What are your story seeds?

[Jackarandajam]

This is all awesome stuff, thank you everyone. I love these stories and the wisdom and experience in them.

I've written three-quarters of several books, but a lack of all-encompassing arc has always drawn me up at the end. Act three seems like the place where, no matter my enthusiasm and dedication to putting words down, how little I understand the bigger picture of the story comes to a head. Contemplating the necessary backfilling I would need to lead up to a satisfactory ending overwhelms, and I lose motivation either then, or in trying to conjure up a theme that runs through the work well enough to draw out to a conclusion. The whole of the first two acts suddenly becomes a sort of loose bag of scenes, each individual scene a labor of love but too eclectic or rambling as a whole to bring to a rational end, at least in my opinion.

Eventually, one thing took root, the MC and their wants and desires. Then, that led to the plot taking root, and then the world, and I started to fill things out from there.

This, I think, smells like one of my issues. Often my MCs strike me as so faceless they could almost be "Reader Inserts". I suspect part of the problem might be overcomplicating the motivation. "Analysis Paralysis", as it were, in the case of my main characters, whereas I create madcap casts of eccentric and diversely motivated side characters as fast as I can type and enjoy the process immensely.

I'm also inspired by all this to try building better outlines; thinking about each chapter until I come up with a few scenes for each that I'm excited and motivated to write, instead of mentally separating the processes into the categories of "Cold Mathematically Restraining Outlining" and "Wild Free Desperate Writing."

 

[pmmg]

This is why I have the rules below.

2) Finish it.

You have to finish, or you will get all your experience starting, and no experience ending. Even its bad, or if its ugly. Discipline yourself to plow on to the end.

 

[Jackarandajam]

This is why I have the rules below.

2) Finish it.

You have to finish, or you will get all your experience starting, and no experience ending. Even its bad, or if its ugly. Discipline yourself to plow on to the end.

***Jack flips a table, impotently and immaturely enraged by the obvious truth of this and what he has to go do now.

 

[pmmg]

Well...I will soften this a bit.

I once saw a motivational speech by Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about how to succeed. And in talking about his own example, he said (something along the lines of) know what you want to be and put all your energy into it.

To which I was like....well, that's great, if you know what you want to be. But many people never know what they want to be. So, where does one go, if they dont?

Which is to say, I can say that somewhat easily because I tend to know how I want my stories to end before I even start them. If you dont....maybe that just wont work for you. The principle still works, but mileage may vary.

 

[Jackarandajam]

pmmg Jokes aside, you're absolutely right and the advice needs no softening. It isn't the first time I've been caught off guard by something as simple as "have you tried practicing?" whilst I was busy wildly overcomplicating an issue.
Writing the endings and learning from the experiences is the perfectly logical next step. If nothing else, that would solidify what exactly is lacking from the previous writing, rather than me abandoning it based on a vague notion that it's too messy and all for naught.

 

[pmmg]

The stories I put most of my effort in are usually something in response to things I see in the world or culture around me. Generally, if the zeitgeist of current thought is one where complacently, or absurdness, has set in, and I find it is still an open question, I'm probably gonna pick on it. Sometimes that is in story form. I tend question a lot, and don't settle for the for answers that have no depth. And if something is being taken as "True', I tend to ask is it really true? And if its not, I don't have a lot of patience for it.

^^Just wish to clarify, I meant assuredness, not absurdness in this portion. Not sure how much that changes.

/correction



So....my first story was a long tale about a typical D&D type adventure. My friends liked it, but it is not publishable, and since i wrote it by hand, I am not sure if it even exists anymore.

My second was another long tale about people hunting demons. I thought it was pretty good, but it is also not publishable.

To get a faster path to feedback, I moved to short stories. I wrote a few, which I thought were pretty good, but the feedback was that they still needed work.

I wrote some more, and stumbled into the path of my big story. The first and second short stories (which were meant to be part of collection) were almost there. The Third--blew up into a whole novel. I am publishing that one.

After the third 'novel' was written. I joined a group like this one. Got feedback, entered a lot of contests, and really honed in.

I still dont know how I measure up quality wise. Seems a mixed bag. If you dont get the voice, you will probably not get past it to the story. I recognise that, and I accept it at this point, cause...I believe in it. The market will tell me soon enough

But the above was journey with many stops and retooling along the way. I wish there were a simple answer.

Really there is (see the rules below), but its also full of a million other things along the way.


All those mottos...

Butt in chair
Write everyday
Make a space
Make it a habit
Write what you know

They are all true, but they are all putting simply what is a much larger thing. When you tame and conquer the demon that stops you, all of those will ring so true, you will be like....how could I not just see it was as easy as that before. Its just cause you weren't open to it yet. You still had something to slay.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I've written three-quarters of several books, but a lack of all-encompassing arc has always drawn me up at the end. Act three seems like the place where, no matter my enthusiasm and dedication to putting words down, how little I understand the bigger picture of the story comes to a head. Contemplating the necessary backfilling I would need to lead up to a satisfactory ending overwhelms, and I lose motivation either then, or in trying to conjure up a theme that runs through the work well enough to draw out to a conclusion. The whole of the first two acts suddenly becomes a sort of loose bag of scenes, each individual scene a labor of love but too eclectic or rambling as a whole to bring to a rational end, at least in my opinion.

Two things about this one.

The first is a story about Neil Gaiman. At one point, he was in the middle of one of his (many) books, and he called his editor and said that the book he was working on was a mess and wouldn’t work, and he had to trash the whole thing and on and on. The editor’s response? Laughter, followed by something like, “Oh, you reached that part of the book.”

He was taken aback and asked what she meant. Turns out that he’d made the same phone call bemoaning the very same kinds of things at about the 75% mark with every book they’d worked on together. (source: Motivation Is Not the Problem though I've seen it in many places).

In other words, a lot of writers experience what you're experiencing, namely that at some point in your writing you'll think that the whole thing sucks and you're terrible and no one will ever want to read it and why on earth did you think you could do this???? It's fairly normal. Take a deep breath, ignore the voices shouting this and just finish the damn thing any way you can.

The second is that you should never, ever, ever compare your first draft to someone's final draft. What you are writing is your first draft. It will miss all that brilliant foreshadowing you see in published novels, or those theme's that are brought to light, or the emotional punch because the character overcomes a flaw he's been struggling with the entire story, or the clues and red herrings that let your hero solve the problem, or any of the other dozens of brilliant things authors manage.

And you know what the truth is? For 90% of all authors, all those brilliant things are added in later. Or are done accidentally and then magnified by the author when he writes his second draft. To again pull out a Neil Gaiman quote: "The second draft is where you pretend you knew what you were doing all along." Stephen King mentions something similar in On Writing, where he talks about finding the theme for a book after finishing the first draft, and then on the second draft enhancing that theme throughout the book.

So forget all the issues. Just finish the damn thing, and then make it pretty during your second draft.

 

[Karlin]

I'm a "what if" writer. "What if Michelangelo was a tattoo artist?" "What if Sun Wukong was at Marathon?" The ideas pop up, often mixing two unconnected things.

What if this writer's forum was actually a hidden test run by aliens, to see if we were worthy of joining the Intergalactic League of Poets and Writers?

 

[Finchbearer]

I have no love for Gaiman’s work, can’t comment on the guy himself, he seems pretty alright, but I’ve tried reading a few of his works and the prose always feels too try- hard, like he is trying very hard to sound profound or special in some way, and the actual story itself suffers from that voice. I think he got popular in the 90’s (?) when he was seen like a Robert Smith of the literary world or something, and it was cool to read his books, and he went from there, now anything he creates is golden. I personally think he does best in screenwriting. I also think he was in the right place at the right time and in contact with the right people etc.

 

[Jackarandajam]

So forget all the issues. Just finish the damn thing, and then make it pretty during your second draft

Thank you for this whole post; you and the others have me so motivated to finish my wips that I'm starting to embody Wilde's "a writer who isn't writing is a monster courting insanity," the periods of daily responsibilities reduced to maddening obstacles between me and the keyboard.

I have no love for Gaiman’s work, can’t comment on the guy himself, he seems pretty alright, but I’ve tried reading a few of his works and the prose always feels too try- hard, like he is trying very hard to sound profound or special in some way, and the actual story itself suffers from that voice.

Gaiman is a grandmaster of mood; he puts his finger directly on the flavor of otherness he's going for in a work and never strays a step from that path. Despite the several of his works I've read that weren't quite to my preference in content, I can't deny how strong the mood of the story hits me thinking back on them.
I'm not a huge fan either, although both the book and the movie Stardust were splendid.

There was a meme going around a few years ago: an average Joe sitting on his couch eating cheetos, watching olympic figure skating on the TV.
The TV says that the figure skater didn't quite land a move correctly.
The average Joe laughs, handful of cheetos halfway to his mouth, and says, "frikkin idiot."

I saw that and thought, "oh. That's 100% me going on a tear about Gaiman or King."

Since then I concern myself more with what they are doing right then my comparative couch-potato opinions on how they could improve.

Ive come to realize both Kings hellish gift for building suspense and gaimans mood weaving are worth a hat-in-hand deep study.

Edit: reading back that sounds pretty preachy. Please know I was just talking about me.

 

[Jackarandajam]

If you dont get the voice, you will probably not get past it to the story. I recognise that, and I accept it at this point,

This is a tough hair to split with editing, and that comment sounds like experience talking.
The "my reader 'didn't get it,' I need to write more clearly,"
VS
"my reader didn't get it, because they're the wrong reader" question has come up for me pretty often.
I think my style is both underdeveloped and lends itself to convolution, but even when improved will still be a little on the side of people who prefer reading more slowly.

 

[Finchbearer]

In essence, my opinion was very much coming from the place of a reader, not a writer. I don’t even describe myself as a writer, just…someone who likes to write. Gaiman is obviously proficient in his work or else he wouldn’t be so successful, but I think it’s that thing of putting creative work out into the world, you’re going to receive criticism, and not everyone is going to like your work, even if you’re considered very good at what you do.

 

[Finchbearer]

This is a tough hair to split with editing, and that comment sounds like experience talking.
The "my reader 'didn't get it,' I need to write more clearly,"
VS
"my reader didn't get it, because they're the wrong reader" question has come up for me pretty often.
I think my style is both underdeveloped and lends itself to convolution, but even when improved will still be a little on the side of people who prefer reading more slowly.

I think this for me would be a case of ‘requiring more data’ - more readers = a better well rounded viewpoint. If the majority of readers feedback was that my story was hard to follow or that they didn’t understand the voice I tried to convey, I would consider reevaluating things. The contrary would mean I’d be producing something good.

 

[pmmg]

Yeah....

I think the best voice to write in is what I call competent librarian voice. If you dont know it, think Erma Bombeck. I dont write in that voice.

I write in a more poetic/epic story teller style. To me, it sounds like Mako in my head. It takes a little more work to acclimate to. Some readers have not liked it.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I think this for me would be a case of ‘requiring more data’ - more readers = a better well rounded viewpoint. If the majority of readers feedback was that my story was hard to follow or that they didn’t understand the voice I tried to convey, I would consider reevaluating things. The contrary would mean I’d be producing something good.

Yeah, for sure.
Also, if what they didn't like were parts I already suspected of being unclear, that usually seals the deal for a little rewriting

 

[Jackarandajam]

Yeah....

I think the best voice to write in is what I call competent librarian voice. If you dont know it, think Erma Bombeck. I dont write in that voice.

I write in a more poetic/epic story teller style. To me, it sounds like Mako in my head. It takes a little more work to acclimate to. Some readers have not liked it.

I could read Patrick O'Brian all day, every day. He writes clearly, conversationally, does a brilliant action scene and has probably the sharpest wit I've ever read in fiction. I'd give a middlingly important body part to have a fantasy trilogy by him.

When my writing comes off exactly how I want it to it's vicious, brightly colored, fast paced, artful enough to sound pretty if read aloud and funny enough to not sound like it takes itself too seriously.
Really excited to write an example of that eventually, it's gonna be great.

 

[pmmg]

I have no love for Gaiman’s work, can’t comment on the guy himself, he seems pretty alright, but I’ve tried reading a few of his works and the prose always feels too try- hard, like he is trying very hard to sound profound or special in some way, and the actual story itself suffers from that voice. I think he got popular in the 90’s (?) when he was seen like a Robert Smith of the literary world or something, and it was cool to read his books, and he went from there, now anything he creates is golden. I personally think he does best in screenwriting. I also think he was in the right place at the right time and in contact with the right people etc.

Personally, my feeling reading Gaiman is that something behind his words bleeds through them saying 'Aren't I so clever?' in a smug tone. I literally see him through the writing and not his characters. Seems I am not entirely alone in that.

Anyway....not everyone is for everybody.

 

[pmmg]

I dont know Mr. O'Brian, so I cant comment.

But....there are a few types of voice that show up in prose. Some are better than others. I'd have a hard time defining them, but I'll take a stab.

Competent librarian voice, is like saying it plainly without a lot of flair. Uses the right words at each occasion, and at times big words to give a hint of their bigger vocabulary. Its kind of plain and drones on, but the reader is never confused as to what going on. I don't feel it is pretentious or showing off, but its also kind of unremarkable, and is not by itself adding to the experience of the prose.

There is a more pretentious voice. It puts on airs, tries to be poetic, metaphorical, and ornate. I think this is a hard one to pull off, and I think it is the one, many of those who are not well versed with writing tend to think writers use (and may use themselves till they tone it down). I think Paradise Lost is a good example of this being successful.

Epic voice, is one that is trying to immerse through the use of tone, cadence and word choice. This is a very stylized voice, it may repeat things, and look for different word choices if a better tone can be captured with it. I'd put Howard and Conan in this category.

Steam of consciousness, I don't think I see this often, but it is a story voice. I am just following along with everything that comes to mind for the MC, or the POV.

And then....a casual voice. The story is being told to me like we are just friends swapping stories with each other.


Of them all, I think Competent Librarian is the safest bed, and pretentious is the hardest to pull off. Epic Voice is probably best for niche audiences, and stream of consciousness only for the right type of story. Casual voice would probably make one wonder why you didn't try harder, but it too could have its place.

There are probably more voices out there (robot voice ), but I bet I can stuff them all into one of the broader categories. None of them are inherently good or bad, just, you know...I prefer my own

 

[HaydenCreed]

For instance in my case the inspiration was D&D. I created some basic world and story as i was trying to DM a game for bunch of friends. That led me to continue, with each game i either had the urge to prepare something new or during the game, improvisation gave me wonderful ideas that i later incorporated into the story. And so with each game as more and more ideas came to life, whole story was evolving.

 

[Not_Alice]

For 90% of all authors, all those brilliant things are added in later. Or are done accidentally and then magnified by the author when he writes his second draft.

This. All the time. You finish your first draft, you let it go for a few days or weeks, you come back to it and you're like, hey, look at that, there's a theme if I just add this little thing here and that little thing there...