ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
EDIT: If you like this journal entry, check out The Sarcastic Guide to Writing ebook www.amazon.com/The-Sarcastic-G… for exclusive content on world-building, character, and dialogue!
1. Conflict is when one or more opposing forces meet. In a lot of self-insert fics and Mary Sues, I often see a lot of scenes where the character is loved and accepted and lauded. The writer laments their lack of said lauding in reality, while the readers froth at the mouth. We want conflict! Conflict, dammit! If you have three scenes that consist of the character getting an A, hanging out with his friends, and arguing with his parents, I can guarantee you that the scene we'll be most interested in is the scene with the argument. Conflict is pretty simple. Fat man wants sandwich. Fat man can't stand up to get sandwich. Conflict. (Actually, that's conflict on several levels; the physical: gravity and his own lack of strength are pulling him down, and the moral: should someone so fat put more unhealthiness into his body, or switch to a piece of fruit?) Good conflict forces characters to make a change, and their actions should then reflect that change. This is what makes conflict satisfying; you can have all the explosions and cool fight scenes you want, but if it doesn't change your character it's not all that great. I can admit that plenty of action movies and adventure novels get by with a lack of change, but that's because they're plot-driven, not character driven. Indiana Jones doesn't change and doesn't need to. Conflict is the fire that forges your character, that turns him from the weak, meek nerd to the strong, assertive hero.
2. Tension evolves into conflict. A lot of writers strive for "tension on every page" because it'll keep those pages turning. Tension is collectively made up of all the small things that happen to your character, the things that push him to breaking point before the real conflict shows up. For example, if you have a vegetarian stranded out in the middle of nowhere, tension would be watching him slowly begin to starve. Conflict happens when a wounded bunny rabbit hops into his path. During the tension phase, you have to establish the character's values, your first set of forces, and see them dinged, poked, and tested. Then when conflict happens, you can pit those values against the opposing forces (the more diametrically opposed, the better.) Too many writers forget to evolve the tension, though. It just goes on and on and on and then fizzles out. None of our questions are answered, and odds are we didn't see the point of it all in the first place. Some books build to a climax, other books do a "clench and release", where the tension builds to conflict and relaxes again, only to start building more tension to an even bigger conflict. To me, there's no such thing as too big a conflict. It can always get worse. Always. (See Rule #4.) True conflict explores what the character has left when they have nothing. That's the kind of story I want.
3. Conflict requires context. Remember when I said that a character's values have to be established? Way too many new writers don't do this. They thrust us to the scene with the wounded bunny rabbit without telling us that the guy is a starving vegetarian. And expect us to care. It seems in a lot of these cases the writer is more interested in describing the character or throwing massive lumps of exposition at us without telling us what the story hooks on. What the story is really about. We don't care if the guy has red hair or not. We might be mildly interested to see if that bunny is gonna die. But if the guy threatening the bunny is a vegetarian, it takes the story to a whole new level. Context after the fact is possible if you're doing a shocker opening, like a Mexican standoff, because such a setup lends itself to immediate tension. However, most writers will go back and explain, like "three days earlier", so that by the time the scene arrives again, it's a different one altogether. It's just that most new writers are like a person trying to tell a scary campfire story and failing miserably. "And then his dog walked up!" "... Okay." "Did I mention it was dead?" "No." Well, it was. And he loved it. A lot. And it's a ghost now." Writers who fail to establish the values of their characters miss the first part of the equation for conflict, because they haven't established a Force A for Force B to grind against.
4. If it can't get worse, you're not doing your job. I've often been accused of being "too mean" to my characters. I suppose so. But someone, somewhere told me that if your characters would be happy to meet you in real life, fully aware that you were responsible for their creation, you're probably penning a lousy story. (Mine would probably punch me in the face, so I must be doing something right.) It Got Worse should be one of your mantras. It Got WORSE is even better. Change is often only brought about because characters are driven to their breaking point and beyond. And, in truth, thinking of ways for It to Get Worse is good story material. Now, again, It Got Worse is based on character values. Let's say you have a guy trying to get to work. His car breaks down. He spills coffee on himself. He misses the bus. It starts to rain. His briefcase breaks open, and all his critically important papers are ruined. Now, if this guy is a Bhuddist monk, he might not even care if he gets fired. But if this guy is a half-crazed layabout frantically attempting to land a client so his wife won't leave him, that's entirely different. And again, all of the aforementioned would just be tension. Conflict would be seeing this guy's boss fire him and then say "By the way, I've been sleeping with your wife." And still, it could get worse. The guy could go to jail. Then be forced to take part in a jailbreak and be on the run. And so on. Reveals and reversals are great moments of conflict. They should make the reader say "Oh, crap. Sweet! What happens next?"
5. Weak conflict may as well be no conflict at all. I have to invoke Twilight for this one, since it's most offensive example I can come up with. Bella's choice to become a vampire is really no choice at all. A choice implies repercussions, consequences, sacrifice, perhaps heartbreak. Bella ends the series basically able to have her cake and eat it, too. She's immortal and able to have kids and not shunned by her family and blah, blah, blah. Meyer plays off the tension that sucky things might happen to Bella, but they don't. Ever. This robs the series of true, real conflict. Conversely, the beautiful Chronicles of Prydain and His Dark Materials are a billion times more resonant due to their endings involving true and painful sacrifice. We like to see characters come out okay (I know I do, holy crap, if I don't get a happy ending I tend to be pissed), but that's only after they've suffered terribly. For example, if Mufasa's death hadn't been for real in The Lion King, the movie would've been half as powerful as it was. If it was "Welcome back, Simba! I've been alive all this time, too!", it would have been a cop out despite the other dangers Simba faced (the stampede, fight with Scar, etc.) Real conflict changes the characters and makes them lose things. Their sense of security and self are usually the thing to go. Anything that lacks real, true, resonating conflict tends to be escapist literature. (Mary Sue Fanfiction and Twilight definitely fall into that group.) Some people like escapist literature, because it's just that: an escape from their crappy, humdrum lives into a world much kinder than the one they inhabit. The rest of us prefer stories that provide some advice on how to deal with crappy real life, to the point that maybe we can take a few cues on how to live our lives better, and find significance in the mundane.
1. Conflict is when one or more opposing forces meet. In a lot of self-insert fics and Mary Sues, I often see a lot of scenes where the character is loved and accepted and lauded. The writer laments their lack of said lauding in reality, while the readers froth at the mouth. We want conflict! Conflict, dammit! If you have three scenes that consist of the character getting an A, hanging out with his friends, and arguing with his parents, I can guarantee you that the scene we'll be most interested in is the scene with the argument. Conflict is pretty simple. Fat man wants sandwich. Fat man can't stand up to get sandwich. Conflict. (Actually, that's conflict on several levels; the physical: gravity and his own lack of strength are pulling him down, and the moral: should someone so fat put more unhealthiness into his body, or switch to a piece of fruit?) Good conflict forces characters to make a change, and their actions should then reflect that change. This is what makes conflict satisfying; you can have all the explosions and cool fight scenes you want, but if it doesn't change your character it's not all that great. I can admit that plenty of action movies and adventure novels get by with a lack of change, but that's because they're plot-driven, not character driven. Indiana Jones doesn't change and doesn't need to. Conflict is the fire that forges your character, that turns him from the weak, meek nerd to the strong, assertive hero.
2. Tension evolves into conflict. A lot of writers strive for "tension on every page" because it'll keep those pages turning. Tension is collectively made up of all the small things that happen to your character, the things that push him to breaking point before the real conflict shows up. For example, if you have a vegetarian stranded out in the middle of nowhere, tension would be watching him slowly begin to starve. Conflict happens when a wounded bunny rabbit hops into his path. During the tension phase, you have to establish the character's values, your first set of forces, and see them dinged, poked, and tested. Then when conflict happens, you can pit those values against the opposing forces (the more diametrically opposed, the better.) Too many writers forget to evolve the tension, though. It just goes on and on and on and then fizzles out. None of our questions are answered, and odds are we didn't see the point of it all in the first place. Some books build to a climax, other books do a "clench and release", where the tension builds to conflict and relaxes again, only to start building more tension to an even bigger conflict. To me, there's no such thing as too big a conflict. It can always get worse. Always. (See Rule #4.) True conflict explores what the character has left when they have nothing. That's the kind of story I want.
3. Conflict requires context. Remember when I said that a character's values have to be established? Way too many new writers don't do this. They thrust us to the scene with the wounded bunny rabbit without telling us that the guy is a starving vegetarian. And expect us to care. It seems in a lot of these cases the writer is more interested in describing the character or throwing massive lumps of exposition at us without telling us what the story hooks on. What the story is really about. We don't care if the guy has red hair or not. We might be mildly interested to see if that bunny is gonna die. But if the guy threatening the bunny is a vegetarian, it takes the story to a whole new level. Context after the fact is possible if you're doing a shocker opening, like a Mexican standoff, because such a setup lends itself to immediate tension. However, most writers will go back and explain, like "three days earlier", so that by the time the scene arrives again, it's a different one altogether. It's just that most new writers are like a person trying to tell a scary campfire story and failing miserably. "And then his dog walked up!" "... Okay." "Did I mention it was dead?" "No." Well, it was. And he loved it. A lot. And it's a ghost now." Writers who fail to establish the values of their characters miss the first part of the equation for conflict, because they haven't established a Force A for Force B to grind against.
4. If it can't get worse, you're not doing your job. I've often been accused of being "too mean" to my characters. I suppose so. But someone, somewhere told me that if your characters would be happy to meet you in real life, fully aware that you were responsible for their creation, you're probably penning a lousy story. (Mine would probably punch me in the face, so I must be doing something right.) It Got Worse should be one of your mantras. It Got WORSE is even better. Change is often only brought about because characters are driven to their breaking point and beyond. And, in truth, thinking of ways for It to Get Worse is good story material. Now, again, It Got Worse is based on character values. Let's say you have a guy trying to get to work. His car breaks down. He spills coffee on himself. He misses the bus. It starts to rain. His briefcase breaks open, and all his critically important papers are ruined. Now, if this guy is a Bhuddist monk, he might not even care if he gets fired. But if this guy is a half-crazed layabout frantically attempting to land a client so his wife won't leave him, that's entirely different. And again, all of the aforementioned would just be tension. Conflict would be seeing this guy's boss fire him and then say "By the way, I've been sleeping with your wife." And still, it could get worse. The guy could go to jail. Then be forced to take part in a jailbreak and be on the run. And so on. Reveals and reversals are great moments of conflict. They should make the reader say "Oh, crap. Sweet! What happens next?"
5. Weak conflict may as well be no conflict at all. I have to invoke Twilight for this one, since it's most offensive example I can come up with. Bella's choice to become a vampire is really no choice at all. A choice implies repercussions, consequences, sacrifice, perhaps heartbreak. Bella ends the series basically able to have her cake and eat it, too. She's immortal and able to have kids and not shunned by her family and blah, blah, blah. Meyer plays off the tension that sucky things might happen to Bella, but they don't. Ever. This robs the series of true, real conflict. Conversely, the beautiful Chronicles of Prydain and His Dark Materials are a billion times more resonant due to their endings involving true and painful sacrifice. We like to see characters come out okay (I know I do, holy crap, if I don't get a happy ending I tend to be pissed), but that's only after they've suffered terribly. For example, if Mufasa's death hadn't been for real in The Lion King, the movie would've been half as powerful as it was. If it was "Welcome back, Simba! I've been alive all this time, too!", it would have been a cop out despite the other dangers Simba faced (the stampede, fight with Scar, etc.) Real conflict changes the characters and makes them lose things. Their sense of security and self are usually the thing to go. Anything that lacks real, true, resonating conflict tends to be escapist literature. (Mary Sue Fanfiction and Twilight definitely fall into that group.) Some people like escapist literature, because it's just that: an escape from their crappy, humdrum lives into a world much kinder than the one they inhabit. The rest of us prefer stories that provide some advice on how to deal with crappy real life, to the point that maybe we can take a few cues on how to live our lives better, and find significance in the mundane.
Night Pride: How Fandoms Groom Artists for Abuse
Oh boy, was this an interesting little roller coaster. So strap in. I saw the teaser trailer for the fan created Night Pride a while back and I was annoyed. I happen to like My Pride, because for God's sake it's an original work in a sea of corporatism. That the people working on Night Pride disparaged and discussed doxxing the My Pride team is not in the least surprising to me; what else do fandoms do but train one to hate original works? If it's too original, it's not canon, after all. And if it's original work, it's copyright, and that's a dirty word in fanart. Don't say YOUR WORK is copyright, make sure you give credit to Disney! And just recently, the Night Pride got cancelled, and people are making videos about the fallout. Somehow, guys, SOMEHOW, a whole bunch of artists and writers, voice actors and musicians, got roped into doing free labor, without a contract, by someone who wasn't licensed by Disney to adhere to their (admittedly lacking) labor laws. Can you believe
What I Learned From Doing Mark of the Conifer
1. Everything you're afraid of is true. When I really sat down and decided I was going to try publishing, I had a panic attack. A legit, teeth chattering, sick-to-my-stomach panic attack that I had to do breathing exercises to get through. And a lot of cuddling my cat and writing in my journal about what I was so scared of for the next few days. I think the regular stuff was there: what if it doesn't work? What if I fail? What if nobody likes me? But the two biggest things I was afraid of were the work and succeeding. What the HELL was I going to do if I succeeded!?
Turns out absolutely everything I was scared of was right on the money. The a
The Problem of Fan Art: Part 2
"Everything is derivative!"
Some things are more derivative than others. That's what copyright is for.
"Who are YOU to say what is and isn't art?"
I'm a little miffed by this one, because it's like people shooting the messenger. I hate to rain on your parade, but there are legal definitions out there for art. And yes, those partially define art for me personally, but guess what? They also define art for you, too.
Now, I'm not saying the effervescence of humanity as put to canvas is legally defined. There is no way to quantify the blood, sweat, and tears put into a piece. (Which, if you are sweating and bleeding, why you'd want to do it fo
The Problem of Fan Art: Part One
I suppose I've been musing over this for a long time, and since I have released my first big piece of "real" work, I've found myself reading more about the phenomenon of "toxic fandoms."
That's not really what I'm going to talk about, though, even though I think it's a very obvious element to consider. It plays its part in the Problem of Fan Art.
And personal disclaimer: it's not like I've never done fanart myself. I obviously enjoy the aspect of fanart that is creative and expressive, and acts like the proper machine of artistic joie de vivre #notallfanart. But that allows me to move into my introduction: artists do great fanart; fanartist
Featured in Groups
© 2010 - 2024 Droemar
Comments30
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Wow. Another great journal on how to improve my writing. Thank you~