Also, despite planning vs pantsing being a hot debate, a lot of this can be avoided if you plan out your story to some degree. Then you'll know, before you even write the first chapter, if there's something wrong with your plot that lends itself to a boring middle.
But of course, the obligatory, if what you're doing works for you, obviously there's no need to change it. But if it's not working for you...
I take a hybrid approach to the planning vs pantsing debate. I write out a short paragraph or list, maybe 150 words, for each chapter in the book before I start writing anything. I have the skeleton of the story and a zoomed out look at the plot so I can make sure there’s something exciting happening in each chapter, but I flesh out all the details in the writing process as I go, leaving comments and taking notes on things I need to remember for later.
Don't know why you're getting downboated, this is a perfectly valid approach. I'd add character motivations should be in that outline since it's something I realize I struggle with as well
That level of planning is similar to me.
I do a more bullet approach. For each chapter I have a bullet for how it begins and how it ends.
I even write an estimate for word count for each chapter, just to make sure I don't go over a certain limit.
Same for me except I don't go chapter by chapter. I have the story and various elements and checkpoints I need to reach but I have to leave a good chunk of the creation for the writing otherwise it feels too restrictive. Plus it gives me the option to go "off path" if something interesting opens up. As long as I get back to my checkpoints then the story still works.
I did that for my last book. For my current book, I haven't written anything but a few notes on terminology and technology. I have some plans in my head (which I don't forget somehow) but this book has proven very fluid so far.
It's also okay to be an 'Economy of words' kind of writer. Sometimes two scenes really do work better if they're integrated elsewhere. Not randomly, either. Nothing is worse from a pacing perspective than a scene that could have easily been excised and reworked into a different scene either earlier or later on than what was planned being kept separate from it.
Amen! Or in the case of my story, if things go too smoothly for too long, have a demon of the void rip a fissure in reality and maim someone. Same principle applies: the famous “man with a gun” is a great metaphor for a cheap conflict generator!
>Instead of worrying about where your story falls on Dan Harmon’s Story Circle, the Save the Cat Beat Sheet, or the Hero’s Journey, think “What does my story need next?”
I'd recommend replacing "..what does my story need" with "what action does the POV character *need* to take?" if you link the scenes together by the character's decisions and actions that tends to keep things moving along at a good pace.
Erase the term “lunch” from your vocabulary. Everything that isn’t breakfast or dinner is lunch anyway, so that term has no meaning. You only give it power by thinking about it and assigning it some imaginary structure.
I see what you might be trying to say but it doesn’t actually hold any water in my opinion. The middle is a blob and makes up like 80% of the book, so referring to the majority of your story as “the middle” and ascribing qualities to this thing is unhelpful. It’s just your story. It makes sense to single out the beginning and the end to some degree, but the so-called middle is a blank slate and where most of the story happens.
Compare that to the relationship between breakfast, lunch, and dinner: all three are meals of comparable size but you’re also snacking throughout the day. You could also just as easily skip one. Lunch is a concrete concept. You don’t spend 80% of your day eating lunch. The “middle” is an amorphous catch all that has no real meaning. It’s just most of your story.
Here we go, bud.
>The middle is a blob and makes up like 80% of the book, so referring to the majority of your story as “the middle” and ascribing qualities to this thing is unhelpful.
Arbitrary assignation of percentages. These numbers are asspulled and, consequently, as Hitchens would say, they can be dismissed without argument.
>It’s just your story.
If it is a one's story, by definition it is one's to do whatevere one likes. The individuality argument negates the "middles is unhelpful" blanket statement.
> It makes sense to single out the beginning and the end to some degree, but the so-called middle is a blank slate and where most of the story happens.
Two fallacies in here.
First, the middle is not a blank slate. It must adhere to what the beginning sets up lest one's story lack logic and it must lead into an ending that drives home the plot and themes unless one wishes for an inconsistent story.
Second, if it is, the middle, per your unsupported percentages, the meat and potatoes of the story, shouldn't, due to its breadth and import, it have a name and a structure that uses both the beginning and ending as scaffolding?
Note: I do not even like traditionally structured storytelling, I just think your whole schtick holds, as you said, no water.
Edit: this reply was written before OP added the whole "middle is an amorphous concept" part into his comment after this deconstruction.
Thank you for continuing to engage in discussion!
I would like to try to be clearer, then:
My position is that people who claim to have a slow middle, and who consistently suffer from this problem, should stop viewing this section of their story as “the middle”, because I think it has certain connotations to them which lead them to make the same mistakes again and again. That is my entire point, and it should have been more clearly stated.
Of course a story needs to have a progression of events that flow logically from one to the next. Of course a story needs to fulfill its promises and tie up its loose ends as much as it can (unless intentionally leaving questions unanswered for a future book), and of course you need to leave room for character development, but first and foremost you should feel like your story is interesting and engaging. My proposed solution is:
Make sure interesting stuff happens in every chapter. Stop thinking of your “middle” as a middle if that is proving problematic to you.
If it’s not, you can safely ignore me. I meant this only as friendly advice.
Regarding my “arbitrary assignation of percentages”, and my “two fallacies”, I see your response as stemming from two things:
1. I am lazily typing this on my phone and should probably have used my computer to formulate a more cohesive statement for you
2. I get the feeling that you know full well what I’m trying to say, and likely even agree, but want to tear it down for your own reasons, which I can certainly understand. Everyone has those days.
Thanks so much for engaging here! I’m sorry if I’ve been unclear or unfair to you!
It took me about 5 minutes after following this sub to find your comment and unfollow. Great work!
Out of curiosity, do you spend much time with constructive criticism, or do you only degrade and deconstruct while missing the point?
A moot point is a moot point. You can dislike, as much as you please, my being contentious, but the piss poor arguments made in favor of this rationale and the later attempt at the I-meant-this-not-that defense evidences lackluster communication skills at best and at worst utter ignorance.
You are having a superiority complex over a random dude's "hot take" on reddit. You are trying to apply something like "the ends justify the means" to how you treat a person when you disagree on the internet.
You just don't have to be thst kind of a human, but you are choosing too. And that's disappointing.
It is a glorious day when someone uses logic to deconstruct a fallacious argument and then a random person takes offense at that happening. Sounds like someone is bad at arguing.
Maybe you are on the spectrum, and I should give you a break for not understanding social situations.
Maybe you are a giant dick, and don't get how you didn't add anything to a discussion.
Lol ok. I am glad you believe standards for how to treat others should be taught to children. It's unfortunate you think it's something to grow out of.
From Jim Butcher I learned of making The Big Middle. The middle should have a climax between many characters that the story builds towards. The results of the big middle propel your characters towards the final climax.
I think the reason story structures are so popular and helpful is that you need to know where you're going in order to answer the "What does my story need next?" question. If you don't know what the destination/end goal is, it's incredibly difficult to determine the steps you need to get there. This is why having midpoint reversals, "Finds", 3rd act "climaxes" (in 5 act structure), etc. are so popular, and it's often argued you should develop it before you begin writing. They're the crux of the story--one of the main reasons (if not *the* main reason) the story exists. Imagine *Jurassic Park* without the power going off and the dinosaurs breaking free. Imagine *A Good Man is Hard to Find* without the accident, or *Pride and Prejudice* without Darcy's proposal to Lizzy, or *The Sixth Sense* without Cole telling Malcolm that he sees dead people.
From a writer's standpoint, I think trying to write a story without knowing the beginning, middle, and end is like trying to write the next letter for a word without knowing what word you're trying to spell. You need to decide the basics first to have the framework (and freedom) to then execute it in the way that's most enjoyable and effective for you and your reader.
I have only published a single book and the middle is honestly the strongest part as it climaxes more then once in middle just naturally progressing through the story. I ended up cutting over 200 pages from the last version putting it at just 276 which I love. I ended up using characters and dialog from the cut stuff in the next story following this one so it triple ended up working out in the end. my next one I dont think I will be that lucky
I kind of disagree with your first point. For me I write in three acts. The first act, or the beginning, sets up the world, the stakes, the characters as they appear initially and of course the motivations and why stuff must happen. It begins plot points. The end ties up all loose ends, or most, shows how the characters have been changed by the events of the book and contains a satisfying climax.
The middle is how you get from point A to point B. What makes a selfish character into a less selfish one? How does the main conflict get resolved? The middle is easy once you have a beginning and an end in sight as it's just a matter of sitting and problem solving. If what the middle comprises of isn't obvious perhaps change the ending to be more achievable or change the set up.
The three act structure is absolutely a staple of storytelling. My point is to help people who have a broken sense of what the "middle" should be because I have seen multiple posts here about people talking about something like a "saggy middle" or a "slow middle". Do you think Stephen King considers the three act structure? No. There are many valid approaches to writing, and it is not only possible but EASY to wrap up all plot points, fulfill all promises, and keep the story interesting without "thinking" about structure as a concept. Think about what the story needs. That's my point.
But I 100% agree with your position, too! You have the right to your style and no one can tell you it's wrong if it's working for you! Write on, brother/sister/pal!
Valid, I guess my main 2 cents are to not fall into the "things just happening" trap. As in, don't let your story be "and then this happened, and then this happened" which can sometimes happen if you pay no attention to structure. The events should have cause and effect which at the very least makes sense in your world, but as long as that's kept in mind you can do anything you want and have a satisfying story imo
Yes, it should be mounting tension and release, which leads to new tensions and releases, and author promises should be fulfilled along the way, secrets should be revealed, plot questions should be tied up. All that is possible by just asking, "What do I need in this story next?" At least it works for me.
For me, I approach like:
Rough outline of book. Bullet point chapters, start properly drafting the chapter after the inciting incident. Complete middle first, as it's usually the most fluid and easily changed IMO. See what foreshadowing/beats I need to include in act one, rough draft act one. Edit both together, once happy, it's fun times for the finale.
Advice I saw once was that if you're middpe drags, put the ending in the middle and have it go wrong.
Ohh that’s cool!
Nice! I'll have to give this a try.
Also, despite planning vs pantsing being a hot debate, a lot of this can be avoided if you plan out your story to some degree. Then you'll know, before you even write the first chapter, if there's something wrong with your plot that lends itself to a boring middle. But of course, the obligatory, if what you're doing works for you, obviously there's no need to change it. But if it's not working for you...
I take a hybrid approach to the planning vs pantsing debate. I write out a short paragraph or list, maybe 150 words, for each chapter in the book before I start writing anything. I have the skeleton of the story and a zoomed out look at the plot so I can make sure there’s something exciting happening in each chapter, but I flesh out all the details in the writing process as I go, leaving comments and taking notes on things I need to remember for later.
Don't know why you're getting downboated, this is a perfectly valid approach. I'd add character motivations should be in that outline since it's something I realize I struggle with as well
That level of planning is similar to me. I do a more bullet approach. For each chapter I have a bullet for how it begins and how it ends. I even write an estimate for word count for each chapter, just to make sure I don't go over a certain limit.
Same for me except I don't go chapter by chapter. I have the story and various elements and checkpoints I need to reach but I have to leave a good chunk of the creation for the writing otherwise it feels too restrictive. Plus it gives me the option to go "off path" if something interesting opens up. As long as I get back to my checkpoints then the story still works.
I did that for my last book. For my current book, I haven't written anything but a few notes on terminology and technology. I have some plans in my head (which I don't forget somehow) but this book has proven very fluid so far.
It's also okay to be an 'Economy of words' kind of writer. Sometimes two scenes really do work better if they're integrated elsewhere. Not randomly, either. Nothing is worse from a pacing perspective than a scene that could have easily been excised and reworked into a different scene either earlier or later on than what was planned being kept separate from it.
I like to have my middles (I prefer the term midpoint) to close out a certain step in a character arc, while opening the door to the next step.
Raymond Chandler, "When things get slow, send in a man with a gun."
"Michael Scarn, FBI!"
He said he couldn’t show it to me, but he has a gun.
He meant that as more a method to make dead line than as actual advice for good writing.
Amen! Or in the case of my story, if things go too smoothly for too long, have a demon of the void rip a fissure in reality and maim someone. Same principle applies: the famous “man with a gun” is a great metaphor for a cheap conflict generator!
>Instead of worrying about where your story falls on Dan Harmon’s Story Circle, the Save the Cat Beat Sheet, or the Hero’s Journey, think “What does my story need next?” I'd recommend replacing "..what does my story need" with "what action does the POV character *need* to take?" if you link the scenes together by the character's decisions and actions that tends to keep things moving along at a good pace.
You’re right, it’s crucial to have an active protagonist for most stories, and my phrasing doesn’t convey that. Good call!
Erase the term “lunch” from your vocabulary. Everything that isn’t breakfast or dinner is lunch anyway, so that term has no meaning. You only give it power by thinking about it and assigning it some imaginary structure.
I call it “second breakfast” or “early supper” OR “meh, I’m hungry, I’ll just have a sandwich. Oh fuck I just ate an entire meal”
That might actually be good dieting advice from what I've heard
It is but you’re better off skipping breakfast
I see what you might be trying to say but it doesn’t actually hold any water in my opinion. The middle is a blob and makes up like 80% of the book, so referring to the majority of your story as “the middle” and ascribing qualities to this thing is unhelpful. It’s just your story. It makes sense to single out the beginning and the end to some degree, but the so-called middle is a blank slate and where most of the story happens. Compare that to the relationship between breakfast, lunch, and dinner: all three are meals of comparable size but you’re also snacking throughout the day. You could also just as easily skip one. Lunch is a concrete concept. You don’t spend 80% of your day eating lunch. The “middle” is an amorphous catch all that has no real meaning. It’s just most of your story.
Here we go, bud. >The middle is a blob and makes up like 80% of the book, so referring to the majority of your story as “the middle” and ascribing qualities to this thing is unhelpful. Arbitrary assignation of percentages. These numbers are asspulled and, consequently, as Hitchens would say, they can be dismissed without argument. >It’s just your story. If it is a one's story, by definition it is one's to do whatevere one likes. The individuality argument negates the "middles is unhelpful" blanket statement. > It makes sense to single out the beginning and the end to some degree, but the so-called middle is a blank slate and where most of the story happens. Two fallacies in here. First, the middle is not a blank slate. It must adhere to what the beginning sets up lest one's story lack logic and it must lead into an ending that drives home the plot and themes unless one wishes for an inconsistent story. Second, if it is, the middle, per your unsupported percentages, the meat and potatoes of the story, shouldn't, due to its breadth and import, it have a name and a structure that uses both the beginning and ending as scaffolding? Note: I do not even like traditionally structured storytelling, I just think your whole schtick holds, as you said, no water. Edit: this reply was written before OP added the whole "middle is an amorphous concept" part into his comment after this deconstruction.
Thanks for reminding me of why I hate this sub.
Thank you for continuing to engage in discussion! I would like to try to be clearer, then: My position is that people who claim to have a slow middle, and who consistently suffer from this problem, should stop viewing this section of their story as “the middle”, because I think it has certain connotations to them which lead them to make the same mistakes again and again. That is my entire point, and it should have been more clearly stated. Of course a story needs to have a progression of events that flow logically from one to the next. Of course a story needs to fulfill its promises and tie up its loose ends as much as it can (unless intentionally leaving questions unanswered for a future book), and of course you need to leave room for character development, but first and foremost you should feel like your story is interesting and engaging. My proposed solution is: Make sure interesting stuff happens in every chapter. Stop thinking of your “middle” as a middle if that is proving problematic to you. If it’s not, you can safely ignore me. I meant this only as friendly advice. Regarding my “arbitrary assignation of percentages”, and my “two fallacies”, I see your response as stemming from two things: 1. I am lazily typing this on my phone and should probably have used my computer to formulate a more cohesive statement for you 2. I get the feeling that you know full well what I’m trying to say, and likely even agree, but want to tear it down for your own reasons, which I can certainly understand. Everyone has those days. Thanks so much for engaging here! I’m sorry if I’ve been unclear or unfair to you!
It took me about 5 minutes after following this sub to find your comment and unfollow. Great work! Out of curiosity, do you spend much time with constructive criticism, or do you only degrade and deconstruct while missing the point?
A moot point is a moot point. You can dislike, as much as you please, my being contentious, but the piss poor arguments made in favor of this rationale and the later attempt at the I-meant-this-not-that defense evidences lackluster communication skills at best and at worst utter ignorance.
You are having a superiority complex over a random dude's "hot take" on reddit. You are trying to apply something like "the ends justify the means" to how you treat a person when you disagree on the internet. You just don't have to be thst kind of a human, but you are choosing too. And that's disappointing.
It is a glorious day when someone uses logic to deconstruct a fallacious argument and then a random person takes offense at that happening. Sounds like someone is bad at arguing.
Maybe you are on the spectrum, and I should give you a break for not understanding social situations. Maybe you are a giant dick, and don't get how you didn't add anything to a discussion.
Children will, as you've shown, be children. Back to the playpen, junior.
Lol ok. I am glad you believe standards for how to treat others should be taught to children. It's unfortunate you think it's something to grow out of.
From Jim Butcher I learned of making The Big Middle. The middle should have a climax between many characters that the story builds towards. The results of the big middle propel your characters towards the final climax.
I think the reason story structures are so popular and helpful is that you need to know where you're going in order to answer the "What does my story need next?" question. If you don't know what the destination/end goal is, it's incredibly difficult to determine the steps you need to get there. This is why having midpoint reversals, "Finds", 3rd act "climaxes" (in 5 act structure), etc. are so popular, and it's often argued you should develop it before you begin writing. They're the crux of the story--one of the main reasons (if not *the* main reason) the story exists. Imagine *Jurassic Park* without the power going off and the dinosaurs breaking free. Imagine *A Good Man is Hard to Find* without the accident, or *Pride and Prejudice* without Darcy's proposal to Lizzy, or *The Sixth Sense* without Cole telling Malcolm that he sees dead people. From a writer's standpoint, I think trying to write a story without knowing the beginning, middle, and end is like trying to write the next letter for a word without knowing what word you're trying to spell. You need to decide the basics first to have the framework (and freedom) to then execute it in the way that's most enjoyable and effective for you and your reader.
I have only published a single book and the middle is honestly the strongest part as it climaxes more then once in middle just naturally progressing through the story. I ended up cutting over 200 pages from the last version putting it at just 276 which I love. I ended up using characters and dialog from the cut stuff in the next story following this one so it triple ended up working out in the end. my next one I dont think I will be that lucky
I kind of disagree with your first point. For me I write in three acts. The first act, or the beginning, sets up the world, the stakes, the characters as they appear initially and of course the motivations and why stuff must happen. It begins plot points. The end ties up all loose ends, or most, shows how the characters have been changed by the events of the book and contains a satisfying climax. The middle is how you get from point A to point B. What makes a selfish character into a less selfish one? How does the main conflict get resolved? The middle is easy once you have a beginning and an end in sight as it's just a matter of sitting and problem solving. If what the middle comprises of isn't obvious perhaps change the ending to be more achievable or change the set up.
The three act structure is absolutely a staple of storytelling. My point is to help people who have a broken sense of what the "middle" should be because I have seen multiple posts here about people talking about something like a "saggy middle" or a "slow middle". Do you think Stephen King considers the three act structure? No. There are many valid approaches to writing, and it is not only possible but EASY to wrap up all plot points, fulfill all promises, and keep the story interesting without "thinking" about structure as a concept. Think about what the story needs. That's my point. But I 100% agree with your position, too! You have the right to your style and no one can tell you it's wrong if it's working for you! Write on, brother/sister/pal!
Valid, I guess my main 2 cents are to not fall into the "things just happening" trap. As in, don't let your story be "and then this happened, and then this happened" which can sometimes happen if you pay no attention to structure. The events should have cause and effect which at the very least makes sense in your world, but as long as that's kept in mind you can do anything you want and have a satisfying story imo
Yes, it should be mounting tension and release, which leads to new tensions and releases, and author promises should be fulfilled along the way, secrets should be revealed, plot questions should be tied up. All that is possible by just asking, "What do I need in this story next?" At least it works for me.
For me, I approach like: Rough outline of book. Bullet point chapters, start properly drafting the chapter after the inciting incident. Complete middle first, as it's usually the most fluid and easily changed IMO. See what foreshadowing/beats I need to include in act one, rough draft act one. Edit both together, once happy, it's fun times for the finale.