# How can it get any WORSE?



## Caged Maiden

Good morning, Scribes.

Most of you know I'm going through some personal things right now, some time of self-reflecting, of deciding what my own truth is and admitting it aloud, if only to myself. And there are three things really helping me along in this time of great upheaval. 

One, my friends. Folks I met here and have formed intimate friendships and partnerships with. Thank you so much. You really push me to be better. I need you to make me uncomfortable, because i seem to be unable to do it to myself.

Two, I began watching Game of Thrones when I saw it at the library, and though I didn't make it past chapter 8 of the first book, I thought why not give the TV series a try, since I couldn't commit to the actual reading.

Three, while at the library to pick up more seasons of my movie and fill my bag with kid books for a kindergartener who voraciously reads anything with a Disney princess on the cover, I happened upon a book written by Donald Maass--Writing 21st Century Fiction: High Impact Techniques for Exceptional Storytelling.

And together, these three ingredients have become something of an emotional experience for me right now, and I just wanted to share it with you. (But I will spoil some things in GOT, so stop reading if that'll offend you).

First, Donald Maass is not who I thought he was. When I first submitted to him (as sort of a crap shoot, I have to admit) back in 2010, I pictured him as some crusty old man, sitting at a dark wooden desk from a bygone era, piled high with paper manuscripts. But that isn't who he is at all, I've come to realize. He's current, excited about his job, and his hobbies apparently include boat-rocking. He reaches out to writers, begging for something that will thrill him. And his book feels much less an instruction manual for how to "write right" and more a plea to all writers to wow readers by pushing themselves further than they ever knew possible. He asks us to be brave.

The one thing he asks over and over, is for us to "make it worse" and I've struggled with this concept for a few years now, never quite understanding HOW to actually make situations for my characters worse. How far to push it. When to up the ante. Why should things even GET worse?

Last night I was watching season 4, and it really hit me. It hit me like someone exploded MY skull in a tournament I thought was won...how WE the writers can truly MAKE IT WORSE!

I was sort of pissed when Robb Stark and his family were murdered at supper. I liked them and wanted to see them win. But that didn't happen. And as I picked my spirit up off that bloody floor in Frey's dining hall (sorry, I'll probably misspell all the names, because I didn't read the books, so please bear with me), I looked toward the future. I rationalized that if Arya had been returned to her family, her story would have ended. And I suspect she's going to be an assassin, and I really wanted to see that happen. And I like the Hound, so I wanted that story line to continue, and I realized that if everything went smoothly, I wouldn't ever see that eventuality. So I got over the massacre and put my hope into one little girl I wanted to see succeed, though her future probably isn't one I'd wish for my own daughter under the circumstance. 

But last night, when the foreign prince met with Tyrion in his prison cell, offering to be his champion for the trial by combat, I felt my hope soar. Because let's be serious, we're all rooting for Tyrion, right? But as you all probably know, that didn't happen either. And it was such a spectacular failure, I burst out laughing, and I think my husband thought I lost my mind as that prince's head got caved in and Tyrion was sentenced to death. But to me, it was a victory! I had finally SEEN a situation that I thought was resolved, a happy ending that I wanted so badly, get MADE WORSE. I imagined that Mr. Maass would have reveled in how WORSE it got!

And until that moment, I had no concept of how a writer could take their story, where they're holding hope and success just out of reach for their characters, and simply "make it worse" without totally wrecking their story. I wanted Tyrion to go free, absolved of the crime I knew he didn't commit. I wanted the prince to get his revenge. I wanted the Lannisters to be taken down a peg. I wanted the stupid boy king to rot in hell and only wished the poison had taken months to kill him, and I wanted to see his mother weep when her imp brother walked free. But I got none of what I wanted. And now I can't WAIT to see what happens in the two episodes I'll watch tonight. 

And that is what Mr. Maass has been whispering in my ear for days, weeks, months, YEARS. Make the whole damn situation worse. Don't give the character a moment of happiness. Don't let them get comfortable. Don't let their plans go accordingly. Don't let them win their freedom. Don't let them have their victory. Don't let them find their salvation, or family, or their home.

Burn their home, kill their family, torture their friends, cut them off from everything they know and care about. Make them survive against the odds (and it looks like the odds are particularly low in that book).

Make it worse. And then when that tragedy passes, make it worse again!

I don't have a question today. I might not even have a conversation, because it appears I'm just musing to myself again. But, I wanted to share this really moving experience with you all, my friends, because I finally understand what people have been talking about. I finally understand that I've never made things worse for my characters. I've followed a logical path, I've thrown obstacles at them, I've dealt out pain with an unkind slap, but I've never crushed a prince's skull and doomed an imp to die unjustly. I've never come close to the kind of MAKING IT WORSE that makes for impactful story-telling. And I'm done playing nice. I'm over my need to tell happy and cute tales with a hint of grit clinging to the hems of beautiful characters' dresses. It's time for the gloves to come off and this fight to get dirty. And while I'm not writing a story that I can turn into a wedding feast slaughter, I can certainly shame my character more, punish her more inside herself, and generally wear down her hope in a new and interesting way. 

Whereas in GOT, WORSE usually involves blood and death, there are an infinite number of ways to simply make social situations worse, insert some more raw human emotion into a situation. And with this very vivid mental picture of a chance for salvation gone awry, I will forge onward toward what I hope will be a riveting story, that just keeps getting worse and worse.

I'm going to be brave. And I charge you, scribes, to join me, if you have the stomach for it. Find a way to make that situation worse, today. Find a way to strip your character bare and parade her through the streets in all her shame. Try to break her. And let your reader wonder whether you're some sort of sadistic beast unfit to belong in nature for your very inability to experience sympathy. Because that's something that develops a reader's sympathy and keeps them turning pages.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

It's an old drum that gets beat all the time, but for good reason. Even when you believe the mantra, you need reminded of it sometimes. Whenever there seems to be hope, bash it on the rocks... just like my stock holdings, heh heh.

Almost through my first draft, just a few thousand words to go, and one of the big things to check story wise is to make sure to have enough bad things happen... hope and collapse, hope and collapse. It's what makes a final victory satisfying, and makes a tragic ending all the more tragic.

In that train of thought... yesterday my MC made it home with half his family already dead, to a small island where refugees are flooding the town and castle, with demons overrunning the main island with no visible hope to defeat this enemy, when a man who the MC was thinking of as an ally assassinate's the MC's father, almost kills the eldest brother, and kills himself before he can be punished... It wasn't a very good day. And for the reader, it should be all the more interesting, as the assassin is a part time POV character who opens the book.


----------



## Peat

At the risk* of being a grumpy contrarian, constantly making it worse is exactly why I put down G.R.R. Martin, despite my immense affection for a lot of what he does. Ditto Robin Hobb. 

Still, plenty didn't, so no need to pay attention to me  Martin is very good at finding a way for his characters to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory though.

*Ok, certainty.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Ah yes, like I said, I'm not sure I can write his brand of fantasy, but it was certainly an experience, whether I subscribe to his thinking or not. I realized I play it too safe. I don't go far enough. I can't ruin my stories by killing everyone, but I can certainly push the envelope, like I said, parading my character in shameful glory through the metaphorical streets of her story. 

GRRM isn't probably the perfect example of how everyone should design stories (because some readers simply respond to cute stories that have happy endings), but for me, I simply couldn't see a way to make things worse, and this was a very awakening moment in my quest for better story-telling.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

It can go too far for some people, but that is because of the extremity of bad things happening, I think. In general, rise and fall and obstacles are the heartbeat of story. They just don't have to be mutilation and death, LOL. 



Peat said:


> At the risk* of being a grumpy contrarian, constantly making it worse is exactly why I put down G.R.R. Martin, despite my immense affection for a lot of what he does. Ditto Robin Hobb.
> 
> Still, plenty didn't, so no need to pay attention to me  Martin is very good at finding a way for his characters to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory though.
> 
> *Ok, certainty.


----------



## Reilith

This is a good wake up call. I've grown a lot as a writer after reading gritty fiction - not always everything ends happily, and that's okay. In comparison, a lot of readers are going to have a negative reaction to it - the personal satisfaction they get after the MC success in the grand plan is what they are looking for. In really good fiction - like really really good, it is never so. You might get saved, but heck, your family is dead. You might win the girl, but then she is raped and gets pregnant with the assailant's child. It is not simple shock value, it is the drama (some would argue those are the same), the emotion behind it, the growth of characters, the beauty in the ugly and all those horrifying scenes that keep you up at night. I value that sort of writing , I aim for it and I love reading it, even though it leaves me in shreds. Robin Hobb, Mercedes Lackey (although her writing is full of melodrama and looong descriptions), Joe Abercrombie, Brandon Sanderson and a few more that have that quality are what makes my reading exhilarating and make me aim for the stars reflected in the endless lake of suffering. Some can do it perfectly, while the execution with others is lost in bad plots, shock value (still not the same!) and bad bad writing.
I am very happy for you, that you've realized this hidden gem of writing. It can only get better for you now (and much worse for your characters  ).
As a side note, I wouldn't base it all on GRRM, cause he's not the only one doing it. At the first glance I was sure he was doing it only to shock us - now I know he is not, but it's still too tedious for me to read. Check out those other writers if you haven't already, and enjoy the suffering complex worlds and characters give us in their grief.


----------



## Peat

It's not all about the extremity of it either. Yes, sometimes I feel uncomfortable about really bad things happening, but that's pretty rare. I've yet to see the author who can (or rather, will) gutpunch as hard as some historical and autobiographical accounts.

The main word I'd use is boredom. If things always get worse, then it stops being a surprise. If a character can only express varieties of pain, they stop interesting. Characters constantly getting removed, that can get boring too.

I completely agree that obstacles are the heartbeat of story. But to me, Rise and Fall, and Always Make It Worse, aren't the same things. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what people are meaning by Always Make It Worse.

In any case, I'm glad Caged Maiden made a breakthrough on the proper mistreatment of characters .


----------



## Ben

Robin Hobb? I only read her first book and my complaint was not the violence (very little that I remember) but the glacial pace, and the on-the-nose character names.  To the subsequent books get GRRM-level bloody? That might actually make me give her another chance.


----------



## Reilith

Ben said:


> Robin Hobb? I only read her first book and my complaint was not the violence (very little that I remember) but the glacial pace, and the on-the-nose character names.  To the subsequent books get GRRM-level bloody? That might actually make me give her another chance.



Not bloody per se - but really heart wrenching. I might be biased, she is my favourte author, but do give her a chance. The story is captivating, characters are thought though, and especially the Liveship Traders trilogy that comes after Farseer trilogy is fantastic. A change of pace, multiple POVs, a really great bad guy (whose thought process we get to see and understand!) and very important questions raised. I adore her writing. It is not GRRM style, but the suffering is palpable constantly, and even good things may turn out not to be good at all.


----------



## FifthView

Ben said:


> Robin Hobb? I only read her first book and my complaint was not the violence (very little that I remember) but the glacial pace, and the on-the-nose character names.  To the subsequent books get GRRM-level bloody? That might actually make me give her another chance.



I've read all her Farseer books.  Blood and violence happen, as with most fantasy novels, but I don't particularly remember things getting worse in the GRRM sense.  

I love the Farseer books, but one complaint I have is particularly bad in the latest series:  MC POV character is mopey, self-doubting, self-castigating, and all-around too darn whiney.  So I don't particularly remember unusually extreme cases of "getting worse," despite the plot occasionally dipping that direction, but I might count the MC's attitude toward things as an example of getting worse and worse.  At least, his own estimation of his life/situations seems to take a very negative route much of the time.


----------



## Reilith

FifthView said:


> I've read all her Farseer books.  Blood and violence happen, as with most fantasy novels, but I don't particularly remember things getting worse in the GRRM sense.
> 
> I love the Farseer books, but one complaint I have is particularly bad in the latest series:  MC POV character is mopey, self-doubting, self-castigating, and all-around too darn whiney.  So I don't particularly remember unusually extreme cases of "getting worse," despite the plot occasionally dipping that direction, but I might count the MC's attitude toward things as an example of getting worse and worse.  At least, his own estimation of his life/situations seems to take a very negative route much of the time.



He is a rather mopey character, that is probably the greatest flaw of the books. 

But I disagree with you for the overall impression of not getting worse. It does get worse. He always seems to get it good, and then sh*t happens and he is messed up all over again. The world around him is changing for the worse most of the time, not even the "good" things are particularly that "good".


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Slightly off topic, what I think will be fascinating with GRRM is how the rise and fall actions will differ as HBO and GRRM follow parallel storylines. This will add to the tension when reading the final books in some ways, waiting to see who and what depart from the HBO series and which ones meet and all that. 

In general, GRRM does a good job of rise and fall, but the falls are bigger than the rises... I'll call them a slinky going down the stairs, with a small hump up, and crash to the next step, heh heh. Slinky plotting! I like it. I'm officially coining that phrase, trademark it! LOL. I do think part of the problem is that obstacles/falls need to get bigger, and that can create a spiral of doom as the writer tries to one up themselves. New characters serve to relieve some of this pressure.

One of the big rises right now is actually Tyrion... all things considered he is in a much better place than not long ago, and yet, his challenges are formidable to say the least.


----------



## Heliotrope

For me, "Make it worse" means a lot of things. Bare wth me through this long post. 

1) "Make it worse" is something I spend a lot of time brainstorming when planning my own scenes and stories. To take from the book CM is talking about from Donald Maahs: 

_The strongest inner conflicts plague characters with two desires taht are mutually exclusive. When believably built, inner conflict leads to unsettling actions. It tests, torments, and defines. It becomes utterly necessary. It becomes part of the plot....

The snappy heroin of Joshilyn Jackson's literary crime hybrid success "Gods in Alabama" has conflict poured into her foundation. As a graduate student in Chicago, Arlene Fleet has sworn to God (Big G this time) three things: 

1) She will stop screwing every boy who crosses her path; 2) She will never again tell a lie, not even a small one; 3) She will never return to her family and hometown of Possett, Alabama. Arlene has good reasons for this. Before leaving Posset she had sex with fifty-two of the fifty-three boys in her sophmore class, in order of their sixteenth birthdays, and lived a whopping great lie. Fact is that ten years earlier Arlene murdered a boy, Jim Beverly, her high school's golden boy and football hero whose body was never found. 

Having given Arlene good reason not to return to Possett, however, Jackson makes it imperative for her heroine to go back. _

When I'm plannig a story or novel or scene, I brain storm all the ways it could be worse. All the ways I can infuse it with as much tension and conflict as absotutely possible. 

So, for example, just because my current short is on my mind: 

- Woman had a baby brother who was considered a demon by the community, blamed for a fire that killed a family, and he was taken away and destroyed. 
- Her mother couldn't handle the shame and grief and commited suicide. 
- Woman is now pregnant, and terrified her child will be like her brother was. 
- Yep. She delivers a demon. 

OK... so if I were making this a novel, how could I make her suffer? How could I make it worse? 

- She has to go back to her home town where her mother died, and face all the same people who condemned her mother. 

Make it worse. 

- She has spent her whole life being a pious *B*tch* in an effort to avoid this happening. She has been critical and judgemental of everyone her whole life in an effort to keep herself safe, and now everyone is judging her. 

Make it worse. 

- She was the one who accidentally started the fire so many years ago, and blamed it on her brother, and now harbours that guilt. 

Make it worse. 

Her husband, and father of her child, is the only survivor of that fire she started so long ago... 

Does that make sense? So for me, "Make it worse" is a brainstorming strategy for story planning. 

However, it is also a brainstorming strategy for scene planning: 


Whenever you have planned a scene or story, sit back and brain storm, how could this be worse?

Try to come up with ten answers, then stretch your brain and come up with ten more. 

Example: 

Two guys are having a sword fight, one guy loses his sword and now it is two guys with one sword. 

How could this be worse? 
- They are in the princesses room where there are literally no weapons except some perfume bottles and some lingerie. 
- MC gets sprayed in the face by perfume and is partially blinded. 
- He has to try to make a weapon out of the princess's lingerie… but it is cleaning day and there is nothing in the drawers. 
- The only lingerie available is currently on the princess. 
- The princess is his sister (or perhaps hideously obese or deformed) and last thing he wants to do is have her take her clothes off. 
- The poor princess has to take her clothes off and now he is evading the swords man, swinging, blinded, from the rafters of her room (or the top of her canopy bed?) trying to craft a weapon from her delicates.
- the princess is actually not the princess at all, but an assassin disguised as the princess and taking his clothes off will reveal his identity. 
- The assassin disguised as the princess trys to conceal himself with a sheet, knocks over a candle and lights the canopy bed on fire… 

Etc. 

Make it worse.

*maybe it isn't as assassin at all, but the king's footman, who likes to go to the princesses room and wear her underwear? And if he is caught then he would be executed? And the prince is too blinded from the perfume to notice?


----------



## Heliotrope

Make it worse can mean other things as well, such as combining characters: 

So you have a story where James is cheating on Jennifer with a co-worker. You have four characters. James, Jennifer, The 'girlfriend' and Jennifer's best friend who she confides everything to. What if you combined the girlfriend with the confident? Made them one character? So now Jennifer is confiding to her best friend about her husband's affair, and the confident is actually the girlfriend? Now you have some serious tension.


----------



## Heliotrope

Instead of a sword fight on the ground, why not in a moving carriage? Or on top of a burning buidling? Or on a desolate beach with the tide coming in? 

There are always ways to make things worse. 

don't be afraid to stab your characters. Make them bleed. Poison them. Take away their weapons. Make things hard for them, even scene by scene and moment by moment. The horse they are using to run away has a nail in it's foot. 

Make it worse. 

Make things seem impossible, then get them out of it.


----------



## FifthView

Reilith said:


> The world around him is changing for the worse most of the time, not even the "good" things are particularly that "good".





Demesnedenoir said:


> In general, GRRM does a good job of rise and fall, but the falls are bigger than the rises... I'll call them a slinky going down the stairs, with a small hump up, and crash to the next step, heh heh. Slinky plotting! I like it. I'm officially coining that phrase, trademark it! LOL. I do think part of the problem is that obstacles/falls need to get bigger, and that can create a spiral of doom as the writer tries to one up themselves. New characters serve to relieve some of this pressure.



Obviously, there will be different ways to do it.  I somewhat question:


Whether a progressive but gently sloping downward path is as effective as more substantial rises followed by sudden sharp drops.
Whether a progressive worsening is improved if the drops that do come are sudden and/or rather severe in comparison to a previous situation.

My problem with remembering significant "making it worse" moments in the Farseer books may be a matter of poor memory; it's been awhile since I read the first couple of trilogies.  Also, almost all books that I can finish reading (i.e., not bad books) have incidents that make things worse, so what happens in the Farseer books (of what I can remember) doesn't really stand out to me.  Plus, I wonder if the MC's general attitude and malaise dull the effect of "getting worse."


----------



## Miskatonic

Peat said:


> At the risk* of being a grumpy contrarian, constantly making it worse is exactly why I put down G.R.R. Martin, despite my immense affection for a lot of what he does. Ditto Robin Hobb.
> 
> Still, plenty didn't, so no need to pay attention to me  Martin is very good at finding a way for his characters to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory though.
> 
> *Ok, certainty.



When he actually writes something. He hasn't put out a book for ASOIAF in nearly six years. He's another Robert Jordan in the making.


----------



## Heliotrope

The biggest complaint agents have about new manuscripts is not enough tension. Not enough conflict. 

And they don't mean "not enough explosions, fights, or car chases." 

They mean that deep inherent tension that holds up an entire novel. 

A man in hiding discovers that a detective is looking for him. When that detective turns up dead, the hiding man has to figure out who else is looking for him, and why. (The basic premise of Tripwire by Lee Child). 

When a kid finds himself in a living maze with other boys and no memory of how he got there, he sets out to find a way out. Only to discover that he built the maze himself, and must find out why. (The premise of The Maze Runner). 

When a girl volunteers to take her sister's place in a deadly contest, she must try to stay alive. But when a boy from her district confesses his love for her.. will she be able to kill him? (The Hunger Games). 

Do you see how the tension is built right into the story with the inciting moment? There is enough tension (both internal and external) to hold up the whole story. This is what I think of when I think of "make it worse". Not enough manuscripts are going far enough to have enough inherent tension. Most manuscripts Agents get are only going half way. 

A hidden man discovers someone is looking for him. 

A boy finds himself in a maze and has to get out. 

A girl has to fight to survive. 

The inherent conflict is missing.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> There is enough tension (both internal and external) to hold up the whole story. This is what I think of when I think of "make it worse".



Now that I'm trying to remember the Farseer arc...I think the MC's personality and internal and external conflicts helped in creating that tension for me in the first two trilogies.  He's a bastard brought into his father's household (albeit after his father is already dead) and there's tension internally because of this and externally because of the political situation.  Other factors add to this over the course of the two series, including more external problems.  But the third trilogy is problematic because so far, into the second book, there's only one major solid external threat and its corresponding internal tension which could be summarized as 



Spoiler: Too Much Reveal



"I'm the worst father in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!"



In many ways, the third trilogy feels like a lot of later books in extended series:  Somewhat fan service, and limp.  Well, I've bought into the character so far, so I'm going to continue, despite the irritation I feel regarding his extreme mopey nature.


----------



## Miskatonic

The character Guts from the Berserk manga is the poster child for "Put him through hell and then some". I love the series but to me it's almost overboard. This series is far more extreme than ASOIAF or anything you see on GOT.


----------



## Heliotrope

"As more than one writer has said to me, "How many times can I put my guy through the ringer?" 

During a story conference an author confided in me that she didn't know what more she could do with a character. "Has he ever killed someone?" I asked. He hadn't. I then posed the question. "What else has he never had to do, and how could it be what he fears most?" 

Her answer was to promote the character from inspector in Special branch, the police departement assigned to cases of high political sensitivity, to commander. No longer responsible for just following orders, Pitt now has to decide in the first place which cases are to become active, knowing that the mere fact of openig an investigation itself ruins lives and reputations. In the twenty sixth book of the series Pitt not only faces this burden, but at the end, with knowledge of guit but in-sufficient evidence to prove it, faces a ruthless traitor alone with gun in hand. He must decide whether to shoot the man dead." 

(21 C Fiction, Donald Maas). 

Or, how about Butcher's great wizard Dresden: 

_Everything in me screamed no. That this was not fair. That I should not have to do this. That no one should ever have to do this. 

But.... I had no choice. 

I found myself picking Susan up with one hand. The little girl was curled into a ball with her eyes closed, and there was not time. I pushed he from the alter as gently as I could and let her fall to the floor, where she might be a little safer from the wild energies surging through the temple. 

I put Susan down on the alter and said, "She'll be safe. I Promise." 

She nodded at me, her body jerking and twisting in convulsions, forcing moans of pain from her lips. She looked terrified, but then she nodded. 

I put my hand over her eyes. 

I pressed my mouth to hers, swiftly, gently, tasting the blood, and her tears and mine. 

I saw her lips form the word, "Maggie...." 

And I.... 

I used the knife. 
I saved a child. 
I won a war. 
God forgave me. _

Make it worse means pushing our characters to the ultimate limit.


----------



## FifthView

@Helio:

It strikes me, with your examples and general gist, that "making it worse" doesn't necessarily mean giving the reader a feeling that a bad situation has just been magnified a thousand times, rinse & repeat.  I mean, a conscious sense for the reader that things are piling up in sequential/chronological order for the characters.  "Making it worse" can be a dictum used by the author in the pre-writing or editing phase. 

So for instance:  

I have a young character who's become an orphan in a city engulfed in civil war, with street-to-street fighting.  (Science fiction, not fantasy.)

Yep.  That's bad.

But wait, let's say that kid, aged 12, also has become infected with a semi-sentient parasite that gets a thrill whenever that kid's adrenalin rises.  So this parasite sometimes influences this kid to kill another person for no reason or to take extremely risky actions like running fast atop the edge of a skyscraper, etc.  The kid knows this is happening but often doesn't realize until after the fact that this is what has just happened.  Terrifying!

Wow.  That's worse.

But wait.  That kid has twin younger sisters, aged 6, to take care of in the midst of this war-torn city.  And food is scarce.

Whoa.

Now, write it.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Not precisely, Jordan couldn't keep my attention past 3 books, heh heh. I struggled through 3 as I recall. After 3 I no longer worried if 4 ever made it out. All successful epic fantasy writers are a Jordan waiting to happen, in some sense, because they tend to create expansive worlds that come to dominate their real lives. I don't see this happening with GRRM, although he may never truly escape the world he's created. 

I recall once many many years ago at a bookstore specializing in SFF that I didn't like Jordan as a writer and the owner laughed and said something about that being because Jordan was taking too long to get out book #X(6 or 7 maybe?) and I just shuddered. I had no clue there were that many and people would actually keep reading his stuff, and I got the joy of looking the owner in the eye and saying, no, I just don't like his writing, and it was only desperation for any decent fantasy that got me through 3, heh heh.



Miskatonic said:


> When he actually writes something. He hasn't put out a book for ASOIAF in nearly six years. He's another Robert Jordan in the making.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yep. Now make it worse. 

Some government officials have learned of this parasite, and would love to harvest it. Adrenaline junkie soldiers are a good thing. They are inticing people with the disorder to come them for testing and blood work, and offereing a pretty hefty reward if you turn yourself in... 

But chances are you wont make it out alive, or they will recruit you. 

Will he turn himself in to get the money to save his starving sister, at the risk of deserting her forever?

Or, this parasite laden blood is being harvested in the back allys and sold on the black market. Risking infection or death, but good pay out.

But yes, FV that is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not talking how much blood and gore and violence and damage you can accrue. I'm talking story. Make the _story_ worse. But MOST importantly, make the choices worse. Make the choices so that there is no best option. Conflict really means having to choose. 

"Conflicting feelings snare readers. They are a puzzle that demands a solution. A cognitive dissonance that is too loud to ignore. Conflicting feelings persist, escalate and cannot be easily resolved and can become inner conflict, which is one of the greatest ways to create fascinating and memorable characters. 

The strongest inner conflicts plague characters with two choices that are mutially exclusive."


----------



## Heliotrope

For me, I like to brainstorm at least ten levels of worse before I start plotting.


----------



## Chessie

Heliotrope said:


> For me, I like to brainstorm at least ten levels of worse before I start plotting.


Can I hire you? LOL


----------



## Miskatonic

Demesnedenoir said:


> Not precisely, Jordan couldn't keep my attention past 3 books, heh heh. I struggled through 3 as I recall. After 3 I no longer worried if 4 ever made it out. All successful epic fantasy writers are a Jordan waiting to happen, in some sense, because they tend to create expansive worlds that come to dominate their real lives. I don't see this happening with GRRM, although he may never truly escape the world he's created.
> 
> I recall once many many years ago at a bookstore specializing in SFF that I didn't like Jordan as a writer and the owner laughed and said something about that being because Jordan was taking too long to get out book #X(6 or 7 maybe?) and I just shuddered. I had no clue there were that many and people would actually keep reading his stuff, and I got the joy of looking the owner in the eye and saying, no, I just don't like his writing, and it was only desperation for any decent fantasy that got me through 3, heh heh.



I mean he's going to die before he finishes the series.


----------



## Russ

Caged Maiden said:


> I happened upon a book written by Donald Maass--Writing 21st Century Fiction: High Impact Techniques for Exceptional Storytelling.
> 
> 
> First, Donald Maass is not who I thought he was. When I first submitted to him (as sort of a crap shoot, I have to admit) back in 2010, I pictured him as some crusty old man, sitting at a dark wooden desk from a bygone era, piled high with paper manuscripts. But that isn't who he is at all, I've come to realize. He's current, excited about his job, and his hobbies apparently include boat-rocking. He reaches out to writers, begging for something that will thrill him. And his book feels much less an instruction manual for how to "write right" and more a plea to all writers to wow readers by pushing themselves further than they ever knew possible. He asks us to be brave.
> 
> The one thing he asks over and over, is for us to "make it worse" and I've struggled with this concept for a few years now, never quite understanding HOW to actually make situations for my characters worse. How far to push it. When to up the ante. Why should things even GET worse?



On a slightly tangential note, I thought I should mention that I think Donald is a great guy and is always trying to better understand writing and how to write and publish successfully based on the latest information.

His books are excellent, but lately he has been looking at a lot of scientific research  and some of his ideas on writing have evolved lately.  While I know he is covering this material in his paid seminars he spoke about a great deal of the core of it in a session at Thrillerfest last year.  it is simply top notch  material.

If you want to buy it the link is here:

THE THRILL IS GONE by Donald Maass


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Oh I know what you meant, but still don't think so. Not that he doesn't look like he could stand to lose a few pounds, heh heh.



Miskatonic said:


> I mean he's going to die before he finishes the series.


----------



## Heliotrope

@ Fifthview.... 

Oh man, and then when I'm brainstorming "make it worse" I always get hit with a theme. So I was just thinking "make it worse" and one idea was: 

- One of his sisters is blind (possibly from gas from a riot?) and could undergo an eye transplant surgery, but he needs the money... 

Theme: Monsters in the Dark. 

Sometimes the scariest monsters are the ones we can't even see. The ones deep inside ourselves, eating away at us. Forcing us to do things we didn't think we would ever do. Monsters like fear, jelousy, shame. 

Then the whole thing all ties together. The monsters inside him (his terrible feelings), the parasites, the mosters his little sister's face in the world around them. Hunger.... It all ties together...


----------



## Sheilawisz

I think that this whole _Make it Worse_ thing is a very poor advice on Storytelling.

It's true that some stories are about dark settings in which characters suffer a lot and their lives are extremely complicated, but those elements do not necessarily result in the creation of a better story. My advice is to allow your story to be what it is, without making things worse for the world or for the characters just for the sake of following a trend.

I cannot criticize Martin's books because I have never read them, but I can tell you that the TV series based on them is a terrible influence on Fantasy and people are getting way too influenced by it...

Now so many people want to make their characters suffer as much as possible, and they create gritty worlds full of violence, gore and sex because they want to be like Game of Thrones. I think that some stories are indeed meant to be dark and gory, but if you abuse of these elements maybe the result is not going to be as good as you think.

A setting or story coated in the darkest grit and suffering is just as bad as a story coated in honey and perfect happiness for all the characters.

My own characters do suffer terrible things sometimes, but only as much as is needed in the story. I am not going to _make it worse_ for any of them just for the sake of making things worse, that's a very stupid thing to do in Storytelling. We need to tell the stories as they are, as they happened, instead of forcibly changing them just like that.

For those of you who think that the GoT style is better or more realistic, think about this:

What is it like in real life? It's true that in reality the good people do not always win, do not always get what they want, but it's also true that many times good people do have great achievements, happy lives and happy endings. The bad guys get away with their stuff sometimes, but many other times things go terribly wrong for them.

Real life is a combination of good and bad things happening to everyone.

In the other hand, Game of Thrones presents a very unrealistic world in which good people never win anything. There are no heroes, no great moments of sweet victory, no happy endings for anybody. The likeable characters get killed over and over again in a world in which nobody is safe and nothing really matters, which is a very nihilistic and cynical approach to life.

Like I said I cannot speak about the books, but I suspect that most of the success of the TV series is based on the very large amount of almost graphical sex, unnecessary violence, crazy gore and countless scenes of naked women always featuring perfect and beautiful breasts.

That is how HBO has attracted a very large audience of people that would otherwise not be interested in Fantasy.

Fortunately all this trend that Game of Thrones has started will eventually pass, and people will realize that the best Storytelling comes when you are true to your stories instead of just _making it worse_.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> @ Fifthview....
> 
> Oh man, and then when I'm brainstorming "make it worse" I always get hit with a theme. So I was just thinking "make it worse" and one idea was:
> 
> - One of his sisters is blind and could undergo an eye transplant surgery, but he needs the money...
> 
> Theme: Monsters in the Dark.
> 
> Sometimes the scariest monsters are the ones we can't even see. The ones deep inside ourselves, eating away at us. Forcing us to do things we didn't think we would ever do. Monsters like fear, jelousy, shame.
> 
> Then the whole thing all ties together. The monsters inside him (his terrible feelings), the parasites, the mosters his little sister's face in the world around them. Hunger.... It all ties together...



I'm leery of tying things together too neatly.  So government seeking those parasite-infected individuals to make semi-mindless soldiers:  nope.  Selling that parasite-infected blood: nope.  Compounding the hunger with now blindness to be cured: nope.

I'm thinking:  There would be other street gangs, young and mixed aged.  Many types of people struggling to survive, many taking advantage of the lack of order.  There would be the threat of rape, for him and his sisters.  In fact, the ultimate plot would probably be one of the sisters being kidnapped and he'd have to go after her, dragging her twin sister along (which compounds the problem of protecting her.)   His ONE goal, the only thing that ultimately matters is protecting his sisters.  But problematically, his religion would be a peace-centered religion, something like Christianity probably (but not Christianity), that his parents had.  So he'd face the conflict of what he'd have to do to save his sisters, whether hold/follow his parents' model, which is important to him; or, kill and kill again.  (The imperatives his parasite would give would also conflict with this, not to mention conflicting with keeping his sisters safe.)  His would be a tragic story, but I think that his sisters' story would end happy.  The price he'd pay.


----------



## Heliotrope

Sheila, I have to disagree. The same concept works even if you are writing a teenage babysitter story. 

Girl is on summer holiday and needs to get money to buy a car. 

Make it worse. 

The only job available is a babysitting job. She is not really good with kids. 

Make it worse. 

The people who hire her are snobby, stuck-up and want nothing to do with their child and she is worked round the clock. 

Make it worse. 

There is a boy she likes, and he asks her out, but she has to work. 

Make it worse. 

The boy is from the same social circle as the stuck up pair, and the girl lied to him when they first met and told him she was their neice, staying with them for the summer... not just the babysitter... 

Etc. 

It works for any story type.


----------



## Sheilawisz

That is simply making things more _complicated_, not necessarily worse.

If you feel that your original idea for a story is too simple and not exciting enough, then yeah: You can add more layers of complexity to challenge the characters a little more, but many other times the best stories are the simpler ones and making things unnecessarily complex is not going to result in anything better.

Something else that often happens is that a story can begin simple and easy to follow, but it starts to develop on its own and becomes a more complex creature if you just allow it to do what it wants.

Again, I can assure you that making it worse just for the sake of it is a very stupid advice in Storytelling.


----------



## Heliotrope

@Fifthview: Sounds great. I love wrapping my stories up in tight little bows  

@Sheila: Really? Stupid advice? You can absolutely assure me this? After I have heard the same advice by many agents, writers and publishers?


----------



## Sheilawisz

Indeed, I remain firm in my belief that you should not follow that advice.

I am not sure what Agents and Publishers are looking for these days, and I accept that I know nothing of the best publishing and marketing strategies. I am speaking against that advice from a purely artistic point of view, because Storytelling is a form of Art and the best stories result when you stay loyal to the story in question.

Also, my advice comes from my personal experience in Storytelling after having finished many stories myself.

During my experience with Joan of England, Winter Hollow, Whispers of the Witch and even parody stories like Halley Wolffer, I encountered many moments in which I could have made things much more complicated or worse than they were. However, adding those new elements would have altered the real story and most likely would have taken me to a block.

We have to let our stories be what they are, and starting with a simple concept and easy plot is alright because it can all become more complicated and more challenging later as the story develops.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I have to disagree with Sheila, too. Not entirely, but in many ways. The success of GoT isn't based on boobs and gore, and although GoT is only one way of working the "make it worse" premise, it's pretty much a must for storytelling in one form or another. Yes, you must do what the story needs, but much of the time, what a story needs is tension and that tends to mean bad things, whateevr it might be that fits the story.

Now making it worse for the sake of storytelling being stupid? This depends on how you define what you're saying. Obviously one can go overboard, if in the movie Armageddon if suddenly aliens attacked Bruce Willis to try and keep him from detonating the nuke! Yeah, that's overboard. But in general, whatever the tension is in a story, emotional, physical, whatever, for the sake of the story, it is best to draw out as many hurdles/bad things happening as plausible. Whether that's Steve Buscemi going nuts, or a fourth person entering a love triangle in some other story, or a giant marshmallow man in Ghostbusters... obstacles/bad things, must arise.


----------



## Chessie

Sheilawisz said:


> Again, I can assure you that making it worse just for the sake of it is a very stupid advice in Storytelling.


I like to think of it as the try/fail cycles engrained into the 7 point plot structure. The 'making it worse' part comes from the character trying to solve a problem that's important to him/her. The problem is tied into a story goal, and the try/fail cycles are also prompted from the character's personality weakness. 

I completely agree with you, Sheila, in that making it worse for the sake of it isn't storytelling. Character leads in this regard (which is one of the main reasons I personally don't outline). Storytelling is leading character through change, and the plot points and try/fail cycles trigger growth and change within the character.

However, this is what I understand others saying here, too. I think we just write it out differently. (and now, back to my writing)


----------



## FifthView

I don't know.  Think of the many ways a court trial can go bad for either side.  Add to that personal problems, like maybe an elderly parent having a stroke, requiring the MC to focus on that as well as leading the prosecution or defense in the trial.  Life is not simple, nor is it perfectly smooth sailing, in my experience.  Even the happiest people in the world will probably have relatives or friends who are _not_ happy, or will notice that other parts of the world are filled with tragedy and may feel compelled to do something about what they see.


----------



## Chessie

I'll add though that I believe the extreme happenings in Westeros is what draws fans in. We have a friend who will put her life on the fact that GOT is scifi. She doesn't read fiction. In fact, MOST of the people we know that are fans of the show have never even cracked open one of the books. I read the first one and didn't like it. Not for me. But Martin is a really good storyteller and if the show is similar to the books, I can understand why people get hooked.

Story is what's kept me watching The Walking Dead for every running season. And there's plenty of gore in it.


----------



## Sheilawisz

A good story needs to have obstacles and hurdles indeed, but adding as many of them as possible is a very bad idea.

If your story already works well with what you have, keep it going like that. Something new can show up eventually when the moment comes, and this is part of the natural evolution of a story. Sometimes characters will do things that you were not expecting to do, sometimes a new character just shows up when you least expected him or her and the story can take a twist that will surprise you.

A story must be what it is, because they are living creatures and not a chemistry experiment.

About Game of Thrones: There are many people that like the series because of the great acting, incredible locations and beautiful costume design, and also it's a very interesting world... But I bet that if they removed all of the medieval porn, gore and incredible breasts seen so often then the series would lose a great deal of its audience.

Recently the actress that plays Daenerys complained that she wanted to be admired for her acting instead of her body, and some fan replied that it's not because of her acting that they watch her.


----------



## Chessie

FifthView said:


> I don't know.  Think of the many ways a court trial can go bad for either side.  Add to that personal problems, like maybe an elderly parent having a stroke, requiring the MC to focus on that as well as leading the prosecution or defense in the trial.  Life is not simple, nor is it perfectly smooth sailing, in my experience.  Even the happiest people in the world will probably have relatives or friends who are _not_ happy, or will notice that other parts of the world are filled with tragedy and may feel compelled to do something about what they see.


Yes, but these sorts of events should directly tie into your plot and be associated with theme and character. Every event in a story must be tied into the character's growth.


----------



## FifthView

Chesterama said:


> Yes, but these sorts of events should directly tie into your plot and be associated with theme and character. Every event in a story must be tied into the character's growth.



Has anyone suggested otherwise?


----------



## Russ

Making it worse is actually excellent advice, if you understand it and apply it well.

Donald Maass does and I think HT is on the right track.

"Make it worse" is shorthand for "increase the tension on characters that your readers will care about."

Now it has to be subtle and there are variations, you simply cannot turn up the tension every scene with a huge wrench, but the tension and thus trouble for the protagonists must grow progressively as the tale goes on if you want the readers to be remain invested.

Now it does not mean that you need to add in extraneous elements or problems/perils that don't fit your story.  They would only be distractions.

If your story, at its heart is about a conflict between your protagonist and A than the increase in trouble would look like this:

P vs. A A A A  A A A etc.

If there were multiple threats, problems etc in your story it could look like this:

P vs.  a, b, A, B, b, C,  A, B, A etc 

But overall the tension, or problems, must keep increasing towards the climax.  One way of expressing that idea is to say "make it worse for your characters".

That advise takes  many forms in different genres or circles but it really remains the same.  Some people say "put your character up a tree and throw stones at them."  In the Thriller world they joke "If things are slowing down just have someone come into the room with a gun." but the message is the same.

Stephen James (who has a graduate degree in storytelling) suggests that with rare exceptions the tension at the end of each chapter should be higher than at the beginning of that chapter.  Thus the purpose of each chapter is to increase tension.

Now not everybody wants or needs this advice.  Some people have stories pop into their head fully formed, or take a very organic, almost spiritual road to writing and it just flows on out.  But if you are inclined to think about how story works or how a book can be made better, I think this is an important concept to understand, and is really top notch advice to follow.

Now, as I said, some people don't need or want advice on writing, for various reasons and I respect those folks and they should just flow on by discussions like this.  But for people seeking advice on how to construct better stories I suggest this advice is gold and they should take it to the bank.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, I don't mean tight little bows as in everyone is happy. I mean like someone learns something at the end. A moral to the story. Something that says "this was the whole point of all that".


----------



## Chessie

FifthView said:


> Has anyone suggested otherwise?


No. I was just simply clarifying for clarity's sake.


----------



## Chessie

Russ said:


> Making it worse is actually excellent advice, if you understand it and apply it well.
> 
> 
> Now not everybody wants or needs this advice.  Some people have stories pop into their head fully formed, or take a very organic, almost spiritual road to writing and it just flows on out.  But if you are inclined to think about how story works or how a book can be made better, I think this is an important concept to understand, and is really top notch advice to follow.


Damn it. After this I really have to go. But YES. Yes. I do see Sheila's point as a valid one though. Since I'm not in her head I can only interpret it on a personal level: don't make things worse just for the sake of it.

When I first heard the advice to make things worse, I stupidly did just that. 

However, because I love to learn about writing, I read countless of articles and books from various authors, watched youtube videos, learned from my peers how this was done. It clicked one day and although I struggle with it still, it's easier today than it was a year or so ago.

Now, I've only heard Maas and Martin as names on this thread. I encourage everyone here to learn from other authors as well! These aren't the only people giving advice out there. One awesome, awesome book I recommend is The Anatomy Of Story by John Truby. He has videos, too, and explains this concept so darn well. 

In all, continuing education on story structure is so important. Readers want to see the characters try and fail, try and fail, try and get pissed but still fail, try and finally succeed. The emotional roller coaster is what they want no matter what they say.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Following this advice can result in an artificial story that gets too complex too soon, an overwhelmed storyteller and a serious Writer's Block that you would have difficulty to escape from.

In case that you find your current story or plot too weak or boring, you can follow this other advice instead: Try to find a new twist, a new challenge for the protagonist or a new character that will make things more interesting, and leave it like that while you wait to see how the story responds and how things develop.

Never be impatient, allow your story enough time to grow and show itself properly.

You should not add more layers of complexity hoping that all of those new things will somehow combine well and produce a good result, because said result could be good indeed but also it could lead you to a mess.

Not everything in Storytelling is about conflict and tension.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Okay, so when I said "make it worse" I simply meant that I was inspired by the way I WANTED one thing from Martin. I wanted Robb to win, I wanted Arya to get home to her loving family. I wanted Tyrion to win his trial. I wanted the prince to get his revenge. And all that was taken from me. And I was pissed at first, but then I saw the door cracked open ion the other side of those plots. That's all I meant. Don't make that love story so easy, make the people work for it a little more than they already do. Make your character not just suspicious that someone's following her, but make her downright terrified that they are, give her a reason to be really scared. 

Yeah, I'm not advocating sex, violence, or death as the MAKE IT WORSE hat trick, I'm just saying that the FEELINGS I felt when I was denied the things I wanted to see happen had a deep and lasting impact on my being. I had to sort of get over something like it was my own tragedy. And that's the kind of thing that sticks with a reader for years. 

Here's my own "make it worse" list for today:

Originally, I had a friend who sent my MC a letter, trying to warn her that someone was coming after her. Now, I'm going to have that friend sell her out to the guy who is coming after her. Nothing else changes form the original actual plot happenings, but I made it a little more emotional, a little more real. I made it worse.

Originally, I show the MC with her teenage ward, and they have a sweet, almost sisterly relationship. I'm going to make that worse, too. The girl is growing up and she's interested in some of the men around the place, and the MC is going to give her a harsh dose of reality about the "two kinds of men in this world" right in the beginning. I'm going to not only set up their relationship as one of motherly concern mixed with master/ servant sort of dynamics, but also I'm using that scene to set up the reason my MC isn't a woman out looking for love. I want to show her as a bitter person who sometimes has mean thoughts. I suppose I COULD just have them talk and have her say she's bitter and the girl better watch out for her safety, or I can have her drag the girl into the room, slam the door, and berate her a little, with coarse language and concepts that will make both male and female readers uncomfortable. Boom, made it worse. Increased impact and tension. 

OMG, I can't wait to write that last one! Gotta get back to it. 

SO yeah, no one getting flayed or broken on a wheel just for shock value. Just some character drama.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I don't have a ton of time for a reply, but I will say I agree with the "make it worse" advice.

Few people want to read _Village of the Happy People_. No. Hard lives and bad decisions make the best stories. We get to experience events through characters in situations we'd naturally strive to avoid.

If a character is in a bad spot, you can make it get worse, making them long for the days they once thought were bad. Or, you can give a character what they think they want, where achievement of the goal actually makes matters worse. There are a multitude of other options along this lie of thought. 

However, it's important to understand that these harsh events and experiences aren't calamity for calamity's sake. They are a crucible. They force our character to change, to become something more, someone different, & in the end, grow to a resolution.


----------



## Russ

Sheilawisz said:


> Following this advice can result in an artificial story that gets too complex too soon, an overwhelmed storyteller and a serious Writer's Block that you would have difficulty to escape from.



I am not sure your critique is being fair to the idea being expressed.

Your approach of saying this advice can lead to bad outcomes has some assumptions in it, one of which is that the writer following it is a bit of an idiot.  The outcomes you fear are only likely if one mishandles the tool.

Allow me an analogy.  A carpenter says you can build this table using a hammer and nails.

To which some replies "That is stupid advice.  If could break your thumb with the hammer, put a nail in your eye and smash three windows."  Well sure that is possible, but only if you grossly mishandle the tool.

I would suggest that this tool is more likely to help solve Writer's Block than create it.  If you reach a point in your plot where you don't know where you should go next one way to find a path ahead is to say "How do I increase tension or how do I make this worse for my characters?"



> In case that you find your current story or plot too weak or boring, you can follow this other advice instead: Try to find a new twist, a new challenge for the protagonist or a new character that will make things more interesting, and leave it like that while you wait to see how the story responds and how things develop.



Isn't adding a new challenge or a twist really increasing tension?  



> You should not add more layers of complexity hoping that all of those new things will somehow combine well and produce a good result, because said result could be good indeed but also it could lead you to a mess.
> 
> Not everything in Storytelling is about conflict and tension.



Two things, firstly nobody has suggested anything like what you express in this quote.  That is the equivilent of using the hammer on your thumb instead of your nail.  To some degree when giving advice we have to assume the person receiving it can use the tool with some competence.

Secondly, and honestly, do you not agree that overall, the conflict, tension or trouble for the protagonist have to increase as the story builds to its climax for the story to be effective?


----------



## Caged Maiden

Ooh, another Make it Worse movie that has no death in it is Interstellar. OMG, the moment they landed on that planet and KNEW they had just lost EIGHT YEARS!!! It broke my heart! Made it worse, but not GRRM-style. So yeah, don't think I'm being simple or literal in that one example as the ONLY one. I merely mentioned because this is one of the first times I've REALLY FELT the impact of having my victory snatched away, and loving it. I mean, I've read books that just take away the victory, but they feel like they laugh in my face, making me distrust them. Martin took the wind from my sails over and over again, yet here I am, coming back for more, because there is still light at the end of the tunnel. I'm cheering for a new character now, I'm more invested in the new possibility than I am mourning the loss of the old. 

And that, I think, is the key to making it worse. Don't allow yourself to keep a saggy plot point just because you like it. Make it worse. More central, more connected to the theme of the story. Make it bigger, more emotional. Then find another one and make it smaller, a silent, sad whisper of what you thought it would be. Give it a gut-wrenching feel in specific descriptions that will resonate with a reader. I mean, no one cares if you simply say someone tortured a character, or left a woman at the altar, or whatever. But if you can pause time for that brief moment where the character is living that thing, that thing they're afraid of, that thing they're telling themselves in their head isn't true, isn't real, etc. then I think you have effectively Made it Worse in a HUGE way, and readers respond to that sort of thing. 

None of my stories really pushed the envelope. But I'm moving past that, now. If only slowly. I'm going to find ways to make my plot situations worse, to create more emotion for a reader...to hit them hard in the feels. And another thing Mr. Maass writes into his book, the thing that's hardest for me to believe is true, is that he says to "put yourself into your stories."

Boom* mind blown. I have been avoiding doing that for ten years because I thought it was juvenile and self-indulgent. But here he is shouting it in my face, begging me to put MY actual feelings into my characters' heads.

And the weirdest thing, is that if I look back at all the stories I've had critiqued, there are two scenes I wrote that people have responded to favorably, again and again. The scene where my dog died (okay, in the book it was a MC's best friend, but I put every physical sensation and thought I had while my best friend passed in my arms, to portray her going though the same), and a sword fight that breaks all the rules of how to write a fight scene. Now, I've never been in a duel, but I'm a sword-fighter, and all the things that happen in that scene are the things I think about when I'm fighting. And I added in some personal thoughts for the swordsman to experience, perhaps to show how he was overconfident in the first place? Anyways, those two scenes really have wowed a number of readers, and I have to admit, they're pretty much left in their raw state, from when I originally wrote them, and they're my personal thoughts and feelings. But everywhere else, I just make shit up, because I don't want to put myself into a book, that'd be boring...

HA! Make it worse! Raise the stakes!


----------



## Caged Maiden

You know, this is why I don't build tables...HA!

Yeah, I meant this post in a completely different way than it's gone. I just wanted to share that after 15 years of writing and 5 of being an every-day writer, I have finally EXPERIENCED the breakthrough of understanding HOW I can actually make it worse, without just throwing token bullshit my characters' way. My goal needs to be to dangle the carrot, make them feel like they'll soon get the carrot, and then fling the carrot into pig poop. And then maybe they'll be hungry for bacon, and I can dangle that for a little while...


Just gotta make it less convenient, less "easy" and more grounded in action and consequence. Like I said, why does her friend have to send her the letter warning her she's in danger? It makes more sense he'd just sell her out. Maybe he did it and sends the note because he feels guilty? Maybe there's no note or warning at all, she's just taken captive? Nothing else changes, but it's my hope that for a brief half a chapter, the reader gets angry that the guy we trusted betrayed us for no good reason. I mean, except that we were betraying him...but he didn't KNOW that!!! HA!


----------



## FifthView

Sheilawisz said:


> Following this advice can result in an artificial story that gets too complex too soon, an overwhelmed storyteller and a serious Writer's Block that you would have difficulty to escape from.
> 
> In case that you find your current story or plot too weak or boring, you can follow this other advice instead: Try to find a new twist, a new challenge for the protagonist or a new character that will make things more interesting, and leave it like that while you wait to see how the story responds and how things develop.
> 
> Never be impatient, allow your story enough time to grow and show itself properly.
> 
> You should not add more layers of complexity hoping that all of those new things will somehow combine well and produce a good result, because said result could be good indeed but also it could lead you to a mess.
> 
> Not everything in Storytelling is about conflict and tension.



I don't know.  This sounds like a pantser strategy.

But if I go back to my little brainstorm earlier in this thread, I see where I came up with a handful of _initial conditions_ with inherent conflict and danger.  A starting point.  That starting point was one way of "making it worse."  It's not bad enough that there was a 12-year-old orphan in the midst of a war-torn city.  But still, by making the initial conditions "worse," I could then go on to write the story and let things develop from there.

Incidentally, a city torn by civil war, with street-to-street fighting, is pretty bad already, especially for an orphan on his own there.  I mean, realistically speaking.  Why would I want to "make it worse?"  To make it more interesting—for me.  Also, hopefully, for a reader.  Plus, to find distinction, to narrow things down.  There are way too many types of problems, conflicts, tensions and personal stories possible in such a setting, too many potential plots.  

It is after setting those initial conditions that I started wondering about the implications, the natural set of events that might occur there, and fleshing the idea out.  But of course, all this is still brainstorming; I've not written a single word.  (It was just a spur-of-the-moment example for this discussion.)

If I were to go ahead and write a story from that premise, then I'd have to worry about other things, working my way down to the granular level that we find in scenes and chapters.  So, does "make it worse" apply on these levels as well?  Maybe.  For instance, given my initial conditions, I might want to show those conditions by having my MC break into a building to steal food from someone else.  But would it be satisfying just to show him breaking the boards over a window, crawling in, getting the food, then crawling out and heading back to his sisters?  Or would it be more interesting, more engaging, if he was interrupted during his theft by the owners of that food?  Or, on the way back to his sisters, he's caught in some crossfire between the two warring parties?  Or, he gets back, gives the food to his malnourished sisters, and they get very sick from food poisoning; so, now he has to find a way to make them better, perhaps by asking for help or stealing some medicine?  This may not be something that needs planned out, entirely outlined for a whole book before writing the book.  It could be pantsed.  But even pantsed, the question will arise at the time of writing or of editing, I think. 

But on that granular level, I do think that unpredictable rhythms are good.  If EVERY action taken by an MC is ALWAYS a twist for the worse, an absolute failure, then it would become too predictable.  That would be boring.  There would be a lack of surprise, and so a lack of tension, possibly.  (Maybe some types of writing or genres do permit that constant twisting, that constant "making it worse" at the granular level?)

Edit:  A P.S.:  I wrote the above while a LOT of other comments were being made, and I haven't read them yet!


----------



## Heliotrope

For me, I just don't think that a lot of new writers carry their ideas far enough. I think they come up with a premise....

Ohhhh, a teenager gets stuck in a living maze and they have to get out. 

And then that is it. They don't push themselves, or the story, or the character to do any more than that... And then what are they left with? Something pretty bland and generic. Sure, sure, you can include monsters and danger and blood and guts and maybe a romance, but it will always be sort of shallow and straightforward. 

Make it worse forces you to dig deep. That's why I force myself to think of ten things, then ten more. Forcing myself to do that up front makes me really mine the the potential of the story idea so instead of something generic I end up with something really new, full of themes, conflict, choices, etc.


----------



## Reilith

Helio, everything you said in this thread rezonates for me. I would give you all kudos and thanks if I could! I want you as my beta one day! 

Sent from my HTC Desire 820 using Tapatalk


----------



## ThinkerX

Hmmm...

Labyrinth: Journal -

Begins when MC's routine 'learn the family biz' trip to a foreign city goes pear shaped.  MC gets blamed for an attempted imperial kidnapping and an unwanted 'regime change.'  

MC's family sends him to the far side of the world to retrieve a lost heirloom in a giant maze.  Enroute, MC discovers he's being chased by imperial agents commanded by his old CO - who pretty much taught him every trick in the book.  Toss in some nasty wartime flashbacks, strange pirates, and a shipwreck for good measure.

MC reaches maze, hires reliable guide...and gets lost, because guide is interested in making a fast coin or two.  Then MC reaches city where family heirloom is at.  Intrigue.  Why is lord so-and-so acting so chummy?  A attempted theft accompanied by a diplomatic disaster!  And how to defeat the spell guarding the relic? MC learns his old CO is just days away.  But success! He retrieves the artefact...and is effectively exiled, under the guardianship of people he rightly dislikes.  

And so on.  

'Empire' is a little trickier.  Well off middle class girl seeks aristocratic husband, with a list to interview and choose from.  Being well off, she has retainers - a knightly bodyguard, an oafish carriage driver slash petty wizard, and a gypsy handmaiden slash bard.  MC and company stumble across the scene of a massacre literal minutes after the fact (that's how the story opens) just outside the domain of candidate number four, a destitute baron.  But, MC's knightly guardian is the barons half brother.  And complications ensue from there.  A monster hunt that goes nowhere.  Political and economic hijinks.  And nasty things building to a head in the background, except they get mostly overlooked because of the other stuff.


----------



## Heliotrope

Dang. I want to read Labrynth so bad.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Russ said:


> Your approach of saying this advice can lead to bad outcomes has some assumptions in it, one of which is that the writer following it is a bit of an idiot. The outcomes you fear are only likely if one mishandles the tool.



Well, nobody here is an idiot and I am sorry if some people may have taken my comment that way.

However, you have to remember that many people in our community struggle to finish a good story. I have lost count of the number of times that somebody complains that their story is failing, or that they have a block... And when it has been discussed in the Chat they always talk about the complex plot, too many characters, holes in the story and so on, so I have come to the conclusion that they get tangled in a mess that they created themselves.

It's better to start with a simple, not so spectacular concept and easy plot and allow the story to develop from there. Too many people try to go wild and write a huge and incredible story only to realize later that they tried to bite more than they can chew, so they become blocked and frustrated for following advice like _Make it Worse_.



Russ said:


> If you reach a point in your plot where you don't know where you should go next one way to find a path ahead is to say "How do I increase tension or how do I make this worse for my characters?"



Indeed, this type of advice could be helpful to get past a point in the story when you are not sure what happens next. Also consider that there are other ways of solving a situation like that, not only increasing tension or making it worse for the characters. You can send them in a travel, start a new relationship, introduce a new character or something else.



Russ said:


> Isn't adding a new challenge or a twist really increasing tension?



Those two options are ways to make a story more interesting and more complex, without necessarily increasing the tension or making it worse for the characters involved.



Russ said:


> Two things, firstly nobody has suggested anything like what you express in this quote.  That is the equivilent of using the hammer on your thumb instead of your nail.  To some degree when giving advice we have to assume the person receiving it can use the tool with some competence.
> 
> Secondly, and honestly, do you not agree that overall, the conflict, tension or trouble for the protagonist have to increase as the story builds to its climax for the story to be effective?



Yes, they have suggested that with those examples of a basic idea to start a story, and how they make it more and more complex with repeated applications of _Make it Worse_. Adding more and more layers of complexity to simply create a starting point only makes everything more forced and difficult, which leads many people to get tangled and blocked.

And no, I do not agree with that. Conflict and tension are necessary in a good Fantasy story, but you do not always have to keep them increasing with every chapter until you reach the greatest moment. In many of my stories the conflict, difficulties and tension grow for some time, then they decrease a lot and then they may increase again.

Other stories work better with the model that increases tension constantly until the big moments arrive, but there are other ways of creating and telling a story.


----------



## ThinkerX

Heliotrope said:


> Dang. I want to read Labrynth so bad.



PM me an email address and I'll send you a copy.  Might take a day or two owing to multiplying RL issues.

That would make you the third person to read it.


----------



## Peat

Heliotrope said:


> For me, I just don't think that a lot of new writers carry their ideas far enough. I think they come up with a premise....
> 
> Ohhhh, a teenager gets stuck in a living maze and they have to get out.
> 
> And then that is it. They don't push themselves, or the story, or the character to do any more than that... And then what are they left with? Something pretty bland and generic. Sure, sure, you can include monsters and danger and blood and guts and maybe a romance, but it will always be sort of shallow and straightforward.
> 
> Make it worse forces you to dig deep. That's why I force myself to think of ten things, then ten more. Forcing myself to do that up front makes me really mine the the potential of the story idea so instead of something generic I end up with something really new, full of themes, conflict, choices, etc.



I forget who told me never to settle for my first idea, but to keep pushing for the fourth or fifth, but they were right.

And... having read some of the thread, and some of Heliotrope's excellent posts in it, I'd say that to me:

"Make It Worse" is *wonderful* advice for writing scenes.

It has its flaws as a way of plotting though. But I think I misunderstood the original post entirely and no one was ever planning to do that.


----------



## Sheilawisz

You have to settle for the story idea that really makes you happy, excited, fascinated and eager to start writing and telling that story as soon as possible. It does not matter if the idea in question is your first, or fourth, or seventh... It's the moment when a story just _Clicks_ with you that matters.

In other words, you need to have a real connection with the story that you are telling.

Sometimes things just have to get worse for the characters and events in your story, that's true. My point is that following _Make it Worse_ as a general advice instead of listening to what your story is and wants to be, is a recipe for trouble. We cannot force stories to be something that they are not, and if we do that anyway then the result is not going to be good.

My recommendations are:

1- You need a story that really connects with you.
2- You shall have a good idea of what the story is and how it ends, even if you do not know every detail of it.

3- Allow the story to be what it is.
4- Do not add any more complications beyond what the story needs.
5- Get ready to be surprised when the characters and story act on their own against what you were planning at the start of everything.

The thing with Storytelling is that we are not the true designers of stories. It's more like we are reporting about something that really happened, like we were witnesses of the characters and events that we are talking about.


----------



## Penpilot

Wow this thread grew fast. 

Make it worst, IMHO, is great advice. The way I see it, it's the heart of scene-sequel structure. 

In scene-sequel, there are two types of scenes, the action scene (aka scene) and the reaction scene (aka the sequel). The action scene consists of a goal, an obstacle to that goal, and an outcome. 

There can be 4 outcomes to an action scene, yes the goal is achieved, no it isn't, yes BUT something bad happens as a consequence, and no AND something bad happens on top. 

In a story, the first outcome of achieving the goal without consequence never happens until the end of a story. Why? Because it kills all the tention and leaves less inscentive to read on. 

After the action scene comes the reaction scene, as the label suggests, it's where the characters react to the outcome of the action scene. For brevity, I'll leave out some details here, but at the end of the reaction scene, a new goal is set. Rinse repeat. 

This may seem like a formula, but this only deals with one plot thread. Once you mix in multiple plot threads, the flow and placing of story can be altered quite significantly. Action/Reaction scenes from Plot 1 can be interrupt by Action/rRaction scenes from Plot 2 or Plot 3 in a variety of ways.

The different plots can pile on and Make things Worse.

From my experience every book, TV show, and movie I've seen/read and made a point to study, uses this in one form or another.


----------



## Russ

Sheilawisz said:


> And no, I do not agree with that. Conflict and tension are necessary in a good Fantasy story, but you do not always have to keep them increasing with every chapter until you reach the greatest moment. In many of my stories the conflict, difficulties and tension grow for some time, then they decrease a lot and then they may increase again.
> 
> Other stories work better with the model that increases tension constantly until the big moments arrive, but there are other ways of creating and telling a story.



You seem to be reading more into this idea than is really there.  I did not suggest it needs to be done "every chapter" (though James suggests that that) or "constantly" but rather that "*overall*" (my actual word) the tension needs to increase towards the climax.

You also seem to suggest that making things worse necessarily increases complexity.  That is not true either.  If my hero is trying to lift 500 pounds over his injured dog, and another hundred pounds get added, the situation is not more complex but rather simply worse.  

Too much complexity, too many characters, or plot holes are not necessarily outcomes of "making it worse" any more than a broken thumb or windows are a necessary outcome of using a hammer.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Sorry, I wrote this last night, but evidently passed out without posting it. Too bad, because it would have been more pertinent before the conversation moved on:


To me, "make it worse" is less about an obstacle in a story, and more about a writer pushing their mental process.

I wanted Cedrick to go chase some undead creatures, so my first inclination was to make him enter a pub and overhear a conversation about some people who were fleeing their home after undead attacked. 

It was a lame scene.

I made it worse.

I made him enter the pub and then the people looked road-weary, so he bought them their dinner, which prompted them to be friendly, and as they all talk, it comes out that the undead attacked their village. 

Still lame. Convenient. Not immediate.

I made it worse.

Now, Cedrick rides into town and decides he'll save his coins, so rather than pay for an inn room and supper, he goes to the local temple (wearing his religious symbol of course, to let them know he's a temple resident somewhere else), and he begs their hospitality. So they invite him in for a free supper and bed for the night. But before he can actually eat a bite, the door flies open and a group of villagers enter, and one of the women is visibly sick, showing signs of necrosis. SO they tell the priests what happened, that the woman was attacked by undead...and THAT'S what sets Cedrick out on his journey. 

I still made it worse, but didn't present him with any harder challenge, I just made it more immediate, abandoned my first couple ideas and asked what would be worse. Well, a woman whose fingertips are rotting off is certainly worse than a group of haggard travelers with a story to tell. Sort of makes the character feel a little more like he'll be saving folks if he deviates from his journey home. 

Make it worse is a phrase that can be taken different ways. Sure, you can sentence a character to a trial, rig that trial, then he takes his last choice, trial by combat, but all his friends abandon him. He gets lucky and scores a champion, but the champion dies horribly, and then he faces death (and now that I know his brother let him escape, I'm more disappointed, because that could have happened in the beginning of the issue, but still I appreciate how i was not given the happy, neat conclusion I originally wanted). I mean, that's certainly one way of making a situation literally worse for the character. And it's a tactic that really works to drive up the drama. But for me, I still need to work on the other interpretation, that of taking a situation I wrote lame and didn't maybe put a ton of thought into, and I need to spin it, color it, connect it to my story and character in a way that makes it have more impact and more gravity. 

But I have a lot of respect for any writer who can deny me everything I want, yet keep me hooked. And if things work out too happily in too many situations, I can honestly say that I don't remember what happened in the story I just got done reading. So maybe I'm just shooting for memorable? Not more shocking or more brutal. There's enough of that, and personally, I consider it a cheap tactic if it doesn't mesh with the story's overall tone. Yeah, I'm going for honest, real, and raw. I want to deny readers the neat little scenes they thought they wanted and instead give them something they'll remember, even if it means they didn't like it because it made them mad or uncomfortable. That probably sounds counterintuitive. I think it's brilliant. It's been a long time since I felt this feeling inside of being in love with my tormentor, in a sense. But now that I'm feeling it again, I remember all the books I read that I loved because they made me laugh or gave me a satisfied joy. And those were nice. But there were only a few, maybe five, that I'll love forever because they were the opposite. They punished my dreams and made me watch. They killed that character I desperately wanted to live. They took a characters dreams and threw them into the sea, making sure she could never have what her heart desired. And yet, I loved those books and will never forget them. Those characters in some ways felt more real to me. Because we had suffered together. 

And all I'm saying, is that right now, my characters won't do that for a reader. My plots won't. My stories won't. They might be complete, with a beginning, middle, and ending, but they're not gripping. They have good parts, scenes that blow people's socks off, but overall, they fall short of being memorable. So that's why I need to up the ante, make it worse, and push the envelope. Make the conflicts more weighty. Make the characters more unique. Make the situations more intense.


----------



## Miskatonic

I recall a movie screenwriter seminar I watched that treated the story like a roller coaster track, or if you want, a sign wave with highs, lows, mids, with varying degrees of tension. The teacher had a good quote to describe what the average movie should have as far as tension or disasters. I'll try and see if I can find it.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Make it worse will work in some cases. It will also completely destroy a story in other cases. This is where the art of story telling comes in.

Look lets just look at Stephen Donaldson. His first trilogy of Thomas Covenant, lots of tension, beutiful prose, a compelling world build, wonderful characters, and a story that naturally flowed. Lovely work with just a hint of the bleakness which came in later.

Then he started following this grimdark / make it worse meme, and you can see the progression in his work. The second trilogy of Thomas Covenant. The mirror of her dreams duology. And ultimately the Gap series. Each one progressively darker / worse than the last. In each one the heroes were put through more and more shit. And what happened? His readership changed. Large chunks of those who loved the first Thomas Covenant trilogy couldn't stand the Gap series. I stopped readiong him about then despite the fact that as I have said repeatedly, for my money he's one of the best fantasy writers in the world. Those who took up reading the Gap series often didn't like the original Thomas Covenant.

And here's the thing. The reason I stopped reading the Gap series was simply because it had been made so much worse that there was no light left for me at the end of the tunnel. His characters were all so horribly damaged by the first part of thesecond book, that even if they had survived, found true love, infinite riches, becomes lords of all and achieved every goal imaginable, they would still have been better off killing themselves long before.

The upshot is that you can go too far with any meme. Make it worse is just as vulnerable to being the genesis of a literary disaster as any other.

And as for the reality meme - as in "it's more real because it's darker and shit happens in real life" well that's shit too. Yeah people survive being robbed and beaten. How many people do you know who get robbed and beaten, then a week later get raped, the month after that watch their mother be butchered, then the house burns down etc etc. It's fiction. It's no more real than anything else.

As for Game of Thrones, it suffers for me because of this meme. As a reader I want to identify with characters. I want to cheer them on. Yet every time I found one I could do that for he ended up dead - usually horribly. And there was this overirding theme through the books, if you have any moral decency you're going to suffer and die. Only the sick and twisted win. Ignoring the obvious issues I have with this theme, as a reader who wants to identify with characters, I am not going to identify with sick, twisted little shits, and I'm not going to cheer them on. So if you've killed off all my heroes and corrupted the rest, why am I going to keep reading? And the answer is I won't.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## FifthView

psychotick said:


> this grimdark / make it worse meme



I really think that the discussion in this thread would not veer toward strong antagonism if we could dispense with this false conflation.

Maybe grimdark has its own particular form of "make it worse" — although, when everything is so bad and new layers of bad keep being added, with no break, perhaps the very sense of "making it worse" is dulled for a reader.  If I see no hope in sight and can expect with some certainty that very few threads of light will appear in the uniform darkness, I might not feel that any new terribleness that occurs is a _worse condition_; maybe, it's only an expansion, an extension of the already-terrible condition.  All of one cloth.

I have this feeling that some anti-GoT/ASOIAF sentiment is clouding this thread.*  While considering the limitation of GRRM's approach can be a good thing, he is not The Father of Making It Worse.  _He_ doesn't define "making it worse."  So I don't believe that arguing against the usefulness of making it worse is necessary to prop up anti-GRRM sentiment.  (I am not saying that disliking ASOIAF is a bad thing, but only that conflating its nature with "making it worse" as if that is all "making it worse" means, is a poor approach in my opinion.)

_*Edit:_  More generally, disliking a particular approach like "making it real" is also off-base, for the same reasons.



> And as for the reality meme - as in "it's more real because it's darker and shit happens in real life" well that's shit too. Yeah people survive being robbed and beaten. How many people do you know who get robbed and beaten, then a week later get raped, the month after that watch their mother be butchered, then the house burns down etc etc. It's fiction. It's no more real than anything else.



The real point is that people who are NOT repeatedly raped, robbed, beaten, etc., still have ups and downs in their lives, obstacles before them that must be overcome—surprise, unexpected obstacles, even.  Maybe not daily, true.  But many stories simply aren't written about people drifting along with nothing of particular significance happening.  Nor, about people living in perpetual Pleasantville.

So I'm reminded a little of this:


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, I really think some people are misunderstanding the term. Make it worse does not mean rape, or murder or body count. Make it worse means "make it worse for your character".... particularily in regards to choice. 

Maah's asks you to make a list of the ten things your character could never do. Or, a list of ten worst things that could happen to your character _other than death._ There are many things that could be worse than death or rape for a person. For example, for me: 

- Having to choose between my two children terrifies me. What if there was a fire in my house and I could only save one? That would be worse than death for me. 

When my little girl was sick with meningitis at 8 weeks they made me leave the hospital room so they could perform the spinal. That was terrifying for me. I sat in the waiting room and cried because I felt like I had abandoned her. I took those feelings and realized they had great story potential. 

I was able to develop a character, a Cheiftess. This Cheiftess was head of a vast nation of people (based on the First Nations people of my region). It had been the worst and longest winter they had ever seen and when the people caught a terrible illness they didn't have enough of the medicine they usually use. The people were dying. Her infant girl, only a few days old was dying. 

These people were also at war with another tribe, who, because of their location along the mouth of the river had more access to trade from other regions. They had medicine from all over the world. 

So what did the woman do? She choose to leave her dying daughter and hike through the snow and ice to trade for medicine with a tribe she was at war with, with the one thing she knew they couldn't refuse. _Herself._ 

She turned herself, and her people as slaves over to the enemy, just so she could take some medicine back to her little girl in hopes that she might survive. 

Tough choice. 

But  dang, that kind of stuff makes for great story material. 

There was a WW2 story a few years back where a little Jewish girl who was being taken from her home had to choose between staying with her brother and have him be taken too, or hide him. She made the choice to lock him in the cupboard in her room, thinking she would come back for him. She never did. The entire book was based on the reprecussions of that choice. 

These are some heavy choices! And that is what Maah's is trying to get at. Be brave. 

For anyone more interested in this stuff, and pushing your characters further in order to create more compelling stories, here are some great worksheets for brainstorming from Maah's: 

http://www.writersdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/BreakoutWorksheets1.pdf

The link for the other worksheet isn't working, so I could only get the first one.


----------



## FifthView

Yeah.  I think that if someone encounters the phrase "make it worse" and thinks it means "make it grimdark," then I can understand why they might say that _making it worse_ is horrible advice.  What they are really saying is _make it grimdark_ is horrible advice.  Many great stories can be made that are not grimdark.

But it clouds the discussion.  (Even though, yes, the grimdark approach can be looked at, in addition to other approaches, when discussing making things worse.)


----------



## Heliotrope

Oh, gosh, another example of "make it worse"... a true story... but probably one of the most beautiful stories of my life... 

I have a friend (older), very religious... homophobic. What would be his worst fear? 

You guessed it. 

His son wrote him a letter explaining his sexuality on his eighteenth birthday. 

Make it worse, 

The eighteen year old boy had a heart attack that year when on a run. 

Nothing makes you readjust your priorities and change your tune like that does. 

My friend had to to a total 180. It was hard. It was gut wrenching. It was the most amazing story of love, compassion, and forgiveness I have ever seen. 

That stuff makes good stories.


----------



## FifthView

I take it he survived the heart attack?  So, yeah, there can be silver linings to the dark clouds.

Back to the written form...

A couple days ago I started reading _The Lies of Locke Lamora_ for the first time.  The first two chapters, about their scheme to snare money from Don Salvara, are filled with resounding success.  The only minor glitch happened in the first chapter, when a patrol of guardsmen was going to pass the alley where they'd set up their "stage" to trick Salvara into "saving" them.  But the young character Bug interceded and had to run off chased by the guards.  The glitch was so minor, I resist calling it a case of "make it worse."  Otherwise, the two chapters are an example of building up and highlighting the competency of the Gentlemen Bastards.  No making it worse.  And I love it.

This is something I do particularly like when it is done well:  Having a character or set of characters display extreme talent, genius, and so forth.

I presume that later chapters will throw some wrenches into the works.  But please, no spoilers.


----------



## Ireth

I have a few examples of this in my novels. One from WINTER'S QUEEN come to mind.

- Vincent and Dom, the father and uncle of the MC, are hiking through Faerie in search of her when they come upon a band of goblins.
Worse: The goblins are not friendly, and their idea of "play" is to run the men down and torment them once they're caught.
Worse: Night is falling, which means Vincent and Dom can't see very well, but the goblins can just fine.
Worse: Vincent and Dom are separated and can't protect each other.

Worse for Vincent: He's caught by the goblins, disarmed and tied to a tree, while they hit him with fruit and destroy his belongings.
Worse: Once the goblins leave (and he's still tied up), a Leannan Sidhe marks him as her target to drain his energy.

Worse for Dom: He falls down a hill and runs into toxic brambles, which paralyze one of his legs so he can't walk well, and certainly can't run.
Worse: The goblins abandon him, knowing that a Redcap is in the area which will surely kill him if it finds him.
Worse: Redcaps have magical immunity to iron, and a cast-iron frying pan is Dom's only weapon.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah. He survived.

So in LLL I'm wondering what the stakes were? Having high enough stakes can be a way of "making it worse", and readers will read through all kinds of stuff, even if not too much is happening, if the stakes are high enough. Does that make sense? 

That is something that Maah's talks about alot, private as well as public stakes. There needs to be both. If the stakes are high enough you don't have to throw too much action at the reader. 

Plus, creating interesting (I won't say likeable, we've been down that road before) characters is highly important to having high stakes.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> So in LLL I'm wondering what the stakes were? Having high enough stakes can be a way of "making it worse", and readers will read through all kinds of stuff, even if not too much is happening, if the stakes are high enough. Does that make sense?



Yeah, I guess that might be a case of _making the initial conditions worse_, like already discussed in earlier comments.  

In the lengthy and, for me, enjoyable prologue, it's very well established that some people within the city cannot be robbed, in order to keep the peace.  (Authorities turn a blind eye.)  If the wrong people are robbed, that would bring mayhem down on the thief class, so even the thieves self-regulate.

But Locke's targeting one of those untouchables, and the payoff will be extremely huge in comparison to anything mentioned in the prologue.  So the reward is great and the potential punishment is also great.

I remember one book I tried reading last summer that went about it wrong.  The book was so horrible on so many levels, I'm tempted to break my normal rule and name it and the author both.  But I won't.  In this book, the author obviously wants to build up the band of adventurers, make them seem highly competent.  So basically, very quickly into the book, chapter after chapter after chapter is nothing but one long battle drawn out, with new opponents and situations arising.  Yeah, death is a potential "punishment," but meh.  And there's no establishment of a great reward.  The whole thing played out like one of those video games where, as soon as you complete one stage, a new set of opponents emerge in the next room/on the next street.  There was almost no character development.  I only made it through a handful of chapters, once the battle started, until I gave out.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, and that's what I mean when I talk about how this works in planning... 

I want them to rob a guy. 

Make it worse. 

Maybe this guy is unrobbable? How would that work? (World building in progress...hmmm, maybe certain people can't be robbed? Why....? More world building... ) 

Make it worse 

Hmmm, what would the punishment be? Maybe he will be thrown in jail? 

Make it worse 

No, that is lame. It has to be worse than that. What could be worse? He could be killed? 

Make it worse 

No, that is lame too. How can I increase the public stakes? How can I make this worse than just his own life? Maybe it would affect all the theif class.. maybe it would destroy his friends and everything.... hmmmmm... more world building.... 

Make it worse 

Video game story plot makes me insane too.

So as I mentioned before, Maah's notes that the #1 reason they reject manuscripts is because of lack of tension. This does not mean too low of body count. They mean the stakes are just not high enough (or the stakes are just death... which is boring. Find something worse than death). There is not enough going in the world to compell the reader. There is not enough going on in the heart and mind of the character to compell the reader. It may be lots of episodic action, but it is shallow.


----------



## FifthView

Incidentally, perhaps this "making initial conditions worse" idea works at the granular level too.  

So suppose you want to show the competency of your assassin MC.  He could just slip through an open window, avoid servants going about their business, slip into the bedroom of the lord of the manor, and slice his throat while he's sleeping.

Or, he could have to scale the exterior of the manor while guards and guard dogs are patrolling below, walk a narrow ledge around to the side of the manor, leap to grab a stone gargoyle, and haul himself up to a window that is locked.  He could succeed marvelously doing all this, so no "making it worse" by dropping one of his tools and hitting a guard dog on the head and so alerting the manor's guards.  But the stakes are a little higher, the risk inherent in his activity is greater.  

To amp things up a little more, perhaps he has to kill the man not for some heavy coin purse (a normal business transaction for the assassin) but because this minor noble had kept his young apprentice assassin in chains for a weak, torturing the poor lad, and had gained information about the assassin that simply cannot be information known to anyone with the ear of the king.

Edit:  Hah, I was typing the above when you posted your last comment.  So maybe we are on the same track.


----------



## Heliotrope

You've got it.


----------



## Heliotrope

That's what I consider the inherent tension of a story. The tension that's built into the story itself. When you gave the character sisters you immediately added inherent tension. Public stakes. If you have enough inherent tension you don't have to have a ton of action.


----------



## Chessie

FifthView said:


> Yeah.  I think that if someone encounters the phrase "make it worse" and thinks it means "make it grimdark," then I can understand why they might say that _making it worse_ is horrible advice.  What they are really saying is _make it grimdark_ is horrible advice.  Many great stories can be made that are not grimdark.
> 
> But it clouds the discussion.  (Even though, yes, the grimdark approach can be looked at, in addition to other approaches, when discussing making things worse.)


Good point. I'm glad this was brought up, because there's totally a difference between making it worse and grimdark. SUB GENRE. 

I was thinking about this thread last night as I was writing, and something came to me. Recently (as of like, just the past few months), I've been thinking more about genre expectations and reader entertainment. I say reader because audience is just too big of an idea to me.

But to make a story worse for the characters isn't just to keep conflict and tension in the story, it's for readers to become emotionally invested. If you're not challenging your characters, pushing them to become changed people, then...what's the story again?

Readers pick up a book to FEEL something. The challenges characters go through in the course of a story allows the reader plenty of chances to jump on the magic carpet of emotion. They become invested in the outcome because they need to know what happens.

So genre is tied directly into this because HOW you make things worse/challenge your characters depends on the genre, which is directly tied into reader expectations. In a cozy mystery, there's gotta be more than one murder so the sleuth is pressured to solve the crime before more people die. In our fantasy genre, making it worse could mean the dark lord captures the princess and holds her in a tower, challenging the prince to a battle which will decide all of their fates. Just another thing to keep in mind.


----------



## Heliotrope

Chesterama, exactly. Thank you so much. That is important. Every scene (I believe) should be viewed in how it adds to the emotional journey of the character. Every make it worse should inherently mean something to the character. 

So in fifthviews example of the assassin, I would try to mine for the emotion and make it worse: 

He's afraid of heights? He fell from a tree as a child? 
The guy he is killing is connected to him somehow? 
He breaks into the castle to find that they don't just have his apprentice, but the holy relic they've been looking for, and he has to choose?


----------



## Sheilawisz

I do see the usefulness of this advice, at least in moments when you need to take a scene that seems too weak and make it stronger and more challenging for the characters. In any case I would call the advice _More Challenge!_ instead of Make it Worse, because the word Worse implies that you are making your characters suffer more than they need.

Also, have you considered that not all scenes need to be as challenging as possible, and that sometimes a more relaxing chapter is simply a legitimate and necessary part of the story?

I wanted to share an example as how following this M.I.W. advice could have ruined one of my recently finished stories:

This story in particular starts with a very simple scenario: There is a Kingdom that is under attack from a mysterious and yet unseen Witch. The King wants to send his Wizards to destroy the Witch. The Prince disobeys orders to stay home, and goes after the Witch himself because there is something that he wants from her.

That's it, that was all that it took for the story to get started. The complications and adventure come later, as the story follows its natural evolution. Now let's see what could have happened if I had been impatient and wanted the story to be immediately more exciting, and tried to make it happen by means of the M.I.W. thing:

M.I.W.! _The King sends a Dragon after his son._

M.I.W.! _The Wizards revolt against the King._

M.I.W.! _A mysterious fire erupts in the castle._

M.I.W.! _The Queen is actually a spy from an enemy Kingdom._

These added elements would have ruined completely the story that had just started to grow, because instead of telling the story as it really happened I would have simply turned it into a disaster from the very start. Allargon would have never sent a dragon after Grass, the Wizards would never revolt against their King and Felicia is a million light years away from being a spy and a traitor.

The resulting mess would have gotten me tangled like it was a trap of barbed wire, I would be fighting to tell a broken story and most likely the project would have been abandoned out of frustration and hatred.

Instead of doing such a crazy thing, I allowed for the seemingly simple plot to continue. Very soon Alice Silverthorn showed up and I knew that I was in for a hell of a ride, not to mention that some time later Ella appeared all by herself and she became a much more important character than I could have ever anticipated.



Russ said:


> You seem to be reading more into this idea than is really there.  I did not suggest it needs to be done "every chapter" (though James suggests that that) or "constantly" but rather that "*overall*" (my actual word) the tension needs to increase towards the climax.
> 
> You also seem to suggest that making things worse necessarily increases complexity.  That is not true either.  If my hero is trying to lift 500 pounds over his injured dog, and another hundred pounds get added, the situation is not more complex but rather simply worse.
> 
> Too much complexity, too many characters, or plot holes are not necessarily outcomes of "making it worse" any more than a broken thumb or windows are a necessary outcome of using a hammer.



The way other people were describing the M.I.W. really were attempts to take a simple, seemingly boring concept to start a story and very quickly turn it into something much more complicated. You present it as simply an increase of challenge during a particular moment, which is a very different thing.

Some stories do follow the system of increasing the tension towards the climax, which could be compared to climbing a mountain and then descending only after you have reached the summit. My system is more similar to a roller coaster ride, in which the tension and conflicts grow but also decrease sometimes and there are relaxing chapters sometimes.

I think both systems are useful, it all depends on what the story needs and decides to do.

To present another wood-related analogy: Let's say that a person without much experience in artistic wood carving wants to do something cool. The recommended way would be to start with something simple, like the figure of a five-pointed star... However, the person thinks that it would be too lame and decides to carve a realistic eagle complete with its feather patterns and everything.

Carving the eagle would take a much greater amount of practice in the art, and it would require special, more advanced tools that the person does not really know how to use. This scenario is similar to a writer/storyteller that gets him or herself into a corner by putting way more complexity in a story than what was really necessary, which often results in a mess.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Guys,

So what you actually want to say now is that the advice isn't make it worse after all. It's make things more tense. You don't want to have your characters suffer more. You want them to be more anxious. That's fine. But my opening comments still stand. This is a meme. And memes are like practically everything else. Good servants and poor masters.

Making it tense may improve a book. But it may also completely destroy one. Think of some of the great reads out there and ask yourself - are they about tension? Catch 22 - one of my faves - not really. Stranger in a Strange Land? Don't think so. Most detective books? Not so much. So why add tension if the book isn't about that? Will it improve the read? Or damage it?

Again this is where the art of the story teller comes in. So the advice should be add tension - where it will add to the story / to the readers enjoyment. But don't add it where it won't. Think about what your stories about. Is it a story that relies on tension? Does it rely on it in parts and not in other parts? Then add that tension where it will help and remove it where you don't want it.

Just this morning I got a review on my latest work which sid among other things that there was too much violence. It was actually a good review, so I'm not complaining at all. But my point is that the violence was amped up a little bit during the battles because of my beta reader saying that she felt it lacked it. That the battles didn't feel real and weren't tense enough. So I added a bit, salted it as they say. And made the battles more close and more personal. Now I'm not saying that I regret doing that, or that it was wrong. What I am saying is that one of the underlying themes of my latest work is an exploration of power. What it means to be all powerful (in the fire wizardly sense of course!) And yet despite having all that power being essentially powerless in so many ways. Increasing the tension in the battle scenes decreased my MC's huge magical power advantage obviously, which in turn worked against my underlying theme. Bottom line, I had to write very carefully.

Telling people to just add tension and / or suffering is bad advice. Telling people to just use the active voice is bad advice. It's like telling artists to add black paint to their work when this may interfere with the overall colour palette of the work, and hence its meaning / aesthetic. Telling people to do just anything is bad advice. The correct advice is to use what works for your story in your judgement.

You are an author. An artist. You should have your own aesthetic. One based on your own vision for the work. And you shouldn't be compromising that aesthetic.

Donald Maas to bring things back to the OP, is an agent. His concern though he may be passionate about books, is about selling books to publishers. And what he's worked out at the risk of doing him a dissaervice, is that suffering / tension sells. He's seen the success of GOT etc and said, this sells. And I suppose that's fine. Save that next year sex may sell and his new meme may be "sex it up". And the year after that mystery may be king and his meme could be "write it strange".

And just to be clear, I'm an author making a living from my sales. I like selling. I liked that "The Arcanist" was a hit. I like that "Samual" seems to be heading in that direction. But I would hate it if I had compromised my work simply to appeal to what sells.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Chessie

psychotick said:


> And just to be clear, I'm an author making a living from my sales. I like selling.
> Cheers, Greg.


Which makes your points all the more valid. Aka, I learn more about this business from midlist authors paying their bills with their books vs outliers, dead authors, and agents with a different agenda. Just saying.


----------



## Heliotrope

Psychotic, either I'm not explaining myself clearly, or you are missing a key thing to what I'm trying to say. 

I find it really interesting that you used Catch 22 as an example, because I would say that Catch 22 is a perfect example of what I'm trying ot argue! lol. 

Catch 22 and Detective Books are full of tense! Catch 22 is exactly what I'm saying because there is no right choice... the  tension of "what is he going to do?" is built right into the story! This is what I'm saying! This is what you want! Detective books are the same... the tension is built into the story through the choices that need to be made. The clues that need to be uncovered. 

_Just this morning I got a review on my latest work which sid among other things that there was too much violence. It was actually a good review, so I'm not complaining at all. But my point is that the violence was amped up a little bit during the battles because of my beta reader saying that she felt it lacked it. That the battles didn't feel real and weren't tense enough. So I added a bit, salted it as they say. And made the battles more close and more personal. Now I'm not saying that I regret doing that, or that it was wrong. What I am saying is that one of the underlying themes of my latest work is an exploration of power. What it means to be all powerful (in the fire wizardly sense of course!) And yet despite having all that power being essentially powerless in so many ways. Increasing the tension in the battle scenes decreased my MC's huge magical power advantage obviously, which in turn worked against my underlying theme. Bottom line, I had to write very carefully._

This ^^^^^ Is exactly what I'm saying NOT to do! I'm agreeing with you in every possible way, but on the other side of the coin. I'm saying that tension is NOT violence. When a reader says there is not enough tension, they are not saying it needs more voilence, or more blood, or more battles, or more action. Tension is not any of those things. Tension is Catch 22. Tension is that deep, inherent choice that the character has to make. Tension is the inner conflict. You can't get that by upping the ante in a fight scene. 

_Donald Maas to bring things back to the OP, is an agent. His concern though he may be passionate about books, is about selling books to publishers. And what he's worked out at the risk of doing him a dissaervice, is that suffering / tension sells. He's seen the success of GOT etc and said, this sells. And I suppose that's fine. Save that next year sex may sell and his new meme may be "sex it up". And the year after that mystery may be king and his meme could be "write it strange"._

This is absolutely NOT what he is saying. I really feel like you are missing the point here. He uses all levels of fiction as examples, and he is not at all telling authors to sex it up, or try to be like Game of Thrones. He is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that violence without tension is boring. Explosions without tension are boring. Action without choice, consequences, stakes that matter, emotion... is boring. 

Give your character a Catch 22. Dig deep.


----------



## Drakevarg

Geez, this was an explosive thread.

My two silver would be to simply note that *high stakes != audience interest.*

In my experience, NOTHING is more effective at killing an audience's interest in a story than realizing that nothing is going to get better. I have legitimately watched entire shows where basically nothing of consequence happens at any point, and they're some of my favorite things to watch. Low tension only bores an audience if there isn't anything to the story but tension. It can be more enjoyable just to observe two engaging characters eat lunch and have a pleasant conversation than it is to see them have a fight in the rain on the rooftop of a burning cathedral.

In contrast, why would I want to read a never-ending parade of people's dreams being crushed without variance or relief? I could replicate that sensation by simply watching a piece of roadkill decay on the street while eating a sandwich made entirely out of ingredients I hate. Stories are called ARCS for a reason. Every fall needs to have a complimentary rise. The worse you make things for your cast the more satisfying that eventual rise needs to be, otherwise your audience will eventually catch on that the situation is hopeless and there is absolutely no reason to invest in the story because the road doesn't go anywhere but deeper into a pit of refuse.

Despite every writer and their dog banging the 'tension is everything' gong, I've never actually seen a story fail because the stakes were too low. If the stakes are low and the story fails, it's almost always because I didn't actually care about the cast. And you don't make me care about a character by spilling their juicebox, kicking their puppy and burning their house down. You make me care about a character by making them interesting people. By contrast, I can stop caring about interesting people if the stakes get too high because why should I waste the emotional energy? They're doomed anyway, so why keep watching? If I leave and hear about the outcome later I can generally assume that whatever it was it was miserable.

I'm a big believer in the "Earn Your Happy Ending" trope. And viewed in the right light, it even gels well with this whole "Make It Worse" thing. The harder it is to reach that happy ending, the more satisfying it can be when you finally reach it and declare "_this was worth it._" So by all means, make it worse. Drag your characters through the mud and jagged glass until they're little more than a mass of filth and scar tissue.* But make it goddamn pay off with something.*


----------



## Reilith

Drakevarg said:


> I'm a big believer in the "Earn Your Happy Ending" trope. And viewed in the right light, it even gels well with this whole "Make It Worse" thing. The harder it is to reach that happy ending, the more satisfying it can be when you finally reach it and declare "_this was worth it._" So by all means, make it worse. Drag your characters through the mud and jagged glass until they're little more than a mass of filth and scar tissue.* But make it goddamn pay off with something.*



Well, I don't see what the problem is with this thread? The way Helio and the others explained it was exactly this! And it is exactly how I feel about "make it worse". It is far more rewarding to see characters win after so many failures and tension.

I would also like to add that if you are using "make it worse" you must make sure that the consequences of it are visible, even in victory. Look at Katniss at the end of the third book for example. You can make your MC walk through fire and come out a victor, but if it doesn't leave any scars, it's not going to be beliveable.

Sent from my HTC Desire 820 using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I seriously think some folks have gone completely off the rails with this thread. Kind of amusing in a weird sort of way.


----------



## Heliotrope

I know. I'm sorry. I get so carried away about these topics because I feel very passionately about them, and then when someone doesn't understand the teacher in me wants to hold everyone after class to explain it for the four hundredth time


----------



## Drakevarg

Reilith said:


> Well, I don't see what the problem is with this thread? The way Helio and the others explained it was exactly this! And it is exactly how I feel about "make it worse". It is far more rewarding to see characters win after so many failures and tension.



With the thread as a whole? Nothing in particular. But I came in after the fact, so I was pitching my views as applied to the whole discussion from start to finish, not just with the most favorable conclusions reached within.

That said, I still say tension is overrated. "Happy Bear's Nice Day in Pleasantville" can easily be a fully enjoyable story as long as Happy Bear and Friendship Dog are interesting people you like seeing interact with each other. If anything it can be a more interesting read simply by virtue of how hard it is to keep a story going without raising the stakes. Anyone can invoke Chandler's Law and kick the story into gear by making a ninja attack squad bust through the window. It's much harder to simply make the characters think of something interesting to talk about for the next few pages.

Obviously that's an exaggeration to make a point, most stories should hopefully be somewhere in the middle. But seriously, there are kinds of engagement besides adrenaline rush.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Kipper the Dog is one of the happiest nothing ever really goes wrong shows in the universe, but still, there is micro-tension.

But let's look at some hard core literature... If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk, when you give him the milk, (note that little comma there as we move to the next page... that's right, it's tension... what the hell is that danged mouse going to want next!?) 

he'll probably want a straw. 

Every page, we know that mouse is going to want something else, do something else... what is it, oh what is it!? What trouble, what mess might he make? That silly, demanding little mouse! 

Tension tension tension. Make it worse... in these children's examples the worse is very lightweight and that's great, it still works... the mouse's mom doesn't need to be eaten by a cat, heh heh, but the principle is the same. Folks get worked up over nothing.


----------



## Heliotrope

Ok, Ok... This will be my last post I promise  

I really think the issue here is with terminology. I think that is where people are getting confused... So at risk of totally embarrassing myself, I will try to clarify as best I can: 

*Tension:* Tension = tense. That feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you are nervous about something. Tension is created by posing questions to the reader that they need to have answered. They get that 'tense' feeling and they want it releived. Creating tension comes from posing that over arching question at the beginning of a scene or story: 

"Will the boy and girl get together and live happily ever after?" 
"Will the girl out smart her stepsisters?" 
"Will they find the treasure and pay off their debts?" 
"Will they defeat the alien invasion?" 

These questions stick with the reader through the whole story. That tension in their gut stays until the story is complete. That is _inherent_ tension. It is tension built right into the story itself. 

*Inner Conflict:* Conflict = Choice. Preferably a catch 22. A choice that has no good options. 

The girl is stuck in the Hunger Games with a boy who loves her. Only one will survive. We know she is the stronger. Will she kill him? Or will she let him kill her? 

That is inner conflict. The choice. The catch 22. But it does not have to be violent! 

The teenage girl is pregnant. She wants to keep her baby but knows she has no future. Will she give the child up for adoption, never to see it again? OR will she keep the baby she loves? 

Inner conflict also poses questions to the reader, and lasts through the duration of the story. The inner conflict is what drives the character to move forward and make choices and suffer. Inner conflict is what adds gut wrenching emotional impact to a story. 

*Outer Conflict:* Fights. Arguments. Obsticles. Stuff in the way. Bad things happening. Zombies. 

Ok... so what I'm trying to explain with "make it worse" is NOT outer conflict. I'm not saying have more fights, or more battles, or more adrenaline. Please don't think that is what this is about. 

Make it worse is about increasing the _tension_ (The over arching question of the novel sitting in the reader's gut) and the _Inner conflict_, the other over arching question sitting in the reader's gut. If these questions are big enough, you can have no outer conflict at all and the reader will be engaged. 

I will use two examples. 

*Elysium*

Ok, so I chose a Sci-fi. The main character is trying to live a good life. He is trying to stay away from stealing cars (something he used to do). He has a decent (crappy) job. He gets hit with some radiation and needs medical help, but the only medical help is up on a fancy man made ship called Elysium, where all the richy's live. 

Over arching question: Will he get the help he needs before he dies. 

Inner Conflict: The writers ramped up the inner conflict in a few ways. First, they make him go back to his old crime boss (something he swore he would never do) to ask money to get to Elysium. He has to do a nasty job for the crime boss. Second, at the inner city hosptital he runs into a girl he used to love, and her daughter has cancer. Yep. Is he going to save himself? Or is he going to save the girl? Inner conflict. 

*The Notebook*

So we can get away from adrenaline and violence for a minute. 

Tension: Are the two love birds who are obviously meant for each other going to overcome their differences and get together? 

Inner Conflict: The girl wants to please her parents, but she wants to be with the boy. She wants to love her new fiance, but she misses the boy.... 

So long as the reader is invested in the characters and the large over arching questions then you are golden. You don't need to have huge bloody war scenes to keep people interested. 

So, how do you make readers invested in characters and over arching questions? 

You make it worse. Lol. 

Here is my last example of the night  I promise. 

Article A 

_Bob gripped the leather steering wheel. His heart throbbed. He wasn't sure what was more concerning: The fact that he had just seen a UFO hovering over Chicago, or the fact that if that were true, then the pot he had just puffed back at Slap Jack’s hadn't been as pure as was promised. Either way, alien’s or hallucinations, both would be preferable to what was waiting for him with Martin if he delivered bad weed. 

“Shit,” he said, and let his eyes close. It was this god-damned job. He needed some rest. He needed to get off the road. 

Veering off to the edge of the 94 Bob took a ciggarete from his back pocket.  His mouth felt dry. He needed a Coke. 

He opened his eyes when this smoke went out. Beyond his windshield Chicago exploded._

Ok, so in this opening scene we have a drug runner, all alone, hates his job, smoking. Then Chicago explodes (maybe from aliens). What does this guy have to lose? Not too much so far. He is a criminal. He doesn't care about anyone (yet). Does the reader care that Chicago exploded? Not so much. I mean, it sucks, but it is not enough yet. There is not enough story there. 

How could I make this worse? How could I make this more compelling? How could I make him have more to lose? More at stake? 

What if I gave him a family? What if I gave him a wife that he loved and a daughter? 

Article 2 

_Bob gripped the leather steering wheel. His heart throbbed. He wasn't sure what was more concerning: The fact that he had just seen a UFO hovering over Chicago, or the fact that if that were true, then the pot he puffed back at Slap Jack’s hadn't been as pure as was promised. Either way, alien’s or hallucinations, both would be preferable to what he’d have waiting for him with Martin if he delivered bad weed. 

“Shit,” he said, and let his eyes close. It was this god-damned job. He needed some rest. He needed to get off the road. How much longer are you going to do this, Bob? Julie’s voice reverberated through his head. She hadn’t been as angry as he would have liked. If she had been angry it would have been easier to walk away. 

Veering off to the edge of the 94 Bob took his phone from his back pocket and  pressed Julie on the screen. For a time he wondered if she would just let him hang. There was a click. Then, 

“What?” 

“Can I say good-night?” His mouth felt dry. He needed a Coke. 

“Fine.” Silence.  A voice. 

“Hello, Daddy.” 

“Hello, baby…” Bob opened his eyes when the phone went dead. Beyond his windshield Chicago exploded._

Ahhhhhh, now we are getting somewhere. Now Bob has something to care about. Something to fight for. Something to find when these aliens descend. Bob has something to live for and the reader has something to hold on to. Bob is not just going to fight aliens, he is going to make up with his wife, save his daughter, maybe straighten out his life. There is more to this story then just aliens. 

The action is the same. The explosions are the same. The outter conflict is the same... and yet the story is deeper. More impact. Because I made it worse for Bob.


----------



## FifthView

I was going to bring up Winnie the Pooh running out of honey, or the Tigger tension....


----------



## Sheilawisz

Heliotrope, you are giving way too much importance to the Tension of a story.

Having enough tension is of course very important, but there are other elements that are part of stories too. Some Fantasy stories are all about adventure while others are about tragedy, others can be a comedy and so on. Each story carries its own amount of challenges and tension, and that must be respected by the author of the story.

M.I.W. can be useful for helping with Tension, but it can also lead to the creation of too many divergences that may spin out of control and make the story much more complicated than it needed to be. This is why using M.I.W. as the primary force behind your Storytelling process is a dangerous advice, one that can ruin a good story before it even gets started.

You cannot expect that any story will get better simply by crying out _M.I.W.!_ and make it more tense and all that.

You are presenting Tension and M.I.W. like it was a perfect formula for incredible Storytelling, but the most tense story of the world is not necessarily going to be a good story in case it lacks other elements.

There are really no ideal formulas in our craft, because Storytelling is a form of art and not a science. I know that maybe I sound like crazy to you with all my talk about stories as living creatures, characters acting on their own and the idea that instead of creating a story we are reporting about something that really happened, and take me as crazy if you want, but I just wanted to protect people from what I consider to be a dangerous advice.

Good luck with your writing and storytelling.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Helio,

Catch 22 is not a war story. It is an anti-war book. It has only a minimal amount of tension in it, and it doesn't ramp up during the book's progression. Yossarian is in no more danger of immediate death and no greater fear of it at the end than he was at the beginning. Nor does his struggle change during it. He only wants out. 

The book is an essay and a critique on war. It's a brilliant analysis of war as a machine. A feberian style bureaucracy that lets nobody out. And Yossarian's struggle ends when he realises that the machine is  never going to let him go and it has no sanity as portrayed by the various generals etc behind it. No matter how many missions he flies he will always have to fly more. That is the catch 22. There is no out. Which means that his only solution is when he realises and accepts that he cannot beat the system so he must cheat it. And Yossarian himself is not so much a character as he is a representation of the little people caught up in the war machine.

The book would be very badly served by having the tension as you want to call it - though you seem to be broadening the definition - ramped up. It is meant to be what it is. A brilliant, poingnant to an extent, wickedly funny satire with a message about the war machine and the people's struggle within it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Ray M.

I'd think there's a fine line between "always making it worse" and just doing your best to write a realistic story. Martin himself has said that what can be found in ASOIAF "pales in comparison" to what can be found in a history book. His story feels natural, it's a story from life, events from which have likely happened in human history already. The storytelling principle to be learned here is that life in a cruel world like the medieval one can indeed make for a shocking and gut wrenching story. In a story where you inflict punishment upon punishment, you risk also throwing things in there which might not make sense, just for the sake of them being there. There's only a number of shitty things someone can go through in their lives, after that it becomes forced. I've read from writers who fall into the drama trap; their story sways away from reality because of all the drama they throw in there, it never ends and they keep throwing and it piles up. It becomes ugly after a while. Really ugly. For me, at least. So take care that you make it unfair for your characters, but not unfair for your story.

Now, if you feel like you have to go all the way with violence, in order to counterbalance the way your storytelling has been so far, then I'd say go for it (it has helped me in the past personally) - it might help you in the long run, if you learn to find the meaning in each violent act you commit as a writer.


----------



## Drakevarg

Ray M. said:


> Martin himself has said that what can be found in ASOIAF "pales in comparison" to what can be found in a history book. His story feels natural, it's a story from life, events from which have likely happened in human history already.



Except not even remotely, because ASOIAF is a never-ending parade of misery and death, and as horrible as things got throughout history it wasn't _only_ that _all_ the time. In Martin's world, everyone is a bastard and if you hand someone a sword they will immediately become a thieving rapist 99% of the time.

Yes, the real world can be worse. But the only reason we notice is because it _usually isn't._ It's precisely this reason that I was emphasizing the dangers of losing the audience with excessive grimness. If there's nothing in the forecast but relentless pain and disappointment, why bother continuing? Darkness finds meaning in contrast with light, otherwise you're just staring at pointless monotony.

Martin's failure as a writer is in that he is convinced that nobody will take his story seriously if characters can ever obtain any form of victory that doesn't immediately somehow turn around and leave them worse off than they were before. Which might have been engaging ramping of tension the first 17 times he does it, but after shocking failure number 51 it's hard to care anymore.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

It's fascinating how people have different views of ASOIAF. Good fun.    



Drakevarg said:


> Except not even remotely, because ASOIAF is a never-ending parade of misery and death, and as horrible as things got throughout history it wasn't _only_ that _all_ the time. In Martin's world, everyone is a bastard and if you hand someone a sword they will immediately become a thieving rapist 99% of the time.
> 
> Yes, the real world can be worse. But the only reason we notice is because it _usually isn't._ It's precisely this reason that I was emphasizing the dangers of losing the audience with excessive grimness. If there's nothing in the forecast but relentless pain and disappointment, why bother continuing? Darkness finds meaning in contrast with light, otherwise you're just staring at pointless monotony.
> 
> Martin's failure as a writer is in that he is convinced that nobody will take his story seriously if characters can ever obtain any form of victory that doesn't immediately somehow turn around and leave them worse off than they were before. Which might have been engaging ramping of tension the first 17 times he does it, but after shocking failure number 51 it's hard to care anymore.


----------



## FifthView

Demesnedenoir said:


> It's fascinating how people have different views of ASOIAF. Good fun.




Many of the characters have had resounding success.  Even Robb Stark and his mother experienced his many victories and election as King of the North before the Red Wedding happened.  In fact, that's one of the reasons I was one of those readers who threw the book down, pacing my room in absolute fury, when they were killed; he had been my favorite character and had been following the common path of "Victim successfully following a course of extreme revenge."


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Yesterday, while listening to a Writing Excuses podcast about Try/Fail cycles, this post came to mind. The podcast was largely devoted to the concept of making it worse for your characters. 

The example used was the opening sequence to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_. 

Indiana Jones finds the cave, but is covered in spiders. No big deal...moving deeper.

Indy finds the statue, but triggers the booby trap, a massive boulder, rolling toward him. 

Indy's partner clears the pit, but double crosses Indy to steal the golden idol for himself.

Indy leaps across the pit, finds his partner killed by another trap, retrieves the idol, but it is stolen from him again by a rival backed by dozens of native warriors. 

This opening sequence, and the movie as a whole, is one try/fail cycle after the next. It is a good example of "Making it worse" where it doesn't necessarily mean grim calamity pervading throughout the story.


----------



## Heliotrope

Thank you T.Allan, this is exactly what I'm trying to get at. And on a larger scale, they increase Indie's inner tension and conflict by making Marion not just a girl he meets, but a girl he has history with, adding sexual tension to the mix, as well as past conflict with her father.

Writing Excuses 10.29: Why Should My Characters Fail Spectacularly? | Writing Excuses

Ahhhhh, they talk about "yes, but... no, and" sequences, which is a wonderful way of looking at this. This is what I do when I write as well.. check for the "but".

They also get into how try/fail cycles must do more than just one thing. There needs to be a purpose behind the try/fail cycles besides just "I need action here". Which is also exactly what I'm getting at.


----------



## Heliotrope

But actually, I think this one is closer to what I'm getting at on a larger scale: 

Writing Excuses 7.47: Raising the Stakes | Writing Excuses

(How to raise the stakes without causing things to explode. How to raise the stakes without always resorting to danger.) 

Why is it important to raise stakes? Because that's how you keep people reading. 

Raising stakes = making things worse for the character. 

Rasing stakes = ratcheting up the _tension_ in many ways... not just violence. 

Making it worse is not always external. It means making it _matter more_ to the character. Making it more internal. Making it more intimate. 

Yep, this podcast is exactly what I'm trying to say. 

How can you raise the stakes (make things worse) in ways that are NOT explosions, violence, blood, battles, arguments etc.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I might have been onboard with throwing the book down at that point, except... the dude was going to get his own as soon as he screwed over Walder Frey (I think) and chose the wrong girl... that was the beautiful tension. When Robb agreed to marry a Frey, I thought, alright, this guy has a chance, he might come out of this alive, and then! You knew Robb was in deep doo-doo as soon as he let his heart (or manly appendage) get in the way of doing what needed done. At that moment, it wasn't a question of if, but how bad. 

That said, Robb was never my favorite, I liked him, but I pretty much knew he was doomed anyhow. 

In general characters are up and down in the books as far as their fortunes, but the downs tend to stick with people more so than the ups.



FifthView said:


> Many of the characters have had resounding success.  Even Robb Stark and his mother experienced his many victories and election as King of the North before the Red Wedding happened.  In fact, that's one of the reasons I was one of those readers who threw the book down, pacing my room in absolute fury, when they were killed; he had been my favorite character and had been following the common path of "Victim successfully following a course of extreme revenge."


----------



## FifthView

@Helio:  I think the one T.A. mentioned and you linked first is interesting for the way it addresses many of the things brought up in this thread.

For instance, near the end Mary gives this caution:

[Mary] There's one caution that I want to put in here when you're doing these yes-but, no-and's or try-fail cycles. It is that you want to watch out for plot bloat, which is that when you are introducing these conflicts that you do want to make sure that they are related to the central story that you are trying to tell. Because it's very easy to cause a complication for your character that opens up a whole new plot.​
So, that's a lot like what Sheilawisz was saying about not over-complicating things or building in too much complexity.  I'm not saying that either fully justifies the other view; but they do seem related.

There are other things mentioned, like having a satisfying success after many fails–a success tied to those fails; etc.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes. I think T.A.Allan's post is part of what I'm saying, and I do agree that can happen if you aren't careful, for sure. 

But I think I'm looking at something far more big picture in regards to stakes, and purposly planning your characters and situations to highten the stakes as much as possible. 

It’s easy to recognize the increasing stakes in Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea. In the first scenes, the stakes are centered on Santiago’s ability to catch a fish and, by doing so, restore his reputation. The stakes go up as Santiago struggles to reel in the biggest fish he’s ever encountered. Will he land the fish? Will the fish drag him too far from shore? Finally, the stakes go up again as he struggles to survive his ordeal at sea, especially when sharks are drawn to his boat.

Hemingway didn’t craft the story around a young man at the top of his game and at peak physical prowess. A fisherman with unwavering confidence and rippling muscles would not inspire the same kind of stakes (and thus tension) as an older man with so much to prove and gain or lose. Hemmingway also included a boy at the beginning, a sort of ward for Santiago. An orphan he is responsible for. 

Does that make sense? That is more of what I'm trying to explain... "making it worse" is not just about danger, or try fail cycles.. it is about purposly crafting your characters and your scenes for the most emotional impact...

Who has the most to lose in this situation? 
Who has the most to gain in this situatin?
Who could learn the most from this situation? 
How can I make it worse for them? How can I raise thier personal and public stakes? 
How can I make it matter more? How can I make it more personal/intimate?


----------



## FifthView

Demesnedenoir said:


> In general characters are up and down in the books as far as their fortunes, but the downs tend to stick with people more so than the ups.



As this thread developed, I've been thinking about the various characters of ASOIAF and how individual character arcs take different paths.  I've considered breaking out each character and looking at each arc to see which are unending worsening (or mostly so, like Sansa's) and which don't have as constant or as much worsening (Arya.)

But, that would be a very long project I think!  And then when you consider the more granular level, like the sort that T.A. brought up with the example of Indiana Jones, this complicates the matter.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Yeah, that would be a mess, LOL. Sansa has her hope moments... Really, once she is free of Joffrey... and then my brain starts blending books and series... from Joffrey, to Loras, to Tyrion, to Little Finger... she is actually on a bit of an upswing compared to some folks, LOL.

Now on HBO, her storyline broke off from the books I think, and she ends up with a psycho as high on the needs to die list as Joffrey was. I'm not a GoT/ASOIAF difference junkie so I can't keep everything straight, heh heh.



FifthView said:


> As this thread developed, I've been thinking about the various characters of ASOIAF and how individual character arcs take different paths.  I've considered breaking out each character and looking at each arc to see which are unending worsening (or mostly so, like Sansa's) and which don't have as constant or as much worsening (Arya.)
> 
> But, that would be a very long project I think!  And then when you consider the more granular level, like the sort that T.A. brought up with the example of Indiana Jones, this complicates the matter.


----------



## Miskatonic

At least the Red Wedding made sense within the context of the story.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> But I think I'm looking at something far more big picture in regards to stakes, and purposly planning your characters and situations to highten the stakes as much as possible.



I get that, but at some point we need to go from "big picture" to the "nuts and bolts," and I think this is the point that gives birth to some of the disagreement and/or miscommunication and/or antagonism we see springing up in this discussion.

But let me throw a wrench into this conversation between you and me, a _worsening_ heh.

In my earlier example, I gave a handful of conditions for my young orphan, and to me those starting conditions were enough, or at least seemed to be at the time.  Enough tension, stakes...fertile enough for a beginning basis for an interesting story.

But then your brainstorming added all these....complications, these bow-tying, grand themes etc.  And honestly, I kind of revolted from those suggestions, internally.  My initial feelings were, "Whoa there, hold up a minute!"

Now, I've mentioned previously elsewhere that plot is often my greatest weakness, i.e., coming up with a plot.  So if I added one of your ideas, of the government seeking out those infected individuals because it wants adrenaline-blinded soldiers...well, that could easily add a strong plot-line to the thing.  I want to stress that I don't think the various things you brainstormed were _bad_; any one of them could serve as the basis of a good plot.  But not for me.

So, it's the nuts-and-bolts, the _how worsening/tension is created/applied_, that becomes the issue, once we've realized that having meaningful stakes, a compelling journey from start to finish, etc., are important for a story.  And I think that different types of story, different styles of writing, and different author voices may have different nuts-and-bolts, different strategies for accomplishing those "big picture" things.  Relatively constant, certain worsening might work for some.  More widely-spaced plot-point worsening, with interludes of relative peace, success, and so forth, might work for other stories.  You get the idea.


----------



## Heliotrope

Totally. 

I will sheepishly step off my soap box now. As I feel like I've said as much as I can say. But I will leave a few articles for those more interested in the big picture: 

Fiction University: What's at Stake? How Do You Make Readers Care About Your Story?

How to Build Tension and Heighten the Stakes | WritersDigest.com

25 Things To Know About Your StoryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Stakes Ã‚Â« terribleminds: chuck wendig


----------



## Chessie

Heliotrope said:


> Does that make sense? That is more of what I'm trying to explain... "making it worse" is not just about danger, or try fail cycles.. it is about purposly crafting your characters and your scenes for the most emotional impact...
> 
> Who has the most to lose in this situation?
> Who has the most to gain in this situatin?
> Who could learn the most from this situation?
> How can I make it worse for them? How can I raise thier personal and public stakes?
> How can I make it matter more? How can I make it more personal/intimate?


Okay, just gonna jump in here real quick and say....

..._takes a long breath_...

That's waaaay too much information all at once. Not to throw a wrench in the toolbox but it's a good idea to remember that a lot of members on this site are still in the beginning stages of writing. And beginners focus a lot on prose, clarity, how to construct a story. These points are all valid and very important to keep in mind, but I'm afraid your level of detail might be more than a lot of new writers can chew.

Whether we outline or not, it's good to remember that writers grow in stages. Although I agree with what you're saying, Helio, I fear that you're making things too complicated. 

The challenges a character goes through in story must be tied into their flaws and the story goal. The try/fail cycles must have a purpose, yes. But instead of asking "how can I make this worse" maybe we could try, "how can character mess this up for herself and still grow in the process?"

One fantasy novella I read just recently featured a main character who was a prim and proper lady with a bit of a temper. She and her father have a horrid relationship, and throughout the story, she tries to maintain her civility with him. But her efforts are always blindsided by HIS temper, which provokes her into bad behavior. So here we have characters pushing against one another and growing/being challenged in the process.

There are other ways of arriving at this escalation of tension in story besides asking ourselves many questions of how to make things more difficult. The John Truby book I suggested earlier in this thread makes a marvelous point about character triangles, and how characters push and pull on one another to add tension to the story. Tension should come from within a character reacting to other characters and elements in the story.

So I guess what I'm saying is: We don't always have to ask how can I make this worse? I agree with Sheila and Psychotik about that particular question leading writers astray. It did so for me. I had the totally wrong impression. As writers, we're not constantly adding outside influence. Plot points (which I use even though I pants) are places in the story for the character to go deeper but not by endless suffering, but through events that come from Villain wanting what he wants and therefore pushing Character to react because she wants something and Villain is in her way. Simply put.

EDIT: @Fifthview, I love your response. Perfect.


----------



## Malik

I'm going to dissent, here. Raising the stakes doesn't always equate to making things worse. Making things potentially worse, now, there's an art form. And construing it to your readers without burying them in info-dumps? High art.

I personally think that this idea of unending downward spirals as the "New Gritty" is the next vampires fad. Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Better Caul Saul, GOT, Peaky Blinders, House of Cards. . . holy crap, let's have something go right once in a while. (And yes, those are all TV shows, but it's reflected in the literature of the time, as it's part of our national consciousness. What non-fantasy fan is reading any fantasy right now that's not ASOIAF?)

I'm seeing this with pieces that I critique, and it's coming up in more and more writing blogs. How dark can you get? How miserable can you make your character and still keep your readers? How many characters can you kill off? (Killing off beloved characters is the new sparkly vampire. Mark my words.) I mean, sure, this all deserves discussion, but we're going to be up to our ears in this stuff in five years.

Don't get me wrong, I write grit. One of my beta readers called my novel "A Connecticut Yankee in Westeros." It's dirty, it's sexy, it's gory, it's mean. But realistic ugly violence serves to show the seriousness of the situation, and thereby makes the reader think that the MC is in actual danger -- and to be fair, people are now getting used to this idea that any character can be snuffed at any moment, which gives us an interesting psychological advantage -- and this makes it extra nice when the MC wins sometimes. 

The steady worsening of the protagonist's situation is the basis of dramatic writing, but you also don't want be a dick to your readers. 

We can also break away from the three-act structure -- in which things constantly keep getting worse -- because, damn.








I structured my novel like a grand musical work, more or less a sonata with a primary theme, secondary theme, exposition, development, and recapitulation. I named the chapters according to the tempo and tone and even called the last chapter "Coda." I guess I could turn it into a libretto if I really wanted. . .. Hmm. "Dragon's Trail, the Musical." YMMV.


----------



## Heliotrope

I'm really sorry guys. I had no idea this concept was so explosive! 

I honestly thought it was pretty straighforward, stakes = tension. High stakes = high tension. 

The conversation kept coming back to grit and battles and violence, and I just kept trying to steer it back in another direction. There is another way. There is another way to make things worse than just violence. 

I guess I went too far? I don't know? I really just want to help people explore their stories and all the potential in their stories. I guess that is confusing for some people? I guess I was throwing too much out there? I don't know. I was merely trying to show how this could be used as a tool for brainstorming. Pushing the limits. Seeing how far you could take things, and then scaling back until you found something that worked. 

I'm really not sure how it got all blown up, and I feel terrible about it. 

To anyone I have offended, or confused, I'm really sorry. I'm also feeling slightly confused about how my words have been so misconstrued. 

I really just want to help people, and this is a very useful tool, when used properly. Using it to create grim dark, or add more violence, or thinking it is just all about try/fail cycles is not taking full advantage of the tool, and I've tried and tried to explain that, but I guess I can't. 

Again. I'm sorry. I feel like I have made an ass of myself, and perhaps even destroyed some relationships that I valued..

Please accept my apology.


----------



## Chessie

Helio, you don't have anything to apologize for! I personally appreciate how helpful you always try to be.  And this conversation is deep, lovely in its complexity. You merely added to the flavor and there's nothing to be sorry for.


----------



## Miskatonic

My MC has a limited form of immortality, kind of like Wolverine with his healing ability, but not as quick acting. So needless to say he can be put through some pretty bad situations. One story in particular pretty much has him "voluntarily" (accused of a crime he didn't commit and at the mercy of a military commander) infiltrating a castle in the form of allowing himself to be captured and put in the torture chamber. Basically he's there to psychologically break the sadistic prince (who has an issue with slight paranoia) that's in charge of the place while his father's away. At the end the MC's is almost at death's door and the prince is so psychologically wrecked that after the castle is taken by the aforementioned military commander and the king returns, he's been reduced to crawling on hands and knees, being lead around like a dog by a collar and chain. Won't look anyone in the eye, won't speak, only whimpers. 

The castle is almost impenetrable but when you have a mad prince running around, the defenses can fall under the right circumstances, especially with a little theatrical help from enemy soldiers to add to his madness.


----------



## FifthView

Helio:  I 100% agree with Chesterama's last comment.

If I might...One of the problems with focusing on a big picture statement that is abstract is that, as stated, it can come across as a universal and absolute.  "Make it worse" ... how?  Without qualifications, specifications, and so forth, it's like saying "make everything worse" or "make the story worse up and down and everywhere."  And so maybe when my MC eats a bowl of porridge, he has to burn his tongue so severely it becomes infected over time and he dies.

This does not mean, however, that it's a bad principle.  I think a review of this thread will reveal that many people agree with much of what you have said!


----------



## Penpilot

Chesterama said:


> These points are all valid and very important to keep in mind, but I'm afraid your level of detail might be more than a lot of new writers can chew.
> 
> Whether we outline or not, it's good to remember that writers grow in stages. Although I agree with what you're saying, Helio, I fear that you're making things too complicated.



But here's the thing, just because someone opperates at a higher level than others, does that mean they shouldn't bring up higher level concepts to discuss? 

If I walk into a discussion about quantum physices, I don't tell them to stop and lower the level of discussion to my level. The choices I have are I can listen and try to glean what I can, I can ask questions to improve my understanding, or I can walk away.

Writing IS complicated, especially when you get down to the nuts and bolts. One of the ways to simplify things, in any field of study, is to operate at a higher conceptual level. That's why we have macro level writing concepts, which goes all the way down to the micro level concepts. 

I find, from my experience, the beginning writer gets lost in the micro level concpets and pays way too much attention to them when they should be paying more attention to the macro level stuff. Because the macro level stuff tends to be more helpful in improving story.


----------



## Chessie

Penpilot, that's not what I meant at all. Sigh. That's the one thing that bothers me about discussions on this site is that people jump to conclusions that shouldn't even exist. I'm so exhausted about constantly having to explain myself on Mythic Scribes that I plain just give up.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Helio,

Nothing to apologise for as far as I can see. The fact that I don't agree with you necessarily doesn't mean that I have any objection to you stating it.

Chester, just looking at one thrust of your post 111, can I say that this isn't a particularly complex writing issue at all. I think most people would understand it easily enough. But to put my position in extremely simple terms - I disagree that there are or should be any absolutes in writing. There are no rules.

Look every time someone sets out a rule - you must do this or that - it gets turned into some sort of commandment - and inevitably it gets overused and starts damaging the writing / stories down the track. And that's the true danger for newer writers. Not that the debate or the rule is beyond them, but that they will start obeying it slavishly, without finding their own judgement / voice. And we see this again and again. New writers copying older books that they loved, but trying to do it more. More sex, more tension, more worsening, more love, more epic, more whatever. It's a pain reading the next Star Wars and realising - this is Star Wars amped etc. And how many GOT clones are out there where the worse just gets even worse?

So here's my rule. There are no rules. There should be none.

Advice for new writers is write the story you want to write. Be true to your story. Don't amp up something because someone has given you a rule. Amp up something because it's what works for your story. Amp it down if that's what works. You are an author - an artist - and the most important thing you have to do to make your work the best it can be is to find your voice. And a large part of voice is judgement. And if somebody tells you you should do this or that, listen, thank them for their advice - unless of course it's a rules thread etc where no one's specifically giving you advice, then sit back down and think - is this what I want to say? Is this what my story is about?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, and I guess this is where I need to step in and explain that I never meant to make this out to sound like a hard and fast rule. 

I see now that that was where the confusion lay. I never, ever meant to say this was gospel. I was trying to show that this tool is very useful in a few different ways: 

If a reader says "I got bored, here, not enough tension" - then it _might_ be something to check. How can you raise the stakes? How can you give the scene more impact? 

If you are story planning, it _can_ be an effective tool to brainstorm all the possible directions you can take a story. How far you could take it… (which is why I force myself to think of at least ten levels)… but then, or course scale it back to where you think it needs to be! I don't use all ten levels! But brainstorming them is helpful. 

The same goes for scene planning, character planning (like the Hemmingway example). Etc. 

I honestly never meant to say it was a hard and fast rule. I was just illustrating all the ways that it could be used. 

I was also trying to show that violence, sex, gore, etc were not the only ways to increase stakes or tension…there are so many other things that could be at risk, like reputation, livelihood, emotions, it isn't always life and death all the time, but for some reason that kept getting lost, and I'm not sure why? 

Anyways, please don't think I meant to be black and white. I really was trying to show all the possible uses for the tool and how they _could_ be effective if you needed that little extra push.


----------



## Chessie

psychotick said:


> Chester, just looking at one thrust of your post 111, can I say that this isn't a particularly complex writing issue at all. I think most people would understand it easily enough.


Okay, again, that isn't what I meant. I agree that the concept is simple, and my response to Heliotrope was right along the line of Fifthview's post in regards to how adding the extra questions she gave as an example complicated matters more. That's it. Not that people shouldn't discuss advance writing techniques or even that this is one. None. Of. That.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Wow, I go away for the weekend, and there's more pages on this thread I didn't thin would even resonate with folks, just wanting to muse on the off chance it helped someone else in my situation. HA!

So, for my personal situation, I've finished plenty of novels that are very middle of the road. I had character concepts and plot elements, but the real thing I was missing was tension. I had SOME tension, but I was missing some opportunities to make the story feel more real, with stakes apparent up front.

That was the heart of this realization for me. I needed to make some situations worse. I needed to put more at risk for the character. When i gave the GOT example, I was simply saying that that eye-opening experience cut straight to my heart, it made me realize how easy I'd made things sometimes for my characters because I felt it was logical. 

Here's the basic message I want to get across to you (since I just finally got it myself): If you have a character in a situation, it might feel exceptional "right" and logical for them to do THIS ONE THING next. Maybe it's a prisoner charged with something they didn't do, and you feel it's logical and fitting for him to be cleared of the charges. But there is an alternative. You can make it worse. You can deny the reader (and yours;f, the writer) the logical, or even hoped-for outcome, and you can instead create one more layer of "worse" for that character to experience before giving him the freedom or pardon. That's all I mean. 

I'm not advocating one "way" is right over any other, I just wanted to share the moving experience I had when I was denied the happy outcome I desired, and the very fulfilling feeling of seeing things get more desperate.

I'd like to equate this to another thing, because I think it's really applicable. Same theory. Many years ago I read a book by a professional hypnotist. He said that there were a couple ways you can use hypnotism in everyday life. One, was  technique that interrupts a person's own mind during the process of a non-active thought. When you go to shake someone's hand (the example in the book), their subconscious mind kicks in. They don't actively think about shaking a hand, it's a reactive action. And if you somehow interrupt that response, you can catch a brief moment before the active mind kicks in. If you DON'T shake the hand, that person who is on autopilot, is suddenly sort of shocked, but before they regain their conscious thought, they are susceptible to a hypnotic suggestion. THAT'S how I felt when Tyrion was denied his freedom, when we all thought the duel was won. 

And so now, all I'm saying is that maybe twice in this book, I'll simply choose NOT to shake the hand. Throw a real surprise in there and go in a completely unpredictable direction. Not just for the sake of throwing in the wrench, but because readers will remember that moment they were disarmed, like anyone would remember that person who went to shake their hand, and then went in a different direction.


----------



## X Equestris

Drakevarg said:


> Except not even remotely, because ASOIAF is a never-ending parade of misery and death, and as horrible as things got throughout history it wasn't _only_ that _all_ the time. In Martin's world, everyone is a bastard and if you hand someone a sword they will immediately become a thieving rapist 99% of the time.
> 
> Yes, the real world can be worse. But the only reason we notice is because it _usually isn't._ It's precisely this reason that I was emphasizing the dangers of losing the audience with excessive grimness. If there's nothing in the forecast but relentless pain and disappointment, why bother continuing? Darkness finds meaning in contrast with light, otherwise you're just staring at pointless monotony.
> 
> Martin's failure as a writer is in that he is convinced that nobody will take his story seriously if characters can ever obtain any form of victory that doesn't immediately somehow turn around and leave them worse off than they were before. Which might have been engaging ramping of tension the first 17 times he does it, but after shocking failure number 51 it's hard to care anymore.



I think you're overlooking the fact that Martin's series is set within the confines of a particularly bad period (The War of Five Kings) and during such events people have a tendency to descend to some awful levels for survival.  It's one of those "usually isn't" instances.  Further, there absolutely are good hearted characters, some of whom make it out well enough.  A few of the low level septons, whose names escape me at the moment, are notable examples.  

Sympathetic characters do win on occasion, and some of those victories aren't simply undone later. Keep in mind that the series is also unfinished.  I'm sure we'll see victories and good characters surviving once we reach the end, but we're not there yet.


----------



## Malik

X Equestris said:


> during such events people have a tendency to descend to some awful levels for survival.



It doesn't take a War of Five Kings. War helps, but it's not remotely necessary. The majority of people are entitled, uppity shitbags at heart and need very little impetus in order to descend to awfulness. GRRM is giving humanity a pass.

Keeping that in mind, imagine a world where Plato's _Republic_ was never written; where laws are determined by the rulers on a whim, and upheld by auxiliaries and parastatal agencies, with no formal or stated notion of justice being worthwhile for its own sake. Where the concepts we take for granted about justice and political theory -- hell, even right and wrong as we know it -- have never been uttered, and where you'd be skinned alive for writing the ideas down. Where Joffrey, Caligula, and Idi Amin are the rule and Pope Francis and The Dalai Lama are the radicals.

That's every other world but ours. Hell, that's a good chunk of the world we live in; we just never see it from here.


----------



## FifthView

Chesterama said:


> my response to Heliotrope was right along the line of Fifthview's post in regards to how adding the extra questions she gave as an example complicated matters more.



Just want to clarify that my response was meant to reference the _specific_s of her brainstorming about my example premise, not so much those questions she gave in that later comment—although those brainstormed ideas would have complicated my example premise beyond what I would want.

But the general thrust of my response (and the one previous to it referencing Mary's comments in the _Writing Excuses_ podcast) was related.  All of these questions, Heliotrope's approach and reasoning re: "make it worse," can be very helpful in designing a story and individual scenes, chapters, and the plot and pacing for a story.  But they don't need to be asked and answered for _every single thing_ within a story, every step of the way.  I think Helio clarified on this point in her last comment.  

My mind has moved on a little bit to wondering about the nuts and bolts and various strategies to be used for different story types, my own included.  That exercise earlier in the thread, of worsening the premise, has itself thrown a wrench into a current project:  I see I did not ask "How can this be worse" and now that I have begun to ask it, inspired by my exercise here, I'm like, _Crap_. Maybe it really does need that for this project.

But more generally, I think that some stories can be front-loaded with worsening, a set of really rough and conflict-producing initial conditions, but maybe some stories can start out with a simpler premise and we can build worsening throughout in our development/unfolding of the plot and with our pacing.  So for instance, a relatively simple premise (guy must rescue Princess from evil overlord, and thus also save the kingdom) can have a quest journey, a plot development, that progressively grows worse in its _details_—without substantially "worsening" the overarching premise, or without front-loading the story with tension and complication.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I have no idea how this might be useful, but was thinking about my WIP storyline, and how "make it worse" functions not simply in chapter to chapter decisions but in underlying construction, which is where make it worse really should happen most so it all fits the storyline without looking like the opposite of deus ex machina... diabolus ex machina... bad happens just to pump up the tension/drama, which often gets labeled melodrama.

Story Premise: Bad things happen and the MC leads his people on an exodus from their homeland. Bad is a given, but who is the MC? 

MC could start as head of clan... clean, simple. No way.
MC could be the obvious heir... a little messier, still need to off pops somehow.
MC starts as the third son of the second son, meaning he starts well out of the loop for succession to being the clan head. Now things must get real bad for him to lead. Unless of course everyone just cedes power to him because he is a super-genius... that ain't gonna happen.
MC's uncle and dad both must die, + older cousins and brothers must either croak, become incapable of leadership, or cede rule to him... Now we're talking things are bad just to get our MC where he needs to be for the plot.
MC's relatives could be on a ship that sinks, or killed by a disease... yeah, that's drama... but we're talking about conspiracies and demons driving the people from the island... so they could die in battle. Realistic, dramatic... but, better...
They're assassinated by the Church, who our MC has felt a loyalty to at the start of the book. Yeah, now we're talking worse.

So, by choosing the right character for the story, it produces a plot need for bad things to happen. And if things are done right, the good and bad flow and feel "real". 

A good conversation could probably be started about Diabolus ex Machina too... heh heh.


----------



## Heliotrope

I just watched Gladiator the other night and my husband says 

"Man, they took everything away from that guy didn't they?

Yes. Yes they did.


----------



## FifthView

Demesnedenoir said:


> Story Premise: Bad things happen and the MC leads his people on an exodus from their homeland. Bad is a given, but who is the MC?



This is very odd, because I'm in the middle of a Nova episode looking at archeological evidence for the Exodus.

There's no clear antecedent for the pronoun in "Make it worse."

Make....what worse?

So maybe we can look at MICE:  Milieu, Idea, Character, Event.  Quite a few things can be done in these areas, for the initial premise.

But maybe the granular level (a term I've been using too much lately) can be made worse also.  So instead of having to cross through a narrow canyon where they could be ambushed and trapped at any time....they have to do it during a major storm, so there's flooding, possible mudslides into the canyon, and maybe this just happens to be the point also when their pursuers catch up to them.  —See, that's not front-loading by making the premise worse vis-Ã -vis MICE (although it may involve those areas on the granular level).  It's also not a case of having to use _deus/diabolus ex whatever_, but can fit within the story naturally.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Just to interject, no they didn't. Had they given him the Game of Thrones treatment it would have been much worse. No doubt he would have been tortured. Probably mutilated in some way that still allowed him to complete his mission. His dignity and self respect would have been stripped from him by his carrying out some horrific act that showed him to be less a champion / hero and more a monster. No one to admire. And what they did take away from him, his family, his home, his rank his noble station are what let you enjoy the movie.

They didn't do the Game of Thrones thing, and that's what makes the movie. You can still root for Max. You can still admire him and want him to succeed. You can listen to his speeches and be moved. You can want him to defeat the evil emperor. 

But you wouldn't really care if he wasn't a man with all those noble qualities. It'd be like one slightly less evil emperor killing the more evil one. You wouldn't really care who wins, and if they all died quickly it would be best. You could change the channel.

Ask yourself. If this was Gobels as the gladiator and Hitler as the emperor, would you be invested in the movie?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## FifthView

Maybe to add a slight curveball...I remember an earlier discussion on "going deeper" rather than "going broader" in reference to world building.  I.e., instead of adding 50 cultures and 20 types of magic, you pick a much smaller number but dig deeper into those.

Similarly, this "making it worse" can be used without having to add artificial roadblocks, 50 new screws turning.  So if there's a forced exodus....well, what are all the natural dimensions of such an exodus, the hardships already built in (or that can be built in without having to add 100 types of mythical bloodthirsty creatures populating the land)?  Or, if there's a city torn by civil war, with street-to-street fighting...well, what makes such a thing bad?  Find its proportions, the natural badness in it, go deeper.


----------



## Caged Maiden

As an example of how I just "made it worse", I had a character who wanted to leave her crime boss. That was bad. She is afraid he'll simply say no, and then maybe she'll end up floating face down in the bay. So, one of her reasons for wanting to leave is that she's caring for a teenage girl who reminds of her when she was younger. She wants the girl to get out. But wanting it wasn't enough. Hello just suggested I show how the girl is sort of enjoying the lifestyle, which is the thing that prompts the MC to REALLY want to leave, NOW.

No one got maimed. No one got assaulted. It was just a teenager hanging out with folks who engaged in every form of debauchery at a party, and the girl's presence that made it really hit home that another year, another month, may not be a good thing. She has to act sooner, rather than later. 

If you have two characters who are in a certain place, and they're working well together, maybe have them disagree. it doesn't need to be a fight, but maybe someone's being difficult, or maybe there's two type-A personalities in a bit of conflict over who's giving orders. Have one person kick a clue under a rug. Have a disagreement over how to proceed. A snappy dialogue is loads of fun for readers. No one needs to bleed.

I think that's what people mean when they say "A day in happy town". It just means that no one wants to read about two people who just got married and are celebrating a romantic honeymoon. Rather, they want to see some odd thing in the room, left by one of the couple. A clue that something isn't right in paradise. Raise a suspicion. Raise the stakes. Then, when you reveal that something really is wrong, it'll be that much more engaging, rather than feeling like it comes out of nowhere. If readers see some small clues, they can sink their teeth into the story, and be more engaged by the situation. 

I really think I've been going about creating tension the wrong way since the beginning. I was showing many days in happy town, where characters dined together, had a plot-important conversation, but I forgot to create personalities in conflict. I forgot that beautiful sentence structure is a poor substitute for a more engaging story. 

Making it worse for the sake of making it worse is just plain silly. But if we can find a couple instances where we can really throw a curve ball, it'll help the story all around.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Side note on GoT/ASOIAF, which has already gotten too much airtime in this thread, is that the series could absolutely end on high notes. I think a lot of people discount this possibility. Maybe I'm just a cynical-optimist, but I see plenty of positives in the series as an old interpretive lit guy... yeah sure, people get mutilated, tortured, killed... Valar Morghulis... All men must die, but the spirit of survival and the impending threat from the north gives a major opportunity for redemption, both on an individual level and humans as a species. Of course, it won't be pretty, nor should it be, and it could be turned into a cynical feast of flesh where the dead and winter rule the world... but, the story could be powerfully uplifting on a fundamental level by the time it ends. That is part of the fun with the series as a whole. 'tisn't for everybody, no doubt, but I find it fun.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

psychotick said:


> Hi,  Just to interject, no they didn't.
> 
> Had they given him the Game of Thrones treatment it would have been much worse. No doubt he would have been tortured. Probably mutilated in some way that still allowed him to complete his mission. His dignity and self respect would have been stripped from him by his carrying out some horrific act that showed him to be less a champion / hero and more a monster. No one to admire. And what they did take away from him, his family, his home, his rank his noble station are what let you enjoy the movie.
> 
> They didn't do the Game of Thrones thing, and that's what makes the movie. You can still root for Max. You can still admire him and want him to succeed. You can listen to his speeches and be moved. You can want him to defeat the evil emperor.  But you wouldn't really care if he wasn't a man with all those noble qualities. It'd be like one slightly less evil emperor killing the more evil one. You wouldn't really care who wins, and if they all died quickly it would be best. You could change the channel.



Although I see your point, Greg. I must disagree.   Going from general of a legion to slave turned gladiator, after losing your wife, child, & security is pretty bad. Also consider that before he was given an opportunity to exact revenge, he'd given up on any purpose, including life itself. 

He'd lost the desire to live until the slaver, who once was a gladiator himself, gave him the opportunity to reach Rome in a match attended by the emperor. As a gladiator, Maximilian slaughtered countless other slaves on the path to Rome, a practice both he and his father figure (Marcus Aurelius) found loathsome & barbaric. As such, Maximilian debased himself and betrayed his ideals to satisfy his thirst for revenge. 

He didn't receive the Theon Greyjoy treatment, but he certainly lost more than his family & station. He lost himself along the way. However, he lost himself in a sympathetic fashion. That is why we root for him. Sympathy, in the face of terrible choices & circumstance, makes the movie.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Caged Maiden said:


> As an example of how I just "made it worse", I had a character who wanted to leave her crime boss. That was bad. She is afraid he'll simply say no, and then maybe she'll end up floating face down in the bay. So, one of her reasons for wanting to leave is that she's caring for a teenage girl who reminds of her when she was younger. She wants the girl to get out. But wanting it wasn't enough. Hello just suggested I show how the girl is sort of enjoying the lifestyle, which is the thing that prompts the MC to REALLY want to leave, NOW.


Ok... So, just my opinion here, but this isn't _Making it Worse_. This is adding a layer of justification or motivation. 

An example of making it worse might be.... Your MC trusts a smuggler friend to help her and the girl escape. However, the friend betrays her for monetary gain and poisons the MC or the girl with some slow acting agent. She has a few days until she succumbs to the poison. The only person who has the antidote is the crime boss, who knew all along your MC wanted out. 

That's an example of making it worse...and it could worsen still. Perhaps once she realizes she's been poisoned, a coup replaces the crime lord. Now, the only person who knew the antidote's location is missing or dead.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, I see what you are saying T.A.Allan for sure... but I think what CM is getting at is that "make it worse" does not have to be macroscopic (like where Psychotick keeps going with it)... exactly how you were explaining Gladiator. "Make it worse" can be as simple as just a slight worsening for the character. 

CM had this scene where her MC wanted out of the business. She kept talking about the girl "I need to get this girl out." But the girl was all safe up in the bedroom for the entire scene. 

I merely suggested a slight worsening of the situation...Why not bring the girl to the party? I asked, after reading the scene. Why not show this young girl indulging in the booze and the debauchery, and really give your MC an emotional moment the reader can latch on to, instead of just talking about it? 

So in many ways I see "make it worse" as exactly as you said, add another layer. Give them that bigger push. Give them more motivation. Make it impossible for them to keep going the way things have been going.

And yes, FifthView, I was just thinking about your point while at the pool with my kids. 

Gone with the Wind... did Melany Hamilton HAVE to give birth in the middle of a battle? No. But that was a concious choice on the part of the author to ramp up the tension. Did Rhett Butler HAVE to be at a brothel when Prissy the serving girl went to fetch him? No, but that was the worst possible place for Prissy to have to go. 

If the scene had been: Melany Hamilton went into labour one sunny day, and Prissy called on Rhett at his hotel where he was reading the paper and having a mint julip Gone With The Wind would not be the famous story it is today. 

On a larger scale, Scarlet O'Hara had everything taken from her, and then she was rubbed it in over and over and over again. Which gives so much weight to her wonderful "I will never go hungry again" speech.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I see what you're saying, Heliotrope. There are certainly varying levels of "worse". 

I still think "worsening" applies more to consequences of action, or choices, rather than adding more to a character's motivation. 

It is a bit muddy. I'll give you that. But, to me, motivations should start as something a character cannot walk away from. That circumstance needs to offer no alternative. 

From that viewpoint, CM's character might not want to stay in the gang, but it's the girl falling into the lifestyle that moves her to action. Whatever lead to the main character thinking about leaving the life is the _inciting event_. Adding the girl into the equation is the _key event_, also known as the _call to action_. 

The _worsening_ occurs once the character acts. It is the consequence, and early on it typically makes matters worse. That is the Try/Fail cycle that causes events to spiral and forces characters to change.

That's merely my opinion & concept of craft. Maybe, it's a case of TOE-MAY-TOE / TOE-MAW-TOE, but it appears as if we are talking about two distinct aspects of story while using the same term.


----------



## Heliotrope

Actually, I think we totally agree for the most part, I might just have a broader definition.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I think there are different kinds of "worsening" sometimes with bigger consequences, or a push that makes action happen NOW, and the other kind, where we truly try to make a character hit rock bottom. I haven't made the character hit rock bottom in the first chapter, but it's coming! And it gets much worse for her. Still...if I think about it, I can make it worse. A little more uncomfortable, a little more desperate. A little larger a leap of faith. 

This realization has hit me hard and i'm taking time to reflect on all the ways I can increase drama and tension, while remaining true to the story I'm telling. Where the results will be the same, I'm going for increased tension. Where I want a different outcome, I'll make things really worse and change directions. But like i said, I'm looking at only doing that sort of thing about twice in the novel. In key areas, where I need a more dramatic conclusion for something.


----------



## FifthView

T.Allen.Smith said:


> But, to me, motivations should start as something a character cannot walk away from. That circumstance needs to offer no alternative.
> 
> From that viewpoint, CM's character might not want to stay in the gang, but it's the girl falling into the lifestyle that moves her to action. Whatever lead to the main character thinking about leaving the life is the inciting event. Adding the girl into the equation is the key event, also known as the call to action.
> 
> The _worsening_ occurs once the character acts. It is the consequence, and early on it typically makes matters worse. That is the Try/Fail cycle that causes events to spiral and forces characters to change.



Indiana Jones acts....which leads to multiple things and then ultimately the boulder rolling after him.

But that boulder starts coming.....and so he acts–starts running!  Great motivator, seeing that boulder coming.

Was the boulder a worsening because he acted _before_?  Or was it _merely_ a motivator, not a worsening, since he acted _after_?

I think we'll agree that much of the time a worsening will invite the character to reorient to his situation, which may lead to action informed by that worsening.

But I still think we might be talking about two different things.

If Caged Maiden's MC's young ward was just a young ward who might be affected by the MC's lifestyle...that could be a bad thing.  But if that young ward _also_ is the sort to like that lifestyle or want to experiment with rowdiness, that's _worse_.  But this is still about worsening the original premise, making the initial conditions worse.  And get this:  *The reader is never going to know that worsening happened!*  The author chose to _make it worse_ before publication.

BUT the example of this,



> An example of making it worse might be.... Your MC trusts a smuggler friend to help her and the girl escape. However, the friend betrays her for monetary gain and poisons the MC or the girl with some slow acting agent. She has a few days until she succumbs to the poison. The only person who has the antidote is the crime boss, who knew all along your MC wanted out.
> 
> That's an example of making it worse...and it could worsen still. Perhaps once she realizes she's been poisoned, a coup replaces the crime lord. Now, the only person who knew the antidote's location is missing or dead.



..._is_ a worsening the reader will experience.  At least, it's the sort Caged Maiden was talking about with the metaphor of the handshake pulled back at the last moment.

So....these are two different things.

Now, it might be possible to cause the first to be experienced in the second way.  Say, if CM's MC thought of her ward as being an angel, led the reader to believe that a sweet innocent's life was at stake, for a certain length into the first chapter, and then that ward comes down and starts throwing back shots and flirting with the roughest of the rough crew in the tavern, and the MC thinks, "Oh yes, I gotta do something," then perhaps the reader can be made to feel the situation has gotten worse even when it hasn't. But this is a bit tricky to pull off well.


----------



## Heliotrope

I guess I see them as two different ways of using the same tool. 

Gladiator... It is a general rule that in tragedy the most effective ending rests upon how high you built the character up first. You have to build them up as high as you possibly can and then take it all away. Examples maybe include "Blow", or "Wolf of Wall Street". In order to build the character up the author has to invent stuff for them to loose. 

So in gladiator, I imagine the writers sitting around the table: 

-oh, he should be a general at the top of his game just after winning a battle. 
- yeah, and he should also have a beautiful farm he loves and a wife and son

Ok... Hmmmm, what else could we take away? 

Oh! I know the ceaser was going to announce him ceaser before he died! 

Yeah, and he had a trusty servant who he loved too! 

Yeah, and he has all these important principals about life that he would never betray. 




Ohhhhh, yeah.... 

Then they strip everything away... And things get worse and worse...

But all that stuff had to be invented by the author in the first place, in order for all the worsenings to happen...


----------



## Caged Maiden

I guess to me, when I was writing this OP, I thought about all the ways I could increase the stakes and tension (largely at Helio's prompting). The girl was almost nonexistent in the first draft. She was present but not in immediate peril, simply existing as a ward. But Helio told me to make that situation have more drama, and I have, and I love it. I certainly feel the situation is worse than my original idea, and since the girl and the MC are soon parted, it wouldn't make sense for me to involve her in too much more of the plot, but because of what I've established in this rewrite, as far as their new connection and the MC's new level of protectiveness, the resulting changes will then later make things worse, as well. The girl will be a factor in the ensuing journey, now, too. 

I've done several levels of making things worse, but rather than destroy everything and uproot a larger scale of the world than I originally planned, I just took my original ideas and gave them more gravity. 

Is there another term for what I'm doing? I'm increasing tension and connectedness in the story by making situations more immediate, more dramatic, and more uncomfortable for the characters. I see how there are different degrees of making something worse, but it all honestly came from the process of asking those questions, "What would make this worse?" and if you follow exactly what Donald Maass says about that question, and the progression of the thought process of making things worse, it all fits comfortably within that scope, despite the seeming factions developing over what actually "makes it worse" and what is just increasing drama and tension. Interesting. 

I suppose how we communicate as writers is a fallible experience both with the limited phraseology of writing and within the language we must use. 

When I read Writing 21st Century Fiction, it's quite clear that there are a number of questions I ought to be asking myself as I conceptualize scenes and situations. They lead to a worsening effect, but it appears the concept isn't as black and white as I might have thought.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> But all that stuff had to be invented by the author in the first place, in order for all the worsenings to happen...



Well obviously, anything the readers read will have been decided by the author before publication....Maybe my phrasing wasn't so great.

But those things you listed, the steady taking-away, are things the reader will experience as a worsening of his earlier condition.  The story is built that way, to show that.

But let's say we have an MC who wants to get out of a certain lifestyle, who has a young ward.  If we decide before writing to make it worse by making that young ward susceptible to enjoying that bad lifestyle, and we never present to the reader any other alternative, then the reader won't experience it as a _worsening_ of the MC's condition.

Anything in a book may seem new to a reader, new information, on first read.  So as those initial conditions are painted for the reader, there might be a corresponding feeling that things are worse than first imagined–although, it might be that early in the book readers will still be forming an initial understanding of the MC's situation.  But I don't think that's quite the same as leading a reader to think things are going one way and then something else pops up that worsens the MC's situation.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes. So you are sort of talking about the invisible tension built in to a story vs. The visible tension that increases as we go.

Ok, so I think that for me, "make it worse" means "make this have more impact". 

Instead of hiding the girl and telling me about how worried you are, show me why you are so worried about her. 

If the girl is going to be taken later, make it crystal clear how important she is to the mc.

With Indiana Jones the impact of him having the idol taken is intensified by the fact that he had to work so hard to get it.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> Yes. So you are sort of talking about the invisible tension built in to a story vs. The visible tension that increases as we go.



I don't think it necessarily increases as we go, meaning a steady increase; it might come and go.  It depends on the story, what kinds of wrench you are throwing into the works...when and where you throw it.



> Ok, so I think that for me, "make it worse" means "make this have more impact".



I do think that works.  I think that can work at many levels, as I think I've said numerous times in this too-long thread.  I'm not really trying to refute you, throw your ideas in the trash bin, say that what you are talking about is not a real _worsening_.

But I'm beginning to feel that any other POV I add to our discussion is read as if I am trying to do those things to your idea, and that's not want I want to do.  Mostly, I'm filled with questions:  my normal state.


----------



## ThinkerX

> I guess to me, when I was writing this OP, I thought about all the ways I could increase the stakes and tension (largely at Helio's prompting). The girl was almost nonexistent in the first draft. She was present but not in immediate peril, simply existing as a ward. But Helio told me to make that situation have more drama, and I have, and I love it. I certainly feel the situation is worse than my original idea, and since the girl and the MC are soon parted, it wouldn't make sense for me to involve her in too much more of the plot, but because of what I've established in this rewrite, as far as their new connection and the MC's new level of protectiveness, the resulting changes will then later make things worse, as well. The girl will be a factor in the ensuing journey, now, too.



Oh heck.  Make it worse.

(Good?) girl hanging out with the bad boys.  As in really bad.  Not to mention twisted.  So she gets propositioned by an especially nasty character who does not grasp the meaning of the word 'no' and views torture as a hobby.  And make it worse yet - this evil dude is 'in tight' with the bosses.  He gets hurt, they take an interest. And your MC has a front row seat to all this.


----------



## Chessie

Since I just lost an hour's worth of writing on my computer because reasons...figured I'd jump with one last example on yes---this too long a thread. (honestly, it's nice having some serious discussions about a subject that hasn't recently been brought up)

For me, "make it worse" doesn't do anything positive as I've stated before. Try/fail cycles is how I see it, and I actually think that they're the same thing. For those of you who've played Skyrim, I'm like Tolfdir in the COW quest "if you allow me to indulge for a moment..."

One of the main reasons why I can't work from an outline is because story changes too much as I draft it. What I DO like to have in place before I start though is an idea of how I can pin characters up against each other. As story takes shape, this gives me a starting point within the confines of plot to worsen the situation for everyone involved. Since I'm redrafting a novel, I'll use it as the example:

The female lead is new to the outlaw life. She's uncomfortable with stealing from people and/or hurting them. However, she's in a relationship with a more experienced brigand, one who's not afraid to use violence to get what he wants.

He, however, has a strong fear of magic. Although he's good at evading the law, magic is outlawed in their land and people are often accused falsely of sorcery (which is punishable by burning). It's an interesting fear for reasons I won't go into, but guess what happens? His woman ends up becoming obsessed with a rare form of magic and is possessed by it.

Due to her inexperience and also his greed, they end up taking a hostage from one of their carriage hold ups. The events that take place as the try/fail cycles end up being nothing more than increasing tension and aggression between the characters. It leads to bad things and eventually violence. 

But I while I wrote the first draft, I didn't ask myself how to make things worse. I asked myself how I could challenge these characters with one another. Jealousy is a big factor in this story, and we all know how that feeling makes people do some pretty crazy things. So for me, how can I throw a wrench in isn't what does it. What works in my head is understanding the people I'm writing about and how a natural progression of their feelings can escalate the situation. 

It's like any experience in life, really. You start out with a problem, handle it the wrong way, it becomes worse because of cause and effect, you try again but eff it up because you're just guessing at how to fix the problem, problem becomes worse, you learn something and try again but fail due to reasons outside of your control, etc.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Chesterama said:


> For me, "make it worse" doesn't do anything positive as I've stated before. Try/fail cycles is how I see it, and I actually think that they're the same thing.



Well, if they're the same thing, then try/fail cycles must also do nothing positive for you... Yes, I am running and hiding now, heh heh.

Now to be honest, I don't use "make it worse" or "try/fail cycles" consciously. I just write the stories how they feel they need to be written. But that's boring for discussion's sake.


----------



## Chessie

Demesnedenoir said:


> Well, if they're the same thing, then try/fail cycles must also do nothing positive for you... Yes, I am running and hiding now, heh heh.


LOL Fair enough point you make there, buddy. What I meant is the phrasing. You know like, when you were a kid and someone tried explaining an assignment to you and you were left with a "huh?" But then someone else explained the same assignment in a different way and you said, "ah, okay." That's where I was going with that half-baked response.


----------



## Caged Maiden

HA! Thinker, I can't DO any of that because that's sort of the path my MC gets on...but I've also considered whether that initial thought is TOO WORSE. You know? Like perhaps back in 2008 I made it too much too fast in the WORSE department? I mean, she and her mortal enemy get taken prisoner by a greedy treasure hunter that thinks they stole from him, and they get tortured and interrogated before escaping. So...if I don't set that up as a steady worsening, I'm just throwing things in for shock value. And I'm not sure whether three interrogation scenes is the right kind of build-up I want anymore.  Oh rewriting...you're no fun!


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Yes, but the smartass in me can't resist temptation.



Chesterama said:


> LOL Fair enough point you make there, buddy. What I meant is the phrasing. You know like, when you were a kid and someone tried explaining an assignment to you and you were left with a "huh?" But then someone else explained the same assignment in a different way and you said, "ah, okay." That's where I was going with that half-baked response.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, I'm really thinking most of us are arguing semantics, with some strange over exaggeration and extreme thinking thrown in for flavor... 

I think it is the "make it worse" phrase that is throwing people for a loop. 

I'm coming at it from a plotter's stand point, and others are coming at it from a pantser's stand point, but I think at the end of the day we all do the same thing. 

- How can this scene have the most impact possible?
- How can this ending have the most impact possible/ 
- How can this character grow the most? 
- How can I create high stakes? 
- How can I show this character's growth in the most effective possible way? 

Right? We are all doing those things. So whether we call it try-fail cycles, raising stakes, raising impact, creating challenges, creating complications, reveal and complicate, whatever... it is all the same thing. 

Don't make the path too easy for your character. Reader's like drama and intrigue and mystery. Make those things happen. Utilize every possible way of making the story interesting. Use the setting. Use the characters. Use symbols and foreshadowing. Whatever the He!! you have to do to tell a damn good story, with high emotional impact, do it. 

Whatever you want to call that is up to you. 

I call it "make it worse" (lol).

*Edit: And if one more person makes a comment about how then every story would be about a mass murderer and world wars and man eating alien zombies and suicide I'm going to scream.


----------



## Heliotrope

I _do_ want to add, that even as a plotter, my plots rarely stick to the 'plan' because I often find my first few ideas are never the best ones and I change them to better ones as I go along. So for me, often 'make it worse' or whatever you want to call it, works backwards. 

I will use Psychotick's example as my sample: 

So if I were reading Psychotick's battle scene as his beta, and I found it was lacking impact, my first reaction would _never_ be "You need to re-write ths scene." Instead, I would probably think for a while, "Why is this scene lacking impact?" "Why am I not getting the emotional rise that I should be getting from a scene like this?" Often times I would look back and check for certain things: 

Are the stakes clearly explained? 
Are the stakes high enough? 
Is the prize of winning high enough? 
Was there enough struggle before this point to make a win "feel" like a success? 
If the character walked away right now, would it matter? Are they invested enough in the plot that they matter? 

Sometimes that means you may need to still take some more things away from the character. It still needs to get worse for them before it can get better... giving the battle scene more impact when they win, or when they lose. Sometimes that means adding in sisters, or wives, or loyal servants that can be kidnapped and killed, to give that character more suffering so that the win feels more powerful... 

Etc... then I would try to find out when went wrong and fix it... essentially giving the scene the emotional impact it was lacking.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Heliotrope said:


> Yeah, I'm really thinking most of us are arguing semantics, with some strange over exaggeration and extreme thinking thrown in for flavor...
> 
> I think it is the "make it worse" phrase that is throwing people for a loop.
> 
> I'm coming at it from a plotter's stand point, and others are coming at it from a pantser's stand point, but I think at the end of the day we all do the same thing.
> 
> - How can this scene have the most impact possible?
> - How can this ending have the most impact possible/
> - How can this character grow the most?
> - How can I create high stakes?
> - How can I show this character's growth in the most effective possible way?
> 
> Right? We are all doing those things. So whether we call it try-fail cycles, raising stakes, raising impact, creating challenges, creating complications, reveal and complicate, whatever... it is all the same thing.
> 
> Don't make the path too easy for your character. Reader's like drama and intrigue and mystery. Make those things happen. Utilize every possible way of making the story interesting. Use the setting. Use the characters. Use symbols and foreshadowing. Whatever the He!! you have to do to tell a damn good story, with high emotional impact, do it.
> 
> Whatever you want to call that is up to you.
> 
> I call it "make it worse" (lol).
> 
> *Edit: And if one more person makes a comment about how then every story would be about a mass murderer and world wars and man eating alien zombies and suicide I'm going to scream.



Okay, this is going to be a harsh post because I am growing more and more desperate with this discussion. My apologies in advance, in case that I make you go mad with this:

First I have to say that I am not this thing that people call a pantser. It's not like I just sit down and start writing whatever that comes to my mind, that's not how it works. When I start a story it's only because I already have in mind a very good idea of what the story is and what it wants, because we have already clicked and work together.

I do not know every detail of a story when I start it (like I said before in this thread, many times I am surprised by the characters doing unexpected stuff and the story reacting in ways that I did not imagine) but it's not like I just sit down, start _pantsing_ or whatever that people want to call it and then the story works by sheer luck.

At the start of this discussion, the meaning of M.I.W. was very clear and you just began to make it more and more complicated and deeper, broadening the term until now it includes character growth, story deepness and emotional impact in general. I think that you just realized what bad and poor advice it was at the start, and now you want to make it sound broader and greater.

A truly good Fantasy story includes not only tension and great challenges, but also great characters that people will enjoy, love and cheer for as the story grows and develops. It needs not only adrenaline-filled moments but also moments when the reader cries, laughs, cheers, wonders, fears and in general forgets that he or she is actually just reading a story.

We have to transport the readers to our Fantasy world.

All of this comes from inspiration, patience, discipline, talent and a lot of practice in the art of Storytelling. Just like there is no formula for writing the most beautiful music in the world, there is no formula for somehow creating great stories simply by following a series of very calculated and scientific steps.

I never, ever even think of those things that you listed while I am writing a story. I never ask myself any of those _How can this?_ and _How can I?_ questions because I just let the story flow, and whenever that I am doing something wrong I just feel _Something is not alright here_ and do not go any further until it has been done well.

We are not supposed to make a path for the characters, they are supposed to make their own path and we tell it. In case that you need to make everything well designed and planned it means that you do not have a good enough story with you, and having a good story to tell is the most important ingredient in what we do.

And yeah, I'll say it again: Following M.I.W. as it was described at the start of this discussion has a very serious potential for derailing a story pretty bad and creating a mess instead of something good.

I am being so harsh with this only because I fear people will make things harder for them and for their stories, and all because of approaching our craft as science instead of art.

I know that many people here hate what I am saying, and that's okay, take me as crazy if you want. No harsh feelings, this is nothing personal between you and me.


----------



## Miskatonic

Yeah I think we can say that worse doesn't equate to "how much more misery can I visit upon my character(s)". 

It's a question that can gauge whether you have not gone far enough or have gone _too_ far.


----------



## ThinkerX

Not so much

'making it worse'

as

'keeping the reader interested.'


----------



## Penpilot

Sheilawisz said:


> And yeah, I'll say it again: Following M.I.W. as it was described at the start of this discussion has a very serious potential for derailing a story pretty bad and creating a mess instead of something good.



All writing advice used or interpreted incorrectly has the potential to not only ruin stories and create messes, it can ruin your ability to write. I speak from personal experience on this. But that doesn't mean one should ignore the potential of using a particular piece of advice. 

I've said this before. Writing adivce is a tool, and like all tools, it can build you a house or tear one down. It's the skill of the weilder that determins if hammer strikes the nail's head or the thumb. And how does one become more skilled with a hammer? Probably by hitting a fair share of thumbs along the way.

But no matter how skilled you get, there's still the risk of striking a thumb, but does that mean we should stop using hammers? Ever?



Sheilawisz said:


> I am being so harsh with this only because I fear people will make things harder for them and for their stories, and all because of approaching our craft as science instead of art.




There's an art and a science to writing. To me, the science of writing is the craft, and craft is the tools in your toolbox and your ablity to use them. 

Yes, learning to use tools can be hard and make things seem harder to do.

But to me, it's like athletics, many just want to go out and play the game. It's simple just go out run, kick, jump, hit, skate, or throw. But if one wants to be a professional althlete, one has to learn about technique and understand the mechanics of what they want to do with their bodies. They have to know nutrition, and how to build their bodies to perform. This inaddition to just practicing the game.

That's the science of it. The art builds off the science and is reflected in an athete's performance, the way the read game situations and how they react.

So the science of writing lies in the tools. The art lies in how we use them. 

And like any tool, there will be favorites in the toolbox, there will be ones that never get touched, and there will be ones that never even make it into the toolbox. Where a tool ends up is personal taste, and it's not one tool fits all. It's whatever tool works for you.


Edit: I remember an episode of Writing Excuses where Mary Robinette Kowal talked about her expereince with writing a story on a deadline. The jist of it was inspiration failed so she had to fall back on craft to make the story good. In essence the art failed her so she fell back on science, and if memory serves the story came out well.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

And for me the problem is that with all these pieces of advice they come across as rules. Especially to those new to the writing game. Just put yourselves back in the shoes when you were writing your first book, and people came up to you and said - kill the passive voice, get rid of the purple prose, shorter, more impacting sentences, no run ons, and all the rest of this junk.

Yes all of this can be useful advice. But it can also be a disaster in the making. And newby writers sit there and just lap it up as if it was the bible of writing. As if ther was some cookie cutter recipe for making a perfect book. They don't understand that it all has to come back to their judgement. It's their work. 

To my mind the most important thing a newby writer can do is to develop his or her voice. To become stronger in his or her artistic expression. To be able to say - well this is me and this is my story. Only when they've reached that stage will they be able to say - well thanks - that's intersting advice, but it's not the book I'm writing, the story I'm telling, the characters I'm portraying. It's all about judgement - knowing which advice to accept, where and when, and which to ignore.

At the end of the day as a writer you want to be able to hold your book in your hand and say - this is my book! It's not some mass produced, politically massaged work of fiction determined by agents, editors, publishers and well meaning fellow members of writing fora which has little or no relation to what I wrote or even what I wanted to write. But that's what we keep seeing. New authors writing clones of other books, instead of writing their own books.

Look assume you all get agents and publishers and the interviews start and someone asks you - who do you write like? The answer you want to be able to give is - I write like me. I don't care if it's commercial, if it meets modern expectations of what a book should be like, if it follows the ten million rules that people keep setting out. It's my book, my vision. No one else's.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> And for me the problem is that with all these pieces of advice they come across as rules. Especially to those new to the writing game. Just put yourselves back in the shoes when you were writing your first book, and people came up to you and said - kill the passive voice, get rid of the purple prose, shorter, more impacting sentences, no run ons, and all the rest of this junk.
> 
> Yes all of this can be useful advice. But it can also be a disaster in the making. And newby writers sit there and just lap it up as if it was the bible of writing. As if ther was some cookie cutter recipe for making a perfect book. They don't understand that it all has to come back to their judgement. It's their work.
> 
> To my mind the most important thing a newby writer can do is to develop his or her voice. To become stronger in his or her artistic expression. To be able to say - well this is me and this is my story. Only when they've reached that stage will they be able to say - well thanks - that's intersting advice, but it's not the book I'm writing, the story I'm telling, the characters I'm portraying. It's all about judgement - knowing which advice to accept, where and when, and which to ignore.
> 
> At the end of the day as a writer you want to be able to hold your book in your hand and say - this is my book! It's not some mass produced, politically massaged work of fiction determined by agents, editors, publishers and well meaning fellow members of writing fora which has little or no relation to what I wrote or even what I wanted to write. But that's what we keep seeing. New authors writing clones of other books, instead of writing their own books.
> 
> Look assume you all get agents and publishers and the interviews start and someone asks you - who do you write like? The answer you want to be able to give is - I write like me. I don't care if it's commercial, if it meets modern expectations of what a book should be like, if it follows the ten million rules that people keep setting out. It's my book, my vision. No one else's.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



This is one end of the spectrum on how one should approach writing and I understand why some people hold this view, but I don't agree with it.

All of the really creative people I know who are successful teachers that there is a time to ignore the "rules" of writing and that time is when you 1)  understand them and 2) then can make a well reasoned decision to ignore them.  *What leads to freedom to be original in a skilled endevour is mastery of the basics.*  Your advice actually strikes me as backwards to how people learn and develop.

I also think this "fear" assumes newbies are idiots and will apply the rules blindly.  I don't think most people are that dumb and I think your "fear" underestimates the ability of even a new writer to use their brain to discriminate.  I am not a carpenter but even I know you don't but a small screw in with a sledgehammer.

It also depends upon what your goals are and how you view writing as an endevour.  If you write for yourself than write any way you want.  If you write for an audience than you must take your audience into consideration and what the "rules" or writing do is give you time tested tools to communicate your story to your audience more effectively, which is a good thing.  In most cases the rules enhance your ability to communicate your story from the audience rather than take away from it.  Not having a command of the "rules" means having to re-invent everything from scratch or unthinking imitation.  How practical is that?

I do a lot of public speaking and there are rules about how to be an effective public speaker.  The process works well when I decide what I want to convey to the audience and then utilize the rules to help me decide how to get that message across.  Writing is the same.  And if I give a speech to say a group of lawyers and several of them say to you "I think your message would have been clearer if you organized your material this way" or "it might have been more effective if you used this expression instead of X", do you simply ignore them or try to learn something from or about your audience so you can communicate better.

The "rules" can also sell your writing if commercial success is one of your goals.

If we follow your route we may as well shut down several significant parts of this forum.


----------



## FifthView

Miskatonic said:


> Yeah I think we can say that worse doesn't equate to "how much more misery can I visit upon my character(s)".
> 
> It's a question that can gauge whether you have not gone far enough or have gone _too_ far.



Might as well interject with something bubbling around in my mind since this discussion began.  I'm adding this outside any ongoing disputes about this or that; it's just an observation.

Often what is added or changed to "make it worse" is not itself a bad thing, a bad event.

So let's say we have an MC who is a minor noble aged 24.  Perhaps he has always had feelings for the king's youngest daughter but, because of the difference in station, has never pursued a romantic relationship with her, never even slyly hinted.  His father finds a suitable match for him, an arranged marriage with another minor noble's young daughter, who is attractive, intelligent, and so forth.  Our MC suddenly finds his mind open to that possibility, so he starts courting this fiancÃ©e.  After a month or so, he learns that the king's youngest daughter has always fancied him–she now starts pursuing him for a romantic relationship.  This is not a bad thing; but it might make his position "worse."

Perhaps that example will be written off as a complication rather than a worsening.

In my earlier example in this thread, I had a young orphan trying to protect his young twin sisters in a war-torn city.  In a later comment, I added also the possibility that I would make him come from a religious faith that is peaceful, his parents' religion.  (Thinking, _go deeper_. His parents have been killed, he's now the sole guardian of his sisters, he's young, so why wouldn't he look to the only role models he has had?)  Given his predicament–in the middle of a war, infected with a parasite that sometimes causes him to do reckless things like killing for no reason–I thought that adding that religious faith would complicate things, make his life worse, more conflict-riddled.  But having such a faith is not itself a bad thing under other circumstances (interjecting here to say I don't want to debate religious faith.)

And yes, I suppose that in either of the two examples above, the MC might suffer more.  But suffering from conflicting desires or because there is a conflict between personal beliefs and the exterior reality is not necessarily the same type of suffering experienced when truly bad things happen.


----------



## Russ

The definition of MIW, to my mind, is fairly simple: 

It is a change in circumstances that makes it more difficult for the MC to achieve a goal.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Rules, methods, technique, craft... Whatever label you slap on them, they are intended for one purpose:

*To make you think about your writing and make conscious choices regarding how you communicate the story to your reader.*

That's it.

Every one of us should have our own personal rules to fall back on, consider as we write, and _consciously_ discard when they impede an effect we deem advantageous. But, how can we consciously discard concepts if we don't thoroughly understand them?

An example:
That last sentence above started with a conjunction. Typically, that's deemed an error in English writing. However, it's also a device that has been used effectively in creative writing time & time again. For me, I'll start sentences with conjunctions for dialogue alone...unless I'm going for a desired effect. That's my rule. I understand the underlying principle. I think about the use of conjunctions as I'm writing. I choose when to break that grammatical rule.

The topic of this thread is no different. For some (like the OP), it may help a great deal to actively think about _Making it Worse_. She's an experienced writer who's noticed something lacking in her work & she's sought out a technique to address that issue. For others, they may not require that tool now, or ever. 

Simply because it doesn't apply to all writers, in every stage of development, doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss craft principles.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Thanks, TA, that's exactly what I meant in the OP. I felt like I had concepts that weren't as fully impactful as I wanted, and by giving them some thought (Helio's thoughts, really), I now have something that has more weight, more impact, and is truer to the concept I wanted to put forth to the reader. 

This book by Donald Maass has really opened my eyes to the fact that by asking a series of questions, I can get below the surface of what IS in my story, and think about what could be, based on the answers to the "How to Make it Worse" type-questions. Most of those questions aren't specifically about making it worse, but about creating more depth to my own understanding, though I won't go into those sorts of details in the actual story. I mean, if I can start out with a situation being more dramatic, then that's less wasted lines in introducing the scenario for the reader. I can simply KNOW more about my characters and their situations, right from the beginning, and it helped me to plan how the next events would fall into place. 

I have a hard time with story openings. Like a TERRIBLE time with them. I want to spin my wheels for two chapters of stuff happening, without getting to the point. And that's what happened when I asked myself those questions. And Helio's suggestions were paramount in achieving that clarity. At least now I have a fitting opening that will engage the readers I'm targeting. It won't work for every reader, but I've come to grips with that as a reality, and i'm fine with it. I should tailor my openings to capturing a certain kind of reader's attention, and by putting the microscope on certain elements of my story's beginning, I've gotten a lot farther than when I was holding the telescope in my hands. 

Yeah, "MIW" is bad advice for a beginning writer. But regardless, I like to share my own experiences here, and I can't write posts for every writer, just as I'm not writing a story for every reader. I stand behind the theories Donald Maass speaks about in his books, maybe not all of them, but a fair number. Enough to want to share those theories with other writers who may be in similar situations. 

I had another novel, one I've been working on for years, and in it, WORSE things happened all the time: An arranged marriage, a murder kept secret, mysterious coded messages, a plot to kill the pope...and the real thing that story is missing, is the kind of tension and connectedness I just realized is hopelessly lacking in my writing. I had all the elements there, but nothing deeper to draw the reader in. 

With this new excitement over the concepts I've only just grasped, I can't wait to apply these new tools to other work. The thing that's really been frustrating, is that in short stories, I often have all the tools working hard. But in novels, I tend to spin my wheels for whole chapters, wanting to keep my secrets, wanting to begin slow and let the tension build. And in some cases, that's just a mistake. 

So, while I understand how continually making things worse would be stupid, taking an original concept and polishing it was frustrating and yielded no results. It was equally stupid, from my perspective, with novels and novels completed but lacking in overall impact. Each of them have dramatic scenes that make readers cry or rage, but overall, the works suffered from a general need to be made stronger. I needed to ask myself those questions. I needed to get to the meat of why things get worse and what it means to the characters and the story.

New writers shouldn't be thinking about making things ever worse. Instead, their focus should be on crafting tales without plot holes, making characters feel three-dimensional rather than cardboard cutouts, etc. but for many writers, who struggle to take their polished drafts and make them commercially viable, my original message was one of sharing that personal experience for their benefit. "Hey guys, I've been struggling to make my stories exciting and engaging, and the one thing I realized today, was that I've failed to make things worse. I need to make character motivations deeper, show it up front. I need to create situations that make people act NOW, rather than letting them float for two chapters in Happyville before the door-doo hits the fan. I need to make things more connected and delete anything that's convenient or coincidental...except for a few red herrings if I want them. I need to NOT shake the hand a few times, just to give readers a scene they'll remember forever, even if they forget my characters' names or what the main story is about." 

HA! Especially that last one. Man, it's so silly, when I look back at some of my choices. I see that I had an idea, and I ran with it, never asking myself WHY or what else could be. I committed to things because they seemed logical and I wanted logical outcomes, because I felt that's what would satisfy readers. But I was wrong. i need to challenge readers to still love a story even if it's unpredictable. 

Over a year ago, TA Smith suggested a new ending for that previous book, one that wasn't the "happily ever after" I had planned. And I LOVED it. The bittersweet ending. The twist at the end. The thing that more fully accomplished my SINGLE goal in that novel--that a reader would read the last page and immediately want to go back to the first and watch for all the clues I gave that they missed.

Each story must have its own goals, of course. My goals might seem silly to some writers. I'm okay with that. The thing is, I can only be who I am. I can only write for people who enjoy the kinds of things I want to show. I can't write something to please folks that are looking for a product I'm not selling, because I'm good at this one thing, being me. There's a lot of tools I'll never be able to use, but I've given them an honest go, just to see what could happen. Unfortunately, my stories are somewhat limited by my own abilities. I can't plot my way out of a paper bag, and I can't world-build, either. So I tell stories that reflect the human condition, and to do that, I think "making it worse" is just the right advice. Don't make her sad, make her distraught enough to act. Don't hint at danger hiding in the bushes, show the glowing eyes. And that's what I've been missing for pretty much my whole time writing. 

Powerful scenes sometimes, but not powerful stories.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hi Penpilot.



Penpilot said:


> All writing advice used or interpreted incorrectly has the potential to not only ruin stories and create messes, it can ruin your ability to write. I speak from personal experience on this. But that doesn't mean one should ignore the potential of using a particular piece of advice.
> 
> I've said this before. Writing adivce is a tool, and like all tools, it can build you a house or tear one down. It's the skill of the weilder that determins if hammer strikes the nail's head or the thumb. And how does one become more skilled with a hammer? Probably by hitting a fair share of thumbs along the way.
> 
> But no matter how skilled you get, there's still the risk of striking a thumb, but does that mean we should stop using hammers? Ever?



The first thing I want to say is that I am speaking from personal experience too. It's kind of sad and disheartening to me that nobody has said "Well, Sheilawisz is a very experienced writer/storyteller, she has finished many stories and people have praised her work. Maybe we should listen to her".

My comments are just being either criticized or ignored by most people here, simply because I go against your favorite views and beliefs about how stories should be written and told.

After thinking a little more about this whole thing, I came to the conclusion that M.I.W. (as it was described at the start of this discussion) should be considered a Brainstorming Device, and that's all. It can be useful to play with ideas before you start a story, or perhaps sometimes to find a new path when you really have no idea what happens next in the narration.

It's presenting the thing as a good advice for all purposes, or even a wonderful formula for fantastic storytelling, that I strongly disagree with.



Penpilot said:


> There's an art and a science to writing. To me, the science of writing is the craft, and craft is the tools in your toolbox and your ablity to use them.
> 
> Yes, learning to use tools can be hard and make things seem harder to do.
> 
> But to me, it's like athletics, many just want to go out and play the game. It's simple just go out run, kick, jump, hit, skate, or throw. But if one wants to be a professional althlete, one has to learn about technique and understand the mechanics of what they want to do with their bodies. They have to know nutrition, and how to build their bodies to perform. This inaddition to just practicing the game.
> 
> That's the science of it. The art builds off the science and is reflected in an athete's performance, the way the read game situations and how they react.
> 
> So the science of writing lies in the tools. The art lies in how we use them.
> 
> And like any tool, there will be favorites in the toolbox, there will be ones that never get touched, and there will be ones that never even make it into the toolbox. Where a tool ends up is personal taste, and it's not one tool fits all. It's whatever tool works for you.



The tools and rules of writing are the technical aspects. Knowing all of the technical and scientific side helps you to write great articles, essays and that kind of material, but when it's about telling stories we are not just writers anymore: We are narrators, storytellers, artists of imagination.

Some people in this discussion keep comparing telling stories to technical things like carpentry and athletics, while it's much more accurate to compare storytelling to artistic wood carving and composing music and songs. All the stuff that I have been talking about is far more important than following technical rules and advice.



Penpilot said:


> Edit: I remember an episode of Writing Excuses where Mary Robinette Kowal talked about her expereince with writing a story on a deadline. The jist of it was inspiration failed so she had to fall back on craft to make the story good. In essence the art failed her so she fell back on science, and if memory serves the story came out well.



That can be done, true. And I would bet a considerable amount of money on the fact that the story in question would have been ten times better if she had been allowed enough time to follow her inspiration and artistic instincts, rather than the scientific approach to storytelling.


----------



## Chessie

I don't think necessarily that people are ignoring your point, Sheila. Then again, I can't speak for everyone. But what I see here are people with passions for writing, something we all share, but we have different ways of doing _the exact, same thing_ which is tell stories. 

Writers not feeling respected and appreciated for their own work methods is the main reason why I get annoyed when people say: "oh, but that's a RULE you're _supposed_ to do do it that. *Everyone does it that way. Why don't you? What's the matter with you?*

Because at the end of the day, whether we write for hobby or to pay the bills, two things are certain:

1. We all love to write.
2. We all love to write to an _audience_.

I don't care how someone else does it because it doesn't affect my way or ability to do it. So I don't think that people are automatically rejecting what you're saying. It has more to do with the fact that we all have a way to do things and feel comfortable with that.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hi Chesterama.

I don't think that other people in this discussion are just ignoring my comments, but instead I am being criticized by some and ignored by others. It's like my views came from somebody that has never written a story, let alone a good one, so there is no point in even considering that what I am saying could be true.

No, I actually do not love to write. I would very much prefer to display my stories as a visual medium, and in case that I could easily create them as movies instead of words, that's what I would be doing instead. Writing has certain advantages, but I also feel that it somehow limits my descriptions of what I am seeing in my mind.

What I love is to tell stories, and yes, I love to tell them to an audience.


----------



## FifthView

Ok, then.



Sheilawisz said:


> I never, ever even think of those things that you listed while I am writing a story. I never ask myself any of those _How can this?_ and _How can I?_ questions because I just let the story flow, and whenever that I am doing something wrong I just feel _Something is not alright here_ and do not go any further until it has been done well.
> 
> We are not supposed to make a path for the characters, they are supposed to make their own path and we tell it. In case that you need to make everything well designed and planned it means that you do not have a good enough story with you, and having a good story to tell is the most important ingredient in what we do.



There is the romantic notion that characters just write themselves into the story, and I halfway agree.  Objectively, I know that those characters simply are not real people; they aren't typing away at the keyboard; they _do not write the story_.  But I do believe that our own minds can conjure up fictional characters so well, so easily (wish this happened 100% of the time...) that, if we stay true to those characters, it will seem as if the characters are doing the writing.  Ultimately I think that saying the characters do it themselves is mumbo jumbo hand-waving.  But I honestly don't know where the ideas come from, what inspiration _is_, why I have the thoughts that I do; and why I instinctively know some characters will do such-and-such a thing but other characters never would—so the end result is half a dozen of one, six of another.

But I think you do a disservice when you claim that everyone should operate this way.  Talk about creating _rules_.  It is really as if you are saying everything about writing is nothing more than being in a trance state and letting the spirit (of characters, of your world, whatever) do the writing.  And so of course this means that any discussion whatsoever about the art of writing, the skill of writing, the conscious appraisal of our own writing and the conscious consideration of what may be done to improve our writing—all of that is heresy.  So we might as well shut up and just let the words flow.

But I can say with near 100% certainty that some successful authors _do_ nearly have "everything well designed and planned," and this doesn't mean their stories suck.  (I include the "nearly" because even the most....devout outliners often allow themselves to discover new things about their stories as they write.)

And I do think that what you describe for yourself is nearly _pantsing_.  But there isn't a clear, exclusive dichotomy, where either 0% is planned before one starts typing the draft or 100% is planned before beginning to write it.  Lots of room between 0 and 100.  So yes, some pantsers nonetheless have some idea of the story they want to tell and the characters they want to use before they begin to write.  Some outliners only outline the major plot points but leave some gaps to be "discovered" later.  Lots of room.  But I feel as if you will dismiss any claims that an approach other than yours—letting the Storyteller within just work its magic—are good also.

Now, an olive branch.  From my experience, different people write differently, and some who write best in the way you write might indeed be derailed if they tried to do complicated outlines before writing.  (And some who work best with outlines might run into all kinds of problems if they pants the whole thing.)


----------



## Penpilot

Sheilawisz said:


> The first thing I want to say is that I am speaking from personal experience too. It's kind of sad and disheartening to me that nobody has said "Well, Sheilawisz is a very experienced writer/storyteller, she has finished many stories and people have praised her work. Maybe we should listen to her".
> 
> My comments are just being either criticized or ignored by most people here, simply because I go against your favorite views and beliefs about how stories should be written and told.



It doesn't matter if you're an expereinced writer or not. I don't care if you're (insert big name author here) or a Joe Blow from down the street. If you present a flawed argument, I will point out the flaw. If you don't present a compelling argument to suport your position then I won't agree with it. It's as simple as that. 

To accept something as true without compelling support--and I stress the compelling support part here---just because it comes from an expert figure is a logical fallacy. 




Sheilawisz said:


> The tools and rules of writing are the technical aspects. Knowing all of the technical and scientific side helps you to write great articles, essays and that kind of material, but when it's about telling stories we are not just writers anymore: We are narrators, storytellers, artists of imagination.
> 
> Some people in this discussion keep comparing telling stories to technical things like carpentry and athletics, while it's much more accurate to compare storytelling to artistic wood carving and composing music and songs. All the stuff that I have been talking about is far more important than following technical rules and advice.



So are you saying the artisitry/creativity in athletics, technical writing, progamming or anything else for that matter is a lesser art than the things you listed?

If the technical aspects of art are so unimportant, why are there art schools and music schools? And in those art and music schools, why do they study techniques used by artists and musicians from the past? 




Sheilawisz said:


> That can be done, true. And I would bet a considerable amount of money on the fact that the story in question would have been ten times better if she had been allowed enough time to follow her inspiration and artistic instincts, rather than the scientific approach to storytelling.



Let me ask you this, does following your inspiration and artistic instincts always lead you to a better story?

If I were to take a story I wrote only using inspiration and artistic instincts and compare it to Mary's, who's do you think would be better? My money's on Mary.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hey again.

FifthView: Yeah, I know that I sound like crazy to you and the others. I don't really care if my approach to Storytelling is called mumbo jumbo handwaving, really. What I care about is to present in this discussion my side of things, the artistic side, in contrast with all the technical style that has been discussed.

If my posts in this thread can make at least one person to consider my ways of storytelling instead of the other way, I would be very happy and satisfied. I am just saying that narrating stories is a form of art instead of something that can be carefully planned and controlled like it was carpentry, and almost everybody goes mad at me.

I also have very talented and famous authors in my side, like Stephen King, J.K. Rowling and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. I am not even close to being as good as they are and were, but I am in the same school as them. Stephen King has said several times that Plot plays no role in his creative process, and Rowling said that she did not want some of her dearest characters to die but they died anyway.

Yeah, I go into _The Zone_ trance thing sometimes when I am writing a scene, but that does not always happen. Other times I am forcing myself, and things do not always end up to be what I wanted so that causes additional work.

Heavily outlining a story is not really bad, but thinking that the story is completely under your control and you can do whatever that you want with it, is. Stories are living creatures, they sometimes do what they want and not what we want. Also, if there is no real connection between the person and the story, it's very likely that the end result is not going to be very good.

For example, this is why I do not participate in Challenges like Iron Pen and the new Top Scribe by ThinkerX.

Those Challenges present a list of elements to use in a story, but when I read the requisites no story comes to me. The suggested combination does not awake any inspiration in my mind or in my heart, any ideas... No story comes to me, and so I cannot work on the Challenge. To get working on a story, I need that _Click_ moment that I have been talking about.

Storytelling is not like cooking from a recipe, at least not to me.



Penpilot said:


> It doesn't matter if you're an expereinced writer or not. I don't care if you're (insert big name author here) or a Joe Blow from down the street. If you present a flawed argument, I will point out the flaw. If you don't present a compelling argument to suport your position then I won't agree with it. It's as simple as that.
> 
> To accept something as true without compelling support--and I stress the compelling support part here---just because it comes from an expert figure is a logical fallacy.



The argument that I have finished not only one, but many stories that have been liked and praised by my readers is not a logical fallacy, it's a fact and it does matter. I am not a great talent but at least I am a decent storyteller capable of writing good and entertaining stories, so my comments in this discussion should not be discarded as easily as you are doing.

The truth is that I have been doing something really good in my craft since a long time ago, you cannot say that it doesn't matter.



Penpilot said:


> So are you saying the artisitry/creativity in athletics, technical writing, progamming or anything else for that matter is a lesser art than the things you listed?
> 
> If the technical aspects of art are so unimportant, why are there art schools and music schools? And in those art and music schools, why do they study techniques used by artists and musicians from the past?



Indeed: Athletics, technical writing and programming are nothing like the art of composing music or telling stories. I am not saying that they are lesser things to practice and to master, but that they are different to what we do. There are art schools and music schools because there are indeed technical aspects to be learned, like how to play an instrument.

This brings a good example of my view:

Any person can learn to play the violin or the piano, but not everyone will be able to compose a beautiful, artful song simply because they learned to play the instrument. This is what I mean when I say that telling stories is a form of art too, because you can know all the technical stuff of writing but it takes inspiration and talent to actually write great stories.



Penpilot said:


> Let me ask you this, does following your inspiration and artistic instincts always lead you to a better story?
> 
> If I were to take a story I wrote only using inspiration and artistic instincts and compare it to Mary's, who's do you think would be better? My money's on Mary.



Yes, following my inspiration and artistic instincts always leads me to a much better and beautiful story.

I have no idea how good you are so I cannot really answer the second question, but Mary sounds like a great storyteller in case she managed to produce something good under such pressure, so... My money would be on her, too.

Again, I want to say that there are no harsh feelings and this discussion is not personal.


----------



## FifthView

Sheilawisz said:


> Hey again.
> 
> I also have very talented and famous authors in my side, like Stephen King, J.K. Rowling and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. I am not even close to being as good as they are and were, but I am in the same school as them. Stephen King has said several times that Plot plays no role in his creative process, and Rowling said that she did not want some of her dearest characters to die but they died anyway.



Idea:  A young wizard must face an evil wizard and save the world.

Storyteller Spirit:  Make it worse.  He's an orphan.  That evil wizard murdered his parents.

Storyteller Spirit:  Make it worse.  His new guardians are relatives who already have a son they love, and will treat the young wizard horribly, preferring their own son–even make him sleep in a cupboard under the stairs.

Storyteller Spirit:  Make it worse.  His new guardians hate everything to do with the wizarding world.  So they look down on the young wizard even more, treat him even worse, tell him in no uncertain terms that his slain parents were scum.

*Author Interjects:  That's too horrible! At least he can get away to the wizarding school, where he'll fit in!  I hate making my characters suffer too much.  That poor boy.*

Storyteller Spirit:  He must return every summer to live with those wizard-hating guardians.  And that wizarding school grows increasingly dangerous as the years pass.  There's a Slytherin house at the school pretty much aligned with the evil wizard.  And a potions master that hates the young wizard.....

______________

It's not as if pantsers don't do it also.  Just because it comes in a flash, or from the ever-fruitful Storyteller Spirit (or, instinct), doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

A couple points....  

1) I feel this discussion has been civil & constructive. I don't believe anyone's ideas have been discounted. Some of us simply disagree on process.  

That's okay. If we all had the same processes and ideas, how boring would reading be? 

2) I have found things in several posts I agree with. 

For example, Sheila, you recently commented that _Making it Worse_ is a brainstorming device. I agree, with a caveat. It's also a device for revision/editing...at least for my process.     

The only way a writer can tell if any piece of advice works for their vision is for them to experiment with the method. Why would we ever want to discourage a writer (of any skill level) from experimenting with different ideas? (Yes, even ideas we do not personally agree with.)    

"Failure is the condiment that gives success its flavor." - Truman Capote 

We must try. We will fail. If we persevere, we succeed. 

How did I come to my personal set of writing rules? By reading a lot. By writing a lot. By trying to emulate authors I love. By experimenting with different techniques. By failing. 

All those have been necessary as I've moved closer to becoming the writer I want to be. 

My next big step in improving my chops is to try my hand at humor writing. I've been putting it off for awhile, but I've come to realize my stories lack humor. They're all serious and dramatic, and hopefully suspenseful, but adding a little humor & levity can be a great thing for a story. I need that.  

Should I not look for resources that teach the fundamentals of humor writing? Should I not read and emulate successful humor writers? Should I not discuss technique with the like-minded?

That seems like a recipe for failure, or at least, a way to lengthen my path to success. 

People in RL generally think I'm a funny guy. I can tell a joke. I can carry a funny tale vocally. But, I struggle to be humorous in writing. How do I change this? 

I change it by taking the step CM took. I read a book or two. I debate methods. I examine my past works. I try to write some humor into stories. Maybe I work some exercises. Then, I get feedback.  

That's my process. It's not for everyone & I'm not forcing it upon any other writer. I prefer to learn from those who came before me, those with a proven record of commercial success. 

Why do I look at a writer's commercial success when considering advice? 

Because I want commercial success too. 

Yes, writing is art. But, art can be commercially successful. I want to write full time. There's only one way I can achieve that goal.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView, as you went through those levels with Harry Potter I was actually shocked to see how "bad" they seemed out of context... and she just kept on going: 

- The evil wizard hid bits of his soul so he couldn't be destroyed and the boy has to find them... but one of them is in the boy! (ohhhhhh! Inner conflict). 

etc, etc. 

But when we read it in context it doesn't 'feel' so extreme, which reminded me of a quote from the book CM and I are reading together... 

"It happens at every workshop. After the presenter explains the methods of constant line-by-line tension and demonstrates how it's done by sparking up several randomly mansucript pages, hands shoot up. And anxious participant asks, "Can there be too much tension in a manuscript?" 

No. 

Let me clear about that. 

No. 

When you think you have overloaded a manuscript wtih tension, you probably have created just enough to hang on to your reader. What feels like too much to you is barely enough. If you don't believe me, try this: With a pencil in hand, open any average novel and begin to read. Put a tick in the margin when your eyes begin to skim down the page. Draw a margin arrow at the spot where you re-enter the story flow. How much are you skimming? 

The parts that you skim have low tension. When readers encounter it in your own work, they do exactly what you do: skim. 

You want your readers to read every work, of course, but to do that you need to make magnets of the pages. You need to run an electric current through them. The electricty is micro-tension. 

Here's how it works. When you create in your reader an unconcious apprehension, anxiety, worry, question or uncertainty, then the reader will unconciously seek to releive that uneasiness.... by reading the next thing on the page. 

A constant stream of tension causes readers to read every word of a novel. They pay close attention. 

At - Tension. 

It's tempting to limit tension to danger or plot turns.... Tension may even sound to you like "explosion". But remeber that tension has many degrees of simmering temperatures. There's simmering under the surface tension as well as high explosive force. 

When a novelist is able to keep you reading even while there is nothing apparently "happening" in a scene, count on it: MIcro-tension is at work. Conversely, when you're reading a high-action sequence and against all logic, it's unexciting, then micro-tension is absent." 

Rowling intuitivly loaded up on the simmering under the surface tension in some pretty major ways. 

I had never analyzed Harry Potter like that before.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Oh humor. Wouldn't that be fun? I'm with you, TA. And you're right, 100%, that while I was working on this rewrite, I've been more sensitive to absorbing craft advice. I never meant to set out to "make it worse" it just hit me in that moment how much I'd failed to capitalize on situations in my books. To me, it was simple. Tyrion got a champion, one who wanted revenge. He fought a great fight. He wins, Tyrion goes free. Prince has his revenge. The Lannisters get to bury their king and no one gets to avenge him. HA! 

And I SO thought it was going to happen that way, the pure feeling of joy I experienced being denied my desire has moved me. Deeply.

I never knew I could be so angry and elated at the same time!

I'm struggling to rewrite a first chapter, and for my purposes at this time, with this and other stories, I've now got a real idea of what's going wrong. It isn't even situational, sometimes. Sometimes it's just in sentence structure, or the introduction of a concept. As I show the MC in her situation, I've made it worse, and I love it.

@ Fifth, your Hary Potter reference is exactly what I'm doing right now with Helio. I had a character in a situation, and Helio asked me to show more up front of WHY it all mattered. So I sent her some long emails explaining it, and she responded with some VERY good suggestions for HOW I could make it matter more. How I could make it matter NOW. 

@ Sheila and anyone else who feels like I was in some way advocating perpetually raising the stakes, it wasn't what I said, or what I implied. I merely tried to share a very emotional breakthrough I had. I wrote a book that I liked, but it failed to impress about 20 readers. Some liked certain things, some concepts, etc. but overall, it lacked impact. By increasing the tension through making it worse, I now have something loads better than I did. 

Perhaps that just points to my failure as a writer or a pantser (as I surely am), but in truth, I aim to publish this novel, and I'm ready to embrace any advice Mr. Maass will give me. I just couldn't fully embrace it until I'd seen it done and felt its impact. But now that I have, you can be sure that I'll reserve that tool for when it's needed. At least, I mean to say that i'm not going to start on page one and pull the rug out from under the reader and character at every turn. 

My version of making it worse, is simply to make things feel rawer, use language to more fully capture the scene, and to hopefully evoke the emotion I intend in a reader.

One last note here, with this new turn in the conversation (before it moves on). For me, novels and shorts are two different breeds of beasts. One, I feel very comfortable in getting right in and doing the dirty work (shorts), though I've never written them before a few years ago. The other, i've been writing for a long time, but haven't every really experienced success, because certain things were simply lacking. 

Sure, I've written hundreds of shorts, and a dozen full novels, but I've read hundreds more, by aspiring writers. Some were very good, and since reading and commenting on them myself, they've found agents and been published. But the majority were about as successful as mine. They were completed, but lacked in a way that would prevent their commercial success as we've come to think of it. So I know there are loads of folks in exactly my position. 

Some of those people are not interested in mass appeal. Some don't want to publish, but wanted feedback to improve their own skills, and I wholly support writers who write for themselves. But I'm in a different place in my journey right now. I need to KNOW why I'm not wowing readers. Wy they praise some of my short stories, but fail to be engaged by the novels i've given so much love and attention. And this moving experience I've just had has really opened my eyes to exactly what I was missing. I wasn't brave. 

We're so lucky to have this community, where we can come together for support, whether we're writing for our own therapy and to heal our own psyche, or whether we have a burning desire to see our name in a bookstore. Any path we choose is open to us, and this wonderful place we come to has something for everyone. Again, I'm not sure how this thread became so wide in its interpretation of Make it Worse, but I enjoy hearing everyone's take on how they craft a tale, and how they reach decisions. 

It might have been more polarizing than I ever imagined it would be (because most of my threads get a page of comments and then get buried under more popular or funner threads), but I'm excited to see so many people weigh in on how they experience the life of a writer. Some of you guys have shared a large part of your writing journey and your personal lives with me, and I just want you all to know how much I appreciate it. You've made me better. You've made me think. Steel sharpens steel, and with you pushing me on, challenging me, I've grown and continue to grow. Today, I'm telling a story in a way I never knew I could, and I feel really good about that. I'm glad this rewrite is nothing like the first draft I wrote back in 2008. That's PROGRESS. Big time. 

And while many of you came here as people intent on writing your first book, many others came here with a pile of work completed, but missing some key elements to being a 21st century story-teller. So I like to share my experiences, on the off chance that my personal story might help someone along some facet of their journey. Whether we fully agree on what writing advice is good, or what it even truly means (I'm remember ing the voice/tone thread, where we had lots of interpretations, too), the more we communicate, the more we can all potentially learn from each other.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hi FifthView.

I take that post about _Harry Potter_ to mean that any story that features challenges, problems and difficult conditions for the character is an example of how good M.I.W. actually is. We all do that to our characters in one way or another because challenge is part of why a story gets to be entertaining, but it does not mean that we must make our characters' lives as difficult as possible.

I give challenges and sad conditions to my characters too, but just the necessary amount, just what the story needs. We should note that the first book of _Harry Potter_ does not take the challenges and complications to an extreme, and it's only _in later books_ that Harry grows as a character and more complex things happen to him.

What would have happened if J.K. Rowling had tried to put in the first book everything that came much later in her series?

Patience, we need Patience because it's another very important aspect of being a successful narrator of stories. In the other hand, the M.I.W. advice encourages new writers to go wild, crazy and ambitious from the very start and that's what is dangerous in this advice, tool or whatever that it is.

I still think that it's better to relegate M.I.W. as a Brainstorming Device and concentrate on telling stories as they are... And having patience too, and having loads and loads of discipline and of love for our stories.

There is also another thing about the HP series that you did not analyze: Even though Harry's past is tragic and he is being mistreated by his aunt and her family, the character encounters a great happiness when he discovers that he will go to a Wizarding School and a whole new world opens for him.

Harry meets incredible new people and he starts a new life... _A better life_ despite all the challenges, so there you have it: Not everything in Storytelling is about making things worse.


----------



## Penpilot

Sheilawisz said:


> Hey again.
> If my posts in this thread can make at least one person to consider my ways of storytelling instead of the other way, I would be very happy and satisfied. I am just saying that narrating stories is a form of art instead of something that can be carefully planned and controlled like it was carpentry, and almost everybody goes mad at me.



Sheilawisz, I don't think anyone is mad at you. I know I'm definiely not. People can pasionately disagree without being mad. Again, definitely not mad, if your car broked down in a snowstorm, I'd still stop and give you a lift.



Sheilawisz said:


> I also have very talented and famous authors in my side, like Stephen King, J.K. Rowling and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. I am not even close to being as good as they are and were, but I am in the same school as them. Stephen King has said several times that Plot plays no role in his creative process, and Rowling said that she did not want some of her dearest characters to die but they died anyway.



Here's something interesting. Notes and diagrams show how famous authors including J.K. Rowling and Sylvia Plath planned out their novels | Daily Mail Online

It's a link to a page displaying author notes/charts/plans from a bunch of well known and award winning authors including JK Rowling, whose notes look like a spread sheet. It's a small insight into how much these authors planned things out before writing. 




Sheilawisz said:


> For example, this is why I do not participate in Challenges like Iron Pen and the new Top Scribe by ThinkerX.
> 
> Those Challenges present a list of elements to use in a story, but when I read the requisites no story comes to me. The suggested combination does not awake any inspiration in my mind or in my heart, any ideas... No story comes to me, and so I cannot work on the Challenge. To get working on a story, I need that _Click_ moment that I have been talking about.
> 
> Storytelling is not like cooking from a recipe, at least not to me.



Have you ever heard the story of how Jim Butcher came to write his Codex Alera series?

To quote from Wikipedia



> The inspiration for the series came from a bet Jim was challenged to by a member of the Del Rey Online Writer’s Workshop. The challenger bet that Jim could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and Jim countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger’s choosing. The “lame” ideas given were “Lost Roman Legion", and “PokÃ©mon”



The first book in the series has a 4.1 stars out of 5 rating on goodreads. 




Sheilawisz said:


> The argument that I have finished not only one, but many stories that have been liked and praised by my readers is not a logical fallacy, it's a fact and it does matter.



I'd suggest you look up arguement from authority fallacy. By this kind of thinking if Stephen King said he wrote while sitting on a tack, and that in fact if anyone wants writing success like his, they must sit on a tack too, then we all should take his word at it without question. Because, well, he's Stephen King.

It may work for him, but I'm not going to believe his claim and sit on a tack unless he made an incredibly compelling agrument for it. Even still, I'd explore if there were other options, because sitting on a tack, well, is sitting on a tack.




Sheilawisz said:


> This brings a good example of my view:
> 
> Any person can learn to play the violin or the piano, but not everyone will be able to compose a beautiful, artful song simply because they learned to play the instrument. This is what I mean when I say that telling stories is a form of art too, because you can know all the technical stuff of writing but it takes inspiration and talent to actually write great stories.



You know how I said all writing advice can be dangerous? Well here's the danger in this line of thinking, and I'll use myself as an example. When I first attempted to write, I struggled. When I was inspired I could put down words, but they didn't add up to a story. And when I wasn't inspired, it was a wasteland. I was discouraged. I wondered if I had the talent for it. My grammar was attrocious, and I wondered if I should even continue to try. 

If I'd listened to that talentless voice, I would have given up. Instead, I became a student of writing. The more I learned, the quieter that talentless voice got. Eventually, I stopped worrying about tallent and inspiration as keys to writing a great story, and instead, focused on working harder and smarter.

Three novels and a bunch of short stories later, I find this appoach to be true, for me at least.

Thinking that talent and inspiration rules the day can discourage new writers from even trying because those things may not flow so easily for them. And IMHO it's a tradgedy when someone who wants to write doesn't simply because they don't think they have talent.  




Sheilawisz said:


> Yes, following my inspiration and artistic instincts always leads me to a much better and beautiful story.



From my experience, I found relying on inspiration is like relying on a bad boyfriend/girlfriend. When they come around, it can be fantastic and earthshattering, but you never know when they'll show up, or if they'll show up. 

There are times when I write something inspired and then come back to it later and realize it's junk. And there are times when I write something uninspired, think it's junk, only to come back and realize it was pretty good.

And after a story goes through the editing process, I rarely remember what was inspired writing and what wasn't. There's only what works. Everything else goes into the trash, inspired or not.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hey Penpilot.

I cannot speak about the other authors, but as a former fan of the _Pottermore_ site I do know about how many notes and previous planning J.K. Rowling did before the novels. The difference is that most of her notes are background story for her characters and vast worldbuilding material, and not a concise guide about how to write every part of her stories.

As a matter of fact, I do outlining too (at least, within my mind) and I used to do it by means of paper when I was much less experienced, a long time ago. Outlining helps, but it does not guarantee that your story will end up being just what you wanted it to be or that it's going to be a great story simply because you planned it so well.

Sometimes you are sure that certain event in particular is going to happen and when the moment comes it does not take place, or it does happen but in a different way that you did not anticipate.

I have not read _Codex Alera_, but if the author could use two very separate ideas that worked so well it's because they combined and _Clicked_ something in him. It has happened to me too, but only sometimes because when random ideas are thrown at me the most likely result is that there will be no inspiration and no sparks flying.

About the authority fallacy, I think you are just exaggerating it. If J.K. Rowling herself said that we should jump from a bridge and hit our heads against a rock in order to become great narrators, do you think people would do it? I would not, because that's obviously a stupid thing to do.

What I am saying is that, considering that I have finished many stories myself and these stories have been liked and praised by multiple readers, it means that my views and comments in this thread should not be ignored or either discarded so easily. It's not that I am an unquestionable authority, but I am not a clueless novice either.

If a person wants to learn artistic wood carving, who should this person seek? A person that has experience in the art and has already carved some cool pieces, or somebody else that knows the theory of carving wood but has never produced anything for real?

Who would you choose? I would go with the person that has already demonstrated to have a solid capability in the craft, which is what I already have done with my Showcase and Challenge stories... And yet, my personal experience does not seem to matter to many people in this discussion.

From my experience, I have discovered that inspiration will not always be there for me when I sit down and start writing a chapter or a scene. Those are the moments when I force myself to keep advancing, which sometimes works great and other times not as good.

Other times, inspiration shows up and I go all _Zone_ and it works like wonders.

However, _one single moment_ of inspiration can mean that an entire story comes to me all of a sudden and starts screaming: _Tell me! Tell me! Tell me, now!_, and that's all that it takes to start a wonderful journey with new characters and new adventures to cherish and enjoy.

I have observed something here in Mythic Scribes, and that is how most people in the community are very worried about writing rules and the technical aspects of writing in general. At the same time, most of the time in the Forums or the Chat I keep hearing about struggles and trouble...

In comparison, you should see the quality of storytelling that is often seen at a very well known site dedicated to Fanfictions. Those people are not constantly discussing technical stuff, they simply start to tell their stories following some kind of natural instinct and their work is often surprisingly good.

So many people can tell good stories, if they do not mess themselves up thinking that they need to have a perfect knowledge of technicalities first. Yes, some people may be scared away by the thought that they do not have enough talent, but most of them will try their skills anyway and discover that they can do it quite well.

The main reason for my offensive against the M.I.W. as a storytelling advice is that I have realized that many people in our community are trying to find something like a perfect formula for writing great stories, like it was all about how to play excellent Chess games, and no... Such a formula simply does not exist, it's the wrong path to follow.

It's good to know that you are not mad at me.


----------



## Penpilot

Sheilawisz said:


> Hey Penpilot.
> As a matter of fact, I do outlining too (at least, within my mind) and I used to do it by means of paper when I was much less experienced, a long time ago. Outlining helps, but it does not guarantee that your story will end up being just what you wanted it to be or that it's going to be a great story simply because you planned it so well.
> 
> Sometimes you are sure that certain event in particular is going to happen and when the moment comes it does not take place, or it does happen but in a different way that you did not anticipate.



I agree. Like I said before, writing is art and science. Using one or the other or even both doesn't guarantee a great story or even a good story. But IMHO, the more you learn about writing certainly increases the chances.  



Sheilawisz said:


> About the authority fallacy, I think you are just exaggerating it.



The example I gave is most definitely an exageration. All I'm saying is if someone makes a claim, it doesn't matter who it comes from. I won't believe it or agree with it unless they can present me with a compelling reason to do. That's all. 




Sheilawisz said:


> What I am saying is that, considering that I have finished many stories myself and these stories have been liked and praised by multiple readers, it means that my views and comments in this thread should not be ignored or either discarded so easily. It's not that I am an unquestionable authority, but I am not a clueless novice either.



I don't think anyone is ignoring your comments. There are many reasons why people may not necessarily have acknowledged your comments. Maybe people just don't have a specifice response, or when threads move fast like this one did, posts can get lost in the shuffle.

I know there are times when I make comments and all I get are crickets. In retrospect, I find sometimes I could have stated things better. Other times, someone makes similar point, only they stated it in a way that's more inducive to comments and responses. I know it happend to me with my first post in this thread. I said some things that didn't garner any response, but then someone else stated similar things but only way more eloquently and got plenty of responses and comments.   




Sheilawisz said:


> If a person wants to learn artistic wood carving, who should this person seek? A person that has experience in the art and has already carved some cool pieces, or somebody else that knows the theory of carving wood but has never produced anything for real?



First thing I'd do is ask why someone who doesn't carve would know enough about carving theory to teach it.

But honestly, I'd go to the artisic person and discuss and learn art theory with them, then I'd go to the technical person and learn the technical side of things from them. You don't have to choose one or the other. 



Sheilawisz said:


> I have observed something here in Mythic Scribes, and that is how most people in the community are very worried about writing rules and the technical aspects of writing in general. At the same time, most of the time in the Forums or the Chat I keep hearing about struggles and trouble...
> 
> In comparison, you should see the quality of storytelling that is often seen at a very well known site dedicated to Fanfictions. Those people are not constantly discussing technical stuff, they simply start to tell their stories following some kind of natural instinct and their work is often surprisingly good.



But here's the thing, the populations of each site probably have different goals. Here, many of us aspire to be published and make a living at writing. To do that we must improve and learn ways to improve, and there's a certain self imposed pressure to do so. That's why there's discussion on techincal stuff. And like it or not, you have to know a certain amount of the techincal stuff to be a pro.

There, on the fanfic site, my impression is most probably just want to put out their ideas. There's a certain level of Don't-Give-A-Crap, and I don't mean that in a dispariging way. It's an attitude that a lot of new writers should adopt. I don't give a crap if this is any good, I'm writing it anyway because I want to.

In addition, there are certain advantages to having a world and characters premade for you to play with vs. having to make everything up from scratch. When you have the foundation laid out for you, there's a lot more time to focus on other parts of the house and make them nice.




Sheilawisz said:


> The main reason for my offensive against the M.I.W. as a storytelling advice is that I have realized that many people in our community are trying to find something like a perfect formula for writing great stories, like it was all about how to play excellent Chess games, and no... Such a formula simply does not exist, it's the wrong path to follow.



I don't know about everyone else, I generally don't get the impression anyone is looking for the perfect formula. Like you said, it doesn't exist. But there are lots of tools out there that can help. And that's all the OP was about. "Hey look at this new tool I found. Here's how it works. What do you think?"

It's never been about "Hey I found this perfect formula to write award winning novels that will make millions. Everyone should use it, and if you don't, you're a fool." Nobody is saying that. And if they did, they'd be wrong.

Like I said before, this is a tool. Use it. Discard it. Nobody is saying it's right or wrong to do either.


----------



## Russ

> What I am saying is that, considering that I have finished many stories myself and these stories have been liked and praised by multiple readers, it means that my views and comments in this thread should not be ignored or either discarded so easily. It's not that I am an unquestionable authority, but I am not a clueless novice either.



You seem to be taking this far too personally and implying certain negative things about the people who disagree with you.  That won't take the conversation very far at all.  I have thought about what you said and I fundamentally disagree with it, not because I don't accept the "credentials" you put forward, but because I believe you are wrong.  And if it got turned into a credentials fight I don't think you would be successful.




> If a person wants to learn artistic wood carving, who should this person seek? A person that has experience in the art and has already carved some cool pieces, or somebody else that knows the theory of carving wood but has never produced anything for real?



This is an exaggerated false choice.  You want to learn from a person with three characteristics, 1) they can do the thing, 2) they understand how they do the thing, and 3) they can articulate how they do the thing.

People who work from a very spiritual, inspired or unstructured approach don't really make really good teachers.  All they can offer is general encouragement.  "Follow your heart", "let the story flow through you" etc etc.  All inspirational and valuable but not very practical.

People who understand in a concrete way how they do something, can organize and teach it in a more concrete practical way.  That doesn't mean the spiritual writer is not a great writer, but they are less likely to be a good teacher of writing.

But someone who says tells people to ignore advice that has been given by very experienced and successful agents, editors and writers based on their "credentials" and their belief that a well accepted tool or technique will cause writer's block?  Or that makes negative, and probably false assumptions about many people in our community?  I don't think that is either accurate or helpful.


----------



## FifthView

Sheilawisz said:


> Hi FifthView.
> 
> I take that post about _Harry Potter_ to mean that any story that features challenges, problems and difficult conditions for the character is an example of how good M.I.W. actually is.



Yes, it is.  It's an excellent example.  And we could go through the entire series of Harry Potter books and find many more great examples of how good M.I.W. actually is.



> We all do that to our characters in one way or another because challenge is part of why a story gets to be entertaining, but it does not mean that we must make our characters' lives as difficult as possible.
> 
> I give challenges and sad conditions to my characters too, but just the necessary amount, just what the story needs. We should note that the first book of _Harry Potter_ does not take the challenges and complications to an extreme, and it's only _in later books_ that Harry grows as a character and more complex things happen to him.
> 
> What would have happened if J.K. Rowling had tried to put in the first book everything that came much later in her series?



No one has said that anything beyond the necessary amount is a much better use of M.I.W.

You keep trying to reduce M.I.W. to some absurd extreme to "prove" that it's a bad thing.  We all know water is evil and everyone should avoid coming into contact with even one drop of water because, well, people drown in oceans, in floods, and besides which, sharks live in oceans.  Right?  If anyone dare suggest that water is a very good thing, necessary to our lives, hundreds if not thousands of children and adults will end up dying needlessly.



> Patience, we need Patience because it's another very important aspect of being a successful narrator of stories. In the other hand, the M.I.W. advice encourages new writers to go wild, crazy and ambitious from the very start and that's what is dangerous in this advice, tool or whatever that it is.



On the contrary, M.I.W. advice may encourage new writers to find the hidden conflict, or the greater potential, in their stories or for any given scene or chapter.  It may help them to develop more tension, more excitement for the reader.  You seem to assume that every new story, by every new writer (and old writer), is already automatically at perfect levels of tension, danger, conflict, in every single scene and chapter; and so, "M.I.W." will ruin the story.  But this is not the case.  

Plus, you are assuming that the advice M.I.W. doesn't come with cautions, various potential strategies of applying it, different potential degrees of "worse."  The poor idiot new writers will just kill off their entire cast of main characters in chapter 3 and have nothing to write for chapter 4 because they will go insane _making it worse_.

_Edit:_ One of the problems with using a successful series like _Harry Potter_ as a good example is that we only see the finished product.  Imagine how different the story might have been if any one of those things I mentioned had not been used to M.I.W.  So, the Dursley's were childless; or, they had a child and showered their child will all their attention but, like most Muggles, they never knew that the wizarding world existed.  Or, there was no Slytherin House; or, no Snape; or, neither.  These were all possibilities.  But Rowling chose to add them to her story (or, acquiesced to her Storyteller Spirit's demands; whatever.)


----------



## Heliotrope

Case in point, about a month ago I was working on my Blackbeard story, wrote a few chapters... it just wasn't sitting right with me. I sent my first chapter to a crit partner who I really respect (Demesnedenoir from this site, actually... he is AMAZING people), looking for honest critique. He gave it. Fading tension. Didn't hold his attention. He couldn't quite understand _why_ since he liked the concept of the story... but something wasn't right. He suggested I sit on it for a while. 

I did, worked on other things. Wrote my Top Scribe short. I came back to it last night and re-read it. 

Man was he right! Borings-ville. I didn't know my character enough. I didn't know what motivated her, and what motivated her in the first chapter was too shallow. Not interesting. The frame work was there but it needed some serious deepening. 

So last night I spent most of the night brainstorming how to make it worse. 

For me, characters don't just jump onto the page fully formed, like Athena from Zeus' head. I don't believe that I'm merely dictating "what really happened." I believe it is my job to get my hands dirty and craft a good, compelling story. If my reader says it is boring, then it is my job to get in there and find out why. I don't sit back and say "Oh, well, that's the way it really happened." No. I go to work. I re-draft. I dig deeper. I make things worse. 

That is how I opperate. If other people opperate in different ways, then good on you! I'm happy for you! Writing is harder for me. I need tools.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I don't think anyone's talking about rules set in stone. Make it Worse is a tool we can all use. It's a tool for brainstorming and editing, which is what I said in the original post. I missed some opportunities. I have a completed story that lacks tension (especially in the beginning), and by making things worse for the MC, I can increase the tension, like in the Harry Potter example. BY making Harry's situation a little "worse" than merely being an orphan with a loving adopted family, the situation becomes relatable to a wide readership who may not be orphans themselves, but who can relate to feeling unloved by their parents, or being the "second son" or being somehow overlooked. I mean, just that simple choice to make his situation a step worse, it becomes more important to readers to read his story.

I think the spirit of my original comment was to acknowledge that I wrote a complete tale of things happening, a character I felt excited about, etc. but I was missing some key elements to making that character stand out as unique and gripping to a reader. 

BY that very definition, that's EXACTLY what new writers need. I've read tons of stories about people who are doing stuff, but very few characters have been really engaging from the beginning. Too often, writers begin in a place that loses my interest right away. They begin with back story. Or descriptions of a town. Or with a character who is good at too much stuff. Or some kind of preview of the story. I've done all of that. And it sucked. Though they were good stories in concept, the execution and my own personal lacking planning failed to turn a decent story into something people wanted to read. That's it. By making things worse, more immediate, more at stake from the get-go, you have a new opportunity to impress and engage a reader. 

continued...


----------



## Caged Maiden

...continued

Any generic story isn't more engaging just because someone is hung in the first scene. If that's the kind of story you're telling, I suppose it's fine, a dramatic opening, though readers aren't likely to care about the chap on the gallows. I think you could use any scene to open a story, so long as you have a character who is unique in some way, engaging, good dialogue, good descriptions, and something immediate happening. But to begin with an initial concept is usually not the same as editing that concept, putting it through the grinder, and coming up with a more tense situation, a more interesting circumstance. Taking what works well and increasing it from there. That's why I think making it worse is really important.

@ Sheila, I don't think anyone's ignoring you outright, but I think you're missing the spirit of my initial post, the breakthrough experience I had, and instead summing up my message as "Write like THIS" which it isn't. 

What about your writing experience? Well, what about mine? I've written a dozen novels and over a hundred shorts, and while some of the short stories have blown some people's socks off, the novels have time and time again failed to impress. I was perfectly inspired when I wrote them, I was even knowledgeable about craft and technique for the last ones. Yet they still failed to engage readers. Was I aiming at the wrong people? Was I simply trying too hard to impress everyone? Was I staying too true to my original vision and not taking into account that readers want certain things to sink their teeth into? 

Who knows. The point is, the novels are mediocre, despite all my writing experience. I'm not telling anyone how to do anything, just sharing something that worked for me. And though this conversation has taken many twists, defining "Make it Worse" and relating it to many facets of the writer's journey to tell a gripping tale, the disagreement over whether it's valid advice seems rather silly to me. Any advice is just that, a tool you MAY want to think about using in certain circumstances. There's no harm in that, any more than there's harm in someone saying, "Hey folks, here's how I outlined my latest novel, and it went really well!" I mean, would people suddenly speak out against outlining as the death of creativity? Ludicrous. It's obviously just one writer's experience, disseminated for our community, so others may benefit if it suits them.

If inspiration alone is working for you, that's great! But it hasn't really worked for me. I'm not going to be able to explain it any better than that. It isn't a matter of quality, or a matter of story concepts, or even of dedication. It just is what it is. My stories needed something more, and by making it worse, I found a big thing I was lacking. 

I feel really drawn to the excitement I felt when Tyrion's trial went sideways, and I'm going to implement that tactic in my own work, now that i have been inspired by actually seeing and feeling the way it can impact a story and a reader, when something gets surprisingly worse. I'm not even using the trial as my goal to shoot for, because like I said, I was sore when Jaime just let him escape in the end, because that felt cheap, because he could have done that in the beginning.

Anyways, this thread wasn't ever meant to undermine inspiration or anyone's writing process. All I wanted to share was the deeply personal realization I had, in hopes that it might help a good writer trying to be great. Trying to strengthen their story they love that hasn't really excited readers. I mean, at the end of the day, we all have different goals. I don't want to sound harsh, because I have a lot of respect for this community and everyone here. My friends, my partners, those who inspire me and push me, those who challenge me and criticize my work to make it better. All of them. But at this point in my journey, I'm working to get to the next level in MY GENRE. And for anyone looking for commercial success in their genre ought to be looking for what works within that scope. The product they're selling ought to be their own, yes, but it should also respectfully give target readers what they want. And that's still defined (loosely) by genre. Your genre isn't mine, so my tactics might not be the ones you'd choose. Same for everyone else. Choose what works for you. Choose what's right for your goals. But I don't feel like that means my moving experience is invalid. 

I'm fine looking at every counterpoint in any conversation, but some of the things that have been stated about the danger of the advice in this post are simply ludicrous to me. 



> The main reason for my offensive against the M.I.W. as a storytelling advice is that I have realized that many people in our community are trying to find something like a perfect formula for writing great stories... Such a formula simply does not exist, it's the wrong path to follow.



Making it worse isn't a formula at all. It's giving careful consideration to everything you said you felt here:



> However, _one single moment of inspiration can mean that an entire story comes to me all of a sudden and starts screaming: Tell me! Tell me! Tell me, now!, and that's all that it takes to start a wonderful journey with new characters and new adventures to cherish and enjoy._



BY taking that moment of inspiration and writing it, and then later (as I'm doing) giving that inspired event more immediacy, I'm personally telling a better story. Maybe that isn't your process. I'm fine with admitting my inspiration hasn't gone over well with readers. Maybe i'm in the minority here. I have a snaking suspicion that's not the case. I've read hundreds of stories and novels for other writers, and about 95% of them could do with a "worsening" of some kind, in the beginning, in the middle, and maybe even at the end. Something more immediate. Something to take the story from it's initial "logical" path and throw a really ugly wrench in the gears. And it needn't be graphic violence or anything else that doesn't align with the spirit of the novel. It can be a scene that makes your character have to make a choice to stay on her current path, or choose another. Even if you don't change the outcome at all, the very presence of the CHOICE has made the character and her situation stronger for the reader. And that's how I see this advice playing out in my own stories. 

In my opening, my character wanted to get out of the criminal network. She had plans to do it in the first draft, but took no steps to make it happen, until she's taken prisoner and then can never go back. It had drama, it had danger. But it didn't have a character making a conscious choice. BY giving her some actions to take now, things that make her uncomfortable, I am showing her commitment to making her wants real.

So many stories I read follow that exact sort of inspiration. A boy is in the field when he sees smoke, and he returns home to see his family died when their house burned down. Oh, well, I guess he'll have to find something new to do. Maybe avenge them, maybe find a new home, enlist in the king's army. Even if written beautifully, with all technical correctness, the story might feel lacking to a reader. And that's the hardest thing to teach new writers, so that's why this thread is really important, I think. Now, if that same boy has a choice to make, maybe he comes home just in time to see someone light the fire, he's got a certain decision. Save his little sister lying under his mother's dead body, or go after the jerk who lit the fire. That makes it worse. The course of the story wouldn't be changed at all from its original inspiration, it's original outcome, but the situation might be more engaging to a reader. And that's why I listen to all my readers, those who have nice things to say, and those that couldn't find much nice to say at all. I keep myself humble and work harder. I change my viewpoint and break the chains on my heart, those that felt connected to the original inspiration. I hope that as I get better at this whole thing, I'll be more likely to come up with a winner of an idea for a first draft, and I can stop rewriting! HA!

I've chosen to at this point in my writing journey, to look for places where I can make things just one or two steps worse, editing stories that I love and was inspired to write, but that fell flat for readers because readers don't want subtlety and beautiful sentence structure, and all the other technical things I've gotten really great at, they want a more gripping story right form page one. And I'm finally feeling like I can deliver on that.


----------



## Caged Maiden

> Plus, you are assuming that the advice M.I.W. doesn't come with cautions, various potential strategies of applying it, different potential degrees of "worse." The poor idiot new writers will just kill off their entire cast of main characters in chapter 3 and have nothing to write for chapter 4 because they will go insane _making it worse_



This is exactly what I said was so ludicrous about where this thread has gone. So much this!

Why does making it worse have to immediately feel like a bad thing? I read a story by a young writer (not on this site), and in it, a priest and little girl sat by a river, chatting about useless things (can't remember), and neither seemed to have a purpose for being there, a goal, or even a reason to exist. 

Late in the drab story, we see some evil presence come into the setting, and some really shocking things happen. My question (as I was giving this story a score for a challenge) was why did it open where it did? What was the author trying to get across to the reader? What importance could the characters have played in the final outcome, if they'd only hinted at their fears, rather than throwing picked flowers into a river, musing about the weather and their dull lives?

Too often, that's exactly the story new writers put out. They want to capture the beauty of the scenery, the wind, the sunshine, the girl's cute curls, and the wise priest's haggard face. But nothing is happening. Now, what if they were there at the river performing a protection ritual? What if there was some inkling of a clue for the reader in the beginning, that they weren't to folks living in Happyville? What if they didn't agree on something? What if the little girl was the one with confidence in the ritual, and the priest was scared witless? I mean, by making that scene mean something, the writer would have engaged me, But she didn't. And I scored her low for it.

Now, I'm not saying her friends didn't think it was a cute story. Some people scored her high on it. Even if I can't understand why, it means someone liked the story, or at least thought it fit their tastes. So again, what works for some readers, won't work for others. But to disregard tried and true methods, for the sake of worrying new writers will go too far...well, let's just say I've NEVER seen a new writer go too far. Ever. Most stories are plagued by not going far enough. 

When they go too far, it's in character descriptions, back story info dumps, setting the scene, and generally avoiding those things that make a story more engaging for a reader who desperately wants to be connected with the story and character.

I've used the analogy so many times, but when I read for anyone else, I see myself as an excited person who wants to get in the door to the party. I want go have fun. I want to be with my friends (the characters). And sometimes, weak writing stands like an ominous bouncer at the door. And that info dump and scene setting stands like a stiff-arm pushing me back out the door. 

BY Making it worse at the opening of a story, giving the character a reason to act NOW, to FEEl something in this moment, we give the reader their invitation into the party. We open the door wide and welcome them right into the situation, not hold them at arm's length and tell them to quietly observe as we take them on a boring tour of the grounds before letting them enter. 

I wasn't a fan of immediacy and making it worse, because I mistakenly thought that by doing so, I'd fail to tell the reader what they needed to know before they could care. But I was SO WRONG!

Sure, we can call that strategy "Making an opening engaging" or whatever else you want to call it, but in my head, it's simply "making it worse" making it matter now. And new writers are the worst offenders in this regard. And I'm not new, and i'm still terribly guilty of it. And there are PLENTY of published writers who are, too. 

And whatever works for an individual writer is great. Kudos to them. But for me, I'm embracing this concept because I can see the need for it. But I'm not afraid that sharing my experience will suddenly turn the next generation of MS participants into wanton slaughterers of characters (as this awesome and laugh out loud funny example exemplifies). 

Wish I could thank that comment again


----------



## FifthView

The group of _Writing Excuses_ podcasters had some episodes where they discussed 3-pronged character development, using sliders for three areas that can make a character engaging for a reader:  Sympathy, Competence, Proactivity.  I've linked those before. 

In one of those podcasts, Harry Potter was used as an example of a character who might not be high in Competence and Proactivity, but whose Sympathy bar is _way_ up, through the roof.  They also gave him as an example of one way to increase sympathy for a character:  Make him suffer.  That's not the only way that Harry is made sympathetic, of course.  Plus, giving those glimmers of hope and happiness, the possibility of the end to the suffering, is probably key for building up the sort of engaged sympathy that wants to keep reading.  If a reader begins to feel that the suffering will be neverending, then why keep reading?  (Well, a character who suffers but whose main draw is in his Competence and/or Proactivity might still engage a reader even without those glimmers of hope.)


----------



## Heliotrope

Exactly, FV, and I think that goes to show how interconnected this entire concept is. 

In order for the reader to be sympathetic to the character, you have to give them something to be sympathetic about. 
If the character needs to be pro-active, give them something to be pro-active about. 
If the character needs to be competent, give them something to do to show competence... 

BUT... 

The bigger the problem, the more the sliders will slide in favor of the character. Small problem = small slide forward. BIG, seemingly impossible problems = HUGE slide for the character. 

I know we have talked about GRRM a lot in a negative way on this thread, but I will bring him up again.. He always writes himself into a corner. He has fully admitted that. He will write Tyrion into a corner and have no clue how to get him out of it. He likes when this happens because if he doesn't know how Tyrion will get out, the reader won't either. He will work on Arya for a while, or give it a few days until a solution appears for the Tyrion problem. This is what makes his work unpredictable, exciting, not generic. And this is what gives the characters those seemingly insurmountable obsticles that raise their sliders exponentially every time they succeed.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Sympathy for the devil is something (again to bring up the OP's example of GoT) GRRM exercises well. How many characters do we hate, and then follow because they're put through the ringer? Now don't get me wrong, Jaime Lannister dies I'm not shedding any tears... but still, the empathy for his situation grows as he suffers and grows from it. The Hound? Again, not lovable by any stretch, but still, kind of come to like him. Cersei is going through major moments of this growth in understanding/sympathy. 



FifthView said:


> The group of _Writing Excuses_ podcasters had some episodes where they discussed 3-pronged character development, using sliders for three areas that can make a character engaging for a reader:  Sympathy, Competence, Proactivity.  I've linked those before.
> 
> In one of those podcasts, Harry Potter was used as an example of a character who might not be high in Competence and Proactivity, but whose Sympathy bar is _way_ up, through the roof.  They also gave him as an example of one way to increase sympathy for a character:  Make him suffer.  That's not the only way that Harry is made sympathetic, of course.  Plus, giving those glimmers of hope and happiness, the possibility of the end to the suffering, is probably key for building up the sort of engaged sympathy that wants to keep reading.  If a reader begins to feel that the suffering will be neverending, then why keep reading?  (Well, a character who suffers but whose main draw is in his Competence and/or Proactivity might still engage a reader even without those glimmers of hope.)


----------



## Sheilawisz

Very well, I am already tired of all the negativity that is being thrown at me simply because I have been trying to help and guide people. We are in literally different planets as far as Storytelling is concerned, and maybe that's the best, you stay in your world and I'll stay in mine.

This is most likely going to be my final post in this thread, unless I have to defend myself again because at this point you are trying to make me look like a fool.

Penpilot and Russ: In my example, the person that already creates good wooden sculptures is the equivalent of a storyteller that is successful writing and finishing good stories, while the second person is somebody that knows all the technical details about writing but does not know how to tell a story.

Of course there is a technical side in our craft, I have never denied that. The first step is to actually being able to read and write, and to know how to write good sentences and good paragraphs… Still, not even the best technical skills will get the storytelling job done because it's a completely different world.

As far as M.I.W. is presented as a Tool or as a Brainstorming Device, I am fine with it.

The problem for me is that it was being presented with such enthusiasm (in particular by Heliotrope) and with such a powerful desire to quickly demonstrate how it works so incredibly, that it really came across as a magical formula for great storytelling.

If we agree that it's just a tool and that people should use it with great caution instead of assuming that it's the answer to everything, we are fine.

I wanted to use the Fanfictions site example again:

After a long time of reading Showcase entries and the replies to them, I discovered that the feedback most of the times aims at pointing out the technical flaws instead of the story. In the Fanfictions site, the feedback almost always speaks about the story itself and they rarely go technical.

I believe that we should change this approach that so many people have in Mythic Scribes.

I know that many of our members want to get published and make a living out of what we do, and that's why we need to focus more on the quality of our stories and less on the technical side. There are famous authors out there (like Rowling) that do not have elevated technical skills, but their stories, characters and worlds are so good and they tell the story so well, that they are successful anyway.

Good storytelling beats bad writing.

Also, if my own experience in the craft (all those stories that I have finished and that you can read in our Showcase) is so meaningless and has no importance, then the same can be applied to you. Why would your views be any more valid than mine, after all?

Maybe you think that my stories were completed by sheer luck, I am not sure.

I am not angry at either of you, but I am indeed very saddened and hurt to see how it's assumed that I know nothing of how to tell good stories.

FifthView: At the start the M.I.W. was described as a way to develop a more interesting plot and ideas to start a story, but now you and others are describing it as a very broad concept that involves character development, emotional impact on the readers, story depth, a way to discover hidden conflict and more.

Essentially, you are reducing the entire art of Storytelling to M.I.W., you are just giving it a new name.

I am not trying to prove that M.I.W. is a terrible thing. In my previous posts, I already accepted the usefulness of it for certain situations (as a brainstorming device, for example) but I am warning people that it should not be used as a solution for everything and that telling stories is much more than just increasing tension.

I said that this advice has a great potential to ruin stories instead of making them better, not that it will always ruin stories no matter how you use it. If we can agree that it's just a tool that must be used with caution and not a formula for fixing everything, I am fine with that.

And no, I never said that new writers are idiots, you are putting words into my mouth. What I have been trying to explain is that telling stories is a very complex and tricky art, and that if a novice believes that M.I.W. is the answer to everything, it can end in a very bad outcome.

Maiden: You present the advice as just a tool, while others presented it as a wonderful way to write great stories at the same time that they ignored other aspects of what we do. I never had any problem with anything you posted, except for the Game of Thrones examples because I still think that GoT is a terrible influence on Fantasy.

Good luck with your writing and storytelling, everybody.


----------



## Heliotrope

I get enthusiastic about stuff. What can I say? lol. I'm a happy, excitable kind of person.


----------



## Chessie

Heliotrope said:


> Exactly, FV, and I think that goes to show how interconnected this entire concept is.
> 
> In order for the reader to be sympathetic to the character, you have to give them something to be sympathetic about.
> If the character needs to be pro-active, give them something to be pro-active about.
> If the character needs to be competent, give them something to do to show competence...
> 
> BUT...
> 
> The bigger the problem, the more the sliders will slide in favor of the character. Small problem = small slide forward. BIG, seemingly impossible problems = HUGE slide for the character.
> 
> I know we have talked about GRRM a lot in a negative way on this thread, but I will bring him up again.. He always writes himself into a corner. He has fully admitted that. He will write Tyrion into a corner and have no clue how to get him out of it. He likes when this happens because if he doesn't know how Tyrion will get out, the reader won't either. He will work on Arya for a while, or give it a few days until a solution appears for the Tyrion problem. This is what makes his work unpredictable, exciting, not generic. And this is what gives the characters those seemingly insurmountable obsticles that raise their sliders exponentially every time they succeed.


Okay...this is slightly off topic but I couldn't help myself...

So when G.R.R. Martin writes himself into a corner...then his work becomes unpredictable. But when other writers who don't outline do the same thing, then we're told that we're doing it wrong and that we should go and outline. ?? 

His process is similar to what Sheila described and what I do which is "pantsing". I don't care what it's called anymore, but I write myself into dead ends all the time. And in fact, I read Writing Into The Dark by DWS just recently where he talks about this very phenomenon of getting stuck, sleeping on it or doing something to distract yourself, and coming back to the story later when our minds have had a chance to subconciously marinate on the problem.

Writing isn't any easier for pantsers than it is for outliners. We all need the box of tools to write a story and it doesn't matter how we use them or which ones we use either. Writing is hard for me, too, even though I've been writing for a long time. It's not suddenly easy because I just sit down and start typing. That's not how it works. Not at all! I often have the story and characters in my heart and head for a while before I draft. It's not easy to navigate a story without an outline and I've done both. Sorry, but I'm tired of reading bits of that in this thread that assume writers who don't outline somehow have it easier than everyone else. If that's the case, then try it and come tell me how it works for you. (you as a generalism, not anyone in particular here) 

I believe in try/fail cycles the same way I believe in being truthful about my story. It's something I have on my mind constantly as I steer and mold the story, using the characters as a sort of beacon. MIW may not sound right to  me, but it's still super valid and important advice.

Caged Maiden, I thank you for starting this awesome thread that's produced a lot of deep discussion. And even though I may not work in the same way others here work, I'm always open to how other writers work because that's how I've personally been able to try new things and either added them to my toolbox or not. I also agree with you 100% in that a lot of beginning writers focus on perfecting their prose when it should be the story they put their energy into.

The best pieces of advice I can give a new writer are to read for enjoyment in your genre A LOT, study study study story structure and techniques, work on finding your voice. Adding in MIW or try/fail cycles or whatever you want to call it is part of story structure and all writers do well to keep that in mind as they draft.


----------



## Heliotrope

??? That's not what I'm saying at all! Oh dear. No, this is not a plotter vs. Pantser debate at all. I used GRRM because he is a pantser. He doesn't outline. Instead he does exactly what you do! I was giving merit to that style, to your style, saying that is absolutely effective. This is not about plotting or pantsing. Both styles are totally valid and I do both as well. Both styles work. I was merely showing how writing yourself into a corner was sort of a good way of creating great obstacles.


----------



## Chessie

Right. I was merely making a general statement.


----------



## Caged Maiden

@ Sheila perhaps I didn't read the negativity as directed at you personally. I felt we were discussing a tool for great storytelling, and that was it.

I do however, think you're missing one thing in your example about Harry Potter. How much of her great storytelling was actually situations made worse. The horcruxes Dumbledore knew about, and he lost his life over one. The tri-wizard tournament Harry got thrust into. Kreacher being problematic. I can go on forever. there were so many instances where Harry did nothing wrong but was constantly under scrutiny, being told to butt out of everything and behave. I mean, the whole story was compelling because of every book containing multiple layers of mystery. Sure, there was fantastic world-building, but we didn't fall in love with the books over the world. Or the school. Or characters like Sirius Black or Ginny Weasley. We fell in love with Harry's story. The buy who wanted to be good but time and again was caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. He was duped by the Half-blood Prince, tormented by Draco, belittled by Snape, despised by his family, mistrusted by the press, called a liar by the whole wizarding community. It went on and on forever, just getting worse. It wasn't a heroic tale about a boy who was good at stuff and celebrated by his peers, with the occasional hiccup. It was a tale of pain and loss and overcoming huge adversity, with the ultimate sacrifice at the end.

While we'd all let our kids red Harry Potter (unlike GOT), the subject matter is such that any fantasy writer could include many of Harry's struggles in their adult-thees novels. I think Harry Potter is a perfect example of making situations worse. They could have been written without many of those elements, but the reason they were so compelling was because of how Harry was always the underdog. And when he wasn't, he still wasn't trusted by any but his closest allies. What a great example of making a character really desperate and up against the odds.


----------



## Russ

Chesterama said:


> Right. I was merely making a general statement.



My personal style is neither hear nor there, but I believe it is much harder to be a pantser, but it can still really work.

My wife is a pantser and I love her work.

Perhaps more to the point, I just read a book about how Lee Child writes, and he is a pantser for all the ages, but when he brings it all together the results are amazing.


----------



## Chessie

Now I have to Google his book. Thank you for the recommendation, Russ.


----------



## Russ

Chesterama said:


> Now I have to Google his book. Thank you for the recommendation, Russ.



It is actually not by Lee, it is by an academic who virtually moved in with Lee to observe and discuss his process with him while he was writing "Make Me."

Reacher Said Nothing: Lee Child and the Making of Make Me: Andy Martin: 9781101965450: Creative Writing & Composition: Amazon Canada

I was stunned at the level of his pantserness.  Astounded.  The man is a genius.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello Maiden.

Personally, I love the Harry Potter series more because of its world and magic style than because of Harry himself. I think that Harry is a great character, but my favorites are others like Luna, Ginny and Fleur. Many fans are in love with Harry's personal story indeed, but also loads of us just dream that the HP world could be real and we could live in it.

I believe that this is a crucial element for our success as Fantasy narrators: To have a great setting that people fall in love with, and to develop the capability to virtually transport our readers there and make it feel like a real place.

So much of Rowling's great work is situations that get quite complicated and challenge the protagonists and others a lot, that's true. However, adding good challenges and difficulties to a story is such a basic concept that I am very surprised at how some people seem to have suddenly discovered it like they had never realized it before.

We should note that not everything keeps getting worse for Harry:

After knowing nothing but an adoptive family that mistreats him, Harry discovers that he is actually a Wizard and he belongs to this incredible new world. At first he does not even believe it, but very soon he starts a new life that was much better than the entire first eleven years of his life...

Harry meets great new people, incredible friends, his future wife and mother of his children, a magical place (Hogwarts) that he comes to love so much that he adopts it as his true home... And he meets enemies and challenges too, of course, but not everything is worsening and tensions.

I think that Harry Potter is an example of the many elements that make a Fantasy story great and successful, and not just of the worsening/challenges concept.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Ooh, I just made this worse, too!!!



> Just gotta make it less convenient, less "easy" and more grounded in action and consequence. Like I said, why does her friend have to send her the letter warning her she's in danger? It makes more sense he'd just sell her out. Maybe he did it and sends the note because he feels guilty?



So again, originally, I had a friend send the MC a note, saying she had someone looking for her. Then I figured he could just sell her out, because that made more sense. Problem was, I NEED the note to happen, because it's important SO I considered whether he could sell her out and then send the note because he felt guilty. But that didn't really make sense to me. So now, I'm going a step further. His best agent, a guy who knew all his secrets (the friend's), sent the note. But the clincher of why it's "worse" is that the MC just murdered him, and THEN she got his note, warning her that their mutual friend betrayed her. HA! Totally worse, because now the MC knows she killed a guy that really wasn't trying to hurt her, and his note actually provided her with safety. So now she'll be feeling pretty guilty about poisoning that one guy...

I love making it worse!


----------



## Heliotrope

CM - THat is awesome! I love that! 

Sheila, in regards to all the great things that happen to Harry (I will use him getting saved from his aunt and uncle's house and going to Hogwarts as an example)... why did all those things _feel_ so great? Why did you want to jump for joy when the Dursleys are ridiculed? Why do you want to cry for Harry when good things happen? Because they were so terribly bad _first._

Maah's calls this "reverse engineering". 

"We first meet Eliza as a London urchin, her mother recently deceased, who has been taken in by an uscrupulous fosther-mother with the deliciously evocative name Mrs. Swindill. Eliza scavenges the streets, the coins and meagre treasures she finds are immediatly surrendered to Mrs. Swindell as payment. One day a pair of do-gooders arrives to take Eliza to a workhouse. She struggles, buthe tussle is interupted....

"Daughter of Gorgiana Mountrachet?" He handed a photograph to Eliza. It was mother. Much younger, dressed in teh fine clothing of a lady. Eliza's eyes widened. She nodded, confused. 

"I am Phineas Newton. On behalf of Lord Mountrachet of Blackhurst Manor, i Have come to collect you .To bring you home to the family estate." 

It's a reversal of fortune moment that would make Dickens proud... 

If you think about it though, Eliza's story could have had any sort of beginnig at all. Although the story requires that Eliza's mother be estranged from her family, and be deceased, in fact Eliza could have been living quite comfortably. Her hardscrabble circumstances provide contrast. The turn this represents, then is one engineered to feel more like a turn that it really is." 

So in Harry's case, what if he had been living happily with the Dursely's? Would if feel quite as good when he is finally saved? Probably not. It is only in initially making it worse that it feels so great when those great things happen.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Guys,

Thought I'd add one more thing to this debate - the reader who largely seems to have been forgotten here. Writing is a communicative art. It depends as much on the reader as it does on the artist for it's success as a work - whatever you measure that success as. And you'll remember that I previously said that no tool should ever be simply accepted as gospel because what works for one scene, one book and one author will not work for another. It may well destroy them. 

Imagine if this rule was applied to Catch 22 - it would be a disaster. Add pretty much all of Simak's work, Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel Rat, Panshin's Starwell trilogy etc etc. If the book's not about tension then adding it is only going to detract from what it is actually about.

Which is why judgement is everything in this game.

But lets add the reader to this debate. One writing tool may work on one reader but equally not on another.

It was actually all the comments on Harry Potter that set me off on this path. Personally I've never seen the appeal in the books or the films. Maybe I'm not the target audience. But one of the things that distinctly turned me off was that he was a kid in a bad place, and too many bad things kept happening to him. I personally don't like that. Many do obviously, but others don't. And I've already mentioned both Donaldson's Gap series and GRRM's GOT, which again I don't particularly like. This entire theme of making things worse for your characters, breaking them down, making them suffer, is simply too much. And as I think I said before in th GAP series I gave up on one of the authors I consider an absolute master of fantasy, purely because it was horrible. There was no light at the end of the tunnel even by the start of the second book. I gave up on the GOT's books because again it was children going through all these nightmares, and because every character I could identify was being killed or broken down into something I couldn't even like. This is all MIW gone too far in my view.

And then Caged you mentioned that obviously we didn't fall in love with the world build of Harry Potter though it was fantastic, or the characters. Obviously that applies to me too. But that's only for this book.

When I read Donaldson's first trilogy of Thomas Covenant, I was literally blown away by the beauty of The Land. I absolutely adored it. I loved the characters. Who doesn't ache for a friend like Saltheart Foamfollower? Likewise with the Tek's (I am a Trekkie as I think I've said previously) for me the best series was Enterprise, because it burrowed so deeply into characters and the universe. It tied up, or tried to tie up so many loose threads in the bible. Yes the plot's there and it matters, but it's far from the most important thing to me. Other's however love the original series, where character and world build are a very distant second to the action of the show in my view.

My point is that readers aren't going to all respond to MIW even if correctly used with considerable judgement on the part of the author. Some of us are going to look at it unfavourably. I probably will. And then you have to ask - is a great book one that no one likes?

Even in films this applies. Hands up (metaphorically of course) how many people absolutely hated the Lost in Space movie! Guess why it is hated. Because the one thing in the original tv series that was absolutely loved was Doctor Smith. He was an absolutely billiant character. Beuatifully written, beautifully acted. And in the movie what is he? He's a psychopath. They ramped up the tension by changing him into this nightmare and lost the character. And then they added scary steel spiders which turned what was previously a fun romp that no one took seriously but most people enjoyed, into a scare fest.

I come back once more to my central point. There is no cookie cutter template for writing a good book. You can't simply apply an idea like MIW and expect it to make your book better. It just doesn't work like that. Every scene, every book, every character, every author and every reader is different.

Caged I am not criticising you. In fact I'm glad you've found a tool that seems to help you in your writing. And it may make your books better - I don't know. But my thought would be that if this is something new to your writing and it changes things markedly, then many readers who liked your books before are not going to be so impressed by this change. This is Donaldson going from Thomas Covenant to the Gap series. Simon Green going from his earlier work like Blue Moon Rising to Deathstalker and Eddy Drood where the change is mainly in narrative and pace.

And again I come to the point that what can be a useful tool for an experienced writer can be a disaster for a new writer. Because they come across as rules. I mean just go back to your first edit / beta read. Where you put your work out there and people came back and criticised it. How bad was that? And more importantly how great was the drive to simply do what those who criticised your work said to do? 

For me, twenty five books on, that has changed. These days I read every comment and every change my editor gives me. I probably accept about 70% of them - mostly the smaller obvious typos. But I also reject a large bunch because I know who I am as a writer and what I wanted to say. That's simply me growing as an author and finding my voice. That's my not simply accepting someone else's judgement over my own.

And that is in my view the most important journey every writer has to make. To find their voice.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

psychotick said:


> I come back once more to my central point. There is no cookie cutter template for writing a good book. You can't simply apply an idea like MIW and expect it to make your book better. It just doesn't work like that. Every scene, every book, every character, every author and every reader is different.


First, no one here has claimed that MIW is some secret formula for crafting a great story. Honestly, I don't have a clue how any inferred that intention. Rather, we've argued that it is one of many considerations an author might consider to make a story better. One tool of many. 

Secondly, of course every scene, character, & story is different. However, if a particular scene is lacking tension where the writer INTENDS greater tension, making it worse might be a valuable consideration.



psychotick said:


> My point is that readers aren't going to all respond to MIW even if correctly used with considerable judgement on the part of the author. Some of us are going to look at it unfavourably. I probably will. And then you have to ask - is a great book one that no one likes?
> Cheers, Greg.


Readers are always going to react differently to this or that. I have critique partners in my live group who are constantly telling me I shouldn't have the MC swear so much. Guess what? That's how he talks. He isn't the kind of guy you'd invite to Sunday dinner. I don't care...as long as he's interesting.

If that turns some readers off, so be it. I'd rather wow some then offer some watered down version to all.

Any author who thinks they can write a book that will appeal to everyone is fooling themselves. If you want to write a book that has a lot of tension, gritty conflict, & desperate times, then do so. If you'd rather write with another goal in mind or a different style of storytelling, go for it. There's plenty of room for all. 

You don't like GRRM. I love his story.

You love Thomas Covenant's tale. It bored me to tears. Never made it through book 1.

We prefer different story types. We probably write very different stories as well. That's okay. 

Why is that so hard to accept?

P.S. Greg, I'm not trying to antagonize you, or single you out. I'm merely trying to understand the disconnect.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Heliotrope:

In my case, I would still be thrilled when Harry discovers his new life in the Wizarding world even if he had been living happily with the Dursleys, to begin with. To me, the charm of the whole thing is to dream that the same could happen to me, that somehow I could be taken to a magical world just like it happened to Harry.

My alternative scenario would be a Harry that lives fine with his adoptive family, but he has never felt quite alright, never really quite fitting in the muggle world... Strange things keep happening to him like the Zoo incident and he always wondered why, so the discovery of his true nature, his true world and his true life would still be very appealing to most readers.

I feel a similar fascination for Isabella Swan, in Twilight.

She loved her mother and her father, her life was good and yet she always felt that she did not quite fit in the world. Then she suddenly discovers that there are magical creatures and her life gets pulled into all the supernatural stuff, and in the end she discovers that she was always destined to become a vampire and be part of that world after all.

That kind of thing has a lot of power over me and many others, because we are escapists.

Harry was never saved from the Dursleys anyway, because he was forced to return there every summer until he became of age. I do like when the Dursleys get in trouble with Wizards, and not because they were so mean to Harry but because they are unlikable characters and they represent the complete opposite of the magic that I love.

I still cannot understand why you are so fascinated by this M.I.W. thing.

I have been giving challenges and difficult times to my characters ever since I wrote my first _Thundercats_ fanfictions when I was like ten years old, because every episode showed them overcoming difficulties, and the discussion about what should be the appropriate challenges for characters in Fantasy has been present in Mythic Scribes ever since I joined.

In fact, many people have criticized some of my most powerful magical characters, because they think that such characters cannot encounter enough challenge (given how powerful they are) and the story would not work well.

Now, you are presenting exactly the same thing as some kind of divine revelation that should leave us all dazzled and dashing to apply it to our own stories, like we had never done it, like the world had never seen it...

Just why?


----------



## Heliotrope

Dude, I'm struggling to understand why this bothers you so much? 

First you said it was stupid and dangerous. 

Now you are saying it is the simplest thing in the world and you have been doing it since you were ten. 

Then you say that really what bugs you is that I seem to care so much (but based on the length of the thread I would say lots of people feel it's pretty important). 

Caged Maiden and I found a useful tool. We learned, and we grew from the experience. We would like to share how many ways this tool can be used in case other people need a little boost. I get excited about things that helped me, and like to share them. I am passionate about writing and like to talk about it. 

This is very concerning to you for some reason?


----------



## Chessie

LOL Can this _thread_ get any worse? *tee hee* Sorry, stupidest joke ever. I'm going back to writing now...


----------



## Svrtnsse

Edit: useless post removed because useless. Carry on. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Alva

I'd say Dexter and Breaking Bad are great examples of increasing amount of difficult. Both series present complicated character relationships and hard decisions. I personally enjoy "the butterfly effect" of hardship or how (for instance) a single lie that concerns just one person leads to more lies and unpredictable consequences that - in the end - concern a whole bunch of people. The story keeps going and the characters are forced to face actual challenges and thus learn things about themselves or even recreate themselves.

It's also captivating to follow how the writers are able to first create enormous super-knots of trouble and then solve them somehow. Really fascinating!

(Needless to say deux-ex-machina-solutions tend to drive me crazy.)

- - -

A compulsory word on GoT:

I found the first season of GoT very engaging. And then it just flopped and the story got really boring really fast. I like the visuals and I truly appreciate some of the characters - but I don't find the story interesting anymore.

This really puzzles me since I'd normally be an instant advocate for making characters lives increasingly complicated and I have no problem with violence as long as the story mandates it.

I guess the big problem with GoT - as I see it - is that it's quite monochrome to me. Everything and everybody are doomed to fail and thus rooting for any project or character feels just pointless. The tension falls flat, intrigue disappears and the overall picture appears void and nihilistic. I don't even care which party will win the war. The world of the story seems so devoid of real life I have hard time regarding it as worth "saving for".

Plus, as most of the characters and their motivations are really quite simple to read and their personal/family history and the relationships between the different characters are already known, the plot "twists" don't actually feel like any twists at all. It becomes all very predictable.

...or well, the exact manner how each character is going to suffer in any given situation might be a "suprise" - if it's just the mutilations and increasing violence that's enough for a suspense. Or a story.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

GoT or ASOIAF? If I only watched the HBO series, I don't think I'd dig it so much... I'd watch it, but not love it. The books (not shockingly) are better, although I still have issues with GRRM's writing at times. For me, the fascinating thing for the boooks & series is how they complement each other. But of course, to each their own, nothing is for everybody... Dexter and Breaking Bad don't intrigue me in the least but lots of folks disagree. That's what makes life interesting.



Alva said:


> I'd say Dexter and Breaking Bad are great examples of increasing amount of difficult. Both series present complicated character relationships and hard decisions. I personally enjoy "the butterfly effect" of hardship or how (for instance) a single lie that concerns just one person leads to more lies and unpredictable consequences that - in the end - concern a whole bunch of people. The story keeps going and the characters are forced to face actual challenges and thus learn things about themselves or even recreate themselves.
> 
> It's also captivating to follow how the writers are able to first create enormous super-knots of trouble and then solve them somehow. Really fascinating!
> 
> (Needless to say deux-ex-machina-solutions tend to drive me crazy.)
> 
> - - -
> 
> A compulsory word on GoT:
> 
> I found the first season of GoT very engaging. And then it just flopped and the story got really boring really fast. I like the visuals and I truly appreciate some of the characters - but I don't find the story interesting anymore.
> 
> This really puzzles me since I'd normally be an instant advocate for making characters lives increasingly complicated and I have no problem with violence as long as the story mandates it.
> 
> I guess the big problem with GoT - as I see it - is that it's quite monochrome to me. Everything and everybody are doomed to fail and thus rooting for any project or character feels just pointless. The tension falls flat, intrigue disappears and the overall picture appears void and nihilistic. I don't even care which party will win the war. The world of the story seems so devoid of real life I have hard time regarding it as worth "saving for".
> 
> Plus, as most of the characters and their motivations are really quite simple to read and their personal/family history and the relationships between the different characters are already known, the plot "twists" don't actually feel like any twists at all. It becomes all very predictable.
> 
> ...or well, the exact manner how each character is going to suffer in any given situation might be a "suprise" - if it's just the mutilations and increasing violence that's enough for a suspense. Or a story.


----------



## Caged Maiden

@ Chesterama LOL!!!!!!



Yeah, I can't possibly distill anyone's anything down to a single sentence without fear of being bombarded with "I didn't say that"s but I agree, my original post clearly said that I couldn't write a story that had a wedding feast slaughter, and that I was taking the concept of "worsening" things and using them at critical points in my story where I want to make a big impact. And the rest of the time, I was using the questions Donald Maass suggests for coming to that "make it worse" mentality. Why is she going here? What would make it more immediate? Etc. And he sums it all up over and over, as "What would make this worse?" And he doesn't at all mean what would make it more crushing, more devastating, more brutal. He means what would make it matter more to the character and the reader, NOW. 

See, that's what my stories were missing. I had things happening. Some very compelling things. But I had pacing problems, I had tension leaks. I had characters not fully realizing their potential to rock boats. And so the way I am looking at this rewrite now, is simply how can I make their situation worse/ matter to them more/ have more at stake. That might be something some writers do automatically as they write or plan. I am an exploratory writer, so I plan a little, then I pants a story, then I rewrite the story now that I know its secrets and what the ending is and how it all fits together. But the thing is, that first draft is pretty devoid of all the strong technical elements i'm capable of writing at this point in my life. Especially when I'm rewriting something I wrote in 2008. So now, "making it worse' is a perfect strategy for me.

How can I get a little more oomph out of that dialogue? 

Make it worse by having someone guess her motivation and call her out on it. 

How can I get the MC to decide to finally break away from her crime boss? 

Make it worse by having her young ward too interested in the party and the booze and the men. She simply CAN'T stay and watch the girl's life ruined as hers was. 

How can I make the eventual love interest important from the beginning? 

Make it worse. He's charging her too much for a job, and he keeps looking at her weirdly. And he seems awful chummy with some of the wrong people. So now she's suspicious of him, rather than just disliking him out of hand.


I had to make things worse that were there but not good enough in the first draft. And I'm not the only writer this sort of strategy applies to. I could have kept all my original inspirations. Changed nothing. Stayed true to myself and my vision. But the thing is, it wasn't exciting. It didn't feel compelling to any readers. So...it wasn't working. And so far, margin it worse has been a step in the right direction. I now have reader engagement because the stakes are present, higher, and more immediate. And that didn't come by compromising my inspiration at all. If anything, Helio (in our many conversations abut this) has totally opened my eyes to the fact that my natural inclination to start slow is in fact detrimental to the story, because to readers, my non-action set-up scenes before the action begins is as dull to them as long paragraphs of description about the town or weather are to me when I begin a book. If I see that, I just put it down. I can't stand it, and it is the wrong kind of first impression to use to engage me. So, what I had to realize is that by making little tiny things worse at the onset of this rewrite, I overcame that original weakness of my exploratory writing methodology. Sure, I'm better at beginning things now, but i'm not enough better...

But later in this story, I'm going to make some big things worse. I have a scene where the lovers are already involved in a  tense relationship, but are able to put their differences aside. For a time. Then, they find out they're related, and that scene came across rather calm. Sad. But only sad, with a little bit of shame and grief. Now, I'm going to make it worse. Rather than have a single reaction, I'm going to have a multi-level reaction, of both characters coming to grips with the fact on their own, and then a discussion that isn't my original calm vision. 

Sure, it's just one thing, one little scene, but it's a turning point for the characters. A choice. Originally, all they had to decide was whether they cared that they were distant relatives or not. Now, I need to find a way to make the choice multi-level, too. It's at the midpoint, so I have a long way to go before then, but i'm thinking about it now, letting it stew in my mind while I work on the beginning. And I'll ask myself the Donald Maass questions when I tackle that scene, or slightly before. Why does this matter? What would make it worse? Why would that matter? Who stands to lose the most? What would that person never do? Make them do it.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hi Heliotrope.

I do not quite understand what you are presenting, because the definition of this advice has been changing as the thread has grown. At first, I understood it as "Character must suffer, you need more impact!" especially because it was connected to the talk about _Game of Thrones_ and I thought that it was part of the gritty trend.

That's when I said my first line in this thread: _I think that this whole Make it Worse thing is a very poor advice on Storytelling._, because I took it to mean that the advice was about making characters suffer and create as much tension as possible, as you said yourself at post 13.

You also explained how it was great to stab our characters and make them bleed, take away their weapons, make things hard for them scene by scene and moment by moment. Put a nail in their horse's foot and in general get the characters in a seemingly impossible situation, so we can rescue them later.

Do you see how this advice could get new and inexperienced writers in trouble? How they could write themselves into a mess and possibly ruining their stories with too much suffering and difficulty?

Then you continued to speak about having more tension, more conflict, you said: _Make it worse means pushing our characters to the ultimate limit._ Again, I think this advice could get inexperienced narrators in trouble. As the advice was described at this point, it had all the potential to overwhelm new writers.

Later you said that tension is not violence, which goes against your previous statements about literally torturing our characters scene by scene and stab them, and making them bleed, and torturing the horse too. A few posts after that, it comes a moment when you were embarrassed of having been so carried away and said sorry.

You also added a comment suggesting that those who did not understand the concept (me included?) were like your students in class and you felt like explaining the lesson four hundred times. That felt quite derisive from my point of view, so I started to get a little angry at you, I admit it.

After that you started to slowly soften the concept, and when Chesterama said that you were throwing way too much information at us you again said that you were sorry and felt terrible. _Please accept my apology_ you said, and I was thinking something like _okay, she just got carried away_.

Then it all just continued and continued, and the definition of the advice grew broader and broader and more complicated until apparently it means that any great thing in Fantasy Storytelling can be connected to M.I.W. in one way or another, or else it can be improved by the advice.

Later you posted _Yeah, I'm really thinking most of us are arguing semantics, with some strange over exaggeration and extreme thinking thrown in for flavor... I think it is the "make it worse" phrase that is throwing people for a loop._ When it was you who started all the exaggeration and loop to begin with.

In the most recent posts the advice has grown so much that it means any challenge or complication that our characters encounter, big or small (from living in a cupboard under the stairs, to fighting a powerful dark wizard) are all examples of M.I.W. and how wonderful it is for everything, either we do it on purpose or not.

So, what began like an advice to torture characters (and their horses!) as much as possible evolved to meaning simply any difficulty or harsh situation that the characters encounter.

Do you see now why I am so upset at this whole thing? You are making me go mad. Also, I tend to get upset when people think that Storytelling is something that can be figured out so easily.

Listen, if you are so happy with this and so sure of how valuable it is, I do not wish to spoil the fun and the incredible excitement that you are going through at the moment. Anyway, you asked why I was so upset and I have explained it.


----------



## Heliotrope

Sheila, my statements have not changed from my initial post. 

My initial post reads: _For me, "Make it worse" means a lot of things._

_When I'm planning a story or novel or scene, I brain storm all the ways it could be worse. All the ways I can infuse it with as much tension and conflict as absolutely possible.  _

The examples I gave, in my very first initial post were ALL complicating scenarios. NONE of them had to do with violence or making things more graphic. 

I then went on to say: _However, it is also a brainstorming strategy for scene planning:_

Later I added: _Make it worse can mean other things as well, such as combining characters. _

And yes, Then I gave other examples of smaller challenges that could occur. 

I also added this: 

_The biggest complaint agents have about new manuscripts is not enough tension. Not enough conflict. 

And they don't mean "not enough explosions, fights, or car chases." 

They mean that deep inherent tension that holds up an entire novel.
_
Yes, I did say _“Make it worse means pushing our characters to the ultimate limit.”_... but both examples I gave were emotional limits. 

I then went on to describe how MIW referred to inner conflict, not merely blood and violence: 

_"Conflicting feelings snare readers. They are a puzzle that demands a solution. A cognitive dissonance that is too loud to ignore. Conflicting feelings persist, escalate and cannot be easily resolved and can become inner conflict, which is one of the greatest ways to create fascinating and memorable characters. 

The strongest inner conflicts plague characters with two choices that are mutially exclusive.
_
I then went on to explain that I was NOT referring to blood and guts and violence at all... again... 

_Make it worse forces you to dig deep. That's why I force myself to think of ten things, then ten more. Forcing myself to do that up front makes me really mine the the potential of the story idea so instead of something generic I end up with something really new, full of themes, conflict, choices, etc._

As part of that, I went into how something as simple as raising stakes could be considered “make it worse”. 

_So as I mentioned before, Maah's notes that the #1 reason they reject manuscripts is because of lack of tension. This does not mean too low of body count. They mean the stakes are just not high enough (or the stakes are just death... which is boring. Find something worse than death). There is not enough going in the world to compell the reader. There is not enough going on in the heart and mind of the character to compell the reader. It may be lots of episodic action, but it is shallow.
_
Etc, Etc, Etc. 

I have never, once changed my argument. From the very beginning I stated that MIW means many things, and tried, over the course of this very long thread, to explain the vast array of ways that it could be used. I also, repeatedly explained that MIW was NOT about simple blood or violence. 

I apologized because I felt bad for confusing anyone or offending anyone, especially Chesterama or FifthView, both of whom I respect. 

EDIT: However, with that said, there is a vast range of writers on this forum. I honestly could care less about 'confusing' new writers. I came to this forum to have discussions with other writers about writing. Some of those discussions may be more advanced. If new writers want to have a peek, good for them. They WILL get something out of it. I agree with CM that I have never, ever seen a new writer go too far. Ever. Usually they don't go far enough. 

I have never once suggested that this strategy will create easy story telling. If anything I have shown that this makes story telling _more_ difficult because you must dig deeper. You must go further. You must look not at just episodes, but at the inner conflict of the character himself. 

I have never once said that this was a formula, or a method for plotters. Every example I gave could be used by any author regardless of their style. I have never once (until the very end) engaged in the GRRM debate. I tried as best I could to use examples from non-violent fiction to show how this tool trancends genre. 

The advice I have given has not grown or changed in any form since my initial post. If you are upset, I’m sorry, though I can’t begin to understand why you would care about a discussion about a tool you seem so vehemently opposed to using.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Yeah, well apparently it means too many things and you have confused the hell out of me.

I am sorry for having been so harsh against you. I am upset and quite annoyed at you at the moment, but I know that it will pass very soon and I hope that there will be no harsh feelings between us.

Hugs, and have a good night.


----------



## Steerpike

Problem is, people don't often distinguish types of stories and purposes of writing when it comes to these topics. Yes, if you want to have a commercial best-seller, 'make it worse' tends to be good advice. That creates a page-turner. People have to know what happens next. They have to see how the characters resolve the ever-increasing threat/obstacles the author has put in front of them. A large portion of successful commercial fiction on the shelves right now follows this. Fantasy, but not just fantasy. Pick up thrillers, SF, westerns, etc. Very many of them go this route. It works.

On the other hand, if you're writing artistic or literary fiction, there is no reason to think this is a necessary or even desirable approach. Proust, Woolf, Conrad, Melville, Dostoevsky, Joyce etc., they're not following this in the modern sense of the advice. Sure, they're increasing conflict to a climax (OK, maybe not Proust and Woolf), but they're not employing a stepwise ratcheting of the stakes. In those works, the stakes might be understated, the conflict hidden beneath a veneer or ordinariness, and the resolution a simple but irrevocable transformation in the character's psyche.

So you have to know what kind of work you're writing. If you're going for popular, commercial fiction, the advice seems to work. Still doesn't mean you have to follow it, but the marketplace has proven it to be an effective tool. If you're writing primarily for artistic and/or literary purposes, then you certainly might have good reason to avoid this strategy. It might not work for what you are attempting.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thank you for that excellent post, Steerpike.

I completely agree with you in the statement that the super tense, constant _page-turner_ style of story and narrative is the one that is best for marketing and best-selling purposes. That is, I think, what the agents and publishers want these days: A book that readers can barely put down to rest even for a few minutes.

In that case the advice to make a story as tense as possible is great, but still it's not even nearly as easy to do as it has been presented here.

I have been so agitated by this discussion because yeah, I come from a completely different world than most people that have been involved in the thread. I tell stories for artistic and entertainment purposes only, no marketing in mind, and from my point of view making the characters suffer as much as possible is a very bad advice.

The thread has been like a collision between two worlds. Your words are all that I wanted to hear, and they bring a great happiness to me.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Sheila, I respect artistry as well as page-turning drama. I don't see why it must be one way or another. I am growing tired of your statement that you continue to see "make it worse" as an over-simplified concept of "making your character suffer as much as possible". In every example I gave of this experience I'm undergoing and the way I'm personally applying "make it worse" to my own work, I'm not at all making my characters suffer as much as possible. Far from it. I'm taking elements that I feel are weak-ish and making them matter more. I'm making it worse by not just having a character muse about her young ward who is exposed to debauchery, but SEE the girl at the party getting involved in the debauchery. It perhaps is graphic for a paragraph, if it could be called graphic even, but it isn't complicated, it isn't suffering, it isn't even shocking. It's just a slight worsening so that rather than simply say, "she wants to leave so the girl is safe" I SHOW a little snippet of what the threat looks like. I even gave a perfectly valid explanation of this process when I mentioned Cedrick and his journey to defeat some undead creatures. How I could show a scene three different ways, each progressively "worse" (read: more immediate, dramatic, and compelling).

When I spoke of making my character suffer during certain scenes (not throughout, as you continue to interpret we're all advocating), I spelled out exactly what I meant. I mean that where my character feels guilt, I'm going to blow that guilt up a little by adding an extra layer of guilt. I'm going to make it more personal. More specific, rather than more general, less specific, and less personal. THAT is the whole message Donald Maass is trying to get across. When your MC is left standing at the altar (not a violent scene, but certainly something that has an emotional impact), consider how it can be made worse. Her family are all there, sure, but what if her best friend had warned her in the previous chapter that her fiancÃ© was a dick and he wasn't serious about her? Oh, and what if that friend had once dated the fiancÃ©? That could be worse (and maybe it didn't occur to me when i first designed the scene). Especially if they had been carrying on a relationship behind the bride's back for a while, early in their relationship. That certainly makes the situation worse for the bride left at the altar. It gives readers an extra reason to care. It makes the woman maybe not just experience loss and heartbreak, but shame too. And her friend can feel guilty, like a bad friend. This is worse, but not shocking, complete and utter hopelessness, or story-breaking. This is spinning a good tale, which you mention repeatedly is your only goal. So why are we so unable to agree that some people can possibly freeform great ideas from the beginning, and perhaps I'm not one of them, and I need to take my initial ideas and add depth later? And the simple way to say that is "make it worse", as in, make it matter more, connect it deeper, give it some extra impact, etc..

The idea of making it worse is absolutely a brainstorming tool, foremost in my mind. If I understood how to use it years ago, I'd have been finished with editing some of these books by now. I would have clearly pictured how to raise stakes and get to the more compelling story underneath the ideas I let clog the surface of my stories. 

Now, I've already said that we're writing different kinds of stories, and I know we all have come to grips with that fact, but I still don't see why this very concept is causing so many negative implications. It's as if you want to put forth that by acknowledging that our (MY) initial ideas and processes are sometimes flawed, the process itself of initial creativity is somehow lessened by the fact that for many writers (like me), digging deeper is part of the way they find success.

No one's asking anyone to worsen anything if they don't want to. No one is calling anyone out as a creative black hole just because they're using different tools, or no tools, or every tool in the garage.

If a writer is writing a literary work meant to explore an emotional experience, then they wouldn't want to use a tool like Make it Worse, just like they might not want to Show not Tell. I mean...if you transfer your tone and argument to Show/ Tell, I think it becomes obvious why people are taking offense at your seemingly unflinching mistrust for the tool. Show don't tell is great advice that is absolutely taken too far by folks all the time. SO is a ton of other advice.

If someone opened a discussion about why Showing was important, and the conversation became "Show don't Tell is stupid advice in storytelling. It can lead to dangerous things when new writers begin to show all the time and then they ruin their stories by only showing and it becomes a horrible mess" I think you'd see that it's such a definitive stance, it becomes hard to relate to.

Now, I'm not arguing whether YOU should make things worse or show not tell, or whether you should do anything. But I've been trying to keep neutral in what you've taken offense to in this thread, hearing your comments and accepting your viewpoints as different to my own and worth consideration (like the things you said about Harry potter and how you enjoyed the world as much or more as Harry's story, and some characters much more than I did, and I considered how that differing viewpoint affects some things about how I relate to stories vs. other people). Anyways, I don't feel like you've heard a thing I've said, and I've been very calm, clear, and honest about how I went through this process and what it meant, and what I realized.

You mentioned that people weren't taking your experience into consideration before writing off your argument with the concept at hand, and I want to simply say that it feels like you want your cake and to eat it, too. You speak of having experience putting out strong stories that readers respond positively to, so therefore, people ought to listen to you, and then in the next sentence you caution me to avoid praising a tool or tactic that might influence a new writer to make a grave mistake in their stories. Okay. But have you thought at all about my experience? How many stories have I put out? How many have been GOOD, vs. how many have I admitted needed work? And that WORK I'm talking about, that thing that I was missing in large part, is the exact thing I'm talking about. I needed to push the envelope. I need to make things worse if I'm ever going to make the kind of reader connections that I need to make my stories successful.

I'm not saying YOU or anyone else needs to push the envelope. But so far as people want to participate in this discussion, I'm going to damn well talk about how I'M pushing the envelope at this point in my journey. And I'd like it very much if I can say my piece, offering up my personal experience to this community of writers, some of whom may actually take something positive away from the heart of the message I posted.

We've heard your disagreement with the tactic I'm using, and I'm glad you weighed in on your POV on that. I certainly see the merit in all facets of discussing the craft of writing, whether we consider ourselves literary writers or genre writers, poets, or old school storytellers. The one thing I'm dangerously close to taking offense to is that you seem steadfast on refuting the tool I think is perfect for my current situation, and yet your main argument seems to be "don't tell people how to write." But you've told us all several times what to do, in this thread. How to write.

In fact, you've repeatedly flat-out said that "Stories should flow like THIS" and "A writer should be true to THAT" without ever considering that to me, that advice is volumes more silly sounding than any craft meme people want to spout. Technique advice can become repetitive, I understand, which is why I simply share my heartfelt experiences here with you guys, and this isn't the first time it's gone awry. Last time, it was over a breakthrough I had, and I got the same negative implications, "Don't talk about advanced editing strategies, because you're inadvertantly going to confuse newer writers." Which I'm calling bullshit on right now. 

I'm going to say this only once. If anyone here considers my strategies or the way I put across my personal experiences, neither asking for acknowledgement nor guaranteeing results, as some sort of advocacy on how I think EVERYONE OUGHT TO DO THINGS, you probably aren't cut out for being a writer. I mean, if my sharing my personal breakthrough feels like a loaded gun...please feel free to drop the gun at any point and just walk away. 

I'm trying really hard not to take your recent comments personally, but I've been a member of this community for five years. I've spent a lot of my time here, playing games with you guys (including chess with you, where I proved only that I know nothing about chess), creating and contributing to challenges, critiquing hundreds of stories, sharing my personal thoughts on hundreds of questions, giving my own personal experience to people who reached out to me in PMs or emails, asking for help or wanting to talk craft or whatever, and generally being a good citizen. I feel like perhaps you're being intentionally contrary right now, and I don't appreciate that. 

I don't want to talk about who took offense at what. I don't want to see my friends antagonize each other. I really care what people have to say about their experiences with making situations worse. I want to understand how we can achieve a better effect from our plots and characters by increasing tension, specifically during revision, when we have to weigh whether our initial concept held water, or whether we have to "make it worse."

Thanks.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Maiden, I am very and truly sorry for making you feel so bad and offended with my comments.

I did went overboard in my defense of Storytelling as I know it, as it helps me with my purposes. It's clear that we have very different purposes in mind, very different goals, it's like being from two different worlds. I respect you as an experienced writer and storyteller, and please note that I never denied your skills in the craft.

At least, I hope you understand how I felt when my own experience and skills were discarded just like that.

Again, I am sorry for having offended you. I hope that there will be no harsh feelings between us, I do have fond memories of our chats and conversations and I think you are great.

Sheilawisz


----------



## FifthView

Steerpike said:


> Problem is, people don't often distinguish types of stories and purposes of writing when it comes to these topics. Yes, if you want to have a commercial best-seller, 'make it worse' tends to be good advice. That creates a page-turner. People have to know what happens next. They have to see how the characters resolve the ever-increasing threat/obstacles the author has put in front of them. A large portion of successful commercial fiction on the shelves right now follows this. Fantasy, but not just fantasy. Pick up thrillers, SF, westerns, etc. Very many of them go this route. It works.



I've wanted to bring up the idea that certain genres (not to mention certain sub-genres) already often have that expectation built in.  It's not even a matter of what publishers are looking for, or commercial viability, except to the degree that readers, also, look for it.  

Fantasy as a genre _generally_ brings the expectation of conflict, tensions, and so forth. 

For instance, look at the pre-industrial settings for fantasy.  If you have swords and daggers, you'll probably have conflict, possibly murders and assassinations, and so forth–even if not every book has a bloodbath every other chapter.  If you have travel by horse, sail, or foot, it's likely to be more arduous than sitting in a passenger car on a train or in first class on an airplane.  Not all fantasy is set in a pre-industrial era, of course.

If you have a feudal system or a monarchy, you'll _probably_ have the sort of political conflict and machinations that are not resolved by parliamentary votes and elections–even if not every fantasy novel includes those things or focuses on that.  Crime and punishment are likely to take a different route when the policing force and judiciary aren't as walled-in with long-standing political constitutions and laws, in the hands of political institutions rather than individuals.

If you have a world that has magic, how that magic is used comes into question.  Magic often will be a focal point of tension:   some people have it while others don't; or, some use it for good while others use it for evil; or, it is extremely dangerous to use and threatens to destroy the MC who has it; some people in the world may hate the existence of magic and the users of magic; etc.

If you have worlds with multiple races of intelligent beings, they are likely to come into conflict at some point; at the least, they might have very different ways of living, different cultures, and disagreements because of this.

Naturally, fantasy is such a _broad_ genre, not all of these factors will be treated as high-tension factors in every book, and some approaches to fantasy may not follow the common route.  But I do wonder if the genre itself tends to bring expectations for _some_ level of tension and conflict in the story, and to what degree the expectation is for higher levels of tension.  When the average reader thinks, "I want to read a fantasy novel this week!" what is it he or she seeks?  I do agree with Sheila that fantastic elements like the world, the magic, and strange and wondrous creatures and characters are a draw, a major element in enjoying fantasy for many readers.  But I think that the "What if?" question that seems to lie behind fantasy–What if this or that was different, this or that existed, this or that could be done?–carries within it a certain expectation of tension, even if that tension is not the extreme sort requiring a worsening for the characters every paragraph.


----------



## Heliotrope

I wanted to post this link because over and over again we keep coming back to thrillers, swords daggers and car chases. 

Fiction University: What Downton Abbey Can Teach us About Tension


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> I wanted to post this link because over and over again we keep coming back to thrillers, swords daggers and car chases.
> 
> Fiction University: What Downton Abbey Can Teach us About Tension



Helio:  I'm not sure that it's always necessary to yell "Rectangles!" anytime someone brings up squares.   

Anyway, I like bringing up swords and daggers.


----------



## Heliotrope

I just found it last night and thought it interesting. Swords and daggers are fun


----------



## Amanita

Browsing the forum as I usually do, I’ve noticed the unusual length of this thread and I’ve been wondering how it came about.

Please allow me a personal comment before I start with my thoughts on the topic. People’s approaches to the matter of writing and story-telling vary considerably. In my case (and I think Sheila is experiencing something similar) stories appaer in my head disconnected from any written words be they story or outline and the task consists of modifying this into something other people can understand or share. Even though I’m not writing anything without this kind of inspiration, the inspiration doesn’t go away midway if the story is worth anything. I’ve finished two non-fantasy books and various fanfictions and I’ve been working on my big fantasy project for eight years now. The level of quality in this case still hasn’t reached my goal but the thought that it never will has never crossed my mind. This is the place where writing advice comes into play for me. It may or may not resonate with enough other people to earn me an income but it’s part of my life. 
This kind of attitude has become more and more unwanted on the forums a fact which doesn’t bother me much, no one makes me spend time here after all but after reading this thread I’d still like to ask for some empathy for people with a different approach. Comparing them to stupid or stubborn school children isn’t very helpful.

Now let’s finally talk about “making it worse.” Someone mentioned quantum physics earlier on this thread. I’d be conceited if I called myself an expert in this area but I do have some amount of learning there and it’s enough to see the vast differences between physical laws of any kind and the matter discussed on this thread.
My first thought when reading the title were stories like Martin’s. These have many fans but are hated by a significant number of people as well. I don’t feel hatred but they don’t appeal to me either. Writing like Martin definitely isn’t right for everyone and there’s a considerable number of adults who enjoy magical storied set in world’s not dripping with blood and semen at every edge, the huge numbers of older HP-fans for example.
My second thought were the many stories where suffering of various kinds is heaped onto the protagonist and most of it doesn’t further the plot. It mainly exists to buy sympathy for the character and fill up passages where the plot isn’t moving. This is a sign of poor writing and people interpreting the advice that way is likely to do more harm than good.
Later in the thread, it was defined as creating obstacles for the hero and raising the stakes not necessarily by sheding more blood. This is good advice to make a story more gripping in most cases and if “make it worse” is interpreted that way it is helpful. It’s not clear that this is the right interpretation though 
Dark stories are fashionable nowadays but at least for readers like myself who have a very vivid imagination visiting horrible places is a demanding task, one I don’t want to face everytime I open a book. For us, hints at the things the villains are capable of is often enough. Authors have to give me a good reason to follow them on this path, the story needs to resonate with me really well. 
Other people feel differently of course but I’m sure most will agree with me that Orcs sacking Rivendell, killing Elrond and raping Arwen wouldn’t have improved LotR in any way but many people could interpret €œmaking it worse” this way.  Sometimes, reprieves and lighter moments have their place even in serious stories.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Amanita said:


> Other people feel differently of course but I’m sure most will agree with me that Orcs sacking Rivendell, killing Elrond and raping Arwen wouldn’t have improved LotR in any way but many people could interpret “making it worse” this way.  Sometimes, reprieves and lighter moments have their place even in serious stories.



This a straw man argument that could be turned on its head with neither direction making a logical point.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I'm going to derail this thread for a moment. Please, bear with me, read, and then continue the ongoing & on topic discussion.

Earlier in the thread, a respected member of this community with an exemplary record on Mythic Scribes, may have erred in memory and/or judgment by insinuating that Sheilawisz (one of our moderators) edited her earliest comment to, in effect, change her argument. That would be considered a misuse of her moderation powers.

I personally do not believe any insult was intended. However, I do want to make it clear that this sneak-editing _*DID NOT*_ occur. That is clearly evident in the fact that all edited posts are marked as edited while also annotating the editor's name and time of the action ( I have edited this thread in case you don't know what I'm referring to - See below). For transparency's sake, I assure you all, that changing the record of editing is not within the scope of a moderator's power.

Public apologies have been rendered & any further apology or discussion on that specific argument will take place privately. 

This thread has been thought provoking, and that is a positive thing. That is what this community is all about. Civil discourse, _especially_ when in opposition, challenges us to consider our own positions and stance on the craft of writing. That is also a good thing. We, as artists, cannot grow if we don't challenge ourselves continually.

Lastly, as always, we need to approach contrary opinions with an open mind.

Thank you all.


----------



## Caged Maiden

In my original post, and many times after, I clearly stated that what I was experiencing wasn't a mode to eternal character suffering, but a new way to raise stakes and make small situations worse. I used the example of Martin burning homes, killing family, torturing characters as HIS method for story-telling and that my realization came from the trifecta of watching GOT, reading Donald Maass' book about his methods for asking deeper questions to raise tension by adding different layers of "worsening" any given situation, and the conversations Helio and I are having during a very critical rewrite for me.

I didn't agree with Martin's methods, necessarily, I merely acknowledged that it was the first time in my life I FELT the affect of denying me what i thought was logical for a story line's outcome, and he yanked the carrot out of my grip and instead made the situation worse IN HIS WAY.

I said I couldn't put that kind of WORSE into my stories, because I simply am not writing that kind of story, but I can shame a character more, guilt her more, make the stakes higher, risk more, put her feelings up a notch. It is also a "worsening", though it has little actual suffering. I gave an example of Cedrick and his undead problem (please read that, because it's a perfect example of how I advised writers think about HOW to make things worse), I gave the actual problem I was workmen through in the rewrite (the character trying to leave the crime boss and his business) and Helio gave countless examples of how asking yourself the question "How can I make it worse" is a perfectly viable tool for any story-teller. 

You have a character at a party? Okay, make it worse. 

She sees her ex-fiance at the party and they had a bad breakup. Make it worse.

He's there with her best friend. Ooh, yeah, that's worse. (and maybe you planned that from the beginning, so okay...make it worse).

The friend is noticeably pregnant. Make it worse.

The MC and the guy only broke up six weeks ago...

THAT is how any writer, whether they're writing literary fiction, historical romance, children's lit, YA, Grimdark, paranormal, murder mystery, etc can strategize more immediacy, more tension, and more conflict into their story. 

To me, it doesn't always occur to me every deeper possibility when I write a first draft. That's all. I missed opportunities. I failed to fully capitalize on situations I'd constructed. I'd solved things in a logical way sometimes, but failed to push it just a little bit further, making it truly stand-out in a reader's mind.

And yet, through great heaping piles of examples, people continue to hear "Make your characters suffer more" which I said in one paragraph, relating to how Martin communicated this idea to me and caused a breakthrough. And a few paragraphs below, I explained how I was implementing the same tactic, this tool I didn't fully understand (because I felt too, like it was simply a worsening for worsening's sake), and now I saw the light and the potential.

The thing causing a miscommunication here is that we're still talking about "suffering" and "worsening" as though they're the exact same thing, interchangeable words. And to me, they're very different, in about every way imaginable. If you saw your pregnant friend on the arm of your old boyfriend, and it clicked in your head that they were together before you and he broke up...would you call yourself "suffering"? I wouldn't. Pissed is what I'd be. Maybe vengeful? Maybe jealous? Maybe betrayed? It might cause me to react in an open display of hostility at that party, toward my former friend. I might embarrass myself. I might storm out and key his car. I might have a run-in with the law after that. 

And all I can say, is that maybe Sheila plans that outburst at the party, the reaction and the run-in with the law, right from the beginning of her writing. Maybe she can do all that and consider all those possibilities when the writing spirit takes her and she just has a gut feeling that it's right from the beginning. But for ME, and for many other writer's I've traded with, they're looking for ways to make more impact. An emotional gut-punch for the reader. 

With this tactic, I can take a scene where a girl went to a party and had a splendid time dancing with her new boyfriend, and turn it into a scene that has a little bit of emotional slap in the face. I can then decide whether to change her future actions or not. I mean, the outcome of that scene can be kept original, with her leaving the party with her new boyfriend and keeping her anger inside, or I can cause a volatile reaction, or do anything in between. Any way I chose to go, the ideas is better worse than it was originally TO ME. Because MY goal is to increase the emotional impact of books i'm rewriting that have been LACKING in that department. 

SO no, this is not about praising Martin or GOT, merely my saying that he had a very IN YOUR FACE way of making things worse, and the way it affected me led to my eyes opening fully about how many missed opportunities I had. I can make things a little worse for my characters and cash in on that emotional impact for many scenes. Which means my characters and their stories will have more of the impact I personally am aiming for.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately, so thank you for that, CM!

I'd like to share another consideration. It's not an original thought, but it does meld with the idea of _Making it Worse_. 

The concept comes from author K.M. Weiland. She has one of the best blogs about writing (Helping Writers Become Authors), a great twitter channel, and even a YouTube channel where she briefly discusses craft topics. I highly recommend checking her out as she communicates well with her audience.

Consider this: SETTING

How can you _Make it Worse_?

Think of the movie _The Patriot_, starring Mel Gibson. When Mel's band of rebels is on the lamb from the redcoats, where do they hide?

They hide in a swamp. 

Now, that setting could've been written any number of ways, but a swamp is a worsening for the characters. It's bleak. It's damp (which wreaks havoc on a soldier's body and equipment. I know that from personal experience). It's difficult to even build a fire to cook food. Hell, it's hard to even maintain food supplies. Dangerous reptiles abound. And the bugs...don't even get me started on insects. I once saw a bug in a South Carolina swamp that was so large it actually had smaller bug on it! No joke.

Point being, they aren't hiding out in a dry, cozy barn at the edge of town. They're in a setting that makes things worse. 

Ever since I read K.M.'s post on the consideration of setting, I've stopped and thought deeper about where my scenes are taking place. Setting matters. If you're intending greater tension or difficulty with the scene, it might behoove you to consider making the situation worse for all involved characters by using a setting that brings added layers of difficulty.


----------



## FifthView

I think that we are well beyond the issue of miscommunication.  Yes, there is still some miscommunication.  But there is something _other_ happening as well.  

I don't come to Mythic Scribes forums to read an Encyclopedia Britannica entry, especially not in the Writing Questions forum.  I don't take the opening post in a thread as a definitive entry in some inalterable rulebook or encyclopedia.  I see it as the opening of a dialogue that can expand my understanding as discussion continues.  I can say with absolute certainty that my own understanding of this issue of M.I.W. has expanded during the course of this thread.  More than that, it's _evolved_.  And I am grateful for that.  I think that opening up a topic is not a setting in stone of commandments to be followed.  Changes in opinion, outlook, understanding for the better can happen as a conversation unfolds when people get together to discuss and _explore_ an issue.  Since I am often full of questions, this sort of environment can help me quite a bit.


----------



## Caged Maiden

But again, I'm sure no one will read my voice of reason on this matter, and instead chime in with another poignant post about how "making your characters suffer and rape people isn't a means to better fantasy." Yeah. Because that's exactly what i've been saying, right? I mean, look at my posts, please. I spent hours yesterday reading each line of every post. I've consistently said the same thing in about a dozen ways, and so has Helio, citing dozens of literary fictions examples of how any writer can take a basic concept and find ways to make it more important to a reader.

The main problem with the communication here, is that people believe "make it worse' has a single definition, and perhaps it does, and I'm using the wrong words. But I assure you, "crete more tension" could be just as misconstrued, in that it can be said that "creating tension" could be simply an external or interpersonal mechanism. Is tension an army invading a character's hometown? Or is that "increasing stakes"? When Cedrick needs to learn about an undead creature in a nearby village, and I changed ONLÃ his situation and the circumstances of how he learned about it, did I "Make it more immediate?"

FAIR ENOUGH!!! There are different ways to say the thing I'm doing. I acknowledged early in my personal posts on this subject, that one of the problems was that discussing these concepts, there aren't industry standards for terms. We interpret things differently (and I cited the Writer Voice thread as one we had a hard time defining too). 

If Sheila wants to call what i'm experiencing "editing with increased tension" I'm fine with it. The tool still works, my feelings of success are still real, the method can work for other people who want to accomplish similar goals. 

Period. That's all I want to say about the experience I've had. It was good. But for those who want to downplay this thing and put it into a neat little box and set it on the dusty shelf of "not  good tactic" you cannot cheapen my experience or the impact it's had on my writing spirit. The only thing arguing semantics will further accomplish with me, is to discourage me from ever sharing my personal writing journey on this forum again. I'll share my experience and methods in private emails with the folks I respect and work with, and abandon discussing craft as I've abandoned the majority of threads on this forum because I feel they're not applicable to my personal journey. 

So yeah, disagree with MY method if you want, but please show me the respect and courtesy of understanding what I'm saying (because it took me hours to type all those clear sentences) before discounting my whole experience and distilling it down to "writing like GRRM" because I have multiple times shown exactly how I'm applying the lesson I learned and how it can have value to any writer, whether they're writing genre fiction or literary fiction. Whether they plan every possible outcome of their story before writing, or whether they change things and increase impact through editing. NO matter HOW we come to decide to write a particular story, there are always little ways to increase the impact of the story, and the main one I'm focusing on right now, is wringing some more emotional impact out of scenes I loved. BY making situations just a little worse (like introducing not only the best friend on the arm of the ex-boyfriend, but hinting at betrayal) I can cause a little more impact. It doesn't matter if in the next scene of that fake story I show the MC in bed with her new boyfriend, aiming at a graphic scene, or whether my inclination is to instead show the ex come to her house and apologize for the shock and explain that he's not the father of the friend's baby and he didn't betray the MC. I mean, those are two very different stories, but perhaps either of them gained an impact for a reader, based just on taking a situation and making it slightly worse.


----------



## Caged Maiden

You know, Fifth, the morning I wrote that post, I had just had a spiritually MOVING experience. Something clicked big-time for me. I've been writing about every day of my life since 2001. That's a lot of story-telling, yet in my experience, I've not reached that place I want to be. I have wowed readers of some of my short stories, but my novels are so difficult. I can't get readers to really FEEL them.

And after I FELT how Martin punched me in the face with a scene and situation made LOADS WORSE, it struck me like a brick in my thick skull, that Make it Worse isn't just about literally making something take a turn down the mine shaft of depravity and awfulness. It can have a larger impact. It isn't shock value, it's emotional engagement. Because without toying with reader expectations, it's just not reaching its potential (in my personal terms of success). 

I wrote that post because my eyes had been opened. I had seen the light. I felt moved in my very spirit. I wanted to share that with this community of people I support whole-heartedly and call my friends. Many of them have my phone number. I've worked with these folks. I've bled in the trenches with them, as we all fight to push ourselves and each other to get better. 

I wanted to reach people like you, who maybe hadn't contemplated this thing before (as I haven't) and really come up with a good answer. I felt like I'd reached a good answer, perhaps by a mystical hat trick of three conversations coming together. Maybe that was the bolt from the sky that had to hit me just right to get this thing to make sense.

I appreciate everyone's weighing in on how they create tension, increase emotional impact, etc. I feel like if I'd just titled it "creating more emotional impact" no one would have argued. But because of the title, people failed to really read and absorb the message of what I was saying, and instead only embrace the one facet of "make it worse" (the eternal downslide and suffering of a character/ story) as I once thought it applied strictly to that tactic. 

Yes, that's certainly one way to make it worse, but there is also a broader meaning to the phrase. And yet, after countless examples of how any writer can use this tool, it's still being reduced to its one implication. 

I'm holding a Swiss Army Knife in my hands, and people are saying, "oh, I don't need a knife." And I am saying, "Yeah, but it's more than a knife. You can use it to open that bottle, or clean under your nails, or cut that string hanging from your manuscript shirt." And the reply I keep hearing is that that person doesn't use a knife, so it's stupid for me to be carrying one because it could be dangerous if I offer it for people to use.  ???


----------



## Heliotrope

T.Allan... I absolutely LOVE K.M Weiland as well. I have read most of her books on writing, subscribe to her blog, and have even emailed her on occassion when I have a deeper question I need answered. She is very helpful and accomodating. 

Your example of the setting is exactly perfect, and exactly what I mean when I say "Try to infuse as much tension into the scene as possible"... 

Look at setting, how could it be worse? 
Look at the other characters, how could they have their own goals and motives that could cause problems? 
Look at the MC, what sort of inner conflict or choice could they be forced to make in this scene? 
Look at the stakes, how could they be made more immediate, more personal? How could they matter more? 

Janice Hardy at Fiction University is another great blogger with amazing stuff to say.


----------



## FifthView

Caged Maiden said:


> And after I FELT how Martin punched me in the face with a scene and situation made LOADS WORSE, it struck me like a brick in my thick skull, that Make it Worse isn't just about literally making something take a turn down the mine shaft of depravity and awfulness. It can have a larger impact. It isn't shock value, it's emotional engagement. Because without toying with reader expectations, it's just not reaching its potential (in my personal terms of success).



I think that's an extremely common sort of thing.  Sometimes, it takes an extreme example to make us wake up and notice something.  It's after exploring the issue, digging deep, that we can begin to formulate a general principle.

At least, that happens to me all the time.


----------



## Steerpike

@CM Yes, I think that kind of label on the idea drives the underlying point home. I've seen it presented as "put your characters through hell," as well (I saw that recently in the context of screenwriting). I think it is apt for the type of writing contemplated by _most_ people who are going into writing. It's the approach the most popular fiction uses. I submit that not only does GRRM use it, but Rowling used it for her Potter books, and Suzanne Collins uses it in Hunger Games.


----------



## Amanita

Demesnedenoir said:


> This a straw man argument that could be turned on its head with neither direction making a logical point.


Would you care to elaborate? 
I meant to convey the idea that making things worse by adding violence to highlight the threat posed by the villains doesn't necessarily lead to a better story, quite the opposite.
I'm well aware of the fact that this isn't the only possible definition of the term as pointed out by Caged Maiden later but it's one possible way of using and interpreting this phrase.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Heliotrope said:


> Janice Hardy at Fiction University is another great blogger with amazing stuff to say.


That's a new one for me. I'll check her out.

Thank you.

@CM:
I think we're beyond shooting down the discussion based on misunderstandings, or labels, or whatever caused the derailment of your intention. 

I, for one, have enjoyed this conversation greatly & I am a firm believer in the MIW advice as it applies to my vision...my writing. It appears you and I aren't the only ones either. 

In something so personal as writing, you've got to expect a little dissent when discussing the merits of a process or method. You've been around long enough to remember those old threads on adverb use. Geez, Louise! They were heated with opinion and examples galore for both sides.

I think we should all be free to express ideas tactfully while maintaining respect for opposing positions. I also believe that our members are intelligent people, and capable of determining, on their own, if a concept is right for their writing.

I still don't use many adverbs. Not my thing.

I don't modify the word "said". Ever.

I limit passive voice to conscious choices and try to also limit my use of "to be" verbs.

I rarely use exclamation points.

I definitely ascribe to _Making it Worse_!

There are many more points of craft on _my personal list of rules_. But, I recognize others work differently. 

There are pros who write like me. There are pros that fly in the face of every rule on my list. Those two points alone say everything we need to know.


----------



## Caged Maiden

EXACTLY!!! YES!!!

Helio and I are working on my rewrite (look how I've fully pulled you onboard the project now!) and when I showed her the first chapter I had planned, a rewrite I did last summer, that felt like the opening to The Lies of Locke Lamora, she asked me how I could build up the main characters and conflict to have more impact. To which I sheepishly replied, "Oh, those aren't the main characters, those are the other guys and I'll never use their POV again."

At which point, she I think spluttered and smacked herself in the forehead with her palm, and asked me to just explain my story a little, so she could help me make sense of the steaming hot mess I wrote in 2008. 

After several great back and forth conversations, where I truly tried to embrace three-act structure, a more intense outlining than I'd ever been successful with, and a long conversation about how to make things more immediate and pertinent, I wrote a new first chapter. I posted loads about that, too, so folks could sympathize or laugh, or maybe take away something about the horrible experience. Anyways, so I wrote a new first chapter. I sent it to three people. Two said they preferred the old first chapter, and Helio said I was making progress but was still missing something. 

I began reading Donald Maass' book (which I would highly recommend to anyone who wants to push their understanding of their process, but be forewarned, it isn't a cake walk, it's HARD work). I heard him basically shouting in my face to make things worse, and to consider the immediate implications of every character emotion, every small happening in a scene that was meant to lead to the emotional payoff. AND I was only in chapter 1!

Then I watched GOT season 4 and Tyrion's trial went sideways in such a MONUMENTAL way for me, the lightning struck, the brick hit my head, the light dawned. I stepped out of a confused fog and I KNEW what I was doing so stupidly wrong, I felt ashamed to even admit it.

But admit it I did, the very next day. I came here and shared my failure with you guys, hoping it might help anyone else who was struggling with the same thing, the same sort of fogginess. The same sort of weakness I've been battling in my manuscripts forever. 

The main thing I learned is what Helio quoted earlier, something like, When you feel you're slapping the reader in the face with it, it's just enough for them. That's the point where you can quit pushing toward that emotional impact. 

Wow. Yeah, I finally got it, and it hit me hard. And I believe now that my method for trying to relay this experience has in some way turned the conversation about a viable tool that Donald Maass defines broadly, into a confused interpretation of my original post and the follow-ups. I said a word, "worse" and it became synonymous with GRRM and slaughter. And that was so far from my original meaning, that's why we've been discussing it at length here, but folks keep weighing in to say that wanton slaughter isn't a good thing in every story. 

Well, DUH! But increasing tension is almost always a great thing, because agents and critters and writers and readers all seem to concur that too much tension is better than not enough. And an easy way to increase tension is to simply ask yourself "what could make this girl at the dance's situation worse?" and I suppose to resist the temptation to answer, "Slaughtering her family at the party, burning down their home, making a dragon eat her best friend, and having the entire town impaled on fifteen-foot poles by her father, who is a magistrate and took personal offense when his daughter's heart was broken!" Because that's just stupid, and it defies the logic of the tool.


----------



## Caged Maiden

@ TA I hear you, and I might be a little riled at this point, because I so fully enjoy the back and forth of conversing at length about anything that can bring about a deeper understanding. But then there's this:



> I meant to convey the idea that* making things worse by adding violence to highlight the threat posed by the villains doesn't necessarily lead to a better story*, quite the opposite.
> I'm well aware of the fact that this isn't the only possible definition of the term as pointed out by Caged Maiden later _(actually, I said it in the OP and several times after, and so did several other people)_ but *it's one possible way of using and interpreting this phrase*.



Are we still at this point? I thought we'd moved on, yet here it is...the same thing we've spent hours and pages refuting, that NO ONE is advocating using violence as the MIW option. It has a more important meaning of increasing emotional impact through inner conflict, simply by worsening a situation in a way that readers would never even see as a worsening (Harry Potter again).

SO I think I'm done with this today. It's time I write something other than forum posts, because I've said all I have to say about mimicking GRRM. I'm not trying to be rude, but I only have time for people who are seeing the same light I'm seeing. If anyone is still trying to find that light because they think it could help them, I'm happy to talk about it, here in this thread or elsewhere, but I'm done trying to get people to stop defining MIW as only the proponent for wanton violence and depravity just for shock value. It's ludicrous, and seriously, we've all accepted that THAT isn't a great idea for any writer unless it's their expressed intent to write that kind of story. I'm not writing that kind of story, so I'll be increasing the dramatic and emotional impact of MY stories by making social situations worse, giving my character higher stakes in their scenes, and overall attempting to get a reader to care more, right from page one.

Thanks, sincerely, to everyone who shared this experience with me. It was a bit of a transformation for me, accepting and understanding how many missed opportunities I'd been leaving unchallenged. 

I sincerely hope some folks took something away from this. Something they'll be able to apply to their own work, in their own way. So that when they get to that next critique, or that next submission, they won't hear the thing I've heard over and over, "There really isn't any tension in this scene, so I'm having a hard time connecting with the character."


----------



## Chessie

CM: I thought of you last night during my study of chapter cliffhangers. The article I was reading mentioned how cliffhangers don't need to be explosive. They can be emotional, an underlying sensation that something isn't right here but strikes up enough curiosity to encourage the reader forward. 

We're in a similar process right now. You're rewriting and I'm redrafting (we might actually be doing the exact same thing). BUt in reading through your responses something stuck out to me long after I promised myself that this morning I would write before checking Mythic Scribes. (heh) You mentioned how you wanted to talk about how this very MIW tool applies to rewrites and how you're trying to weigh in old ideas vs new ones. 

This is what I'm going through now as well. The OG manuscript has literally a killer ending (yes, it end on a cliffhanger because I'm wicked liked that). But now, I'm faced with new ideas that are an improvement. A new POV added in who is supposed to die but now at chapter 3 I'm not so sure that he should. Does he really have to die to raise the stakes? 

I wrote this novel 2 years ago and am a better writer now. As I'm drafting this novel and thinking of the old one (of which I threw out all the chapters except the first one), I'm seeing places where there was a ton of room for tension but I didn't take it. Things that are so obvious and huge that I just let sit there because my skill was so much lower and I didn't have a good eye for these things.

The crit partner I had at the time kept telling me he wanted to see more violence, more gore, and more sex. Well...that's just not the kind of story it is! I prefer more subtle tactics to reader manipulation. I don't think he liked my story because the featured relationship is between two lovers who do something really, really bad and they're unable to flee the situation, thus they are placed in a pressure cooker type of story. The tension slowly builds, drives them bonkers, and they turn on each other.

Even though Martin has been a featured author on this thread because of the violent nature of GOT, I remember reading scenes in the first book that were ripe with tension but had no violence. I recall when Bran's mother (forgot her stupid name) swept aside his bangs after he was pushed that stayed with me. Martin connected to the mother in me. He moved me. And this was done without violence, which no one here has pushed as being necessary to MIW and I'm glad about that. 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good mystery and moments of violence in fiction, too. BUT what I'm saying is that this conversation has been a wonderful place to discuss how MIW can be done in so many different ways. Maiden has all her secret notes and torture and spies which is awesome. It's a versatile tool and although I apply it differently to my work, the essence of the main point remains. Whenever my characters tries to do something to rid herself of her problem, she makes it worse. She messes it up. She trusts in the wrong person, she makes a foolish decision which causes someone to lose their life, etc. 

So when it comes to redrafting this novel, I'm taking the opportunity to make the story more intense than it was the last time. I love writing about relationships of all sorts, but especially really bad ones. How can Zina makes things worse for herself? By trying to go up against a dark lord she can't control and wants to consume her. She's going to mess it up, time and time again because it's what seems natural to me and it's not that I enjoy torturing her, but I also want readers to stick with me during the story and buy the next one.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

You put forth an example that was easily defeated and which no one actually argued for... murder and rape in Rivendell, and present it as proof for your argument. To quote grammar girl discussing it, thereby saving me time:

Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.

So, if turning this upside down one might say: So what you gonna do? Have Frodo wander into Mordor with Sam, singing drinking songs from the Green Dragon with Gollum and toss the ring in the fires: The End! Happily ever after! No you must make it worse, worse, worse!

Neither argument actually works because neither side of the argument has actually in fact been argued for. Hence, Straw Men.

Personally I'm a bit like Treebeard on this discussion, I'm not entirely on anybody's side, because nobody is entirely on my side, heh heh. But, these sort of straw man arguments are something that really irks people and sets off the argumentative tone in many cases.



Amanita said:


> Would you care to elaborate?
> I meant to convey the idea that making things worse by adding violence to highlight the threat posed by the villains doesn't necessarily lead to a better story, quite the opposite.
> I'm well aware of the fact that this isn't the only possible definition of the term as pointed out by Caged Maiden later but it's one possible way of using and interpreting this phrase.


----------



## Russ

Demesnedenoir said:


> Personally I'm a bit like Treebeard on this discussion, I'm not entirely on anybody's side, because nobody is entirely on my side, heh heh. But, these sort of straw man arguments are something that really irks people and sets off the argumentative tone in many cases.



Good point.

And I might add another thing that irks people and turns a discussion in a darker direction is assuming the people who are reading the thread or being exposed to the advice are idiots or something less than you.

When I give advice or discuss an idea (in this case a tool) I think it is polite to operate under the assumption that our community members are quite bright and not likely to misuse the tool in some dangerous or stupid way.

Some people use it as a substitute for the straw man argument saying (effectively) "well you and I are experienced writers and thus are aware of these pitfalls, but beginners might read this and might not be capable of handling it as well as I (we) do."

I don't think that kind of paternalism adds much and  has so much potential to cause trouble.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Chesterama said:


> Even though Martin has been a featured author on this thread because of the violent nature of GOT, I remember reading scenes in the first book that were ripe with tension but had no violence.


Yes. So true.

One of my favorite scenes is when Cersei first confronts Ned Stark. He tells her that he knows the truth about her children. She lectures him about true power, its use, and playing the Game of Thrones. 

Though her guards are near, and Ned is alone, there is zero violence. All threats are insinuated, and delivered with a calm demeanor. Yet, the underlying tension in the dialogue blew me away & had me ripping through pages. So. Darn. Good. 




Russ said:


> And I might add another thing that irks people and turns a discussion in a darker direction is assuming the people who are reading the thread or being exposed to the advice are idiots or something less than you.


Yes, I agree. Generally, readers and writers are of above average intelligence.

We should trust in that. What's the worst that can happen? Failure? 

I learn more from failure than from my successes.


----------



## Miskatonic

I think it's terrible advice and yet at the same time I think it's good advice.


----------



## Caged Maiden

@ Chesterama

Absolutely feel you! Rewriting is painful. I'm taking what I liked about the old draft, kicking that into high gear, and throwing out what was crap and can't be salvaged, and then adding in new material that supports my current goals. We're probably doing the same work. And it's frustrating.

Everything I wrote in the first draft felt logical. It was inspired by my own desire to see successes and failures and complications at key moments. And there's nothing wrong with how I undertook this book or any other. but now that I'm a more confident writer (some days), I'm looking for impact. When my character loses her old life, I want the reader to be exited for her new possibilities, but understand deeply her fear of change. I didn't play on that before. I just said out with the old, in with the new.

When my character falls in love with a man who was her enemy in the beginning of the book, I want the reader to feel they were meant to be together, so that means I have to turn that guy who was a minor annoyance because he continuously challenged her, into a more compelling and complete character, who doesn't just shame her and make her feel bad, but who has some redeeming features TO HER, not just the people around her.

There are so many little ways I can increase tension in this story, looking at it now, it's EMBARRASSING how bad it was. I can only say I'm glad that I'm in a position where I can recognize the drivel for what it is...a story that got away from a young writer still learning the craft.

Best wishes, Chesterama and everyone else who are working on adding in tension to a story you already feel you know. I can only say that when I read The Lies of Locke Lamora, I felt like the twists hit me in the gut hard, like the barrel scene (I'm not spoiling, you'll know when you get there). OMG, I FELT so much in that book, and it wasn't a tale of wanton violence, really, or taking everything away time and time again. It was a fully compelling tale of a young man and his crew, being cleverer than everyone else. And I LOVED it SO much. But imagine if things hadn't gone from bad to worse...if Locke hadn't been a thief deep into the very fiber of his being. If Jean hadn't been such a great friend. If Chains hadn't been so harsh in that first scene where he told Locke about his dead little Streets friends. The story might have been the same outcome, but the emotional impact would have been lessened, SO MUCH.

And that's what i'm trying to capture now. And with this new understanding, I'm no longer wielding a goldfish net, trying to chase this beast around the jungle, I've got one of those Batman freaking nets that shoots from his vambrace or whatever and engulfs the baddies and they can't get out of it!

DO it, girl! Get that tension in each little scene, subtle or in-your-face. Whatever it calls for. Make things just a step worse, more pertinent, more real NOW, more important to the character and her own feelings.


----------



## Chessie

It's grimy work but I love it. 

I had no idea what I was doing before. I have a much stronger impression of the story this time around. There are some things that have me confused at the moment, but I'll eventually get past that stickiness. 

_   Get that tension in each little scene, subtle or in-your-face. Whatever it calls for. Make things just a step worse, more pertinent, more real NOW, more important to the character and her own feelings. _ <---- I believe this is the most important point here. The MIW has to be organic, natural, true to who you're writing about. Zina is very real to me. I understand her motivations, her strengths, weaknesses, and her desires. I also know her future. So as I write, new ideas come to me. A new bit of dialogue that's more intense than the last go around, and I'm even getting a strong idea of how to open the second book.

So how does MIW or try/fail apply to a redraft/rewrite? By comparing it to the last version. I was always told by my readers that there needed to be more intensity between the characters and although I KNEW/understood that, I was too shy to apply it to the story. This time around, Zina is much more bullheaded. She challenges everyone and everything. She's changing for the worst, and in the process screwing things up for herself. For me to say that this story is hella more exciting now would be an understatement.


----------



## Heliotrope

So much agree with ^^^^ And that is why for me this is a very layered process. I will use my current WIP as an example. 

I did a TON Of plotting/front end loading first... then wrote my first chapter. Here are my layers: 

- Girl's goal is to win the speech competition to win summer internship to get away from her annoying dad. 
- Her best friend is her main opponent 
- She wants to get a photo of the weird busker for her speech, but a boy she likes is at the station, and she doesn't want him to -  see her because she hasn't told him she is in the contest. 
- She hasn't told her father either, because he is so embarrasing all the time. 
- Weird, invisible things in the station keep touching her. 
- At the last minute her friend turns on her (stress from the competition) and when the busker performing coin tricks needs a volunteer, her friend calls her out... thus embarrassing her in front of the boy she likes. 
- The busker seems to know her, and weird things happen with the coins, and he quickly tries to get away from her. 
- Finally, the weird invisible creatures nuzzle her, this time with fangs... this time whispering her name. 


Ok... it was NOT enough. I was like, Aw yeah, there is plenty going on in this scene to be interesting. 

Nope. Not enough. 

The problem was some major issues with character motivation (not deep enough)... so she wants to win the competition, who cares? Why? Why should I care? 

And the stakes - so she wants to get away from her annoying dad? Who cares. You haven't shown me how annoying he is, so why should I believe you? 

My redraft needed some serious work in the MIW department. 

Now, I have increased the motivation. The girl has been searching for her mother, who left her father after she was born. She found records of her mother's name and address in her dad's study. She tracked the woman down. The woman is perfect. Not only is she smart and beautiful and well dressed and educated, she is a treasure hunter/archeologist who is presenting her latest find at the museum. The prize of winning the speech competition is a summer internship working with this woman... This is my MC's _in_ to getting connected to her mother, who is leaps and bounds more interesting and cool and sophisticated then her lame dad. 

(The woman will end up being the villian, but that is niether here nor there at this point. The fact is that my MC had a lame goal and lame stakes, and I had to make them better in order for the reader to care.) 

- I have _shown_ her lame dad, who, still dressed in his uniform from the novelty sword shop at the mall, is now playing old sea shanty's on his fiddle for change at the very station she is at with her friends... so the MC has to try to prevent him from seeing her as she has told him she is "tutoring" tonight, so he doesn't come to the speech contest. 

*Sigh* I sort of love drafting actually.

*Note: I'm writing a children's urban time travel fantasy, for kids ages 11-13, so I have to be pretty creative in how I ramp up tension. I really want to avoid my MC doing anything too illegal lol.


----------



## FifthView

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Consider this: SETTING
> 
> How can you _Make it Worse_?
> 
> Think of the movie _The Patriot_, starring Mel Gibson. When Mel's band of rebels is on the lamb from the redcoats, where do they hide?
> 
> They hide in a swamp.
> 
> Now, that setting could've been written any number of ways, but a swamp is a worsening for the characters. It's bleak. It's damp (which wreaks havoc on a soldier's body and equipment. I know that from personal experience). It's difficult to even build a fire to cook food. Hell, it's hard to even maintain food supplies. Dangerous reptiles abound. And the bugs...don't even get me started on insects. I once saw a bug in a South Carolina swamp that was so large it actually had smaller bug on it! No joke.
> 
> Point being, they aren't hiding out in a dry, cozy barn at the edge of town. They're in a setting that makes things worse.



I've been thinking about various ways to M.I.W. via M.I.C.E., both at the macro level of a story and at the micro level.

I'm reasonably sure how I might go about doing that with milieu, character, event....But idea?  That one stumps me.  Withholding information from characters?  Using religious, moral quandaries (but how would that be distinguished from M.I.W. at "c" —characters?)

Edit:  Well I may have answered my own question.  Idea stories are typically mysteries of one sort or another.  Probably lack of information, conflicting information, and misinformation are ways to M.I.W. via "I."


----------



## Heliotrope

Hi FV, 

Arthur C Clarke's short story "The Star" if often called an "Idea" Story. It starts with the team wondering why the planet exploded, and by the end they come to realize that the sun supernovad. 


Not exactly a Hollywood High Concept plot line! lol. 

Here is the story to have a read for context: 

https://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/TheStar.pdf


I might argue that ACC made the story "worse" in a few ways: 

1) He purposly chose a character who had a very strong faith in Christianity, and through the discovery of this exploded civilization has had his faith put into question, deepening the theme of the story as well as the emotional impact. If the character had merely been a scientific mind, with no connection or care that the star was the one seen over Bethlehem so many years ago, the story would not quite carry the same emotional weight. 

2) So the _stakes_ in this particular story is the narrator's religious beliefs and values. ACC did a great job of heightening those stakes and making them public, as the narrator notes that there are others on the ship that are greatly troubled by what this event means. 

*Edit: I just realized the stakes are must worse than I originally posted. The stakes here are all of CChristianity itself. The implication is that if it has shaken up the faithfull on the ship, what will that information do when they bring it back to Earth? What will that mean for the future of Christianity? Those are some pretty huge stakes! And a pretty huge _inner conflict_ or choice on the crew: Do they tell what really happened? Or do they keep it a secret to save a religion? 

3) The _tension_ for the reader comes from the withheld information. We, until the very end, have no clue _why_ he is so disturbed by this event, so we keep reading to find out why this disaster occured, and why it is so emotional for him. 

4) It is also made worse by the back story, of how the people knew what was happening, and tried to save the memory of their civilization by planting a vault for others to find later. Seeing the faces of the real people who unknowingly gave thier lives to a 'higher calling' is highly emotional for the MC. 

I hope that helps a little bit. A mystery novel is a mystery novel is a mystery novel... it is when you can tie it all together and make it emotional, life changing for the MC then it becomes high impact.


----------



## FifthView

Thanks Helio, that helps.

I know there are "types" of stories for each area addressed by MICE.  But all stories have elements of each of the areas milieu, idea, character, event.

I've been thinking of Harry Potter again and the way each book was framed as a mystery.  There was a lot of hidden information needing discovering, sometimes misinformation or conflicting information for the characters.  (Harry & Co. thinking Snape was behind their problems in Sorcerer's Stone, the impostor "Mad-Eye" Moody, Who is the Half-Blood Prince?  Etc.)


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes, for sure, I guess I tend to think of MIW as more like, increasing emotional impact, both for the character and for the reader. 

So while the secrets, mystery and misinformation in HP made for fantastic plot points, I think of MIW as more of a way of making those plot points matter on a grand scale emotionally, sort of a ripple effect if you will. 

So for example, Cedric Diggory. 

Ok, so Harry needed to win in the maze, obviously. But how can we make his win really impact everyone on a large scale? 

Well,she can give it a price. She can give it high stakes. She had to show how hard that win was. (Similar to Indiana Jones. The harder it appears, the more the 'win' _feels_ like a win.) So, Cedric Diggory had to die, as a contrast to Harry's success. It made his success feel bigger. It made it feel like there was a price. 

But that was not enough. 

How could she make that matter even more? How could she make Cedric's death have a ripple effect? 

Well, maybe someone was in love with Cedric. Someone really cared about him. 

*Post edited because of Ireth's new information  

Cho Chang, a girl who Harry had a crush on at the time. 

So Harry is forced to feel this sort of terrible and strange mix of feelings. Jealousy mixed with this terrible sadness that he couldn't save him.  

So Cedric dying, while serving a wonderful purpose, was felt down the line in many ways for many people. 

Here is a wonderful quote from the book: 

_"Obviously, she is feeling very sad, because of Cedric dying. Then I expect she's feeling confused because she liked Cedric and now she likes Harry, and she can't work out who she likes best. Then she'll be feeling guilty, thinking it's an insult to Cedric's memory to be kissing Harry at all... And she probably can't work out what her feelings are towards Harry anyway, because he was the one who was with Cedric when Cedric died, so that's all very mixed up and painful."_

*note the mixed feelings? The inner conflict? Cedric's death has a huge ripple effect, not just because he was popular, but because he really meant something to someone on a personal level, and so this deeply impacts Harry on a personal level.  

When I look at, for example, her making the Dursley's so terrible, this also served many purposes through the story. One, like I noted earlier, it was sort of reverse engineering to make his 'salvation' feel huge. But also, it served as that 'simmering under the surface tension" through the entire book. Every time Harry broke a rule at Hogwarts, every time he crept around at night, every time he was almost caught, there was that lingering knowing in the back of the reader's mind, what will happen if he is caught? Well, he will have to go back to the Dursley's. The worse she made the Dursley's at the beginning, the more that under the surface tension is felt by the reader through the book.

She built in that "under the surface" tension in many ways. If I look at the first book, by Chapter two we have the dissapearing glass and the episode with the snakes, which puts this sort of "anything can happen at any time" thought in the reader's mind. This way, any time Harry turns a corner or decends a staircase or puts on a hat, the reader is partially 'expecting' something to happen, turning pages to find out what will happen next. 

When we did our little brainstorm much earlier in the thread, and I threw out some ideas, I was considering them as just possible brainstorms for that 'under the surface' tension. Not so much plot points. So maybe the infected blood is being sold on the black market, and that might come up off handedly in the first few chapters. He knows someone this has happened to. To make it worse, perhaps it was someone he was very close to, or a mentor of some sort. Now, it would not be  a plot point, per se, the plot could still go in whatever direction you chose, but it would be something in the back of the readers mind, so every time the character stepped out his door onto the streets there was that added element of danger. Something _might_ happen. It also now gives the condition a bit of emotion weight. Some emotional baggage, _showing_ the reader what the stakes of this condition are on a deeper level.. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## Incanus

Just popping in to say that I think this is a great thread; I read through most of it.  I wish I had had time to participate in it more substantively.  Fascinating discussion.  Thank you Scribians!  Keep it up.

And now, back to the discussion in progress...


----------



## Heliotrope

Later edit (after Incanus's post) 

So CM's example, 

She originally had a plot point where a friend sends her a note saying someone is looking for her. Ok, interesting plot point. Not really too much going on there. Pretty straighforward. How could we increase the emotional impact of this plot point? 

So CM figured that he could just sell her out, because that made more sense. Having a close friend sell you out is pretty emotional. Problem was, she needed the note to happen, because it's important SO she considered whether he could sell her out and then send the note because he felt bad about it. (Ahhhhh, mixed emotions are always good, mixed emotions are like candy for readers). 

But, CM thought.... Hmmmmm, that is _good_ but why stop there? What else could I do? How could I really make this impact the MC in a big way? 

Well, what about the friend's best agent, a guy who knew all his secrets, sent the note. Ok, but the clincher of why it's "worse" is that the MC just murdered him, thinking HE was the shady character, and THEN she got his note, warning her that their mutual friend betrayed her. Totally worse, because now the MC knows she killed a guy that was actually trying to help her, and his note actually provided her with safety. So now she'll be feeling pretty guilty about poisoning that one guy...

CM took a basic plot point, one that we necessary to the story, but sort of 'vanilla', industrial, or what was the word you once used...? _Utilitarian_, and she found a way to give it some serious emotional weight. A twist, if you may, that has ripple effects through the story.


----------



## Ireth

Heliotrope said:


> So for example, Cedric Diggory.
> 
> Ok, so Harry needed to win in the maze, obviously. But how can we make his win really impact everyone on a large scale?
> 
> Well,she can give it a price. She can give it high stakes. She had to show how hard that win was. (Similar to Indiana Jones. The harder it appears, the more the 'win' _feels_ like a win.) So, Cedric Diggory had to die, as a contrast to Harry's success. It made his success feel bigger. It made it feel like there was a price.
> 
> But that was not enough.
> 
> How could she make that matter even more? How could she make Cedric's death have a ripple effect?
> 
> Well, maybe someone was in love with Cedric. Someone really cared about him.
> 
> Hermione.
> 
> How can we make it worse? How can we make that ripple further?
> 
> Maybe someone else was in love with Hermione? That would be interesting. That would be a strange mix of feelings. Jealousy mixed with this terrible sadness...
> 
> Ron.
> 
> So Cedric dying, while serving a wonderful purpose, was felt down the line in many ways for many people.



Sorry to say, but your argument falls flat here. Hermione never had a romantic relationship with Cedric -- you're thinking of Cho Chang, whom Harry also had a crush on at the time. Hermione's relationship with Ron had zero to do with Cedric or Cho.


----------



## Heliotrope

Ahhhhh, yes, it's been a while for me, I'll admit. (I'm 32 years old, I haven't read HP in probably 15 years). I knew there was a romantic triangle in there somewhere. At any rate, the argument still stands, but actually, is even worse, because it is is the MC feeling the strange mix of emotions.

*original post edited


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> Yes, for sure, I guess I tend to think of MIW as more like, increasing emotional impact, both for the character and for the reader.
> 
> So while the secrets, mystery and misinformation in HP made for fantastic plot points, I think of MIW as more of a way of making those plot points matter on a grand scale emotionally, sort of a ripple effect if you will.



Why?

Must MIW be useful only through emotional suffering?  Or, for angsty characters, or troubled characters?

_Which_ emotions are targets of MIW?

Within this thread, there have been slightly varying definitions of MIW and with those, a difference of ideas about what MIW _does_.  Here, you are saying "increasing emotional impact."  Previously, it was increasing tension.  There was Russ's, which was interesting:



Russ said:


> The definition of MIW, to my mind, is fairly simple:
> 
> It is a change in circumstances that makes it more difficult for the MC to achieve a goal.



As I've said before, Harry Potter might be a difficult example because we only see the end result.  So let's imagine that in _Sorcerer's Stone_, Harry and his two friends had discovered very early in the book that Professor Quirrell was Voldemort's servant and, what's more, that Voldemort was surviving on in his diminished form at the back of Quirrell's head.  This would have led to a significantly different book.  Then, Harry & Co. would have focused on exposing and defeating him, which probably would have been easy if nothing else about the book had been changed—to throw up roadblocks, to make it more tense.

Plus, since it's the first book in the series and introducing Snape, we might still have had a hateful potions master, but without the suspicion of him as the culprit, Snape's presence might have been a far less tense reality.

If one were writing a detective novel, must it be necessary to give the character deep-seated angst, personal issues/problems, and so forth if one wanted to utilize MIW?  Or would we be able to make the MC's journey worse by the way we revealed information, raised false flags, and so forth?

(And are paranoia, tensions, doubt, underlying fear and trepidation, uncertainty....emotions, if you want to see MIW through the lens of "emotional impact"?)*

I do suspect that MIW through "I" (idea) can really have a major impact on plotting, more than, say, the sort that just gives the MC magic-hating guardians.  So Mary Robinette Kowal's caution to avoid plot bloat seems a good thing to keep in mind.

*Edit:  Curiosity?


----------



## Heliotrope

Ahhhhhhh, I see what you are saying. 

Ok, new quote: 

" _A story's action generates in readers excitment and interest. Conflcit - especially micro-tension keeps readers involved. Associated devices like metaphor, simile, symbols, parallels, reversals, and references contribute to a sense of meaning. Meaning itself in the form of theme is necessary for high impact. 

But what is it that moves reader's hearts? What conjures in readers imaginations a reality that, for a while, feels more real that their own lives? What glues readers to characters and makes those characters onjects of identification: people with whom readers feel intimately involved, about whom they care, and whose outcome matters greatly? 

Emotions. When readers feel little or nothing, then a story is just a collection of words. It's empty._

So I guess, it is the idea that, when a plot point, whatever it is, matters greatly to a character on an emotional level, then it matters to the reader on an emotional level. Avoiding plot bloat is an absolute MUST for sure, I agree with that, so perhaps chosing those few plot points that you really want to _matter_ to the reader, and finding a way to make them matter more? In a broader way? When  you can do that, then you are in turn raising tension, raising stakes, making the reader more invested, making the plot point feel like it really means something, there was growth and change and development? 

I guess that is why? 

So no, I don't think that having an angsty character is necessary, but I think that giving the character an emotional landscape can help to make the story feel more "real" and "alive"?


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> Ahhhhhhh, I see what you are saying.
> 
> So I guess, it is the idea that, when a plot point, whatever it is, matters greatly to a character on an emotional level, then it matters to the reader on an emotional level. Avoiding plot bloat is an absolute MUST for sure, I agree with that, so perhaps chosing those few plot points that you really want to _matter_ to the reader, and finding a way to make them matter more? In a broader way? When  you can do that, then you are in turn raising tension, raising stakes, making the reader more invested, making the plot point feel like it really means something, there was growth and change and development?



I'm not sure we are on the same wavelength yet, although I do agree that, most of the time, MIW should key in to the character's motivation—_in one way or another_.

But, and I'm not sure about this, I wonder if you are still viewing MIW through "I", of the sort I mentioned for Harry Potter books, as merely a matter of plot.  You had originally said that it's just plotting (more or less!)

I may be biased, because I tend to view the glut of YA novels, combined with very tight 3rd-person in other novels, as pushing more and more characters toward the angsty, or even neurotic, end of the scale.  I'm not saying those novels are bad for this reason, but only mean to imply, until I can better state what I mean, that this stressing of "emotional impact" may be a little overblown.

May be.  I don't know, because what falls under "emotional impact" is unclear, both in the first word of that phrase and in the second word!

But let's look at T.A.S.'s example of MIW through setting.  Those people had to hide out in a swamp.  This idea of making the setting worse naturally tied into my thoughts about looking at MICE.  Milieu on the macro level could mean the whole world, large structures like the society and culture of a world, and so forth, but on the micro level "M" would cover setting for any given scene or span of scenes.  Now, people who must hide in a swamp might have an emotional response....but what?  I can fully picture some YA approaches focusing on the yuckiness of it, or the creepy crawlies, or, gosh, who knows maybe it makes them think of the time their hateful step-dad took them camping in a swamp.  (Exaggerating here—just a little.)  But in the context that T.A.S. gave, is the frustration of having to deal with hiding in a swamp—a sufficiently "impacted" emotion?  Is it the delay it causes, because they really want to get to their goal and a swamp severely hinders that?  And so forth.

Same with using mystery and deception (manipulation of information) to MIW.

Incidentally, there's also the question of whether info is being withheld from just the character or both character and reader, and whether the character must be immediately affected emotionally for the reader to be affected.  But then I run into this problem when considering tension also.  I think that it's far more important for the reader to feel tension, less so for the character also to be made tense, although often both may be the case.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes, I agree, lets get away from YA for a while, because I myself can't stand the overblown angsty-ness. lol. 

Ok, so let's look at The Patriot again (thought it is a film, and not a book, so that makes it slightly more difficult.) 

So, in the Patriot they set us up with immediate emotional investment, (what might be called sympathy on the character scale). 

He had a wife, family, a farm, a good life (Gee... Similar to Gladator), which was all taken away, his outer goal is to stop the Loyalists, but his inner goal, really, is to protect his family. So he is driven deeply by emotion, exactly how you are saying about MIW being a key to a character's motivation. 

Ok, so if I think about fiction as a sort of thumb screw device (lol), as the character goes through the trials and tribulations every little worsening, like the swamp, is another turn in that screw. It can be a small thing, like choosing to put them in a swamp instead of a warm barn, or it can be a HUGE life alterating thing, like having a friend betray you, or kill a person who was actually trying to help you. At any rate, the more turns you can add, the more it will feel like a "win" at the end. Like a HUGE victory. 

At any rate, it is all _emotional_ in some way, because every little thing brings them further and further away from achieving that inner goal, or it may even end up changing the goal in some way, or adding a new layer to the goal, or whatever. 

Now, this is where movies are harder to do this with... 

So in movies we as the audience _see_ the character. We see his family and his home and the war and the blood, and his facial expressions and his grief and his fear and his love, and I think it is slightly more easy to identify with characters in movies. In fiction we have to show it all somehow. We have to show how each thing effects the character in _some way_. 

So in CM's example, the MC recieves a letter that someone is chasing her. Ok, sort of flat. Maybe she feels fear. There is some mystery there. There is some sense of "Ok, what is she going to do?" 

But, with her new scene, the reader is _shown_ so much more about the MC's life. The danger. The lack of trust. The inability to really know who your friends are. The world is brought to life that much more. The MC's mixed feelings, inner tension, is heightened more, and the reader can really see "Why" she needs out. How she is really not safe. It intensifies her motive, while at the same time turning the screw a little more.


----------



## FifthView

Helio, I do agree that the things you've pointed out work and can work very well.

But at the same time, I think it's only a partial view of the potential.  But maybe I'm stretching the idea of MIW a tad too far in one respect, in my mind, because I think it's possible to MIW for a character without the character even knowing his situation has been made worse. Now, yes, having that emotional connection to the MC is a prerequisite.   But it's not necessary that we feel through the MC's also feeling the worsening or any of the emotional impact of the worsening.



> We have to show how each thing effects the character in some way.



Maybe we can show it _will_ affect a character at some point in the future, or _would_ if the character ever knew about it, or _is_ affecting the character without the character even knowing that it already is.  This might run counter to the idea of "put them through hell," and certainly counter to some 3rd-limited approaches in which the world at large exists only insofar as the character has direct feelings and/or knowledge about it.  (Although this is one reason why having multiple POV characters can work so well.)

But back to the idea of playing with information to MIW. 



> Ok, so if I think about fiction as a sort of thumb screw device (lol), as the character goes through the trials and tribulations every little worsening, like the swamp, is another turn in that screw. It can be a small thing, like choosing to put them in a swamp instead of a warm barn, or it can be a HUGE life alterating thing, like having a friend betray you, or kill a person who was actually trying to help you. At any rate, the more turns you can add, the more it will feel like a "win" at the end. Like a HUGE victory.



Similarly, when Harry & Co. have to run through the hoops, trying to discover what's happening, it's like being in a swamp, or a desert, etc.–to the degree that they care about that information and what's truly happening.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView said:


> But at the same time, I think it's only a partial view of the potential.  But maybe I'm stretching the idea of MIW a tad too far in one respect, in my mind, because I think it's possible to MIW for a character without the character even knowing his situation has been made worse. Now, yes, having that emotional connection to the MC is a prerequisite.   But it's not necessary that we feel through the MC's also feeling the worsening or any of the emotional impact of the worsening.
> 
> 
> 
> .



No, I don't think you are at all. I think you are absolutely right. I'm wondering, though (my curiousity now), about a story becoming episodic? I am sort of envisioning a character being tossed about in a storm, instead of an active participant with choices (as terrible as they may be)? (That may be just me going too far?) 

Please expand on your thought process as I'm not sure I fully understand.....


----------



## FifthView

Well I didn't have anything too exotic in mind.  In one chapter your MC is going about his business, whatever you have him doing to further the story.  And in the next chapter, POV character is the villain, and someone comes to that villain's throne room and reveals your MC's name–finally!  the villain has been trying to find out who opposes him!  But your MC doesn't know this has happened.  His situation's now worse, but he just doesn't know it.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes!!! So much yes, what a way to raise reader tension! 

But I might then analyze a scene like that and wonder if it could have more impact... If it wasn't going to cause too much plot bloat I might wonder if I could keep that persons identity a secret (raising reader tension) and then have that identity be a gut punch to the mc later on... If it would be too much, then maybe not... But, if it was possible to combine characters to make the betrayal that much worse for the mc then why not? 

Totally though, make it effect the mc is some way does not mean right away. And it may be a small ripple or a huge wave.


----------



## Caged Maiden

This is good stuff, you guys!


----------



## Incanus

It is great stuff.  The reason I can't really participate is because this thread is moving at the speed of an autobahn, and I'm on a trike.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Today I wrote a story. Well, not really wrote it, but wrote out the idea on paper, for fleshing out later. It's a silly little thing, but I picked up the idea from the book I spent three hours reading this morning (while I was supposed to be making my other scene worse...

Anyways, I wrote a very short story about a day a door-to-door salesman came to my house selling cleaning products. 

The book was called How to Write Short. It really goes along with this discussion, which was why I mentioned it here. It focuses on very short stories, even poems. Even 6-word stories. What a great book!


----------



## Heliotrope

Oohh! Fun! 

Watching _The Revenant_ right now. Holy Sh*t is that a lesson in MIW lol.


----------



## Reaver

Heliotrope said:


> Oohh! Fun!
> 
> Watching _The Revenant_ right now. Holy Sh*t is that a lesson in MIW lol.



Good movie. I have to say your post gave me a chuckle. Not because of the movie. It's because you censored the word shit. That one's okay to write on Mythic Scribes.

 Nasty, derogatory and hateful words (any adult knows what words I mean) are the ones we have a problem with here.


----------



## Caged Maiden

yeah, that's why Reaver's posts are so short. He had to trim out half his vocabulary, because it used to look like he just kept accidentally hitting the asterisk key...repeatedly.


----------



## ThinkerX

Caged, before I forget (again) - is this story you are rewriting the one that opens with the gambling scene?

If so, MIW is probably the way to go.


----------



## Caged Maiden

yes, and I've made the opening much worse. Here's the new first paragraph, since you guys didn't like the magic appearing first:




> Raisa sat at a table of liars. A loan shark disguised as a banker, a sailor who transported weapons for warlords, a masked assassin who posed as a thief, and a woman who led every man she kissed to believe he was the only one in the world. And despite the mansion being full to brimming with false faces and lying lips, Raisa was quite sure none came close to matching her faculty for fakery. Her bust was padded, her waist girdled, and a wig of lush auburn curls concealed her shorn head. She was the queen of frauds, with a big old whopper of a secret.
> 
> Despite every attempt to behave for Lion’s birthday celebration and embrace the role of a crime boss’ mistress, conducting herself as a caricature of her benefactor’s ideals, Raisa battled a lingering dour mood. She tried to brush it off as anxiety over the party budget and worry for her young ward, Cherie, while the house was overrun with rutting pigs.
> 
> In truth, her attention was transfixed on a scruffy stranger who threatened to knock her off her royal throne, taking the liar’s crown for himself. A fellow named Martin, who under any other circumstances might have gone unnoticed amidst the more colorful personalities of Brazelton’s crime syndicate. Under the glow of an ironwork chandelier, Lion’s newest obsession enraptured party attendees with his mellow timbre and gifted fingers. Raisa saw him for what he was, though–a son of a cunt bard who was robbing her blind.



It certainly is worse...but I hope it's also better.


----------



## ThinkerX

> It certainly is worse...but I hope it's also better.



Much better.  But not there yet.

This is a card game.  Start with the card hitting the table.  Incorporate each mini-description as that persons turn comes up.  And have the MC more than a little anxious.  Because A - she could lose big, and B - these are some very nasty well connected characters.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Actually, the card game is very much in the background, so...do you still think the cards should be front and center? I don't really show anyone playing until the end of the chapter. The goal for the first scene is that she's waiting for an opportunity to make a deal with a fiend for a building she wants to buy, the first step for leaving the crime syndicate. So, I have one hand of cards, not very detailed, no aura, just the character waiting, and as soon as her friend gets frustrated with his lousy hand, he says he needs a break, and she leaves the table with him to cut a deal on the building she wants.

So, you'd still put the cards up front? I was trying to focus more on the bard, because he's the person who becomes her enemy in a way, when he stares at her early int he chapter, and the later, he beats her in the card game. And later in the book, he's the love interest, so...Helio told me to put as much focus on him as I could.


----------



## ThinkerX

Caged, the opening is better in that its more compact.

However, you open with your MC sitting at a table, and move immediately to short capsule descriptions of several other characters.  You don't mention what those characters are doing, other than they are also at the table, and who don't seem to appear in the next couple of paragraphs.  Hence...

'Raisa tossed a card on the table.'

That says *what* she and the others are doing.  Then,

'Vin, a loan shark with pretensions of respectability, eyed the placard.'  

And so on.  Then, when its the bards turn, go into a more detailed explanation, as he is a central character to be.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Hm, that's true, I never thought of the ambiguous nature of the word "table" because it was already in my head that it's a card table. I see what you're saying.


----------



## Heliotrope

Movement interspersed with description is good. When I do my edits I try to find stationary words like sat, stood, waited, etc, anything that implies stillness or sort of general restfulness and replace them with specific descriptions of movement. 

So, "Raisa tossed the card, face down, to the table of liars." 

Now, what I like about the above is that the reader knows exactly what is happening, but then you also have subtly included a symbol for Raisa herself. "Face down" implies concealment, hiding, secrets... A metaphor for the entire chapter.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Today, I'm writing a fight scene, and it was very utilitarian in the first draft. Basically, I had an elf get jumped (because he was there, I suppose), and my secondary character (a werewolf) came to his rescue. The only real point I was trying to show in the scene, was that the secondary character is a werewolf. 

It didn't work.

So now I'm rewriting it with a few small changes. Ones I hope will make the whole scene feel more connected to the plot.

Now, the guys who jump the elf are friends of the MC, who is present in the scene, but hidden. She's a raven, transformed by magic. The men were sent by a friend, to find her, but they find the elf instead, and ask him if he's seen the girl. The MIW moment, is that just before he was jumped by these thugs, he finished having a conversation with the werewolf secondary character, in which they discussed looking for a girl (who just happens to BE the MC in the scene as a raven), and when the thugs are really looking for her because they believe something befell her and that's why no one can find her...the elf believes they've come and attacked him because they know the secret reason he's trying to find her now.

Wow, that probably sounds terribly complicated, but for this scene, it was the perfect way to finally connect the main plot line (with the elf and his search for this woman who can open her family crypt), and the MC, who doesn't know anything about a crypt, but happens to have friends out searching for her because she's missing from her room. 

This scene is meant to feel like ships in the night, where they're both looking for the same person, but I haven't told the reader yet, just hinted at it. And while the elf and the thugs are both under the wrong assumptions, they're both actually RIGHT!

Hoo boy...what a day. I'm making my headache worse, for sure.


----------

