How can it get any WORSE?

[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.

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]

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.

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]

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 Story’s Stakes « terribleminds: chuck wendig

 

[Chessie]

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]

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.