Avoid These Storytelling Sins for Better Writing

[@PaulRWorthington]

I think Psychic Distance can vary. It's like choosing between a long shot and a close up: one focal length isn't the best for every scene, or even every beat. I also vary PD by character. I write multi-POV, and some characters are very in their head, and we're in there with them. Others are less introspective and the 'camera' maintains a distance. But even with the introspective character, the PD varies: we get his thoughts when they are needed and/or interesting. We don't want to hear his inner monolog non stop.

[@PaulRWorthington]

BTW, I appreciate the continuing effort you put into the production of every new video. This week's bit of one speaker after another for each tip worked well.

[@punkmoose3962]

Or like what my manuscript does, where it's third person omniscient but we only see the innermost thoughts of the protagonist. The narrator will give information on the feelings of other characters the protagonist doesn't perceive, but never do we read their exact thoughts like the protagonist. I think the reader just wants to know there's some kind of logic at play with psychic distance, that thought was put into it.

[@ardidsonriente2223]

Many silent movies and stories without dialogue manage to create powerful connections with their public. I'll even say most of my favorite stories have very noticeable, deeply emotional scenes without dialogue. While I understand they are not the most common, and they are clearly not easy, I don't think they should be simply dismissed. Being too categoric and rigid is also a sin, in my opinion.

[@theq6797]

Those are not sins, but tools. Tools are never bad. You don't need dialogue to understand thought process of character in writing. You can go inside his head and know what he is thinking about on any topic. In a movie almost always you need dialogue for that. If I remember correctly you can see exception of it in Seventeen Moments of Spring, where thought process of main character is heard by viewers (it makes it boring, because it is a motion picture; in book it could be fun).

[@futurestoryteller]

There are a number of very highly regarded films for all ages with very little or no dialogue. Genndy Tartakovsky is an animator who is particularly famous for it. Primal went almost two seasons without a spoken word.

[@ardidsonriente2223]

@@futurestoryteller And Primal is AMAZING.

[@jsam-bv6jb]

I read a book with no dialog. It was told between letters. diary entries and personal memories. I thought it was great. But I also think it's the exception to the rule.

[@ardidsonriente2223]

"There Will Come Soft Rains", by Ray Bradbury, is one of my eternal favorite short stories. While it feature voices, it doesn't have people dialoguing. In fact, it doesn't even have people. I can only dream of writing something half as good as that exception. Masterpieces are always exceptional, aren't they?

[@edwinleskin3112]

Meanwhile guy gavriel kay will have one chapter with single hyper close POV and then a chapter where he narrates the thoughts and history of 20 different characters.

[@keithprice3369]

I've struggled to get a handle on Psychic Distance. I understand the need for consistency but there's also the issue not needing to know every little thought the character has. There's also the issue of holding back information for a later reveal. For example, Robert Jordan did this with Rand and I don't know if that was a psychic distance sin or not. (I'm hazy on remembering the details but something along the lines of Rand holding a small statue, patting it, and thinking "not yet. but soon." We don't find out what Rand's plan with that statue is until multiple books later. But clearly Rand was thinking about his plans. Jordan withheld that info from us. Sin? Or good foretelling?

[@PhoenixCrown]

Sanderson talks about how he did this in the first Mistborn book as well. Kelsier is a POV character, yet Sanderson needed to hide information from the reader. He addressed it in Kelsier's head with something like "it was too painful to think of." He admits this is "cheating," but it seems to work fine. The savvy reader understands there's something they're missing, that there's an unreliable narrator, and done well it sparks intrigue instead of confusion. I'll do my best to follow the rules and not "cheat" until I understand the craft better. I love reading books where I'm right in the characters' heads, so that's what I'm doing with my 3rd perspective epic fantasy =) Thanks for the comment, and have fun writing!

[@dantespimp]

I already committed two sins lol. But... I'm wondering if there are exceptions? For instance, my opening chapter has a character exploring a terrifying landscape all by himself (it's a horror story). There's no one for him to talk to, except monstrous shadows steadily creeping in on him. He's not the type of dumbass to yell 'HELLOOOOOO? Is anyone there????' 🤣Nor is he the type to 'egg-on' any enemies or tell them to back off. He's a very calculative and even cold man who keeps to himself and only speaks when it's necessary for him to speak. In fact, his entire character arc revolves around him being less indifferent, less cold, and more in tuned with his humanity. I feel if I add in dialogue at this opening, all for the sake of fulfilling a dialogue quota, it might undermine the sharp contrast between that opening scene and its conclusion, since everything eventually comes to full circle and he returns to that dreadful place (but now as a changed man).

[@Writing-Theory]

The could append “but it depends” to any advice regarding art. Or “unless you do it well”. But I don’t like saying that because for people who are looking for direction, it kind of takes any power out of advice. That being said, it sounds like character interaction and dialogue would be the exact thing to showcase the initial image of your character. First person perspective and internal narration (and even the actions a character takes) give us a fuzzy idea of a character. But it’s through the interactions with others that we really understand a character because this other perspective in the dialogue provides as as much information as that first perspective. How do people react to your character? That says so much

[@sparksdog8111]

One thing about Psychic Distancing that I think might not be entirely true, is that changing it is a death sentence. Now, don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that you should ever go from not being in a character's or casts' head, to being there, that is bad. Rather, I'm saying that if you are distanced from your characters' heads, but on occasion let a small amount of their thoughts into the prose in a way that's not even entirely changing which distance you're using, but just giving some insight to the scene or situation that they're in, it can actually read pretty well in my opinion. In my own writing, I mostly stick to the first level where you don't get to see inside the characters' heads--except for one specific character who is suffering PTSD, survivor's guilt, and general trauma, his head is pretty open for the reader, albeit in a way that's written more as if a third character suddenly appeared in the room--but I occasionally allow some bit of the next level to slip in by describing an emotion or feeling--physical or mental--that is an objective reality of what is happening in the scene. For example, a character in my story smells the iron scent of blood, and I write it as if somehow my narrator knows that must be true, not because we have a direct line of access to their thoughts, just that within the scene there is blood every, so anyone would be able to smell that. Perhaps I am entirely wrong about this, but for now I will maintain that it's not the end of the world, and can even be a benefit or advantage, to let bits and pieces of the other forms of Psychic Distancing slip into whichever form you chose to use.

[@eduardoo31]

I've read tim grahls book where he apparently follows all of the storygrid's precepts, and oh boy was it terrible. Truly one of worst written books I've ever read. The only good thing i had to say about it was that it was extremely readable and fast paced lol

[@PaulRWorthington]

Sadly, I agree. It read clean and fast, but whoa, if you just list the story events, you'll be like - WTF?

[@eduardoo31]

@@PaulRWorthington and he talks so much about genre expectations in his channel, reading the blurb you expect the book to be a self-helpy positive story. imagine my surprise when the book read like a shitty thriller and to top it off suddenly started having fantastical elements lol

[@PhoenixCrown]

I got a lot of good stuff from StoryGrid around identifying when a scene isn't working and why. It's also helpful for structuring/planning a story to hit important beats. And understanding how to move a story forward... OK and a lot of things. StoryGrid is great, but it does what most frameworks do--think it's THE WAY to write a book. There are many ways. And SG gets so strict: EVERY SINGLE BEAT should have an inciting incident, rising tension, climax, resolution... Jeez, a bit much imo. This is what happens when you try to boil down art into science.

[@PaulRWorthington]

@@PhoenixCrown SG has lots of good advice for writing a well-constructed compelling story -- but nothing on how to come up a good *premise* and without that you got nuthin.'

[@dpo1713]

These are sins only in the hands of inept writers. McCarthy, McMurtry, and a host of others all use varying levels of Psychic distance. I do take your point about scenes though. So much contemporary writing (especially fantasy) is full of 'filler'.

[@TedMattos]

Well... 1:07 - now I really DO feel demoralized! ;)

[@judoshrew]

Please don't write first person like WIll of the Many. Write interesting characters who flavor their prose, use the mechanisms of first person in interesting ways, and don't walk us throuhg basic thoughts constantly because you feel you have to prove your character is smart. We dont' need all the introspection all the time. When a character puts every thought on the page, it takes the responsibility of thinking in the characters head out of the readers hands. It kills subtext, and makes for a really awful read. If you avoid this style of dumping all the thoughts on the reader, when the character does introspect, then it hits harder. You can have close psychic distance and not be so obnoxious. Also the idea that good stories don't vary psychic distance is silly.

[@BigToody]

I feel like the Red Rising series does this too

[@dpo1713]

Absolutely. the Will of the Many is also in present tense, making it all sound so breathless and self-important.

[@eyeamthei1801]

Well yeah, at first I was writing most of the "hidden" meaning in subtext as well. Then my wife read my first few chapter of my book and the following conversation happened: Wife: I don't understand what the characters are thinking. Me: It is there in the subtext. [Note: It was kinda "on the nose" subtext, I'm not that good of a writer] Wife: What do you mean? Me: Well, for example, read these lines in this conversation... Think about them a little. What do you think they are implying? Wife: Ohh, you are right... But still, I don't like this... Me: Why? Wife: I don't like playing mindgames. I like to know what the characters are thinking. Me: Ok then, I'll rewrite the first chapter. Let's see, if you like it more. I rewrote the first chapter in first person with a lot of internal thoughts. When my wife read the first chapter she was like: -Wow, it is so much better. You should write like this! So, as they say, different people prefer different writing style.

[@BigToody]

@@eyeamthei1801 but if movies and tv did that, I’d be pissed!

[@PaulRWorthington]

@@eyeamthei1801 I'm with your wife, and that's how I write: interiority to make it clear what the pov character is feeling, what their moment-to-moment goal is.

[@AJShiningThreads]

Beginning writers have terrible Processing Language. Almost any story can be done if the writer has decent processing language.

[@upg5147]

As in what exactly?

[@ard52192]

This is such good advice! Keep it written down for a book!