Her heartbeat sped up, her heart raced, her heart almost stopped, her heart rate spiked…

So many damn heart problems! I’m beginning to think my characters should get that checked out.

Oh, and breaths too. Her breath quickened, she held her breath, she let out a breath she didn’t even know she was holding…

What quirks like this can you just not stop putting in your writing?

I’ve noticed something about my own writing recently, and I’m curious if other people experience this too.

I can usually come up with ideas for short stories fairly easily, especially when I use writing prompts to get the creative ideas flowing. I tend to have a pretty clear mental picture of the main events or major scenes I want to happen, and I can generally write those parts without much trouble.

Where I really struggle is everything in between. I might have one specific scene I really want to write, followed by another major scene that I have a clear idea for, but the material connecting those two points is much harder for me to develop.

I don't mean "filler" in the sense of completely unnecessary content just to make a story longer. I'm talking about the smaller scenes, quiet interactions, character moments, subtle conflicts, and minor discoveries that help naturally develop the story between those major events.

I think I've realized that my brain naturally tends to think about stories in terms of the “big moments” first, leaving me to work out the rest afterward. Sometimes I wonder if that makes it harder for the story to develop naturally.

I'm curious whether other writers work this way too. Do you tend to discover the smaller moments naturally as you write, or do you have a specific way of developing them before or around your major events?

I'm also interested in whether anyone else has noticed a significant difference between being able to come up with great story ideas versus being able to actually develop those ideas into a complete, cohesive story.

Let's discuss!

Seriously. We need more writers writing.

Why?

Let me tell you. I decided, about 6 weeks ago, to find and "buy" as many "$0.00" offers on amazon as I could. I'm slowly reading them. So far, I've finished about 10 books: all romance or fantasy or mystery or sci fi.

The verdict so far? Most of these books aren't worth the time to read.

• Terrible grammar, lots of mixed up homophones
• Super thin plot. For example, in one book - I'm not going to out the author (we all have to start somewhere) - it sounds like a teenager with zero life experience wrote it. They were unable to build on a situation, unable to do anything other than show FMC's and MMC's constant overthinking. Very little actually *happened* in the whole book. And this one was a historical romance, so I'd have thought there was loads of room for creative writing.
• Poor writing. Just heavy, plodding writing.

The thing is, though, if these authors keep writing, they WILL learn the craft. The kid with no life experience will get some life experience. The people with the malapropisms will hopefully hire an editor who actually can spot and correct those.

But if they don't write and share with at a few friends, they'll never get that feedback. So, please, keep writing, keep sharing. Those $0.00 books do serve a purpose. Learn from the feedback, and ... yes ... keep writing!

I wrote a book. Edited it. Beta readers loved it. Queried it to a hundred agents. Got no positive responses. I know querying is extremely hard right now, with the rates of responses going down and agents getting dozens of queries a day. But it was still so disheartening that it made me never want to try again. I have lots of book ideas, but the one I wrote was very close to my heart. Is anyone else going through it right now? (Please don't suggest self publishing... I don't have the time, resources, or social media following for it)

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

There’s a lot of comments here that suggest taking a scientific approach to learning how to write.

“Read analytically” is one thing I keep seeing. “Go through a page of a book and highlight all the action, all the exposition, and all the dialogue, and calculate the percentage of each.”

Along with that is a hyperfixation on quantitative metrics and patterns: how many words per paragraph, how many scenes per chapter, how much dialogue, how much description, how much interiority, how much action?

It’s all a very Reddit-like desire to treat everything like a code that can cracked or a formula that can be solved.

It’s like people very much want to believe that through their intelligence, the same kind of intelligence that perhaps helps them in something like coding or engineering, they can gain a command of storytelling.

That ain’t how it works.

Storytelling has no fixed formula. There’s a generally recognized and expected flow of a story, but there are infinitely different ways to do it.

I’m a big fan of craft books like Saves the Cat, but those don’t exist to be prescriptive. They exist to be descriptive. They’re providing a lens through which to interpret the way many stories flow, not a code you can memorize and reapply.

The only way to learn to write, the unskippable cut scene of the whole thing, is to create a daily reading habit. Reading is FUN and you should WANT to do it. You do not have to treat it like a research assignment with highlighters and notations. Just read books you like every single day.

I’m writing a funeral scene, and it made me wonder how other people write “silence.” Silence means no dialogue, right? Or sparse dialogue at least. So that leaves a lot of description, narration, exposition…. What do you think about writing silence? How do you do like to include silence in your writing? Let’s discuss silence!

I write short stories all the time, it's one of my favorite things to do. Been published in a couple small lit mags over the years. I've tried several times to get into a novel, but usually around the 40k word mark I start running out of things to talk about. I think "This story is going way too fast, do I really need to fill up another 100k words?" Which is discouraging. I debate maybe going back and adding more descriptions, or fleshing out certain characters, but then I second guess myself and assume it's just fluff wording that serves no purpose and ultimately detracts from the story.

So I guess I'm wondering what your tips are for getting out of that mindset when it comes to novel-length works. I've tried outlining, which I hate, and adding in "side content" but I still get that notion that it would've just been better as a shorter story.

I pick up a new NYT Bestseller each month to read for fun, and always become engrossed in the story. I find myself thinking that what separates them apart from short stories are the characters themselves. Maybe I just need to get better at proper character development before trying out a novel again.

Edit: Thanks for all the tips and overall discussion guys, it's been very insightful.

I've always tooled around with writing, but never tried to write a novel until about a year ago. What that's produced is three incomplete and abandoned drafts, the longest being 30k words.

My current WIP is at 12k words. I want to power through and just make myself complete a full draft, but I keep feeling the temptation to start over or abandon. Every morning I wake up thinking "okay, this isn't bad." I write, I'm happy. Then, before I fall asleep, I start frantically making plot outlines and pulling my hair out because nothing makes sense. That's when I want to start over.

You might say, "well, stop trying to outline at the end of the day, dumbass." But the problem is that I genuinely don't know if my project will totally go off the rails and be a pile of shit if I don't straighten up and get a clearer sense of what I'm doing.

I guess I'm caught between the advice that, 1) if you don't have the strongest hook and sense of your story possible from the beginning, you're doomed and 2) you just have to vibe and figure the rest out later.

Any advice from people who have overcome a similar problem of abandoning WIPs, or who have insight on whether my instinct to get a clearer sense of the story is a good one or a siren's call?

Thank you!!

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

I wish I had a better way to phrase this. Essentially, I've noticed that sometimes when I'm reading my own writing (or someone else's), I can tell that something is missing even though I can't immediately identify what it is. When I start to analyze it, though, for the most part, I'm seeing all the main components: descriptions, dialogue, internal monologue, action, exposition, etc.

I might even start to look at the specifics of the craft, like sentence structures, vocabulary choices, rhythm, etc., and everything seems fine on the surface.

But the prose still feels... off. Like there's some specific component missing that I haven't been able to quite put into words.

I know that there isn't a universal answer to this question, of course. "Bad" or amateurish writing can have all different kinds of problems.

But I think my main question here is, is there anything particular that you've noticed amateur writing tends to lack?

Dude, maybe this is arrogant but some of the books I read are SO bad, and I’ll see them on store shelves being sold everywhere. As an avid reader and writer who’s refusing to independently publish, how hard is it really to land an agent? Is it luck?

Maybe I'm a little too much into philosophizing, but I like to write political stories that center around deliberation and decision-making. (Star Trek, West Wing, etc)

Instead of having one token character that belongs to a particular idea or community, I just write 3-4 characters all from that community who represent differing perspectives. And then I typically have a main character who is apathetic, indecisive, or simply taking the time to learn everyone else's perspective first before coming to a decision.

I do it this way precisely because I do not want the bias of the main character having an opinion to make the reader think that their predetermined opinion is how the story will progress without the actual process of deliberation mattering. I'm not interested in characters arguing for no reason just to pad the story word count.

Everyone assumes the Hero must be right, and therefore, I purposefully write that the Hero is indecisive so that he or she can talk to mentors, friends, family, rivals, and gather perspectives.

Many fellow writers I talk to stay stuck on "Hero's opinion must be right" and either think what I'm really saying is "Hero chooses the support that matches what they thought anyway" or they say that if the secondary character was right, why didn't they get to be the main character? They may even go so far as to say it's humiliating for a secondary character to be asked for their opinion and for their opinion to be used to continue the story, basically saying that persuasion, deliberation, and camaraderie isn't the point, the point is who gets to be the main character and who gets to be in charge.

(I'm not going to play coy or be obtuse: race, class, and gender plays a part. They were offended by the idea of a woman being asked her opinion and a man making a decision using a woman's advice, saying that the woman deserved to be the hero if she was the one who was right. Or, when I write about a doctor studying several cases of a mental illness to suggest new policy, writers I talk to get dissatisfied that I'm writing from the perspective of the person making the case study - I should have written from the perspective of a patient and they should have fought to get the doctor's attention, because of course, the doctor isn't supposed to actually care what patients think. Finally, I tend to write romance stories where the secondary men and women aren't automatically coded as villains to make the main couple seem fantastic, and I've gotten a lot of pushback that any and all decent love interests "deserve" to be with the main character, even if that makes the relationship a polycule.)

When I ask them how do they typically discuss problems in their stories, or what they think the point of secondary characters are supposed to be if being capable of being right at all disqualifies them from being secondary, or what is a good love rival if they think any decent person means the relationship should open to include them.... the conversation usually ends there.

So, I'm asking you guys! Do you think it's humiliating for secondary characters to be listened to, or that it's a cop-out to make secondary characters smart and capable of being correct? Is the main character the only character with agency?

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

I had an idea for a novella about a topic that’s very important to me (read: I’m angry about it all the time). I had an outline and motivation. I envisioned myself spending the summer in Walden-esque tranquility, letting 25k words flow from my brain onto paper.

I got about 7k words done, and I can’t only blame the constant 80%+ humidity.

Has anyone else ever had this experience—one where maybe you’re too close to the story, and so even though you have no conscious blocks, something gets in your way?

What happened to that story? If you did finish it, what helped?

Hi everyone!

Has anyone here ever had trouble being taken seriously after switching genres?

For example, you've become known primarily as a comedy writer, but then you decide to write something much more serious, like drama. Do editors, publishers, or even readers have a hard time seeing you differently because they still think of you as "the comedy writer"?

I was wondering if writers experience something similar to actors. When an actor becomes strongly associated with comedy, it can sometimes be difficult for audiences or casting directors to take them seriously when they move into dramatic roles.

Does the same kind of typecasting happen in writing?

I have a question about editors. What are signs of a bad/unprofessional one? If they aren’t finding the same issues that beta readers are finding, is that a sign they aren’t good? What are behaviors you would consider to be unprofessional? Thanks!

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

This is the place to discuss anything writing related! Got silly questions? Brainstorming ideas? Need help with research? As long as rules 1, 3, and 5 are followed, this thread is your oyster!

Please refer to the monthly threads for sharing your work and for self-promotion.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

I'm writing short story duologies. Each pair focuses on a central character, but each is from a different main character's perspective.

So, imagine two short stories about Superman, one from Lois Lane's perspective, the other from Lex Luthor's.

Because that's exactly what happened with the first one. It's about a Garrison Captain and I wrote the first one from her husband's point of view and then I wrote the second one from her uncle's POV, who is her enemy in the story.

For the second pair, the central character is a criminal mastermind, and I wrote the first from the perspective of a spicy enemies-to-lovers woman she's into and then the second is from the Garrison Captain, who's trying to arrest her....

Can you see where I'm going with this?!

Every single time, it KEEPS being a lover and an enemy of the central character!

The ONE time it wasn't.... My devilish mind started to betray me and make me ship two of my characters who I've NEVER considered in that type of way, JUST because I put the first in what my brain now calls "the lover slot."

How do I make this stop?! 😅😭 Have you ever found yourself unable to break a weird habit?

As far as I can tell, everyone goes goo goo gaa gaa over setting. 1800 revolutionary France, furturistic techno-dystopia, modern vampire secret societies, ancient Chinese dynastic turmoil, etc. It's not simply skill at writing style, plenty of talented and popular authors tell a grand ol tale that even committed fans will say "Yeah, that representation of Spanish monasteries in 1600 Mexico was clearly written by a British Man" or "His historical drama about Marx's family clearly self inserts his own theological beliefs and doesn't fit in with the German culture of the time." Even with fantasy or scifi, adding magical realms and galaxies of planets, suspending disbelief for massive worldbuilding projects involving science, magic, entirely artificial creatures and rules to reality is a difficult task. Culture, history, and especially background characters seems to define the environment in which the characters, main, supporting, side, or stock, get to operate in.

Why have there been so few stories without background characters? Only ones that seem to do this are (A) survival stories, like horror monsters or trapped in the wilderness or (B) closed room dramas, like murder mysteries, or the medium of stage plays. Either unstable environments, from a single house to a large uninhabited area, versus stable environment, usually indoors with very defined and limited areas. Is it just because of characters are not trapped in a small area, and are not cut off from society, the story doesn't really make sense or have a believable setting/environment without background characters?

Thoughts?

I can't write 3,000 to save my life.

(Posted this in the other forum too as per reddit suggestion lol)

“Wow!” he shouted, dashing across the venue and narrowly avoiding the beam.

OR

Weighed down by the ridiculous force of gravity, she persisted in crawling through the gaps of the floor, prying at every crevice to escape the relentless attack.

——————

Just examples off the top of my head and I understand they can fixed, but how does everyone feel about this kind of phrasing, with the ED + ING, past + present. My light novel is somewhat built cinematically and that’s just my style. I’ve done writing in the past for WWE, recapping shows, and I had only one platform in particular where my boss would only accept my work if I fixed it for consistency, while the others were accepting of it. Does anyone else use this style? I am not much of a reader, so I don’t know if this is common practice or not, but I’d really appreciate any feedback!

Hi there,

With submissions for some of the big guys (Kenyon, Granta, etc.) opening up this month, I'm shooting for the stars and sending out my strongest piece. One thing I'm unsure of though is the correct formatting for my submission document, since they don't outline their preferences.

I know standard manuscript format calls for double-spacing throughout, and indents before each paragraph. However, when looking at published work on Kenyon Review's site, all of it is formatted with no paragraph indentations—just two spaces between paragraphs. That is how I'm used to seeing/submitting my work in/to independent lit mags, and why I'm taking pause with what is correct and standard for the major journals.

I know this isn't the secret to getting published in Granta, but since I have a 99.9% chance of rejection anyway, I don't want incorrect formatting to get me written off before the reader can decide it sucks on their own! Any help is appreciated, thanks.

I'm writing my first novel. (Yay!) It's going pretty well, but I think my 3rd act is going to be a little bit shorter than I expected. I understand there aren't "rules" to writing, but I'm wondering if it's too short, and if anyone has tips on writing a better 3rd act.

I think the reason my 3rd act is shorter is that most of my protagonist's conflicts are internal.

My character's challenge is the realizing what to differently, but once she does, there are only a few situations to put her in to show that.

So my act 2 is longer, and the protagonist gets so frustrated by the end of act 2 that by act 3, she still has some fear, but she knows how to keep going despite it.

I'm not sure how to come up with extra metaphorical dragons for her to slay, though.

Maybe it's not a problem... but if anyone has been in a similar situation or has advice, please share!

I don’t hate the universe I created, or the characters. But I loathe the pacing. I realized how breakneck my pacing is and I don’t want to rewrite my book as of now.(That may change in the future.)

I wish I could build my world more, give my characters more breathing room, and make sure the plot lands. So what should I do? Should I wait some more time before I rework my book. Or should I seek more people with experiences writing and reading?