Dwight Swain

[jack30341]

Any other writers try to use Mr. Swain's techniques?

There have been many times when I have bogged down in a draft, and resorting to the template he sets out has saved me.

I ask myself, "is the scene I'm trying to write a 'scene' or a 'sequel?'"

Then, I come up with the elements that he sets out for the kind of scene it is.

If it's a 'scene' in his approach, then it's going to have a goal, obstacles, and a result.

If it's a 'sequel' in his approach, then it's going to have a reaction, dilemma, and a decision.

It may sound crazy, but this has been like a life preserver to me so many times when I have felt stranded.

Curious to know other writers' experiences.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've never heard of Swain or his method of writing.

I think methods like this can be useful as a way of maintaining a framework and checklist for your writing. My view is there's more than one way to skin the cat, and numerous frameworks like this can work for a person. Frameworks like these, in my view, also should not be followed too strictly, lest one's writing becomes too mechanical. Nevertheless, when I write I also try to keep a kind of framework in mind and as I write I repeatedly ask myself if my writing is hitting the notes I want to hit.

One area where I would disagree a bit is that in a short erotic story I think you can skip the "disaster part."

I would describe my own framework for erotic stories (I do this unconsciously so this is a bit off the cuff) as something like this:

Concept -- Character -- Need -- Conflict -- Change -- Resolution

The conflict part may or may not involve one or more setbacks. If it's an erotic story it's enough for me if I just make the conflict plain and then try to resolve it through a change in the situation, which hopefully comes across as erotic. But if I want a longer story I add setbacks.

 

[KeithD]

I've never heard of Dwight Swain either. It's fine to work from a template, though, I think.

I don't get the "disaster" reference. There are several other words used in the two posts that are the same element: "obstacle, dilemma, conflict," which all represent an element I have been taught is necessary for a story. Was this pushed to "disaster"?

 

[jack30341]

I've never heard of Dwight Swain either. It's fine to work from a template, though, I think.

I don't get the "disaster" reference. There are several other words used in the two posts that are the same element: "obstacle, dilemma, conflict," which all represent an element I have been taught is necessary for a story. Was this pushed to "disaster"?

My original post referenced "result," but in earlier descriptions of this technique elsewhere, people have said the first kind of scene should follow the path of:

goal---obstacles---disaster.

I think the original work by Swain used that word.

Essentially, it was argued that the protagonist in the scene should not only fail to meet his goal, but should suffer a negative result, or 'disaster.'

I have found this to be a really helpful approach, but certainly people should use what works best for them.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've never heard of Dwight Swain either. It's fine to work from a template, though, I think.

I don't get the "disaster" reference. There are several other words used in the two posts that are the same element: "obstacle, dilemma, conflict," which all represent an element I have been taught is necessary for a story. Was this pushed to "disaster"?

What jack said. I picked up that reference from an article I found online based on this idea.

"Setback" is probably a better term, although I suppose there are plenty of disasters imaginable for erotic stories.

 

[KeithD]

Ah, referring to stuff not included on the thread.

 

[SimonDoom]

Ah, referring to stuff not included on the thread.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Don't get Keithish on us.

I had never heard of Dwight Swain, but, curious, I looked him up on the Internet. I didn't find much substantive on free Internet pages, but I found this:

https://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/writing-the-perfect-scene/

I understood this to be a more contemporary exposition of Swain's fiction techniques (Swain died in 1992), so it was that to which I was referring. It referred to "disaster" as a story element, AND the author of this online article appeared to refer to the word choice "disaster" as Swain's. As far as I can tell -- and Wikipedia, for whatever it's worth, seems to back me up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scene_and_sequel) -- this nomenclature was indeed used by Swain.

So it would appear, as far as I can tell, that my references were directly related to what the OP brought up, since the OP specifically identified Dwight Swain as the source of this technique and I was intrigued and responded to that.

If I'm wrong, the OP can say so, and I'll apologize for my misdirection and/or misinterpretation.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Oh, for Pete's sake. Don't get Keithish on us.

~snip~

So it would appear, as far as I can tell, that my references were directly related to what the OP brought up, since the OP specifically identified Dwight Swain as the source of this technique and I was intrigued and responded to that.

If I'm wrong, the OP can say so, and I'll apologize for my misdirection and/or misinterpretation.

Not to be too pedantic myself, but "disaster" has enough of a different connotation than "obstacle" that I had the same basic reaction as Keith. [Where'd Simon get "disaster" from?]

If you had linked to the article you read, or at least mentioned "disaster" as the original nomenclature in an aside, then it would have been much more clear why you wrote your response the way you did.

Just, for future reference, and whatnot.

 

[NotWise]

Not to be too pedantic myself, but "disaster" has enough of a different connotation than "obstacle" that I had the same basic reaction as Keith. [Where'd Simon get "disaster" from?]

If you had linked to the article you read, or at least mentioned "disaster" as the original nomenclature in an aside, then it would have been much more clear why you wrote your response the way you did.

Just, for future reference, and whatnot.

I read the article that Simon linked, and I've been trying to place the long-standing project I'm working on into that context.

The story started with a Valentine's Day contest entry in 2016. I continued it because I finished the story badly. Readers insisted it continue, and I had to admit that the reason I finished it so poorly was that I really wanted it to continue.

The first part begins with a sequel, implying that the early parts of the story haven't been told. That is an intentional pattern in my writing that I'll have to think about. It proceeds into a scene that ends in disaster, and then finishes with another sequel. A sequel in Swain's definition shouldn't be an end.

The second part -- two chapters -- starts with a cleanly-structured scene in the first chapter. The second chapter is a sequel that starts telling the beginnings implied at the start of the story. Each of the stories is essentially a single scene ending in success.

The third part -- five chapters -- is a single scene with a brief sequel, but two separate stories are told within the scene to continue the back story. The first story contains two scenes with the second ending in success rather than disaster. The second story has multiple scenes and sequels, and ends in success rather than disaster.

The forth part -- three chapters -- is in progress. It looks like a single scene, and as in part three, there is a back story-in-the-story that will probably be told as three separate scenes. This has been a bitch to write.

Part five should be a single chapter, and a single scene ending in success, but with some emotional conflict.

I don't think the scene/sequel breakdown has anything to do with what blocks my writing. That's large scale. I think it through before I write the story. My problem with part four, (and with other complicated stories) is in Swain's Motivation-Response Units.

In my current story, there are three different story lines that converge at the end. It's easy to think through the motivation and response of each thread in isolation, but it's mechanically difficult to integrate them into a single story.

To stay sane, I shouldn't make my stories so complex. On the other hand, the readers haven't complained.