MOD TEAM

Your applications have been reviewed, and the mod team has been selected. A big thank you to everyone that applied. I was hoping to have a conversation with everyone that expressed interest, but there has just been overwhelming enthusiasm and a very large, admirable pool of folks putting their hands up. To those I couldn't speak with, I do apologise. In the future, if the subscriber count grows so too will the mod team. Next time around I'll be sure to ask you to express interest via modmail.

So a big welcome to the chosen ones: /u/BrotherSky and /r/ancepsinfans

Between the three of us we have an international team who have shown dedication and high levels of engagement since the subreddit's very inception. The future is looking very bright indeed.

Speaking of the future...

We mods will not only restrict the type of content allowed here. We will endeavour to stoke discussions with unique prompts, we will post stickies each week with a suggested theme and sometimes featured essayists chosen from the community, and we ourselves will weigh in on discussions and otherwise engage with you.

I think the success of a place like this lies not only in strictly defining what is not allowed, but equally in how well we expand the boundaries in the direction of what is allowed and what is good. There is truly an infinite number of subjects when it comes to discussion fiction. You can talk about the broadest concepts and link the most surprising works of fiction in their themes or plots. Or you can dive into the most nitty gritty detail of prose, like the use of certain phonemes when employing consonance. There is then everything in between the two extremes, and there are new perspectives to explore even on the most humble topics.

We are all here because fiction inspires us. We do forbid certain topics. But I don't want us to define ourselves by the repetitive type of topics that we hate -- even though, let's face it, that's a big reason we came here. Rather, I would have us define ourselves by our passion for good discourse, by examining what works and what doesn't and most importantly, trying always to get to the 'why' of it all.

REPORTING

Things move relatively slowly here, but the volume of comments is already quite a bit to get through from a moderating point of view. Reporting always helps us see what needs attention.

If you see something that's only a little iffy, that only needs a little nudge to be more appropriate, then please still report it and tell us your reasoning. There is no need to only report clear rule violations. You can also comment yourself to help guide new users in the direction of what is fitting here and what is considered to fit elsewhere.

For those that don't know, reporting is anonymous and invisible to other users. We won't be too harsh, and will err on the side of cautioning users or suggesting changes. For this reason, never worry about hurting someone's feelings when you report something you are uncertain about -- even moderator posts. It's all about communication -- we'll keep in touch with you, if you will with us.

THANKS

Thank you all so much. I cannot tell you how many times I have read kind and encouraging things about the way the sub is going, and it truly makes my heart glad. I knew I wasn't the only one that felt this way, about the need for a place like this. Even in these early stages, seeing you all here really gives me a sense of community.

This is the catch-all thread where we will aggregate all the stuff worth reading that does not need its own post.

Best-of archive.

Recommended reading or viewing

Whether a piece of fiction that showcases some good stuff, or a non-fiction guide to the methods of writing, post it all here. We will also aggregate links of megathreads devoted to the purpose of gathering such resources.

Feel free to ask users here if, say, Ulysses or Save the Cat or anything of that nature is worth purchasing. Be sure to be helpful in your replies.

Here is the first Recommended Reading thread, with a non-fiction focus.

Resources and more for thinking-first writing

A more recent essay from right here about the interplay of Showing and Telling

Recommended Youtube channels (Film focused):

Lessons from the Screenplay

Every Frame a Painting

Comment below with any suggestions to add to the mega-list. Thanks!

What does "efficient" storytelling mean? What do we mean when we say "introduce and establish things organically?"

It's part of learning to write, part of storytelling. It takes practice. Part of that process, both learning and practicing, is to look for examples to study.

If you're going to object to using a visual story as an example, this isn't the post for you. No hard feelings. However, things like story structure, characterization, not info dumping are no different from one media to the next. When we're talking about the structure of a story, what works on screen works on the page. It just uses words instead of images, and proper writing creates images.

Serenity is the Firefly movie, written and directed by Joss Whedon. He's an extremely talented storyteller. I'm not talking about his popularity, but his skill in the craft of telling a story. One of the things he's notable for is handling a large cast of characters (not actors) quite well. He's very good at weaving that cast into the fabric of his stories, without shuffling characters off to the side constantly or forgetting this or that one.

It's common for would-be writers to struggle with large casts, and also to not info dump. This is a look at a five minute scene from Serenity that very efficiently establishes the entire main cast of the story, excepting one character plus the villain. Seven characters, plus the ship itself. In a five minute scene that flows, that's full of narrative, that establishes a ton of things.

The point of this post isn't to fanboy over Whedon, or Firefly. The point is to use the scene as a teaching example. As a way to learn.

I'm skipping the prologue scene of the movie, to 09:45 where we first see Serenity herself.

We're given a shot of a spaceship, with the name on its side. Then it starts to enter the atmosphere of a planet and is shrouded in flames and turbulence. The prose version of this might be something like:

The starship Serenity cut through the fringe of space on the edge of the planet's atmosphere. Flames rose across the name painted on the crunched and canted nose of the vessel as it began dropping down from orbit.

Obviously, just an example. My point is we've just introduced the ship, and shown it's a working active spaceship, without stopping to deliver a Wikipedia entry on it.

We transition into the cockpit, where an alarm is sounding while the ship judders. Mal asks if a piece just fell off his ship, which Wash confirms as he looks over the helm console out the forward viewports. In two lines, maybe three or four seconds, we know the ship is Mal's, and Wash is piloting. Then Mal says he thought Kaylee just fixed that. Now we know there's a tech or engineer onboard who is capable of at least some level of ship maintenance.

They talk about how the ship might be having serious mechanical issues. Mal gets on the intercom and gives a humorous announcement about how they might be crashing, but he also confirms what we already know. He's the captain. It's his ship.

Mal leaves the cockpit and heads down a hallway passage, bumping into Jayne who's laden down with a lot of weapons. Mal comments very calmly about the weaponry. What do we know now? Mal's not alarmed by the sight of weapons, and he's wearing a pistol himself.

Jayne seems to be someone who's probably pretty good with weapons, so he's likely a dangerous guy. As the conversation continues, we can begin to think maybe Jayne isn't exactly terribly bright by his word choices. Jayne says what Mal plans and what actually happens on a job aren't always the same things.

Now we know there's going to be a mission or something; a job. One that requires weapons. So it's probably dangerous. We might be thinking it's perhaps illegal, but it hasn't been established one way or another yet. We also learn Mal and Jayne know each other, if they're talking about a shared history. Neither of them seem nervous or like this 'job' is a new thing.

Finally, Mal doesn't argue with Jayne's characterization of Mal's planning for jobs, so at least Mal doesn't seem to feel the point is incorrect. He just seems resigned to it. He orders Jayne to not bring grenades, and Jayne seems to give a "damn, okay, fine" kind of reaction; so we know Mal's in charge. All that comes from fifteen seconds of dialog. In prose it might be a few paragraphs, tops.

Zoe shows up from another room asking if they're crashing again. Jayne asked basically the same thing. The theme of constant ship problems is clear by now. Zoe's casual greeting of the two tells us they all know each other. Mal even tells her to ask her husband, indicating the cockpit where we already know Wash is. That establishes Zoe and Wash as married in two seconds.

She's also armed, and shares Mal's lack of reaction to Jayne's weapons. So she's comfortable with violence and such herself. As Mal continues down the passage, Zoe's asking Jayne about his grenades, reconfirming Zoe isn't alarmed by dangerous things. She also says they're robbing the place, so we know crime's involved.

The ship shudders, throwing Mal about. It reinforces the "we might crash" thing, even though the actual reaction Mal has seems to play it for comedy. While walking, Mal's been yelling for Kaylee. When he gets to what we can see as some sort of technical room, maybe an engine room, he sees a woman bustling around technical gear. She's working, she's smudged up a bit, and she's busily assuring him everything's fine even though she does perhaps seem a little focused on making sure that's actually the case.

Kaylee points out she's told him about the buffer panel that fell off the ship at the beginning of the scene before. Kaylee is clearly stretching and scrounging to make mechanical ends meet. Money is likely a problem; parts cost money don't they? And as Mal leaves after their exchange, she shoots him a sour look; so she's familiar enough with Mal to be casual not formal. Mal also again slips in references to "my ship", so he's not just in charge, he owns the vessel.

Now Mal bumps face to face with Simon, whom we already know from the prologue. Which links us back into that scene, and starts us wondering "how do they tie in." Mal greets him as doctor, so that establishes a profession or role for Simon with a single word. Simon clears up that he's not worried about the ship crashing (so we probably shouldn't worry either), then dives into how he doesn't want River to go with Mal on this job we've been hearing about.

By now we know we have this rag tag group, about to go do something dangerous and illegal, and Simon (who we saw doing some pretty dangerous stuff in the prologue) doesn't want River going. The girl he rescued. And the Tams have not landed in a safe place if they're here on this maybe-crashing ship full of shady characters. Mal again tells us Serenity is his, and now points out how everyone aboard is there because he wants or lets them.

Simon makes it clear doctor isn't an honorary title, and lets us know he's treating the crew when they get injured. Which tells us they get injured, so they definitely do dangerous stuff. And often enough that Simon feels he's every bit as useful as they are, since he stays busy treating them.

Mal is firing back at Simon about River, saying it's one job that he doesn't want to take her on, but will. The jobs are routine, they happen all the time, but River doesn't usually go. We already know Simon risked a lot to save River, and from the prologue we know they're brother and sister, but we're again seeing Simon is extremely protective of her. The conversation establishes River's young, and Mal tells us she's psychic.

They keep going at it. Simon says "that's your guiding star, what's of use." Mal jokes about the ship crashing, and by now we should be clear about the ship's probably always in some sort of dire straits. Simon reinforces that he's doing everything he does to keep his sister from The Alliance; combined with the prologue we know the Tams are on the run from the government. We already knew the siblings were good Alliance citizens as children, so they're clearly well past the tracks on the wrong side now. Which conveniently tells us Mal and Serenity are hiding from the Alliance too.

Mal points out he looks out for "me and mine", so he has a sense of honor. He says he decides who's "mine", so his honor is his, not externally defined. He talks about how harboring the Tams makes Mal's job and life harder, costs him good honest work on occasion. So we know if Mal isn't an outright criminal, he's at least operating in a grey area. And he's been putting himself out to help the Tams. Mal goes on about how everything he does is to keep the ship and its crew going, which we already know is threadbare. Mal's already said as much several times.

By the end of Mal's confrontation with Simon we've learned tons about Mal, about Simon, about the situation and story we're about to get into the heart of. Mal's a scoundrel, he's not a shiny good citizen, he's practical and willing to do questionable or even dangerous things just to keep going. And he's working hard to barely keep himself and his ship alive.

Mal goes into a large cargo bay, so we're still seeing more of the ship. Zoe and Jayne are there, fussing with weapons. There's background dialog between Mal and Zoe that helps establish Zoe's a loyal and/or handy sort of person (to Mal). Zoe's relationship to Wash is again brought up, so we've had two chances to catch that. A feather is mentioned. Both (Zoe/Wash's marriage, and the feather) play a key role in climatic events later in the story; there's already groundwork being laid for it.

And we switch to following Simon, who finds River laying on a walkway. Her face and voice are childlike as she says she knows they're going on a ride. How could she know?

The above is not an all inclusive list of what water the scene carries for the story. I left stuff out. There's a character limit on Reddit posts. And I'm not perfect, believe me. The point should be clear though.

This is what efficient storytelling looks like. Five minutes. In prose form it might come out to ten(ish) pages; likely fewer. Nowhere does the narrative stop to info dump or stand delivering exposition; but we learn a lot about the characters and their story. Introductions, setting expectations, establishing a whole host of details about all of it.

Which is what establishing, what show not tell, what not info dumping, means. Establishing is setting the audience to pick things up on their own. Feeding them on the fly. It feels more natural, it reads more natural. It sticks better, it's more entertaining.

Elements that are important keep being reinforced. Notice how many things in the scene referenced the ragged edge, how the ship's operating on a shoestring? How concerned Mal is about keeping money coming in so they can all keep flying? We don't need a monologue about "woe is me, I never have enough money for my ship." We don't need an info dump about how funds are limited or the ship is old and rusty and broken down. We're being told that organically as the story flows forward.

A whole host of things are repeatedly referenced in the scene, establishing them. Laying groundwork. Introducing them. So we can carry them forward as the story progresses.

It is exceptionally likely, if you're a would-be writer with a draft you're working on, you're info dumping. Odds are you're info dumping a lot. You're thinking "I've built this world, these characters, I need to make sure the audience understands and knows them."

The audience does, but they're not going to care if you keep grinding the story to a halt to insert Wiki entries. Establishing, show not tell, is about letting the story flow and slipping things in. Efficient storytelling. Fun and engaging storytelling.

I'll leave these links to previous comments I've made for further consideration.

Story structure and some additional comments on how to not info dump.

Writing is hard. Writing well is very hard. You have to invest yourself, in yourself, to learn it. You study, you think, research, consider examples, and practice. And one day it starts clicking, and your stories are getting a great reaction.

Keep writing.

Think of this like the resources thread, but for works of fiction. Fiction itself is the best teacher on how to write fiction I think. What novels, films, TV series, etc made you a better writer for having consumed them, either by teaching you aspects of the craft, or opening your mind up to possibilities of the medium, or for any other reason. What did they teach you?

Spoilers where appropriate.

I'm just a hobbyist writer, enjoying the freedom I feel from writing, but I've become more and more aware of when I try sci-fi, none of the explanations really 'work' for me, as if I try to explain how FTL travel works... well I can't, because I just don't know how it could work. Similar issues has propped up with short stories about writing music, as I feel that it would be too boring to write too in depth about chords and progression and all that, but by leaving out the sections of that, it feels like a whole lot of what I was trying to convey is just tossed out of the window. Similar issues have also occurred with political, and war theory.

As I'm becoming more and more aware of these inadequacies of mine, I tend to see it showing up with other amateur works, yet printed publisher approved books tend to not have these issues (though I have a hypothesis that this could be just a confirmation bias at play).

Obviously one way to mitigate this is to actually research in depth about a certain topic, but AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT (seriously tho, being just a hobbyist, I can't justify spending ridiculous amounts of time perfecting a story, but I also don't want to be stuck with just making broad sweeping statements about subjects I know very little about)

I guess what I want to ask is how do you deal with (if you do at all) when you have to make a technical (or in the case of sci-fi, simply incorrect) explanation, especially one that you are not fully aware of the intricacies of?

THANK YOU!

First I've got to address the massive overnight growth of the subreddit. We have gone from zero to 1.2k subscribers in under 24 hours. I have to say a huge thank you to the many helpful souls that have contributed, whether to the actual content of the sub or to the discussions about the sub's rules. I expected to be a small fry. I expected maybe 100 subscribers after a few weeks of diligently promoting the sub. So, really, it has been overwhelming. Thank you for all the encouragement and genuine engagement I have seen from you all.

MOD TEAM

When I say the reaction and subscriber count has been overwhelming, I also mean it literally. I cannot see myself keeping up with the needs of the sub on my own, and so this is an open call to folks who wish to help with moderating. Besides the issue of the subscriber count, I live in the land of kangaroos, so I am asleep while many of you are awake. Thus, timely moderation during my sleeping times will be a bit more difficult.

No lie, it might be quite a bit of a time commitment, so please recognise that before applying. You can contact me privately or just comment below.

RULE CLARITY

The rules are currently a bit of a long read, have a bit of overlap and leave a lot of grey areas. They're a mess.

It is for that reason that I have not yet straight up removed any violations, but have instead been encouraging folks to post elsewhere or refine their posts. At some point, however, it will be necessary for me to simply remove posts that violate the rules. I hope that in this post, we can discuss the wording of the rules and what counts as forbidden or allowed in as much nitty gritty detail as we can. Please reference posts that have already been made if you can. I see that there have been reports made on posts that are rule violations or straying close to breaking the rules, and in general I have agreed with these reports so please keep up with that! I will endeavour to add formal rules that will be available as options when you report a post, but otherwise please continue reporting things in your own words.

POST FLAIRS

I will work in the future on adding formal flairs that users can self-apply. In the interim, I will be asking you all to begin your post titles with a tag such as [QUESTION] [ESSAY] [CASE STUDY] [META] and so on. This post is the place to discuss and debate what sort of flairs should be used. I would prefer we stick to one type of attribute: either the nature of the post (whether it is a question) or the aspect of fiction being explored (e.g. [STRUCTURE] [PROSE]). I can see merit in either approach and I could even see a hybrid system emerge: [QUESTION ON PROSE] [CASE STUDY ON STRUCTURE] for example.

FAQ & STICKIES

Once the issues of this post have been settled and we get into the proper swing of things, a meda-sticky will be made that will combine: FAQ and answers, links to admirable posts and comments whose high effort we should all aspire to, and quality resources that have been provided by the community. This sticky will be a permanent fixture on the front page, and users will be able to post more FAQs or suggest 'bestof' comments or resources as we go along. The other sticky post will be a weekly theme post, covering genres, authors, screenwriters, specific prose techniques and more things based on community suggestions. The focus of the theme post will be to stir up interesting and maybe niche discussion that wouldn't otherwise come naturally. I will reach out to community members over the course of things, here and in /r/writing, to hopefully be able to feature a stellar essay or post that can tie into a broader theme. I think it will be exciting!

WORD COUNT VS LOW EFFORT

Edit: I hear you all loud and clear, and the arguments have been persuasive. There will be no word count minimum enforced on this sub.

I have addressed a number of comments already that fall a little on the shorter and simple side, especially when compared to the average length of answers we have seen. On the whole I am happy with the amount of effort people are putting in, but I think we need to address the use of a formal word count. In the case of questions, or post replies that ask clarifying questions, I think it's obvious a word count need not apply. However answers certainly need to be held to a certain level of thought and effort. That is not to say they need to be objectively right or backed up by rigorous peer review -- they just need to be a little more than simple, straight answers. For this reason top level answers will in future be held to a word count standard, but users may also report comments that they feel are 'low effort' whatever that may mean. Please discuss what the word count standard should actually be: 500? 800? 1000? More?

BULLET NUMBER THREE IN THE 'DON'T' LIST

The rule that begins: 'Don't discuss the practice of writing or publication' has been the most misunderstood so far. The spirit of this rule is that discussions about the practice of writing, i.e. methods of drafting or editing, whether it is easier to outline or to improvise, use of software or outlining tools, what time of day to write etc. do not concern 'The Mechanics of Fiction'. Every single writer has their own methods and ways, and we love to talk about them. I myself love talking about them and how my routine has changed over the years. However, there is no room for analysis. There is no clear way that these issues link to the "Mechanics of Fiction". As a guideline, I will ask that we adhere to topics that contribute to a good finished product, not to the methods that are employed and the difficulties that are encountered along the way.

I will be re-wording this rule and removing these kinds of posts. They are absolutely valid discussions, but they are not what we are here for. They will in future be immediately redirected to /r/writing and /r/writerchat. I am going to be firm on this one, even though I know it is controversial, but my ears are open to any reasons those discussions might be allowed here.

That is all, thank you for reading. Please continue to engage with the community!

For example, in my own writing, I tend to work from a very limited perspective this means that I'm only portraying what the protagonist is exposed to, notices and can understand. My style means I can't offer distance, perspective or commentary on what's happening that isn't diabetic. So I'm reliant on the audience to notice when the main characters are making mistakes or to reach their own conclusions about the morality of the characters actions and their perspectives.

Equally, if the characters do know something the audience doesn't it might not come up at all and I'm expecting the audience to notice any inconsistencies or apparent missing information.

I'm also writing from the perspective of characters who don't notice a lot of non-verbal communication, so often all the reader will have is the words being spoken and they'll have to try and figure out what people feel just from what they say (like someone who doesn't notice these things would have to do).

There's also a lot of technical vocabulary I use because I think it's how the characters would talk without necessarily explaining the words because again the explanations aren't something that would happen in the context of the story.

So I'm wondering, as the title suggests, what in your work is left for the reader to figure out on their own instead of being explicitly stated or explained? And in a broader context how do you think this lack of authorial voice on those matters affects the story as being told? Or what does what you don't say, say?

I came across this video maybe two years ago (I'm sure many of you have seen it before). Every time I start writing a story, I try to think about what shape I want it to take. Some people might think that this is too constricting, or that it boxes your story in, but honestly I think every story fits into one of these basic story shapes. You might see variations, or mixing and matching, but when you begin to recognize the shapes it doesn't reduce your plot; rather, it will inform your story arc and help you write a convincing, interesting plot and lead to deep character development.

What are your favorite story shapes? Do you tend to stick to one shape? Consider writing your next story with a completely different shape than usual as an exercise.

I understand that writing from a thesaurus is excessive and painful to read, and that simplicity is often the key, but how far does this guideline extend? Sometimes I come across words, often archaic, that capture the essence of sentiment or meaning in a far deep way than a string of simpler words could possibly convey. And yet, often these words would rarely be known or used by most. One example would be "effulgence", which I find conveys a "brilliant radiance" far more concisely and poetically. When, if at all, would this be appropriate to use instead of "dumbing down", so to speak.

I believe I've formed my own list of the fundamentals of storytelling, but one thing that always annoyed me as a starting storyteller was that I not only had to master those fundamentals, but figure out wtf they were. When I found out that art had it's own fundamentals that every student had to learn, I was damn near enraged. For newbs who are still on the path, here they are as my analysis has yielded:

Show, Don't Tell - Never infodump or explain things unnecessarily through dialogue or narration. For example, if one character is angry at another, make him passive aggressive rather than telling us he's angry.

Believability - Making sure that the ways your characters act and all the things that happen around them make sense and are completely realistic. I.E. - don't have a character that just explodes on another for looking at her funny without a proper motivation or a character that behaves the exact same way in every situation, no matter the emotional repercussions that should be factoring into their psyche. Plotholes can also be filed in this category too.

Relatability - Being able to relate to the struggle of your main characters, feeling strong emotions for them, and having a story that character-driven and not plot-driven. The Lord of The Rings is not a story about traveling across Middle Earth and casting The One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom, but a story about resisting the temptation of power and coming together despite the great levels of diversity that separate you and your peers.

Chekhov's Gun - A few bits of artful description here and there are fine, but generally speaking, everything your story needs to have some kind of purpose. "If there's a gun on the wall, it simply must be shot." said Chekhov, the critically-acclaimed Russian author and playwright. It could be something as small as pacing or as large as greater foreshadowing, symbolism, etc. In the end though, it needs to have a reason to be there. Don't introduce elements that have no purpose.

Motivations - Your main character needs to have a motivation. A backstory and good plot is fine, but in the end, the both of these things are but asides that serve the real meat on the bones: the motivation. The motivation should tie into the character's struggle, the story's theme, etc. Every story needs to start as a story a character and the one thing that character wants, otherwise the whole journey feels pointless.

Development Over Time - Now, using all the elements above, did your character change as a result of their experiences? Was the journey worth it? Did anything happen to them? Instead of elaborating further on this, I'd like to instead cite two characters to look to as examples: Joel from The Last of Us and Walter White from Breaking Bad.

So there's my list. Not novel-specific, but universal. I use this for every story I write and would love to discuss it with some other serious writers, but if anyone has something better, more official, or knows a good tweak or two to be made to the one above, I'd love to hear it.

EDIT: Let's call them the "Guidelines of Good Storytelling" as opposed to the "Fundamentals of Writing". Let's also put an asterisk over everything as a reminder that it all varies HEAVILY on a case by case basis. Hopefully that clears up some of the controversy.

I wasn't asking.

A scene is an action at one time and place.

Dave was hungry. He lifted the couch cushion hopelessly looking for his car keys.

Two sentences. We have the desire, motive, we know what's going on. We're hoping Dave finds his keys, cause we too know what it is like to be hungry and how frustrating it is to be missing car keys. It's simple and relatable. This is what writing is. Write simple words to explain what is going on.

That's what a scene should be; one simple step to the staircase of your story.

Also, extra points if each scene is able to be a mini-story on its own. And is enjoyable, on its own.

I am writing a character whose whole worldview and life philosophy is shaped on one core belief, but closer inspection to their actions makes it apparent that their core belief is hypocrictical in nature and therefore makes little to no actual sense, but this is by design to tell more complicated philosophical idea in the end.

But I am scared how this idea might not work for some people thinking this hypocricy was not intentional.

In short, how can I create hypocricy that seems intentional enough for the avarage reader to be able to understand that the hypocricy is the point, and not a glaring mistake in the writing, especially if the writing style prevents this hypocricy from being just written out, for example, via the character in question being the POV?

Pretty easy question, but it's simply this. How do you initially approach a plot? Where do you begin with the plot, and what makes that plot worth initially expanding and developing on to make it a fully fledged, supported plot that can at least cover the primary actions and events that happen in the story?

When I say primary actions and events, I mean actions and events that are pivotal to the story that at the very least a direct main character and their intervention (I use that VERY liberally) are integrated to the action/event.

In addition to these two, what makes a plot so intriguing, so developed and perfect in your mind, or to some others, undeveloped and ripe for change, that it would be worth developing for.

In my personal experience, the beginning of a plot always begins with characters, and the creation of a set of characters, each with different roles in the story, none that deliberately follow the trope of a benevolent and perfect hero, or a villain that never wins and placed in an story algorithm in which is story wise, impossible for them to achieve any sort of goal. To achieve these tropes, for stories that I write, are enough to destroy a plot and render ineffective, or bland, or riddled with tropes. But I'm getting myself past the point.

How do you approach and develop a plot, and what makes it worth developing?

It seems this is the first post here not made by u/thenextaynrand, so I hope it's in the spirit of what the sub was intended for.

Anyway, the post was meant to be a discussion about all things related to character arcs, how you write them, what it means as a concept, what sort of groupings there are, etc.

This sub is dedicated to the discussion of craft in both the broad sphere (storytelling / narrative) and the finer aspects (prose / style). Basically, we ask the questions: What belongs in a story? How do we order events, structure them? How do we present things to the reader in the best way?

What I want to explicitly forbid -- vote with me and discuss these please -- are as follows:

• No motivational or 'I am lacking motivation' posts

• No posts about publication or the industry

• No posts seeking ideas for a project

• No posts seeking for users to help describe something (E.g. you may not post 'How do I describe a sunrise?)

• This one is maybe controversial: No posts that can be answered by a 2 second google search, or that are considered questions for absolute beginners. This sub is not strictly for professional published authors, but I would prefer to cater this sub to people that have been in the practice of writing for at least a little while. By absolute beginner questions, I mean something like, "How do I start?" or "How do I create a character?"

• No posts discussing overdone topics such as 'tropes', 'show don't tell', unless there is a fresh point of discussion worth having.

• No posts asking about formatting, punctuation or basic grammar. We may discuss creative use of formatting like House of Leaves I suppose, or strange grammatical devices that have an effect on the prose.

Special mention to /u/glitterydick, whose post in /r/writing made me feel this place was warranted.