For this post, I will talk about some of my ideas concerning good storywriting. While I may mention points which apply to all stories, I may also talk about things specific to speculative fiction, as that is my specialty. The point of good storywriting is to ensure that your audience can not only follow your story, but that it does not “jar them back into reality” by implausibility. The elements of a good story include well-thought characters who undergo development, a well-thought and detailed setting (not necessary if set in the real world), and a believable plot.
It can be very difficult to avoid breaking someone’s willing suspension of disbelief. In other words, throwing this particular audience member back into reality in the process of trying to figure out how what you’ve put in was done. For starters, make sure that your story is internally consistent (that is, it does not break any rules you have established in the setting or story), and that the audience expects that the situation is solvable with the information you’ve given so far. Nothing is worse to a critic than seeing Zeus appear out of nowhere in your grand space opera, with no indication he even existed in the setting, and rain thunderbolts at the enemy space fleet (an example of a deus ex machina). Additionally, if you’ve established that something is impossible, do not use it as the solution in the climax.
Note that it is possible for a problem to be partially or completely solved by a previously-unmentioned force, as long as the force in question is plausibly part of a bigger force, organisation or concept which was mentioned earlier. For example (SPOILERS), near the end of the first chapter of Innocence Seekers: Akari of the Light, Akari’s party was nearing defeat when flaming chains appeared out of nowhere and stopped the witch’s attack. The chains belonged to a character who was never previously mentioned, but is a member of the Zodiac Warriors, whose existence was established earlier (and is one of many organisations fighting the war), as well as being a penfriend of another character who appeared earlier (END SPOILERS).
Getting to the point of even needing an utterly unknown or out-of-context force to solve the problem the protagonist(s) is facing is in itself a sign of poor writing (it’s known as “writing oneself into a corner”). If it gets to the point where the audience, instead of thinking “how will the heroes get out of this pickle?”, now thinks “what’s the next thing the author will pull out of thin air to save the heroes?”, then you’ve got a far bigger problem. Sure, make your villain immensely powerful. But don’t make him/her effectively invincible, as you will have to think of something plausible (within the setting) to defeat the villain.
As a corrolary, do not have the heroes “take defeat from the jaws of victory” (i.e. have them be defeated in what would’ve been their finest hour). If the heroes are about to win, then make sure that they will win; do not just have the villain suddenly reveal that he/she cannot be defeated (or whatever).
If you’re writing a story which requires mathematics, make sure you can actually do the mathematics. Incorrect calculations can ruin the suspension of disbelief of a fair proportion of the audience (including myself). Sometimes it seems authors have taken Bachelor of Arts degrees because they failed mathematics. It is even more jarring in science fiction; a genre where one is expected to be scientifically literate (and mathematics is a prerequisite for many physical sciences).
Other things which I tend to find annoying (and may break my suspension of disbelief):
- A romantic subplot taking over the entire story arc. Sure, I don’t mind romance, but, for the sake of the other 90 per cent of the audience, please continue the main story.
- Plot twists for the sake of having plot twists. A well-written plot twist has a fair amount of foreshadowing, where things… don’t seem right in the lead-up to the actual twist. In this case, though, you’ve just pulled the twist out of thin air.
- Gratuitous use of sex scenes or fanservice. I usually want actual story progression, not huge breasts or people making love. If you have such things, justify it.
- Bumbling around for nine-tenths of the story, then having everything solved in the last tenth. This is a pacing issue, more than anything, but, unless you’re doing a TV show or movie, remember that you have a lot of time and resources in which you can solve everything naturally.
- If you have a girl who is capable as any man at fighting bad guys, do not demote her into a damsel in distress every chapter/episode. One way to get around this is to simply not take gender into account. Additionally, don’t just say that she’s able to fight, show her fighting bad guys.
- Plots driven by idiocy. The behaviour of your characters should be realistic; do not have them do blatantly stupid things just to get the plot moving in the direction you want (“Oh, I know it’s a trap, but I’ll just walk on it anyway…”).
- Favouring one particular non-protagonist character over all others, especially if he/she is hated by the audience. The importance of a character should only be related to their role in the story, not based on whether you or someone else likes the character or not.
- Overuse of synonyms for the verb “to say” as dialogue markers. I don’t care what your English teacher said, whenever I see ridiculous markers such as “ejaculated”, “murmured” and “demonstrated”, it ruins my enjoyment of your story. It’s fine to used “said”, and you can leave out dialogue markers altogether if one can figure out who’s speaking what.
- “Languages” which are actually ciphers, relexes or just English written in a fancy font. If you’re creating a language, either make it an actual language, with its own grammar, or just show gibberish.
One important aspect of storywriting is planning. A good plan ensures that you know what will come in later chapters, and incorporate things like foreshadowing and Chekhov’s guns into earlier chapters, as well as allowing you to even out plot holes as they come. While it is perfectly fine to just write whatever comes to mind (in fact, Japanese manga artists do just that, because of their tight schedules; see this for an example, or read the manga Comic Girls for some of the effects tight schedules can have on manga artists), you may end up creating too many plot threads, or leaving plot holes because you’ve forgotten about it. I won’t discuss planning in detail, but it should include at least a summary of the plot, the setting, the backstory, and bios for every major character.
In speculative fiction, one can make up their own setting. Typically, for fantasy, this is some standard medieval Europe-esque setting (or China, or Japan), while science fiction typically has a futuristic feel. Fantasy is less constrained than science fiction; in addition to worldbuilding, one only needs to establish how the supernatural phenomena (such as magic) and beings work. Magic could be formulaic, or it could be whimsical. Whatever you choose, make it consistent. Science fiction is more constrained; you have to think about the technology used in the setting. Will you go for a harder, more realistic setting, or break the laws of physics and go for a softer feel. Or you could combine the two genres (which is what I have done with Innocence Seekers).
For hard science fiction, you are considerably restrained in what you can do. The Earth has a year of around 365.242 days, and a day of around 86,400 seconds. It is highly implausible that another planet in our stellar neighbourhood has the exact same orbital and rotational parameters. At the same time, assume that Earth is the only non-terraformed planet suitable for human habitation. There is no faster-than-light in hard science fiction. Aliens, if they exist, are going to be unlike anything you’ve ever seen, and are highly unlikely to match humans technologically. Also, remember that planets have their own varied biospheres; there are no habitable single-biome planets. Stealth is largely impossible in space. Note that for softer science fiction, you can just spout out some technobabble to explain why, say, your drive is giving Einstein the middle finger.
One thing conspicuously absent in most science fiction is radiators on spaceships. Sure, some people say that they make the spaceships look ugly, but they’re necessary for a reason (even the Space Shuttle had radiators; they’re on the inner part of the cargo bay doors). Radiator-less spaceships are one bit of magic technology cannot duplicate; without them, your spaceships will overheat and roast your crew alive. In Innocence Seekers, radiators are found on spaceships, and also add a tactical element to space warfare (as if you shoot the radiators, the crew of your target spaceship will be forced into escape pods); it is only the fully magic-powered spaceships which don’t have radiators. In general, the absence of radiators doesn’t break my suspension of disbelief; however, it may break the suspension of disbelief for the proportion of the audience who has done some research into space travel.
One thing which annoys me is how space combat effectively occurs at very close range (the noise is another, but that’s a different story). I don’t expect ships parked hundreds of metres from each other firing broadsides of laser beams at each other (and doing so will break my suspension of disbelief). Lasers are effective down to the light second and even light minute range, and for nuclear weapons one needs to keep a distance. Only kinetic weapons benefit from being close to the target (i.e. reduced chance of missing).
That’s all I’ll say for now. I may continue this post at a later time.
P.S. Happy birthday to Kotori Minami of Love Live!.