![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
my story
I've been thinking about the story I wrote as part of NaNoWriMo.
My feelings have been swinging pretty wildly between "What a load of terrible crap I produced" and "it was really worth trying to get all those ideas out there."
Every time I think that my work sucked royally I am pushed to think about what constitutes a "good" story. It seems to differ for almost everybody, and even worse, (this is the weirdest bit) those who are most certain that they know what is a "good" story are often those worst placed to judge. As an example many books now recognised as great works of literature had incredible difficulty being seen as "good" in their day. A more recent example is the film Something About Mary, a brilliant story which all the critics and authorities on "good" film despised. It spent months pulling in big audiences at the cinemas, having a wider appeal than any film I've ever seen.
So what is a "good" story? Oddly, I don't think there is an answer to the question. I might as well ask "how long is a piece of string?"
Most people fall into the trap of judging story quality based on some standard rules. Unfortunately a truly good story often breaks the rules in order to to be good. Stories that follow the rules become predictable and clichéd. My story doesn't conform to the standard storytelling techniques. That was deliberate. The main characters aren't riddled with angst, tormented by some problem. I wanted to throw all that out the window. It was a risk. I ended up introducing some tiny bit of antagonism part way through the story to make for a more normal plot. I now wonder if that may have been a bit of a mistake. Perhaps I should have stuck to my guns. Of course the danger is that someone might quit the story early thinking it would be monotone happiness all the way through, but that is part of the risk of course.
I don't have any solution... just thinking out loud. Still re-editing it... in between doing all the other things I'm supposed to be doing.
One thing keeps coming to me over and over again. If Shakespeare tried to write his stories today he would likely starve. If you are honest with yourself and look at his stories you can see that even though they were brilliant in their day, today where every second TV show has more plot twists, Shakespeare's work looks clichéd and not up to the modern sophisticated audience. But then, as a friend of mine, Tracey Wood, said recently, "We can only hope to become future clichés."
(Incidentally, I'm not comparing myself with Shakespeare or the Farrelly brothers, just wondering about what the hell makes a good story.)
My feelings have been swinging pretty wildly between "What a load of terrible crap I produced" and "it was really worth trying to get all those ideas out there."
Every time I think that my work sucked royally I am pushed to think about what constitutes a "good" story. It seems to differ for almost everybody, and even worse, (this is the weirdest bit) those who are most certain that they know what is a "good" story are often those worst placed to judge. As an example many books now recognised as great works of literature had incredible difficulty being seen as "good" in their day. A more recent example is the film Something About Mary, a brilliant story which all the critics and authorities on "good" film despised. It spent months pulling in big audiences at the cinemas, having a wider appeal than any film I've ever seen.
So what is a "good" story? Oddly, I don't think there is an answer to the question. I might as well ask "how long is a piece of string?"
Most people fall into the trap of judging story quality based on some standard rules. Unfortunately a truly good story often breaks the rules in order to to be good. Stories that follow the rules become predictable and clichéd. My story doesn't conform to the standard storytelling techniques. That was deliberate. The main characters aren't riddled with angst, tormented by some problem. I wanted to throw all that out the window. It was a risk. I ended up introducing some tiny bit of antagonism part way through the story to make for a more normal plot. I now wonder if that may have been a bit of a mistake. Perhaps I should have stuck to my guns. Of course the danger is that someone might quit the story early thinking it would be monotone happiness all the way through, but that is part of the risk of course.
I don't have any solution... just thinking out loud. Still re-editing it... in between doing all the other things I'm supposed to be doing.
One thing keeps coming to me over and over again. If Shakespeare tried to write his stories today he would likely starve. If you are honest with yourself and look at his stories you can see that even though they were brilliant in their day, today where every second TV show has more plot twists, Shakespeare's work looks clichéd and not up to the modern sophisticated audience. But then, as a friend of mine, Tracey Wood, said recently, "We can only hope to become future clichés."
(Incidentally, I'm not comparing myself with Shakespeare or the Farrelly brothers, just wondering about what the hell makes a good story.)
no subject
What does make a good story? It's probably a combination of lots of things, characters we care about, an interesting setting and some kind of plot that makes us care to read on until the ending. I used to get all worried about cliches and thinking "it's not original"! Well, nothing is original and maybe that's all right. We have to be able to relate to things, and that's where the standard plotlines come from. But we need to be able to add our own twist to it, and you do that wonderfully.
This is getting to be one loooong comment, and I need to sleep. I'll think this over some more, because I think it's important and get back to you later.
Setsuna
no subject
Good point about making a good story through characters, setting, and a plot that carries us through. I'm currently revising my story working on characters and settings. I've been thinking about plot (as you can tell) but possibly need to think more on it.
no subject
As for angst and suffering in general, yeah I'm a fan of that too.
no subject
That's alright, I understood that's what you meant.
I've been extremely grateful for your feedback. I think there is a good chance I might not have finished without your help. I owe you big-time.
Ummm... by the way, have you been getting a chance to watch Veronica Mars on TV over there? And did you ever see a short-lived English TV series called Hex?
no subject
As a reader, I want alot of tension in a story. This is either of the angstie variety (but the angst had better keep moving or it's just a 200 page whine-fest) or of the action-packed/adrenalin kind. But then, I suppose I'm a cliche'd product of the times, eh? ;-) I love shakespeare, but for instance, I can't get into Pride and Prejudice, though I've tried many times. Or a number of the "classics." While I can appreciate the strength of the prose, the story just doesn't draw me in.
ah well.
Great tension...
Re: Great tension...
no subject
I've always been suspicious of that distinction ever since a brilliant musician friend of mine told me he wanted to create a best selling pop song. At the time I wondered why he would want to sell out like that. He said that writing something that catches the vast bulk of humanity is extremely difficult and in his opinion defined the highest art. A lot of the Classical music so beloved by conservatives today was pop music in its day. Handel was a pop musician. Liszt had screaming female fans who would faint at his concerts. Mozart was a pop musician. Shakespeare became famous by being a writer of popular plays.
I consume a lot of different kinds of story and I agree mostly with what you say, however I've read and watched a lot of tension-filled stories lately and was getting a bit tired of the drain they place upon me. I wondered if I could write a story that was largely tension-free. I may have failed, or it might not be possible, or it may simply require a better writer than me, I don't know. I'm still trying to work that out. :)
The problem of getting into the classics, yes. I can certainly relate to that. All stories have the problem of being born into a time which seals it off from people of other times. In order to read them we have to be able to read a different kind of prose and relate to pop references from their day. We'll all ultimately have that problem if we want to leave something behind.
I must try reading Pride and Prejudice one day.
Characterization
If you can get characterization down, you've won half the battle.
Re: Characterization
I'm trying to revise my story in a number of goes. The current revision tries to fix glaring faults with the story, such as continuity mistakes and clumsy language. I'm hoping then to do a number of revisions to work on the descriptions, the storyline and the characters. Maybe at the end I'll have something usable. :)
What makes a good story
Explosions and car chases.
And huge bazoombas.
My wife and younger son are in the TV room watching The Lion In Winter, and there hasn't been one single explosion or car chase, and I'd really rather not think about Katherine Hepburn's bazoombas, if it's all the same to you.
Perhaps I'm not quite getting this.
Re: What makes a good story
You nut Bob.
Been getting into the wine again huh?
Stop it you bad boy. That stuff is for medicinal purposes only.
(The wine, not the bazoombas -- the bazoombas are for any time at all.)
Re: What makes a good story
hehe
and, in a way, he is right. surprises, being startled, being forced to pay attention, these are some of the things that "make a good story" to me. whether it is the story line itself, or it is the narrative line of a character's existence, the surprises are what hook me more than anything else.
I love Le Carré. I get totally hooked into his minute examination of the characters and their habits of thought and action... and then something happens, something that makes me re-think who this person is or what this story is really about.
ramble, ramble...
jeffs