I’m a little spoilt for links this week – I might save some for next!
The Three act structure has got to be the most intuitive, yet beguiling and confusing story structure / advice out there. By which I mean I’ve sat through a video like this and been like “I don’t get it” yet everytime I sit down to plan or midway through writing I’m often lost!
As I watched this video I think my main struggle is “Act 2” or in my language “the saggy middle” inciting incidents and climaxes are relatively straightforward. The middle, much less so. what I like about this video is they break down the Act 2 a little more than many advice givers.
For something a bit more micro – there is also this great post on scenes. I admit I struggle with this sort of thing because I tend to “just write” or “vomit draft” but understanding different types of scenes and in this example “happy scenes” is really key, especially for a novel where you don’t want 100,000 words of CONFLICT you need ebb and flow of drama and different styles of scenes help setup different elements of the story. Funnily enough this post answers a question someone posted on reddit…
The poor OP got blighted with all the “tHeRe iS nO fIlLeR Scenes” even though their actual question was more like “what makes up those scenes that aren’t about the main conflicts and incidents”. I hope my answer was useful which was explaining that quieter “filler” scenes help setup or intensify the bigger conflicts e.g. revealing the hero’s deep flaw, or revealing some stakes we might not have been away of.
This was an interesting question, I’m not sure I 100% grasp all the mechanics, but its interesting to point out that stories CAN change in tone, in fact most books do have shifts throughout the narrative. I would normally say to avoid jarring the reader but that’s a little broad and in fact sometimes shocking the reader is actually called for, instead I think its about not “cancelling” earlier setup. e.g. in Lord of the Rings the innocent and funny hobbits doesn’t change the dark intro of the movie. Yes its a big contrast but we immediately feel that Hobbiton is a bubble of hope in a dark world.
On the subject of shifting tones I do think whiplash is a risk – bouncing between different settings can do this, or having a subplot a completely different feel from the main. I think this is where beta readers can come in handy as they can tell you how it felt transitioning from different moments.
For anyone – like myself a while ago – who was every confused at to why Dark and Stormy Night is lambasted as a bad opening line, its a bizarre story of a writing L where basically the best opening was ruined the longest, weirdest, hardest to decipherest run on sentence:
“It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.”
I have to confess as I cut and paste this it doesn’t seem that bad, I mean it does manage to include redundancy (I’m pretty sure sure we figured dark and stormy = torrential rain and violent wind) info dumps. But I do feel the sentence does do a lot of heavy lifting it does create a strong sense of scene (but at what cost) but it does feel a little dogpiling that this poor sentence gets bashed constantly in relation to first lines.
That intro now done – something I mused about was that there is a bit of a paradox around first lines, and so some extent last lines as well.
While its a common topic of celebration, I must confess again that I don’t really remember that many first lines. (most first lines I remember are from listicles about first lines) This may just my memory problems but I really agree with Ursula K Le Guin’s thesis that the purpose of sentences is to make you read the next one, and therein lies my paradox, I think that a first line serves to just make a reader get to the next line. Yet that’s a big ask for a very first line.
I often use the metaphor of the story being a path. Your first line needs to make sense as a first step of that path, it doesn’t need to carry all the symbols, setups, world-building at all but it needs to be the first step towards those.
So herein is another paradox, that is I strongly believe good writing isn’t just about avoidingbad writing – but when it comes to a first line its very high probability time for losing a reader if you have a trash first line. I’m pretty sure most people would glaze over a simple or average line that got them to the second – but a garbled mess of a first is going to be a very big turn off.
I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts on this paradox – do you thing first lines are really important – semi-important or just a place to start?
I think the final thought is that when there is 99% of a book to get right to be successful a first line just seems a small element.
And Endings
So last lines are a bit different. For one thing typically if a person gets all the way to your last line most people are happy that you’ve read their book and probably won’t let complaints about a last line sour the mood.
Then again there can be a bit of a recency effect (we recall the most recent piece of information better than others) and a really bad last line might ‘ruin’ the memory of the story and be more likely to spoken about.
So other than perhaps hurting reviews and sales of your NEXT book I don’t think there as much pressure on a last line but its interesting to talk about them. I think a last line has a lot power over the lasting image of a book, elevating the story to something haunting and epic, or just something you read one time.
Where a first line might be a first ‘step’ I don’t actually see the metaphor of steps applying to the last line. To me the last line is the final image, its the ‘photo’ taken at the end of the journey, whether that’s a final look back over the trip, a look forwards. A final dialogue, or thought of a person “tomorrow is another day” (see I remember 1 (1/2) of a last line…)
Fortunately one none paradox is you can always stew and struggle over your first and last lines once the whole draft is written, you don’t (you really don’t) need these devices down first in face most recommendations would be not to as beginnings are so often changed in revision anyway!
What are your thoughts on first and last lines? Any particular favourites or clangers?
Not to be confused with the Russian Fantasy Series (which is good by the way)
In my Discworld readthrough I’ve been really looking forward to Night Watch. It seems to list among many fans favourite and the book certainly stands out among the series in many ways. I wouldn’t necessarily say that Night Watch would be my favourite but I do have a lot to say about it which will commence after a brief general review (in no particular order).
Night Watch finds Vimes pursuing a Carcer, a notorious serial killer who murders watchmen, as familiar watch characters gather around a tense scene where it appears the killer is about to be caught, a magical storm pushes Vimes and Carcer back in time a generation or two – where Vimes is mistaken for a heroic Sergant John Keel, and Carcer is employed non other than in the Day Watch. While Vimes initial priority is getting back to the present, he becomes caught up, not only the historic events of the moment, but also the time paradox he must navigate to save his present.
The story is very action packed, semi-dystopian, tense and surprisingly dark. While the trademark humour is present, its constrained to brief gags while a lot of serious business goes on. Given its a time travel adventure there is a strong sense of cameo and fun as you see many familiar characters in young form, and Vimes busy going around setting up certain modern gags.
Random thoughts.
Guards versus Vimes. The Guards series in the Discworld is I think the longest in book numbers and certainty one of the most popular. In my opinion the series is split somewhat between the first few ‘Guards’ books and then the series changes and becomes more ‘Vimes’ (not that this is a bad thing). For example Men-At-Arms didn’t actually feature very much of Vimes, and was really more of a Carrot book, however as the books progress particularly in Jingo and Fifth Elephant Carrot has an important subplot but the stories are really more about Vimes – and of course with Night Watch its really a solo Vimes outing (in a way, more on that later).
The second, and stranger observation I have is that Night Watch, in my opinion is a lot more structured than earlier books (and well many Discworld books) this is not a criticism of Discworld novels, far from it, Pratchett if anything is not formulaic, his stories have a sense of organic progression – sometimes with many subplots woven together, sometimes with plotlines co-existing more than weaving and sometimes just a frenetic main story.
(mild spoilers ahead) Anyway, while I think that Fifth Elephant could be considered similar, Night Watch stands out to me as a having a bit more of a structure to it – in part I think because Pratchett is playing with the Bootstrap Paradox i.e. Vimes travels to the past (and does not sleep with his grandma) and in the process of trying to catch a serial killer who came along too, ends up being an important part of both City and his own history.
I didn’t want to spend too long on the time travel part (yet) but I think because Pratchett usually took a fairly casual approach to time travel this is the first book where he is adding some consequences, and it required a slightly more formal ‘eye’ over the book to make it work. By structure I mean the book has more conventional literary techniques such as opening imagery, call-backs, rising and falling tension (again these things aren’t absent in other books just more notable here).
SPOILERS EVER INCREASING FROM THIS POINT
One that note a bit more about Vimes, one of Discworld’s most developed characters, and I’ve often suspected the one that Pratchett related to the most (although admittedly I suspect he sees himself as a bit of a Granny Weatherwax). Night Watch takes a more in depth look at Vimes as the majority of the book is laser focussed on him. Again where other books are slightly more organic I feel that Night Watch is more overt. Vimes is described as having a ‘beast’ inside him and a lot of the story focusses on the nature of conflict and who is on the right side – basically the moral lesson being that anyone who resists the ‘beast.’ Again compared to other Discworld’s which have tonnes of lessons and morals but are usually more organically snuck in, I wouldn’t describe Pratchett’s works as being particularly moralistic on the surface, but Night Watch feels much more overt.
One more minor critique is that I didn’t really gel with the idea that Vimes had a ‘beast’ I’ve always found his nature to be a more just and intelligent man, brought down by the grey-area challenges of the world. So it doesn’t 100% fit for me that in Night Watch he’s wrestling with his internal need to aggress – don’t get me wrong, everything pragmatic fits with the story – a big part of the plot is that Carcer a deranged serial killer is creating a kind of Batman/Joker challenge where Vimes very much wants to kill Carcer – all of this makes sense and works its just odd to me that there is narrative about Vimes having a murderous beast inside per se.
My last nitpick (which contains finale spoilers) is that I feel the final few pages were quite rushed, and perhaps Pratchett didn’t lean into the the dramatics of the final climax quite as much as he could have. There is a very real sense that after writing quite a heavy book Pratchett couldn’t quite commit all the way to a more tense ending.
By all this I mean in the final scene in the fast, we are rapidly approaching a massive climax, the rebellion is over, but there is still conflict in the street largely led my Carcer and a last few angry Day Watch. “John Keel” has been doomed by the new Patrician who doesn’t want powerful popular men undermining him. Vimes knows all this and has taken steps to protect his younger self, Colon and Nobbs, and sets out ready to take the fight not really knowing what will become of himself or his future-present.
Suddenly the Time-Monks appear instruct Vimes with what to do, and basically after (a sill pretty bad ass) moment of dual sword welding Vimes grabs Carcer and returns to the present. The reason I whinge about this, is that a lot of the building tension surrounded Vimes’ choices around the whole time travel paradox and basically would he sacrifice himself as John Keel did in the ‘original’ past. The fact that the Monks appear and drop Keel’s body on the battlefield and whisk Vimes away, is actually kind of time except I think it happened a few beats too early.
Although really is a nitpick – the story is still sad and intense it just had a strange sense of holding back a little?
Anyway to summarize I feel its obvious why this is many a fans’ favourite its a complex and intense Discworld book, and provides an insight into the past of both characters and city that you might not have been able to experience quite the same without this narrative.
Just had the strangest back to back of weeks. A fortnight ago I had a week off work and spent most of it with with a migraine and not sleeping good and kinda miserable
Just this last week was back @ work and slept well, and was relatively headache free (I feel at my age and stage in life its weird if there is nothing out of sorts with my body or mind at any point in time).
That’s not usually the way of things!
Anyway it’s a writing round up not a whinging one! (honestly I’ve actually seen many a writer’s blog go down that route and I’m not keen)
Now I’m going to say something honest about Terrible Writing Advice. I love the conceit, I love sarcasm and I love poking fun at bad writing. In fact one of the first books On Writing I grabbed was “How Not to Write A Novel” However I rarely watch a whole video to TWA through because my sarcasm tolerance gets low!
Still it’s worth a watch as you never know what good ideas spring up from viewing bad ones.
So I really like this video, but its interesting to me that many people when talking about plot holes get hung up on very pragmatic or technical issues. IMO Not all Plot Holes are Created Equal meaning that its less worrisome when there is some kind of pragmatic error or whatever, but very worrisome when a character is mis-portrayed or the theme of the story gets disrupted.
For example the OP Youtuber points out that the magic lady is shown at times without her necklace and then at a later scene takes her necklace off and is revealed as an old lady. Bear in mind this was across many seasons of television! To me this doesn’t change anything that we’re supposed to worry or care about this character or what’s going on in the story, its literally just a brief mistake. Now mistakes can be a problem if every single reader is spotting them and getting mad, but to me I’m more worried about things like when a character suddenly makes a poor choice to keep the plot moving, or the conclusion of the story contradicts the ‘lessons’ we’re taught on the way.
An interesting question posed on Reddit, aside from the obvious paradox of if a Mary Sue ‘works’ they probably aren’t
(for anyone wondering a Mary Sue is a trope of a basically perfect character, except its not just they themselves that are perfection the entire world and plot bends around them perfectly so nothing ever goes wrong for them. E.g. if a tension isn’t resolved by Mary Sue’s perfect intellect, social skills, or whatever, other characters, and even the environment bend over backwards to make things work out)
Having an OP (overpowered) work in a story is actually a great writing exercise, there are many options, e.g. making the tension about how other non-perfect characters feel, or the conflict about the one thing that Mary Sue can’t change or have Mary Sue be the villain!
Just to shine my own boots with this one, I feel this is a piece of writing advice I ‘get,’ The OP is confused by the metaphor because its on an essay about writer’s motives.
This is interesting because I think the window metaphor is easy to misunderstand. Many writers have this perception that their story magically exists somehow already and their words are the ‘windowpane’ That’s not the actual metaphor here. Your words ARE the story the ‘prose’ is a potential barrier in the story, you don’t want the reader getting distracted by a window pane that draws attention to itself (or is so dirty and smudgy you can’t see through it).
The reason its about motive is that if you are a writer wanting people to notice your prose, its like a window ‘wanting’ to be seen.
Yes the story does exist in your head, but your prose isn’t a window into your brain for a reader to see that story, I think the true metaphoric goal is to have the reader standing right there IN your story not even looking through a window!
Pretty sure we talked about this one recently already! (the algorhythm is listening)
I feel that misdirection is something best placed in rewrites, or at least when the story is well planned out. Because I tend to “vomit draft” (and then move onto the next vomit draft LOL) this is the sort of thing I need to work one more.
Alright I think that might do for this post!
Any writing related material you think I should share?
The Amazing Maurice is quite a strange addition to the Discworld series. I haven’t read it before, and I must confess at first I was not enjoying this story. It’s a lot more microscopic than a typical zany Discworld adventure with a tight focus on Maurice and his Rodents. The story reminded me of Carpet People (one of Pratchett’s first books and also another tale about tiny characters) in that the prose and tone were a bit harsh.
It’s very strange to me that this was considered a YA or aimed for younger audiences because in many respects its quite a lot more gritty, deadly and disturbing than your typical Discworld book, although I guess easing up on the wider satire?
Anyways its hard to not just ramble through the plot of the story to explain my points – Maurice read to me a little more formulaic, with a quieter setup but heavier climax than a Pratchett book, in many ways it could easily have been a non-Discworld novel take from that what you will.
Unlike “Bucket List” which no-one accepts was invented by the film – Ground Hog Day is well accepted as creating the name of this time loop trope.
So flicking through Honest Trailers yesterday… (it’s a great Youtube Video and Edge of Tomorrow is a killer movie too)
Narrator made a great point that the time loop plot motif seems to be awesome in all sorts of genres. This sparked a line of thinking in myself of just why?
Main Character Syndrome
For one thing this trope makes it pretty darn clear who the main character is. When every other character (and on the odd occasion a couple of others) is effectively frozen into the same sequence of behaviours each day and effectively denied development, while the MC is able to learn, adapt and change you KNOW who the story is about!
It’s actually an apt metaphor for how character development is supposed to work. Not saying that secondary characters can’t develop at all, but a Time-Loop allows an extreme version of what a typical story should be doing which is focussing on a main character who has the most challenge and does the most change.
Subverted Hero’s Journey
For a very quick summary the Hero’s Journey suggests that what an MC should go through is a departure from their normal/real/familiar ‘world’ into the land of the unknown in order to do their plot-stuff and return to the familiar changed, with new contributions and change to bring back to their familiar world. (I’m sure there is a bit more to it than that!)
The Time-Loop Trope is a strange simulation of this. The endless recurring ‘day’ becomes like a strange world, the MC must learn and face their challenges within and then (presumably) ends the time-loop and thus returns to their familiar world – similar to the ‘Main Character Syndrome’ its almost a more extreme version, the MC literary returns exactly back to the point where their story began, they are the only person with learnings and experience.
Another odd point is that because the setting is a recurring day, the MC and us by proxy are in constant reminder of the ‘real world’ – its no Narnia, or War-Torn other galaxy, the MC is technically still in their familiar world, and once the events of that day without the MC’s interference are established, all the variance and change arise from the MC’s actions.
Genre Defying
Oddly, even though time travel is typically considered a sci-fi or fantasy trope, the Ground Hog’s Day loop is a MacGuffin extraordinaire (if you’re like me and sometimes gets confused with this overused term, MacGuffin is a plot device, maybe a desired object, or a missing character that pragmatically drives the plot but has no relevance to the story itself).
By which I mean the time-loop itself is often unexplained or poorly explained technically, but really exists as an obvious concern for the MC, and a device that is easily bent to the requirements of the story. For example SPOILER ALERT FOR A FILM FROM THE 90s in Ground Hog’s Day itself the MC effectively had to become a much (much) better person and live a perfectly kind, and loving day in order to restart the clock.
Even though the Time-Loop will be mysterious and of interest to a viewer we really know that we’re going to be watching character progression and get revelations about them, and that works in comedy, romance, action, and so on.
Some Limits
After gushing about this trope, I do have some concerns. For one I think it comes across better on screen. This is for a few reasons. Actors carry a lot of the presentation of a screenplay, and the nature of the medium is that its easier to pull off familiar scenes with ‘tweaks.’ For example a set can be reused, when the same actors in the same costumes appear for another ‘loop’ it doesn’t take any effort away from the viewer.
When the same is attempted in writing you have a bit of a challenge, do you repeat material on the page to create that sense? Readers don’t usually want repetition. Because there are visual and auditory cues to create that same-same effect the screen works for Ground Hog’s Day tropes.
Also strangely in writing you are already pretty deep in MC’s heads (depending on your POV) and Time-Loop doesn’t actually laser focus on as much as a movie would.
Anywho – those are my thoughts on this strange trope. Has anyone got any book recommendations with this trope? Or other movies worth a watch?
So I didn’t really know what to make of The Last Hero. I have read it before, and have to confess tended to dismiss the book as a ‘Discworld Novel’ Obviously the story IS set in the Discworld and indeed its a short novel designed more of a visual experience and honestly Cohen is a strange sort of character to focus a book around IMO.
What I was particularly interested in was this weird note that this is technically Rincewind’s last book. I understand our “racist” (very keen to “race” away from danger) wizzard appears in future ‘non-fiction’ books but I was kind of keen in my Discworld to take notice of characters last books.
The Last Hero doesn’t really give Rincewind a sendoff but its actually kind of relieving to know that he has settled somewhat with a position at the Unseen University, I confess in previous readings I couldn’t remember where or what happened to the scruffy coward.
I’d also forgotten the weird mash-up of characters, in the story Rincewind, Carrot, and Leonard De Quirm team up – broadly speaking Pratchett doesn’t do much cross-overs (almost a mortal sin in the modern world of Big Franchise Universes am I right) – there are moments where an MC from one series will feature or cameo in another story (e.g. Nanny Ogg in Thief of time) and some minor characters that are minor characters across all the Discworld, but largely the main stories do not interact.
So it’s odd that Rincewind and Carrot hang out together. Unfortunately there isn’t much depth to the scenario. Mostly being a short novel there simply isn’t the depth of anyoness character compared to other stories, there are some really well done moments but just in my opinion it lacks the material to have much oomph.
In reading Pratchett’s biography it was explained that the Knight kept a ‘pit’ of writing to recycle and reuse The Last Hero feels largely designed to create a send off for Cohen which again is just odd given that many MCs don’t even get an official ending
Not in reference to anything just – gestures around
I mostly love the title. Weiland’s answer should (hopefully) be a familiar one: you need to know the rules to break them.
My stance on grammar, punctuation and any other “English” rules in in agreement with Guin (in Books On Writing: Steering the Craft by Ursula Le Guin) that its more than just needing to be aware of the rules in order to break them, but to understand that grammar rules exist to help transfer ideas into the readers head, so you need to really have these ‘rules’ completely down, as even seemingly innocent issues, like random commas (or em-dashes) can corrupt your writing. Ignore them at your peril
Whoospy the comments got locked on this one! I don’t 100% agree with the posters thesis, or rather, absolutely writers overthink things but (the thesis is if you don’t want to click the link that reading will answer all your questions) while I definitely think reading is vital to learning to write (and it’s really mindboggling how many people want to write who don’t read) there is a lot more to be learnt that just from reading.
After all directors can’t just watch movies, musicians can’t just listen to music. There are many skills, and ways of writing that don’t just come naturally after absorbing examples of the craft.
Egads – this is a bit embarrassing but I haven’t actually finished this article yet. It’s a really good on developing character, in an area that I need to work on myself. I might have to post about this again when I’ve finished!
Long time followers will know from my Quest for Glory IV 3D Hexen GZDoom mod and my Quest For Glory maps that I’m a big fan of the old Sierra point & click adventure Quest for Glory series by Lori & Cory Cole, with Quest for Glory 4 being my favourite! Many years ago I posted the below on the long gone Quest For More Glory forum about this and thanks to the Internet Archive I found it again and thought I’d resurrect it here and expand on it a bit!
Have you ever seen Tim Burton’s 1999 classic dark Gothic Halloween blockbuster Sleepy Hollow? I could be alone on this one lol, but every time I’ve watched it over the years it has always made me want to go play Quest for Glory 4. While I realise the movie is set in colonial America and not Transylvanian…
No not a book about procrastination (although there are procrastinators featured!
I’m becoming acutely aware of getting closer to the end of the Discworld books. Carpe Jugularm is technically the last Witches book (although I’m holding out for the upcoming ‘young’ witch ones) and Thief of Time is officially the last ‘Death Book.’
Confession though, even though I’ve read this one before I’d forgotten it was a Death book, Lobsang had stood out so much as a character I’d practically forgotten Susan (no Irony there)!
A very interesting point I noticed about this book, is that throughout the series I think Pratchett varies in his handling of subplots. Some books felt unbalanced between strands, while others tended towards jumping frequently between comedic, and semi-serious plot threads. In Thief of Time there are multiple quite separate plot threads, that are all quite solid that move together in the end in a relatively satisfying, in some respects more traditional fantasy story than a subversive one.
Anyone slight first IMO, is that Pratchett allows his characters very happy endings. I haven’t really noted this before, but part of his subversiveness is Pratchett seldom allows ‘happy’ endings, he tends towards the embarrassing (in the case of Rincewind) or more commonly a relative return to normal (Guards and Witches) with a few developments along the way.
SPOILERS AHEAD
I’ve mentioned before that Pratchett has an interesting approach to relationships – the first few books I thought tended towards diverting the expected, and erring towards MCs being unlucky in love (or just outright mocking with Magrat and King Vernerance), and then as time goes by relatively minimal page time but slightly quirky and quiet takes on relationships (Angua and Carrot, Vimes and Sibil).
Thief of Time seems to be taking the same approach with Jeremy and Lady LeJean and Susan and Lobsang, with awkward but never really fulfilled references, however the final scene shows us at least a ‘perfect moment’ for Susan (don’t worry it relates to chocolate not sex).
Off relationships, I also liked that Lu-Tze who seemed like they weren’t going to have much love heaped on them had possibly one the strongest and most poetic endings in the whole series I’ve read yet.
Long time followers will know from my 
Lonely Power Poles 