@@Superkid33 Sorry, exactly what potential do you think was built up and "lost" in Fin? From minute one he was a bumbling comedy relief character who does nothing of note in any of the three films, besides provide a convinient way for the other characters to slip into an enemy base. That in place of what should have been a traumatised former soldier that explored that nature and morality around stormtroopers...
@@chromicm6686 I’m taking about the beginning scene sequences in Force Awakens. They showed Finn questioning the Order wanting out. They could have developed that into so much more. Also they had him fear Kylo and he literally got stabbed in the shoulder by the lightsaber. They never interacted with each other ever again They could have developed the being a former trooper thing with that former trooper lady in Rise of Skywalker but nope, nothing was developed there either. Finn was such a waste potential along with the other aspects in the sequels
My biggest pet peeve is when a problem could easily solved with a simple conversation. "But wait! I can explain!" "No way! I'm blocking your number" Ugh
Usually they don't even try to explain but stand there mutely. It's nearly as galling as people falling from great heights and getting up as though they were made of steel.
Happens in real life too. I do not understand many social cues so there have been instances where relationship-destroying explosions have happened with me because I did not notice their hints and polite euphemisms. I prefer truths, however harsh and bitter, than lies, however sweet.
It is honestly so satisfying when one of these situations happens, you feel like you're about to suffer through a needless conflict, but it gets resolved immediately. Good example is in Trains Planes and Automobiles when they find out they'd been robbed.
The thing John Wick did great is having the very first scene where John Wick is beaten up while looking at a video of his Wife. It sets up the true genre. Then it goes into the wholesome part after that.
I'm not sure I completely agree with "embrace the genre" advice because you can have successful stories that switch genres. Like you said, the first example (wholesome romance becomes action thriller) could definitely work with the right execution. Some examples of successful movies that have extreme genre/tone shifts midway through are "Full Metal Jacket" or "Million Dollar Baby". I think the real issue is making storytelling promises early on that pay off in unexpected ways later on often feels unsatisfying, but it *can* work if you set up the change in tone in subtle ways. Like in "Full Metal Jacket", even though the first half is funny, there is the specter of going to war hanging over the first half, or in "Million Dollar Baby", you becoming invested in the relationship between Clint Eastwood's and Hilary Swank's characters is crucial to transitioning to the second half of the movie.
May I present to you PALM SPRINGS! It's a romcom model done --FINALLY-- in a new way. Watch it, you'll what I mean. You'll get the shock and awe... not to build it up too much.
* hero stepping over the bodies of hundreds of goons they killed to reach the main villain * "Killing anyone.... Ever... Is bad. I am better than you...." And then they spare them 🙄
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty Kinda got this feel from Deadpool 2. 'Never mind us mowing down all these bad guys, but "you" can't do that headmaster. Then the headmaster gets literally run over by the cab driver/contract killer wanna be.' To me it wound up being unintentional humor/irony.
Hah, this could also be called The Goku Complex. Also applies to any video game protagonist who becomes strictly anti-killing during the Final Boss Cutscene.
The most blatant example I can think of this is Advance Wars. I mean, yeah, the story is ridiculous through and through, but after the protagonists spend the entire game fighting a freaking WAR with tanks and bombers and shit, the defeated villain laughs maniacally, sets off a doom device and tells them the only way they can stop it... is by KILLING HIM. And they act like that's an actual obstacle! Are these people for fucking real?
Metal Gear Rising in a way inverts this, by making Raiden struggle with his thirst for blood throughout the whole game before finally accepting his nature. Yet at the end, he proves he's no different to the villain and in fact proves his thesis as a man who fought and killed to survive, who lives by his ow rules.
The villain has a lethal weapon but he decides to play around with the hero and give them a chance. Scott pointed this out to his father, Dr Evil, but the trope was too powerful.
I've seen this happen with heroes too. Instead of the villain gloating about their big evil plan, it's the hero gloating about how they figured out the villain's big evil plan. Then they do something really stupid, like walk right up to the villain as if they have to get within dagger range to use their gun, and the villain knocks it aside and gets the better of them in hand-to-hand combat.
This is why I love the climax of the movie "Watchmen" so much. In a story built entirely on deconstructing superhero/supervillain tropes, mocking this one is the perfect icing on the cake.
“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat. They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar. So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.” ― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
00:28 📚 Failing to prepare audiences for genre elements can lead to confusion and disengagement. Clearly establish the genres early in your story. 02:07 ⏩ Inconsistent pacing can be a major turn-off for audiences. Balance the pace, ensuring it picks up towards the end for a satisfying conclusion. 03:46 🔄 Avoid unnecessary recaps of events already witnessed. Summarize if needed, but don't overdo it with drawn-out conversations about prior events. 05:38 🥊 Audiences dislike scenarios where a character should harm someone but fails due to contrived reasons. Instead, find clever solutions for your hero to face challenges. 07:02 📖 Cliffhanger endings are fine, but ensure they comewith a resolution. Audiences deserve closure after investing in a story.
I've heard point 4 expressed as "you can use coincidence to get a character INTO trouble, but you should never use coincidence to get a character OUT of trouble"
Once in a story may be ok esp if the hero has not powered up yet, but having this done many times its annoying. I swear in the original dragonlance books the heroes get out of trouble by dumb luck continuously
To all authors and writers: make the things you want to make. Don't simply give up on an idea that you find intresting because "the audience might not like it".
That being said, it's a good idea to be aware of why some people don't like the things he's mentioned. It never hurts to address issues like these. It's often not what an author does but how he/she does it that annoys a reader. You want to mix genres? Figure out how to do it so the reader doesn't assume the wrong thing at the start.
I once heard very good writing advice that can be applied generally, beyond mere character writing, and it matched my own conclusions made earlier about how to avoid upsetting the audience: Create interesting characters, then expose them to various situations and *explore* how they deal with them. Don't force a predetermined idea. Love the character and let the character write the story.
I agree wholeheartedly. The word you're looking for is "contrived" and it will absolutely poison the storytelling when characters don't make organic decisions or things just kind of happen because they need to. The BS meter in your head flags red and it puts a bad taste in your mouth towards everything that's been established. This should've definitely been included in the video.
My first and best tip is to create and a character then create a world. Throw them in and write what you think they would do. E.g gravity falls was created with Stan, Bill and Ford (a story already in play) and created dipper and mabel. Continued it from there. I build characters with stories not stories with chatecters.
One of my pet peeves is when two characters become a couple just for plot reasons even though they have no chemistry. Especially when it develops through annoying cliches, like one of them accidentally falling on top of the other.
AAAAAAHHHHH! I hate thiiiiis! My former "favorite" book series keeps doing this- two of the mains fall in love, for NO REASON, and then the third main who's usually much more interesting is left behind as this "third wheel." Ugh. I thought it would get BETTER when they stopped making the leads siblings, but then they just made love triangles.
Reminds me of legend of korra, where korra and that other lady become a couple at the very end for literally no reason whatsoever, I can only think of one scene where they showed any chemistry at all
There’s a few I particularly dislike. One is when a character is clearly in the wrong, but the story makes them out to be in the right. Another is when a character is capable of clearing up a misunderstanding in a sentence or two, but waits until it’s too late in the moment.
@@vast634 in that scenario the villain views themselves as right but the story views them as wrong. They're talking about stories that have someone do something clearly screwed up but then act as if it isn't. An example I can think of from a show would be in Narcos after they show the DEA screwing up and killing a ton of civilians by being incompetent or outright committing other terrible actions but then has multiple preachy monologues narrated to you about how it's actually justified because the person they're hunting is worse
@@eeg-rh7jv The ends justifying the means only goes so far. When you're means are actively incompetent and create unnecessary suffering for no greater end than you're simply not doing a good deed.
@@plugshirt1762 Lemme explain something. Say your government need to ban some companies so they stop exploiting their resources, yes many people will be jobless but in the long term the future generations are gonna be grateful. As long as you don't do more damage than good it's a justified philosophy
I actually kind of liked the 'genre' switch in From Dusk Till Dawn where you think the story is about a robbery turned kidnapping and then everything turns batsh*t crazy. For me it was kind of a nice change of pace from all the other traditional narrative styles being told at the time, and I was really starting to get into Tarantino style subversion of expectations.
This is defiantly an example of the genre switch being done well. It can be, it just so rarely is, it's basically just worth telling people to completely avoid it sadly
Personally, I didn’t like it. It was literally a story about criminals robbing and sneaking across the border, with vampires being pulled out of their ass at the last second. I honestly even forgot that it was a vampire movie up until that point. Surprises can be good in movies, but imo, this switch up shat all over the plot.
That's what I first thought of, there is also the David Bowie movie _The Hunger_ which I saw in the theater when it came out -- I didn't know anything about he movie before watching it (other than David Bowie was in it) and was (very pleasantly) surprised when it was revealed part way through the movie that Bowie was a [spoiler alert]. I don't think I've seen that movie since it came out, I remember really enjoying it, now I'm going to see if I can find it to watch again.
yeah that was an excellent switch. it worked so well for me because i was told to watch it by a friend and i hadn't seen a trailer for it. I actually gasped when the switch occurred! LOL
One of my pet peeves is when the writer takes established badasses, often the main characters, and makes them look like chumps so they can establish how powerful a new character is. There are so many ways you can make it clear that a new character is powerful. You don't need to make the protagonist look like a wimp to do it!
1) No description of the important characters until later in the book when I find I've picturing them all wrong. 2) Problems that drag on despite being solvable if they could just have a 5 minute conversation (most guilty: tv shows and rom com movies). 3) Author assuming we'll like/root for the protagonist solely because they're the main character, no other reasons to care about them. 4) Normally smart characters making obviously bad decisions because it moves the plot forward. Thanks for continuing to make these videos! This is my favorite writing channel. One that could be interesting is efficient openings. I know you have some excellent videos on openings general, but I'd enjoy seeing clever examples of stories grounding the reader/viewer in their world and characters fast (I remember someone used Back to the Future as a good example).
Agreed on all 4 of your complaints. As for the Efficient Openings video, is there anything specific you'd like me to cover in that one? (Character introductions, worldbuilding, etc.?)
Yes, best list ever -- these are my pet hates too. I thoroughly enjoyed Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series, but oh boy was I *pissed* when I found out for the first time, nearly two-thirds of the way into the first book, that Kelsier was tall, lanky and BLOND, when for the entire time I'd been picturing him as... well, not gonna lie, a kind of buffed-up Sanderson self-insert (am I the only one who got that feeling about Kelsier? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not against authors doing that if it's still a great character, but I did feel that Kelsier was 'Ideal Brandon.' 😊)
I can’t remember more than 1 or 2, if any, movies that don’t have this fault: Have you ever noticed the overly mature lines assigned to children, even toddlers sometimes? This occurs in most movies I’ve ever seen where kids have lines. Kids in real life don’t speak like adults, with rare exceptions of course.
I don't care if the character is normally smart or not. If most of the tension is about whether the major characters will survive their own stupidity, I'm out.
I think number 1 can be used effectively, it's just difficult to do well. There's a difference between a plot twist and subverting expectations and concatenating two themes haphazardly, and you can get away with very little hinting at what might be coming. Importantly I feel like if executed correctly, the example of a romance novel where a main character gets killed off part way through actually sounds like something I might enjoy to read myself if done correctly.
@danielleanderson6371 I accept that's certainly the case. But for every person you turn away with a story with such a twist, there may be another who becomes a fan of your work. I can't comment on fruits basket having not seen it, but in general I would at least still expect some hinting that such a thing were a possibility. In fact, one of my favourite things across various types of media is being able to re-consume the media and notice different things that I would have never thought to take note of the first time round. I think the biggest hurdle is ultimately in advertising to the correct crowd, I could totally see that if you were reading a romance novel purely as feel-good material, such a development would be unwelcome. Of course there's then the issue that if you advertise that there's something besides that then you may give away the twist. It's a difficult problem with no easy solution, I just don't think completely avoiding these types of twists is good advice.
@danielleanderson6371 that's completely fair, I suppose I'm looking at this more from the perspective of someone who enjoys literature rather than strictly from a business sense. Many stories I enjoy employ these types of narrative mechanisms, but a lot of them were not popular when they were created or still are not to this day. It's true that playing it safe is the better choice for those looking to make a living in this way. I just admire the courage of those authors that take such risks with their work.
The way you know that you've done a plot twist right is when you can see the twist coming with the gift of hindsight. You can mislead an audience and still properly set up your twist.
As long as the twist is being properly built up to and comes early enough. Reminds me of Madoka Magica, seemingly your everyday cutesy magical girl show, but it's just a veneer for darker more horrific reality.
I think my number 1 pet peeve is when writers don't respect the intelligence of their audience. They get so caught up in having a good idea for a story that they become afraid that their audience won't understand it or will misinterpret it. So they go the extra mile to make sure they explain it in excruciating detail, leaving no more room for speculation in the mind of the reader.
@@Underworlder5 They used to not. Avatar, TMNT (2012 and 2003), Thundercats 2011, Transformers Animated, and so on and so forth. Nowadays, we get nothing like that.
Definitely agree. I love it when I read some book where the author has clearly managed to construct a narrative that allows my own imagination to reach the appropriate conclusion and then they never told me explicitly. It makes me feel smarter than I am. Ha. But I know that's what really good story craft is, trusting that your audience will figure out if you give them bread crumbs for a trail instead of paving them interstate. Hungry children always make it to the house of candy if they have a few crumbs to chase down on their own.
Well considering how brutal the audience is when they misunderstand something, they endlessly spread whatever “criticism” came into their and refuse to let go, destroying countless products; I don’t blame the writers.
I think my biggest pain approaching fiction is the " why don't you just " situations. The other day I saw a movie , it was something like " a babysitters guide to monster hunting " in which the villain: sends his minions to kidnap someone, waits for the minions to arrive at the person's house, teleports all the way there, talks to the person, watches the minions capture the person, teleports back home and waits for the minions to bring him the prisioner. This movie is all about the heroes following the minions tracks. The movie establishes the main villain can teleport carrying other people.
I think a useful recap would be one that shows how a character remembers the event. No two witnesses pick up the same details. Normal human experience includes different people remembering the same event different ways, so that is a legitimate story element.
Yeah, recapping what happened as a vehicle for exploring the personalities of the ones recounting it is a valid strat. I think the video was talking about situations where it's clearly exposition for the benefit of the reader.
I hate when a misunderstanding drives the plot for more than an instant. I once watched a series where every misunderstanding was cleared up almost instantly and I felt so satisfied.
I really enjoy movies about liars. They keep on telling lies to everyone and it gets worse and worse with every interaction, the whole house of cards ready to collapse at any moment, the main character always at the risk of facing not only the consequence he wanted to avoid with the first lie but everything that piled up because of the other lies as well. IDK if this can be counted als misunderstanding. Another thing I really like is when the misunderstanding is used for comedy like in Tucker and Dale VS Evil. It also goes on through the entire movie and is never fully resolved for most characters.
Stories that are loaded with info dumps and stories that suddenly have a villain turn into an incompetent buffoon, are my number two pet peeves! The best stories make the antagonist and protagonists strive to bring out the best in each other and when writers go the lazy route of copping out, it makes me instantly lose interest. Excellent video!
I want to see a story where a bad guy shows up, gets defeated, then comes back even stronger and having learned his mistake from the previous encounter. I hate when previously competent villains turn into comic relief after their first attempt.
@@Tijopi11 The evil overlord list. "If my ultimate plan for world domination fails because of a minor oversight, I will correct the oversight and try again."
What pisses me off a lot in game stories is the "surprise" betrayal. Got one character who has been with the main character from the beginning, helping them out, always there to assist, and it's gotten to the point where when everything aligns that way, you can see the betrayal coming a mile away.
I don't mind the surprise betrayals. I do mind, however, when the "Smartest person on the team" doesn't put the obviously foreshadowing clues for the smarter audience members to follow together and is the one person who is the most shocked outside the hero. Especially if they're similar to the batman archetype. That's the one person you need running around on a wild goose chase with red herrings to stay out of your way and you just leave him alone?
This is primarily the problem with the 2010's Disney twist-villains except for Turbo, it's a lack of motive and foreshadowing that just don't make the twist to click
Things I hate in stories 1. When the villain has a stupid motive 2. When an actual good character gets very little mention in the story for no reason 3. When the story gets emotionally interesting but after becomes totally stale 4. When they kill off good characters for no reason and let unlikable characters live 5. Probably the one I hate the most: having the feeling that the plot goes nowhere
I definitely have to agree with the killing off of good characters. I know some situations, it may not be realistic that everyone lives, but if death doesn’t add anything then let them live. Worst one I read was when a likable character dies at the very end almost randomly to fulfill some prophecy given at the beginning. It’s almost like the author forgot about it wrote the entire book and then, whoops, have to tie that loose end so random arrow hits a good guy.
@@albertabramson3157 I am currently working on writing the story to the game and there’s a major retrospective twist at the end of the game, and I plan that the level design is covered in references to the twist, such as graffiti and carvings of the scene in various places. Due to the way the scene referenced is framed, however, it just looks like a cool abstract design until you know what it is.
Pulling punches is the worst when the villain chooses not to harm the hero for some contrived reason. "No, I won't kill you because you must suffer later in the story."
I mean it can work if you make it a character flaw of the villain. Perhaps he is one who loves theatrics or is wanting to savor the heroes pain. A good example would be a villain wanting to have the hero live to see family and friends die one by one. Could also work with a character who thinks they are smarter than they are and wants to gloat over the hero’s loss because “of course the hero can’t win now”
For number 3, I think it's a result of "Show, don't tell." The solution to No. 3 is to tell the audience what happened. Don't show Bob telling Jill what happened, tell the audience that Bob brought her up to speed.
The issue with what you wrote, in my humble opinion, is that it only works for literary laziness in both reader and writer. You wrote, "For number 3, I think it's a result of "Show, don't tell." The solution to No. 3 is to tell the audience what happened. Don't show Bob telling Jill what happened, tell the audience that Bob brought her up to speed." This is very lazy. I'm not trying to be rude btw, so I hope what I write isn't taken like that. I'm just trying to explain myself, something you really didn't bother to do. That is, in my opinion, an insidious kind of literary (by which I mean written) laziness. If I analyse your comment, you used the term "show" in oppose to "write" or "summarise" even though in literature no one can "show" anything because it's not a visual art form, so to me it means that you don't actually read a lot and have not particularly analysed literature (possibly before trying to write some yourself), you're actually more of a viewer in which case you should write plays and screenplays not long form prose because realistically in order to know how to write, one needs to first be a prolific reader. If you were one, you would know that what works in visual arts doesn't work in writing even in the same genre. Overall your comment doesn't seem to make any sense. You wrote, "...I think it's a result of "Show, don't tell" but you don't actually explain what you mean by this in terms of any given example that would make sense in literature because the rest of your comment contradicts this and logic. "The solution to No. 3 is to tell the audience what happened." How does one not "tell the audience what happened" in a book? This is illogical and contradictory to saying, "Don't show Bob telling Jill what happened, tell the audience that Bob brought her up to speed." In writing the only way to "show" Bob telling Jill what happened, would be to write dialogue... How do you build the personality of the character without going into Tolkien like descriptions if you don't show their personality through speech? Which voice are you even using? It can't be third person omnipotent. Also all of this depends on who Jill is and why she is being "brought up to speed" and if she has any questions or if the point of Bob telling Jill what happened is if he is honest or lying and if the reader is supposed to notice that. Genre matters. In an inverted detective fiction or "how catch'um" genre, basically like Columbo, or any kind of mystery actually, what you wrote is obviously incorrect. It doesn't work in comedy either.
For example in a short story/serialised fiction I wrote called 'The Fugly Girl Incident', near the end I wrote a scene where a character called Hughard, a vampiric alien who had taken the form of a cloud was suffocating his in-law, a humanoid alien woman from a different planet, because she had insulted his child raising abilities during an argument about her own daughter's wicked behaviour. When Hughard was eventually slapped back into a humanoid form by a security officer and subsequently arrested and dragged away, he started desperately explaining what had just happened but his version of the event is all lies. The comparison between the truth and the lies within the context of the wider story is supposed to be amusing. Where would the joke be if I wrote, "as Hughard was being dragged away he brought Roxy up to speed, lying about what had happened and insisting none of it was his fault."? That's not inherently amusing (to me). He's just a liar. But the way I wrote it with him lying about very specific things for nonsensical reasons, reinforces the emotions of the event and also further adds to the feeling that Hughard isn't quite right in the head. The issue is simply not going into exhaustive detail when repeating oneself. That's it. The gentleman in the video was talking nonsense too because he spoke on establishing genres by using tropes as if "literary fiction" isn't a genre. He's sitting in front of a very narrow bookshelf overpacked with books which haven't even been read. His opinion is worth the creases in the spines of his paperback books... Get it.
@@CandiceGoddard Forgive me if this is incoherent-- I'm writing this before heading off to bed. I used the word 'show' in "Show, don't tell" because it's one of the name of the technique, and that is also why I put it in quotation marks in my original comment. I fail to see how using the common name of a writing technique implies that I'm not a writer or a frequent reader. Bear in mind that 'writing' can broadly apply to both written literature and visual arts, such as screen and stage plays. As such, I prefer to say "Show, don't tell" than "Express, don't tell," because I feel as though it gets the point across clearer. I do not believe the word 'show' is inaccurate in literature due to it being possible to plant scenes in people's minds with vivid descriptions. The intention of my comment was to share the thought, "I believe that the 3rd example discussed in this video is a result of writers being told that "Show, don't tell" is *always* bad, leading them to write redundant scenes. For example, if Scene A involves Bob discovering extensive details regarding a scheme, and Scene B involves Bob sharing his findings with Jill (whom was not present in Scene A), the author could simply omit Bob's dialogue in which he details the scheme. Instead, they could simply write something such as, "Bob described the scheme to Jill," they can then begin to write Jill's reaction, leading into a scene where they discuss the new information together, maintaining the pacing of the story and not boring the audience by telling them something they just saw." Basically, some authors may be told to avoid *always* using certain literary devices, and they avoid them *entirely* because they remember the "Don't use it" more than the "...except when it fits just right." A savvy writer could use Scene B to help explain what was found in Scene A rather than repeating themselves, since the audience would be hearing the details from a character in the story who may not be an expert on the subject or might be an expert speaking to a non-expert. So, Scene A becomes Bob finding something which worries him, and Scene B becomes both Jill learning about it *and* Bob sharing *why* it worries him. I'm not calling for people to omit dialogue entirely, nor am I saying "You must always write, exactly, 'X brought Y up-to-speed,'" but rather to simply use it where it matters. Compare, "Bob looked at the sign, which read, "EXIT" Bob then read aloud, "Exit."" and "Looking at the sign, Bob read it aloud, "Exit"". If dialogue needs to be shown, such as in the examples shown in your story, it needs to be shown. If the dialogue breaks the pacing too much, it should probably be removed unless it has a valid reason to be there, such as to set up a joke or show something about the character. Another example-- Imagine setting the scene where there's some urgent need for the characters to get moving, say there's a time bomb which detonates in twenty minutes. Rather than killing the momentum and excitement created in the hypothetical previous scene in order to have each character introduce themselves to each other, if the audience is familiar with each character, a simple "After swiftly introducing everyone to each other, the ragtag team swiftly hurried off," could suffice. The 'swiftly' implies that they shared minimal information, such as the names of each character, rather than sitting down and sharing their life stories, and so the audience won't be confused when a character who previously never met another somehow knows their name. Your very own writing uses an example of telling the audience rather than showing them! "...he started desperately explaining what had just happened..." is telling the audience something without outright showing every word he said, the "...but his version of the event is all lies," also answers one of your questions ("..if the point of Bob telling Jill what happened is if he is honest or lying.."), though I'd personally try to find some other way of letting the audience know rather than telling them outright. Literary devices are tools, after all, and one tool can't possibly always be the solution to every question. I do, unfortunately, think you came off as a bit rude when you talked about the word 'show', the creator of the video, and dismissing his opinions. Though keep in mind that I haven't rewatched this video, so I don't even remember what he talked about that you're responding to! I'm pretty sure he has, at the very least, read that one book to his right-- the one with his name on the cover. Or the one on his left, also featuring his name. But! I'm glad you wrote your comment! Sharing thoughts and opinions is, in my eyes, pretty much always a good thing. I don't think we (you and I, not him and I) disagree about anything on the topic. You also raise a very valid point with "The issue is simply not going into exhaustive detail when repeating oneself." EDIT: I think the mindset I was in when I wrote my original comment was, like, Bob explains something to Harold, then Jill pops in right as he's done. So it can go like 1. Bob tells Harold the thing and the audience gets to see it 2. Before Harold can react, Jill pops in. Bob repeats everything he just told Harold, but this time it's not shown to the audience 3. Harold and Jill react to what they were told EDIT 2: I'm writing this the day after writing my initial reply! I just thought of another example-- "As Bob was sharing what he had learned with Jill, she interjected once he began detailing Harold's true intentions, "He plans to do what?!" she shouted." That way, if the story needs Bob to be unable to finish sharing the information (ie: if Jill runs off to try and fix things without hearing everything Bob has to say, or if Harold's minions suddenly burst into the scene), it can!
@@CandiceGoddardSaying someone is not a reader because you don't understand how 'show, don't tell' can apply to literature comes across as pretty arrogant tbh.
@@motrinmedicYou do understand that you can't adhere to a rule 100% of the time. Just because it occasionally needs to be broken doesn't mean it's not a good rule
I love how quick and to the point this video is. Putting a bunch of unnecessary talk and background before the content would be top of my list of 5 things youtube audiences hate.
@@niclaswa5408 "...I'd like to talk about the channel, something funny that happened to me last week that has no relation to this video, and present a 15-minute skit praising our sponsors."
My poor sister. She waited years to read an entire Robert Jordan book to find out what happened to her favorite character in the last book's cliffhanger, only to finish the entire thing and realize that Jordan didn't even mention that character in this book. Time to wait years for a resolution...again.
I'll tell you a secret: Fictional characters become alive and tell you, what they would do, and what they wish to happen. For the writer as well as for the audience. So why don't you ask the character, what happened to him? (PS: I can sing a song about fictional characters becoming alive. One of my characters got on my nerves, because I hadn't finished the story and he wouldn't take it. He forced me to finish it.)
@@igoretski - I think I get what you're saying: fictional characters, ideal ones, work together with the author, to make a good story. But ideal characters don't exist, as ideal persons don't exist in real life. In few words, my character does not want to get in action, so it's almost impossible to make him evolve, in spite the fact I love him and he's got potential. So, it's up to me find a way to make him shine. Even if he does not want to. ^_^
unwarranted character deaths. namely the ones performed in order to just "kill a character off" because the author doesn't want to write them anymore. Another is... an important character dies... and the other characters grieve.... for like one episode/chapter/whatever. That loss does not stick with the rest of the cast. That empty space is never addressed again. That death had no meaning.
What I hate the absolute most. Is when a serious plot point is never addressed later on. Like in spy novel. If the main character gets betrayed by someone and it never reveals who it was. The other is character knowledge inconsistency. Like when 1 characters realizes something using information they weren't there for.
One pet peeve I can't stand (probably my biggest pet peeve) when reading novels is seemingly instant romantic connection between the two characters when they haven't really done anything to earn that love if you get what I'm trying to say. The characters don't go on a long adventure, or just learning about each other before realizing they like the other. Instead it's googoo eyes immediately upon looking at the person and falling in love. The Ice Lord's Bride by Ava Ross is a book I cannot finish because of this. It's instantaneous love at first sight, and I despise it. Don't fall in love because of just their looks. Get to know the other person better before saying 'yeah, I like you. Let's date'. Slow burns are my thing.
I think one way to make Love At First Sight work in fiction would be that while one character has it, the other very much does not. The character in love would then try to earn the other's love back, which could end in a multitude of ways, from being answered to being rejected to even true tragedy. The drama in the situation then could be the possible desperation the first character feels as they keep being unloved. In short: it shouldn't be too easy.
a fic i read had love at first sight, but the mc actually took time to get to know her love interest instead of just making out. it worked, at least for me.
One pet peeve of mine is when the supposed answer doesn’t fit with all the events we’ve seen/read. One particular storyline had supernatural events happen, but claimed the answer was completely mundane-even though the culprit couldn’t have done at least two of the things that supposedly happened because he can’t be two places at once and he can’t float in the air-this being a story of regular humans
haha #4 "pulling punches". if i had a dollar for every protagonist who gets the "thrown at the wall" treatment by every antagonist whos previously been simply annihilating others by blinking up to that point, id have enough money to self publish and move to tahiti
This is probably my top peeve. Throw at a wall, throw them aside so they roll away and get another chance, don’t pull the trigger, etc. im immediately out of the moment.
It'd be nice to see that trope subverted. Character gets thrown at a brick/concrete wall, then reality ensues and it actually kills or seriously injures them.
For me it gets even worse if super powers are involved. Super powerful villain throws the hero away ... instead of: ripping him apart with his INSANE power, etc. At least the superhero genre embraced this so much to make it a legit part of the genre, the same can't be said for most genres (plenty of genres come with super strength type antagonists). Neither good guys nor badguys should just harmlessly throw someone away instead of actually finishing them off (given the fight actually involves the intent to kill).
I made the mistake of re-telling an event from two different points of view in my first draft of my novel. One of my beta readers pointed out that he was disappointed because 'you told it just fine the first time.' I had done it because I WANTED people to understand how each person saw the event differently ...so I wasn't trying to fill space. However, I took on board what he said, and told it from one POV only ...and had to work hard to show how the other person reacted, etc. It really worked. Good advice!
The idea isn't bad, but the new PoV has to change the reader's perception of the story to a significant enough degree that the retelling is worth it. If it's just about one character's motivation for acting like they did, it's probably not worth it. If it upends the entire plot and changes everything, then you might be onto something. Also, kudos for listening to advice. That's a skill a lot of people lack.
reminds me a lot of sonic adventure. if two playable characters were present in one scene, you would see that same scene in both of their stories, but slightly altered to show that characters perspective. a good example is sonic and tails in relation to eggman. sonic is cocky while tails is insecure. see a cutscene with eggman in sonics story, and eggman is loud and theatrical. see that same scene in tails story, and eggman speaks with a more cold and intimidating tone
The movie Rashomon shows how to tell a story that's about people's different views on the same event. I think that type of story is difficult to convey in an effective manner, due to the danger that repetition poses when done poorly. In Rashomon's case, each version of events is fairly short and each one is quite different, which might be why it works for that movie.
My Next Life As A Villainess' light novels have this problem. They first tell an event from Katarina's POV, then from the POV of the character involved, which comes off as redundant to say the least.
@@artificialaceattorney6822 That works maybe once, if it's short enough and it's not obvious what the character thinks, since those characters don't think about what Bakarina thinks they do.
I think the point is that you really have to make it work. From Dusk Till Dawn is a great example, but that was done very deliberately and Tarantino made sure that it all made sense. The tones of the stories still matched - a significant genre shift, but not really a shift in the tone of the story.
@@artmarkham3205Exactly what I was gonna bring up! I always mention this movie in the context of genre flipping or "a twist no one in a million years would've thought of"
@@artmarkham3205I love Dusk till Down, you're right about the tone. It is suspenseful all the way through. The other one that I enjoyed greatly was Gosford Park. I thought I was watching a period drama with interesting, complicated characters, all with different motivations, relationships, etc. All of a sudden there's a (Spoiler) murder. And it becomes a "who did it" story. Not sure if it's just me, that didn't see it coming or was it in fact a twist. What probably fooled me was the amount of screen time until it happened and the tone completely changed for the second half.
Except of course that there's a subset of modern audiences who will lash out even at subtle theming, if it doesn't fit their own beliefs. And there's another subset that will lash out at things like the presence of women or black characters, and claim that acknowledging that such people exist at all is "pushing an agenda."
@@tbotalpha8133 Actually, no. There are people who insist on race-swapping existing characters in order to push a current-year narrative, as well as shoehorning a checklist's worth of identities into every single story, whether it fits, or makes any sense at all, also purely to push a political agenda. These people then disingenuously pretend that they're not pushing a political agenda when they transparently are, and actually expect people to still fall for this routine. Hate to break it to you, but nobody is buying it anymore. We all know your agenda. We can all see you. You are simply not smart or clever enough to hide it well enough.
@@tbotalpha8133 Sometimes that subset aren't wrong because the writers are pushing an agenda. In the last decade, media has pushed an agenda so often (and trashing beloved characters in the process) that those audiences can hardly be blamed for becoming over-reactive. Ultimately, characters must make sense to their setting and world, and audiences will respond when they are well placed and well developed. If that isn't heeded, or if it's done clumsily (even if not intentional), expect a lashing that you might even deserve.
One thing that's really annoying is when a seemingly important element of the plot is just abandoned and never elaborated on again with little to no explination given.
I remember John Wick 2 ended with WInston giving John a Marker and then it's immediately forgotten. Instead, John goes to a library to grab ANOTHER Marker (Halle Berry's).
I had this with a bitterly disappointing book called 'The Binding' Bridget Collins. So much potential with a unique idea which is dropped after the 1/3 of the story.
For number 3, I wholeheartedly agree. This was one of my biggest gripes with the later books in the Earth's Children series. Ayla recounting her journey to the people she meets in her travels got annoying really fast.
Probably the toughest thing to deal with is writing that pushes a needless message down the reader or viewer's throat. We're smart enough to know that the story is about a strong character, and not that there's a story with a strong character in it. Your videos are very helpful for my graphic novel. Many thanks
Except of course that there's a subset of modern audiences who will lash out even at subtle messaging, if it doesn't fit their own beliefs. And there's another subset that will lash out at things like the presence of women or black characters, and claim that acknowledging that such people exist at all is "pushing an agenda."
@@tbotalpha8133 Except there's not. What we do have is dishonest people like you who insist on race-swapping or gender-swapping existing characters in order to push a current-year narrative, as well as shoehorning a checklist's worth of trendy woke identities into every single story, whether it fits, or makes any sense at all, also purely to push a political agenda. These people then disingenuously pretend that they're not pushing a political agenda when they transparently are, and actually expect people to still fall for this routine. Hate to break it to you, but nobody is buying it anymore. We all know your agenda. We can all see you. You are simply not smart or clever enough to hide it well enough.
All writing is telling you how to feel, it's just that some writers are better at it or some audiences like how (x) writer does that better than (y) writer.
I just watched a scene of a character dying that was supposed to be sad but it was badly written, and another character says “this is so sad!”. Felt like it was telling me how I was supposed to feel, and it backfired.
Sudden genre shifts can work, but it's difficult to pull them off well. I think they work best when there's subtle foreshadowing that the audience may not pay attention at first but which make sense in retrospect. Like "Ooooh, _that's_ why this average joe kept acting so paranoid, he was actually a secret agent" or "So that's what he meant when he said this could be the last night they see each other."
it works there specially because the SciFi stuff gels really well with the fantasy that was established, since the later was subtly hinting at the former all along.
One thing I hate most in a story is when a character dies and their death is supposed to be emotional and meaningful and it’s supposed to spur the main character forward. But then, the character gets revived immediately. Personally, I feel that this just kills a lot of the emotion and meaning the death had. Why kill a character and make it this huge event only to completely backtrack for no reason? It’s one thing if the character is revived near the end of the story and it’s something that is built up, but doing it not too long after the character dies just feels lackluster. But idk, that’s just me.
Better not play FF14. The protagonist crew is pretty much immortal. Not only Mary Sues but even when they die, the just come back. One is even revived by the antagonist, who just wants to show that he's a nice guy. Or the final of story, when all of them sacrifice themselves, just to be snapped back. It goes so far, that they even know about it and tell "yeah, you can just bring us back, but don't", but of course it still happens. It's even worse than all the easy wins, fake sacrifices.
That's not true about _Psycho._ It's a thriller from the beginning. Marion steals $40K and goes on the run, she's paranoid the whole time. She sees her boss on the street and he knows she lied. A cop pulls her over and interrogates her, she's sweating bullets. The cop follows her, she switches cars etc. The beginning even before the Bates Motel is suspenseful like the full-on thriller it becomes later.
My book/movie/show pet peeves - When my favorite couple doesn't say their feelings unless one of them dies or on deathbed or with someone else. - When one of my favorite characters dies out of nowhere. Especially if others just move on like nothing happened. - When an expert fighter "forgot" what they can do. Especially if they are supers. - When an excellent book ends and there's no plans for a new one. - When someone has an important secret that could be told in 1 minute and they wait until the secret gets out. They say that they didn't have a chance but they could've said something at anytime. - Will they, won't they (make up your minds already!) - When a character treats their lover like garbage and it's seen as romantic. (Oh, he just had a bad childhood. He's just protecting me.) - The billionaire and the nobody (been done SO many times. Every now and then you might get a good story.)
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty You need to have moral dilemas where the protagonist hard descisions but if its simple as eat the poop to see a pair of boobs that isnt a hsrd descision.
The only one "suspect" here is "Will they/Won't they"... AND arguably that's a delicate balance to some extent... BUT it gets REALLY grating when it's becoming too obvious that it's just toxicity... Someone is clearly stringing the other along... AND by defacto-proxy US, the audience. SO build the tension... Fine... Add a few questionable "obstacles" that might present a "doomed" or "forbidden" romance... BUT there comes a point when a decision HAS to be made, otherwise, you're not building tension, anymore. You're just bullsh*tting... There's nothing wrong in fiction with a doomed or forbidden romance... Sometimes, you make that choice and "damn the consequences", entirely the mark of a "hopeless romantic". ...tears and all. ;o)
i hate that "I lied to protect you" crap. or, for example, in Mission: Impossible 2, Thandie Newton and Tom Cruise have an incredible, dangerous fight and car chase, sleep together, then all of a sudden things are too dangerous for her. umm, what?
@@GoddessOfWhim2003 that could be done well to dramatically increase the stakes, like yes she's a badass and a great driver BUT we are going up against THIS guy and that's too much for her. MI2 was not like that, it was just bad... EDIT: quick address before I get a bunch of corrections, "THAT scene in MI2 was bad, MI2 was good overall"
I agree with all of these points. Another one that really bothers me in all forms of fiction is when characters (especially those you're rooting for) make very stupid mistakes, and you know where their stupid decisions will lead, you can see it a mile away, but they do it anyway, and you get a very predictable outcome.
The thing in writing, that I hate the most, is characters that behave according to the script. Where a character has been established to behave in a certain way, but chooses the complete opposite, not because the situation called for it, or because they have changed due to some experience, but because it needs to happen for the plot to progress.
This is an issue I have with rpg games. There will be persuasion options to convince ppl to do horrible things. It will be like npc "no I won't burn the town down just because you want me to, it wrong and evil. I ld never hurt a fly" Players responds: you should do it tho, it'll be fun. Npc: well when you put it that way...
I, for one, really don't appreciate things being over explained. I enjoy discovering the story, world and characters through well placed details and subtle hints. I think it's much more artful and entertaining than when the author dumps everything out in front of you like they just got back from a robbery. I'm intelligent, I can figure it out.
Don't get me wrong... on some things, I don't mind a little explainer here and there... BUT DO NOT insult my intelligence. STUPID people do NOT read literature. They read comics and porn'... ;o)
As for expectations: the beauty of horror is that it is not a genre, but a mood, a suspicion, a dread, and so it can crop up anywhere, in any kind of context, which is why stories by Elizabeth Bowen and L. P. Hartley, or films by Ingmar Bergman and David Lynch, can be so much more disturbing and frightening than many stories clearly labelled as horror. They catch readers and viewers off-guard.
Sunshine did this well imo, was shaping up to be a great philosophical sci-fi and then BAM! Slasher movie Made the slasher element so much more powerful The survival horror middle section of 2001 is also quite noteworthy
@@347Jimmy If we're giving examples, I offer _Gaslight_ (the British original). You aren't sure what the #*@& is going on for most of the movie, but it's scary enough to keep you watching...and then, without losing the thriller element, they throw in a mystery element!
I agree, and when you label something as horror, people are going to have a set standard of expectations. I like stories when it is up for me to decide if the book is horror or not.
For me the worst is when the villain is literally a maniacal genocide but if you kill him you are bad. Like when batman over and over again let the joker live, then the joker kills a bunch of people, then batman stops him but let him live, but then the joker scapes prison and kill a bunch of people. I know that a hero shouldn’t kill every villain they encounter, but for christ sake letting someone that maniacal live is stupid and makes no sense
@@NeuviletteBR It made sense in the golden and silver era, where the Joker was just a bank robber who played practical jokes. But, you know, they had to become grimdark and now its a bit jarring, as you say.
Fr. I understand Batman does this, but not every character needs to be like that. It steals away from the realism of the story in a lot of instances. Like if you're in a war then neutralize the threat. It also just doesn't make sense logically a lot of the time. They be like "If I kill this mass murderer who has committed genocide for my own reasons, then I'm just as bad." No you're not dude. That guy isn't innocent 😂
Point 3 is sometimes used as a hint that some character has seriously mistaken a previous event or the overall plot so-far and shows a hilarious "you're not acting rational" kind of interaction, or even uses it to clarify how one character perceives the event so far, giving a different view on the plot.
As an amateur writer, videos like this are extremely helpful. Some of my chapter updates get delayed simply by me worrying about whether or not my writing style is liked or disliked by my audience. I write on fanFiction, which doesn't always have a close interaction between the author and the readers. Readers can leave comments, but only at their discretion, so sometimes it's hard to tell what they think of your work
@@minion3806 I write for a few different ones. I'm writing stuff for the anime Girls und Panzer right now, but I also have an Assassin's Creed/Mass Effect crossover going
When you are the amateur writer and you start your sentence with, "As an amateur writer..." the next word MUST be "I". You should say, "As an amateur writer, I find videos like this to be..." The way you have written your first sentence, VIDEOS are an amateur writer. Of course, this is not what you meant, but it IS what you wrote. This is like saying, "While eating a sandwich, the bread fell apart." The way this is written, the bread was eating the sandwich. Once you see the flaw, you can see several ways to rewrite/correct this. Please watch out for this most "amateurish" of errors.
The pulling punches trope is often seen in films where the villain feels the need to go on a "plan explaining rant" usually while holding the hero/their friends at gunpoint, waving the gun around sometimes for effect.
One thing that always annoys me is when characters overreact for plot reasons. Like one character does something that’s not so bad and they’re immediately seen as the most evil person imaginable by the person they affect
Or the opposite: someone who commits horrible atrocities but is forgiven/has no repercussions because "they did one good thing" or "they were abused/misunderstood." Forgiveness takes work, people! And sometimes you put in the work and still aren't forgiven, but that's okay because sometimes people are still really upset that you killed their mother, and all that's left is to move on and keep trying to do good. There is so much potential in redemption stories, but so many times have I seen creators just brush that aside in favor of an empty apology and pledge to fight on the side of good. Or worse, they sacrifice themselves and that automatically makes all the bad stuff they did null! Anyway, both tropes are equally as annoying. They need to end.
Eleven when she broke her bullys nose in the last season when it aas completely cool and awesome that she almost killed some grown men in the first one
@@katarinacarrico7887 that’s definitely true, and is even more upsetting if A) they suddenly become good, while it is possible it feels unnatural for someone to suddenly change unless the story gives them a good reason to, maybe they realize something or another character helps explain it to them, but if they just spontaneously become good after being forgiven, that doesn’t work B) they don’t become good, and end up causing a problem that could’ve been preventable had the group not forgiven them so easily. I think this can work if trust is a key theme in the book depending on the circumstance, maybe the character is too trusting and this was supposed to happen to show why giving everyone a second chance isn’t that easy and why it’s important to be skeptical at times, but more often than not it’s never covered, resulting in the group going “how could they have betrayed us? I thought they changed!” And it feels stupid. It’s definitely possible to have the best of both worlds. Characters could believe someone deserves a second chance but still not trust them just to be safe, but like you said, forgiveness takes work
@@katarinacarrico7887would you say self-sacrifice seems more appropriate closer to the end of the tale, especially after much effort has been made to make it right by other means? This is a vital element in a short story I'm doing.
@@daforkgaming3320 Yes! Thank you for validating my statement! I agree, in some cases it can work. One of my favorite depictions of a character suddenly being good is in She-Ra when Shadow Weaver sacrifices herself to save Catra and Adora, because that wasn't a redemption-- she was still very much a selfish, abusive person who would not be willing to put in the time and effort to be good. That moment not only shows that, but also moves the plot forward and gives the other characters a bit of closure. That's the best use of self sacrifice I've ever seen. But it seems that most people like to use it as a quick fix instead, which usually results in pissing fans off at worst and eye rolls at best. Either way, most people don't approve of it. As for second chances, I've noticed a lot of writers struggle with that, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's due to time restrictions? Redemptions are a long term process (There can be exceptions, like if someone said something horrible to their friend and they talk it over, but I'm referring more to the "enemy to friend" trope.) and not every publisher/producer/director has time for that. Still though, one would hope the pacing would be figured out before the story's release.
6:07 Your hypothetical scenario could work if it was a comedy where that would be the point of the joke. The sniper missing the protagonist in the most comically over-the-top ways you could imagine and we laugh at the sniper's reaction every time he misses.
One of my pet peeves is when characters get into an argument over something but instead of resolving the situation through normal means, the plot decides to rear its head so that we dont have to write a discussion with nuance or drama but now we have to take care of this plot event first, usually together and then the argument or points never get resolved!
Honestly I sometimes kinda like that, but only if they still get to actually resolve things after said plot point instead of not at all. Like it's kinda extra tense to confront someone to work things out, only to suddenly be surrounded by zombies, or somethin like that. But otherwise, I totally agree with ya there.
I had a pretty good English teacher at school. She banned us 100% from starting any sentence "Suddenly" and marked us down for using "And then..." At the time we all hated her. But I have to admit, it forces more creative use of words, which has stuck with me to this my 50th year. Going back to what Brandon is saying in his video... I am a Sci Fi / Supernatural / Fantasy fan. I love it. And I'll accept absolutely any absurd crap you throw at me. AS LONG AS YOU STICK TO YOUR OWN RULES. It really annoys me when Superman is felled by a splinter of kryptonite, but picks up an entire island of the stuff later. Buffy annhilates an army of demons, but pathetically gives in to GI Dickhead. You get what I mean - establish your characters abilities / limits... and stick to them. Unless "The Big Reveal" is that they were the hero all along with incredible powers... its just annoying when they slip out of problems with temporary powers, or fall into them "forgetting" that could actually just blast through.... I use roleplaying games like D&D etc to create characters before I start writing. I use those character sheets as my guide - NOT the game, just the sheets. what they can and cannot do, I base around that. It works for me. You can also use RPG's to create very viable locations, so you always know which house, how long it take to get there, where the bank is etc blah... I said D&D but but there's an RPG for every genre... if all you're doing is creating characters and locations... just pick the closest to what you want to write. It really helps "flesh out" your settings and characters.
I think unexpected genre shifts are extremely powerful when handled well. For example, the films "Miracle Mile" and "Cloverfield" both spend their first twenty minutes or so looking exactly like romantic comedies before suddenly becoming apocalyptic nightmares for the remainder of the films. In both cases, even on repeat viewings, the decoy-genre intros lull me into letting my guard down, so the incidents signaling the genre shifts hit with extra force.
@@actualturtle2421 , yeah, I have no idea why "Miracle Mile" is so obscure. It's a brilliant movie in so many different ways. I love the slow build of several different but intertwined anxieties as things go relentlessly further and further off the rails. It feels very much like the kind of nightmare where you are desperately trying to accomplish something -- board a plane, find a classroom, whatever -- and somehow you keep getting deflected from your goal.
The biggest thing I hate is when writers try too hard to _not_ be predictable. For example, say you have a mystery story, with two or three potential culprits, then suddenly the story ends with the detective giving up on the case. "Ah ha! I got you! You never saw that coming!"
My biggest pet peeve is when the run-of-the-mill cliché start to stack up on each other. Like, tropes itself aren't the addition to a story but rather are the main point of the story. Having a checklist isn't the same as having a story.
My biggest annoyance is trainwrecks. A simple action or sentence could fix everything, but the protagonist refuses to do it for no good reason. And bad things continue to happen to the protagonist until a plot device reveals the explanation and saves the protagonist at the end of the story.
I've read at least one romance novel where the one thing keeping the two love interests apart until the Happy Ending appears to be... their own abject stupidity and the social skills of five-year-olds. Like when one of them sees 'something' vaguely innocuous to do with their love interest's daily life that could spell bad news for a potential romance - i.e. them having lunch with someone they appear to like a lot, a bunch of flowers appearing on their desk, something relatively ambiguous like that. Now, the other person COULD just ASK their potential dreamboat about it casually, in normal conversation - y'know, like a *normal adult human would,* but nooo! Instead they take a gargantuan leap to "this means the person of my dreams Belongs To Another/is Secretly A Terrible Person Who Is Destined To Break My Heart, and we can NEVER BE TOGETHER, and now I must treat them like garbage so they won't even like me anymore because Mah Feelin's and OH GOD WHY IS LOVE SO HARD AND PAINFUL??!" 😵💫
If your story needs a five minute plus subplot to explain why no one can just call each other and resolve the entire plot in two sentences, your story sucks.
Yes. These writers think they are writing a successful Pride and Predjudice trope but fail to recognize the complex nuances that made Austen's work satisfying.
this is why I love the book "When the Day Comes" so much. Not because its an amazing book or written well, but the characters admit to each other that they love each other pretty early on but circumstances keep them apart; not stupidity. When you reach the end; its just been a really satisfying love story.
My top storytelling pet peeves: 1. A sloooow pace. When you're waiting & waiting for something to happen & it seemingly never does. I will forgive almost anything else but really can't stand to be bored. 2. Unmotivated, DUMB action by characters that's there just to serve the plot. 3. Overwriting. This is related to #1. Hate it when writers use 10 pages to say something that should have taken 2 pgs. If everything else is fine, I'll do a lot of skimming. Tana French, Stephen King, Stieg Larsson are examples.
#1 and #3 immediately made me think of Peter Straub, who I've tried to get into several times without success. He's one of the big names in contemporary horror, but he's just not for me.
These 3 plus #2-4 on the video describe this one Korean web comic I'm reading as a "how not to" guide to improve my own writing. Did it really need to take 1-2 chapters state the fact that the Bandit King will bust some heads if his only child comes to harm? Obviously it must have, right? How are the protagonist's friends still alive after facing the well out of their league villain who is so evil he kills his own men for little to no reason? -Shrug- Is the protagonist going to actually bother to get involved with the major nation-threatening plot that his group stumbled into? At some point... maybe... I think...
@@hamothemagnif8529 Coming off of Robert Jordan the thing about the first 3 ASOIAF books was how quick they moved. And then........ 4 was ok, and 5 was such a slog that I stopped caring.
I think it’s important to remember that these are rules of thumb. In all types of writing, there are rules, but there are also excellent examples that break said rules. From Dusk til Dawn, for instance, is a film built around a genre shift out of absolutely nowhere
As a general rule, you have to know and understand the rules to be able to break them successfully. If you don't understand what the rules are and why they're there in the first place, breaking them is just going to make you look like a poor writer.
A pet peeve of mine is the over obsession with killing characters, which usually only is done to soley make the audience sad, or to teach the main character some bs like "people die when they are killed", something they sould absolutely know beforehand. Yes, stakes need to be established sometimes. But offing your cast willy nilly RARELY actually helps your story unless you do something more interesting with it. I've dropped countless stories because I felt as though the author was not respecting his own characters who I was supposed to be caring about.
@@princessmarlena1359 To be fair, the one with (almost) that title is good at killing off characters, since it's core to the plot rather than throwaway deaths for attention.
One of my favourite "cliff-hanger" (at first glance) endings is a famous example: Chekhov's "The Lady with the Lapdog" (sometimes known as "The Lady with the Little Dog"). The story ends without a resolution, but it works, movingly, because the characters have decided that they WILL do something, somehow, to resolve it. This new determination of theirs represents growth, and for the story, that hint of growth is more than enough to make the story meaningful.
That touches on his point, it can have a cliffhanger but there needs to be something actually accomplished in the story as well; rather than just being a novel sized ad for the next book.
@@jacevicki -- Actually, what it means is that a story without a definite ending might not be a cliffhanger at all. Sometimes, tone and implication carry all of the weight, as they do in the Chekhov story.
@@dreadfulbadger -- Actually, no, because even if the ending is implied, it has been implied strongly. The man and woman in the Chekhov story WILL solve their problem, because they are now committed to solving it, which represents a change in their outlooks. What they don't know, and what we don't know, is how they might solve it, but in the context of the story, solutions matter less than their new-found resolve to find a solution. In that sense, we're not free to draw any conclusions we like, because the conclusion has already been implied.
3:56 that only works if it happens later on in a movie or something it calls back to it, and that leads the reader going: "ohh I never noticed that!" Or "Thats why _____ happened."
I always get frustrated by insincerity. It's so common nowadays but it feels awful when the writer, actor, director or whoever decides they don't want to be doing this and can't sell the emotions sincerely as a result of their disdain for those emotions
I get that. There are a couple of attitudes and personalities I have such a disdain for there is just no way I could add a character like that in my stories.
@@katrinatran3030most likely that struggling to add a character for reasons that their personality is not likeable and uncomfortable for the author for comics or books
One of my pet peeves is character dissonance where many characters are saying this one specific character is so intelligent and analytic but makes one dumb mistake after another. I think one that recently came to mind is Doctor Strange 2 where "the smartest man alive", after just witnessing someone can alter reality due to his own mistake, thinks by just grabbing them would make any sort of difference. And he just kicks the bucket. "Smartest Man Alive", they say.
My biggest pet peeve in fiction writing is characters acting against their established nature in any way, which could be a highly intelligent character making mostly dumb choices, a greedy character being mysteriously generous, a loving character being cruel for no good reason, a strong character consistently displaying weakness, etc. Characters can have occasional exceptions to their nature, especially if there's a good reason for the exception. What makes the extremely brave character give in to fear? What makes the cowardly character suddenly able to stand up in the face of pain or danger? In either case it could be their reaction when their family is threatened. Those exceptions are often great for storytelling. Sherlock Holmes goes up against Professor Moriarty, and gets outsmarted by him! Brilliant! It works because Holmes has been smarter than everyone else for several stories before finally meeting his match. A character should act against their nature RARELY and FOR GOOD REASONS.
I hate it when people apologise for things they haven’t done (often without any reason) or take the blame for things they clearly aren’t to blame for: “It’s my fault he drove his car off a cliff, because I had an argument with his sister’s best friend two weeks ago!” sort of thing. Another thing I hate in books is teenagers, because few writers know how to portray them. They are usually written like 25 year olds with foul mouths. And all the other characters just sit there and take it, instead of telling the little squirt where to go and what to do with themselves when they get there.
I think the recap thing has another explanation. Ive had rare instances of really being excited for X character to fill Y character in on the juicy gossip we as readers already got, and can feel jipped if it gets summed up to "And she told him what happened earlier."
Recaps for the sake of dramatically bringing another character into the loop through a revelation that resolves dramatic irony are all well and good, but they can still be summarized and distilled down to just the information that's actually relevant to the scene.
That "pulling punches" thing happens WAYYYYYYYY too often in media. So many times the villain just brushes it off because they need to get back to their grand plan. I think the biggest peeve I have is how often media doesn't bring back elements from earlier in the story. Basically ignoring Schrodinger's gun or whatever it's called. It's so satisfying seeing something that's notable, but seemingly unimportant, come back for the final act in a way that feels earned.
This is so good to learn! I was a little worried because in my WIP trilogy books 1&2 both end in massive cliffhangers. I literally did not know what else to do or where else to end them, but as far as I can tell, both drafts do have huge resolutions so hopefully it works out!
In my opinion, one of the biggest things that frustrates audiences without them being able to articulate what they're mad about is setup without payoff. If you hang a rifle on the wall, make it go off! So many times a book or show will subtly suggest something cool or dramatic might happen, and then the opportunity slips away.
Chekhov gave us a very good adage, but it can be a really tricky balancing act to make it feel good. A story with any length will be hanging something like twenty rifles on the wall. If none of them go off, people feel cheated. If all of them go off, people will call it predictable. Just a few of them have to be red herrings, but not too many.
Instead of 'pulling punches' I have my villains not make their move 'right now' even if they have an opportune moment. I make up a good reason for them to not take the shot or go after the heroine .It builds tension and it's fun when it backfires.
Yep, if there's a good reason for holding back, it can lead to an excellent payoff (like in Empire Strikes Back when Darth Vader is protective of Luke and the audience wonders why until the very end)
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty Then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the Obi-Wan TV show, where they contrive not one, but two rematches between Obi-Wan and Vader, even though it's strongly implied they'd not met again until A New Hope. Vader is unable to reach Obi-Wan to kill him because a fire blocks his way, even though he put out that fire with the Force about twenty seconds before it gets restarted. Then in the second fight, Obi-Wan wins, and literally the only reason he doesn't just kill Vader is because it's a prequel, so he can't.
There are ways to make it work. Like Death from Puss in Boots, the Last Wish, for example... He's so powerful and threatening he's basically a force of nature, but gives the hero a chance to escape because he enjoys watching their fear as they try to run. He could in theory kill Puss at any point, but doesn't while still making the audience feel like they're in complete control.
What I hate is when the loved ones of a hero or other characters are killed or die and hardly any grief is ever expressed, especially over a period of time; sometimes the main characters are even blaise about these deaths.
In my case, it usually applies to movies, but here goes: 1. "Subverting expectations" just for the sake of subverting expectations. For instance, if I'm in the mood for seafood, I'll go to a seafood restaurant. I don't want to be served steak. If had had wanted steak, I would have gone to a steakhouse. 2. Being lectured by the movie. If I want a sermon, I'll go to a place of worship. I don't object to a movie having a message, but I'm not there for the message, I'm just there to be entertained. If the tone of the message becomes a harsh lecture, then I usually hate the movie. 3. When somebody involved with the movie lets me know that they think I'm obligated to enjoy the movie, it usually detracts from my enjoyment of the movie.
Yes I'm not looking for incredible life changing story with a message. I want likeable characters and a really great story where every chapter is compelling. Finally not too much dragging out the story, authors could try and do this by keeping chapters fairly even. So, not one 10 page chapter that has action and followed by a 25 page chapter with dialogue or backstory.
I once read a novel where the first chapter was about the background of the main character. He was a young soldier who just got up in rank. He accidentally witnessed a corrupt officer doing some shady stuff (it might have been murder, I don't remember very well). The protagonist had to keep the secret. Fast paced, thrilling stuff where everything was logical. Then we jump 20 years, and the same man, now retired from the army, has become successful small business owner. An the rest of the novel was about his mundane problems with marriage, children, and keeping a business on a float. The exciting stuff that happened in the first chapter, came up only, when there was a need to explain why the main protagonist was sulky so many times. No payoff - the stuff his was mixed in the past didn't come to haunt him any other way. Without the first action packed chapter, the novel was just about a man's everyday life. No excitement, no thrills. That has been my biggest disappointment ever - a novel starts like a thriller and then turns into regular soap opera.
Happened to me. There was a book I read that implied it was about some kind of pilot. When I was reading, I kept waiting for the plane things to happen but I was following the romantic advances of some woman that fell in love with a pilot who loved flying more than women and married a lawyer or something. I read the whole thing through because I didn't have anything else to read at the time but my God, I was pissed.
Now I want this as a tv commercial... 20 years ago I saw war crimes that haunt me to this day... That's why I started Jim's Ol' Time Soft Serve & Soda! Now, the voices in my head... scream for ice cream!
What kills me in movies is when there is some immediate reason why a character has to get moving now (the cab has arrived and is waiting, the restaurant hostess has called the party's name, etc.), but he or she milks it - perhaps continuing to say a tearful good-bye to somebody, or similar - and the rest of the world just politely waits for the protagonist to have this moment on his or her own schedule.
My biggest pet peeve is when side plots are treated as the "Main Dish," especially in fantasy. You'll have this hero who needs to stop an evil ritual before a demon is brought into the world, but instead of focusing on saving the world, the hero only focuses on his love interest. It's really annoying, especially when you wanted to read an adventure book, not a romance book. My cardinal rule is that side plots should be the fries to the burger, or main plot. The fries should be a nice addition to the dish, but it shouldn't take away from the main course: the burger.
I hate this so much too, especially when the side plot is some romance where it doesn't even make sense that this is part of the story. Somehow I feel like a lot of writers just try to get in some romance no matter what for no good reason at all.
I was extremely annoyed with "The Lovely Bones" where Suzy's body is about to get dumped and the character who has some sort of prescience is watching; Suzy posses Ruth, but then instead of inhabiting her to expose her murderer, she use Ruth to kiss her crush she never got her first date with, while her remains drops into a sink hole and her killer gets away.
Good list! Cliffhangers that resolve nothing especially drive me up the wall. A cliffhanger at the end of a chapter is amazing, because then you have to read on, but if it's at the end of the book and it resolves nothing, that's a huge bummer. Unforgivable, in my opinion. It'll make me become disinterested in an author. Some of my biggest are: 1- The Dying Speech. Someone is dying and they manage to time their last words perfectly so they'll be extra poignant. I hate that. Too convenient. I wish more dying speeches would either include some form of "oh man this hurts", include more fear, or be very short. Because, you know, you're dying. Also, depending on the cause of death, sometimes they should flat out be impossible. 2- Plot Armour. I guess this is very similar to pulling punches, but yeah. When all or a sudden, a hero becomes untouchable and it's clear they should never have survived, that really takes me out of the story. 3- Bloodless battles/No Consequences. When there's a massive, violent battle, I expect some of the heroes to not make it out unscathed. They don't necessarily have to die, but if none of the heroes are in any way affected by the battle... eh. Might as well not have it. The same can be said when our group of plucky heroes spends the entire story spitting in the face of very powerful adversaries, and at the end, it's totally fine! No biggie! Let's get married and have kids! 4- The Writer Character. I get "write what you know", but unless the fact that the character is a writer is integral to the plot, don't make your character a writer. That just screams navel-gazing to me. 5- Bad dialogue for kids. When kid characters sound super profound or speak way too eloquently, I can't help but think "what child speaks like this???" every time it happens. Takes me right out of the story.
More realistic death scenes always hit harder. If a side character gets killed, it would be cooler to have them say something brief, like "behind you" and the MC turns around just in time to block the attack. It shows that even in the middle of dying, the side character cared about the MC. Alternatively, have the character writhe on the ground and say "it hurts, it hurts". Maybe even "mommy". People laugh about that, but it's heartwrenching to hear any human being, adult or child, in a place of vulnerability and fear, crying out for their mother.
The plot isn't all that matters to a story. I think people get too obsessed over it at points. Some elements of a story are not integral to the plot, but have you thought that they may be integral to the setting or more importantly, the theme, which is way more important than the plot as it ties the whole story together.
When a viable way would be some sort of written down testament or message knowing they could die. That can be a dying speech. And make way more sense. Or just a letter they plannes to give but. .
A pet peeve I have is something similar to pulled punches, like when a villain is about to finish off an enemy and for some reason starts with an 1 hour speech leaving the hero enough time to escape
My biggest peeve is when you start out with a likable protagonist and by the end they are a complete bastard many times more evil then the original villains they were going against, but the story and side characters keep treating them as the original likable hero.
Ah yes, the Designated Hero. I noticed that a lot of writers conflate "hero" with "protagonist" and thus desperately try to portray them as a paragon of virtue even when they murder their way through the countryside because "obviously every henchman of the evil overlord deserves it, so it's fine to slaughter them all". A protagonist can totally be an anti-hero or even a villain, but should also be portrayed accordingly both in their actions and the reactions of others. For example, in the work Lazy Dungeon Master, the protagonist is a young man named Keima who's smart but also quite lazy most of the time (he possibly suffers from some sort of illness that makes him very low-energy and sleepy). Over the course of the first book or so he rescues a slave girl and later buys another one, but does not deslave either of them. Instead he uses the slave magic that binds them to him to keep the secret of his identity a, well, secret because he's become something that most people in the setting fundamentally hate: a dungeon entity. If that was ever revealed, pretty much everyone around would be out for his blood.
Honestly, I felt like Sailor Moon was like this 😅 I didn’t really end up liking her by the 2nd season (crystal version) since she was selfish and thought her own daughter was in love with her daughter’s father which is sickening…
Villain monologues. Instead of heroes piecing clues together, the villain catches them, ties them up / holds them at gunpoint / locks them in the cellar and then gloats about their goal. Romance plots where characters have zero reason to be together, their personality doesn't match, they argue 24/7, but romance plot must go on. Aka they're only together because it's the first 2 attractive people to appear in he story. Hero who spares the villain only so we can have a sequel or only so author can peddle moral lesson "good people don't kill". Characters who are told to be the bestest best person at X only later to be shown to fail, like your sniper example, but applied also to heroes. For example "smart" hero who falls for a stupid trick or the "badass" hero who's constantly saved by side characters. Fake obstacles to the plot. For example the hero has to choose between high-paying job and passion, or between love and family acceptance and suddenly they find out there's no problem at all, their passion earns lots of money, their family makes a full change and accepts their love, etc. Then the dilemma seems fake and the story pointless.
I'm with you on all of those. Especially that last one where a character has to make a "brutal" choice and ends up getting rewarded with everything. Too much of a wish fulfillment thing.
It is lonely on the top. So the hero who actually came close to stopping you is clearly the only person smart enough to really appreciate your evil plan.
Agreed. In regards to that last point- I'm sick of stories where the parent has a very clear idea of how they want to raise their kid, only to do a 180 when they finally talk to their child and learn their kid resents them. Parents like this are much more likely to buckle down, or at best accept some blame but change very little. I get its meant to be cathartic, but I find realistic stories more cathartic. The parent should stay relatively the same, but the kid can find meaning or emotional support in their friends or even other family members.
@@schwarzerritter5724 That... might actually be able to save the whole "villain monologuing" thing! If the villain was already established as being bored with just ruling his empire, that could actually be really interesting.
I appreciate these both as an author and a reader. Although I generally don't go for "negatively focused" videos, I think you've made some very good points that all of us writers should be aware of. If you're a famous writer though, apparently you can get away with # 5. To be fair, readers trust there's probably going to be a next book with famous names. My greatest frustrations are 1.) Authors who apparently enjoy themselves too much where you can almost hear themselves giggle over their embellished poetic or clever phrases, 2.) Overloaded irrelevant details, and 3.) Cliché phrases like "she bit her lower lip" and overused words like "gossamer".
I really hate a cliffhanger end to a chapter, or something interesting being revealed, then the next several chapters kill the pace and have nothing at all to do with the interesting thing you just learned. Or even worse, the story is just starting to pop off and get really interesting...and there’s like 10 pages left, and it’s basically: “This happened, and then that happened, and the end bye”
What if by the omission of immediately revealing the big event/thing, you wish to keep it in the back of your reader's mind? How long before it's forgotten, or rather, how many hints will they need to be reminded that this significant thing is still coming? This is one of the elements in a short story I'm doing.
Yeah, and also, when you are in the middle of an emotional story, and then the next chapter suddenly jumps 20 years and we learn that the main characters are dead now... but there are still 200 pages left of the novel. (Looking at you, Wuthering Heights!)
This ties into what you said about Pulling Punches, but I am really tired of seeing villains built up to be so intimidating and powerful, to the point they can only be beaten by being stupid. This happens a *lot* these days in movies with armies or evil forces. As with the sniper, I don't want a seemingly powerful adversary suddenly become incompetent or constantly making stupid decisions once meeting the hero(es).
This is the clue. Everyone has their moves, and they do those well. One beats the other by you stacking the logistics of the scenario in favour of one of the parties. Making it work... literally the funnest part of writing. You choose how the dice will roll.
I hate it when the villain beats up and/or outsmarts all the characters with little to no effort throughout the whole story, and then the main character beats him up during the finale no problem, even though the main character isn’t really that much stronger.
God, the Villain Ball is such a frustrating trope. And that illustrates the problem with writing an intimidating and powerful villain: how do you write a plausible way to beat a villain who is supposed to come off as unbeatable without it looking contrived or cheap?
Retcons are my major pet peeve. When something doesn't take the story seriously and just decides to rewrite earlier work to fit their new idea. Forexample in book 1 you had a detailed explanation of an event, and in book 2, that event happened differently without any explanation, it just did.
Once upon a time, I was one of the 12 beta readers for a book. The author had left an accidental retcon of the way the main characters had met in the draft he sent us. He hadn't meant to, it was simply a consequence of having written several drafts. Apparently, out of the 12 betas, I'd been the only one to point out the retcon (the author had made the choice to send his draft to amateurs, we all pointed out different things). Incidentally, the final, published version of the book is so different from the one I've beta-read that it's very obvious several more scenes were rewritten in between... .... Sometimes it isn't retcon, just an editing accident 😅
One of the best series in handy retcons is in Star Trek DS9. the doc Bashir being genetic engineering which help explain many of the doc life choices and quirk. But those kind of retcon are far and in between stories.
@@bloodysimile4893 I wouldn't even call that a retcon, because it didn't retroactively change continuity, that was just an expansion of the Doctor's backstory and an explanation of his quirks. A typical retcon would have been if one day Bashir out of nowhere was a Vulcan and everyone acted as if he always was one.
One of my pet peeves is when distance and time are vague and arbitrary. The characters just arrive where they need to go -- or they can't because the plot demands it (just watched the original Willow for the first time and I enjoyed it but it has this problem). Part of this is sometimes you have other characters whom they leave behind - but then somehow those people are ahead of them (they do this with the Bone Reavers in the new Willow show). Another pet peeve I have, that they do in that show is that the main characters have to journey somewhere and it takes the entire season - but when the bad guys kidnapped their victim, they took him to their lair instantly. Like, how did they get there so quickly? And why are they waiting a million years to do anything? They get there instantly, and then wait the entire season to do anything while the main characters journey there. A much more sensical way to do it would be to have the bad guys traveling the entire season. The season could have been the good guys chasing and trying to overtake the bad guys before they reached their lair. That way, it makes sense why they haven't done anything to the guy they kidnapped, and there's no plot hole as to how they get back.
Oh the things that piss me off in novels, TV shows, movies and video games could fill the Chrysler building. But right now the single thing that I hate the most in stories is when the villain's motivations are kept from the reader/viewer/player until very late in the story and when they are finally revealed... it turns out that they were a victim of the "real villain"... and at some point the villain redeems him/herself by siding with the protagonist (who is no longer a protagonist at this point) and turning on the "real villain" (a villain we couldn't give less of a shit about, because we never saw him/her doing villainous sh*t in the story).
Pulling punches is definitely one of my biggest pet peeves! Don't create a villain who kills tertiary characters with ease but struggles with the protagonist
@@galaga00 It sucks because some tropes are necessary as a sort of shorthand to get a message across as quickly as possible. But, I believe that writers should find a balance
Regarding the "pulling your punches" point, this happens to me more often than not because I planned a scene out poorly and the logical conclusion to where I've been building is something I don't want to happen. I think the best thing to do here isn't to come up with a contrived excuse for the obvious thing not to happen, but instead to rework or rewrite the entire scene.
@@andrewscott7728 I mean, to be fair, lots of TV shows explored different genres once in awhile. Even shows like The Waltons sometimes dabbled in "horror."
One issue I have is when a complex and nuanced issue comes up, but then just gets treated as a generic good vs bad story, without addressing any of the underlying issues. It just uses complicated issues and themes as window dressings. If you're going to make a good vs bad story, just make your antagonists motivations straightforward
For me, it's huge revelations being made through dreams. Not once have I experienced a dream with any form of meaning, yet every book character seems to experience perfect, linearly-progressing dreams that lay out exact paths forward or solutions to their problems.
Dreams are kind of abused as a tool. Another example is horror films. The film is just starting to establish some evil entity and what it might be doing... then we get some really terrifying scene with the entity and one of the characters... it is perhaps even climactic... and... then the character wakes up in bed with a start, screaming and panting. Fucking cue me rolling my eyes and sighing "cliché!" WHERE is the fucking originality?
I think the pulling punch trope can work if the plot makes it clear that what happened is extremely unusual. For instance, a sniper tries to kill his target, but due to a lot of stress that he was enduring that day, he gets distracted and misses the shot, and then the whole story revolves around him trying to find the guy he failed to kill while dealing with the trauma that made him lose focus that day.
It hurts when a author builds up a side character really well but never gives them the big moment they deserve.
Any particular example in mind?
How about a side character within the LGBTQ group without the purpose they serve?
Finn in Star Wars is an example
@@Superkid33 Sorry, exactly what potential do you think was built up and "lost" in Fin?
From minute one he was a bumbling comedy relief character who does nothing of note in any of the three films, besides provide a convinient way for the other characters to slip into an enemy base.
That in place of what should have been a traumatised former soldier that explored that nature and morality around stormtroopers...
@@chromicm6686 I’m taking about the beginning scene sequences in Force Awakens. They showed Finn questioning the Order wanting out. They could have developed that into so much more.
Also they had him fear Kylo and he literally got stabbed in the shoulder by the lightsaber. They never interacted with each other ever again
They could have developed the being a former trooper thing with that former trooper lady in Rise of Skywalker but nope, nothing was developed there either.
Finn was such a waste potential along with the other aspects in the sequels
My biggest pet peeve is when a problem could easily solved with a simple conversation. "But wait! I can explain!" "No way! I'm blocking your number" Ugh
For some characters, the reaction is believable but most of the time it indeed feels forced
😂
Usually they don't even try to explain but stand there mutely. It's nearly as galling as people falling from great heights and getting up as though they were made of steel.
Happens in real life too.
I do not understand many social cues so there have been instances where relationship-destroying explosions have happened with me because I did not notice their hints and polite euphemisms.
I prefer truths, however harsh and bitter, than lies, however sweet.
It is honestly so satisfying when one of these situations happens, you feel like you're about to suffer through a needless conflict, but it gets resolved immediately.
Good example is in Trains Planes and Automobiles when they find out they'd been robbed.
Honestly, your first example about the wholesome romance that suddenly turns into an action thriller sounds awesome.
Well, I can see that working if it doesn't happen past the beggining of the story, resulting in a good hook honestly. I've seen stories that do that
The thing John Wick did great is having the very first scene where John Wick is beaten up while looking at a video of his Wife. It sets up the true genre. Then it goes into the wholesome part after that.
I'm not sure I completely agree with "embrace the genre" advice because you can have successful stories that switch genres. Like you said, the first example (wholesome romance becomes action thriller) could definitely work with the right execution. Some examples of successful movies that have extreme genre/tone shifts midway through are "Full Metal Jacket" or "Million Dollar Baby". I think the real issue is making storytelling promises early on that pay off in unexpected ways later on often feels unsatisfying, but it *can* work if you set up the change in tone in subtle ways. Like in "Full Metal Jacket", even though the first half is funny, there is the specter of going to war hanging over the first half, or in "Million Dollar Baby", you becoming invested in the relationship between Clint Eastwood's and Hilary Swank's characters is crucial to transitioning to the second half of the movie.
May I present to you PALM SPRINGS! It's a romcom model done --FINALLY-- in a new way. Watch it, you'll what I mean. You'll get the shock and awe... not to build it up too much.
Yeah, he either made a bad example, or doesnt understand what people like.
* hero stepping over the bodies of hundreds of goons they killed to reach the main villain * "Killing anyone.... Ever... Is bad. I am better than you...."
And then they spare them
🙄
Haha this reminds me of a certain video game's story
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty Kinda got this feel from Deadpool 2. 'Never mind us mowing down all these bad guys, but "you" can't do that headmaster. Then the headmaster gets literally run over by the cab driver/contract killer wanna be.' To me it wound up being unintentional humor/irony.
Hah, this could also be called The Goku Complex. Also applies to any video game protagonist who becomes strictly anti-killing during the Final Boss Cutscene.
The most blatant example I can think of this is Advance Wars. I mean, yeah, the story is ridiculous through and through, but after the protagonists spend the entire game fighting a freaking WAR with tanks and bombers and shit, the defeated villain laughs maniacally, sets off a doom device and tells them the only way they can stop it... is by KILLING HIM. And they act like that's an actual obstacle!
Are these people for fucking real?
Metal Gear Rising in a way inverts this, by making Raiden struggle with his thirst for blood throughout the whole game before finally accepting his nature. Yet at the end, he proves he's no different to the villain and in fact proves his thesis as a man who fought and killed to survive, who lives by his ow rules.
The villain has a lethal weapon but he decides to play around with the hero and give them a chance. Scott pointed this out to his father, Dr Evil, but the trope was too powerful.
I've seen this happen with heroes too. Instead of the villain gloating about their big evil plan, it's the hero gloating about how they figured out the villain's big evil plan. Then they do something really stupid, like walk right up to the villain as if they have to get within dagger range to use their gun, and the villain knocks it aside and gets the better of them in hand-to-hand combat.
You know, I have ONE simple request.
And that is to have sharks with freakin’ laser beams attached to their heads!!!
This is why I love the climax of the movie "Watchmen" so much. In a story built entirely on deconstructing superhero/supervillain tropes, mocking this one is the perfect icing on the cake.
@@kevincrady2831 Optimus Prime in the Transformers the Movie. And people still blame his death on Hot Rod
“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.
They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.
So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.”
― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
00:28 📚 Failing to prepare audiences for genre elements can lead to confusion and disengagement. Clearly establish the genres early in your story.
02:07 ⏩ Inconsistent pacing can be a major turn-off for audiences. Balance the pace, ensuring it picks up towards the end for a satisfying conclusion.
03:46 🔄 Avoid unnecessary recaps of events already witnessed. Summarize if needed, but don't overdo it with drawn-out conversations about prior events.
05:38 🥊 Audiences dislike scenarios where a character should harm someone but fails due to contrived reasons. Instead, find clever solutions for your hero to face challenges.
07:02 📖 Cliffhanger endings are fine, but ensure they comewith a resolution. Audiences deserve closure after investing in a story.
Thank you 😂
You even found cohesive emojis for the summaries. Godsend indeed.
Thank you AI for these timestamps.
vivziepop needs these so much
Bro is god
I've heard point 4 expressed as "you can use coincidence to get a character INTO trouble, but you should never use coincidence to get a character OUT of trouble"
Thats pretty much my motto for writing.
It CAN work in comedy. But only in comedy.
but it makes for a good fake-out sometimes. like, "of course things couldn't be that simple!"
From a guy whos readers clearly hate from his sales or rather lack off! LOL
Once in a story may be ok esp if the hero has not powered up yet, but having this done many times its annoying. I swear in the original dragonlance books the heroes get out of trouble by dumb luck continuously
To all authors and writers: make the things you want to make. Don't simply give up on an idea that you find intresting because "the audience might not like it".
In my opinion, probably the best way to write a story audiences like is to write a story you yourself would read.
if you like it, you can make the audience like it, if you're a good writer.
Amen to that.
Yes, I second this! The very specific story you want to read can't be written so satisfyingly by anyone but you.
That being said, it's a good idea to be aware of why some people don't like the things he's mentioned. It never hurts to address issues like these. It's often not what an author does but how he/she does it that annoys a reader. You want to mix genres? Figure out how to do it so the reader doesn't assume the wrong thing at the start.
I once heard very good writing advice that can be applied generally, beyond mere character writing, and it matched my own conclusions made earlier about how to avoid upsetting the audience:
Create interesting characters, then expose them to various situations and *explore* how they deal with them. Don't force a predetermined idea. Love the character and let the character write the story.
I agree wholeheartedly. The word you're looking for is "contrived" and it will absolutely poison the storytelling when characters don't make organic decisions or things just kind of happen because they need to. The BS meter in your head flags red and it puts a bad taste in your mouth towards everything that's been established. This should've definitely been included in the video.
My first and best tip is to create and a character then create a world. Throw them in and write what you think they would do. E.g gravity falls was created with Stan, Bill and Ford (a story already in play) and created dipper and mabel. Continued it from there. I build characters with stories not stories with chatecters.
One of my pet peeves is when two characters become a couple just for plot reasons even though they have no chemistry. Especially when it develops through annoying cliches, like one of them accidentally falling on top of the other.
*cough* Ron and Hermoine *cough* *cough*
this was the reason I didn't like the nightmare before Christmas. like, bro, you two shared like 2 lines of dialogue, you ain't this 🤞
AAAAAAHHHHH! I hate thiiiiis! My former "favorite" book series keeps doing this- two of the mains fall in love, for NO REASON, and then the third main who's usually much more interesting is left behind as this "third wheel." Ugh. I thought it would get BETTER when they stopped making the leads siblings, but then they just made love triangles.
Ah the falling on top of one another, a staple in fanfiction lmao
Reminds me of legend of korra, where korra and that other lady become a couple at the very end for literally no reason whatsoever, I can only think of one scene where they showed any chemistry at all
There’s a few I particularly dislike. One is when a character is clearly in the wrong, but the story makes them out to be in the right. Another is when a character is capable of clearing up a misunderstanding in a sentence or two, but waits until it’s too late in the moment.
But often the villain will see himself at doing the right thing or the nessecary thing. Better than making him just be a flat evil antagonist.
@@vast634 in that scenario the villain views themselves as right but the story views them as wrong. They're talking about stories that have someone do something clearly screwed up but then act as if it isn't. An example I can think of from a show would be in Narcos after they show the DEA screwing up and killing a ton of civilians by being incompetent or outright committing other terrible actions but then has multiple preachy monologues narrated to you about how it's actually justified because the person they're hunting is worse
@@plugshirt1762The end justifies the mean depending on what kind of criminal he is.
@@eeg-rh7jv The ends justifying the means only goes so far. When you're means are actively incompetent and create unnecessary suffering for no greater end than you're simply not doing a good deed.
@@plugshirt1762 Lemme explain something. Say your government need to ban some companies so they stop exploiting their resources, yes many people will be jobless but in the long term the future generations are gonna be grateful. As long as you don't do more damage than good it's a justified philosophy
I actually kind of liked the 'genre' switch in From Dusk Till Dawn where you think the story is about a robbery turned kidnapping and then everything turns batsh*t crazy. For me it was kind of a nice change of pace from all the other traditional narrative styles being told at the time, and I was really starting to get into Tarantino style subversion of expectations.
This is defiantly an example of the genre switch being done well. It can be, it just so rarely is, it's basically just worth telling people to completely avoid it sadly
Personally, I didn’t like it. It was literally a story about criminals robbing and sneaking across the border, with vampires being pulled out of their ass at the last second. I honestly even forgot that it was a vampire movie up until that point. Surprises can be good in movies, but imo, this switch up shat all over the plot.
That's what I first thought of, there is also the David Bowie movie _The Hunger_ which I saw in the theater when it came out -- I didn't know anything about he movie before watching it (other than David Bowie was in it) and was (very pleasantly) surprised when it was revealed part way through the movie that Bowie was a [spoiler alert]. I don't think I've seen that movie since it came out, I remember really enjoying it, now I'm going to see if I can find it to watch again.
I like that too, but he's not wrong, people say they like to be surprised, but not really
yeah that was an excellent switch. it worked so well for me because i was told to watch it by a friend and i hadn't seen a trailer for it. I actually gasped when the switch occurred! LOL
One of my pet peeves is when the writer takes established badasses, often the main characters, and makes them look like chumps so they can establish how powerful a new character is. There are so many ways you can make it clear that a new character is powerful. You don't need to make the protagonist look like a wimp to do it!
AKA "How dare Tarantino let Bruce Lee get beat up by the tough guy in his movie, after the movie literally just explained how that trope works?"
Ichigo when Grimmjow pulled up
Yes, keeping the ' established badasses' as true badasses would lend credence to how powerful our hero really is.
Lol like how many times did Worf have to get thrown over the railing on the Enterprise bridge?
DISNEY is notorious for that.
1) No description of the important characters until later in the book when I find I've picturing them all wrong.
2) Problems that drag on despite being solvable if they could just have a 5 minute conversation (most guilty: tv shows and rom com movies).
3) Author assuming we'll like/root for the protagonist solely because they're the main character, no other reasons to care about them.
4) Normally smart characters making obviously bad decisions because it moves the plot forward.
Thanks for continuing to make these videos! This is my favorite writing channel. One that could be interesting is efficient openings. I know you have some excellent videos on openings general, but I'd enjoy seeing clever examples of stories grounding the reader/viewer in their world and characters fast (I remember someone used Back to the Future as a good example).
Agreed on all 4 of your complaints. As for the Efficient Openings video, is there anything specific you'd like me to cover in that one? (Character introductions, worldbuilding, etc.?)
Yes, best list ever -- these are my pet hates too. I thoroughly enjoyed Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series, but oh boy was I *pissed* when I found out for the first time, nearly two-thirds of the way into the first book, that Kelsier was tall, lanky and BLOND, when for the entire time I'd been picturing him as... well, not gonna lie, a kind of buffed-up Sanderson self-insert (am I the only one who got that feeling about Kelsier? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not against authors doing that if it's still a great character, but I did feel that Kelsier was 'Ideal Brandon.' 😊)
I can’t remember more than 1 or 2, if any, movies that don’t have this fault: Have you ever noticed the overly mature lines assigned to children, even toddlers sometimes? This occurs in most movies I’ve ever seen where kids have lines. Kids in real life don’t speak like adults, with rare exceptions of course.
Another pet peeve is when the story is clearly pushing the narrative that the audience is bad for being straight white and male *looking at you Velma*
I don't care if the character is normally smart or not. If most of the tension is about whether the major characters will survive their own stupidity, I'm out.
I think number 1 can be used effectively, it's just difficult to do well. There's a difference between a plot twist and subverting expectations and concatenating two themes haphazardly, and you can get away with very little hinting at what might be coming. Importantly I feel like if executed correctly, the example of a romance novel where a main character gets killed off part way through actually sounds like something I might enjoy to read myself if done correctly.
I like "Dusk till Down".
@danielleanderson6371 I accept that's certainly the case. But for every person you turn away with a story with such a twist, there may be another who becomes a fan of your work. I can't comment on fruits basket having not seen it, but in general I would at least still expect some hinting that such a thing were a possibility. In fact, one of my favourite things across various types of media is being able to re-consume the media and notice different things that I would have never thought to take note of the first time round.
I think the biggest hurdle is ultimately in advertising to the correct crowd, I could totally see that if you were reading a romance novel purely as feel-good material, such a development would be unwelcome. Of course there's then the issue that if you advertise that there's something besides that then you may give away the twist. It's a difficult problem with no easy solution, I just don't think completely avoiding these types of twists is good advice.
@danielleanderson6371 that's completely fair, I suppose I'm looking at this more from the perspective of someone who enjoys literature rather than strictly from a business sense. Many stories I enjoy employ these types of narrative mechanisms, but a lot of them were not popular when they were created or still are not to this day. It's true that playing it safe is the better choice for those looking to make a living in this way. I just admire the courage of those authors that take such risks with their work.
The way you know that you've done a plot twist right is when you can see the twist coming with the gift of hindsight. You can mislead an audience and still properly set up your twist.
As long as the twist is being properly built up to and comes early enough. Reminds me of Madoka Magica, seemingly your everyday cutesy magical girl show, but it's just a veneer for darker more horrific reality.
I think my number 1 pet peeve is when writers don't respect the intelligence of their audience. They get so caught up in having a good idea for a story that they become afraid that their audience won't understand it or will misinterpret it. So they go the extra mile to make sure they explain it in excruciating detail, leaving no more room for speculation in the mind of the reader.
kids shows that assume young kids have no concept of creative thinking whatsoever
@@Underworlder5 They used to not. Avatar, TMNT (2012 and 2003), Thundercats 2011, Transformers Animated, and so on and so forth. Nowadays, we get nothing like that.
that is a good point.
Definitely agree. I love it when I read some book where the author has clearly managed to construct a narrative that allows my own imagination to reach the appropriate conclusion and then they never told me explicitly. It makes me feel smarter than I am. Ha. But I know that's what really good story craft is, trusting that your audience will figure out if you give them bread crumbs for a trail instead of paving them interstate. Hungry children always make it to the house of candy if they have a few crumbs to chase down on their own.
Well considering how brutal the audience is when they misunderstand something, they endlessly spread whatever “criticism” came into their and refuse to let go, destroying countless products; I don’t blame the writers.
I think my biggest pain approaching fiction is the " why don't you just " situations.
The other day I saw a movie , it was something like " a babysitters guide to monster hunting " in which the villain:
sends his minions to kidnap someone, waits for the minions to arrive at the person's house, teleports all the way there, talks to the person, watches the minions capture the person, teleports back home and waits for the minions to bring him the prisioner.
This movie is all about the heroes following the minions tracks.
The movie establishes the main villain can teleport carrying other people.
LOL
Wow, so much effort for something that can be resolved so easily
sounds like the villain has the classic "i wont touch that with a 10ft pole because its above my pay grade" mentality.
every horror movie is like this for some reason.
It’s the worst when writers can’t pair fantastical ideas with basic logic.
I think a useful recap would be one that shows how a character remembers the event. No two witnesses pick up the same details. Normal human experience includes different people remembering the same event different ways, so that is a legitimate story element.
I was thinking something like this too (although it was more about honesty).
Yeah, recapping what happened as a vehicle for exploring the personalities of the ones recounting it is a valid strat. I think the video was talking about situations where it's clearly exposition for the benefit of the reader.
I hate when a misunderstanding drives the plot for more than an instant. I once watched a series where every misunderstanding was cleared up almost instantly and I felt so satisfied.
What was the series?
I really enjoy movies about liars. They keep on telling lies to everyone and it gets worse and worse with every interaction, the whole house of cards ready to collapse at any moment, the main character always at the risk of facing not only the consequence he wanted to avoid with the first lie but everything that piled up because of the other lies as well.
IDK if this can be counted als misunderstanding.
Another thing I really like is when the misunderstanding is used for comedy like in Tucker and Dale VS Evil. It also goes on through the entire movie and is never fully resolved for most characters.
Stories that are loaded with info dumps and stories that suddenly have a villain turn into an incompetent buffoon, are my number two pet peeves! The best stories make the antagonist and protagonists strive to bring out the best in each other and when writers go the lazy route of copping out, it makes me instantly lose interest. Excellent video!
Thanks man! And I agree 100% on overdone info dumps
Extremely long and tedious info dumps are awesome. They weed out lazy people.
I want to see a story where a bad guy shows up, gets defeated, then comes back even stronger and having learned his mistake from the previous encounter. I hate when previously competent villains turn into comic relief after their first attempt.
@@Tijopi11 The evil overlord list. "If my ultimate plan for world domination fails because of a minor oversight, I will correct the oversight and try again."
@@Tijopi11 Those are the good stories
What pisses me off a lot in game stories is the "surprise" betrayal. Got one character who has been with the main character from the beginning, helping them out, always there to assist, and it's gotten to the point where when everything aligns that way, you can see the betrayal coming a mile away.
or the betrayal that makes no sense and had absolutely no foreshadowing beforehand, then the character suddenly takes a 180
@@lana-ana-ana Yes. Like.. "Surprise! We weren't actually telling a good story! GOTCHA!"
I don't mind the surprise betrayals. I do mind, however, when the "Smartest person on the team" doesn't put the obviously foreshadowing clues for the smarter audience members to follow together and is the one person who is the most shocked outside the hero.
Especially if they're similar to the batman archetype. That's the one person you need running around on a wild goose chase with red herrings to stay out of your way and you just leave him alone?
This is primarily the problem with the 2010's Disney twist-villains except for Turbo, it's a lack of motive and foreshadowing that just don't make the twist to click
❤ you for bringing this up. It's as bad as deux ex machina.
Things I hate in stories
1. When the villain has a stupid motive
2. When an actual good character gets very little mention in the story for no reason
3. When the story gets emotionally interesting but after becomes totally stale
4. When they kill off good characters for no reason and let unlikable characters live
5. Probably the one I hate the most: having the feeling that the plot goes nowhere
Always take your climax and foreshadow it as indirectly as possible, usually after the Inciting Incident.
I definitely have to agree with the killing off of good characters. I know some situations, it may not be realistic that everyone lives, but if death doesn’t add anything then let them live. Worst one I read was when a likable character dies at the very end almost randomly to fulfill some prophecy given at the beginning. It’s almost like the author forgot about it wrote the entire book and then, whoops, have to tie that loose end so random arrow hits a good guy.
That sounds like RWBY writing
@@albertabramson3157 I am currently working on writing the story to the game and there’s a major retrospective twist at the end of the game, and I plan that the level design is covered in references to the twist, such as graffiti and carvings of the scene in various places. Due to the way the scene referenced is framed, however, it just looks like a cool abstract design until you know what it is.
Would you count world domination a stupid motive? (I'm working on a story that has something to do with that)
Pulling punches is the worst when the villain chooses not to harm the hero for some contrived reason. "No, I won't kill you because you must suffer later in the story."
Yep, and if you can't kill the hero, at least force the hero to face meaningful suffering/consequences
I mean it can work if you make it a character flaw of the villain. Perhaps he is one who loves theatrics or is wanting to savor the heroes pain.
A good example would be a villain wanting to have the hero live to see family and friends die one by one. Could also work with a character who thinks they are smarter than they are and wants to gloat over the hero’s loss because “of course the hero can’t win now”
@@Nostripe361 it could but it's rare. In this case, the villain needs to have personal ties to the hero.
The hero wearing a thick plot armor is the worst.
Does it work if the villains are too cocky and want to enjoy their death like some sick bastard?
For number 3, I think it's a result of "Show, don't tell." The solution to No. 3 is to tell the audience what happened. Don't show Bob telling Jill what happened, tell the audience that Bob brought her up to speed.
The issue with what you wrote, in my humble opinion, is that it only works for literary laziness in both reader and writer. You wrote, "For number 3, I think it's a result of "Show, don't tell." The solution to No. 3 is to tell the audience what happened. Don't show Bob telling Jill what happened, tell the audience that Bob brought her up to speed."
This is very lazy. I'm not trying to be rude btw, so I hope what I write isn't taken like that. I'm just trying to explain myself, something you really didn't bother to do. That is, in my opinion, an insidious kind of literary (by which I mean written) laziness.
If I analyse your comment, you used the term "show" in oppose to "write" or "summarise" even though in literature no one can "show" anything because it's not a visual art form, so to me it means that you don't actually read a lot and have not particularly analysed literature (possibly before trying to write some yourself), you're actually more of a viewer in which case you should write plays and screenplays not long form prose because realistically in order to know how to write, one needs to first be a prolific reader. If you were one, you would know that what works in visual arts doesn't work in writing even in the same genre.
Overall your comment doesn't seem to make any sense. You wrote, "...I think it's a result of "Show, don't tell" but you don't actually explain what you mean by this in terms of any given example that would make sense in literature because the rest of your comment contradicts this and logic.
"The solution to No. 3 is to tell the audience what happened." How does one not "tell the audience what happened" in a book? This is illogical and contradictory to saying, "Don't show Bob telling Jill what happened, tell the audience that Bob brought her up to speed."
In writing the only way to "show" Bob telling Jill what happened, would be to write dialogue... How do you build the personality of the character without going into Tolkien like descriptions if you don't show their personality through speech? Which voice are you even using? It can't be third person omnipotent.
Also all of this depends on who Jill is and why she is being "brought up to speed" and if she has any questions or if the point of Bob telling Jill what happened is if he is honest or lying and if the reader is supposed to notice that. Genre matters. In an inverted detective fiction or "how catch'um" genre, basically like Columbo, or any kind of mystery actually, what you wrote is obviously incorrect. It doesn't work in comedy either.
For example in a short story/serialised fiction I wrote called 'The Fugly Girl Incident', near the end I wrote a scene where a character called Hughard, a vampiric alien who had taken the form of a cloud was suffocating his in-law, a humanoid alien woman from a different planet, because she had insulted his child raising abilities during an argument about her own daughter's wicked behaviour.
When Hughard was eventually slapped back into a humanoid form by a security officer and subsequently arrested and dragged away, he started desperately explaining what had just happened but his version of the event is all lies. The comparison between the truth and the lies within the context of the wider story is supposed to be amusing.
Where would the joke be if I wrote, "as Hughard was being dragged away he brought Roxy up to speed, lying about what had happened and insisting none of it was his fault."?
That's not inherently amusing (to me). He's just a liar. But the way I wrote it with him lying about very specific things for nonsensical reasons, reinforces the emotions of the event and also further adds to the feeling that Hughard isn't quite right in the head.
The issue is simply not going into exhaustive detail when repeating oneself. That's it. The gentleman in the video was talking nonsense too because he spoke on establishing genres by using tropes as if "literary fiction" isn't a genre. He's sitting in front of a very narrow bookshelf overpacked with books which haven't even been read. His opinion is worth the creases in the spines of his paperback books... Get it.
@@CandiceGoddard Forgive me if this is incoherent-- I'm writing this before heading off to bed.
I used the word 'show' in "Show, don't tell" because it's one of the name of the technique, and that is also why I put it in quotation marks in my original comment. I fail to see how using the common name of a writing technique implies that I'm not a writer or a frequent reader. Bear in mind that 'writing' can broadly apply to both written literature and visual arts, such as screen and stage plays. As such, I prefer to say "Show, don't tell" than "Express, don't tell," because I feel as though it gets the point across clearer. I do not believe the word 'show' is inaccurate in literature due to it being possible to plant scenes in people's minds with vivid descriptions.
The intention of my comment was to share the thought, "I believe that the 3rd example discussed in this video is a result of writers being told that "Show, don't tell" is *always* bad, leading them to write redundant scenes. For example, if Scene A involves Bob discovering extensive details regarding a scheme, and Scene B involves Bob sharing his findings with Jill (whom was not present in Scene A), the author could simply omit Bob's dialogue in which he details the scheme. Instead, they could simply write something such as, "Bob described the scheme to Jill," they can then begin to write Jill's reaction, leading into a scene where they discuss the new information together, maintaining the pacing of the story and not boring the audience by telling them something they just saw." Basically, some authors may be told to avoid *always* using certain literary devices, and they avoid them *entirely* because they remember the "Don't use it" more than the "...except when it fits just right." A savvy writer could use Scene B to help explain what was found in Scene A rather than repeating themselves, since the audience would be hearing the details from a character in the story who may not be an expert on the subject or might be an expert speaking to a non-expert. So, Scene A becomes Bob finding something which worries him, and Scene B becomes both Jill learning about it *and* Bob sharing *why* it worries him.
I'm not calling for people to omit dialogue entirely, nor am I saying "You must always write, exactly, 'X brought Y up-to-speed,'" but rather to simply use it where it matters. Compare, "Bob looked at the sign, which read, "EXIT" Bob then read aloud, "Exit."" and "Looking at the sign, Bob read it aloud, "Exit"". If dialogue needs to be shown, such as in the examples shown in your story, it needs to be shown. If the dialogue breaks the pacing too much, it should probably be removed unless it has a valid reason to be there, such as to set up a joke or show something about the character.
Another example-- Imagine setting the scene where there's some urgent need for the characters to get moving, say there's a time bomb which detonates in twenty minutes. Rather than killing the momentum and excitement created in the hypothetical previous scene in order to have each character introduce themselves to each other, if the audience is familiar with each character, a simple "After swiftly introducing everyone to each other, the ragtag team swiftly hurried off," could suffice. The 'swiftly' implies that they shared minimal information, such as the names of each character, rather than sitting down and sharing their life stories, and so the audience won't be confused when a character who previously never met another somehow knows their name.
Your very own writing uses an example of telling the audience rather than showing them! "...he started desperately explaining what had just happened..." is telling the audience something without outright showing every word he said, the "...but his version of the event is all lies," also answers one of your questions ("..if the point of Bob telling Jill what happened is if he is honest or lying.."), though I'd personally try to find some other way of letting the audience know rather than telling them outright. Literary devices are tools, after all, and one tool can't possibly always be the solution to every question.
I do, unfortunately, think you came off as a bit rude when you talked about the word 'show', the creator of the video, and dismissing his opinions. Though keep in mind that I haven't rewatched this video, so I don't even remember what he talked about that you're responding to! I'm pretty sure he has, at the very least, read that one book to his right-- the one with his name on the cover. Or the one on his left, also featuring his name. But! I'm glad you wrote your comment! Sharing thoughts and opinions is, in my eyes, pretty much always a good thing. I don't think we (you and I, not him and I) disagree about anything on the topic. You also raise a very valid point with "The issue is simply not going into exhaustive detail when repeating oneself."
EDIT: I think the mindset I was in when I wrote my original comment was, like, Bob explains something to Harold, then Jill pops in right as he's done. So it can go like
1. Bob tells Harold the thing and the audience gets to see it
2. Before Harold can react, Jill pops in. Bob repeats everything he just told Harold, but this time it's not shown to the audience
3. Harold and Jill react to what they were told
EDIT 2: I'm writing this the day after writing my initial reply! I just thought of another example-- "As Bob was sharing what he had learned with Jill, she interjected once he began detailing Harold's true intentions, "He plans to do what?!" she shouted." That way, if the story needs Bob to be unable to finish sharing the information (ie: if Jill runs off to try and fix things without hearing everything Bob has to say, or if Harold's minions suddenly burst into the scene), it can!
@@CandiceGoddardSaying someone is not a reader because you don't understand how 'show, don't tell' can apply to literature comes across as pretty arrogant tbh.
@@motrinmedicYou do understand that you can't adhere to a rule 100% of the time. Just because it occasionally needs to be broken doesn't mean it's not a good rule
Wouldn't that be "Tell, don't show?"
I love how quick and to the point this video is. Putting a bunch of unnecessary talk and background before the content would be top of my list of 5 things youtube audiences hate.
"...And don't forget to hit the bell for notifications and drop a like. Alright, let's get into it..."
Thanks!
“…but before we begin the video…”
@@niclaswa5408 "...I'd like to talk about the channel, something funny that happened to me last week that has no relation to this video, and present a 15-minute skit praising our sponsors."
"But first, let's talk about something that audiences love, and that is today's sponsor, Raid: Shadow Legends."
My poor sister. She waited years to read an entire Robert Jordan book to find out what happened to her favorite character in the last book's cliffhanger, only to finish the entire thing and realize that Jordan didn't even mention that character in this book. Time to wait years for a resolution...again.
So sad. And I can't say if it's worse to not see your character, lost and forgotten, or to see him dying in the very first pages of the book. 😕
I'm assuming you're referring to Robert Jordan's book Path of Daggers and that her favourite character was (or is) Mat.
I'll tell you a secret: Fictional characters become alive and tell you, what they would do, and what they wish to happen. For the writer as well as for the audience. So why don't you ask the character, what happened to him? (PS: I can sing a song about fictional characters becoming alive. One of my characters got on my nerves, because I hadn't finished the story and he wouldn't take it. He forced me to finish it.)
@@igoretski - I think I get what you're saying: fictional characters, ideal ones, work together with the author, to make a good story. But ideal characters don't exist, as ideal persons don't exist in real life. In few words, my character does not want to get in action, so it's almost impossible to make him evolve, in spite the fact I love him and he's got potential. So, it's up to me find a way to make him shine. Even if he does not want to. ^_^
unwarranted character deaths. namely the ones performed in order to just "kill a character off" because the author doesn't want to write them anymore.
Another is... an important character dies... and the other characters grieve.... for like one episode/chapter/whatever. That loss does not stick with the rest of the cast. That empty space is never addressed again. That death had no meaning.
What I hate the absolute most. Is when a serious plot point is never addressed later on. Like in spy novel. If the main character gets betrayed by someone and it never reveals who it was. The other is character knowledge inconsistency. Like when 1 characters realizes something using information they weren't there for.
I hate. Sentence fragments.
@@haroldcampbell3337 What are. You talking about. Their sentence structure. Is impeccable.
@@haroldcampbell3337 Unfortunate. Said Cormac McCarthy as a dust devil danced in frenzy deep in the arroyo. A whirling dervish.
One pet peeve I can't stand (probably my biggest pet peeve) when reading novels is seemingly instant romantic connection between the two characters when they haven't really done anything to earn that love if you get what I'm trying to say. The characters don't go on a long adventure, or just learning about each other before realizing they like the other. Instead it's googoo eyes immediately upon looking at the person and falling in love. The Ice Lord's Bride by Ava Ross is a book I cannot finish because of this. It's instantaneous love at first sight, and I despise it. Don't fall in love because of just their looks. Get to know the other person better before saying 'yeah, I like you. Let's date'. Slow burns are my thing.
I think one way to make Love At First Sight work in fiction would be that while one character has it, the other very much does not. The character in love would then try to earn the other's love back, which could end in a multitude of ways, from being answered to being rejected to even true tragedy. The drama in the situation then could be the possible desperation the first character feels as they keep being unloved. In short: it shouldn't be too easy.
I mean, meanwhile we get BG3 story writing.
"You exist and don't try to kill me, let's f*ck."
They do this all the time in movies.
omg same. it happens so much it's absurd.
a fic i read had love at first sight, but the mc actually took time to get to know her love interest instead of just making out. it worked, at least for me.
One pet peeve of mine is when the supposed answer doesn’t fit with all the events we’ve seen/read. One particular storyline had supernatural events happen, but claimed the answer was completely mundane-even though the culprit couldn’t have done at least two of the things that supposedly happened because he can’t be two places at once and he can’t float in the air-this being a story of regular humans
haha #4 "pulling punches". if i had a dollar for every protagonist who gets the "thrown at the wall" treatment by every antagonist whos previously been simply annihilating others by blinking up to that point, id have enough money to self publish and move to tahiti
I hear you. Those protagonists are survivors, man
This is probably my top peeve. Throw at a wall, throw them aside so they roll away and get another chance, don’t pull the trigger, etc. im immediately out of the moment.
It'd be nice to see that trope subverted. Character gets thrown at a brick/concrete wall, then reality ensues and it actually kills or seriously injures them.
For me it gets even worse if super powers are involved.
Super powerful villain throws the hero away ... instead of: ripping him apart with his INSANE power, etc.
At least the superhero genre embraced this so much to make it a legit part of the genre, the same can't be said for most genres (plenty of genres come with super strength type antagonists). Neither good guys nor badguys should just harmlessly throw someone away instead of actually finishing them off (given the fight actually involves the intent to kill).
You mean how the hobits survive in 99% of the story?
I made the mistake of re-telling an event from two different points of view in my first draft of my novel. One of my beta readers pointed out that he was disappointed because 'you told it just fine the first time.' I had done it because I WANTED people to understand how each person saw the event differently ...so I wasn't trying to fill space. However, I took on board what he said, and told it from one POV only ...and had to work hard to show how the other person reacted, etc. It really worked. Good advice!
The idea isn't bad, but the new PoV has to change the reader's perception of the story to a significant enough degree that the retelling is worth it. If it's just about one character's motivation for acting like they did, it's probably not worth it. If it upends the entire plot and changes everything, then you might be onto something.
Also, kudos for listening to advice. That's a skill a lot of people lack.
reminds me a lot of sonic adventure. if two playable characters were present in one scene, you would see that same scene in both of their stories, but slightly altered to show that characters perspective. a good example is sonic and tails in relation to eggman. sonic is cocky while tails is insecure. see a cutscene with eggman in sonics story, and eggman is loud and theatrical. see that same scene in tails story, and eggman speaks with a more cold and intimidating tone
The movie Rashomon shows how to tell a story that's about people's different views on the same event. I think that type of story is difficult to convey in an effective manner, due to the danger that repetition poses when done poorly. In Rashomon's case, each version of events is fairly short and each one is quite different, which might be why it works for that movie.
My Next Life As A Villainess' light novels have this problem. They first tell an event from Katarina's POV, then from the POV of the character involved, which comes off as redundant to say the least.
@@artificialaceattorney6822 That works maybe once, if it's short enough and it's not obvious what the character thinks, since those characters don't think about what Bakarina thinks they do.
Number 1 is the exact type of story that I want to read or see. Maybe it is just me but I love the idea of a massive genre twist!
Lol yeah I was cracking up at that part and saying “Hey man I’d actually watch that!”
I think the point is that you really have to make it work. From Dusk Till Dawn is a great example, but that was done very deliberately and Tarantino made sure that it all made sense. The tones of the stories still matched - a significant genre shift, but not really a shift in the tone of the story.
@@artmarkham3205Exactly what I was gonna bring up! I always mention this movie in the context of genre flipping or "a twist no one in a million years would've thought of"
@@artmarkham3205I love Dusk till Down, you're right about the tone. It is suspenseful all the way through. The other one that I enjoyed greatly was Gosford Park. I thought I was watching a period drama with interesting, complicated characters, all with different motivations, relationships, etc. All of a sudden there's a
(Spoiler) murder. And it becomes a "who did it" story.
Not sure if it's just me, that didn't see it coming or was it in fact a twist. What probably fooled me was the amount of screen time until it happened and the tone completely changed for the second half.
Talentless Nana (Anime/Manga) ✨
An author making their agenda obvious, instead of making it in organic part of a strong story.
Yep, there's a right way to do theme and unfortunately a lot of today's storytellers make it a one-sided thing
Did you just watch Velma?
Except of course that there's a subset of modern audiences who will lash out even at subtle theming, if it doesn't fit their own beliefs.
And there's another subset that will lash out at things like the presence of women or black characters, and claim that acknowledging that such people exist at all is "pushing an agenda."
@@tbotalpha8133 Actually, no. There are people who insist on race-swapping existing characters in order to push a current-year narrative, as well as shoehorning a checklist's worth of identities into every single story, whether it fits, or makes any sense at all, also purely to push a political agenda. These people then disingenuously pretend that they're not pushing a political agenda when they transparently are, and actually expect people to still fall for this routine. Hate to break it to you, but nobody is buying it anymore. We all know your agenda. We can all see you. You are simply not smart or clever enough to hide it well enough.
@@tbotalpha8133 Sometimes that subset aren't wrong because the writers are pushing an agenda. In the last decade, media has pushed an agenda so often (and trashing beloved characters in the process) that those audiences can hardly be blamed for becoming over-reactive.
Ultimately, characters must make sense to their setting and world, and audiences will respond when they are well placed and well developed. If that isn't heeded, or if it's done clumsily (even if not intentional), expect a lashing that you might even deserve.
One thing that's really annoying is when a seemingly important element of the plot is just abandoned and never elaborated on again with little to no explination given.
I remember John Wick 2 ended with WInston giving John a Marker and then it's immediately forgotten. Instead, John goes to a library to grab ANOTHER Marker (Halle Berry's).
I had this with a bitterly disappointing book called 'The Binding' Bridget Collins. So much potential with a unique idea which is dropped after the 1/3 of the story.
It's funny how many 'professional' writers do this. Chris Chibnall being a good (bad!) example!
For number 3, I wholeheartedly agree. This was one of my biggest gripes with the later books in the Earth's Children series. Ayla recounting her journey to the people she meets in her travels got annoying really fast.
Still great books though.
Probably the toughest thing to deal with is writing that pushes a needless message down the reader or viewer's throat. We're smart enough to know that the story is about a strong character, and not that there's a story with a strong character in it. Your videos are very helpful for my graphic novel. Many thanks
Yeah, I hate writing that *tells* me how to feel instead of *invoking those feelings*
It just means they're lazy hacks
Your comment makes me tempted to hate - watch "Birdemic" - again.
Except of course that there's a subset of modern audiences who will lash out even at subtle messaging, if it doesn't fit their own beliefs.
And there's another subset that will lash out at things like the presence of women or black characters, and claim that acknowledging that such people exist at all is "pushing an agenda."
@@tbotalpha8133 Except there's not. What we do have is dishonest people like you who insist on race-swapping or gender-swapping existing characters in order to push a current-year narrative, as well as shoehorning a checklist's worth of trendy woke identities into every single story, whether it fits, or makes any sense at all, also purely to push a political agenda. These people then disingenuously pretend that they're not pushing a political agenda when they transparently are, and actually expect people to still fall for this routine. Hate to break it to you, but nobody is buying it anymore. We all know your agenda. We can all see you. You are simply not smart or clever enough to hide it well enough.
All writing is telling you how to feel, it's just that some writers are better at it or some audiences like how (x) writer does that better than (y) writer.
I just watched a scene of a character dying that was supposed to be sad but it was badly written, and another character says “this is so sad!”. Felt like it was telling me how I was supposed to feel, and it backfired.
"guys this is so sad can we get 5 likes?"
i absolutely bursted hearing that line lmao
This is so relatable!
When a rule or law of the world is established, and then later it is violated or ignored without compelling explanation.
Sudden genre shifts can work, but it's difficult to pull them off well. I think they work best when there's subtle foreshadowing that the audience may not pay attention at first but which make sense in retrospect. Like "Ooooh, _that's_ why this average joe kept acting so paranoid, he was actually a secret agent" or "So that's what he meant when he said this could be the last night they see each other."
Best examples ( That I know ), would be Attack on Titan and Vinland Saga.
From a gaming perspective, Xenoblade Chronicles does that really well: it goes from something akin to fantasy to straight up science fiction.
it works there specially because the SciFi stuff gels really well with the fantasy that was established, since the later was subtly hinting at the former all along.
From dusk till dawn
Shut up
Hereditary.
One thing I hate most in a story is when a character dies and their death is supposed to be emotional and meaningful and it’s supposed to spur the main character forward. But then, the character gets revived immediately. Personally, I feel that this just kills a lot of the emotion and meaning the death had. Why kill a character and make it this huge event only to completely backtrack for no reason? It’s one thing if the character is revived near the end of the story and it’s something that is built up, but doing it not too long after the character dies just feels lackluster. But idk, that’s just me.
Same here to be honest
Better not play FF14. The protagonist crew is pretty much immortal. Not only Mary Sues but even when they die, the just come back. One is even revived by the antagonist, who just wants to show that he's a nice guy. Or the final of story, when all of them sacrifice themselves, just to be snapped back. It goes so far, that they even know about it and tell "yeah, you can just bring us back, but don't", but of course it still happens.
It's even worse than all the easy wins, fake sacrifices.
writers avoid death like death. never feels like there's any danger for characters when nobody dies if they have a name
Every. Comic. Ever.
Gotta hate the fake death
It’s a film not a book, but #1 is crucial part of Psycho. Romance and runaway lovers suddenly breaking into something completely different.
Hitchcock qualifies as his own genre, and you just described it.
I mean it switches up within the first act so it’s not a big deal
That's not true about _Psycho._ It's a thriller from the beginning. Marion steals $40K and goes on the run, she's paranoid the whole time. She sees her boss on the street and he knows she lied. A cop pulls her over and interrogates her, she's sweating bullets. The cop follows her, she switches cars etc. The beginning even before the Bates Motel is suspenseful like the full-on thriller it becomes later.
@@rustincohle2135 Fair point, it’s a romantic thriller at the beginning, but it changes from that into a horror film
Psycho is based on a book by Robert Bloch
Nothing demolishes the reality of a story for me as completely as characters acting out of character.
*cough cough* Star Wars sequels *cough*
My book/movie/show pet peeves
- When my favorite couple doesn't say their feelings unless one of them dies or on deathbed or with someone else.
- When one of my favorite characters dies out of nowhere. Especially if others just move on like nothing happened.
- When an expert fighter "forgot" what they can do. Especially if they are supers.
- When an excellent book ends and there's no plans for a new one.
- When someone has an important secret that could be told in 1 minute and they wait until the secret gets out. They say that they didn't have a chance but they could've said something at anytime.
- Will they, won't they (make up your minds already!)
- When a character treats their lover like garbage and it's seen as romantic. (Oh, he just had a bad childhood. He's just protecting me.)
- The billionaire and the nobody (been done SO many times. Every now and then you might get a good story.)
Agreed on most of those. Have to admit I like "Will they, won't they" because it creates tension
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty You need to have moral dilemas where the protagonist hard descisions but if its simple as eat the poop to see a pair of boobs that isnt a hsrd descision.
The only one "suspect" here is "Will they/Won't they"... AND arguably that's a delicate balance to some extent... BUT it gets REALLY grating when it's becoming too obvious that it's just toxicity... Someone is clearly stringing the other along... AND by defacto-proxy US, the audience.
SO build the tension... Fine... Add a few questionable "obstacles" that might present a "doomed" or "forbidden" romance... BUT there comes a point when a decision HAS to be made, otherwise, you're not building tension, anymore. You're just bullsh*tting...
There's nothing wrong in fiction with a doomed or forbidden romance... Sometimes, you make that choice and "damn the consequences", entirely the mark of a "hopeless romantic".
...tears and all. ;o)
i hate that "I lied to protect you" crap. or, for example, in Mission: Impossible 2, Thandie Newton and Tom Cruise have an incredible, dangerous fight and car chase, sleep together, then all of a sudden things are too dangerous for her. umm, what?
@@GoddessOfWhim2003 that could be done well to dramatically increase the stakes, like yes she's a badass and a great driver BUT we are going up against THIS guy and that's too much for her. MI2 was not like that, it was just bad... EDIT: quick address before I get a bunch of corrections, "THAT scene in MI2 was bad, MI2 was good overall"
I agree with all of these points. Another one that really bothers me in all forms of fiction is when characters (especially those you're rooting for) make very stupid mistakes, and you know where their stupid decisions will lead, you can see it a mile away, but they do it anyway, and you get a very predictable outcome.
The thing in writing, that I hate the most, is characters that behave according to the script. Where a character has been established to behave in a certain way, but chooses the complete opposite, not because the situation called for it, or because they have changed due to some experience, but because it needs to happen for the plot to progress.
As an amateur writer this is my greatest fear.
This is an issue I have with rpg games. There will be persuasion options to convince ppl to do horrible things.
It will be like npc "no I won't burn the town down just because you want me to, it wrong and evil. I ld never hurt a fly"
Players responds: you should do it tho, it'll be fun.
Npc: well when you put it that way...
That convinced me pretty well hahaha
I, for one, really don't appreciate things being over explained. I enjoy discovering the story, world and characters through well placed details and subtle hints. I think it's much more artful and entertaining than when the author dumps everything out in front of you like they just got back from a robbery. I'm intelligent, I can figure it out.
Agreed. Obviously clarity is critical, but unnecessary infodumps are no fun
Blade runner 2049
Don't get me wrong... on some things, I don't mind a little explainer here and there... BUT DO NOT insult my intelligence. STUPID people do NOT read literature. They read comics and porn'... ;o)
I learned that if it's longer than a paragraph of information then you have gone too long. Much can be explained in a single sentence
I didn’t appreciate only saying, “I don’t like things overly explained.”
I actually love it when the genre takes a shit unexpectedly and your potential move description sounds awesome.
I also love it when the genre takes an unexpected shit
As for expectations: the beauty of horror is that it is not a genre, but a mood, a suspicion, a dread, and so it can crop up anywhere, in any kind of context, which is why stories by Elizabeth Bowen and L. P. Hartley, or films by Ingmar Bergman and David Lynch, can be so much more disturbing and frightening than many stories clearly labelled as horror. They catch readers and viewers off-guard.
Sunshine did this well imo, was shaping up to be a great philosophical sci-fi and then BAM! Slasher movie
Made the slasher element so much more powerful
The survival horror middle section of 2001 is also quite noteworthy
@@347Jimmy If we're giving examples, I offer _Gaslight_ (the British original). You aren't sure what the #*@& is going on for most of the movie, but it's scary enough to keep you watching...and then, without losing the thriller element, they throw in a mystery element!
I agree, and when you label something as horror, people are going to have a set standard of expectations. I like stories when it is up for me to decide if the book is horror or not.
Predator.
@@jasondrake323 Predator would have been one of the biggest twists in cinema history if they hadn't shown the spacecraft at the start
“Don’t kill him or you’ll be just as bad as him” ignoring the mountains of dead henchmen
For me the worst is when the villain is literally a maniacal genocide but if you kill him you are bad.
Like when batman over and over again let the joker live, then the joker kills a bunch of people, then batman stops him but let him live, but then the joker scapes prison and kill a bunch of people.
I know that a hero shouldn’t kill every villain they encounter, but for christ sake letting someone that maniacal live is stupid and makes no sense
"Deadpool ignored that advice and point blank headshot the bad guy."
There's a reason why I love that character.
@@NeuviletteBR It made sense in the golden and silver era, where the Joker was just a bank robber who played practical jokes. But, you know, they had to become grimdark and now its a bit jarring, as you say.
Hero: Killing you is murder.
Villain: You know I will come back...
Hero: Sparing you is genocide. (Kills the villain)
Fr. I understand Batman does this, but not every character needs to be like that. It steals away from the realism of the story in a lot of instances. Like if you're in a war then neutralize the threat. It also just doesn't make sense logically a lot of the time. They be like "If I kill this mass murderer who has committed genocide for my own reasons, then I'm just as bad." No you're not dude. That guy isn't innocent 😂
Point 3 is sometimes used as a hint that some character has seriously mistaken a previous event or the overall plot so-far and shows a hilarious "you're not acting rational" kind of interaction, or even uses it to clarify how one character perceives the event so far, giving a different view on the plot.
As an amateur writer, videos like this are extremely helpful. Some of my chapter updates get delayed simply by me worrying about whether or not my writing style is liked or disliked by my audience. I write on fanFiction, which doesn't always have a close interaction between the author and the readers. Readers can leave comments, but only at their discretion, so sometimes it's hard to tell what they think of your work
Same for me. What fandom do you usually write for?
@@minion3806 I write for a few different ones. I'm writing stuff for the anime Girls und Panzer right now, but I also have an Assassin's Creed/Mass Effect crossover going
When you are the amateur writer and you start your sentence with, "As an amateur writer..." the next word MUST be "I". You should say, "As an amateur writer, I find videos like this to be..." The way you have written your first sentence, VIDEOS are an amateur writer. Of course, this is not what you meant, but it IS what you wrote. This is like saying, "While eating a sandwich, the bread fell apart." The way this is written, the bread was eating the sandwich. Once you see the flaw, you can see several ways to rewrite/correct this. Please watch out for this most "amateurish" of errors.
@@Unknown17 Alright then
The pulling punches trope is often seen in films where the villain feels the need to go on a "plan explaining rant" usually while holding the hero/their friends at gunpoint, waving the gun around sometimes for effect.
This comment section is literally the best way to identify what not to put in your story. Great video too !
Haha legit! I've been scrolling through this gold mine of inspiration and warnings for tens of minutes now 😂😂
@@franckymaginessame here lol
One thing that always annoys me is when characters overreact for plot reasons. Like one character does something that’s not so bad and they’re immediately seen as the most evil person imaginable by the person they affect
Or the opposite: someone who commits horrible atrocities but is forgiven/has no repercussions because "they did one good thing" or "they were abused/misunderstood." Forgiveness takes work, people! And sometimes you put in the work and still aren't forgiven, but that's okay because sometimes people are still really upset that you killed their mother, and all that's left is to move on and keep trying to do good.
There is so much potential in redemption stories, but so many times have I seen creators just brush that aside in favor of an empty apology and pledge to fight on the side of good. Or worse, they sacrifice themselves and that automatically makes all the bad stuff they did null!
Anyway, both tropes are equally as annoying. They need to end.
Eleven when she broke her bullys nose in the last season when it aas completely cool and awesome that she almost killed some grown men in the first one
@@katarinacarrico7887 that’s definitely true, and is even more upsetting if
A) they suddenly become good, while it is possible it feels unnatural for someone to suddenly change unless the story gives them a good reason to, maybe they realize something or another character helps explain it to them, but if they just spontaneously become good after being forgiven, that doesn’t work
B) they don’t become good, and end up causing a problem that could’ve been preventable had the group not forgiven them so easily. I think this can work if trust is a key theme in the book depending on the circumstance, maybe the character is too trusting and this was supposed to happen to show why giving everyone a second chance isn’t that easy and why it’s important to be skeptical at times, but more often than not it’s never covered, resulting in the group going “how could they have betrayed us? I thought they changed!” And it feels stupid.
It’s definitely possible to have the best of both worlds. Characters could believe someone deserves a second chance but still not trust them just to be safe, but like you said, forgiveness takes work
@@katarinacarrico7887would you say self-sacrifice seems more appropriate closer to the end of the tale, especially after much effort has been made to make it right by other means? This is a vital element in a short story I'm doing.
@@daforkgaming3320 Yes! Thank you for validating my statement! I agree, in some cases it can work. One of my favorite depictions of a character suddenly being good is in She-Ra when Shadow Weaver sacrifices herself to save Catra and Adora, because that wasn't a redemption-- she was still very much a selfish, abusive person who would not be willing to put in the time and effort to be good. That moment not only shows that, but also moves the plot forward and gives the other characters a bit of closure. That's the best use of self sacrifice I've ever seen.
But it seems that most people like to use it as a quick fix instead, which usually results in pissing fans off at worst and eye rolls at best. Either way, most people don't approve of it.
As for second chances, I've noticed a lot of writers struggle with that, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's due to time restrictions? Redemptions are a long term process (There can be exceptions, like if someone said something horrible to their friend and they talk it over, but I'm referring more to the "enemy to friend" trope.) and not every publisher/producer/director has time for that. Still though, one would hope the pacing would be figured out before the story's release.
6:07 Your hypothetical scenario could work if it was a comedy where that would be the point of the joke. The sniper missing the protagonist in the most comically over-the-top ways you could imagine and we laugh at the sniper's reaction every time he misses.
One of my pet peeves is when characters get into an argument over something but instead of resolving the situation through normal means, the plot decides to rear its head so that we dont have to write a discussion with nuance or drama but now we have to take care of this plot event first, usually together and then the argument or points never get resolved!
Honestly I sometimes kinda like that, but only if they still get to actually resolve things after said plot point instead of not at all. Like it's kinda extra tense to confront someone to work things out, only to suddenly be surrounded by zombies, or somethin like that. But otherwise, I totally agree with ya there.
I had a pretty good English teacher at school. She banned us 100% from starting any sentence "Suddenly" and marked us down for using "And then..." At the time we all hated her. But I have to admit, it forces more creative use of words, which has stuck with me to this my 50th year. Going back to what Brandon is saying in his video... I am a Sci Fi / Supernatural / Fantasy fan. I love it. And I'll accept absolutely any absurd crap you throw at me. AS LONG AS YOU STICK TO YOUR OWN RULES. It really annoys me when Superman is felled by a splinter of kryptonite, but picks up an entire island of the stuff later. Buffy annhilates an army of demons, but pathetically gives in to GI Dickhead. You get what I mean - establish your characters abilities / limits... and stick to them. Unless "The Big Reveal" is that they were the hero all along with incredible powers... its just annoying when they slip out of problems with temporary powers, or fall into them "forgetting" that could actually just blast through.... I use roleplaying games like D&D etc to create characters before I start writing. I use those character sheets as my guide - NOT the game, just the sheets. what they can and cannot do, I base around that. It works for me. You can also use RPG's to create very viable locations, so you always know which house, how long it take to get there, where the bank is etc blah... I said D&D but but there's an RPG for every genre... if all you're doing is creating characters and locations... just pick the closest to what you want to write. It really helps "flesh out" your settings and characters.
I think unexpected genre shifts are extremely powerful when handled well. For example, the films "Miracle Mile" and "Cloverfield" both spend their first twenty minutes or so looking exactly like romantic comedies before suddenly becoming apocalyptic nightmares for the remainder of the films. In both cases, even on repeat viewings, the decoy-genre intros lull me into letting my guard down, so the incidents signaling the genre shifts hit with extra force.
Miracle Mile is so good and you're literally the first person I've ever seen mention it. Perfect example of a genre shift working really well.
@@actualturtle2421 , yeah, I have no idea why "Miracle Mile" is so obscure. It's a brilliant movie in so many different ways. I love the slow build of several different but intertwined anxieties as things go relentlessly further and further off the rails. It feels very much like the kind of nightmare where you are desperately trying to accomplish something -- board a plane, find a classroom, whatever -- and somehow you keep getting deflected from your goal.
I agree, I thought even his example story would have really worked for me.
I think Madoka does this as well. On the surface it looks like a cute girly magical girl anime... and then suddenly shit hits the fan.
The first example that came to my mind was "From Dusk Till Dawn."
The biggest thing I hate is when writers try too hard to _not_ be predictable. For example, say you have a mystery story, with two or three potential culprits, then suddenly the story ends with the detective giving up on the case.
"Ah ha! I got you! You never saw that coming!"
I always hate character assassinations when it comes to sequels
My biggest pet peeve is when the run-of-the-mill cliché start to stack up on each other. Like, tropes itself aren't the addition to a story but rather are the main point of the story. Having a checklist isn't the same as having a story.
My biggest annoyance is trainwrecks. A simple action or sentence could fix everything, but the protagonist refuses to do it for no good reason. And bad things continue to happen to the protagonist until a plot device reveals the explanation and saves the protagonist at the end of the story.
I've read at least one romance novel where the one thing keeping the two love interests apart until the Happy Ending appears to be... their own abject stupidity and the social skills of five-year-olds. Like when one of them sees 'something' vaguely innocuous to do with their love interest's daily life that could spell bad news for a potential romance - i.e. them having lunch with someone they appear to like a lot, a bunch of flowers appearing on their desk, something relatively ambiguous like that. Now, the other person COULD just ASK their potential dreamboat about it casually, in normal conversation - y'know, like a *normal adult human would,* but nooo! Instead they take a gargantuan leap to "this means the person of my dreams Belongs To Another/is Secretly A Terrible Person Who Is Destined To Break My Heart, and we can NEVER BE TOGETHER, and now I must treat them like garbage so they won't even like me anymore because Mah Feelin's and OH GOD WHY IS LOVE SO HARD AND PAINFUL??!" 😵💫
If your story needs a five minute plus subplot to explain why no one can just call each other and resolve the entire plot in two sentences, your story sucks.
I often feel like _I_ have the social skills of a five-year-old, and I don't think I would do that.
Yeah but sadly that's a little too realistic, because many so called adults are idiots that act just like that. lol
Yes. These writers think they are writing a successful Pride and Predjudice trope but fail to recognize the complex nuances that made Austen's work satisfying.
this is why I love the book "When the Day Comes" so much. Not because its an amazing book or written well, but the characters admit to each other that they love each other pretty early on but circumstances keep them apart; not stupidity. When you reach the end; its just been a really satisfying love story.
My top storytelling pet peeves:
1. A sloooow pace. When you're waiting & waiting for something to happen & it seemingly never does. I will forgive almost anything else but really can't stand to be bored.
2. Unmotivated, DUMB action by characters that's there just to serve the plot.
3. Overwriting. This is related to #1. Hate it when writers use 10 pages to say something that should have taken 2 pgs. If everything else is fine, I'll do a lot of skimming. Tana French, Stephen King, Stieg Larsson are examples.
#1 and #3 immediately made me think of Peter Straub, who I've tried to get into several times without success. He's one of the big names in contemporary horror, but he's just not for me.
I skimmed a number of sections of ASOIAF books for the overwriting point.
These 3 plus #2-4 on the video describe this one Korean web comic I'm reading as a "how not to" guide to improve my own writing.
Did it really need to take 1-2 chapters state the fact that the Bandit King will bust some heads if his only child comes to harm? Obviously it must have, right?
How are the protagonist's friends still alive after facing the well out of their league villain who is so evil he kills his own men for little to no reason? -Shrug-
Is the protagonist going to actually bother to get involved with the major nation-threatening plot that his group stumbled into? At some point... maybe... I think...
@@hamothemagnif8529 Coming off of Robert Jordan the thing about the first 3 ASOIAF books was how quick they moved. And then........ 4 was ok, and 5 was such a slog that I stopped caring.
I think it’s important to remember that these are rules of thumb. In all types of writing, there are rules, but there are also excellent examples that break said rules. From Dusk til Dawn, for instance, is a film built around a genre shift out of absolutely nowhere
Ya I'm currently working on a story and I actually think trying to assign on genre to it will just hurt it.
As a general rule, you have to know and understand the rules to be able to break them successfully. If you don't understand what the rules are and why they're there in the first place, breaking them is just going to make you look like a poor writer.
@@fred_derf
Some people write for themselves only
@@MesserMusic, writes _"Some people write for themselves only"_
Well, then they get to use or ignore whatever rules they want.
@@fred_derf great point. I always say the same thing.
A pet peeve of mine is the over obsession with killing characters, which usually only is done to soley make the audience sad, or to teach the main character some bs like "people die when they are killed", something they sould absolutely know beforehand. Yes, stakes need to be established sometimes. But offing your cast willy nilly RARELY actually helps your story unless you do something more interesting with it. I've dropped countless stories because I felt as though the author was not respecting his own characters who I was supposed to be caring about.
I find that especially tiresome if it happens to a character who's just started on a redemption path.
@@AnotherDuck For real. Tastelessly killing characters like that is my number one red flag these days.
“And then there was one…” I hear you there.
@@princessmarlena1359 To be fair, the one with (almost) that title is good at killing off characters, since it's core to the plot rather than throwaway deaths for attention.
Give this guy a few decades
One of my favourite "cliff-hanger" (at first glance) endings is a famous example: Chekhov's "The Lady with the Lapdog" (sometimes known as "The Lady with the Little Dog"). The story ends without a resolution, but it works, movingly, because the characters have decided that they WILL do something, somehow, to resolve it. This new determination of theirs represents growth, and for the story, that hint of growth is more than enough to make the story meaningful.
That touches on his point, it can have a cliffhanger but there needs to be something actually accomplished in the story as well; rather than just being a novel sized ad for the next book.
@@jacevicki -- Actually, what it means is that a story without a definite ending might not be a cliffhanger at all. Sometimes, tone and implication carry all of the weight, as they do in the Chekhov story.
So that like an implied ending. Where the audience can draw the conclusion they like
A remarkable story, showing so much with so little.
It took me a while to get past the annoying doggie. Readers have flaws too.
@@dreadfulbadger -- Actually, no, because even if the ending is implied, it has been implied strongly. The man and woman in the Chekhov story WILL solve their problem, because they are now committed to solving it, which represents a change in their outlooks. What they don't know, and what we don't know, is how they might solve it, but in the context of the story, solutions matter less than their new-found resolve to find a solution. In that sense, we're not free to draw any conclusions we like, because the conclusion has already been implied.
3:56 that only works if it happens later on in a movie or something it calls back to it, and that leads the reader going: "ohh I never noticed that!" Or "Thats why _____ happened."
I always get frustrated by insincerity. It's so common nowadays but it feels awful when the writer, actor, director or whoever decides they don't want to be doing this and can't sell the emotions sincerely as a result of their disdain for those emotions
I get that. There are a couple of attitudes and personalities I have such a disdain for there is just no way I could add a character like that in my stories.
May you explain this further? I’m sorry I just struggle to understand stuff sometimes
@@katrinatran3030most likely that struggling to add a character for reasons that their personality is not likeable and uncomfortable for the author for comics or books
@@ghost2inkling229 oh, thx ☺️
One of my pet peeves is character dissonance where many characters are saying this one specific character is so intelligent and analytic but makes one dumb mistake after another. I think one that recently came to mind is Doctor Strange 2 where "the smartest man alive", after just witnessing someone can alter reality due to his own mistake, thinks by just grabbing them would make any sort of difference. And he just kicks the bucket. "Smartest Man Alive", they say.
To be honnest the entire Illuminati were idiots.
That actually seems accurate. Iv seen really smart ppl make the most absurd and stupid choices.
@@Perrodenagreed, smart people tend to think there's no way they can be wrong and then end up extremely wrong
@@Cookingspider glad I'm not the only one who's noticed.
My biggest pet peeve in fiction writing is characters acting against their established nature in any way, which could be a highly intelligent character making mostly dumb choices, a greedy character being mysteriously generous, a loving character being cruel for no good reason, a strong character consistently displaying weakness, etc.
Characters can have occasional exceptions to their nature, especially if there's a good reason for the exception. What makes the extremely brave character give in to fear? What makes the cowardly character suddenly able to stand up in the face of pain or danger? In either case it could be their reaction when their family is threatened.
Those exceptions are often great for storytelling. Sherlock Holmes goes up against Professor Moriarty, and gets outsmarted by him! Brilliant! It works because Holmes has been smarter than everyone else for several stories before finally meeting his match.
A character should act against their nature RARELY and FOR GOOD REASONS.
I hate it when people apologise for things they haven’t done (often without any reason) or take the blame for things they clearly aren’t to blame for: “It’s my fault he drove his car off a cliff, because I had an argument with his sister’s best friend two weeks ago!” sort of thing.
Another thing I hate in books is teenagers, because few writers know how to portray them. They are usually written like 25 year olds with foul mouths. And all the other characters just sit there and take it, instead of telling the little squirt where to go and what to do with themselves when they get there.
I think the recap thing has another explanation. Ive had rare instances of really being excited for X character to fill Y character in on the juicy gossip we as readers already got, and can feel jipped if it gets summed up to "And she told him what happened earlier."
It's spelled gypped (named after gypsies) and is considered horribly bigoted. You wouldn't say "he Jewed me down", so don't say they gypped you.
Recaps for the sake of dramatically bringing another character into the loop through a revelation that resolves dramatic irony are all well and good, but they can still be summarized and distilled down to just the information that's actually relevant to the scene.
@@jeremyfrost2636By whom? Other white people?
No one uses it in that context. No ill intent was meant. Let it go and quit trying to play the savior.
That "pulling punches" thing happens WAYYYYYYYY too often in media. So many times the villain just brushes it off because they need to get back to their grand plan.
I think the biggest peeve I have is how often media doesn't bring back elements from earlier in the story. Basically ignoring Schrodinger's gun or whatever it's called. It's so satisfying seeing something that's notable, but seemingly unimportant, come back for the final act in a way that feels earned.
It is Chekhov’s Gun, but I like the implications of a “Schrödinger’s Gun”!
@@azurehanyo"It may be important to the story, but it may not! We'll just have to wait and see"
It's Chekhov's gun 😂
@@blokvader8283 Chekhov's Box: "If a cat is put in a box, it must leave by the end of the story."
@@azurehanyo Schrodinger's Gun - is it loaded or is it not?
This is so good to learn! I was a little worried because in my WIP trilogy books 1&2 both end in massive cliffhangers. I literally did not know what else to do or where else to end them, but as far as I can tell, both drafts do have huge resolutions so hopefully it works out!
You must learn the rules to break them, do what you want!
In my opinion, one of the biggest things that frustrates audiences without them being able to articulate what they're mad about is setup without payoff. If you hang a rifle on the wall, make it go off! So many times a book or show will subtly suggest something cool or dramatic might happen, and then the opportunity slips away.
Chekhov gave us a very good adage, but it can be a really tricky balancing act to make it feel good. A story with any length will be hanging something like twenty rifles on the wall. If none of them go off, people feel cheated. If all of them go off, people will call it predictable. Just a few of them have to be red herrings, but not too many.
If your writing at the level of a 10 year old and just making up mystery boxes without a plan to close them, your audience will just be 'LOST'
Instead of 'pulling punches' I have my villains not make their move 'right now' even if they have an opportune moment. I make up a good reason for them to not take the shot or go after the heroine .It builds tension and it's fun when it backfires.
Yep, if there's a good reason for holding back, it can lead to an excellent payoff (like in Empire Strikes Back when Darth Vader is protective of Luke and the audience wonders why until the very end)
@@WriterBrandonMcNulty Then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the Obi-Wan TV show, where they contrive not one, but two rematches between Obi-Wan and Vader, even though it's strongly implied they'd not met again until A New Hope. Vader is unable to reach Obi-Wan to kill him because a fire blocks his way, even though he put out that fire with the Force about twenty seconds before it gets restarted. Then in the second fight, Obi-Wan wins, and literally the only reason he doesn't just kill Vader is because it's a prequel, so he can't.
There are ways to make it work. Like Death from Puss in Boots, the Last Wish, for example... He's so powerful and threatening he's basically a force of nature, but gives the hero a chance to escape because he enjoys watching their fear as they try to run. He could in theory kill Puss at any point, but doesn't while still making the audience feel like they're in complete control.
@@lasercraft32 He's still very much in control in the end. It's just that Puss earned his respect.
What I hate is when the loved ones of a hero or other characters are killed or die and hardly any grief is ever expressed, especially over a period of time; sometimes the main characters are even blaise about these deaths.
In my case, it usually applies to movies, but here goes:
1. "Subverting expectations" just for the sake of subverting expectations. For instance, if I'm in the mood for seafood, I'll go to a seafood restaurant. I don't want to be served steak. If had had wanted steak, I would have gone to a steakhouse.
2. Being lectured by the movie. If I want a sermon, I'll go to a place of worship. I don't object to a movie having a message, but I'm not there for the message, I'm just there to be entertained. If the tone of the message becomes a harsh lecture, then I usually hate the movie.
3. When somebody involved with the movie lets me know that they think I'm obligated to enjoy the movie, it usually detracts from my enjoyment of the movie.
Agreed on all of this.
_Nothing_ makes me hate a movie more then being told I have to like it.
Yes I'm not looking for incredible life changing story with a message. I want likeable characters and a really great story where every chapter is compelling. Finally not too much dragging out the story, authors could try and do this by keeping chapters fairly even. So, not one 10 page chapter that has action and followed by a 25 page chapter with dialogue or backstory.
I once read a novel where the first chapter was about the background of the main character. He was a young soldier who just got up in rank. He accidentally witnessed a corrupt officer doing some shady stuff (it might have been murder, I don't remember very well). The protagonist had to keep the secret. Fast paced, thrilling stuff where everything was logical. Then we jump 20 years, and the same man, now retired from the army, has become successful small business owner. An the rest of the novel was about his mundane problems with marriage, children, and keeping a business on a float. The exciting stuff that happened in the first chapter, came up only, when there was a need to explain why the main protagonist was sulky so many times. No payoff - the stuff his was mixed in the past didn't come to haunt him any other way. Without the first action packed chapter, the novel was just about a man's everyday life. No excitement, no thrills. That has been my biggest disappointment ever - a novel starts like a thriller and then turns into regular soap opera.
I guess it's realistic?
@@davedog0984this guy would hate Jarhead
Sounds like a nice read tho.
Happened to me. There was a book I read that implied it was about some kind of pilot. When I was reading, I kept waiting for the plane things to happen but I was following the romantic advances of some woman that fell in love with a pilot who loved flying more than women and married a lawyer or something. I read the whole thing through because I didn't have anything else to read at the time but my God, I was pissed.
Now I want this as a tv commercial...
20 years ago I saw war crimes that haunt me to this day...
That's why I started Jim's Ol' Time Soft Serve & Soda!
Now, the voices in my head... scream for ice cream!
A baby crying in a movie for longer than a few seconds. last thing I wanna see/hear when I go see a movie is baby crying.
What kills me in movies is when there is some immediate reason why a character has to get moving now (the cab has arrived and is waiting, the restaurant hostess has called the party's name, etc.), but he or she milks it - perhaps continuing to say a tearful good-bye to somebody, or similar - and the rest of the world just politely waits for the protagonist to have this moment on his or her own schedule.
My biggest pet peeve is when side plots are treated as the "Main Dish," especially in fantasy. You'll have this hero who needs to stop an evil ritual before a demon is brought into the world, but instead of focusing on saving the world, the hero only focuses on his love interest. It's really annoying, especially when you wanted to read an adventure book, not a romance book. My cardinal rule is that side plots should be the fries to the burger, or main plot. The fries should be a nice addition to the dish, but it shouldn't take away from the main course: the burger.
I crashed while ploughing a field. Someone threw a plate at me and I was dishtractored.
@@moaningpheromonestough luck. Hope you get a new tractor
I hate this so much too, especially when the side plot is some romance where it doesn't even make sense that this is part of the story. Somehow I feel like a lot of writers just try to get in some romance no matter what for no good reason at all.
I was extremely annoyed with "The Lovely Bones" where Suzy's body is about to get dumped and the character who has some sort of prescience is watching; Suzy posses Ruth, but then instead of inhabiting her to expose her murderer, she use Ruth to kiss her crush she never got her first date with, while her remains drops into a sink hole and her killer gets away.
I sense someone suffered through the hobit trillogy...
Good list! Cliffhangers that resolve nothing especially drive me up the wall. A cliffhanger at the end of a chapter is amazing, because then you have to read on, but if it's at the end of the book and it resolves nothing, that's a huge bummer. Unforgivable, in my opinion. It'll make me become disinterested in an author.
Some of my biggest are:
1- The Dying Speech. Someone is dying and they manage to time their last words perfectly so they'll be extra poignant. I hate that. Too convenient. I wish more dying speeches would either include some form of "oh man this hurts", include more fear, or be very short. Because, you know, you're dying. Also, depending on the cause of death, sometimes they should flat out be impossible.
2- Plot Armour. I guess this is very similar to pulling punches, but yeah. When all or a sudden, a hero becomes untouchable and it's clear they should never have survived, that really takes me out of the story.
3- Bloodless battles/No Consequences. When there's a massive, violent battle, I expect some of the heroes to not make it out unscathed. They don't necessarily have to die, but if none of the heroes are in any way affected by the battle... eh. Might as well not have it. The same can be said when our group of plucky heroes spends the entire story spitting in the face of very powerful adversaries, and at the end, it's totally fine! No biggie! Let's get married and have kids!
4- The Writer Character. I get "write what you know", but unless the fact that the character is a writer is integral to the plot, don't make your character a writer. That just screams navel-gazing to me.
5- Bad dialogue for kids. When kid characters sound super profound or speak way too eloquently, I can't help but think "what child speaks like this???" every time it happens. Takes me right out of the story.
I, for one, want to see a dying character attempt to give a speech and just die right in the middle of a sentence.
More realistic death scenes always hit harder. If a side character gets killed, it would be cooler to have them say something brief, like "behind you" and the MC turns around just in time to block the attack. It shows that even in the middle of dying, the side character cared about the MC. Alternatively, have the character writhe on the ground and say "it hurts, it hurts". Maybe even "mommy". People laugh about that, but it's heartwrenching to hear any human being, adult or child, in a place of vulnerability and fear, crying out for their mother.
The plot isn't all that matters to a story. I think people get too obsessed over it at points.
Some elements of a story are not integral to the plot, but have you thought that they may be integral to the setting or more importantly, the theme, which is way more important than the plot as it ties the whole story together.
@@NewfiecatInteresting view point, but personally, I think that wr-(DIES)
When a viable way would be some sort of written down testament or message knowing they could die.
That can be a dying speech. And make way more sense. Or just a letter they plannes to give but. .
A pet peeve I have is something similar to pulled punches, like when a villain is about to finish off an enemy and for some reason starts with an 1 hour speech leaving the hero enough time to escape
My biggest peeve is when you start out with a likable protagonist and by the end they are a complete bastard many times more evil then the original villains they were going against, but the story and side characters keep treating them as the original likable hero.
Ah yes, the Designated Hero. I noticed that a lot of writers conflate "hero" with "protagonist" and thus desperately try to portray them as a paragon of virtue even when they murder their way through the countryside because "obviously every henchman of the evil overlord deserves it, so it's fine to slaughter them all".
A protagonist can totally be an anti-hero or even a villain, but should also be portrayed accordingly both in their actions and the reactions of others. For example, in the work Lazy Dungeon Master, the protagonist is a young man named Keima who's smart but also quite lazy most of the time (he possibly suffers from some sort of illness that makes him very low-energy and sleepy). Over the course of the first book or so he rescues a slave girl and later buys another one, but does not deslave either of them. Instead he uses the slave magic that binds them to him to keep the secret of his identity a, well, secret because he's become something that most people in the setting fundamentally hate: a dungeon entity. If that was ever revealed, pretty much everyone around would be out for his blood.
Honestly, I felt like Sailor Moon was like this 😅 I didn’t really end up liking her by the 2nd season (crystal version) since she was selfish and thought her own daughter was in love with her daughter’s father which is sickening…
That can be done, but it really has to be done well.
That’s how I met your mother in a nutshell
Like Eren Yeager? 😆
Villain monologues. Instead of heroes piecing clues together, the villain catches them, ties them up / holds them at gunpoint / locks them in the cellar and then gloats about their goal.
Romance plots where characters have zero reason to be together, their personality doesn't match, they argue 24/7, but romance plot must go on. Aka they're only together because it's the first 2 attractive people to appear in he story.
Hero who spares the villain only so we can have a sequel or only so author can peddle moral lesson "good people don't kill".
Characters who are told to be the bestest best person at X only later to be shown to fail, like your sniper example, but applied also to heroes. For example "smart" hero who falls for a stupid trick or the "badass" hero who's constantly saved by side characters.
Fake obstacles to the plot. For example the hero has to choose between high-paying job and passion, or between love and family acceptance and suddenly they find out there's no problem at all, their passion earns lots of money, their family makes a full change and accepts their love, etc. Then the dilemma seems fake and the story pointless.
I'm with you on all of those. Especially that last one where a character has to make a "brutal" choice and ends up getting rewarded with everything. Too much of a wish fulfillment thing.
It is lonely on the top. So the hero who actually came close to stopping you is clearly the only person smart enough to really appreciate your evil plan.
Agreed. In regards to that last point- I'm sick of stories where the parent has a very clear idea of how they want to raise their kid, only to do a 180 when they finally talk to their child and learn their kid resents them. Parents like this are much more likely to buckle down, or at best accept some blame but change very little. I get its meant to be cathartic, but I find realistic stories more cathartic. The parent should stay relatively the same, but the kid can find meaning or emotional support in their friends or even other family members.
@@schwarzerritter5724 That... might actually be able to save the whole "villain monologuing" thing! If the villain was already established as being bored with just ruling his empire, that could actually be really interesting.
@@Tijopi11 Agreed. Realism is more important than ever in stories that are based on _real_ problems like that.
I appreciate these both as an author and a reader. Although I generally don't go for "negatively focused" videos, I think you've made some very good points that all of us writers should be aware of. If you're a famous writer though, apparently you can get away with # 5. To be fair, readers trust there's probably going to be a next book with famous names. My greatest frustrations are 1.) Authors who apparently enjoy themselves too much where you can almost hear themselves giggle over their embellished poetic or clever phrases, 2.) Overloaded irrelevant details, and 3.) Cliché phrases like "she bit her lower lip" and overused words like "gossamer".
I really hate a cliffhanger end to a chapter, or something interesting being revealed, then the next several chapters kill the pace and have nothing at all to do with the interesting thing you just learned. Or even worse, the story is just starting to pop off and get really interesting...and there’s like 10 pages left, and it’s basically: “This happened, and then that happened, and the end bye”
“Picard” lol, but that series had a lot of bad writing (it’s really more like fan fiction).
Basically TWD
What if by the omission of immediately revealing the big event/thing, you wish to keep it in the back of your reader's mind? How long before it's forgotten, or rather, how many hints will they need to be reminded that this significant thing is still coming? This is one of the elements in a short story I'm doing.
Yeah, and also, when you are in the middle of an emotional story, and then the next chapter suddenly jumps 20 years and we learn that the main characters are dead now... but there are still 200 pages left of the novel. (Looking at you, Wuthering Heights!)
i read 1984 a while ago, and it almost sorta felt like that lol
This ties into what you said about Pulling Punches, but I am really tired of seeing villains built up to be so intimidating and powerful, to the point they can only be beaten by being stupid. This happens a *lot* these days in movies with armies or evil forces. As with the sniper, I don't want a seemingly powerful adversary suddenly become incompetent or constantly making stupid decisions once meeting the hero(es).
This is the clue. Everyone has their moves, and they do those well. One beats the other by you stacking the logistics of the scenario in favour of one of the parties. Making it work... literally the funnest part of writing. You choose how the dice will roll.
I hate it when the villain beats up and/or outsmarts all the characters with little to no effort throughout the whole story, and then the main character beats him up during the finale no problem, even though the main character isn’t really that much stronger.
@@niclaswa5408 Right, at least give us a training montage. Even Rocky took two movies to beat Apollo, and that came down to the wire.
God, the Villain Ball is such a frustrating trope. And that illustrates the problem with writing an intimidating and powerful villain: how do you write a plausible way to beat a villain who is supposed to come off as unbeatable without it looking contrived or cheap?
It's my personal favorite when the opening is very down to earth and then horror or sci-fi kicks in around the mid point unexpectedly.
Retcons are my major pet peeve. When something doesn't take the story seriously and just decides to rewrite earlier work to fit their new idea.
Forexample in book 1 you had a detailed explanation of an event, and in book 2, that event happened differently without any explanation, it just did.
Once upon a time, I was one of the 12 beta readers for a book. The author had left an accidental retcon of the way the main characters had met in the draft he sent us. He hadn't meant to, it was simply a consequence of having written several drafts.
Apparently, out of the 12 betas, I'd been the only one to point out the retcon (the author had made the choice to send his draft to amateurs, we all pointed out different things).
Incidentally, the final, published version of the book is so different from the one I've beta-read that it's very obvious several more scenes were rewritten in between...
.... Sometimes it isn't retcon, just an editing accident 😅
One of the best series in handy retcons is in Star Trek DS9.
the doc Bashir being genetic engineering which help explain many of the doc life choices and quirk.
But those kind of retcon are far and in between stories.
@@bloodysimile4893 I wouldn't even call that a retcon, because it didn't retroactively change continuity, that was just an expansion of the Doctor's backstory and an explanation of his quirks.
A typical retcon would have been if one day Bashir out of nowhere was a Vulcan and everyone acted as if he always was one.
Retcons to fix issues are fine
One of my pet peeves is when distance and time are vague and arbitrary. The characters just arrive where they need to go -- or they can't because the plot demands it (just watched the original Willow for the first time and I enjoyed it but it has this problem). Part of this is sometimes you have other characters whom they leave behind - but then somehow those people are ahead of them (they do this with the Bone Reavers in the new Willow show). Another pet peeve I have, that they do in that show is that the main characters have to journey somewhere and it takes the entire season - but when the bad guys kidnapped their victim, they took him to their lair instantly. Like, how did they get there so quickly? And why are they waiting a million years to do anything? They get there instantly, and then wait the entire season to do anything while the main characters journey there. A much more sensical way to do it would be to have the bad guys traveling the entire season. The season could have been the good guys chasing and trying to overtake the bad guys before they reached their lair. That way, it makes sense why they haven't done anything to the guy they kidnapped, and there's no plot hole as to how they get back.
Oh the things that piss me off in novels, TV shows, movies and video games could fill the Chrysler building. But right now the single thing that I hate the most in stories is when the villain's motivations are kept from the reader/viewer/player until very late in the story and when they are finally revealed... it turns out that they were a victim of the "real villain"... and at some point the villain redeems him/herself by siding with the protagonist (who is no longer a protagonist at this point) and turning on the "real villain" (a villain we couldn't give less of a shit about, because we never saw him/her doing villainous sh*t in the story).
Pulling punches is definitely one of my biggest pet peeves! Don't create a villain who kills tertiary characters with ease but struggles with the protagonist
You basically described 99% of action films since from forever.
@@galaga00 And it hurts me every single time 😭
@@MelchVagquest the more and more I recognize formulas and tropes in movies the harder they are to enjoy. Lazy writing is the worst.
@@galaga00 It sucks because some tropes are necessary as a sort of shorthand to get a message across as quickly as possible. But, I believe that writers should find a balance
@@MelchVagquest I hear you. it’s hard line to walk.
Regarding the "pulling your punches" point, this happens to me more often than not because I planned a scene out poorly and the logical conclusion to where I've been building is something I don't want to happen. I think the best thing to do here isn't to come up with a contrived excuse for the obvious thing not to happen, but instead to rework or rewrite the entire scene.
" I didn't tell you the truth to protect you",
I'm gonna be honest, I'd read that romance example. That sounds like a really good story.
Hahah I'll get to work on it!
Yes! Was just about the comment this
@@Nerris It reminds me of the Long Walk. Just so out of left field that the book never got set back down.
I wonder if a TV show switching genres every week, but following the same over-arching plot would work. Or would it end up with no audience at all.
@@andrewscott7728 I mean, to be fair, lots of TV shows explored different genres once in awhile. Even shows like The Waltons sometimes dabbled in "horror."
One issue I have is when a complex and nuanced issue comes up, but then just gets treated as a generic good vs bad story, without addressing any of the underlying issues. It just uses complicated issues and themes as window dressings. If you're going to make a good vs bad story, just make your antagonists motivations straightforward
For me, it's huge revelations being made through dreams. Not once have I experienced a dream with any form of meaning, yet every book character seems to experience perfect, linearly-progressing dreams that lay out exact paths forward or solutions to their problems.
Dreams are kind of abused as a tool. Another example is horror films. The film is just starting to establish some evil entity and what it might be doing... then we get some really terrifying scene with the entity and one of the characters... it is perhaps even climactic... and... then the character wakes up in bed with a start, screaming and panting.
Fucking cue me rolling my eyes and sighing "cliché!"
WHERE is the fucking originality?
I think the pulling punch trope can work if the plot makes it clear that what happened is extremely unusual. For instance, a sniper tries to kill his target, but due to a lot of stress that he was enduring that day, he gets distracted and misses the shot, and then the whole story revolves around him trying to find the guy he failed to kill while dealing with the trauma that made him lose focus that day.
This is damn good.
That's literally the plot of David Fincher's "The Killer"