Do these things bother others as much as they do me?

[BWFoster78]

protagonist must be easily identifiable

I definitely agree with this. Give me the character as quickly as possible!

Another of my pet peeves, I've been subjected to several stories lately where the author won't provide me with the name of the POV character for a few pages. Annoys the crap out of me.

(protagonist) in at least the first 40% of the book

This sounds like a really good rule of thumb, and I love rules of thumb. If the story is about someone, that person should be prominent in your story.

There must be a clear antagonist

I'd modify this to say that there should be clear opposition. A protagonist need not fight against a person. The opposition can be himself or nature (I think there were some others aas well). I get your point though. There is no story without opposition.

There shouldn't be more than one POV within the first 30% of the book

I'm still not buying this one.

I think it makes a lot of sense to say, "Don't confuse your reader with who the story is about." On the other hand (and I'm feeling like Steerpike here), I don't think this applies to every story.

Lief, how do you feel about epic fantasy in general? It seems to me that it takes more than one character to carry it. Take WoT for example, It started focused on Xan (and expanded to cover way too many POV characters) but Mat and Perrin were legitimate protagonists and made the story better. If you are doing an epic fantasy, do you disagree that you need, or that it at least does no harm to have, multiple protagonists. And, in that case, doesn't it make sense to emphasize the importance of these secondary protagonists early by giving them a POV scene?

EDIT: Or, what about a romance? You can properly tell the story from both points of view, and I've read some decent Jodi Picoult books that alternate viewpoints between the two protagonists.

 

[Gurkhal]

I kind of disagrees with what Leif Notae said. To me there don't have to be a clear protagonist nor clear antagonist. Just give me the characters without forcing down and opinion down my throat and I can sort out for myself who I think is the better or worse person.

I like it grey and the more grey the better (also don't confuse grey with pitch-black...) and with no clear or pre-definied pro- or antagonist.

 

[Leif Notae]

I'm still not buying this one.

I think it makes a lot of sense to say, "Don't confuse your reader with who the story is about." On the other hand (and I'm feeling like Steerpike here), I don't think this applies to every story.

Lief, how do you feel about epic fantasy in general? It seems to me that it takes more than one character to carry it. Take WoT for example, It started focused on Xan (and expanded to cover way too many POV characters) but Mat and Perrin were legitimate protagonists and made the story better. If you are doing an epic fantasy, do you disagree that you need, or that it at least does no harm to have, multiple protagonists. And, in that case, doesn't it make sense to emphasize the importance of these secondary protagonists early by giving them a POV scene?

EDIT: Or, what about a romance? You can properly tell the story from both points of view, and I've read some decent Jodi Picoult books that alternate viewpoints between the two protagonists.

See, what you are wanting to find here is a reason why there cannot be more than one POV in the beginning of a story. The situation here is that in the end, you have one story being carried out by a protagonist. The CORE of any setting (romance, epic fantasy, sci-fi swamp-gas probing pulp, whatever) is that there is ONE supporting story carrying around the other POV's. You must build this up and nurture it.

Yes, you can have other POV's before the 30%, but it is best saved for when the readers know these players better. If you have a sequel, you can do this to your hearts content since the readers will understand what is going on. It's the same with prologues (save the 60-10,000 page versions) of sequels since they only recap what happened in the previous book.

Try it out yourself. Look at these "epics" and see there is a well framed single "load carrying" story propelling everything. It only loses strength when you fracture it.

I kind of disagrees with what Leif Notae said. To me there don't have to be a clear protagonist nor clear antagonist. Just give me the characters without forcing down and opinion down my throat and I can sort out for myself who I think is the better or worse person.

I like it grey and the more grey the better (also don't confuse grey with pitch-black...) and with no clear or pre-definied pro- or antagonist.

Yet you still have someone to root for, and you still have someone to root against. You are using clear cut colors to put distance between you and the standard story. That's cool, more power to you. However, even the anti-hero or the popular villains are, in the end, still protagonist and antagonists.

 

[BWFoster78]

I kind of disagrees with what Leif Notae said. To me there don't have to be a clear protagonist nor clear antagonist. Just give me the characters without forcing down and opinion down my throat and I can sort out for myself who I think is the better or worse person.

I like it grey and the more grey the better (also don't confuse grey with pitch-black...) and with no clear or pre-definied pro- or antagonist.

Gurkhal,

You may be confusing protagonist and antagonist with "good" and "evil." I think Lief is more referring to the protagonist as the character on whom the story is focused and the antagonist the opposition to that character.

 

[BWFoster78]

See, what you are wanting to find here is a reason why there cannot be more than one POV in the beginning of a story.

Not as much as just trying to poke holes in a theory to see if it stands up to the test. How else can you know if something is true if you don't try to prove it false?

I don't disagree that there is a single core story, so I guess what we're arguing is the importance of the secondary characters. I'm kinda thinking of it like you reacted to finding out a POV character in the example you gave above wasn't the actual protagonist. You felt like the writer "tricked" you.

Giving a character a POV scene emphasizes their importance to the reader. If I have a character who is going to play a major role, I think it's important to establish that importance early so as not to "trick" the reader.

I think this is best achieved by devoting the first several chapters to the protagonist and then throwing in a scene here or there for the secondary characters POV.

 

[Zero Angel]

I still stand by the statement that made Zero scamper away. When you teach writers how to read like a writer (and read with a depth and understanding that pushes the limits of madness at times), then you can understand the layers that it takes to make a story and why writers like Sanderson are only perpetuating a myth that you can read stuff and word well.

To clarify what has made me "scamper away" without hopefully engaging the topic again. I stop discussing with people when subjective truths are presented as absolutes. Even BWFoster78 above, when agreeing with one of your absolutes called it a "rule of thumb". Maybe it's a semantics issue and Leif doesn't think of these things as absolute truths, but I don't enjoy discussions when this happens.

For clarity, I would have agreed with the statement, "When you teach writers how to read like a writer ... then you can understand the layers that it takes to make a story," so that definitely did not make me "scamper away".

 

[Leif Notae]

To clarify what has made me "scamper away" without hopefully engaging the topic again. I stop discussing with people when subjective truths are presented as absolutes. Even BWFoster78 above, when agreeing with one of your absolutes called it a "rule of thumb". Maybe it's a semantics issue and Leif doesn't think of these things as absolute truths, but I don't enjoy discussions when this happens.

For clarity, I would have agreed with the statement, "When you teach writers how to read like a writer ... then you can understand the layers that it takes to make a story," so that definitely did not make me "scamper away".

But they are absolute truths if you desire to be a writer. There is some wiggle room here and there, sure. The rules don't always apply when you have 10 novels under your belt and you can tell the publisher to suck eggs. However, that comes with experience and privilege. There are certain ways a story is told. To do otherwise only undermines what you are trying to say.

 

[Leif Notae]

Not as much as just trying to poke holes in a theory to see if it stands up to the test. How else can you know if something is true if you don't try to prove it false?

I don't disagree that there is a single core story, so I guess what we're arguing is the importance of the secondary characters. I'm kinda thinking of it like you reacted to finding out a POV character in the example you gave above wasn't the actual protagonist. You felt like the writer "tricked" you.

Giving a character a POV scene emphasizes their importance to the reader. If I have a character who is going to play a major role, I think it's important to establish that importance early so as not to "trick" the reader.

I think this is best achieved by devoting the first several chapters to the protagonist and then throwing in a scene here or there for the secondary characters POV.

No worries, I understand what you are trying to do. I also hear some other people out there who are screaming at their monitors right now. Just want to make sure I cover everyone (including the voices in my head).

 

[Steerpike]

But they are absolute truths if you desire to be a writer.

They're self-evidently not absolute truths, since people have been citing examples of those who have realized their desire to be a writer and who don't follow your rules.

The idea that there is only one way to tell a story is harmful to writers and to writing generally. Also, some of the rules you set forth seem to rely on the idea that the reader is too stupid to get along unless the writer spoon-feeds them by adhering to some generic formula. If you want to write for the benefit of stupid people, you're welcome to do so. I do not

 

[Xaysai]

Only Sith's deal in absolutes.

Introducing: Darth Notae.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Only Sith's deal in absolutes.

Introducing: Darth Notae.

Ha!

That actually made me LOL!

 

[Leif Notae]

They're self-evidently not absolute truths, since people have been citing examples of those who have realized their desire to be a writer and who don't follow your rules.

The idea that there is only one way to tell a story is harmful to writers and to writing generally. Also, some of the rules you set forth seem to rely on the idea that the reader is too stupid to get along unless the writer spoon-feeds them by adhering to some generic formula. If you want to write for the benefit of stupid people, you're welcome to do so. I do not

We agree there is an absolute truth on the way a story is told, yes? Acts divided by the key plot points in which each scene advances a plot, correct? And those scene that do not have a resolution are indeed only scenes until finished? Of course.

My way is not writing for "stupid people", and in fact I submit to you those writers who avoid these truths are indeed afraid their readers are not intelligent enough to follow along. Instead of having faith and trust their readers will fill in the silence with tone and fill in the blanks with visuals, these writers delve into over explaining or even a "unique" stance because "they won't get it without my (the writer's) help."

These absolute truths rely on the intelligence and imagination of readers. They are tried and true sine the beginning of storytelling. It is the fear of obscurity or the desire to stand out that is the fear acting upon itself and destroying a writer from within (as it is with all fear).

 

[Leif Notae]

Only Sith's deal in absolutes.

Introducing: Darth Notae.

Why do you think I have the monocle?

 

[Mindfire]

Hold up, hold up. I realize I'm kinda late to this party, but I have to challenge Leif's position. Because why not.

Leith, you have a deadly habit of categorically stating your opinion as absolute truth, without giving due justification for why we should accept your authority. While your observations about writing are useful, they aren't absolutes, especially the one about POV shifts, as it has been pointed out multiple times here that successful writers have broken your rules and have not suffered for it.

Furthermore, I challenge your assertion that there is a "wrong" way to read and the "right" way to read, of which the masses are woefully ignorant. This is quite possibly one of the most elitist things I've ever heard on the internet. Usually, I'm all for black-and-white. But in this case, such a simplistic division fails to take into account the large range of styles and preferences exhibited in any arbitrary cross-section of humanity, writers and readers alike. Who is the ultimate arbiter of what styles and preferences are wrong and which are right? You? Grammar and linguistic technicalities, we can argue, but art is a bit harder to pin down. And while I'm no proponent of cultural relativism, you have not only ignored personal variance in your schema, but cultural variance as well. Different cultures will have different modes and traditions of storytelling. I don't know if all of them conform to the screenwriter's three-act structure, but I do know they don't have to.

But my main point of contention is your statement about Sanderson. Steerpike's criticism I find... insufficient. It is not mere bear-punching lunacy. I think tiger-kicking, shark-tickling, alligator-humping lunacy is more accurate. Your statement about Sanderson has not been (and, I think, cannot be) substantiated with evidence. What makes Sanderson the worst? Who have you compared him to? Did you survey the works of every single writer on the planet? Have you heard of a man named *text redacted* He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named?

 

[Zero Angel]

Have you heard of a man named *removed*?

I thought we were referring to him as he-who-must-not-be-named to avoid showing up in Google searches done by him?

Edit: Caught in time to remove!

 

[Mindfire]

I thought we were referring to him as he-who-must-not-be-named to avoid showing up in Google searches done by him?

Oh. Damn. I'll fix that.

Even if I fixed it, it's still in your quote. So let's hope he doesn't notice. Or we could both edit our posts.

 

[Zero Angel]

Oh. Damn. I'll fix that.

Even if I fixed it, it's still in your quote. So let's hope he doesn't notice. Or we could both edit our posts.

Edited in time! I forgot about your quote in my post. That would have just increased the Google relevancy and that's something none of us want...You can leave it in or not, but I find it a great demonstration of just how *left unsaid* that author is that we rushed to edit our posts. Hopefully, as long as the thread isn't derailed into bashing him there will be no retaliatory actions.

 

[Mindfire]

Edited in time! I forgot about your quote in my post. That would have just increased the Google relevancy and that's something none of us want...You can leave it in or not, but I find it a great demonstration of just how *left unsaid* that author is that we rushed to edit our posts. Hopefully, as long as the thread isn't derailed into bashing him there will be no retaliatory actions.

Indeed. Edited mine too.

 

[Leif Notae]

(cut by moderators)

Elantris - Three points of view that should be one, in which the split of the POV's are an actual detriment to the story itself. The Prince is the main POV, but the princess and the priest are so lacking in their one dimensional act that they drag the carcass down because they serve no purpose because they are worthless.

That strange color magic novel that should not exist - Worthless. Couldn't make it past the prologue because it is, indeed, worthless. There is no value to it, thus there is no need to continue past it. I even went to the extent of reading PAST it and found lack because each character in the "first chapter" is equally as worthless since they are as one dimensional in their desires and reasons for existence.

Copy and paste for his trilogy.

Copy and paste for his Way of Kings (cut by moderators).

I don't count Wheel of Time because a dead man tapped him to finish his work. HOWEVER, a 60 page prologue might make you happy, it makes the serious writer ill.

(cut by moderators)

Note from moderators: please keep insults out of rational discussion.

 

[Leif Notae]

And, I might add, it is only through a weak and soft mind that you would demand a comparison and contrast instead of accepting the stand alone analysis of a writer's work. I don't HAVE to compare it to anything because I use logical story study and history of story structure to make my hypothesis. It is what it is.

It is your chance to refute me with real LOGIC and ANALYSIS.

Good luck, ladies and gentlemen.