A Good Stopping Point

Sometimes you get into something and you lose all track of time and it's awesome. Sometimes you know you have to stop because you know you need to go to sleep before dawn comes or because your eyelids keep closing without permission. When you know this time is approaching, the question is what is a good stopping point?

If you're reading, chapters are always good stopping points, as are any other break that has a visual component. If not, then either the end of a page or right before a long paragraph is the next best thing.

If you're writing, it ends up being pretty similar. A stopping point is really necessary when you're in a groove because you won't be in that groove when you sit down to write again. Here, I think the best stopping point (and the only acceptable one) is when you have finished whatever scene you are working on. You really need to maintain the continuity of style within the scene and to flesh out all the events and actions that you plan.

Of course, a story is more than a collection of scenes, and you really want a uniformity of style and feel throughout. This is why I recommend taking a bunch of notes as you start to wrap up. Leave reminders as to what your thought process was, where it was going, and key events or dialogue you want to happen along the way. The more you set up the feeling for the next session, the more quickly you will get into the groove again and avoid aching over what you wanted to have happen last time.

A Good Movie For Its Run Time

I encountered this phrase today and was awestruck by it. Of course, the speaker said it so factually that it was even more incredible. I never considered such a way of looking at a story. It's like saying, "It's no masterpiece, but it wasn't very long."

Of course, this is hardly a glowing review, but in a certain light, it can still be positive. You don't have to invest much into the story, but you still get a good return on your investment. It may not have changed your life, but it successfully entertained you.

I sometimes wonder if that is the reason I am always drawn to the short story. Part of it is the challenge of conciseness. But I think I also like the low risk of the low page count. It's like, if you read a terrible novel, you lost hours and hours of your time, but if you read a terrible short story, you lost like 20 minutes. No big deal.

Weighted Distribution

Fairness is a strange subject to consider. Suppose your story has five main characters in it. should they all get an equal amount of screen time? If they're all equally important, it would make the most sense. It's certainly the fairest way to handleit.

But what if one of those characters is comic relief? What if one of those characters is a brutish mute? What if one of those characters bears the mark of legend and must overcome their personal beliefs to fulfill the prophesy that has guided his life? Should all of these characters have the same number of pages spent describing them?

There isn't a right answer. This isn't a rhetorical question. You need to find the answer for you. Most people will find that a weighted distribution is the best way to go, giving the characters with the most importance the most amount of time. But if you give the same amount of time to all your main characters, you may find yourself discovering that an ancillary character is actually pretty interesting and more important than you expected (though it's not always a guarantee that you'll find that).

For me the answer is usually based on the action. Whoever is doing the most stuff gets the most screen time. But that's me and I like direct storytelling. You may have a character do a lot of things off-screen because it allows you to do a big reveal later, or because you just don't think it's relevant to the plot. You may also find yourself focusing entirely on one character (which I also like to do sometimes), or simply never having your party split up.

This is why you need to answer the question. Most any distribution will work fine, but it's up to you to figure out which one produces the effect you're looking for.

Elite

The elite are those of the highest caliber. They are the upper echelon of quality. In any endeavor you pursue, you should strive to be elite, not for the fame, but because it would mean that you are doing exceptional work. And there's no point half-assing it.

The catch is that elite can be relative. You can be the best writer in the world, or the country, or state, or city, or neighborhood, or household. Whatever level you may reach, you will find people who look up to you, and you will find others you look up to.


I don't think that you can label every writer as better or worse than any other writer. There may be tiers of quality, but within that tier, everybody is equally elite. You may look up to others and they may look up to you. They may also think that what you have to say is stupid, but you said it really well (there's no accounting for taste, but technical prowess is undeniable).

Probably the worst thing you can do is think of yourself as "the elite". It's perfectly fine to be proud of good work you've done and to acknowledge your skills, but thinking of yourself as better than everybody else is a great way to burn bridges and alienate people.

Be as elite as you are. Strive for as high a tier as you can manage, and wherever you end up, be happy that you made it that far.

The Medium Affects The Story

The more I listen to creators I trust, the more I find agreement on a particular point: if you take a story in one format (prose, TV series, movie, comic book, webcomic, etc.), you will not be able to tell the same story in any other format. In fact, if you have an idea for a story, the first question to figure out is what format would best allow you to tell the story you envision.

Every medium you can use to tell stories will be different. They will each have their own unique charm and nuances. If you tell a story in one medium that truly makes use of its nuances, then by transplanting it to a different medium, you will lose those parts of your story. It may end up completely bastardizing your story in the eyes of its fans.

That said, it is not necessarily true that a story only can exist in one medium. In fact, I would argue that you could tell many stories in most media. They will be different, but each one can have its own charm. You may personally favor one version the most. The general public may generally believe that one version is the best, but it's all opinions, not universal truth.

I challenge you to write a story in different media. Whatever your next short project is, do something with prose. Write a poem. Draw a comic. Write a script. Tell that short story in a few different ways and experience (and embrace) the differences. Let me know how it goes.

The Downside Of Random Results

I know that I have extolled the virtues of random results in storytelling, and I do still find it a good way to spice up a story that is too simple, but it is a tool that can have negative consequences if used improperly.

The biggest issue is that random results can end up making your story tedious. When you have crafted a path for your protagonists to take, diverging from it will simply make the story take longer to conclude.

Random results really work best when you have a character in a situation that doesn't have a designated endpoint. In this scenario, random results allow characters to find new paths that you may not have expected them to go down. But, again, if you already have a plan, don't worry about it too much.

Learning From Exposure

The advice is often given that the best way to learn how to write is by reading good authors. I mostly disagree with that sentiment. The best way to learn how to write is by studying writing method and practicing.

However, I have found that you definitely can learn from exposure. I have been spending all of my free time listening to reviews and critiques of movies, TV shows, and games for a week or two, and I seriously feel like a much stronger critic because of it. A friend of mine recently asked for my review of Stargate Universe and was blown away with my response. (So it's not entirely me blowing smoke when I talk about my improvement.)

The thing with exposure is that you do need to use your brain. You need to analyze what the authors are doing. What is their subject material? What is it they choose to say? What have they left behind?

The major issue I have with exposure-as-teacher is that good examples show you what can be done, but they don't tell you what to avoid. The bad examples do even that out. So if nothing else, the correct advice would be to read as many authors as possible and make sure you get good and bad ones.

I will always support study and practice as the best instructors and developers of authors. Those are your staples. That said, there's nothing wrong with supplements. Once you have an understanding of the basics of writing, definitely get that exposure to authors, good and bad. With your established knowledge, it will give you the tools to analyze what they're doing and understand why it succeeds or fails. And that is how you really get the most out of it.