Chuck Wendig: In Which I Critique Your Story (That I Haven't Read)

[A. E. Lowan]

Another really good Wendig article, this one going over things that can go wrong with plot structure and character. Fair bit of swearing, probably NSFW.

In Which I Critique Your Story (That I Haven’t Read) « terribleminds: chuck wendig

 

[BWFoster78]

Spoken (written) like a man who has read a lot of manuscripts...

 

[Snowpoint]

He knows exactly why I suck without ever meeting me. Good article.

 

[Jabrosky]

I was going to congratulate him for invoking everyone's favorite feathered pack-hunters in his numbered "ideal" story structure, but subtract that cosmetic flourish and I don't think it's all that helpful.

Honestly, throwing obstacle after obstacle after one's heroine without a clear theme guiding her story sounds more like the gameplay of, say, God of War than literature. Even if the heroine showed "agency" by beating up everything in her way only to bump into yet more enemies, it'll make for a tediously repetitive read.

I'd even go so far as to say this is the problem I have with certain how-to-write articles' emphasis on conflict escalation in storytelling. Yes, you do need a conflict that poses a challenge to your heroine, one which she can't simply flick away with one finger. If it's something out of her day-to-day experience, the better. If she's used to bow-hunting antelopes in the savanna, pit her against a Tyrannosaurus rex in the jungle with just a stabbing-spear. But rather than simply dropping an arbitrarily long sequence of obstacles between her and her goal, I'd go for the jugular and address why the T. Rex is going to pose a challenge for her, how she can overcome that challenge, and how that experience affects her as a character. You know, what most people call a character arc or theme.

Escalation of tension shouldn't make a story by itself. It's what propels the heroine across her arc, from her comfort zone of bow-hunting humble bovids in open country to being ready to swing onto that tyrant of the jungle and makrigga 'em to the brain. Everything else is what guides her through that transition.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

He's not talking about a simple escalation of conflict. Rather, he's talking about conflict which isn't readily and easily resolved, conflict which changes as the story progresses and gives the story more depth...raising the stakes in unexpected ways.

It's suggesting there's more to a good story conflict than the simple problem+effort=resolution.

 

[ThinkerX]

He's not talking about a simple escalation of conflict. Rather, he's talking about conflict which isn't readily and easily resolved, conflict which changes as the story progresses and gives the story more depth...raising the stakes in unexpected ways.

It's suggesting there's more to a good story conflict than the simple problem+effort=resolution.

Or to put it another way, in very crude form:

Frank has a dispute with Bob.

Frank comes home one day to find the door open, things missing, an a vehicle resembling Bob's van speeding away at the end of the street.

Frank confronts Bob, who denies everything, doesn't believe him, gets in a scuffle. Bob, being better fighter, tosses Frank out on his ear.

Frank heads home, see's a second van looking like Bob's, with a hot blond behind the wheel.

Convoluted but feasible if Bob has a really common make and color of van. Also leads to the question as to why the hot blond robbed Frank, which of course has to do with his broken television and the lottery ticket he bought last week and forgot about - along with the fact said hot blond was in line with him at the time he bought the ticket.

 

[Jabrosky]

He's not talking about a simple escalation of conflict. Rather, he's talking about conflict which isn't readily and easily resolved, conflict which changes as the story progresses and gives the story more depth...raising the stakes in unexpected ways.

Please excuse me, but what you described is "simple escalation of conflict"; your summary was just rewording that phrase with a less tight (looser?) writing style. What I meant to say is that you can only "raise the stakes" so many times (or, to use your own language, bloat up the "effort" variable) before it gets pointlessly repetitive. At which point, no amount of "unexpected" window dressing will save you from predictable monotony.

I believe there has to be some kind of structure guiding all these developments, one which will carry the characters across their arcs or communicate the overarching theme. Cramming as many different kinds of obstacles into a narrative as you can imagine is for video game designers.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Please excuse me, but what you described is "simple escalation of conflict"; your summary was just rewording that phrase with a less tight (looser?) writing style. What I meant to say is that you can only "raise the stakes" so many times (or, to use your own language, bloat up the "effort" variable) before it gets pointlessly repetitive. At which point, no amount of "unexpected" window dressing will save you from predictable monotony.

If that's what you think I described, then you missed the point again. There shouldn't be any set limit on raising the stakes, as you are proposing. You can do anything you like, as many times as you like, provided it's interesting.

Writers are supposed to be creative types, so there shouldn't be anything monotonous or repetitive about it, if you're a good storyteller that is. Further, no one is talking about "window dressing", which shouldn't even be a part of storytelling...also a point Wendig made in the article.

 

[Devor]

People can talk about one thing without implying that nothing else is important.

I've seen several articles from editors and writers and writing courses identify the conflict and tension as the thing people struggle with most. The conflict has to develop and deepen as the story goes along. And typically the character grows in response to the conflict, so having a conflict that's static implies that the character is static as well.

People can argue for better conflicts. It doesn't mean they don't want better character arcs. But as the arc comes from the conflict, it's first thing's first.

 

[BWFoster78]

People can talk about one thing without implying that nothing else is important.

I've seen several articles from editors and writers and writing courses identify the conflict and tension as the thing people struggle with most. The conflict has to develop and deepen as the story goes along. And typically the character grows in response to the conflict, so having a conflict that's static implies that the character is static as well.

People can argue for better conflicts. It doesn't mean they don't want better character arcs. But as the arc comes from the conflict, it's first thing's first.

Amen!

It's kinda like, "What's more important - story or craft?"

If you don't develop your craft, few readers are going to stick around to get your story, but, if you don't have a good story, the best craft in the world is kinda pointless.

To me, conflict is like craft.

You need a way to draw the reader into your story. Conflict/tension is the easiest (but not the only) way to entertain your reader in the short term so that they will stick around for your story.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I totally agree with what you guys are saying. According to this article, my story ought to be successful, I mean, it hits all the things he's said regarding mysteries that don't have immediate answers, tension that changes and problems that turn out deeper as they get closer to the conclusion, etc. YET, some of the comments I've heard back regarding the manuscript refer to those things being undesirable. Like, readers sometimes prefer the building to stop and an answer to come easily. I don't disregard Mr. Wendig (feels weird to call him that since he speaks to informally to me in his articles) and his advice, but I wonder whether he isn't the only person other than me who actually would enjoy my book. In fact, he'd probably hate it just as much as he hates the opposite things which he mentions in the article.

The article is great at hitting the items with which most writers struggle, but it doesn't define clearly enough that line and where it becomes crossed. Have I crossed the line? Have I done a great job of creating a story but missed some key elements necessary to clarify to just the right point what's going on? Who knows...

There's a not-so-subtle difference in the execution (though it's more subtle in the planning stages) of conflict and quest, that allows a story to escalate tension without reading like a barrage of erroneous obstacles for the purpose of extending the story. Random obstacles never impress readers, but throwing in distractions, delaying the answers, and otherwise prolonging the conclusion in interesting and plausible ways, goes far to satisfying a reader. When the reader misses the subtle clues that the mystery is bigger, and he finds out his guesses were wrong (or right), it's a pay-off you don't get if you merely increase the number of obstacles.

 

[Chessie]

The more I learn about honing my skills as a storyteller, the more I realize that story is way more than conflict and tension. It's also way more than just an interesting and awesome main character. I think Chuck skimmed the surface, as is only possible in a quick blog post.

I think most of the writers on this forum are serious about improving their skills and dedicated to their journey as artists. I encourage everyone to keep reading craft books, keep reading fiction, keep taking classes, doing anything and everything to help you just get better and better.

Lately, I've really been into two plot mastery books which are helping me immensely. Plot, character, theme, premise...everything ties in together like a web. Story includes all of these elements and more, they are all equally important.

When I first started writing, I thought that telling a story would be a natural thing for me because I love entertaining people. But as the years have gone by, writing has gotten harder and now I understand that storytelling is a craft that takes a lifetime to master because it is so complicated. You can't just throw this in here and that in here! No! This thing has to have a purpose, that thing over there has to move the plot along, etc. Everything that happens in a story should be a reflection of character and premise.

 

[BWFoster78]

Each story is unique; each writer is unique; and each reader is unique.

General rule - if you have a decision to make, choose the one that creates the most conflict. Right?

If all writers do that, however, all stories become the same. I recall at least two movies that make fun of the fact that the police captain has to always be on the hero cop's case. So many writers have made that decision as a way to increase conflict that it's become a joke.

I remember a story I read where the hero is riding his motorcycle and a cop car pulls up behind him and hits the lights. The obvious next course is for the hero to run and there to be a chase scene. Instead, he stops. The obvious next choice is for the cop to try to arrest the hero. Instead, he praises the hero's past actions.

The scene worked really well, imo, because it so thoroughly played against expectations. (the book overall became boring, imo, for the reason that the author always seemed to make the low conflict decision)

The important thing, imo, isn't that you increase conflict or the type of conflict that you choose - it's that you make your story interesting. Conflict/tension is an easy way to make a story interesting.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Story is hard.

When I started writing, my main focus was on the technical aspects of the craft, making sure I got the grammar and spelling right and that each sentence flowed nicely and was easily readable. I figured that once I got that down, people would just read what I'd written because it was an easy and pleasant read. Of course the story would be interesting, why else would I go to the bother of writing it - just stick with it and you'll see.

Getting people to stick with it turned out to be about more than just well crafted sentences and correct grammar though.

I eventually came to the understanding that story is important and that it's needed for people to keep reading. Of course, I knew that in theory all along, but it took a while to actually understand it. On top of that, it's not until just lately that I've begun to realize just how difficult story really is to get right.
There's no recipe for success. There's just a whole lot of advice that may or may not work for the story you're trying to tell. Some people may have an intuitive understanding of it and their stories just work, others will have studied it and read a lot and have figured it out that way. The rest of us, those just starting out, will just have to keep practicing and hopefully we'll get it eventually - or at least we'll have fun trying.

 

[BWFoster78]

Svtrnsse,

Exactly! I'm on the same journey.

What I'm trying is:

1. Identify what I like most in my favorite books
2. Figure out how the writers achieved those aspects
3. Try to include similar elements in my work