Forum: Author Hangout

In my example, would the audience be okay with the creation of a major crisis/campaign in the story and then NOT be resolved by the main cast? You know, sometimes you are just out of your league.

You can get away with it if it isn't critical to the core story. Also, maybe you want it as foreshadowing of book 2.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't realise there was an assertion that every element in a story had to play an active part in the plot.

You might find Orson Scott Card's MICE Quotient a useful concept in identifying the type of story you're writing. If the protagonists don't play any part in the conflict resolution, that suggests to me that you're writing a character story and, although the events pertaining to the resolution can be outlined, expanding them in detail might come across as a distracting infodump.

AJ

irrelevant elements should be removed; elements should not appear to make "false promises" by never coming into play.

I concur, that it shouldn't be applied to literary works but some purist are hammering it down that everything that isn't part of the plot or advances the plot should have no place in it.

1. Who makes the decision if an element is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned that is the author. The author feels an element is relevant and puts it in the story, thus all elements in the story are relevant. It does not matter if the reader thinks it has no bearing, the author deemed it relevant so it is relevant.

2. The belief that "false promises" should not be used is an opinion that some people hold. It is their opinion, but that doesn't make them correct. My opinion is they are a tool the is useful in creating suspense. Some of the best murder mystery authors use "false promises", also referred to as red herrings, to muddy the waters.

3. Purist are just people with an opinion. I don't care who they are or think they are. My opinion is what counts with me. If someone can show me why I should change my opinion, I will consider doing so.

1. Who makes the decision if an element is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned that is the author. The author feels an element is relevant and puts it in the story, thus all elements in the story are relevant. It does not matter if the reader thinks it has no bearing, the author deemed it relevant so it is relevant.

Good advice, except, with the demand that 'authors must murder their darlings', often authors insert unnecessary details, simply because it's important to the author, but not to the story (like info-dumps). Authors need to always be aware of what information is presented when. The general rule of thumb is: don't overwhelm readers with unnecessary, often trivial information (like 'gun porn', where the information is only important to a very select subset of readers and will often turn off non-veteran readers). You can include the information, but only in small snippets that are easy to readers to absorb and process.

The major problem with info dumps isn't that the information doesn't play a role in the story, but that it's 'DUMPED' in one massive steaming pile at the very start of the story, rather than metered out as it's important to the story, where the information will make sense to the reader.

I find the contention that there is no possible story where such information wouldn't be important to the story at the very beginning to be absurd.

Sorry, that was never my intent. I only said, the information needs to be released in easily absorbed amounts, rather than all at once, and that it's better releasing it 'as needed' and when it's important, rather than before the readers can determine whether they're even interested in the story.

Some things do need to be conveyed early on, but in those cases, it's generally better controlling how the information is released, so the reader doesn't get drowned in the details. Even if you spread the information in a prologue out, interspaced with dialogue, that's enough for readers to more readily absorb the information they need to retain.

The term 'info dump' was invoked for a specific reason. It's generally not carefully placed, it's simply heaped in the wrong location at the wrong time, and there's no one to clean it up.

Believe it or not, but there's far more to a story than its story.

I'll concede that, but when crafting a story, an author needs to deal with issues like pacing, focus and issue resolution. If an issue doesn't advance the story, it can largely be cut, even if the passages are an author's favorites.

The main issue with story dumps, is that most readers see it as authors 'showing off' how much research they did, but were unable to include in their stories, so they merely 'dump it' in a prologue or first chapter, simply to prove how 'clever' they are at building worlds.

If that's the case, the author is doing a lot more wrong than simply releasing too much information. In essence, they're not making the readers care about what happens in the story.

But my main point isn't that the information isn't vital (double negative there), only that there's a more effective means of delivering it to the reader.

they merely 'dump it' in a prologue or first chapter

I have seen this claim made on here multiple times (I think always by you) and I continue to struggle to find a single damn time I've seen this.

It's (or was, at least) fairly endemic of science fiction, and is partly the result of the observation that in most books, there's a 'grace period', lasting only about three chapters, where you can set your rules without readers questioning what you're doing. Thus you can either create your universe, or establish your style and language patterns, but if you vary from that after that grace period, reader will dump on you for being inconsistent.

As a result, many sci-fi authors tended to dump all the world building details early, hoping to slip it in under this nebulous grace period. However, 'they' have refined the idea so it's no longer necessary to set everything up right away.

If you doubt this, try changing how you apply your particular serial comma rule in the second and eighth chapter, and see if there's any difference in comments.

I don't really 'dump' details, but I traditionally start my stories slowly, as I want to present a mystery, a scientific impossibility, which the characters need to resolve before they can address what's facing them.

Over time, just like with the pacing issues, I've observed that certain techniques work better than others. If you don't accept it, who gives a frig. DON'T USE IT! I'm not trying to sell cool-aid here. It's no skin off my nose if you write a different story. But quit trying to shut down EVERY SINGLE discussion about technique EVERY SINGLE time something new is proposed. You skepticism doesn't help ANYONE!

Geez! Between your bunch and Ross, this forum has become a collection of crybabies where we're not allowed to discuss ANYTHING.

But you're safe, I'm not going to bother lecturing you, since you never respond to any rational arguments anyway.

I'm also not preventing any discussion or anything like that; but you likewise can't expect to show up somewhere, expound bad advice, and have everyone simply lap it up at your feet.

It isn't your words, but your actions that ring true. You say you're merely offering advice, yet few aside from our regular contributors are eager to say anything, for fear of being attacked.

You 'say' you simply want references for my claims, but I've been burned by that trap too many times to fall for it again. Each time we search for a reference, grabbing the first items we find, you attack a few word choices in the piece in an attempt to invalidate their entire premise.

I agree, you're each impeccable authors, but your diplomacy isn't what you advertise. Although you use traditional debate techniques, you tend to use them in underhanded ways—in typical debate technique—to disprove something through association, rather than by directly attacking the central arguments.

It's your constant demand for 'proof', when everyone is simply proposing ideas, based on readings or observations, that undermine the communications on the forum. When we can't prove personal observations, or recall something we read a year or two ago, you denigrate us for 'inventing baseless claims'.

In short, your actions denote your true intent, while your words put a 'polite spin' on your ulterior motives.

It's odd, but you never demand 'proof' of anything you happen to agree with, only the idea you don't happen to agree with.

Also, this is a strange tirade in response to "you keep saying a thing exists that I haven't seen". I wasn't even saying that "don't dump a bunch of worldbuilding on readers at once" is bad advice; just that I can't think of an example where it's done as badly as you claim it to be.

Just like with Ross, asking us to do all his research into 'bad writing' for him, I'm not about to waste my time trying to recount all my reading in the field over the past eight years—especially since much of it was on forums which have been effectively shut down over the years because of this same type of infighting by the participants.

It's entirely possible that much of the references I once read are no longer where I first saw them. The web, unlike published works, is not a static thing, which you can re-reference whenever called up to do so. However, claiming that such things 'never existed' is patently false, as they're a common conversation in any author group I've ever participated in.

Some Creative Writing courses recommend this technique. The rationale is that many readers skip over the prologue anyway, and putting all the infodump in one place creates a handy reference guide.

AJ

Some Creative Writing courses recommend this technique. The rationale is that many readers skip over the prologue anyway, and putting all the infodump in one place creates a handy reference guide.

From my own experience, the percentage of readers who'll actually read the prologue is about 30%, and that's in sci-fi, a genre where prologues are common. That means readers from other genres, or who cross over (likely a significant portion of my self-selected sample), are much less likely to read them.

That's why the common wisdom is: don't include anything essential in a prologue, and add some 'candy', some insight into the characters, which even they don't know, to encourage your regular readers to continue reading them in the future.

Prologues are tricky beasts, and epilogues aren't much better. :(

By the way, I'm glad we got off the 'pacing information' dead-end and started discussing storytelling strategies again. In restores my faith in forums.

This would apply to other types of stories too, but my main questions about sports stories is: are the emotions of the main characters different throughout a season?; are rivalries and the importance of games different?; does a wish-fulfillment story end up as a series of predictable successes?

My interest might be maintained if I see those types of things, otherwise it's just another type of ____ porn to me.

I agree. Again, authors are interested in more than just story details. They're also interested in pacing issues, relevancy and story conflict (or keeping the story tension just tight enough to keep the reader reading).

Take stupid boy for example. would you say it is a sports story? or a coming of age/model story with sports elements? The detail of the sport elements would be too much for a normal CoA story.

Once again, it's not the details that are the issue, but how the details are conveyed. If they're 'dumped' into the story, where readers feel compelled to skip over them, they were badly handled. That's why I emphasize the timing and pacing of information in a story.

A story where a vet is carefully preparing his weapon, preparing to venture into combat, is essential to setting the scene, but scenes that consist entirely in how many cases of each type of bullet, and where they stored each weapon, are generally overkill, and are only important to survivalists, not general readers.

Again, it's not the details which are the issue, it's the pace at which the details are revealed. If you think in terms of 'reader absorption', assuming that readers can only process so much information at a time, it's much easier to control.

Note: I'm not insisting that readers are 'stupid' here. As many here know, I tend to write incredibly complicated plot, paragraphs and sentences. But I'm very careful about how I reveal information. Instead of going in several different directions, I focus on a single issue at a time, so readers can absorb the basic information before I start discussing complications or alternatives. You want the reader to follow the story, so you stage the release of the details. You can be as complicated as you want, but always consider how the reader follows the story (i.e. what they grasp, and when).

Some readers want that kind of detail in stories. The idea that every story should be written for the broadest possible audience is bullshit.

Once again, we're talking past each other, arguing the same point. In case you've never noticed, I write VERY complex sentences, with overly complicated plots. I'm not suggesting writing on a 5th grade level, I'm saying, while you're writing more complicated plots, focus on a single topic at a time so it's easier to process the complicated ideas.

For me, it makes the complicated ideas easier to process. Rather than jumbling the ideas together, if I deliver one complex idea, and then move to exceptions, no one has a problem. But if I present a couple of very simple concepts in the same sentence, they get lost.

Again, it's not 'simplifying your writing', it's pacing. You pace out the complexity, to only a single concept at a time. You're not restricting the content, simply isolated the thread drift.

But it's rediculous arguing about it here. Traditionally, every time someone floats an idea, rather than discussing it, soon every demands "proof" that it works, and soon everyone is rejecting every notion. It's just not worth discussing storytelling techniques.

I never said that this is an absolute rule written in stone. If it works for you, feel free to try it. But don't bitch and moan every time someone presents an idea. These are only observations picked up over my years of writing, as I've refined my techniques to make them more efficient. If you don't like mine, then use your own damn ideas!

Although, the ideas I float are usually what I'd call "writing techniques", which I regard as a small but important subset of "storytelling techniques".

And, as always, welcomed by most. Our little squabble was mostly a badly-timed comment, which I kept repeating, as is typical for me. I didn't object to what you were saying, or disagree with it in the least, I just didn't think you'd get many takers. I should have remained silent and waited for nature to take it's course to prove my point.

But it's gotten to the point that no one wants to ask questions or venture an opinion. And frankly, the more reasonable forum opportunities have all dried up (after Managements finally got fed up and mostly shut them all down because of the petty fighting).

And, YES, the techniques I employ when defending anything I consider extremely valuable do become counterproductive at times. My version of Asperger's equips me with only one mode of operation for coping with frustrations - say it exactly as I see it.

I know the feeling. My modus operandi is to keep repeating the exact same thing in slightly different ways, and then steaming off in a snit and not speaking for days.

The problem we both suffer from, is others see our inability to cope with attacks as sign of weakness, and it encourages them to double their attacks. :(

I'm thinking we need to create a new author discussion group, and restrict it's membership. Anyone can join, but at the first sign of disagreement, out they go. It seems to be the only way to ensure civility.

I have NO INTEREST in such a group. I see no need for that. I cannot see how anything like that can work if decisions on who to kick out are not made by someone external to the group.

I only suggested it, not seriously, by the way, because the newer writers keep asking me whether there are ANY 'safe' places for authors to discuss ideas, and frankly, I no longer know of a SINGLE one. LinkedIn used to be safe, but the administrators got sick of the fights and effectively shut down most of the conversations and everyone left the author forums other than those trying to hawk their wares.

Disagreement and civility are not remotely the same thing.

Maybe for you, but for the new authors, afraid to venture an opinion because of the reception they see awaiting them, it's anything but.

I'm not demanding that you agree with me, but you keep showing a belligerence to ideas you don't already hold. It's fine to say, 'I don't think I'll ever use that technique', but it's another to continue to shoot down each idea, and effectively crush each conversation.

Then again, Ross and I need to learn to let these things pass. Critiquing something I say isn't an attack on me personally. Anything other writers might learn has already been said. Continually rephrasing the exact same arguments will never win this battle, so there's no sense poking the bears.

Nothing remotely useful can be learned in an echo chamber devoid of disagreement.

Says the provocateur. However, speaking to those too afraid to voice their opinions provide clues as to what needs are not being addressed. Just as reading the negatives reviews of existing apps help app developers create better apps than the current generation of unsatisfactory one.

Ross, Ross, Ross. Need I remind you, every time you've ever dictated how others are 'required' to treat you has ended badly.

I realize you need to protect yourself, but throwing a gauntlet down on the field of battle isn't the way to do it. Stepping back and recomposing yourself is.

And most of all, we need to STOP arguing our petty disagreement in front of the entire SOL readership. Frankly, NO ONE besides you and me CARES! Typing out 1,000 word demands isn't likely to change how people normally interact, it's just setting up your next blowup.

Face it, both you and I are particularly susceptible to getting our feelings hurt, taking things out of context, and having a melt down. But that's our cross to bear, not anyone else's. As they say, if you can't stand the heat, then go sit on the toilet and calm down!

In my example, would the audience be okay with the creation of a major crisis/campaign in the story and then NOT be resolved by the main cast? You know, sometimes you are just out of your league.

This is an entirely different question, as it strikes at reader satisfaction. If you don't resolve the major conflicts in the story, not just continuing them to be resolved later, you're asking for low ratings and complaints, as you establish the conflict and then just abandon them, without ever giving the readers a satisfying conclusion. If that's your intent, I'd suggest simply deleting the entire conflict from the story—unless the whole point of the story is the utter futility of life, and how no one can ever affect change in their lives.

But Checkov's gun is none of these things. Instead, it's a stagecraft caution. As I pointed out earlier, leaving clues around help enrich a story. Not every clue needs to bear out in time. In fact, every false clue provided (red herrings), makes the eventual resolution that much more satisfying, as the reader can suddenly—make sense of the initial confusion and make sense of how everything unfolded. You're providing the reader with a satisfying reading experience.

You don't always have to make the reader happy with a happy ending, but you need to resolve the outstanding issues, though you can also leave a few 'outstanding issues' to be resolved in the future (cliff-hangers for future sequels), as long as the main conflicts raised are addressed.

The main point was, that it was not resolved by the maincast, not even the side-characters, just your normal "crisis response team" (whatever it will be finally called).
It is just one of those things that happen in a world that is not 100% centered on the protagonist.
There is also another mystery that is the talk of the town, so to speak, for months. A big event that happened 4 times in the last 3 decades, with no-one knowing how this is happening, but the maincast, while speculating and amateurishly researching, will not solve it. It will be resolved by others, offscreen.

Again, it's an interesting point, and one which every author must ultimately decide for himself. I often feature fight scenes this way, a right erupts, the characters involved (attacked) have no idea why or who's after them, and the action is happening so fast they really can't make sense of it.

That's a technique to capture the confusion (aka. 'the fog of war'). If it's a minor scene, featuring a SWAT team, I wouldn't worry about it, as it's not a major story conflict, just an interim plot point.

The main issue, though, as I said, is reader satisfaction. If you have a story, that's purportedly about someone saving the world, readers are going to want to know who wins and who loses, otherwise they'll end up feeling cheated by the story and will vote the story down when they complete it.

Think 'major conflicts', not 'minor details'.

As for the other 'offscreen' resolution, I often end a book with an epilogue, which details what eventually happens after the book concludes, extending the story years or even decades into the future, well beyond the scope of the book.

In those cases, it's perfectly OK to 'tell' readers what happened, or even that the characters are frustrated by their inability to resolve the issue (on-screen or off-screen).

The main issue, though, is that most stories revolve around when something significant happens, which alters the character's normal world. Readers jump on the story to see how they resolve their issues. But, if there IS no final resolution of the main story conflicts, they'll feel disappointed.

6. As Geek of Ages says, if you want to use it later you best find a logical way to introduce earlier, and the earlier the better is the general idea. You should look to avoid bringing something in just before it's used.

An excellent point, but the key is to introduce the element when it won't attract notice, when it's only an insignificant descriptive detail. That way, when it's revealed, the reader will have an 'Ah ha!' moment when they say, "so that's how it all came together". Introducing story elements, only when they become necessary, is unnecessary heavy-handed foreshadowing—which completely negates the point of foreshadowing. Foreshadowing introduces element which the reader can use to figure out what happened, but which don't give away the ending. You want details that inform after the fact, rather than shouting what happens.

Now I'll just have to find out who my readers are and how to not piss them off.

Some are easy to identify - if you get upset about something in the way another person writes a story, avoid it, because you already know some readers don't like it.

Avoiding things some people dislike will piss of the people who do like these things. Why not simply write the story you want to write? Some will like it and some won't but at least you will like your story.

The key is: don't piss off your core audience. But, if you do, then simply write under a pseudonym, so they'll never know! 'D

3. The aim of writing a story is to end up with something people will enjoy reading. So keep in mind if you do something to piss off the reader they won't read your other works, while reading your other works should be an important aim for you.

That appears to be sound advice. Now I'll just have to find out who my readers are and how to not piss them off. Or better yet, I spare me a headache and let the readers themselves figure it out.

I'll remember that when I kill off favorite characters in a story, though the stories where I do, are consistently some of my most popular and enduring stories.

In fact, in the one story where I slaughtered every single character in the story, and almost a third of the readers couldn't finish the book, those same readers came back in droves to read the sequel!

If you want to please everyone, your stories are unlikely to excite anyone. However, most significant stories piss off a LOT of readers, because they take chances, based on evaluating the risks involved.

If you take risks, be prepared to pay the price, but you can't avoid trying something which improves a story, just because of some little old lady in Pasadena.

At that moment I was literally unable to think of any real benefit to anyone coming out of me devoting my time to anyone here. I cannot see any evidence of anyone here caring enough about the quality of advice being given to new authors to devote any of their time or efforts.

I hate to belabor the point, mainly because the 'altercation' in the other thread was all about my not agreeing with your mission to spread 'formal grammar' everywhere, but it was central here because, rather than discussing the minutia of grammar and composition rules, we're discussing the needs of storytelling. Writers worry about English Composition, while authors concentrate on the story they're telling. Authors need to be aware of both, but they also have editors to help them correct any nitty-gritty English composition issues—the technicalities aren't essential for conveying a story upfront. Instead, they're mostly issues to consider during the revision and editing phases, after the story has already been completed (or chapters, for those who post as they write).