Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #10

[McKenna]

*(only 28 more to go, oy!)




Don’t Have Things Happen for No Reason


One morning not long ago, my student Wally came by the office with part of another story. Sipping my second cup of coffee, I read what he had brought to me.

“Wally,” I said finally, “this story doesn’t make sense.”

“What do you mean?” Wally asked.

“I mean your characters don’t seem to have any background motivation for their story intentions here, they constantly seem to be running into other people and information strictly by coincidence, and the often do or say things for no apparent immediate reason.”

Wally looked blank. “That’s bad?”

“Wally, it makes your story totally illogical!”

“Wait a minute,” Wally protested. “I don’t have to be logical. I’m writing fiction!”



It’s a fairly common misconception, this one of Wally’s. Since fiction is make-believe, says this line of reasoning, then the most important thing is to be imaginative and original –and so anyone who tries to argue for logic and credibility in a story must be trying to thwart somebody’s artistic genius.

The truth, as you’ve probably already begun to see, is just the opposite. Because fiction is make-believe, it has to be more logical than real life if it is to be believed. In real life, things may occur for no apparent reason. But in fiction you the writer simply cannot ever afford to lose sight of logic and let things happen for no apparent reason.

To make your stories logical, and therefore believable, you work always to make sure there is always a reason for what happens.

A great many stories tend to be unbelievable because the writer just shoved a character onstage to do something without thinking through how and why the character got there. You must constantly examine your story logic to make sure you have not inadvertently committed the same error.

One kind of error that can destroy the evident logic of a story is the use of excessive luck or coincidence.

In real life, coincidence happens all the time. But in fiction –especially when the coincidence helps the character be at the right place at the right time, or overhear the crucial telephone conversation, or something similar– coincidence is deadly. Your readers will refuse to believe it. And you can’t afford to let your readers stop believing.

When the long arm of coincidence helps your character along, it’s just good luck. Reading about someone blundering along, getting lucky, is neither very interesting nor very inspiring. A story filled with coincidence tends to make no sense because there is no real reason why things happen –they just happen.

In real life that’s good enough. In fiction it isn’t.

How do you fix coincidence? First, you excise it. Second, you search for a way by which your character can set out seeking the desired event, person or information. If your character wants something, and works hard to get it, it isn’t coincidence anymore.

Having provided your characters with sufficient background (*sufficient, but not too much! See chapter 5) and motivation for their actions, and then by making sure coincidence doesn’t rule the day, you’ll be well along on the way to better story logic. Things will happen for good reason, and your readers will love you for it.


*denotes McKenna's comment, not the author's



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #1

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #2

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #3

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #4

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #5

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #6

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #7

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #8

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #9

 

[sophia jane]

Does anyone else feel sorry for Wally?

Thanks for these McKenna. They've been enlightening. And guilt inducing since I haven't been writing.


SJ

 

[rgraham666]

This echoes something I read from Tom Clancy, "The difference between fiction and real life is that fiction has to make sense."

Once again I agree.

I'm trying to think of cases where serendipity would advance the plot of a story but I'm barely sentient at the moment.

I'll try again later.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm a little torn on this one.

Best way I can think of to illustrate is Sherlock Homes. I have the complete Holmes and when I first started reading I was Amazed by his exploits. By the last few stroies I was solving them as easily as he did. Why? Doyle followed this Maxim. So if he mentioned a detail about a character, it had bearing, you just had to figure out why. Sometimes an event that has no bearing or information that isn't important serves to obscure that which you wish to remain obscure.

Likewise, you can make minor characters much more real and less two-D with a few well chosen bits of information about them, even if that information is extraneous to the plot.

Conan is constantly saved by luck or happenstance. As is Kane.

Obviously the gist of the point is don't rely on luck to save your hero all th etime, I think the judicious inclusion of luck, extraneous information and events/people that don't move the story can do a lot for the realism of a novel.

 

[oggbashan]

Detective Fiction

I enjoy some detective fiction because the classic writer follow the conventions. They give you enough information to solve the mystery but hidden in with other clues that are red herrings.

The idea is to make the reader think 'Why didn't I see that!' when the detective announces the solution.

I tried to do that with my 'Danger Naked Woman!' story. Everything had a reason to be in the story. I think I tried too hard.

Practice makes perfect. I try to avoid this mistake but my characters don't always cooperate.

Og

 

[McKenna]

I'm starting to think this guy's entire message is about striking that oh-so-difficult balance between plot, character, and the author's own ability that make for successful fiction. He's trying to describe something that seems as nebulous as quantum physics would to a toddler.

I didn't get much out of this chapter. I didn't get much out of the previous chapter, either. Both seem rather obvious to me, and it's almost insulting to my intelligence that he points them out. I'm wondering if "Fiction Writing for Dummies" might not have been a better choice. On some level, I think we all know what makes good fiction. It's the stuff that keeps us coming back for more. If we pick an author who writes like an idiot, we'd have to be pretty stupid ourselves to keep reading or find another book by the same author.

Perhaps this is my own naiveté, but I wonder if the difference between those who get published and those who don't are the ones who actually pursue publishing, rather than just talking about it. There's a lot of tripe out there in published print. I think perseverence must have paid off for these people, 'cause it sure as hell isn't based on their prose.

Here's hoping the following chapters are a bit more insightful, (she says, as she ponders whether or not too many coincidences occur within her fiction so as to make it unbelievable.)


P.S. That's one of my favorite avatars, Og.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

One word: McGuffin

 

[kendo1]

Some interesting points here, but I think even more important are McKenna's and Lauren's AV's.

Drool.
Drool.
Drool.

I recently heard that thongs were on the way out. I'll just shoot myself now.

The one thing above all others that ignited my wifes sex drive!

 

[dizzylia]

This echoes something I read from Tom Clancy, "The difference between fiction and real life is that fiction has to make sense."

I always loved that quote.

 

[McKenna]

Some interesting points here, but I think even more important are McKenna's and Lauren's AV's.

Drool.
Drool.
Drool.

I recently heard that thongs were on the way out. I'll just shoot myself now.

The one thing above all others that ignited my wifes sex drive!

Not on the way out in my book; much too comfy.


(I know you meant the av I had up previously. Thank you.)

 

[Belegon]

Not on the way out in my book; much too comfy.

Good...cause in all those fantasies, when I slide my hand down...*ahem* sorry...got carried away *blush*

she just does that to me....

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Now what's really fun is to have a batshit insane piece with a twisted sort of logic that holds the reader throughout the piece. I'm working on it for a novel of mine whose central premise is that Logic (the entity embodying the whole) has kicked the bucket rewriting the rules slightly.

 

[McKenna]

Good...cause in all those fantasies, when I slide my hand down...*ahem* sorry...got carried away *blush*

she just does that to me....

 

[McKenna]

Now what's really fun is to have a batshit insane piece with a twisted sort of logic that holds the reader throughout the piece. I'm working on it for a novel of mine whose central premise is that Logic (the entity embodying the whole) has kicked the bucket rewriting the rules slightly.

Luc, I just finished Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. While I was reading it, I kept thinking of this chapter and how there shouldn't be all these amazing coincidences and whatnot. Kind of a funny juxtaposition. Seemed like Hitchhiker's was nothing but coincidence and a chain of highly improbably events. I kinda liked that about it --that and the author had a wicked, dark sense of humor.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Luc, I just finished Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. While I was reading it, I kept thinking of this chapter and how there shouldn't be all these amazing coincidences and whatnot. Kind of a funny juxtaposition. Seemed like Hitchhiker's was nothing but coincidence and a chain of highly improbably events. I kinda liked that about it --that and the author had a wicked, dark sense of humor.

Yeah, Adams is the eternal master of that type of writing. Brilliant brilliant man stolen by the irony of a healthy life.

 

[nushu2]

Now what's really fun is to have a batshit insane piece with a twisted sort of logic that holds the reader throughout the piece. I'm working on it for a novel of mine whose central premise is that Logic (the entity embodying the whole) has kicked the bucket rewriting the rules slightly.

Great idea. Would love to read it when you're done. Even the premise seems illogical. Reversed entropy? Effect and cause?

 

[erise]

Luc, I just finished Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. While I was reading it, I kept thinking of this chapter and how there shouldn't be all these amazing coincidences and whatnot. Kind of a funny juxtaposition. Seemed like Hitchhiker's was nothing but coincidence and a chain of highly improbably events. I kinda liked that about it --that and the author had a wicked, dark sense of humor.

Yes, but ther were logically so. Courtsey of the improbability drive in particular and a universe built by the lowest bidder in general. It makes sense that it doesn't make sense. Like the creator's message in the very end proves. "Sorry for all the inconvenience"



Anyway, I've read alot of "life-like" crime novels, where the protagonists are jaded murder investigators with ulcers and budget cuts and rebellious teenage kids to deal with while they do their regular police work on cases that could have happened in real life. Half of all breakthroughs in those mysteries are pure chance. Someone stumbles upon something. A guy gets arrested in a bar brawl and turns out to be a prime suspect. Just like in real life. And still, the are very captivating and entertaining stories. So I don't know. There are probably exceptions to every rule.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Anyway, I've read alot of "life-like" crime novels, where the protagonists are jaded murder investigators with ulcers and budget cuts and rebellious teenage kids to deal with while they do their regular police work on cases that could have happened in real life. Half of all breakthroughs in those mysteries are pure chance. Someone stumbles upon something. A guy gets arrested in a bar brawl and turns out to be a prime suspect. Just like in real life. And still, the are very captivating and entertaining stories. So I don't know. There are probably exceptions to every rule.

Exactly what I was saying. A McGuffin is an extremely common plot device that implies unexplained objects or actions that serve no other purpose than to advance the story. From Desdemona's handkerchief in Othello to Pulp Fiction's mystery briefcase, from David Forster Wallace's Infinite Jest cartridge to GWB's Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The only mistakes are those done by people who don't know what they're doing.

 

[bridgeburner]

I'm on board with this one with one caveat: never say never.

Bickham seems to assume that anyone dense enough to need this advice is not so dense that he would never use chance or coincidence in a story. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption on Bickham's part, but I do appreciate the value of this rule for guiding those I edit for.

This is a common error and I find it often appears in conjunction with the "lack of tension" flaw. No conflict between characters and everything just falls into their laps along the way so there's no suspense.

The problem is that people who write this way are just not grokking and I haven't yet figured out how to make them. On the one hand, for my own satisfaction I want to be able to turn on the light of understanding for these folks. On the other hand, if it was that easy then everyone could do it.

Of course, as much as I read that might not be a bad thing. More good books for me to devour. ;->


-B

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The problem is that people who write this way are just not grokking and I haven't yet figured out how to make them. On the one hand, for my own satisfaction I want to be able to turn on the light of understanding for these folks. On the other hand, if it was that easy then everyone could do it.

I think that these advices/rules can always apply to very novice writers, and following them will get you close to writing competent stories. I seriously doubt it will ever take you beyond that, though. In fact, I'm trying to think of a single "great" novel that follows all the rules discussed so far, and none comes to mind...

 

[McKenna]

And another bump...

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

I think that these advices/rules can always apply to very novice writers, and following them will get you close to writing competent stories. I seriously doubt it will ever take you beyond that, though. In fact, I'm trying to think of a single "great" novel that follows all the rules discussed so far, and none comes to mind...

Very true. It's like any other art. You must learn the basics, learn how things work, what is propper, what is structure, what is style. Once you do it is like a painter who knows all the colors and a violinist that can play any note. Now you can make new ones. You know enough to make it compelling and fresh.

A great novelist leaves the rules in the background, the ones they need are automatic. Then they produce masterpieces....

well that or at least something interesting to read that doesn't irk...such as gushing about ultrawhite teeth... ...stupid sparkling....

 

[Monkey_Face]

I read a fantasy book once where the main character knew he had some sort of latent magical talent, but had no idea what it was or how to use it. Even so, he lucked his way through the entire book in the least likely ways. In the end you come to find that his magical ability was luck.

Reading this just made me think of that. I think it all worked out alright.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If James Joyce found an audience ANYONE can find an audience. Joyce invented nonsense.

Stephen King calls it 'The Zipper.' You dont always wanna see the zipper in a story. Stories should be enjoyable not the stuff of OCD wet-dreams. So the tale should be a challenge in a pleasant way. But definitely NOT some kind of American Pie decoder ring.

 

[driphoney]

I pulled this up from the past, but I feel like commenting .

I know that many regular posters around these parts are writing professionals or have a lot of experience, and in this example, the reaction of "Duh!" from many people probably bare this experience level out. However, when I read the reactions, it feels like we're focused on what we expect to read in a novel as opposed to focusing on the possible difficulty in creating this. I can be very picky when reading tertiary material in a book, but as a writer (wannabe) this concept makes me very nervous. How do you know what's appropriate and what's not? Is it just gut instinct? That's all I have. Is it experience that teaches the boundaries of excess outside information in a story?

Thanks, McKenna. And, phew! Wiping the sweat on my brow from trying to keep up!

(Oh, and I agree. There's a lot of stuff out there that is startling in it's lack of quality! It's probably why mom, junk reader extraordinaire, thinks I should be published! "You're stuff's better 'n theirs!" -- Mama Driphoney, 2009. The same can be said about other artistic venues. Every man I know sings better than Kris Kristofferson.)

I'm starting to think this guy's entire message is about striking that oh-so-difficult balance between plot, character, and the author's own ability that make for successful fiction. He's trying to describe something that seems as nebulous as quantum physics would to a toddler.

I didn't get much out of this chapter. I didn't get much out of the previous chapter, either. Both seem rather obvious to me, and it's almost insulting to my intelligence that he points them out. I'm wondering if "Fiction Writing for Dummies" might not have been a better choice. On some level, I think we all know what makes good fiction. It's the stuff that keeps us coming back for more. If we pick an author who writes like an idiot, we'd have to be pretty stupid ourselves to keep reading or find another book by the same author.

Perhaps this is my own naiveté, but I wonder if the difference between those who get published and those who don't are the ones who actually pursue publishing, rather than just talking about it. There's a lot of tripe out there in published print. I think perseverence must have paid off for these people, 'cause it sure as hell isn't based on their prose.

Here's hoping the following chapters are a bit more insightful, (she says, as she ponders whether or not too many coincidences occur within her fiction so as to make it unbelievable.)


P.S. That's one of my favorite avatars, Og.