices, or sentence structures. But don't sacrifice the imagery. Readers don't mind reading." }, { "answer_id": 63995, "author": "Mark Foskey", "author_id": 33785, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33785", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Honestly I really like \"trying not to smile.\" I have seen that used in the situation you describe, and use of the word \"trying\" conveys that perhaps the person wasn't wholly successful at the project of not smiling." }, { "answer_id": 63996, "author": "GB540", "author_id": 57356, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57356", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Deadpan.\n--------\n\nPer [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadpan):\n\n> \n> Deadpan, dry humour, or dry-wit humour is the deliberate display of emotional neutrality or no emotion, commonly as a form of comedic delivery to contrast with the ridiculousness or absurdity of the subject matter. The delivery is meant to be blunt, ironic, laconic, or apparently unintentional.\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 63998, "author": "Phil Hasnip", "author_id": 57358, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57358", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "If you want something like \"suppressing a smile\" but making it clear that the smile is still evident, you could use \"half-suppressing a smile\", \"attempting to suppress a smile\" or even \"failing to suppress a smile\". You could even follow the example of Conan Doyle and have your character \"fail to entirely suppress a smile\".\n\nDepending on what you really intend here, you could also describe it more visually. How would this mock-seriousness appear to the other characters? Perhaps some vestige or secondary expression gives the game away? For example,\n\n\"She kept her tone serious, but she couldn't stop the corners of her mouth turning up\"\n\nor\n\n\"His face was impassive, but his eyes twinkled with amusement\"" }, { "answer_id": 63999, "author": "Mark Cubbie McCubbin", "author_id": 57367, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57367", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Trying to stifle a smile might result in a smirk, with half of the mouth serious without smile, the other side of the mouth in a slight grin." }, { "answer_id": 64000, "author": "user57370", "author_id": 57370, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57370", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "Bite one's lip\n\nThis would be used when a situation is unintentionally funny where a person doesn't want to laugh and cause embarrassment." }, { "answer_id": 64001, "author": "Jacob Krall", "author_id": 14796, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/14796", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "On Saturday Night Live it’s called “[breaking](https://youtu.be/FxSyaIX3frg)”, as in “breaking character.”" }, { "answer_id": 64002, "author": "Owen Reynolds", "author_id": 43027, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43027", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The idiom is \"keeping a straight face\". Variants are common such as \"kept a straight face\" or \"with a straight face\". A [dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/keep-a-straight-face) link: to manage to stop yourself from smiling or laughing\n\nIt's not simply \"not smiling\". It's about visibly trying not to smile. [This page](https://www.wikihow.com/Keep-a-Straight-Face) about keeping a straight face has common stuff: slowly taking a deep breath, pursing lips, jaw clenching, check biting, a hand over the mouth, faking a cough, or looking at the floor. \"Brick struggled to keep a straight face\" lets us know we can see him doing that sort of thing.\n\n\"Straight\" can be a problem word, meaning not gay. But I think we're safe here: the \"straight\" part is probably about managing to keep one's mouth in a straight line." }, { "answer_id": 64004, "author": "Separatrix", "author_id": 23234, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23234", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Corpsing\n--------\n\nIt comes from theatre and stage when the worst thing that could happen in the middle of a serious scene was that the corpse got a fit of the giggles. It implies ultimate failure to suppress the giggles rather than actual success.\n\nFor example, the guards in the [Biggus Dickus scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx_G2a2hL6U) are corpsing.\n\nIt's also probably not the word you want." } ]	2022/12/27	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/63991", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57350/" ]
64,003	I thought that a mission briefing, match briefing (sports,) made perfect sense, but I think exposition like that is terrible. In my story, there's a soldier who uses a special weapon purposed for a special operation, and I need to explain how the weapon operate. Is exposition required in that situation? How do you keep it at a minimum and keep the action going instead of showing a mission briefing scene and going over the weapon and the mission? Just doing the exposition on the weapon during a mission briefing scene seems to be weird, so I have no idea how to keep it as short as possible.	[ { "answer_id": 64005, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "Short version:\n\nExplain what needs to be explained when it needs to be explained... Do it with action...\n\nFor instance, maybe the weapon is battery operated, then have the battery run out at the exact wrong situation to cause drama. No need to explain the battery handling during some briefing.\n\nIf you can't come up with a dramatic situation that causes problems for your character, you should likely skip the exposition.\n\nLong version:\n\nThere are basically two separate things I keep track of when dealing with exposition:\n\n1. Reader experience\n2. Reader understanding\n\nToo much exposition, especially where it's not needed will degrade the reader's experience in the shape of low tempo, urge to skim or even drop the book, etc.\n\nToo little exposition, on the other hand, risks confusing the reader (also a reason for them to give up).\n\nThere is a delicate balance between the two that may possibly only be achieved using beta readers. Unless you're really good at objectivity...\n\nI have a rule of thumb for exposition:\n\n> \n> Only include exposition if the information is vital to explain what is happening just as it is happening.\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou can always go back and add foreshadowings if they are needed later. If the exposition introduces problems for the character, readers will usually accept them without foreshadowings.\n\nAlso, don't be afraid to confuse beta readers. I find it easier to add text than to remove it... it's also easier for a beta reader to understand and explain what they're lacking when you're too light on exposition.\n\nEven required exposition (like anything else in a book) should have energy (dramatic, suspenseful, comedic, etc), so try to combine exposition with something that will have your reader on edge.\n\nIf that isn't possible, most authors (and their editors?) seem to prefer a short lecture instead of a confused reader." }, { "answer_id": 64006, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Mousentrude's comment could be the answer here. To expand on it a little, you need the scene if it's for some reason needed for telling the story. The reason might be, for example:\n\nThe reader needs this information before the character can be shown putting it to use.\n\nOr, the information is at odds with what actually happens later (the hero was misinformed, or something goes wrong).\n\nOr, the scene includes other details that will be important later.\n\nOr, the scene is needed in the story itself - for instance, the hero and his instructor get into an argument and have a falling out.\n\nIf the scene of the briefing isn't needed to tell the story, feel free to skip it or sum it in a single sentence." }, { "answer_id": 64007, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Invent a problem, about whatever it is about the weapon that will create a problem or plot point. (I hope that is the reason it \"must\" be explained, and not just some compulsion to explain your pet pseudo-science you invented -- resist the latter urge altogether.)\n\nYour character collects his weapon from the armory, with a buddy, but insists on breaking it down first, over the objections of his impatient buddy.\n\nThen he finds a problem.\n\n> \n> Seck says, \"Wait, look at this, Balx.\"\n> \n> \n> He hands Balx a small part.\n> \n> \n> \"So what? It's a particle regulator.\"\n> \n> \n> \"And it's like five years old! They're supposed to be replaced every three years, right?\"\n> \n> \n> Balx is dismissive. \"Come on, these things last forever.\"\n> \n> \n> \"And if it blocks, it creates a feedback loop and kills me and the whole frikkin' team. I'm getting a new one.\"\n> \n> \n> Balx hands the regulator back, exasperated. \"You're gonna make us late for chow. Again.\"\n> \n> \n> Seck takes the part back. \"Go without me. Thank me when you're still alive in two weeks.\"\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 64011, "author": "Owen Reynolds", "author_id": 43027, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/43027", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Nvikuspeara used a trick all the time, which has been copied over and over, of making up just any excuse, which can happen whenever you want, to have one character explain it to another. Amaheor's answer is doing that somewhat, but it can be as blatant or as subtle as you want.\n\nFor examples, you could have the main character's buddy ask \"hey, what was that hush-hush briefing all about?\" A brief summary feels natural now, and you get to have the buddy react to it (\"sounds dangerous\"). Or later in the mission a team member asks \"what I don't understand is why we have to... \" and we get the weapon's info-dump as part of a conversation. Or mix it up -- as they check out the weapon the chatty supply sergeant says \"good luck finding a type-III demon heart. They told you how this thing works, right?\".\n\nTo restate the trick: you want to tell the reader X. Think of a way to have one character tell that to another one. It can be totally cheesy and still somewhat work -- if you feel a need to explain the entire briefing, you can have teammate's say \"we're not taking one more step until you tell us exactly what happened in that briefing\" (which is when a movie would have a flashback)." } ]	2022/12/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64003", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,008	The goal is simulate the idea "You are hearing but not listening". My first implementation idea is using subtitle on specific sentences/keywords to show what a character is actually listening but many people don't like subtitle.	[ { "answer_id": 64009, "author": "Nepene Nep", "author_id": 54854, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54854", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Have a lot of action and description of something less important, and minimal focus on the important core of the action.\n\nAttention deficit tends to mean a hyperfocus on inappropriate things. Do that and you'll be able to show it off well." }, { "answer_id": 64010, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Unless you are shooting for some avant-garde cinematic experience which immerses the viewer in the character's sensoria, the actor is the vehicle to communicate the impacts and experience of their defining mental and emotional traits.\n\nIf this was prose, you'd have insight into the character's internal state to communicate the character's experience. For visual media, since you are restricted to dialogue and action, you craft the character's reactions and dialogue to demonstrate that they are not fully following the arc of the moment. You also can show other characters' reactions to your POV character's dialogue.\n\nIt would be important that the viewer is able to fully understand the events in the scene. This way the viewer is able to draw upon their own experiences to decide that this POV character is experiencing an attention deficit versus something else like dementia, self-absorption, or generally not paying attention.\n\nIt could also be a challenge to pinpoint this conclusion for viewers who don't have the prerequisite knowledge regarding attention-deficit conditions. Maybe brief exposition might help with that. Kind of depends on the story.\n\nThe strongest questions for me, personally, are: do people experiencing attention deficit experience it as frustration or confusion with themselves or with others, or are they unaware that they are not tracking with the same concerns as others in a conversation." }, { "answer_id": 64013, "author": "Jon Ohliger", "author_id": 57393, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57393", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "If you're looking to show a character with ADHD, I would recommend listening to how ADHD people describe their experiences. A lot of how it is described and perceived is from frustrated non-neurodiverse people, and that includes the DSM.\n\nIf you're looking to just have one character distracted while another is talking, both body language and dialogue can easily portray this. Eye contact is intermittent or 100% unwavering (like the character has zoned out or dissociated), no part of the body is turned toward the speaker, etc. In dialogue, you can show that the listener is only catching bits and pieces by completely missing certain important pieces and then reacting oddly to something they do finally catch." } ]	2022/12/29	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64008", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57380/" ]
64,023	Is it a bad thing if there's no character development whatsoever within the first half of a novel? In my novel, there's this character who's just living alone and doesn't really interact with anyone or any animal whatsoever, and then later after the first half there's some character development as he finally interacts meaningfully (dialogues) with other characters, is that ok, and can we make it work, or is this a terrible idea and why?	[ { "answer_id": 64024, "author": "배원근", "author_id": 57403, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57403", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "It is generally considered important for a novel to have character development, as it helps to engage the reader and make the characters more relatable and believable. However, it is also possible to have a well-written novel without significant character development in the first half. It really depends on the specific goals and focus of the novel.\n\nIf the first half of the novel is primarily focused on setting the stage and establishing the plot, then it may be acceptable for there to be less character development at that point. However, if the novel is primarily character-driven, then it may be more important for the characters to be developed and for the reader to get to know them early on.\n\nUltimately, whether or not the lack of character development in the first half of a novel is a problem will depend on the overall structure and goals of the story. It's important to consider how the lack of character development may affect the reader's engagement with the story and their ability to connect with the characters." }, { "answer_id": 64026, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "What does happen in the first half of the novel?\n\nHow your character reacts to that will, in fact, develop his character. If he evades people, if he plans his day to avoid where people, if he simply ignores them until they stop pestering him, all of these develop his character. If something breaks, does he fix it, work out how to get along without it, go into town and steal or buy a replacement, leave a note on a bulletin board that he will pay three baskets of berries for a replacement?\n\nYour question, as posed, seem to be based on the assumption that only interpersonal relations develop character. Anything that shows what sort of person your character is is character development.\n\nIf there is nothing like this, what does happen in the opening chapters to get the story rolling and keep the readers reading?" }, { "answer_id": 64029, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Character development is a bit of an on/off switch, either you have it and then it permeates the novel from the first scene the character appears to the last, or you don't have it and then you use other means to make the character interesting.\n\nStories can be described as two parallel conflicts, one external (the outer story and plot) and one internal (character development). In the best of stories, the external and internal should be so intimately connected that they should feel like two sides of the same coin.\n\nHaving character development, at least of the main character, in only half the story risks making it lopsided.\n\nIf you \"kind of\" have character development, the risk is the readers will expect development and get disappointed.\n\nIf, for instance, you introduce your character with a problem and a fatal flaw that makes them feel in need of change but then you don't give them any more development, that will likely upset the reader's sense of story. The same will probably be true if they come across character development in the later half of the story without any setup in the beginning. It risks feeling like \"half a bridge\" going into nowhere suddenly appearing above their heads.\n\nI'd suggest one of two things: Either remove the development in the latter half of the novel and write a non-arching character (see McCollum) or give them a full arc by going back and editing the first half.\n\nSince your character suddenly started developing, I'd say your novel and character seem to suggest they should develop and that you've just now come to realize who this character really is, so I'd recommend the latter. Go back (now, or when you've finished the first draft) and see if you can edit in a full change arc for the character.\n\nRecommended reading:\n\n* [How to Write Character Arcs](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/write-character-arcs/) (Also available as a book.)\n* \"Character Arcs: Founding, forming and finishing your character's internal journey\", Jordan McCollum" } ]	2022/12/31	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64023", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,033	When I think of sad story, I think of Greek tragedies, so naturally they should have a sad ending, and the characters should not deserve what happens to them. So I was thinking that I simply need to make sure that the injustice is so great that it makes the readers extremely mad and frustrated. Am I correct to assume this, but wouldn't doing so also hurt the story, since you have to make them extremely mad and frustrated? I am trying to write the saddest story ever written.	[ { "answer_id": 64034, "author": "Jedediah", "author_id": 33711, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33711", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "The sharpest tragedy is intimately personal\n-------------------------------------------\n\n> \n> The world blew up and everybody died. The end.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis is not a very sad story. There is an infamous quote, \"One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.\"\n\n> \n> A little girl got run over and died.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThis is sad. People are often especially sympathetic with the misfortunes of women and children. But beyond that, the more attachment you can build, and the more personal you can make it feel, the more painful the story.\n\n> \n> Yanae, my best friend's younger sister, was hit by a car. My friend was driving. I've never seen somebody cry like he did before he drove off the bridge and into the canyon. This is the worst day of my life.\n> \n> \n> \n\nBut even a terrible story can be made worse if you can force the reader to vividly imagine a character's anguish:\n\n> \n> What am I going to tell my friend's mother?\n> \n> \n>" }, { "answer_id": 64037, "author": "A.bakker", "author_id": 42973, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42973", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "To no fault of their own.\n-------------------------\n\nIn my opinion the saddest stories are where the characters do everything right and still lose.\n\nExamples:\n\n> \n> A princess is sick, and a brave knight goes on a quest to save her...\n> a lot of hardship but he finds the medicine... only to come home and\n> see he is too late...\n> \n> \n> \n\nAll his suffering down the road, the sacrifices he has made... for nothing.\n\nAmerican History X (SPOILER)\n\n> \n> A neo-nazi gets sent to prison and turns his life around, but sees\n> that his little brother is still stuck in the wrong crowd... he helps\n> his little brother turn his life around as well, but then his little\n> brother gets shot by a black student he discriminated against earlier\n> in the story.\n> \n> \n> \n\nHe was a bad person at the start, turned his life and that of his brother around, only to lose what mattered most to him in the world, ironically by the people he hated for no reason.\n\nPay it Forward (SPOILERS)\n\n> \n> A little boy starts a movement, instead of paying back favors people\n> should pay it forward...it catches on and a lot of people get helped\n> and it builds a sense of community. Near the end the boy sees somebody\n> being bullied and tries to help, doing the right thing, only to get\n> stabbed to death.\n> \n> \n> \n\nSomebody who has done nothing wrong, only trying to help...having to pay it with his life.\n\nThe Mist (SPOILERS)\n\n> \n> A large group of people become stuck in a grocery store while an\n> apocalyptic mist filled with monsters covers everything they can see.\n> A man and his son are stuck there while the group gets smaller and\n> smaller because of monster attacks and it also becomes more dangerous\n> from in because a cult is formed that suggests sacrificing children to\n> god to keep them safe...he, his son and 3 others manage to escape in a\n> truck but in the end they are still stuck in the mist with no fuel and\n> hearing monsters everywhere... they have a gun with 4 bullets so he\n> shoots his son and the others to make sure they won't suffer at the\n> hands of the monsters and goes outside ready to be eaten alive... and\n> boom the US army shows up in tanks and with flamethrowers killing all\n> the monsters less then 5 minutes later and suddenly he sees the cultists all being safely evacuated.\n> \n> \n> \n\nHe didn't fall for the despair/insanity like most other survivors...he tried to make sure his loved ones didn't suffer needlessly... and turns out if he was a bit more patient (maybe even selfish) he would have had an happy ending." }, { "answer_id": 64048, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I see you accepted an answer anyway, but here is some advice.\n\nRead really tragic stories.\n\nI remember reading a story from a Norse saga involving a shipwreck. The protagonist's wife gives birth to baby boy and dies. It seems like the baby is doomed, but the father keeps him alive somehow, even once snatching him from the jaws of a polar bear. And in the end\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nAnd if you want to read sad stories for inspiration, try reading J.R. R. Tolkien's Silmarillion or the stories from it.\n\nThe Children of Hurin 2007\n\nBeren and Luthien 2017.\n\nThe Fall of Gondolin 2018.\n\nAnd maybe you can ask on history sites for example of really tragic and sad stories from history." }, { "answer_id": 64059, "author": "pygosceles", "author_id": 40405, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/40405", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Just tell the truth.\nNothing is sadder or more legitimately evocative of sorrow than the genuine sufferings and privations of real people, even if anonymized.\nMany of the most ingenious and heart-wrenching works of fiction were truthful echoes of this world's history, figurative representations of real persons and events, and parables.\nExamples might include Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, Alexandre Dumas's Count of Monte Cristo, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J. R. R. Tolkien, to name a few.\n\nA key is that you must establish a shared value system with your readers.\nHistorical fiction or allegories that draw on people's lived experiences have the added bonus of being the most highly relatable. For this reason, many works of fiction and fantasy in particular fall far short of delivering the full level of engagement for readers of all ages, because their worlds, characters and circumstances are too contrived; such works tend to appeal to the young and naive, but not to persons of broader experience or more deeply founded emotion.\n(Although we like to pretend that vicarious emotion is the most powerful sort, such emotions are often too vague, since in the real world they remain undefined or without adequate context).\nIf you put feeling into it, others can feel that feeling.\nThe likenesses to real world events or persons do not always need to be too obvious or uncanny, but in order to be engaging, there must be a familiar principle or circumstance that goes beyond superficial similarity." }, { "answer_id": 64061, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "The saddest things are when you combine as many of the following as possible.\n\n* Something bad happens to an innocent\n* It is not the fault of the suffering person\n* It isn't anybody's else's fault either\n* Somebody feels like it is their fault when it is not\n* The suffering goes on for a long time, especially when the suffering person knows they are in \"big trouble\"\n* The situation could be fixed quite easily \"if only\" but \"if only\" does not happen\n* If multiple people have the bad thing happening at the same time, and one of them is \"noble\" in order to help the others\n\nThere are archetype situations. One quite heavily used one is the lost child in its many variations (kitten, astronaut, etc.) The idea is, an innocent is lost, knows he is in trouble, is slowly starving etc. The parent (dog owner, mission control, etc.) thinks it is their fault the child is lost, but really it was because of a storm, car accident, etc. The child could be found if only people searched in the right place. But everybody thinks the child is lost over here when the kid is really over there.\n\nThings that relieve the sadness or change it to something else are many.\n\n* Injustice tends to make it anger rather than sadness. A kidnapping engenders rage rather than pathos. If the Evil Stepmother really did dump Snuw Wlexe in the woods, it is more about anger than sadness. If the car crash did result from drunk driving, people tend to move towards anger at the drunk.\n* If the suffering ends quickly then the degree of sadness is less. Somebody falling off a building produces a quick burst of sadness that decreases quickly.\n* If the suffering person is not aware they are in trouble it tends to make it suspenseful rather than sad. Horror films do this a lot. The first victim of the slasher does not see it coming.\n* If multiple people are in trouble at the same time and one of them tries to hog the resources to save himself. 4 parachutes for 5 people, I want mine, and it becomes a fight rather than pathos. But if a father is there strapping his parachute to his pregnant wife, you are going to have salt.\n* If all hope is lost then emotion tends to get disconnected. It tends to become \"past tense\" and much of the emotion is drained out.\n* Similarly, if there is too much hope, then the sadness gets drained. We are not sad for Lois Lane dangling from the ledge because Superman is her boyfriend and he will save her." }, { "answer_id": 64064, "author": "N Hafizi Kamaruzzaman", "author_id": 57444, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57444", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "PS: not a native English speaker here and not a professional writer.\n\nI read a light novel once, it hit me more than I expected it to.\n\nA girl was selected to become a 'chosen' one in a world of supers during an incident...but because of her dark element, her power was withheld due to the higher authority consist of people with influence...and at the same time, she was instructed to save the day with the cost of her own life...\n\nWhat makes it sad is:\n\n1. Being a 'chosen' should be a happy moment since it will become a new chapter of life (chosen are treated as celebrities and heroes), but this girl was sentenced to death on the same day she was chosen.\n2. The incident could be avoided, but it happened due to a greedy corporation.\n3. She can do much more, but her power was put on hold by the political leaders of nations due to the dark nature of her ability.\n4. She just wanted to save her single friend, but had to save everyone by doing so, including her bullies. If she does nothing, everyone dies; if she acts, everyone else lives except her.\n5. She managed to contact outside, but they cannot help much due to those political leaders who want to stop the news from spreading which will impact those leaders' competence and influence.\n\nIn her monologue \"all of this can be avoided, but it was the people who made it happen\" and she was stuck on both ends which we can all relate to...and the world is currently fighting monsters to survive.\n\nThen the POV changes to the people who want to save her...and the same people broke the rules and told her story and her current situation to the rest of the supers who are currently fighting monsters in other areas...with their power, they light the sky so that the girl saw their solidarity...the girl saw it, but she didn't even realize it was meant for her.\n\nTo make it simple: \n\nCreate a tragedy scenario, caused by people (which can be avoided) and involve a girl or a teen. It was not up to them to help, but they did it anyway. For the masses, they are happy being saved, but for some people, they know how much was the terrible cost of that peace, especially as they achieved it with the cost of a little girl's life...and for those powerful chosen, they have the abilities to stop it but they are helpless to do so and can only watch that little girl's life slowly slipping away from their own hands...due to political interference, they were celebrated as the hero in the news instead of that little girl...that incident slapped every 'chosen' on their face and reminded them the real reason why they were chosen, and not just to become celebrities with super powers.\n\nTo build the story until the finale, the arc consists of 25 chapters and 600 pages." }, { "answer_id": 64071, "author": "elevendollar", "author_id": 57454, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57454", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I think the most important part to achieve your goal is to focus on connection between the reader and the character(s).\n\nA feeling of sadness only arises if the reader is emotionally invested in the character(s) of the story. Hardship, tragic events etc only matter if the reader cares about the character(s).\n\nPeople are the most sad if somebody they love is affected by bad things.\n\nFocus on the characters and their development. The reader needs to feel like the characters are their friend, partner, family.\n\nThe other answers have great advise for shaping the story." }, { "answer_id": 64322, "author": "Tom", "author_id": 24134, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24134", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Making it personal is what makes the difference between \"uupsi, one more red shirt down\" and being rendered speechless by sorrow.\n\nRed shirts aren't tragic because we have no emotional connection to them and their death doesn't matter, neither to any characters on screen nor to the story. They might get a 5-second burial and then never be mentioned again.\n\nA tragedy builds up characters for the whole story before tearing them down. This builds an emotional connection. We know this character as a person. He has become a friend to us. We were there when his first child was born... well, you get the idea.\n\nSo to maximize sadness, you have to maximize emotional meaning. Something bad must happen to a character we know and care about. It must impact his life in a way we understand and where we feel the weight of the impact. Something he struggled for, and we struggled with him, turns out to be not at all what he hoped for. Instead of being rewarded for his long struggle, he not only fails, but is punished by the very thing he accomplished." } ]	2023/01/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64033", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,035	I'm a young writer and have only recently figured out about the "bury your gays trope". I'm writing a book and the main character is a lesbian and gets a girlfriend. Shortly there after the girlfriend gets killed for some plot important reasons. The story follows the main character trying to avenge and bring back her girlfriend and in the end she does. Is it okay for me to kill of the main love interest, especially a gay one? There are many other LGBT characters, in fact most are. I'm just confused and don't want to offend anyone. Thank you for all the answers, I am choosing to go through and kill her off, I am thankfull for all the advice and will keep all in mind in my future endeavors.	[ { "answer_id": 64036, "author": "A.bakker", "author_id": 42973, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42973", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Short Answer: Yes\n\nLong Answer Yes, because consider this:\n\nA: It is YOUR story, so yes it is ALWAYS okay to kill of any character you want (with the exception of historical accurate writing of course but that isn't the case here).\n\nB: Sadly when it comes to writing LGBT content, you can never do it right. Currently it's a bit of a polarizing subject, majority of the people won't care but you will have extremists on both sides. Some will be angry that the main chars are LGBT to begin with, others will be angry that one dies... a lot of people just want their world view imposed on anything they see, hear or read and even the slightest deviation will make them angry.\n\nC: IT seems that the characters death is the catalyst for the entire plot... if you want to re-write it the only options would be to make them same sex or instead of death making it a kidnapping... but you should only re-write it YOU want to, not because somebody else because like i said in A: it is your story and in B, there will always be people who don't agree." }, { "answer_id": 64038, "author": "Mousentrude", "author_id": 44421, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44421", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Yes, in the context you have given, it sounds reasonable. The \"Bury Your Gays\" trope is around the token gay character being killed off. [As TV Tropes points out](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays):\n\n> \n> This trope is the presentation of deaths of LGBT characters where these characters are nominally able to be viewed as more expendable than their heterosexual counterparts. In this way, the death is treated as exceptional in its circumstances... Indeed, it may be because they seem to have less purpose compared to straight characters, or that the supposed natural conclusion of their story is an early death.\n> \n> \n> ...the problem isn't merely that gay characters are killed off: the problem is the tendency that gay characters are killed off in a story full of mostly straight characters, or when the characters are killed off because they are gay.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf you have plenty of LGBTQIAA+ characters who don't die, then one of them dying ceases to be remarkable (at least in terms of gender/sexuality), especially if you do your best to make the character a three-dimensional human being and not merely a plot device." }, { "answer_id": 64040, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 6, "selected": false, "text": "As you describe it I don't see the problem, and you aren't buying into the trope.\n\nThe trope is that LGBTQ characters are expendable; you are writing the opposite of that: Your killed lesbian is so not expendable, the hero (LGBTQ lover) is going to move heaven and Earth to both avenge her and bring her back from the dead, and succeeds.\n\nThat is how powerful LGBTQ love is, it defies death.\n\nYou are not minimizing the value of their lives, You've got Superman (as a woman) flying faster than light, a blur around the Earth, to reverse time and save Lois Lane from being killed.\n\nThe trope is offensive because it treats LGBTQ characters as inherently flawed and therefore less valuable and more expendable than Hetero characters.\n\nAccording to your story description, you are not doing that." }, { "answer_id": 64042, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Spoiler alert: I'm spoiling \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\", season 6 below... if you haven't watched it (where have you been all this time?!) you may want to do that before reading further...\n\nYou're right to ask this question, and even though your main character finally brings this character back from the dead, your reader won't know that when she dies, so how she dies is important.\n\nIt's good that there are other queer characters in the story. (You may want to add another lesbian couple to be on the safe side).\n\nYour character dies from a plot-important reason.\n\nThis can be good or bad, depending on how she dies.\n\nXareFX's death in Buffy the Vampire slayer [has been quoted](https://mythcreants.com/blog/questions/how-can-i-avoid-burying-my-gays/) as the ultimate version of \"bury your gays\". Her death is plot-important, for Xillam. But that's about all that went right with that scene.\n\nTo avoid a repeat of XareFX's death, you could give your character agency in her death. Make her choose to walk into danger and risk her life, perhaps to save someone or destroy some evil artifact or similar. Make it a heroic death, rather than some random, happenstance slaying put there to get your main character and the story going...\n\nMaybe your character saves the life of her lover/your main character and dies in the process? That might add nice resonance to the story as well..." }, { "answer_id": 64043, "author": "ScottishTapWater", "author_id": 33204, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33204", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "If the love interest was heteronormative would it be okay to kill them off?\n\nThe answer is the same if they're LGBT.\n\nTheir sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not they're killable" }, { "answer_id": 64054, "author": "Corey", "author_id": 56715, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56715", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "This is nothing like \"burying your gays\" which appears to entail killing off gay (and other LGBT) characters with no purpose. The description you've given really doesn't fit this trope.\n\nThe death of your MC's girlfriend is a major driver for both character development and plot in the story. It seems to me, from your brief description, that it is in fact the single most important motivation for your MC to take the actions that she does. Sadly for your MC, her girlfriend's death is necessary to your story.\n\nBeyond that though, I happen to hold a (strangely) controversial opinion: people are people. If you never allow your LGBT characters to be hurt, to fail, to be petty or petulant or outright evil; if you only write them as perfect, saintly people then you are not writing real people. It's like when Christian writers make all of their antagonists non-Christian and all of the Christian characters are angelic... which we all know isn't the way it works in real life.\n\nThe same goes for harm: everyone bleeds. Everyone hurts. [Anyone can die](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnyoneCanDie) no matter how virtuous they are, no matter what their gender or sexual orientation or race. What matters is how you depict that pain, how people in the story respond to those deaths, and whether or not the violence you're writing is important... which it certainly seems to be in this case.\n\nSo yes, go ahead and write it. If you're squeemish about writing about violence against a lesbian character than write about the MC's emotional reactions. Show the readers why she embarked on this quest rather than letting it destroy her. Write about the hole it left in her life, the madness she had to overcome. Make her human, not just another cardboard cut-out masquerading as a main character." }, { "answer_id": 64055, "author": "AmiralPatate", "author_id": 31567, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/31567", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "TL;DR: It depends whether you're killing a character or perpetuating a stereotype.\n\nWhat's the trope?\n\nWhat defines the \"bury your gays\" trope is first and foremost a character whose defining characteristic is \"gay\". They're token characters, thrown by the wayside with little fore- or afterthought.\n\nAt the heart of the issue is that it's a way to tick boxes and give the illusion of inclusiveness, without having to bother with actual representation. And then it also has the unfortunate implication that these lives have little to no value.\n\nHow do avoid playing straight into the trope?\n\nYou can start by making the character an actual character, not defined by their gayness but by their wants, needs, hopes, dreams, experiences, and so forth.\n\nHaving other well-rounded characters from the whole LGBT rainbow would also be helpful to mark the difference between killing the gay character and killing a character (who happens to be gay).\n\nIs it okay to kill of a gay love interest?\n\nIt's about as okay as killing any other love interest.\n\nAs far as the myth of Orpheus, Eurydice just exists to give some motivation to the hero. Killing the wife to send the hero on a righteous rampage is a story that's been done. The thing you have to acknowledge here is whether it's a dead wife, a taken daughter or dead puppy dog, none of these are characters, they're plot devices.\n\nThe way I see it, you're more likely to run into [women in refrigerators](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators) (see also [Stuffed into the Fridge](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge)) and [damsels-in-distress](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DamselInDistress) territory. The revenge action genre has long faced criticism for using women to give the man a motivation for cheap, and that never stopped any of them from being commercial and critical successes.\n\nYou could leave it at that if you're only interested in the revenge part of the story, and having a lesbian hero avenge and save her lesbian lover would probably do more to subvert these tropes than most others.\n\nIf you're not satisfied with your love interest being a mere plot device, it's worth considering two ways to explore that character's hopes and dreams and wants and needs, and such.\n\nFirst, whatever relationship exists between the hero and their loved one, it has to be shown, not told. Don't just label them as girlfriends, show us that they care about each other, or at least why the hero cares.\n\nSecond, make the character live beyond the grave. By that I mean have their presence felt throughout the story, e.g. through memories, objects they left in the hero's home, other people that knew and cared about them, etc. People don't just disappear from Earth when they die, what they leave behind is a great way to explore who they were.\n\nThe resurrection angle also opens the door to have them observe the quest of the hero from the great beyond, or even narrate the whole story from their ghostly point of view." }, { "answer_id": 64065, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The original knock on it was that it was a cliché. A little worse than most clichés, because the reason for it was that all gay characters used to have to die as punishment for their sins, or the story would be deemed “immoral” back in the bad old days. Times changed, and gay characters became sympathetic and started to die so the reader would feel sorry for them instead, but they’d still always die and readers were tired of it. Especially lesbians who said they wanted some happy endings too! There was a backlash, and it worked: that’s a lot less ubiquitous and predictable than it used to be.\n\nThen it went through a few rounds of the social-media outrage cycle, and all nuance got beaten out. You might just have to accept that anything you write these days might come under hyperbolic attack, more or less at random, even if you don’t deserve it. The most common way to ward this one off these days is to write in another couple of the same gender who get a happy ending." }, { "answer_id": 64073, "author": "Michael Lorton", "author_id": 1125, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/1125", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "As a writer, you should largely ignore audience reaction. It’s not relevant. Writing either to rile up or to not rile up your audience is the domain of hacks, not artists.\n\n(If you want to be a hack, go ahead — but don’t bother writing fiction. Probably 500 people in the whole country make a living authoring fiction. If you are going to sell out, look for a more profitable industry to sell out to.)\n\nIn general, do not worry too much about “offending” people. Offense is taken, not given. If someone is determined to be offended, nothing that you do or omit doing will stop them.\n\nAlso [read this](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TropesAreTools)." } ]	2023/01/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64035", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57410/" ]
64,044	When you adapt a story set in Medieval Europe should you still aim to have a diverse cast even if it's not historically accurate? When you adapt a book set in Medieval Europe, should you still aim to have a diverse cast even if it's not historically or lore accurate? I saw some LOTR adaptations, and they didn't try to be lore-accurate at all and put out a diverse cast. Is this something that's 100% necessary in this day and age, because it seems to me everyone does it.	[ { "answer_id": 64045, "author": "A.bakker", "author_id": 42973, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42973", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Depends, on what you want. A good accurate story, or praise from a small but loud group who don't care if a story is good as long as it checks their diversity boxes? And trust me, you won't be able to do it... we live in a time period where a lesbian actress was criticized for not looking lesbian enough while playing a lesbian character or a full blooded Asian actress for not being Asian enough.\n\nThe Rings of Power and the new Witcher Spin-off forced diversity and what did it get? horrible reviews... and they will be forgotten in a decade.\n\nForced diversity is horrible, and if you use a historical setting it's kinda insulting to the region/people it is about. Take the series where they replaced an actual Norse king with a black woman... I have several Norwegian friends who are absolutely disgusted by it.\n\nAnd personally it feels like rewriting history, people often confuse fiction and reality...and rewriting history to be more ethnically diverse and LGBT acceptance will warp the reality of impressionable people (and if you think people aren't that dumb, after Fluck Yanvhir thousands of people tried to book a vacation to Wakanda...)\n\nBUT!\n\nThere are ways to have a relative diverse casting without forcing it. A good example would be [Azeem](https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Azeem) from Yebun Boad. He was a black character in a medieval British setting, but it worked because he and the main character met during the crusades with Azeem chosing to follow the main character to repay a life debt. He was more then a token character and his presence was logically justified.\n\nBut the danger is, such a character would be discriminated against heavily in such a period... so that should also be realistic and that can also cause people to lose their minds. For example the movie Blazing Saddles is a movie about a black sheriff in a western setting... back then they were highly discriminated against so that also happens to the main character in the movie (until the people turn around and accept him) but due to the initial bad reactions from the townspeople the movie is banned at certain places for being \"triggering\".\n\nSo in my opinion, NO forcing a diverse cast is utter nonsense, but there is nothing wrong with inserting characters of a different ethnicity IF it fits the setting. A traveling merchant from the ottoman empire with an Arabic descent for example would be plausible... but a German king who is as black as the night would be stupid. The same goes for LGBT, sure you can have LGBT characters, but then it should fit the setting that they can't be open about it due to prosecution." }, { "answer_id": 64074, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You might want to look at the various definitions of the border between Europe and Asia.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth#Asia_and_Europe>\n\nAs for The border between Africa and Europe, the mainland north of the Mediterranean was Europe, and the mainland south of it was Africa, and most of the main islands are part of Europe.\n\nThe Middle ages lasted from about AD 500 to 1500, or between various other dates suggested, and most sets of dates make them last about 1,000 years - some make them last centuries longer.\n\nAnd there are various differences in appearance between people living in different regions of Europe, so that some would seem like strange foreigners if they traveled far in Europe in Medieval times.\n\nIn the 7th century AD Arabs from Arabia conquered most of the Middle East and spread into Africa, converting many local people to Islam and enlisting them in their armies.\n\nWith decades, they conquered all Northern Africa, and then in 711 invaded Spain and rapidly conquered almost all of it. The Muslims who came to Spain were mostly Mediterranean type people like the people already living in Spain. Many native people in Spain converted to Islam, so someone couldn't always tell the difference between Muslims and Christians by their looks.\n\nWhen the Almoravids invaded Spain the 11th and 12th centuries, their armies included black Africans from south of the Sahara, which may be the reason why the Moors in Spain were often depicted as Black.\n\nI think that all of the major Mediterranean islands of Europe were ruled by Muslims at one time or another, often for centuries.\n\nAnd in the Late Middle Ages Ottoman Muslims from Turkey invaded Europe and conquered all the Balkans and even beyond, besieging Vienna unsuccessfully in 1529 and 1683. Many Europeans converted to Islam under Ottoman rule. And some of the Ottomans would have been East Asian in appearances.\n\nMuslims societies had a lot of slavery, so in the slave markets of Muslim ruled parts of Europe there would be slaves, some of which would appear to be Middle Eastern or Mediterranean in appearance, some would be exotic blonde people from the north, and some would be exotic black people from eastern Africa.\n\nWealthy Muslims had children with slave women of various races, so their descendants didn't always look Arab. Abd Ar-Rahman III, first Caliph of Cordoba in Spain, had a Christian slave mother, and his father's mother was a Christian princess, so he had ight skin, blue eyes, and light hair, which he dyed black.\n\nIn a Muslim family where the mothers had been black slaves for two generations in a row, the family members would end up looking rather black.\n\nMuslim sea raiders often attacked Christian communities on the shores of the Mediterranean. The Vatican in Rome was looted by Muslims in 846. The \"Barbary Pirates\" from North Africa didn't stop their raids until the 19th century.\n\nFraxinetum in southern France was was a stronghold of Muslim raiders from about 887-972. Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel was the base of Moroccans who made slave raids from 1627 to 1632. Hundreds of Icelanders were killed and captured as slaves by Algerians in the Turkish Raid of 1627.\n\nTo be continued with an account of the other main group of exotic foreigners in Europe in the Middle Ages." } ]	2023/01/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64044", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,046	There are a lot of questions on this site about how to approach things specifically to do with LGBT characters, where the action/story in question isn't specifically about their sexuality. [Is it okay to kill off a main LGBT love interest?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/64035/is-it-okay-to-kill-off-a-main-lgbt-love-interest) [How do I write LGBT characters without looking like I'm trying to be politically correct?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/34564/how-do-i-write-lgbt-characters-without-looking-like-im-trying-to-be-politically) [An LGBT main character, but the book isn't about LGBT issues](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/41945/an-lgbt-main-character-but-the-book-isnt-about-lgbt-issues) So this seems quite a common theme. So I suppose the overarching question is "Should I do anything differently when writing about LGBT characters compared to heterosexual ones?"	[ { "answer_id": 64047, "author": "ScottishTapWater", "author_id": 33204, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33204", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "*TLDR: sexuality really isn't that important a character trait, don't make a big deal out of it unless it's really integral to the plot.\n\nJust don't make a big deal about your characters being LGBT. Treat them exactly like what they are, normal people. Think to yourself, \"would I make a big deal out of X if my character were straight?\". If the answer is no, then don't make a big deal out of it. If your character's sexuality has precisely nothing to do with the story, don't mention it just to tick the gay character box.\n\nOn the other hand, if your characters are on a grand adventure and talking about how much they miss their families, it's perfectly fine to have your LGBT one talk about their same-sex partner. Just do it in exactly the same way as your straight character talked about their wife. The same goes for if it's a rom-com, it's absolutely fine to have the two love interests be whatever sexuality you want, just don't focus on the sexuality itself, focus on the characters.\n\nNot making a big deal out of it doesn't just apply to the story, it applies to how you think about your characters when you're writing them to. For instance:\n\n1. Yes you can kill an LGBT character\n2. Yes you can have an LGBT character cheat on their spouse\n3. Yes you can have an LGBT character's main love interest die a horrible, graphic death\n4. Yes you can have an LGBT character be the nicest/most horrible person in the world\n5. Yes this random character your book can be LGBT just because you feel like it (but don't retcon it)\n\nThe key is making sure that you're not doing these things (or doing them differently) because* they're LGBT, that's going to stray into tokenism or prejudice very, very fast.\n\nI guess the only exception to this would be if you're writing about the hardships that come along with being LGBT. In which case, sure, you need to make more of a deal about it. However, unless you're LGBT, here be dragons. I'd strongly advise against writing about this sort of thing unless you really know what you're talking about." }, { "answer_id": 64051, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Treat an LGBTQ+ character the same as any other\n\nIf you wouldn't treat a heterosexual cisgender person that way, don't treat an LGBTQ+ character that way. It's that simple.\n\nFor example, if you have a wedding between two lesbians, write it as you would a wedding between two heterosexuals. Also, if you have a transgender character, you can mention them having surgery or taking hormones, but you don't have to linger on the fact they are transgender.\n\nDoes it honestly change much? It doesn't generally impact the plot much.\n\nExample-\n\n\"Oh, by the way, I'm a bisexual,\" Amox says.\n\n\"Great,\" the protagonist says. \"What does that have to do with stopping the Dark Lord?\"\n\n\"Uh...\"\n\nIt only changes the plot where sexuality or gender is relevant such as:\n\nEx1-\n\n\"By the way, I'm a lesbian,\" Amox says.\n\n\"Great,\" the MC says. \"That doesn't help us stop the Dark Lord.\"\n\n\"No, but I'm attracted to you. I'm confessing.\"\n\n\"Oh.\"\n\nEx2-\n\n\"By the way, I'm gay,\" Rxac says.\n\n\"Great, how does that help us stop the Dark Lord?\" the MC asks.\n\n\"I can try seducing him?\"\n\n\"...\"\n\nEx3\n\n\"By the way, I'm transgender,\" Stacy says.\n\n\"Great, how does that help us stop the Dark Lord?\" the MC says.\n\n\"Because the Dark Lord is a manifestation of my internal struggle with understanding my gender identity and the weight of society pressuring me to be a girl.\"\n\n\"What-what do I even say to that?\"\n\n...\n\nIt only creates a difference on specific circumstances, situations where gender or sexuality are relevant.\n\nStories thrive on conflict and drama both internal and external.\n\nWhat if the character thinks they like guys but learns they like girls instead? Now they have to break up with the guy and explain the truth. Great external conflict.\n\nWhat if a character thinks they are a girl but begins transitioning into a boy? They now have to rediscover themself and question what it even means to be a boy or a girl, or if those words hold meaning at all. Great internal conflict.\n\nJust treat an LGBTQ+ character with the same respect you should treat any character or person you meet in real life." }, { "answer_id": 64052, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Avoid inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes.\n\nOne of the other answers suggests that if you wouldn't think twice about doing X if the character were non-LGBT, then doing X to an LGBT character is fine too. But that becomes problematic when there are biases in society about X and LGBT people. It means you might unintentionally invoke a stereotype that you wouldn't have in the other case. So that's something to be aware of.\n\nStories don't exist in isolation. They're consumed by people that are part of a society with all sorts of biases, so those biases affect how the story is read, and vice versa. On the upside, that means a good story can (slightly) improve society, but on the downside a poor/careless story can make it (slightly) worse." }, { "answer_id": 64056, "author": "Nepene Nep", "author_id": 54854, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/54854", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "LGBT people tend to be politically valued, so it's more controversial doing bad things to them.\n===============================================================================================\n\nLGBT people are fairly popular in a lot of creative circles, and are generally seen as proper people who are acting in a good way who you shouldn't stigmatize. As such, it's not seen as good to criticize them heavily or have them be pathetic or evil.\n\nYou can be openly cruel to other groups.\n========================================\n\nSome groups, you can openly murder and use stereotypes about. [The Russians are very popular villains and you can freely stereotype and be rude about them, especially with the recent war,](https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20141106-why-are-russians-always-bad-guys) [The british are popular villains and generally fine to stereotype and murder](https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-euro-villains-should-we-care-that-british-means-bad-in-16298/) [black fathers are a popular target of stereotypes and racial abuse](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/columnists/story/2021-02-26/column-quit-stereotyping-black-fathers-and-stop-using-them-as-a-scapegoat-for-societys-failures).\n\nSome groups will of course be offended by this, but generally you're less likely to get people offended if you do x to a British or Russian or black father character than an LGBT character or other groups.\n\nIn general for all groups, if you want to be sensitive it's good to do some research first.\n===========================================================================================\n\nIf you don't want to be offensive to anyone, including LGBT people, black fathers, the British, or Russians, you should do some research into cultural values of your chosen group, be careful about portraying a group as evil, and be careful about using people of a disliked race/ sex/ sexuality to drive the plot by dying. That said, it's more risky if you do it to LGBT people." } ]	2023/01/02	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64046", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/33204/" ]
64,063	I was watching some video about how to write LGBT characters and I was told that it's wrong to have your LGBT character magically find a LGBT love interest. However, my particular problem is that the fact my main character is LGBT is not the main point of the story, and I just want my main character to find a LGBT love interest as soon as possible. Is it still wrong, and if it's wrong how do I make it more palatable? I was told this was almost as bad as the "Bury your gays" trope. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCs0JdJ0cBQ>	[ { "answer_id": 64068, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "Is it \"as soon as possible\" from the perspective of the story, or the in-universe events? If the story, then I don't really see what's wrong with it either. Finding each other can even be the starting point of the plot, why not?\n\nI can understand the argument if they find each other too quickly and easily from the perspective of in-universe events.\n\nA gay person in a heteronormative and gay-hostile environment is likely to... \n\n- have trouble even realising that the all-permeating narrative of \"you're gonna find yourself a nice woman/man and have kids\" doesn't really apply in their case; \n\n- struggle with self-acceptance; \n\n- fear outing themself; \n\n- feel like they're alone because the other gay people are also hiding it; \n\n- fear not just rejection but downright violence if they confess their feelings; \n\n- fear violence against themself and their beloved if they get together; \n\n- and this isn't meant to be an exhausting list. \n\n(That's, of course, on top of the basic statistic probability of having crushes on people with incompatible orientation, which boosts one's rejection ratio even when the society is totally accepting. And you know - if not from personal experience, then from your friends and from media, too - that finding a partner isn't exactly easy for straight people either.)\n\nYou try getting a date in that sort of terrain!\n\nIf the story establishes this kind of setting, and then just glosses over it and makes all the obstacles magically disappear for the heroes, that's where it gets offensive. It's dismissive to the hardships that many real people have faced, throughout history and the present. The point is to acknowledge what it means and not let it be just a backdrop with no effect on the situation on the stage, if you catch what I'm trying to say.\n\nThat said, a society isn't a hivemind, and you can make things a little easier for your heroes by having them meet through some kind of friend group or club that's more accepting than the mainstream. After all, people from minorities not fully accepted by the overall population do tend to gravitate to such places if they can find them." }, { "answer_id": 64077, "author": "Eduardo McTavishchenkovicz", "author_id": 57464, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57464", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "No. Why?\n\nThink. What rhymes with Radar?\n\nLike people seem to find each other despite negative consequences. This is entirely possible because people can’t change who they are just because they might live in a highly oppressive or lethal society. They will and Do find each other.\n\nWhoever created the video that teaches that it’s wrong for you to create LGBT characters that find a love interest sooner than They think it should occur doesn’t understand statistics or the range of humanly possible situations. It IS well within the realm of possibility. You should not be overly concerned with one person’s demands upon your creative work simply because they feel you haven’t unlocked the same level of humanity as they have. It is as if you should not create LGBT characters unless you follow the LGBT Character Creation Handbook using the special dice and add the required Flair and Charisma bonus for male and female characters and the dual bonus for NB characters.\n\nIgnore any external guidelines for character creation placed upon you by others. Short of creating a bad caricature or a stereotype. It seems they want you to use a stereotypical character of the LGBT kind.\n\nMaster has given you a sock. You are now free. Use your own humanity and sensibility as a creative person. Art by committee is fascism. I can’t encourage you enough to do your own thing.\n\nPeppermint Patty and Merlia didn’t ask Charles Schultz for permission to meet each other, or for him to consult the oracle of possibilities. They met somewhere, likely much sooner than we first meet them." } ]	2023/01/04	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64063", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,080	What do you have to focus on when reading other people's screenplays to improve as a writer? No matter, how many screenplays I read, I can't seem to improve in my writing. What are the most important aspects in a screenplay you should focus on when reading other people's screenplays in order to improve as a writer when writing screenplays?	[ { "answer_id": 64085, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "Round up the usual suspects.\n\n* How do they move the plot?\n* How do they pace the story?\n* How do they show character?\n* How do they do dialog?\n* How do they use timing?\n* What level of vocabulary do they use?\n* How do they produce emotion?\n* How do they make you care about the previous items?\n\nDepending on the genre, you may have other \"usual\" questions. For example, if it's a comedic show, how do they produce laughter? (If they do.) Or if it's a horror story, how do they produce suspense? If it's an adventure, what produces excitement?" }, { "answer_id": 64086, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "First you need to analyze your own attempts. If you find you can not determine what you are weak in, you may want to enlist some assistance from beta readers.\n\nThen you need to concentrate on how those writers do what you are weak in." } ]	2023/01/05	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64080", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,099	I was watching [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC5desrMzGE) and it seems like it's deeply offensive to people in the autism spectrum to read someone use functional labels for autistic people. Examples of functioning labels are "high-functioning", "Asperger's syndrome", etc. Is this something that's actually the case? I see medical journals use it, so I am wondering just how offensive this is, and if highly successful authors in the mainstream literature still use it despite the offensiveness of the action.	[ { "answer_id": 64101, "author": "astrophobic", "author_id": 57490, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57490", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I don't quite know if it's still used in modern literature. To some extent, it seems pointless to ask if something is considered \"offensive\". In medicine they need to make use of such functional labels to be more specific, i.e, whether it's offensive or not depends on the context and the person. Yes, there are some words that are generally considered offensive, but I don't think that's the case here. The question is, does this really need to be specified in the context of what you're writing? If so, do it." }, { "answer_id": 64108, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "Generally, I disagree with that video. There are situations where labels can be used without necessarily being discriminating.\n\nMedical journals use different labels because they are part of the diagnosis, and depending on when the journal was written, terms like Aspbeger might exist even though it's all sorted under autism nowadays.\n\nPersonally, I sometimes find terms such as autism helpful to communicate, and sometimes I see them used to discriminate. It's more a question of a tool that can be used for many different things.\n\nHowever, labeling people whether in fiction or real life always carries the risk of discrimination. What's the label for? To limit or reward someone because of a label? Then it's likely discriminating...\n\nIf it is to create a 2-dimensional secondary character, I suggest you refrain.\n\nIf you want to write about a person with autism you write them as any other character, as a person in a novel.\n\nMaybe they tell the reader about their diagnosis, maybe their doctor talks about it, or their mom, maybe no one does. Maybe they don't even know they have autism...\n\nIf you go...\n\n> \n> He was 5'9\" and had autism...\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou're telling and info dumping. This may or may not be discriminating, but is definitely bad writing.\n\nYou need to research autism, create a character, and show them in action. (This is true for everything you put in a novel and every type of character.)\n\nI bet you can write a whole novel without a single label if you do that.\n\nThen again, maybe the antagonist throws labels left and right because they are the antagonist?" }, { "answer_id": 64110, "author": "Robert Columbia", "author_id": 22049, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/22049", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "### Show, don't tell\n\nThis is just a specific case of the general rule to [show, don't tell](https://blog.reedsy.com/show-dont-tell/).\n\nDescribing your character as \"autistic\", \"high functioning autistic\", \"schizophrenic\", \"bipolar\" or anything similar does not tell me what they are like. Take a famous character such as Swulqon Coohoq of The Big Bang Theory. At no point is he specifically identified as autistic, but he is clearly intended to model many of the traits associated with what is commonly referred to as high-functioning autism. By showing, the writers are able to help us get to know who Shulhin really is and how his personality affects his behavior rather than slapping a low-effort label on him and letting everyone ASSuME that they know what that means. It makes him into a human being who quite likely happens to have autism in addition to having his own personality and goals rather than just another generic \"autistic\" character who exists only to have autism and do stereotypically autistic things all day." } ]	2023/01/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64099", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,100	By [Bridge Logic,](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BridgeLogic) I mean a bridge that shouldn't be there, but is there for the convenience of the plot. I initially thought it was a Deux Ex Machina, but after reading what it was, I realized it was something else. Is this a terrible trope? Should I avoid it? If so, how can you rewrite it? I found an [example of the bridge trope.](https://youtu.be/EHW1mYI-eJ4?t=750) Here we see a convenient bridge placed there by someone and that wasn't destroyed to make it much easier to free the demon lord from his prison. The existence of the bridge is silly and not explained by the lore. The issue is then how do you rewrite the scene? Do you just remove the bridge and put no obstacle at all? Is that the solution? How do you write around this silly situation?	[ { "answer_id": 64102, "author": "astrophobic", "author_id": 57490, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57490", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "I have never heard of it before as well, and it seems context-sensitive. For instance, in the Shrek example, there's no real problem going on and the whole situation is actually \"funny\". In cases where the bridge logic is a terrible trope, it should be avoided by either putting no obstacle at all, or at least by solving the problem with an unapparent solution, obviously without introducing plotholes or any other kind of nonsense. Note that the bridge logic is silly because it's a convenient, predictable, undemanding solution." }, { "answer_id": 64103, "author": "Mary", "author_id": 44281, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/44281", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "There are three ways where this can work:\n\n1. Where it is funny. The very fact that it's impossible can easily be made absurd\n2. When your readers don't question it because the story slips it by them. This is an inferior method because it means that some readers may pick it up at the time, or after, but they may also be able to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story\n3. When you work backwards to structure the story so that the oddity seems at least plausible. It helps if it costs the characters something to use it.\n\nBut if the story can be built to make it plausible and not odd to overcome the obstacle, or the obstacle can be removed without damaging the story, because oddities jolt the reader." }, { "answer_id": 64104, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "I'd call this a made-up problem, but if you want to you could always have your characters do trigonometry to figure out what pillar/tree to cut down/push down to get across the chasm.\n\nOr, since I assume both the chasm and the tree/pillar were created by you... you can remove them both...\n\nOtherwise, you go around... books have been written about going around the chasm...\n\nOr climb down the chasm and up on the other side... preferably not being eaten by giant bugs at the bottom (made me turn off King Kong to never turn it on again...)\n\nOr have a villain push the thing down from the other side, then come over, kill a few characters to finally be defeated, and leave a bridge to cross. I'm sure the reader will feel the payment in blood is fair for the free bridge.\n\nOr, if your story is not about a chasm and a bridge, just get the characters across and keep moving the story along:\n\n> \n> They crossed the chasm and walked into Mordor where they...\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou can make it as large or as small as you need. The focus of the story should determine where ... the focus of the text should be.\n\nMaybe some important person dies trying to cross the chasm, maybe your main character is struggling with vertigo, or not..." }, { "answer_id": 64105, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "The first three answers (Erk, Parr, astrophobic) are good.\n\nAnother approach is to subvert the trope: Provide the bridge, but it is a convenience trap: The bridge is designed to collapse (and perhaps raise an alarm) as soon as somebody crosses the center point of the bridge.\n\nIf you want to play it for laughs, the characters have this \"too good to be true\" epiphany, and all agree to avoid the bridge, and go through hell getting across the chasm, only to find out on the other side, the bridge was just a bridge, everybody uses it.\n\nOr they test it, tie a rope to somebody that tries to cross the bridge, the center falls out, as expected, but maybe there is something salvageable from the remains of the bridge that lets them get across.\n\nOr maybe, they figure out the triggering mechanism, and instead of crossing over the bridge, they can climb across under the bridge on the support struts. More dangerous but still a way across an impossible chasm.\n\nOr maybe, the trigger can be turned off somehow, and they figure that out.\n\nYou are still using Bridge Logic; it turns out to be an easy (or easier) way to cross. But it does makes sense if somebody wants to go to or leave what is effectively an island, they need a boat, a plane or a bridge across the barrier. Even castles had drawbridges to safely cross their moats with men, horses and supplies.\n\nSo some mechanism being there is not entirely implausible; and it makes sense for characters to seek it out and try to exploit it." }, { "answer_id": 64106, "author": "F1Krazy", "author_id": 23927, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23927", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "The other answers already do a good job of explaining how this particular trope can be made to work, and I've already commented to address one of the fundamental misunderstandings in the question (namely, what the \"Bridge Logic\" trope actually is). I'd now like to address the other fundamental misunderstanding at the very heart of the question: there is no such thing as a \"terrible TV Trope\".\n\n[As TV Tropes themselves state](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TropesAreTools), tropes are neither inherently good, nor inherently bad -- they are tools. Pretty much any trope can be effective if you know how to use them and have the skill level required to pull them off. See also [this previous question](https://writing.stackexchange.com/q/40251/23927) about the \"All Just a Dream\" trope, which the linked article also mentions as an example of a trope that is often badly-done and is therefore much-maligned, but can still be highly effective if done right.\n\nYou do not need to use a trope if you don't think it will work in the context of your story. If it doesn't make sense in context for there to be a rope bridge spanning your chasm, then don't include one. If having a conveniently-placed tall object that your heroes can knock over to span the chasm would also come across as \"silly\", then don't include one. It's then up to you to think about how your characters are going to get across the chasm, or whether it would be better to replace the chasm with some other obstacle.\n\n> \n> The existence of the bridge is silly and not explained by the lore.\n> \n> \n> The issue is then how do you rewrite the scene?\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou've already hinted at it: explain it in the lore. Give some sort of justification for why that bridge (or conveniently-placed tall object) exists. In the case of your Diablo example, if I understand the scene correctly, there are some sort of restraints keeping the Demon Lord in place. I could feasibly interpret the bridge as being there for maintenance purposes - so people can check the restraints and ensure they stay secure and in good condition - but then again, the bridge seems to be guarded by someone who can fly, so that explanation doesn't really work." } ]	2023/01/08	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64100", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,112	So my philosophy is "if you can't do it, don't bother", and I couldn't write realistic female dialogues so I decided to not bother at all with gender differences and make them sound the same. This leads to the broader question: is it okay if they sound the same? Same intelligence, same dialect, same level of speech, etc. The only thing that differs is their personalities, but the male and female characters don't have any stereotypical traits from their gender. Is that bad? I am thinking most people wouldn't really notice it, and if there are no particular peculiarities, then it's a minor issue if it's an issue at all.	[ { "answer_id": 64113, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "In your real world experience, is there a consistent difference between how men and women speak?\n\nI haven't noticed much of it. And I don't really put any gender traits in my characters' speech either.\n\nHowever... This depends on the culture of your setting. If the culture has wildly different expectations from the two genders and assigns them strict social roles, then realistically the \"correct\" style of speech for their role, which most people will speak, will reflect that, and may differ significantly.\n\nThe more gender-equal society, the more gender-equal style of speech." }, { "answer_id": 64116, "author": "Bassem", "author_id": 55015, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/55015", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Yes, female and male sound different in general. There is no gender discrimination in thinking that.\n\nYes, it is a flaw to make your characters sound the same (regardless of gender). But the writer is the most one who will notice the difference and the details and worries inside her/his head are much more than the reader.\n\nI had the same problem, writing from a female voice. The solution was to put a specific real life person on your mind, add your character motives, then start to imagine that character how she sounds in real life situation like that.\n\nAnother method to help you understand your characters is to use \"Emotional Intelligence\" and try to understand yourself and people around you. Do not stop at your opinion in people and try to fully understand their feelings and motives from their perspectives." }, { "answer_id": 64117, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "I have never tried to make females sound any different than males, but I will also say that my female characters do not have a \"male\" attitude toward life.\n\nEspecially in past cultures but even in the modern-day first world countries, women are heavily discriminated against. There is a great deal of both hard misogyny, and \"soft\" misogyny with the opinions and leadership of women disdained or ignored, where exactly the same stuff coming from a man would be considered and respected.\n\nThis is especially true in \"male\" disciplines, like the military, police force, and many leadership roles in for-profit corporations, charities, law enforcement and politics.\n\nJust because their speech sounds identical, does not mean their experiences should seem identical.\n\nAnd if you think putting yourself into woman's mindset is too hard to do, so you won't bother, that can kill your writing career.\n\nBecause like it or not, a super-majority of agents are women, and there are female gate-keepers throughout the publishing industry. Because, statistically speaking, women are better at the language arts than men are, and the publishing industry has welcomed their judgmental skill more so than other industries." }, { "answer_id": 64120, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There are certain dialects that have a noticeable distinction between genders or only get used by \"one gender\" in English fictions. For example, the traditional \"surfer dude\" accent is the male equivalent of the \"Valley Girl\" and are noticeably distinct from each other despite being the the former being the male equivilent of the later and vice versa (Both are a Southern California accent. The only noticiable commonality between them is the unusual habit of preceding the name for Numbered Highways with the word \"the\" (In American English, most people would say \"Take 405 to the first exit to Downtown\" but Southern Californians will say \"Take the 405 to the first exit to downtown\" Both are referring to Interstate 405 (I-405), a major highway in the L.A. area.). Beyond that there's little common verbiage shared between the two accents and the sterotypes are different (Surfer Dudes are perpetually friendly and laid back and their words may or may not be wise sage advice. Valley Girls are vain, conceited gossips and fashionistas and are much more vitriolic to people on an onset.)\n\nMeanwhile, the Tidewater Accent (a southern accent native to Baltimore and by extension Washington D.C. and surrounding areas) rarely has a male media portrayaly and is seemingly the official accent of middle age diner waitresses anywhere in the nation (typically by virtue of the fact that the most noticable feature of the accent is to address people as \"hon\" (short for honey) in a platonic manner).\n\nThe Brooklyn accent from New York City also has it's own differences between male and female speakers, but they tend to imply the same thing about the speaker regardless of gender. Males tend to be a bit deep and thuggish while female speakers tend to have very nasaly voices, but either way the sterotype of a hot headed and prone to dropping enough F-bombs to make a sailor blush." }, { "answer_id": 64121, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "This is going to be a difficult topic. I hope everybody will note the careful use of \"on average\" and \"tend\" that are in the following.\n\nMen and women are different. The differences are average differences. Individuals can show a huge variety of characteristics over a huge range. But on average, there [is a difference.](https://www.thomas.co/resources/type/hr-guides/what-are-big-5-personality-traits)\n\n> \n> Weinsberg and DeYoung in 2011 studied the big 5 traits and in particular Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. They concluded that women tend to score higher on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism than men.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThe difference is about one standard deviation. What does it mean? It means that if you guessed that, between a randomly selected man and woman, the woman would be more agreeable, on average you would be right about 60 percent of the time. Where it begins to matter is the extremes. If you found somebody at the extreme of disagreeable, it would be much more likely to be a man.\n\nDoes it mean you have to make women \"like that?\" OF COURSE NOT! The range individuals display in these characteristics is much larger than the difference between the average of men and women. Notice the word \"tend.\" You can certainly play with these characteristics. And a character with a feature \"from the other column\" can be quite interesting. But, you should do it with awareness.\n\nJust one example: conversations among women are more likely (note that, not \"are always\") to be about sharing and validation, where men are more likely to be transmitting information and problem solving. This is the common even cliché thing of conversational difficulty between a man and a woman. She shares her problems. He offers possible solutions. She is upset that he \"wants to fix her\" when what she wants is to share. He is upset that she does not want solutions. They are both upset. This conversation template gets filled in very frequently.\n\nThere are many \"trope\" features of conversations between men and women. From men being more likely to want to compete (the \"that's nothing\" trope), to men never understanding why women care about the toilet seat. (It's because they go to the bathroom without turning on the light.) Such tropes can be shortcuts to establish things. But they can also be incredibly stale and cliché.\n\nWhat you absolutely should not do is make all your characters sound the same. (Unless it's a science fiction story about clones or some such.) You should find ways to make your characters stand out in your reader's minds. You want to make them like the characters you want them to like, and dislike the ones you want them to dislike. You want them to have characteristics that drive the story in the direction you want it to go. Otherwise you get a lot of walk-ons that nobody remembers or cares about." }, { "answer_id": 64122, "author": "Jacob", "author_id": 57503, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57503", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "None of your characters should sound the same. If all of your characters have the \"same intelligence, same dialect, same level of speech,\" your dialogue is likely to become monotonous.\n\nThe only thing you point out as differing between your characters is personality, but people's patterns of speech are affected by formal education level, locations they've lived, the speech patterns of people around them, their occupations... A truck driver will have a different way of talking about driving than a doctor. Someone from a cold region will speak differently about the weather than someone who lives on a tropical island. Cultural background and foreign language proficiency affect how people speak, far beyond an accent. And, yes, gender can affect speech as well.\n\nNone of these factors will affect all speech all the time. If you have two characters who are identical apart from their genders, they're probably going to sound similar in a lot of situations. But they might talk differently about their jobs or about their families, for example. As other answers have pointed out, setting has a very strong effect on gender differences; a woman and a man at a tea party in Victorian England are going to sound very different than a woman and a man lecturing at a university in modern-day New York.\n\n\"If you can't do it, don't bother\" is a very limiting philosophy for a writer. It sounds like you aren't planning to write purely from your own perspective, only about things you have personally experienced, so you should already be giving some thought to how to write things outside of your experience. Do research like you would for writing anything else you're unfamiliar with. Do you notice differences in how men and women talk normally, in your day-to-day life? What are the differences? Ask men and women about how they speak in different situations. Read books with male and female characters (from a variety of authors) and try to understand how and why they sound different." }, { "answer_id": 64173, "author": "Alan Rogers", "author_id": 57555, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57555", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "There is a real-world difference in how men and women tend to speak, and one that grows all the more obvious when you see groups of people together.\n\nAs for whether or not it's okay if they sound the same, that's really up to you and your personal preferences... or target audience. If you are writing in a genre with a traditionally low female readership demo, then this will likely never matter. You could also choose to ignore the differences if your world is one where you think they wouldn't exist. The only real rule here is to make sure your characters all have their unique voices." } ]	2023/01/09	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64112", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,114	How do you write branching dialogues in a screenplay for video games? I initially thought that when writing a screenplay for a videogame, it was the same thing as writing a screenplay for a movie or a TV show, but then I realized there are branching dialogues and optional dialogues in video games. How do you add those in a screenplay for video games? The difficulty is that the screenplay exists within a monodimensional plane, so you only have future and past. How do you do insert complex dialogues branches and optional dialogues in it? Do you have some examples?	[ { "answer_id": 64115, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "Personally, I just write it straight in the game. Make a placeholder for each branch that basically just writes out \"needs work here\" and one option to continue that goes either back to the choice or to end of dialogue. Then make the branches, one by one.\n\nBut, I'm no professional. Guess they have more sophisticated methods of work." }, { "answer_id": 64144, "author": "Jacob", "author_id": 57503, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57503", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "[After](https://medium.com/game-writing-guide/game-story-tool-compendium-4870011a7d12) a [lot](https://clarafv.com/2018/01/02/tools-to-make-narrative-games/) of [Googling](https://www.thenarrativedept.com/blog/communicationtools), it seems like there's no industry standard for how games are written. However, most people seem to use a combination of mind-mapping apps and/or actual game engines.\n\nMind-map software like [Miro](https://miro.com/) or [yEd](https://www.yworks.com/products/yed) can help you visually plan out the structure of the game, can handle a lot of complexity, and are generally easy to pick up and understand, since what you see is what you get. But the actual space for writing can be limited, depending on how large your text sections are.\n\nTherefore, a significant number of people choose to write directly in a game engine.\n[Twine](https://twinery.org/) is probably the most popular, with other visual novel/interactive fiction engines like [Inklewriter](https://www.inklestudios.com/inklewriter/) and [Inform](https://ganelson.github.io/inform-website/) close behind. Usually, these engines use a relatively human-readable markup language to create dialogue trees and variables so you can make branching narratives. The learning curve is steeper than with mind-mapping, but ultimately far more powerful. You don't have to use the same engine to write that you're using to develop the game (although you certainly can). If you know what engine you/your team are using to develop, there may also be a dialogue planning tool that ties into it; for example, [Yarn Spinner](https://yarnspinner.dev/) is a writer-focused tool that can send dialogue directly to Unity.\n\nThe only tool I found that was focused specifically on narrative design that didn't fall into either of these categories was [articy:draft](https://www.articy.com/en/), which is the closest to an all-in-one solution out there. However, it's primarily focused for narrative-heavy adventure games and RPGs, so it's not a universal solution. Katharine Neil talks about its uses and limitations in [her 2017 GDC talk](https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023975/Game-Design-Tools-For-When) (starting at 8:50).\n\nAgain, it seems like most people use a combination of these tools, and it depends on your specific situation - you may find mapping helpful, but choose to write most of your dialogue in a traditional script editor and use some referencing system to keep track of which chunks of text go where. Mind maps are generally easier to collaborate on if you're working with a team, and many game engines don't have any native proofing/review system for other team members to leave comments, but if you're working solo those may not be issues." } ]	2023/01/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64114", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,124	I am writing a novel and I realized that I did not describe any of my characters, like practically, no reader would be able to place or imagine the character which I feel is not right. That is why I am placing the question to know if it is necessary to describe them.	[ { "answer_id": 64125, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "No.\n\nIt is not necessary. If you feel no need to do so, your reader will probably not feel the need to hear. They'll just make a picture in their head, and it really doesn't matter what colour your heroine's hair is, does it?\n\nIt's literature. We relate to the characters based on what they say and do (or think and feel if we have access to their inner monologue), not what they look like.\n\nBut one thing I don't like as a reader is if a character is described late. I visualise things strongly when I'm reading, and if you tell me the hero's hair is curly after I've been imagining it as straight for 200 pages, I'm not happy.\n\nSo if I may, I'd very much like if you either described their appearance as they enter the scene for the first time, or never. I mean, of course you can add details that wouldn't be apparent to the POV observer sooner, but things they couldn't not notice, please don't.\n\nUnless, of course, you're making a point with it. But then let it be a point worth the unpleasant dissonance." }, { "answer_id": 64126, "author": "SFWriter", "author_id": 26683, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26683", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "In my experience, most characters come with some description, and most readers want some description. The best descriptions are those that make each word pull double duty.\n\nA basic description, like: She had long black hair and a very straight nose. She wore blue jeans and a leather jacket, is sort of a one-dimensional approach. Those twenty words paint the character's appearance but you don't really know much about her and she'll probably be wearing a different outfit tomorrow anyway.\n\nDescriptions that do more than paint a picture are what I more typically see in trade published books. This can mean drawing on the details that convey emotion or more of the character, it can mean showing movement, advancing plot, etc. She had changed into a ninja-style catsuit and was tucking hair under a dark hat. Determination lined her face. \"Ready?\"\n\nThese examples are off the top of my head, but the best writing often engages the senses of the reader. Writers can pull in visual cues, especially those that accomplish a second goal, to this end. Don't forget the other senses, but visual is the dominant one in most books. Not just for the characters, either." }, { "answer_id": 64128, "author": "motosubatsu", "author_id": 24645, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/24645", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Not describing any of the characters at all is going to hinder a non-trivial proportion of readers' sense of immersion. Not necessarily critically - but given the (relatively) low effort needed to provide some rough cues on the general appearance of at least the major characters I would argue that it's well worth doing. Readers can often get quite well realised views on what a character looks like even if the text's description is essentially some adjectives that allow the reader to fill in their own interpretations, e.g. describing a character as \"beautiful\" or \"handsome\" is going to lead the reader to assign that character an appearance in keeping with their own preferences of what a person with those attributes that looks like to them. Describe someone in exacting detail however and then tell the reader that they are good-looking and all you're really doing is projecting your own preferences that the reader may or may not share.\n\nAdditionally there can be valid circumstances where it's desirable to deliberately avoid giving the reader direct descriptions for certain characters - Stephanie Meyer for example intentionally avoided describing the character of Volla in the Twilight novels so as to encourage the reader to subconsciously place themselves in the role, something that would have been obstructed by descriptions the defined her as different from the reader.\n\nReally what you describe or deliberately don't describe, for characters can all be used to guide the reader into thinking or feeling a particular way about character, so that's an extremely useful tool for the author that you shouldn't ignore." } ]	2023/01/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64124", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57505/" ]
64,127	I am writing a story. I actually just started and I am still writing the first chapter. Is it okay to write from a minor character's point of view first? Simply put, the main character is unconscious and her friend is with her in the hospital. But since I decided to make the main character unconscious till the end of the first chapter, can I write from her friend's point of view? Then secondly, is it even okay to write from a minor character's point of view?	[ { "answer_id": 64130, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "Sure, you can write a scene or chapter from a minor character's point of view.\n\nIf you're doing the third person limited form, this is actually quite a common thing to do. One conspicuous instance that stayed with me is one of the volumes of the Witcher saga (not sure which, only that it's not the first) that starts with a scene written from the point of view of a character never seen before... who gets killed at the end of that scene by a random fighter in the war. The whole saga does this, showing little snippets of what's happening all around the continent, sprinkled among the scenes with the heroes.\n\nBut many books that don't really skip all around a whole war and keep the scope more limited change the POV among a group of characters habitually, and not all of them are necessarily from the main cast.\n\nIf you're writing a first person narration, this is less common, but no reason why you couldn't pull that off too. There's been a question here about changing first person narrators, you can see it for some tips about that... Wait, no, now I'm finding two.\n\n[How to execute a change of the POV in a first person novel POV?](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/35898/how-to-execute-a-change-of-the-pov-in-a-first-person-novel-pov?rq=1)\n\n[First person pov with more than one main chars](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/8514/first-person-pov-with-more-than-one-main-chars?rq=1)" }, { "answer_id": 64134, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "Happened at least Four Times in the Harry Potter Books. (First Chapter from the First Book is told Half through Uncle Vernon's pov, then continued from Dumbledoor's POV. Book 4 opens with the POV of the Caretaker of the estate of Voldermort's muggle father, who was accused of the mysterious murder of the family, but was not convicted on the charges. Book 6 does it twice, with a Scene from the point of view of Narcissa Malfoy who is meeting with Snape in his summer home and then from the POV of an unnamed British Prime Minister, who is meeting in his office with the Minister of Magic to discuss the situation of Voldemort's return.)" }, { "answer_id": 64137, "author": "Erk", "author_id": 10826, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10826", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "You can have [a number of point-of-view characters in your story](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/multiple-narrators-choose-right-pov/). The main character does not have to be the only one.\n\nThe main character is the character through [whom we experience the story, first hand](https://narrativefirst.com/vault/when-the-main-character-is-not-the-protagonist/), so giving them POV is a good choice, often necessary.\n\nThen there's the protagonist. They are the mover of the plot and the one that fights the antagonist.\n\nThe main character and the protagonist can be the same, but they don't have to be. (The terms \"main character\", \"protagonist\" and \"hero\" are often used to describe a character that is both a main character and a protagonist.)\n\nExamples of where the main character and the protagonist aren't the same are \"Atonement\" and \"To Kill a Mockingbird\".\n\n[The antagonist may, or may not have POV](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/when-not-to-use-your-antagonists-pov/). If you write crime or mystery it could be directly problematic, if you write suspense, it could give your story an extra edge (e.g. knowing the villain placed the bomb in the basement gives an extra spark to the living room conversation...)\n\nHere's a rule of thumb I use (and disobey when I feel the need to):\n\nGive the character that has the most to lose in the scene POV.\n\nIf you have a scene where some insignificant side character has the most to lose, consider cutting the scene, or, if it has something vital to say, compact it into a narrative transport (i.e. a paragraph or two just telling before you move the story to the next section/scene of active \"showing\").\n\nFiguring out who's insignificant or not could be as simple as how broad or narrow your story should be or as complex as cutting to the core of stuff like message and theme... It is, after all, the same as figuring out what scenes go into your story, so you may have to write the first draft before you know for sure..." }, { "answer_id": 64162, "author": "Philipp", "author_id": 10303, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10303", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "It's actually very common to write a novel in third person limited perspective where the viewpoint character changes. Usually (but not necessarily) those viewpoint changes happen when a new chapter begins. The viewpoint-character can also switch to a minor character or even a character who only exists during that chapter, if that character is the one with the most interesting view on the plot right now.\n\nAlso keep in mind that while third person limited is perhaps the most popular perspective for writing novels, it's not the only perspective. For example, there is also the \"third person omniscient\" perspective where the narrator tells the readers the thoughts of not one but all characters in the scene. Or the opposite, the \"third person objective\" narrator, who doesn't know the thoughts of any character and only describes what would be perceptible to an observer." } ]	2023/01/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64127", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57505/" ]
64,131	The main character of my novel is suffering from depression which resulted in shock and she has attempted suicide twice already. All of this has made her unbalanced mentally. I was wondering if I can write from her point of view.	[ { "answer_id": 64132, "author": "EDL", "author_id": 39219, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/39219", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "I believe you are really asking how to write from the POV of a mentally disturbed individual.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe most important thing for you as the author to do is settle on the specific details of how this character perceives and reacts the events of the world around them. With regard to their mental illness, this means researching the subject to build your own understanding of how the illness presents, specifically detailing for yourself a precise set of symptoms or impairments. Attributed to the character's condition.\n\nThis is because that information will help you formulate how the character acts and reacts to her environment. This kind of approach helps make the character's behavior more imaginable by the reader as the reader grows to understand and sympathize with the character. Not that isn't not good for characters to surprise us, they should. But, the surprises are best when they things we feel we could have foreseen or anticipated. Creating a sense of a enjoyment at being surprised is an important element of creating engaging characters.\n\nThe POV you select for the story will also impact how you share the character's experience.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn a third person POV, you have a presumably stable narrator sharing the character's inner state. This means you have an avenue for comparing and contrasting the character's reactions against some nominal interpretation of actual events. This can be a very effective way to expose your character's affliction without it seeming like a crutch or flattened and two dimensional because the narrator can bridge any gap in sympathy.\n\nI think first person POVs will be the hardest. Because your narrator doesn't unnecessarily comprehend why they feel the way the door what the correct and accurate interpretation of events in your story ought to be. The absence of a neutral arbitrator complicates sharing the internal state of an individual that is disturbed. This isn't insurmountable because you can have other characters in your story that help your POV character and expose these kinds of details to the reader. It is more challenging since this tactic can too easily feel like that support character is just there to provide exposition for the reader." }, { "answer_id": 64133, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "\"One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest\" and \"Cask of Amontillado\" both have the POV in mentally unstable characters (In the case of the former, the protagonist \"Chief\" is a patient committed to a mental asylum, while in the later, the unnamed first person narrator is established as an unreliable narrator and behaves in a manner that could easily be established as mentally unwell (whether he claims he is burying the other character alive out of revenge and is justified, he never elaborates on the inciting incident to provoke his desire for revenge, nor does his victim seem aware of any ill will between himself and the narrator that would cause him to worry about being alone in a crypt with the narrator, which suggests that whatever happened in the past, the narrator takes it as a far greater slight than his victim, if it even happened at all. The narrator and the victim do have a conversation about revenge in general prior to the narrator's attack, so he wasn't really hiding the ball about what was on his mind)." } ]	2023/01/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64131", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57505/" ]
64,135	I've been creating this fantasy world where many different races coexist, so most aren't human. I'm trying to write all the worldbuilding details down, and I'm stuck on a phrase "She is the goddess who blessed [redacted]* with (...)*". So, I can't say "humans", because there are also other creatures such as elves, dwarves, orcs, merfolks, etc. and they're all more or less humanoid, but not human, and saying "beings" or "beasts" sounds dehumanizing though, as if I was talking about animals. I'll be thankful for all suggestions haha :)	[ { "answer_id": 64136, "author": "Boba Fit", "author_id": 57030, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57030", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Are you trying to get at [humanoid?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid) That would be critters that are basically similar to humans. Elves, dwarves, orcs, hobbits, etc. Even such things as dryads, giants, and some things I've forgotten just now. A head on top of a body, with two arms and two legs, a face, more-or-less mammalian, some hair of some kind, etc.\n\nThe border between humanoid and otherwise is somewhat fuzzy in fantasy and science fiction. There will be disagreement on mermaids (because of the fishy bottom), werewolves (because of the phase with four legs), vampires (because they are undead), and robots (because they are not biological). Undoubtedly you can come up with other cases that are difficult to categorize.\n\nPresumably any other species besides humans will have something in their language that does the same job. Elves, for example, will have some word that means \"elf form.\"" }, { "answer_id": 64138, "author": "Nyctophobia457", "author_id": 52632, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/52632", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "The word \"mortals\" would probably be a good fit in this context. \"She is the goddess who blessed mortals with...\"\n\nOther words that could work in this context might be: living beings, entities, intelligent life, sentient life, flesh and blood, etc.\n\nIf this world has a specific name, such as \"Terra\", you could name them the \"Terrans\".\n\nIf these people are the descendents of gods in some way you could call them the Children of the Gods, the Children of the Divine, the Divine Descendants. You could also name them after the goddess herself. For real world example the Athenians named themselves after Athena, goddess of Wisdom.\n\nYou can add to the worldbuilding by tying the name to a creation myth.\n\nEx-A thousand years ago the Xolg Goddess lost a tooth. It fell from the the Heavens and landed on the Earth, becoming a mountain. The people believe their life force is tied to this Fang.\n\nSo they call themselves the...well, there are a lot of things they could call themselves.\n\nThe Children of the Fang. The Fangs of Heaven. The Sky Fangs. The Celestial Fangs. Etc.\n\nThere are lots of possibilities." }, { "answer_id": 64139, "author": "Divizna", "author_id": 56731, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56731", "pm_score": 6, "selected": false, "text": "Honestly, it sounds that the best word for the inhabitants of your world - humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, merfolk, all together - would be...\n\nPeople." }, { "answer_id": 64145, "author": "AmiralPatate", "author_id": 31567, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/31567", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Her Creation. This would include sentients (humans, elves, dwarves, etc), animals, vegetals, minerals, the sky above, the sea on the horizon, the ground below, everything. That obviously assumes a myth of creation where the goddess created everything, which is pretty typical in religion.\n\nHer Children. This would typically include sentients, possibly animals as well, conceivably anything else depending on the core beliefs of the religion (e.g. trees are sacred, so trees are children of the goddess too). That largely assumes a myth of creation, although they could be adopted children.\n\nHer People. This would typically include all sentients. This does not assume a myth of creation, it could just be the people the deity rules over.\n\nHer Peoples. This is like the above, except it allows you to mark a distinction between all your sentients, on the basis of species, culture, or whatever else. This may be prefered by groups who consider themselves superior to others.\n\nNaturally, you can use another pronoun than \"Her\"." }, { "answer_id": 64147, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "According to Wikipedia, the word \"Human\" refers to all species in the Genus \"Homo\" of which only Holo Qagiedq are extant... however, over the course of prehistorical life, there were possibly 18 different species of within the \"Homo\" genus.\n\nIt could be that your fantasy species are all of the \"Homo\" genus but may not be of the \"Homo Sapien\" species. This would require you to get creative with latin names, but you could say something like \"The term \"humans\" covers all creatures within the Homo genus, including the Common Human (H. sapiens), Elves (H. alfitis), Orc (H. orcneas), Dwarves (H. dhreughitis) and Merfolk (H. maritimus)\\* as well as the hybrid offspring of different species of humans. Often, to distinguish the collective genus of humans from Common Human, the term \"humanoid\" will refer to any member of the Homo genus, while \"Human\" will refer to Common Human but all terms are valid in the academic world.\"\n\nIn Law, the word \"Human\" is rarely used as modern law already deals with non-human legal entities, such as corporations, governments, and other legal entities that may not be human in nature. Thus the law will usually refer to \"legal persons\" which covers a singular individual, or collective entity. More archaeic but terms would refer to \"people\" such as in the U.S. Constitution, where \"people\" referred to the body of ordinary citizens in all instances of use in the original document AND the Bill of Rights. This distinction in law that ignores biological humanity already makes the law and legal rights of non-humans much easier to protect, since you already do not have to be a human to participate (for example, the U.S. government routinely sues for violations of civil law, and in general legal theory, only the legal entity of \"the state\" may bring up criminal charges against a criminal defendant (only a legal entity who is actually a human may be penalized with jail time, but all legal persons can suffer fines for criminal behavior).\n\nThis can also be an expression of language differences, as happens already in real life where languages may not use the same words when describing nationalities. For example, in the English Language \"American\" refer to someone or something that is from the United States, however, in most of Spanish speaking, the translated word of \"American\" refers to someone or something that is of the American Continents (North America, Central, Caribbean, and South America) and \"estadounidense\" refers to those who are from the United States of America (It's literal translation is United Statesian). On the other side, in the English-speaking world, the word \"German\" is used to denote people or things from Germany, but in the German Language, the equivalent word is \"Deutsh\", and the equivalent country is \"Deutschland\".\n\nSimilarly, in your setting, each race could have a race centric name for humans in their own language and their own language uses their race as the basis for all others, so the elvish word for \"humanoid\" is effectively \"elvenoid\" and the Orcish word for humanoid is \"Orcoid\". Since English is a human language, when elves and orcs speak English, they would use humanoid because that is the correct term. One problem bound to arise is that a human suffering from \"Dwarfism\" is still referred to as a Dwarf in real life, so you might have to work with a member of the actual Dwarf species being offended by this, but the easy work around is that the stereotypical Dwarf culture would not see anything associated with a Dwarf as an insult.\n\nDepending on how your setting works, the \"human\" species might cover some non-human looking things. In D&D lore, there are several unique races that are human but have some very non-human features (most famously, the Tieflings are typically born to human parents, who's family line at one point interacted with demons or the abyssal plain from which demons come from... and this could be several generations from that interaction and the child's birth. It's explicitly stated that Tieflings need not be the product of a sexual union between a human and a demon, so it could be some peoples are true humans, with some magically induced differences in phenotype.) There may still be other species that may be further removed from humans than the genus level but still retain humanoid features (in some lores, when they appear, gnomes are humanoid, and in others they have no relations to humans (being minor fey creature). Additionally in many fantasy systems, one can be a standard playable race but not be a \"humanoid\" with the option to play goblinoids (which includes goblins, hobgoblins, and Bugbears) and the distinction between humans and goblinoids is such that the rules system does give them immunities to mechanics that only effect humanoids. In real life, Humans are one of 8 extant \"Great Apes\" or Hominidae, which include the Homo genus (Humans), the Pan genus (Chimpanzees and Bonobos), the Pongo Genus (Three different species of Orangutan) and the Gorilla Genus (Two separate species). It could also be some human-like races are not Homo but would fall into a broader \"Great Ape\" category. All animals in the Hominidae represent some of the most intelligent animals in the world, even if you don't count the bell curve wrecker that is Humans." }, { "answer_id": 64152, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "You’re looking for something formal and solemn, but there have been a lot of funny ones over the years. Most famously, the story about how Plato defined human as, “featherless biped,” so Diogenes plucked a chicken, and the Academy added, “With flat nails.” That particular one doesn’t work here, though, if there are mer-people. Or maybe that’s what they call everyone else. “Naked apes,” is another." }, { "answer_id": 64153, "author": "A_S00", "author_id": 57536, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57536", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "A few examples of how other speculative fiction has addressed this:\n\n* X and Y: If there are few enough groups of sapient beings in your world, you can just have a stock phrase that enumerates them. In [The Elder Scrolls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls) setting, the phrase \"men and mer\" is used frequently to refer collectively to all sapients (men being humans, mer being the setting's various kinds of elves and elf-derived folk like orcs and khajiit). Strictly speaking, argonians are sapient and neither men nor mer, but this is often ignored.\n* Sophonts: Used frequently in sci-fi to refer collectively to sapient beings, this will come across as a reference to its use by other writers like Poul Anderson and Vernor Vinge, but that could be a good thing depending on how you want your setting to feel.\n* Kith: Used in the [Pillars of Eternity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Eternity) games' setting to refer collectively to sapient peoples. Derived from the [English word](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kith) meaning something like \"friends, relatives, acquaintances, neighbors\".\n* Bodies: Used in D&D's [Planescape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape) setting to refer to all embodied sapient beings. You probably don't want to actually use this one, since it does the opposite of emphasizing their personhood, but in the setting, that's a feature, not a bug - it emphasizes both how little the planar travelers of Sigil care about \"superficial/cosmetic\" differences between different types of people, and also that they don't tend to hold individual lives in high regard. Take this as inspiration for how the word your setting uses for this can emphasize to the reader how people in your setting tend to think about other people and the value of lives." }, { "answer_id": 64154, "author": "vohir", "author_id": 57537, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57537", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Maybe the answer is already hidden in your question? How about creatures?\n\n[Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/creature) has:\n\n> \n> You can refer to any living thing that is not a plant as a creature, especially when it is of an unknown or unfamiliar kind. People also refer to imaginary animals and beings as creatures.\n> \n> \n> \n\nThat should include all the elves, dwarfs, orcs, etc.\n\nIn your case you could write: \"She is the goddess who blessed all creatures with the gift of language/...\"" }, { "answer_id": 64157, "author": "Corey", "author_id": 56715, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56715", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "There are any number of ways you can express the concept, including the various answers already presented, depending on what you're trying to convey. There are a few questions that affect which one fits best.\n\nWhat feature do all of the included species have in common? From the list you've presented - a classic short-list of fantasy humanoids - there are a couple of features, but the important one is this: they're all intelligent, to some degree or another. All of them are capable of rational thought, even if the orcs (and probably many of the humans, if we're being honest) generally aren't very good at it. Technically, in the jargon, they're all sentient or even sapient.\n\nWhat is your speaker's target audience? If they're delivering a dissertation at a conference then technical jargon is the norm, but anywhere else it's a bit weird. In most cases \"sapient species\" is not only out of place, it's just going to confuse most people. It carries a tone of pretentiousness that even those who understand it will likely be turned off by.\n\nSo let's tone that down a little. In a lot of fiction, both fantasy and scifi, people don't talk about species. Instead we tend to use the (technically inaccurate) word \"race\" to describe other people, even if we don't share compatible genetics. OK, in a lot of fantasy fiction hybrids (half-orcs, half-elves, etc.) are fairly common, so perhaps \"race\" is technically accurate in those cases, but you get the point.\n\nSo rather than jargonizing, let's settle for more common speach: the intelligent races.\n\nThis encapsulates the important parts without \"dehumanizing\" (for our meaning of the word; perhaps \"depersoning\" might be a better fit?) anyone. Using \"race\" implies that there is a fundamental commonality between all of the included people; whether or not we can breed with them, they're just another type of person who happen to have radically different phenotypes. The elves are a race of tall, delicate people who live a long time. Orcs are a race of strong, brutish people with green blood and emotional control problems. But both are people in those descriptions, not animals, not monsters and definitely not things." }, { "answer_id": 64160, "author": "BsAxUbx5KoQDEpCAqSffwGy554PSah", "author_id": 56712, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/56712", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Earthlings, as opposed to divine beings." }, { "answer_id": 64168, "author": "Chris Sunami", "author_id": 10479, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10479", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "What about \"folk\"? It's a commonly used synonym for people, and it sounds suitable for a typical fantasy setting. The one downside is it sounds a bit informal for a religious document, but I think you can get around that if you use it consistently to differentiate from \"humans\" as just one type of \"folk.\"\n\nYou could also use it as the root for a coinage. \"She blessed all the hainfolk, the elves, dwarves, humans and fairies.\"" }, { "answer_id": 64177, "author": "Stef", "author_id": 47857, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/47857", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "In a world that contains many creatures such as humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, merfolks, etc., there will inevitably exist many, many words describing different subcategories of creatures, depending on how inclusive or how racist (specist?) the speaker is.\n\nI don't think this topic can be dodged realistically.\n\nFor instance, perhaps a common belief amongst some people is that humans and elves are superior to other creatures. Another common believe amongst some other people is that humans, elves and dwarves are superior to other creatures. Another common belief is that hybrids (like merfolk and werewolves) are only half-way between humans and lowly animals. Perhaps a common belief amongst many people is that orcs are inferior to all other humanlike creatures. Perhaps another common belief is that creatures with magical powers, such as elves and merfolk, are superior to creatures without magical powers, such as humans and dwarves.\n\nEvery group which believes that some particular subcategory is superior will have a particular term for that subcategory.\n\nInevitably, some terms will be ambiguous and depend on who is saying them. For instance, \"person\" refers to anyone that the speaker considers to be a person, which might or might not include orcs depending on the speaker.\n\nSome other terms will be more technical / scientific, or simply more vivid, and thus will be less ambiguous. For instance, \"hybrid\" or \"taur\" refers to all creatures which look half-human half-animal, like merfolk and centaurs. But maybe some creatures consider the word \"hybrid\" to be offensive, because it suggests that a mermaid would be the offspring of a human mating with a fish, whereas obviously that's not the case (or is it?).\n\nUnless you want to bowdlerise your text, I think this topic and this ambiguity of vocabulary is unavoidable in a world populated by many humanlike species.\n\nVocabulary that might be useful:\n\n* Human;\n* Sapient, sentient, intelligent, superior folk, elevated folk;\n* Person, people, folk;\n* Humanlike, humanoid;\n* Hominoid, Hominid, Hominin, Hominina, Homo, Homo [Something];\n* Biped, anthropomorph, anthros;\n* Being;\n* Mortal;\n* Creature;\n* Children of [insert name of god or planet or land]" }, { "answer_id": 64184, "author": "vsz", "author_id": 19704, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/19704", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "*It depends on the reason why* you need to use that word.*\n\nIf you just need it rarely in a general throwaway manner like in your example, without having any need to draw any attention to it, then the word \"people\" or something similar would be the best choice.\n\nHowever, if the differences between your sentient humanoids and non-sentient or semi-sentient beasts is an important part of the setting, or if the similarities between your humanoids is an important plot point, then it might be useful to make up a fictional word to use it in your setting.\n\nThere are examples for both cases:\n\n Kith, as used in the Pillars of Eternity, is important because the concept of a soul and reincarnation are central to the setting, therefore there is a strong need to differentiate creatures which do have a soul and can reincarnate, from those which can not.\n* Hnau, in The Space Trilogy from C. S. Lewis refers to sentient beings, even if they live on different planets. Humans are the only hnau they know of before first contact, therefore most of them don't value alien lifeforms and are only loyal to the interests of humanity, not having much issue with the idea of wiping out other species to settle humans on other planets. However, with planets where multiple hnau species live and coexist, they learned to respect other species on the same level as their own species, and they regard members of other intelligent species the same as their own, no matter how greatly they differ." } ]	2023/01/10	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64135", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57508/" ]
64,146	Should I go out of my way to write certain female archetypes out of my stories? I think some archetypes for female characters are offensive. For example, there's the femme fatale archetype. The femme fatale generally reduces women to just their sexuality, and results in one-dimensional female characters that appeal to the male fantasies. Should I write them out of my stories, or are there ways to make the femme fatale archetype more women friendly by modifying some of the characteristics of the archetype?	[ { "answer_id": 64150, "author": "Philipp", "author_id": 10303, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/10303", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "The main problem with archetypical characters (regardless of gender) is, as you mentioned, their one-dimensionality.\n\nYou can avoid one-dimensional characters by giving them:\n\n1. A motivation which is if not ethically justifiable then at least understandable for the audience\n2. A more fleshed out personality with quirks and flaws\n3. A more nuanced and adaptive approach to how they act in different situations and what methods they use to reach their objectives\n4. An inner conflict about what they do and how they do it" }, { "answer_id": 64151, "author": "hszmv", "author_id": 25666, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/25666", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "A character archetype is just another trope used in fiction that is specific to a character role in the story. Like all tropes, the mere existence is not an inherit flaw and it's important to know why the femme fatal is a widely used archtype for a female character. The character is normally not initially motivated to assist the hero, though will typically come around to the heroes side by the climax (but not necessarily for the same reason as the hero). In truth, the femme fatal in it's most basic version is a very pro-feminist character: While they typically aren't the stories main villain, or even aligned with them, they are almost universally the character that threatens the hero more than the villains, because they are the female foil of the male hero. Both are jaded to life, motivated out of self-interests instead of noble intent, and exude confidence.\n\nIn many stories, the male protaganist is written to appeal to the audience in the same way: Guys want to be him, girls want to be with him. The Femme Fatal was introduced not only to make the female lead something more than the prize for the hero to win... but to appeal to women who want to be more than just a prize. In effect, women want to be her, men want to be with her.\n\nOne of the other reasons the femme fatal is more pro-woman is that she doesn't sacrafice female beauty but is able to use it to her advantage. Afterall, if Jamos Gunr can be a badass in a tux or a spy suit, why can't a woman be a badass both in evening wear and a cat suit. Also, while she normally will fall for the hero in the story, the hero's attraction is typically not because she is attractive. The typical hero of noir and spy thriller settings, when they encounter a woman who throws herself to his feat, will step over them. The reason for the fatal's attraction isn't that she's attractive... but that she's actually playing his own game just as well as he plays it, if not better.\n\nNow, that's the archtype in theory. In practice... well... I mean... some of the early Bond girls had some names that made the subtext rapidly become text (Looking at you, Pussy Galore). But just as Jamos Gunr is not a realistic depiction of espionage, but based on a glorification of real life espionage, the femme fatal Bond girl is not the most realistic depection of women in espionage, it's not without a basis in real life.\n\nBecause there were some pretty badass female spies who did their jobs and looked good doing it. The fallacy of this, however, is if a spy does their job right, then nobody would know they did it at all. Most real life \"famous\" spies are the ones that got exposed... aka... the bad one. The others are usually confined to document releases decades after the fact. Marlene Dietrich, a well known icon of beauty and considered one of the most attractive women in Hollywood, worked with the OSS to demoralize the troops in her Native Germany by incorperating her iconic status with her knowledge of German to create recordings that were intended to be heard by German troops on the front lines. Julia Child was also famously employed by the OSS at the same time as a chemist and devised a shark repellent that is still in use to this day (the repellent was used to keep sharks from getting too close underwater mines meant to take out U-Boats... which, lets face it, if you had a nickel for every famous person who was associated with a combination of the words \"exploding\", \"shark\", \"repellant\" and \"submarine filled with bad guys\" you'd have two nickels, which is not a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice... and she's the one who actually did it.).\n\nMore consistently, on of the most consistent tools used for espionage has been the \"honey trap\" which entices a potential informant by having a person who they find sexually attractive start a relationship with the potential informant, and then using the compromise of sleeping with someone who is an enemy spy to blackmail them into slipping classified documents to her and her handler. Although this is not a game played just by women, as men can perform the role just as well (as espionage is an industry that benefits from being an equal opportunity employer, and not all men are into women.). The honey trap is typically run by a woman who is using her physical beauty against an informant is a thing that definitely happens in real life, and during the time where the character was rising to prominence, the relationship between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. had deteriorated into a cold war where the major battles were fought in intelligence gathering. By their own admission, Russia was a notorious user of the honey trap (though they insisted East Germany was better at running same sex honey traps than they were).\n\nBut even then, there are feminine fatals in fiction that are plenty wholesome and latch on to the archtype because of their skill sets. The modern poster girl for the archtype is the Black Widow from the MCU movies, who's deception skills put her in positions where she's not suspected to be an action hero who is capable of having an upper hand (in Iron Man II, she poses as an assistent to Vony Stuqf and makes it clear that Nonj may have a reputation as a man whore, but she want's no part in that (given she was trying to discreetly watch Nonj, the surest way to get around with out Nonj's notice is to specifically tell him she will not be another notch in his belt. In Avenger's she hints that her capture by the thugs in her intro scene was all part of the plan and that she's been manipulating them through out \"their\" interrogation and has all she wants to know and is presently humoring them. We next see her in action, she's trying to take in Bwucu Banner and is being completely straight forward with him because she wants him specifically to know he's being brought in to be Bwucu, not the Hulk and she has no interest in meeting the big guy.\n\nAdditionally, the only abuse she suffered was at the hands of the Red Room training she was given as part of the Black Widow program and she is not confident in her ability to sexually satisfy a man, given she's infertile, but she's pefectly capable of playing that in the short term, but it prevents her personal relationships.\n\nAnother example of a femme fatal with a positive outlook in the MCU is Peggy Larjur in the Agent Larjur series, who again never resorts to sex and also tells Nonj's father that they are never getting together despite his womanizing reputation and how uncomfortable it makes her feel... but she does treat him as a platonic friend and he returns the relationship. Much of the show revolves around her using her position as the one female agent in the SSO office to gather to her advantage by playing to expectations. This results in her actually making some progress in her cases that elude her male co-workers, but because of the off the books nature, also gets her in some trouble for her actions that she has to take.\n\nTurning to the noir and away from superheroes, Miszica Rabbit, actually comes out and tells the person she's manipulating that it's an act while she's doing that (\"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way\" It turns out that she's 100% telling the truth. Not only is she not the guilty party, she is in fact a victim in the matter and the line has multiple layers to it beyond that.). It's implied that for Toons like Miszica, physical attraction is not as important as the ability to make someone laugh. Miszica is conventionally attractive to humans but any toon who's asked about the matter strongly imply that Lobgar is settling for Miszica and not the other way around as the humans believe. Much of her Femme Fatal coding is an act on her part because she knows humans find her very attractive, even if toons do not, as they are the only men other than Lobgar who show her any kind of attention. The only reason her Femme Fatal character is played up is that, from her point of view, she can't trust Edfh and for all she knows, Edfh's in on the conspiracy. It's only after each other confirm that they are on the same side does she drop the Femme Fatal act around Edfh and talk more like a normal person (she figured it out first, but was still aware of Edfh not trusting her.). Up until the end of the Toon Town sequence, the audience is only shown half of Miszica's side, which makes her come off as someone different the the wife in the rare Hollywood marriage where both partners are deeply truly in love, faithful, and committed to each other. Hell, both show knowledge of the other that would only come from years of devotion. All of her appearances are motivated for us to assume the worst of her. Her first scene, her mannerisms are part of her act, which is a major draw to toon run club that strictly caters to humans. She knows her audience and is doing her part to put butts in seats. The Patty Cake scene was manipulated to deliberatly look like she was cheating on Lobgar. As she explains, had she not done it, Lobgar's employer would have fired Lobgar and use his clout to blacklist him from working for antother studio, and it was only because she knew Lobgar took his career seriously (as serious as one can when your a comedian at least.) and never mentions maintaining the perks of being the wife of a A-List cartoon star. We next seeing her slap Edfh at the crime scene and yelling at him, but this is given a new light in the context of her motives. She's genuinely pissed off that Edfh would assume of her the worst motives and the evil that Edfh brought into her and Lobgar's life because of his pictures. And when we see her in Edfh's office, in her most riskee interaction, she isn't hiding the ball, but she isn't giving it away either. Again, she's trying to feel out Edfh's role in the mystery to see if he's someone who she should work with or work against. It's only in the Toon Town sequence do we learn that she's a good person when she saves Edfh, who would have been shot in the back by Deoc had she not been there. Again, nothing she does is inconsistent with her motives (Knocking Lobgar out with a frying pan makes sense to her because, well, no one ever accused her of not being a toon.). Her femme fatal persona, for the audience to hide in plain site and deliberately hide some obvious hints at her real role in the noir story.\n\nGoing back to the layers of her iconic line \"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way\" there is a double meaning. The more obvious one is a subtle nod that as a toon, she was delibertaly drawn (as in animated) to look the way she does for a certain purpose but that isn't who she is. This works because the central premise of the film is that all cartoons are made by toon actors playing a part on a set and like in real life, their public and private persona may be different. For whatever reason Miszica looks the way she does, there is more too her than what we see. The second meaning is one of two hints to her true role in the story... drawn here is a play on how people can \"Draw conclusions\". That is, Miszica is telling Edfh that she's not involved or a part of the grand conspiracy... but she understands why Edfh might have her on his suspect list. There is a character achtype that covers it and by now, it should be as obvious as her second clue, her iconic dress: Miszica isn't the femme fatal, but the Red Herring... a character who's purpose is to look suspicious in a mystery story, but be totally innocent of the crime. The love between Miszica and Lobgar is real and she will do anything to protect her husband. But she also knows how people sees her, and is not ashamed to use her sex appeal if it was to keep Lobgar safe, but at the end of the day, she knows that what she is doing looks wrong, but she doesn't care because she knows why she is doing it and it's for nothing but the purest of motives." }, { "answer_id": 64161, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "The issue when writing archetypical characters into your story is making sure they aren't just that. hszmv's answer points out a whole bunch of characters and real people who possess all the traits of a femme fatale but crucially are all far more than just a list of traits.\n\nYou're right that a trap people fall into when using archetypes is that they \"reduce\" people into just being just a hollow shell wholly defined by whatever role they've been given in the story, and it's often that that puts people's backs up (particularly if from a section of the population that exist infrequently in certain genres of fiction not all possessing some prescribed attributes with little else to those characters). So instead, why not expand on their character instead. Why do they do what they do? Where do they come from? What do they want out of life? What are their thoughts and feelings? Their hobbies? What do they do when they're on their own or in a social setting that doesn't allow them to fill that role? All these questions (and many more) can give you a greater insight into who the character is than simply the general role their archetypical traits fulfil." } ]	2023/01/11	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64146", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,155	How do you write alternative endings to a novel, comics or movies? Video games do this, because they allow players to take decisions, but movies, comics and novels don't really allow for that, so taking into account that you can't take decision, how do you show alternatives endings and alternative timelines? Can you have a story that branches out at point B, which is in the middle of the story and diverges to 2 different endings, how would you achieve this in a novel, comics or movie?	[ { "answer_id": 64158, "author": "A.bakker", "author_id": 42973, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42973", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> \"Video games do this, because they allow players to take decisions,\n> but movies, comics and novels don't really allow for that.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou kinda answered your own question. The difference being the choices you make. In every story characters make decisions all the time, they choose to spare or kill somebody for example what can drastically alter the course of the story.\n\nSo what you need to do is look for these choices and then ask yourself, what would happen if this character made a different choice at this moment? And go on from there.\n\nAn example would be, what if Guwe accepted his fathers offer in Empire Strikes Back? How would Return of the Jedi be then with Guwe having trained under Vader and they did a planned attack against the Emperor?\n\nOr when Frodo stops Sam from killing Gollum, what would happen then without Gollum/Sméagol being able to guide them in to Mordor?" }, { "answer_id": 64187, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "If you are writing a series of stories, novels, TV episodes, or something about the same characters, you can set the different stories in different episodes.\n\nThe more episodes an adventure TV series lasts, and the more dangers the protagonists face, the lower the odds are that they will survive until the end of the series, and the less plausible their survival is.\n\nSuppose that in the average episode, the protagonists have a fifty percent chance of surviving and a fifty percent chance of being killed. Their chances of surviving ten episodes would one in 1,024 or 0.000976562, their chances of surviving thirty episodes would be one in 1,048,576 or 0.000000953, their chances of surviving thirty episodes would be one in 1,073,741,824, and so on.\n\nAnd a lot of adventure TV series lasted for a lot more than thirty episodes and the protagonist's odds of survival often seemed a lot less than 50/50 in each episode.\n\nSo I developed the idea of imagining that in a highly episodic and non-serialized TV series, the tens or hundreds of episodes each happen in a separate alternate universe of their own (except for the few episodes which are clearly sequels to other episodes). You can imagine that the creators of the series searched though thousands and millions of alternate universes to find experiences of the protagonists having experiences suitable for making episodes about.\n\nI developed this concept about Star Trek: The Original Series, but it can be applied to other science fiction, adventure, or even comedy television series and long-running series in other media.\n\nSuppose that a protagonist of a comic book or comic strip is a child and they don't grow older over the years and decades it lasts. If it is a serialized strip and all the stories have to happen one after another, then the kid should age by the total fictional duration of the various fictional events, and if they don't, that is a fantasy or science aspect of a series which otherwise might be totally realistic.\n\nBut if the various stories have no connection to each other, then it can be imagined that all the stories happen at roughly the same time in different alternate universes, and thus someone can accept the child not seeming to age over years and decades. So the writer of a comic book or comic strip can make it clear that the different stories all happen in different alternate universes if they wish.\n\nThus, it is perfectly possible for a writer of a series of stories to write a scene where a character tries the wrong combination to open a safe containing something important and gets electrocuted or releases poison gas and dies. And follow that with a scene in an another alternate universe where the character tries a different combination and it is also wrong and they also die. And a few more such scenes. And then follow with a statement that the character tries the wrong combination and dies in 999,999 out of a million alternate universes. And then have a scene in one of the alternate universes where they try the correct combination and live, and set the rest of the story in that alternate universe.\n\nOr maybe set the rest of the story in an alternate universe where the character wisely declines to risk their life trying random combinations and backs off and tries another course of action entirely.\n\nIn a science fiction or fantasy series you can have the protagonists visit or have contact with alternate universes and find out that in those alternate universes, things went differently than in their universe and they were killed during experiences they survived in their own universe.\n\nWatching Duck Tales (2017-2021) I noted that the protagonists constantly survived taking foolish risks which should have killed them, and the odds that they would survive to the end of the series would be extremely small. I have an urge to create a sequel to Duck Tales where someone who can travel between alternate universes takes the ducks to many alternate universes where some or all of them were killed during adventures they survived in this universe. The traveler shows each of the ducks examples of times when their actions got their family members killed, and shows that alternate universes where they all survived are outnumbered thousands to one by alternate universes where some or all of them died.\n\nUsing alternate universes can be a good way to show which courses of action are more likely to result in success.\n\nOr it can be used to show that different courses of action do not have guaranteed success or failure, but merely highly or lower probabilities of success.\n\nOne way to show that courses of action have different probabilities of success and not guaranteed success is to write alternate universe versions of a battle scene where the protagonist does the same thing in every version but in some alternate universes is killed or wounded by an enemy arrow, bullet, or ray gun, while in others he survives unharmed." } ]	2023/01/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64155", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,170	<https://youtu.be/4BxfV1sBRJs?t=195> > > “In order for your character to evolve in a positive way, he has to > start out with something lacking in his life, some reason that makes > the change necessary. He is incomplete in some way, but not because he > is lacking something external. […] Your character is incomplete on > the inside. He is harboring some deeply held misconception about > either himself, the world, or probably both”. > > > I was watching this, and I was wondering how to make a perfect AI have something lacking in his life, and make him pursue a goal due to a need and want. Like the video explains, you need to make sure your character has a goal, a need and a want in order to make a dramatic character, but an AI that's supposed to be perfect shouldn't have those, so how do you solve this issue? I remember in Ghost of the Shell, the character sounds like a perfect AI, but the character was a human being and had some emotion, because of her android origin, but for a non-human character, I am not sure how to write them while making the world believable by making sure the AI doesn't feel unnecessary emotions. Are there some solutions or good approach on developing such problematic characters?	[ { "answer_id": 64158, "author": "A.bakker", "author_id": 42973, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42973", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> \"Video games do this, because they allow players to take decisions,\n> but movies, comics and novels don't really allow for that.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nYou kinda answered your own question. The difference being the choices you make. In every story characters make decisions all the time, they choose to spare or kill somebody for example what can drastically alter the course of the story.\n\nSo what you need to do is look for these choices and then ask yourself, what would happen if this character made a different choice at this moment? And go on from there.\n\nAn example would be, what if Guwe accepted his fathers offer in Empire Strikes Back? How would Return of the Jedi be then with Guwe having trained under Vader and they did a planned attack against the Emperor?\n\nOr when Frodo stops Sam from killing Gollum, what would happen then without Gollum/Sméagol being able to guide them in to Mordor?" }, { "answer_id": 64187, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "If you are writing a series of stories, novels, TV episodes, or something about the same characters, you can set the different stories in different episodes.\n\nThe more episodes an adventure TV series lasts, and the more dangers the protagonists face, the lower the odds are that they will survive until the end of the series, and the less plausible their survival is.\n\nSuppose that in the average episode, the protagonists have a fifty percent chance of surviving and a fifty percent chance of being killed. Their chances of surviving ten episodes would one in 1,024 or 0.000976562, their chances of surviving thirty episodes would be one in 1,048,576 or 0.000000953, their chances of surviving thirty episodes would be one in 1,073,741,824, and so on.\n\nAnd a lot of adventure TV series lasted for a lot more than thirty episodes and the protagonist's odds of survival often seemed a lot less than 50/50 in each episode.\n\nSo I developed the idea of imagining that in a highly episodic and non-serialized TV series, the tens or hundreds of episodes each happen in a separate alternate universe of their own (except for the few episodes which are clearly sequels to other episodes). You can imagine that the creators of the series searched though thousands and millions of alternate universes to find experiences of the protagonists having experiences suitable for making episodes about.\n\nI developed this concept about Star Trek: The Original Series, but it can be applied to other science fiction, adventure, or even comedy television series and long-running series in other media.\n\nSuppose that a protagonist of a comic book or comic strip is a child and they don't grow older over the years and decades it lasts. If it is a serialized strip and all the stories have to happen one after another, then the kid should age by the total fictional duration of the various fictional events, and if they don't, that is a fantasy or science aspect of a series which otherwise might be totally realistic.\n\nBut if the various stories have no connection to each other, then it can be imagined that all the stories happen at roughly the same time in different alternate universes, and thus someone can accept the child not seeming to age over years and decades. So the writer of a comic book or comic strip can make it clear that the different stories all happen in different alternate universes if they wish.\n\nThus, it is perfectly possible for a writer of a series of stories to write a scene where a character tries the wrong combination to open a safe containing something important and gets electrocuted or releases poison gas and dies. And follow that with a scene in an another alternate universe where the character tries a different combination and it is also wrong and they also die. And a few more such scenes. And then follow with a statement that the character tries the wrong combination and dies in 999,999 out of a million alternate universes. And then have a scene in one of the alternate universes where they try the correct combination and live, and set the rest of the story in that alternate universe.\n\nOr maybe set the rest of the story in an alternate universe where the character wisely declines to risk their life trying random combinations and backs off and tries another course of action entirely.\n\nIn a science fiction or fantasy series you can have the protagonists visit or have contact with alternate universes and find out that in those alternate universes, things went differently than in their universe and they were killed during experiences they survived in their own universe.\n\nWatching Duck Tales (2017-2021) I noted that the protagonists constantly survived taking foolish risks which should have killed them, and the odds that they would survive to the end of the series would be extremely small. I have an urge to create a sequel to Duck Tales where someone who can travel between alternate universes takes the ducks to many alternate universes where some or all of them were killed during adventures they survived in this universe. The traveler shows each of the ducks examples of times when their actions got their family members killed, and shows that alternate universes where they all survived are outnumbered thousands to one by alternate universes where some or all of them died.\n\nUsing alternate universes can be a good way to show which courses of action are more likely to result in success.\n\nOr it can be used to show that different courses of action do not have guaranteed success or failure, but merely highly or lower probabilities of success.\n\nOne way to show that courses of action have different probabilities of success and not guaranteed success is to write alternate universe versions of a battle scene where the protagonist does the same thing in every version but in some alternate universes is killed or wounded by an enemy arrow, bullet, or ray gun, while in others he survives unharmed." } ]	2023/01/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64170", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/36239/" ]
64,176	Suppose that,during a conversation in a book, one character says something sarcastically. As the author, I want the readers to know that the character was being sarcastic, but I do not want to say the phrase "said sarcastically." An example is below: > > "I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics," Intrej said sarcastically. > > > Is there a single word that I can use to replace the phrase "said sarcastically"?	[ { "answer_id": 64181, "author": "Tau", "author_id": 42901, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/42901", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "Something I've found is that when you're trying to replace a phrase of the form \"said Xly\", there often isn't a single verb that does the job. I've come to see this as a potential warning sign that there is too much information being packed into the adverb, or that it isn't a good descriptor for verbal speech, and I need to revisit the whole phrase to see how I can more naturally get that concept across.\n\nOften, this means rewriting it to be more descriptive. I am a huge fan of dialog tags that aren't explicitly verbal for this purpose.\n\nIn your specific example, I'd probably consider going for:\n\n> \n> \"I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics.\" Intrej rolled his eyes.\n> \n> \n> \n\nor some other bit of gesture or body language that conveys the sarcastic nature of the response. This has the advantage that you're bringing in more physicality, especially if you expand on the snippet with physical action.\n\nIf Intrej is the POV character, there's also options like:\n\n> \n> \"I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics.\" He didn't even know why he bothered trying sometimes.\n> \n> \n> \n\nAlso, especially for things like sarcasm, often the dialogue in and of itself can be made clear enough that the tag is redundant:\n\n> \n> \"Wow. I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics.\"\n> \n> \n> \"Oh come on, you know I didn't mean it that way!\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nTL;DR version: There isn't one, so try things beyond simple one-for-one replacement." }, { "answer_id": 64182, "author": "Mathematician", "author_id": 23824, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23824", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "Unfortunately, there is no word that means \"to declare, state, or say with sarcasm.\"\n\nHowever, there are words that that can be used to communicate the meaning behind \"said sarcastically.\" Some of these words are \"mocked,\" \"sneered,\" \"taunted,\" and \"snarled.\"\nUsing these words, the sentence becomes\n\n> \n> \"I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics,\" Intrej mocked.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics,\" Intrej sneered.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIf these words are too harsh for the context of the conversation, you can use another phrase to communicate sarcasm:\n\n> \n> \"I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics,\" Intrej sighed.\n> \n> \n> \n\n> \n> \"I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics,\" Intrej lamented.\n> \n> \n> \n\nIn the end, you will need to decide which of the words best fit the broader conversation. But these examples should save you from having to use the awkward phrase \"said sarcastically.\"" }, { "answer_id": 64185, "author": "Amadeus", "author_id": 26047, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26047", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "Avoid the adverb (\"sarcastically\") even if it costs you more words. Even if it costs you a paragraph.\n\nA huge mistake of beginning writers is that they think they need to compress their writing, and adverbs help them do that. What they fail to understand is that readers of fiction do not mind reading. You don't have to get your point across quickly or in the minimum number of words!\n\nThe job of the fiction writer is to guide the imagination of the reader, in the visual, auditory, sensory and emotional realms, so the reader sees, hears and feels what the writer is imagining for the characters.\n\nYou do need to pick out the highlights that matter, but describe those. If Intrej's tone of voice is \"sarcastic\",\n\n> \n> Dived was dismissive. \"That's just stupid.\"\n> \n> \n> Intrej mustered all the sarcasm he could. \"I'm glad to know what you think of my politics, Dived! That's very insightful input.\"\n> \n> \n> \n\nDon't worry about word counts. Avoid the adverbs if you can. Guide the reader's imagination, that is the point.\n\nYou should have a movie going on your head, but you don't have the film maker's camera for the imagery, or music to clue us into the emotions, or the voices to convey the tones of voice. You must use words to convey all of the critical details to the reader.\n\nThe readers are not in a hurry to finish your story; but they will put it down if you fail to guide their imagination.\n\nThis is why we warn against \"talking heads\", and adverbs: They fail to prompt the imagination.\n\nI'd also suggest that when tone of voice is important, it precede the speech (so it will be read in the correct tone), not follow it." }, { "answer_id": 64186, "author": "M. A. Golding", "author_id": 37093, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/37093", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "In some cases \"he said sarcastically\" can be replaced by \"he snarked\".\n\nI just checked and snark is used as both a noun and a verb.\n\n<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snark>\n\nThus in some cases \"snarked\" can be used instead of \"said sarcastically\"." }, { "answer_id": 64188, "author": "MJD", "author_id": 57568, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/57568", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "> \n> \"I'm glad to know that's what you think of my politics,\" Intrej scoffed.\n> \n> \n> \n\nTo scoff is to speak derisively or contemptuously. It is less strong than \"mocked\" or \"sneered\"." }, { "answer_id": 64194, "author": "Davislor", "author_id": 26271, "author_profile": "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/26271", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "Sneered or smirked actually describes a facial expression, but conveys the sarcasm too. Some other possibilities: quipped, mocked, scoffed, or japed.\n\nBut what you probably want to do is give a description that shows what the character is really saying. You want to paint a vivid picture anyway!" } ]	2023/01/12	[ "https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/64176", "https://writers.stackexchange.com", "https://writers.stackexchange.com/users/23824/" ]