Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Similar Deviations
These results appear less relevant than we'd like. While we're working on improving More Like This, you can help by collecting "The Cabbage Fairy" with similar deviations.
Murdering Mary Sue

Every aspiring writer has met her at least once, whether in his own works or in those of others. The alluring temptation of a perfect character taunts the author from one side while his muse urges him to keep writing from the other. Who wouldn't love her? She's the most beautiful, talented, fantastic woman in the universe, with not a flaw in sight. Every woman wants to be her; every man wants to marry her, so why would anyone want to kill her? Who would want to murder Mary Sue?
I would. I and many greater authors have been working hard to keep this succubus in her proper place: the trash can. Mary Sue is one of the worst enemies of good fiction, second only to poor spelling and grammar. And the seductress tempts even the most cautious writer. Her many disguises can make her difficult to spot, allowing her to weave her way into every plot twist and turn, slowly destroying the author's work. By the time she’s found, she may have done so much damage that the only way to repair the story is to start over entirely. This is why we need to learn to spot her early, and kill her before her destructive charms go too far.

Who Is She?

Surprisingly few authors I’ve met have ever heard of Mary Sue. Admittedly, she’s very difficult to define, given that no two Mary Sues are exactly alike. The best definition I’ve seen opens a Wikipedia article on the subject, and can be summarized as such:
Mary Sue is a derogatory term for a fictional character whose traits, skills, and abilities are inadequately justified, thus failing to maintain believability. These characters are overly idealized and cliché, lacking in noteworthy flaws, and usually function as an author’s means of wish-fulfillment or self-insertion. A Mary Sue is often described in excessive detail when compared to other main characters, and is found most often in fan fiction and original fiction. The unbelievable nature of the character frequently causes the audience to immediately dislike her.
Now that’s a mouthful! It’s very difficult to describe Mary Sue in any less terms, however the bottom line is simple: Mary Sue is unrealistic. This is why many beginning authors are deceived into creating her; they try so hard to write something unique that they forget the element of believability that has to be maintained. This isn’t confined to female characters either. Mary’s male counterpart – Gary Stu – is just as bad. Good writing depends upon spotting these characters before they get out of hand, and the following guideline will help you get started.

What’s In a Name?

Let’s begin with perhaps the most important part of any story’s main character: her name. Without a name of some sort, a character is quickly brushed off as unimportant, as background, as a minor detail behind the real protagonists. Yes, names are very, very important. There are many essays on choosing the right name for your characters, and giving a complete tutorial of this task is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, we will only focus specifically on what should not be done when naming characters, or at least used with caution.
#1 Variations of the author’s name. Is your character’s name the same as or a variation of your own name, be that your first, middle, last, or nickname? Using my name as an example (Katherine Elise Logan), Mary Sue could be called any of the following: Katherine, Kathy, Katie, Kate, Kat, Katran, Catherine, Elise, Ellis, Logan, Kel (my initials), Kelly… and so on. This isn’t even including nicknames. Now, an author shouldn’t be discouraged from using his own name as his character’s just because it could lead to a Mary Sue; it is generally only considered bad when used to name a main character in fan-fiction. Obvious allusions to the author (such as using your name exactly) should still be avoided unless the character is supposed to be the author, since readers will immediately recognize this as a self-insertion.
#2 Unusual spellings of ordinary names. This is an easy one to catch. There is a significant difference between a character named Alexander and one named Alyckzandre. Generally speaking, names shouldn’t look like they were generated by randomly pushing buttons on a keyboard. Avoid this as much as possible, unless there is a logical explanation for the unusual spelling. For example, Frank Beddor’s The Looking Glass Wars is a new twist on Lewis Carol’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. In this book, the name of the main character is Alyss, and its spelling is contested by the Liddells when they adopt her and force her to use the more traditional Alice. The reason for her unique name is because she is from the magical world of Wonderland, where such things are the norm.
#3 Opposite gender names. As with unusual spellings, characters shouldn’t be given names meant for the opposite gender. Note that there are many unisex names such as Shannon, Nancy, and Kyle, as well as short versions of longer names that sound like they were meant for the opposite gender (Charlie for Charlene, Ash for Ashley, etc.). These do not fall into this category.
#4 Nouns and verbs. Have you ever been tempted to name a character any of the following: Raven, Willow, Speed, Ruby, Eclipse, Katana, or anything that was a noun or verb (regardless of spelling or variation) not normally used as a name? This, like naming a character after yourself, isn’t necessarily bad, but should be used with extreme caution. Anime in particular is notorious for using this method of naming. Take the villains from the first two seasons of Sailor Moon, who are almost entirely named after gemstones: Malachite, Nephrite, Jedite, Zoisite, Queen Beryl, Prince Diamond, Sapphire, Emerald, and Rubeus, a male variation on Ruby.
#5 Self-named characters. Unless the character was an orphan or had some logical reason to change her given name, there is no reason she should be naming herself. Because she didn’t like her original name is not a good excuse.
#6 Another character’s name. If you’re writing a story in which the main character is a wizard, don’t name him Harry. Borrowing interesting character names from other fictional worlds is fine as long as the similarities end there.
#7 Anachronistic and foreign names. It’s going to be really hard to take your medieval knight seriously if his name is Sir Jamal, especially if he’s Anglo-Saxon. Likewise, it makes no sense for an African-American gangster with no Asian heritage to be name Kojiro. Make sure your character’s name fits with his time and culture.

Looks Are Important

The first thing readers usually learn about a character is her appearance. Writers are constantly struggling with how much detail is put into this important part in the characterization process, and beginners tend to waver between too much or too little. Mary Sue is always described with excessive detail, often having grossly more descriptions than her non-Sue cast. The following points are what should be looked for when figuring out what your character will look like.
#1 Look-a-likes. Never, ever should a character’s description begin with anything along the lines of “looks just like…” That said, you shouldn’t use details that are obviously the same as another, existing character; we all know who has messy black hair, round glasses, and a scar in the shape of a lightning bolt on his forehead. Characters who look just like you should also be avoided, although this isn’t nearly as damaging. Lastly, making minor changes to the character’s appearance (“It’s a moon shaped scar!”) still counts as making a look-a-like.
#2 Exceptionally beautiful characters. The man is tall, dark, and handsome; the woman is curvalicious. Describing your character as an idealized beauty is a major warning sign of Mary Sue. A character should never be completely “perfect” or “the most beautiful woman in the land.” Make the man short and fat. Give the woman small breasts and a crooked nose. It’s these details – the flaws – that make the character interesting. Having no flaws makes the character flat. Also keep in mind that how other characters react is important too: even if your character looks like Quasimodo’s identical twin, it defeats the point if all of the other characters still think she’s the most beautiful thing that graced the Earth. Have some think she’s ugly. Have some not care at all. Only have a scarce few who truly fawn over her.
#3 Unrealistic physiques. How would you look if you lived off of pizza and chocolate cake and never exercised? You certainly wouldn’t be pencil-thin, and neither should your character if this is how he eats. As with the above, characters should have figures that fit with their eating and exercising habits. A college student who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise doesn’t have to be a blimp, but there is no way she is going to have a nice flat stomach or rock hard abs. Simply put, be realistic.
#4 Poetic terms. It’s alright to say that your character’s flaxen hair cascades down her shoulders like a waterfall; it isn’t alright to say her luscious flaxen hair cascades gently down her bare shoulders, as smooth and pale as cream, flowing like a river in spring… blah blah blah. Using poetic or flowery terms to describe a character’s appearance is best done with caution and moderation. Hair should rarely be referred to as locks, waves, or curls, and there is no appropriate synonym for eyes. For the love of good writing, never call them orbs or spheres unless they are no longer in the character’s skull. As true as the shape may be, eyes are never completely seen and don’t look spherical.
#5 Colors. Certain colors simply don’t appear naturally in humans. The more a character’s hair, skin, and eye color deviates from what could naturally occur, the closer they are to being Mary Sue. In other words, a human with red or gold eyes and naturally hot pink hair is dangerously Sue-ish. This particular point, however, is directly relevant to the fictional universe in which the character exists. If Technicolor skin is the norm in your world, then don’t worry about making your character dark green.
#6 Stereotypes. As with look-a-likes, don’t use a stereotype to describe your character’s appearance. His outfit should not be “a ninja’s outfit,” or “pirate garb,” or anything similar. This is one of those instances where more detail (instead of less) is needed.
#7 Hygiene and injuries. This is one of those common sense mistakes: if a character has been working out for hours, he isn’t going to smell very pretty. Likewise, a character who has been in battle won’t just smell horrible, but will probably also be injured and bloody. Don’t be afraid to describe him as such, because it simply doesn’t make sense for an active, skilled warrior to come out of battle completely clean and unscathed.
#8 Practicality and anachronisms. A chain mail bikini is not practical armor, nor did it ever exist prior to modern times. Hot pink latex is not a practical spy suit for an ancient Japanese ninja. Skin-tight leather is hardly practical for anyone other than heavy metal singers. Just as you wouldn’t wear a suit of armor to bed, nor should your characters dress in clothing that doesn’t fit the time period or setting.

It’s What’s Inside That Counts
Personality is what makes characters come alive, and great care should be taken when giving life to your creations. How your character reacts to situations – or how others react to your character – is an integral to believable characters. Most Mary Sues have very flat personalities and are easy to recognize as bad, but characters with overbearing personalities should also be avoided. As a general rule, if you wouldn’t expect to find someone like your character in real life, then you shouldn’t expect her to work well in your story. This is also where the character’s history and heritage come into play. These details are the final part of fleshing out your character.
#1 Unusual sub-races and hybrids. Let’s just get this one out of the way: if you’ve established a norm for a particular race in your story, don’t have your character deviate too much from that. For example, if vampires in your world turn instantly to dust when sunlight touches their skin, don’t make your character the sole vampire who can prance around during the day without being harmed. Additionally, avoid anything other than half-human hybrids: half-angel/half-dragon is a bit extreme. Remember that your character’s parents had to conceive him in some logical manner. Lastly, your half-breed should have strengths and weaknesses of both races, not just the strengths. He should be a true half-breed: not as strong as a purebred, but not as weak either.
#2 Ms. Popularity. As mentioned in the previous section on appearance, your character shouldn’t be everyone’s favorite girl. Conversely, she shouldn’t be loathed or envied by everyone either. There’s nothing wrong with her being popular, but there should be some realistic reasons that readers can relate to. Even if those reasons are superficial (“She’s so smart!”), as long as someone recognizes them as such in the story.
#3 The best of the best. Being the best of the best is frequently a major plot point in stories. Just make sure your character is only the best of the best of one thing. Any more than that is unreasonable. Also allow ample time for this training. An expert swordsman who learned skills in a month that normally take years to master is absurd.
#4 Inexplicable wealth. This one is short and simple: if your character has wealth with no logical explanation (a job, wealthy parents, etc.), then he needs to be revised. Characters with money need some explanation for having it, no matter how they get it.
#5 Classic clichés. There are so many of these that they all can’t be fully detailed. The most common cliché background characteristics are:
  • The character suffers from amnesia.
    • The character discovers s/he is really a noble (before or after amnesia).
      • The character is a noble in disguise.
        • The character was orphaned or abandoned at an early age.
          • The character is unusually accomplished for his/her age, occupation, and/or social status.
            • The character is inexplicably multilingual.
              • The character inherits/possesses a powerful artifact.
                • The character was mistreated in some way as a child.
                  • The major villain kills the character’s family and/or friends during his/her youth.
                    • The character was responsible for the death of his/her family and/or friends (accidental or deliberate).
                      • The character witnessed the death of his/her family and/or friends.
                        • The character is “the chosen one.”
                          • The character is the last survivor of a race.
                            • The character was raised in extreme poverty.
                              • The character was a slave.
                                • The character ran away from an arranged marriage.
                                  • The character had some sort of pain-filled, horrible, tragic past.
                                    • The character has a job normally associated with the opposite gender.
                                      • The character seems to get out of tough situations on luck alone.
                                        • The character discovers a new power at a crucial moment.

And these aren’t even all of the possible clichés. To avoid them, ask yourself how often you’ve heard of something similar before. The less times you can think of, the better.

The Bottom Line: Use Common Sense
All of the above advice should be taken with a heavy dose of common sense. Just because your character has many of the characteristics listed doesn’t mean that she’s a Mary Sue, it just means that you need to keep an eye on her. There are plenty of characters that have multiple Sue-ish traits that aren’t: Harry Potter, for one. He was orphaned as a child, considered a sort of “chosen one,” has limitless access to money (though a brief, if somewhat unbelievable, explanation is given), is one of the best Quidditch players in the history of Hogwarts, is also the youngest Seeker, is uncannily lucky, and has a tendency to discover some new ability at just the right moment to save him. Yet Harry Potter is not a Mary Sue. This is a guide for everyone, and good writers will learn to use all traits to their advantage. As with any story, use your best judgment. With practice, you’ll never have to deal with Ms. Sue again.

Remember, having Sue traits doesn't always mean your character is bad. Context and how the character is written are important! You can't give me a character blurb with all the potentially dangerous traits listed and expect me to be able to give you a yes or no answer. Writing well is far more complicated than that.

If you are worried about your character, trust your gut instinct and get someone you know will be objective to review your story, not just the character alone.

And if you still must explain...


For my second piece in Non-Fiction Workshop, I decided to rant about Mary Sues. I hope this helps some aspiring writers out there.

EDIT: O_o! Holy white rice, Batman! I got a Daily Deviation! *completely shocked* I must say I never expected to have this honor before.


For an experiment in classic cliches (not to mention storytelling in general), check out my interactive fiction project: Edge of Thorns!
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Since my tattoo brushes did so well, I decided to make another set, this one of lace. If you use these brushes in a deviation, please credit me and link back to this gallery. Also, leave a comment with a link to your deviation so I can see it. Remember, these brushes MAY NOT be used in ANY WORK INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

I got bored and had some fun with a small collection of temporary tattoos I own. If you use these brushes in a deviation, please credit me and link back to this gallery. Also, leave a comment with a link to your deviation so I can see it. Remember, these brushes MAY NOT be used in ANY WORK INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. Hope you enjoy them ^_^.
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

What’s In a Name?
An Essay on Naming Characters
By Kate Logan

When it comes to character creation, be it for a story or an illustration, choosing the proper name for a character is vital. All too often do I see characters with poorly thought-out names: the chivalrous knight Darren Starhawk; the sweet, innocent Lady Elvira; or the rough-and-tumble brawler Poindexter. On their own, these names are fine (even Starhawk, if you're going for a sci-fi flare), but they simply don't work with the characters they are describing. No one is going to take poor old Poindexter seriously, no matter how big his muscles are. To remedy this catastrophe, here are a few tips and guidelines when naming characters.

First, a little game. Below is a list of several of my characters and a brief description of each, all mixed up and out of order. Try to correctly match the name to the character description. The answers are at the end of this essay (no peeking!).

1. Senshi Meijin
2. Cornelius Epoch
3. Hypatia Watson
4. Sean O'Brien
5. Elizabeth "Mouse" Williams
6. Cameron Sicarius
7. Kireina Idèr
8. Dimitri Xailez
A. A quiet, yet very intelligent, young wizard
B. A cheerful, outgoing prankster
C. A pacifistic, misunderstood air-mage
D. An elvin warrior-princess with a short temper
E. A beautiful earth-mage
F. A history teacher
G. A genius investigator and bounty hunter
H. A young noble with a dark side

Names with Meaning

This is one of my favorite methods for naming characters. Basically, the meaning of the name reflects the character's personality. For example, take the name Katherine (incidentally, this is also my name). Katherine means "pure." Therefore, characters with the name Katherine should be sweet, innocent, possibly naïve, good, wholesome, and other traits we associate with the word "pure." Its length also suggests maturity. Note that this usually only applies to the full version of the name. A perfect example of this is William Shakespeare's Kate in The Taming of the Shrew. Her name is Katherine, but by referring to her as Kate, the name now reflects her rebellious nature.

Baby name books are great for this technique, since they usually give you a brief summary of the names' meanings. There are also a lot of online baby name sites that can work for this purpose.

More Examples:
Avery: "elvin ruler" = an elvin monarch
Callisto: "most beautiful" = a physically attractive character
Aaron: "mountain of strength" = a strong, or tough character
Shira: "song" = a singer
Clancy: "red-haired fighter" = um...
Dashiell: "page" = a knight in training

Derivational Meanings

Another way to create names with meanings behind them is to combine words from various languages that describe the traits you want. The best example I can give is with my character Senbella Pericu. Here's how I created her name:

Sen-: from senshi, Japanese for "warrior"
-bella: from bellum, Latin for "war"
Pericu: from periculum, Latin for "danger"

So, can you guess what type of character Senbella is?

She's a warmage. It is additionally possible that she is attractive, since bella also means "beautiful." Using this technique to name characters can be tricky if you don't have an extensive vocabulary, and it isn't always easy to derive names that don't sound silly. Another good example comes from Earthsong, a webcomic by Lady Yates. Characters from this series are based on beings from myth and legend. Her character K'Thonya (based on the legend of Medusa and the gorgons) got her name from the word chthonic, meaning "dwelling in or under the earth; also, pertaining to the underworld," an adjective used to describe the gorgons.

Names That Are Things

This catchall category covers names that are directly derived from objects, places, or adjectives from various languages. Someone named Arrow or Archer is probably very good with a bow, or is a Native American. Someone named Harmony or Melody probably has a musical voice and may even be a singer. Using Earthsong again as an example, the name of the main villain, Beluosus, literally translates from Latin to mean "full of monsters." Anime is notorious for characters with names like this. The three main characters from Excel Saga (Excel, Hyatt, and Lord Illpalazzo) are all named after hotels; in Sorcerer Hunters, there's Chocolate and Tira Misu, Gateau and Éclair, and Carrot and Marron Glace (food, specifically deserts). The Dragonball series has such characters as Vegeta (from vegetable), Brolli (broccoli), Kakorot (carrot), Gohan (Japanese for "rice"), Pan (French for "bread"), Raditz (radish), Trunks (self explanatory), Bra (the same), and Bulma (bloomers). On a more serious note, the Final Fantasy series has Cloud and Squall (a storm at sea).

Use caution when you use names like these, since (as with derivation) some names will be silly (unless that's what you’re going for).

Famous Names

Sometimes, simple association is enough. Using the names of gods or well known historical figures will reflect back on your characters. Alexander (for Alexander the Great) may be a warrior, or someone with a strong, outgoing personality and great leadership qualities. Diana (goddess of the moon) may be a beautiful and mysterious woman. This category also includes fictional characters. In one of the episodes of Excel Saga, there's a character named Cosette Sara. Hyatt comments with "What an unfortunate name," since both are allusions to characters with sad backgrounds (Cosette from the musical Les Misérables and Sara from A Little Princess). One has to be very careful when using this technique: too many allusions will water down the intended effect. Also, only use the names of historical figures; modern individuals (such as famous actors or singers) don't carry the same oomph. Sticking to people from a century or two back is usually a good place to start.

Ironic Names

Sometimes, it's good to give a name with a contrary meaning. In the first book of the Harry Potter series, there is Fang (the cowardly mastiff) and Fluffy (the ferocious three-headed monster). Like the other techniques, use sparingly for best effect.

Which Came First?

When all else fails, name your characters before you design them. Sometimes the best character ideas come after the name. I used this technique when I was naming NPCs for a role-playing game I was running. Once I had a list of names, I decided on each characters personality. This is useful when you aren't sure what sort of character you want to design.

Final Notes

In the end, just go with your gut instincts. Say the name several times without looking at the character's picture or description. If you don't immediately envision the type of character you're designing, pick a different name. Soon enough, naming your characters will become second nature!

And lastly, the solutions to that little game:

1. D. Senshi is one of the main characters in the first story I ever started writing. She is a duelist with a fiery temper to match her fire magic. Her name literally translates from Japanese as "master warrior."
2. F. Cornelius is from a story about a school of wizardry. Epoch is a word relating to time and history.
3. G. Hypatia is from a role-playing game I once played in. Hypatia is derived from the historical Hypatia of Alexandria, a mathematician, astronomer, and Platonic philosopher. Her last name comes from the Sherlock Holmes novel series, specifically his partner, Dr. Watson.
4. B. Sean O'Brien, as anyone who has been through my gallery knows, is my mischievous leprechaun and/or half-elf. He was named solely for the humor of his initials (S.O.B.).
5. A. Mouse is actually a friend's character, so named because of her taciturn demeanor.
6. H. Cameron is the good half of my character the Cheshire Cat. Originally, I had named him Feles (pronounced FELL-less), but I decided he needed a more noble sounding name. Sicarius is Latin for "assassin," which is Cheshire's profession. Interestingly enough, sicarius is also the base word for the Biblical Judas's last name, Iscariot
7. E. Kireina is from the same story as Senshi and is meant to be a foil to her. Kireina is Japanese for beautiful.
8. C. Also from the same story as Senshi, Dimitri's name was more or less chosen for its sound. Simply put, it felt right. His last name is from an old code I invented and literally means "mage."
After dealing with players who can't seem to choose good names for their characters, I was finally driven to write this to help them. I hope this helps artists and writers alike. Enjoy! ^_^
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

What is the Writing Process?

Many of us learned that the writing process is made up of five parts: Pre-writing, Writing, Revision, Editing, and Publishing.  Indeed, this process has been so ingrained, and the vocabulary and terms have become such a part of our education, that some students (and adults) feel as if writing is a formulaic, rigid thing—not unlike learning mathematics—that they simply never excelled in.  Fortunately, this simply isn't true.  While the five basic steps of the writing process are effective, they can only be effective if the people using the process understand the purpose of each step.

Experience has shown that many students do not know the purpose of drafting beyond a certain, vague understanding that you're supposed to "correct" or "fix" something for each new draft.  It’s unfortunate, but it’s also been shown that students who are forced to Pre-Write in certain ways, even when they have been unsuccessful using that method, will continue to use it simply because they believe it's the "correct" way to begin writing.  There are college professors who still do not acknowledge the difference between revision and editing (yes, there is a real difference), and "publishing" has so many different connotations from kindergarten to professional ventures that no one is quite sure what standard that last step speaks to.

Here's the rub: in order to understand when you are ready to revise, you must first understand when you are "finished" writing or, to be clearer, when you are finished putting your initial thoughts fully on paper.  Confused yet?  Let's break it down.


Often called "brainstorming," pre-writing takes many forms.  The most popular forms deal with organizational techniques designed to help a person structure and build their thoughts on a particular subject.  Outlines, mind maps (also known as "webbing" or "clustering"), graphic organizers, free writes, word charts, and simple lists are just a few methods that are often associated with pre-writing.  However, filling out a graphic organizer or coloring in a web or creating an outline doesn't really work unless the person understands the purpose of the pre-write.  All steps of the writing process should have a purpose; they should not be an activity for the sake of acting.

Why Pre-Write?

There are many students who feel pre-writing is unnecessary.  Teachers often hear the excuse, "But I just write!" when encouraging students to pre-write or brainstorm for an assignment.  However, it's precisely this "just writing" that qualifies and counts as brainstorming and pre-writing.  A person need not use a graphic organizer, outline, or other method if it's not needed; sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to simply write.  Why?  Well, the purpose of pre-writing is to get ideas down on paper using any method available to the writer.  There should be no real concern with grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting—and sometimes one need not even consider organization—during the first steps of the writing process.  Good writing begins with good ideas, and good ideas begin in pre-writing.  

Take note: sometimes pre-writing need not actually involve writing anything down.  Pre-writing can begin and take place as conversations or questions—an open dialogue—between the writer and another person.  Some of the best writing begins with a simple (spoken) sentence.


What, then, is writing?  Many people believe that this is the most important part of the process (it's called "The Writing Process" after all), but few are certain why (beyond the obvious).  Writing occurs when you look at your idea, have worked a lot of it out through pre-writing, and begin to turn it into something you intend to complete.  It's at this point that you consider both your audience and how you would like to organize your ideas into a particular form.  Where pre-writing can begin as a free write, an outline, a sketch, a map, or a conversation, writing takes the ideas generated in the pre-write and transforms them into a text.

A conversation can become a poem.  A map can become a novel.  Sometimes, when we begin writing from our ideas (our pre-write), we start in one form, like a short story, and begin to realize that another form might be more effective to getting our point across (such as a poem or an editorial).  This is where writing occurs.  The decision about how to present those ideas, in written form, to your audience, is writing.  Sometimes there is not a huge jump or change from pre-writing to writing.  Sometimes the writing becomes something entirely separate from the pre-write.  On a few occasions, the two steps can even occur simultaneously, where the ideas and the form accomplish themselves as a natural progression and part of a natural flow.  Regardless, when you make a conscious decision to write in a certain form and organize your ideas in a certain way, with purpose or intention, you have left pre-writing behind and have begun writing.

What is the purpose of writing?

The purpose of the "writing" step of the writing process is to consider the audience (who's going to be reading this text?) and to consider what form (prose, poetry) will best get the point and idea across.  Once a writer decides on a form and intended audience, s/he must make choices about the words and style that will compliment and further that form so that the idea is conveyed clearly and effectively.  Writing, therefore, does not occur directly from instinct, but is an activity that involves conscious decisions.  This is why, believe it or not, many texts remain in the pre-writing stage even when they appear to be complete.  If a writer hasn't made choices, then the writer hasn't started writing.


This brings us to revision.  Revision occurs when the writer (or another party) examines a text to see if the ideas are working.  As discussed in the previous article, revision looks at the organization, style, and content of the writing—and little else.  In fact, the most significant points to determine in revision are akin to Donald Murray's "What works?" and "What needs work?"  What's working with this text and what still needs work?  These two questions are at the foundation of every good revision.  

Because writing is a process, whether personal or otherwise, it's important to realize that good ideas have to be explained in clear, organized ways—or ways that are able to capture and control a reader so that those ideas can be communicated.  This is why revision, separate from proofreading/editing, is extremely important.  Readers can ignore grammatical errors, misspelled words, poor formatting (etc.) and still understand the intent or purpose of a piece if the ideas are communicated well in regards to style, content development, and organization.  However, a text that's written perfectly, without a grammatical flaw or error and presented in a beautiful format, may still be poorly written simply because the ideas are underdeveloped, unorganized, or written in an inappropriate style.

If a person wants to improve as a writer then grammar, spelling, and punctuation are important—but during the writing process they are rarely as important as the content (as what's being written).  This is why conventional rules can change and break (Cormac McCarthy doesn't use apostrophes for most contractions; Terry Pratchett and Tolkien format dialogue in different ways), but a good story transcends many written devices.  Now, this doesn't mean conventions are unimportant; on the contrary, they are extremely important (and it's why they are given their own "step" in the process).  All this means is that you should be primarily concerned with how your ideas are working, as ideas, before you start wondering if you've spelled everything correctly.

Proofreading and Editing

And here we come to it: the part of the process that many people lump together with revision.  It's true that even the best ideas can be ruined by terrible grammar, spelling, and punctuation.  It's true that grammar, spelling, and punctuation can prevent a good idea from being communicated effectively.  This is why, especially with growing writers, editing seems to be more of a focus than revision.  It's easier to pick on punctuation and feel like you've improved someone's 'writing' than it is to weed through poor conventional writing and try to improve someone's ideas.  Indeed, many writers are cheated because people spend so much time correcting their grammar that they never stop to consider how to improve the actual communication of ideas.

However, proofreading and editing is of extreme importance and should never, ever be neglected.  It's the last step before "publishing," and a person should take that seriously.  Whereas revision is concerned with content, proofreading/editing is concerned with conventions.  This is the step in the process where the formatting should be examined for effectiveness and the grammar, punctuation, and spelling should not simply be corrected but polished.  

What is the purpose of Proofreading?

Proofreading is actually something the writer does on his/her own.  When a person is finished the "writing" step of the process and has revised what s/he can revise, then it is up to the writer to take a step back and look at the writing for conventional correctness.  It is for this reason that so many people on deviantART get annoyed when writers post deviations with obvious spelling and punctuation errors; a writer should always, always take responsibility for his/her own writing, and part of taking responsibility for it is caring enough to run it through spell-check (manual or otherwise) or make sure each sentence has a period (etc.).  

That said, there are some writers who have not mastered all the conventional rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization and formatting.  Because of this, if a writer is not confident in his/her mastery of the conventions, it is also the writer's responsibility to search out someone else to proofread the work (after the writer has proofread the work on his/her own).  This person is not there to make corrections the writer should know how to make (so a proofreader is not a correction-bot designed to help a lazy writer), but rather is there to offer suggestions and direction when questions about conventions come up.  A writer should never hand over a text and say, "Proofread this for me!" without first giving the proofreader some direction such as, "I'm not sure if my grammar is correct in this section; could you look at it for me?" or "Did I punctuate my dialogue well?" or "Tell me if I missed any apostrophes, especially in that last paragraph."  Proofreading by the writer should be both general and specific; proofreading by a reader should always be done with direction.

Proofreading should also be completed and all relevant corrections made before editing begins.  

What is the purpose of Editing?

Editing is a two-fold process: the first part of the process involves the reader; the second part of the process involves the writer.  If a work is going to be "published" (which, for these purposes, means "being seen by an audience"), then a writer has the responsibility to have at least one other set of eyes look at the piece before it's put forth for public scrutiny.  This reader, the "last" reader (so to speak), should be looking for conventional errors much like the writer looks for during proofreading, and s/he should also be looking for any last hang-ups in regard to the content and ideas.  In other words, this is where all the last-minute suggestions come in such as, "Hey, you missed the apostrophe here" or "Hmm, I'm still not sure about this sentence or what this simile means."  An editor is not there to proof (correct) a writer's text, but provide some insight about how ready for publication the text really is.  The editor should let the writer know if a text is good to go.

The last part of the editing process comes back to the writer.  This is where the writer makes the final decisions about the text, how to clean it up, how to correct it, where to add some last-minute clarification,  where to take words out or put words in, and simply how to polish the text so that it's as good as it's going to get at that moment in time.  Sometimes writers have extensive edits to do; sometimes writers have very, very few.  What's most important, however, is that the final decision about a piece of writing should always come from the writer.  All of the suggestions, corrections, feedback and commentary can be ignored or adopted as the writer sees fit.  Sometimes writers make bad choices, sure—but those choices must always remain the writer's to make.


Publishing need not mean the writer is trying to get this text published in a journal, book, magazine, newspaper or elsewhere.  Sometimes writers with no intention to pursue professional publishing believe this gives an excuse not to polish, revise, proofread, or edit a text.  The "emotional core" should be preserved since the writing is solely for the writer.  Unfortunately, the second that writing is put on display for someone else to read—one other person besides the writer—then that text has been ‘published’ and all steps of the writing process should (and should have) applied.  This means that every single deviation sitting in the Literature Gallery on dA (and not, let's say, in Scraps) has been published in regard to The Writing Process.  

Indeed, publishing in its simplest form refers to a text that is meant to be read by an audience.  There is no excuse!  Writing should be revised, proofread, and edited.  If it hasn't been, then a writer can be proud of his/her ideas (way back at that pre-writing and writing stage), but should be skeptical as to the value and worth of the text itself.  Good writing begins with a good idea, but that's not where it ends.  If it were, we all would've been novelists and poet laureates years ago.
This essay is designed to shed some light on The Writing Process: that sequential process we were told about in school but never actually learned.

Any and all comments are welcome, and insight or anecdotes about your experiences with The Writing Process are appreciated.

Notes on Revision

Writing is a process, even if it is an individual process, and one of the most important aspects of that process focuses on evaluating a text and reflecting on its strengths and weaknesses, not only to improve that single piece, but to have ideas in mind to write the next piece better. That is where revision comes in.

So, what is revision?

Revision is when you look at text for its content (ideas), organization, and style. Often confused with proofreading or editing, especially in formulaic and commonly-taught writing processes, revision is not immediately concerned with common conventions such as spelling, punctuation, grammar, capitalization, or formatting. Its first priority, despite contrary belief, should be content development: the reach for a good, clear, fully-explored idea.

Spelling, punctuation, and grammar are the easy parts of writing. Anyone with technical skill can help you edit a paper to make your sentences more complete, your spelling more consistent or your formatting more appealing. However, the most properly-punctuated text can still be a weak piece of writing if the content--the ideas--are underdeveloped, unorganized or lack a definitive sense of style.

And that's the crux of it. Many times, especially on the internet, we are so distracted by conventional or formatting errors that we have a difficult time stepping back and assessing a text for the value of its ideas. This causes us to make suggestions more focused on the technical aspects of a text while simultaneously allowing us to ignore the content. Believe it or not, telling someone to "use spell-check" before posting on deviantART does not make a person a better writer. It might make a person more adept at depending on and using a computer or word processing program, but it does not improve writing quality at its core, where its ideas are.

In recognizing this, it's time to admit that we're doing many of our young and growing writers, and writers without a strong command of the English language, a severe disservice simply though dismissal.

But wait! Grammar is important!

We couldn't agree more. Grammar is important. So is spelling, punctuation, formatting, proper capitalization, and a number of other conventions. However, if writing truly is a process, we must step back and put that process in perspective. It must be ordered, and we must determine each step's level and significance. As stated above, it's very difficult to revise a text to add or change its content, and it requires more work, but it's actually very easy to edit a text--either with someone's help or with a more learned and experienced eye in looking for and correcting conventions.

Eh, sometimes the grammar (etc.) is so bad I can't even understand what I'm reading!

Yes, we can sympathize. We really can. However, and especially on the internet, it's the job of the revision critic to decipher the main point from all that mess or, if s/he cannot, to begin a dialogue - begin asking questions of the writer - to help make the idea clearer. You can't help improve a text unless you know what the writer is trying to say, and you won't know what the writer is trying to say if you simply tell him/her to stop trying and insult or dismiss his/her piece (or only tell him/her to use commas and periods and capital letters).
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

I decided to figure out how to render a bubble in DAZ|Studio, via the Reality plugin through LuxRender. To my surprise, it wasn't as hard as I had feared it would be, but it did require a little research and one custom texture to accomplish the look I was going for.

To create the effect for yourself:
  1. Select the surface of the figure you wish to make a bubble. For my image, I used a sphere primitive, so there was only on surface. For more complex figures (like Genesis), there may be multiple surfaces you'll need to select, or some you may have to set to "null" in Reality in order for it to render correctly, like the jaw and mouth surfaces of most figures (usually hidden by the face surface, but since the bubble is translucent, it'll show through and look... well, weird).

  2. Set the Lux Material to "Glass," then copy the settings in the image. I looked up the index of refraction (IOR) and film thickness of soap bubbles, so this will save you the work of finding it yourself.

  3. Make sure Glass Type is set to "Architectural." This gives the best bubble effect. Otherwise, it looks more like a glass sphere than an airy bubble.

  4. Set your Reflection and Transmission colors to white, then select a multicolored texture for your Reflection Map. For your convenience, I will share the texture I made for the reflection map (circled in red on the image; see below for a link). You know how bubbles have all those pretty colors? Setting a psychedelic reflection map is a good way to simulate this. It's easy enough to make your own in your paint program of choice: swirl around a rainbow gradient over a pale yellow background, then blur to taste. You can also find images of bubble solution online, but I find this works best (and avoids copyright issues).

  5. Leave all other settings ALONE! This is important: KEEP THE OPACITY AT 100%! Yes, bubbles are translucent, but the Lux Material takes care of that for you, so there's no need to mess with the opacity (otherwise, it looks like a poorly superimposed picture).

  6. Render as usual. Render your scene as you normally would.

On a side note, in my experience, shiny objects like bubbles, plastic, metal, etc. tend to benefit from IBL lighting, because it gives them more scenery to reflect back.

I hope you found this tutorial useful!

Reflection Texture:

A comparison of the bubble with and without the reflection texture applied:
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Abstract: an analytical approach to plotting and writing fiction upwards of 1,000 words

Acknowledgements: the potentially amazing Rachel (IfrozenspiritI) served as guinea pig to this; go and tell her to finish the product of that experiment, because you'll love it. Chris Widdison (tearstone) approached me indecently with the idea of writing a longer essay (which will still happen, and be a lot more purdy than this here thing), which would incorporate this essay in another form, amongst others. He doesn't need to read any of this, because he already knows it all.

Target audience: young, inexperienced writers, especially those that find themselves pulling off vignettes and other super-short forms with an ease, while chronically unable to produce anything with more than a handful of scenes and more than 1,000 words.


Part 1: The Premise takes a look at the basic idea behind a piece

Part 2: The Story fills in some of those blanks and gives us raw material

Part 3: The Plot makes things interesting and gives us a skeleton on which to slap flesh

About the author: Daniel is a guy who writes. That about sums him up. He writes a lot, and he tends to write long-ish short stories. He's figured out a few things on the way; surely not enough for him to be any sort of authority, but he's got some ideas where others may not.

About this essay: I dislike the idea of selling a faulty premise along the lines of: I will tell you how to write, and thus, by extension of wishful expectancy, I will tell you how to earn money writing. It's a bit like “SURE WAY TO WIN THE LOTTERY”, if you know what I mean.

I'm obviously not asking money for this; I wouldn't dare. Also, I don't promise to give you the keys to the kingdom, the sure-fire way of Writing Well. Ain't no such thing; even the existence of a concept like “Universally Good Writing” is highly dubitable. This last word was not Spanish. What I'm trying to do is to help you take that step from “one shot shorts” to a more engaging type of writing. So let's go.

* * *

Part 1: The Premise

“Titanic 1” is a film about a love affair on a famous ship-wreck-to-be. This is a premise.

A premise is the central idea of a piece of fiction condensed into a single sentence. While the premise might not have a lot to do with the finished piece of fiction (“Housesitters XXX” might have a premise like this: “one beautiful woman agrees to house-sit for another beautiful woman and lots of ravishingly beautiful men happen to drop by and take advantage of her”, while actually the finished piece of fiction is only about breasts) (I should write a porn some day), it's typically the first thing that was there. So we're starting with a premise.

A premise can really be anything: “rats are actually angels” or “in a future society, people eat people to deal with overpopulation” (a cookie if you recognized the film). We're not really interested in dissecting existing premises here though; we want to come up with one. How now, brown cow?

1.1: The Seed, or: in which I abuse pearls for metaphor's sake.
A pearl is basically a piece of dirt with a lot of stuff around it. That's how stories work too: you have a bit of dirt and then you stick more and more stuff around it, until all you can see is the stuff, and you'd have to dig real deep to find the bit of dirt at all.

I prefer to call the dirt seed, because that sounds cool. To make this completely clear for vivus: very often you will not be able to detect the seed at all in the finished story.

Thus: what's the seed? Where do you get it from?

France. Naaah, not really.

The closer we look at the creative process, the more we notice it's magic: it's pure chaos, in our brains, from which we randomly take this and that and apply sense-making-procedures to it. Most of the time when we invent a story, we are not even aware of the fact that there is a seed.

Sometimes you get lucky, and a seed happens to be dropped in a conversation. Maybe there's a funny thing someone said that you would want to develop into a story, maybe you see an odd old guy standing by a street pointing his remote control at the passing cars; those can be seeds.

What I do, most often, to get a seed and to add further stuff later-on, is something I'd love to teach you all, but I'm afraid it's one of those things that you can or can't do: I close my eyes and squeeze something in my brain. Random pictures and patterns appear before my closed eyes. I pick one, or two, or twenty, and I write. This sounds a lot madder than it is, I promise.

When I did the thing I do in order to come up with an example for this essay, I saw a car on a very long and empty highway; four people in it; then I saw a diner by that long road, and for some reason I knew something was up with the toilet in there. That is my seed.

1.2: The Growing, or: in which I quote Depeche Mode to appeal to my audience.
Reach out and touch faith! I should tattoo “faith” on my genitalia and then walk around naked singing Personal Jesus. Or maybe not.

What you do next is best described by “reaching out”. You may want to ask questions (“who are the people in the car? What's up with the toilet? Diner, where?”), or you may simply turn the central concept around in your mind and feel for associations (“toilet... privacy... despair... four people: family...”) (don't ask me why I associate “despair” with “toilet”; I just do). At any rate, grow that seed into a premise. You know you've hit “premise” when you're saying “this is beginning to feel interesting!”. There you go: premise.

Your premise need not be very thrilling; we'll get to thrilling when we get to plot. Keep in mind all this is happening in your mind still; at any point you can say “naaah, this isn't going anywhere” and discard it like an aborted ... wait, I was trying not to piss people off.

1.3: The Crystallisation, or: in which I make you write a sentence, oh nose! Nose? Noes!
If you have a good premise, you can summarise it in a single sentence of, oh, let's say twenty words. I would have said ten, but my guinea pig showed me that some people must be wordy. Thus: twenty words. One sentence. That's your premise. Write it down. Look at it. Good? Let's move on then.

* * *

Part 2: The Story

I'll quote something that I've read quoted in a hundred places; I have no clue who originally said it:

“The king died, and then the queen died” is a story. “The king died, and then the queen died of grief” is a plot.

Thus: a plot is a story with the why questions answered, with the angles decided, with the window of narration defined (where to begin and where to stop; we don't always begin at the beginning). A story is our raw material. Let's make some raw stuff.

2.1: What, or: aaaaaaaand theeeeeen?
Now it's time to look at what things happen, very basically. Say you've gotten a premise that reads: “rats are actually angels”. That's an idea, and quite a weird idea, but it has no action yet. So you must make things happen.

Again, you will be using lots of seeds in the following creative processes; again you will or will not be aware of that. This time, though, they will quickly and almost automatically connect to the premise.

For instance, you decide that you need to introduce the idea of rats being angels by making rats do something that's impossibly intelligent and benevolent. So you come up with the idea of a man lying tied up in a damp cellar, and rats “randomly” just happen to chew through his ropes. You decide there will be more instances of rats doing good things; you decide in the end the guy will clue into the fact that rats are actually God's agents, and he will be eaten by rats so that the secret is kept. That's good enough.

Don't go into detail here yet; we're not interested in how we'll tell these things or who will witness these things or anything like that. We just want the most basic “What?”. Develop the story just long enough that you feel you have enough to tell. And then?

2.2: Who, or: the not so dramatic dramatis personae.
That's Latin for “the drama of people”, and if you know people, you know drama. But that's not what we mean here. (this is actually incorrect information; in artist circles we call this a "joke")

We need to know who our characters are. We don't need to know much here; think of this as people-premises. The guy tied in the cellar is a student of journalism who wanted to come out with a big breaking story to jump-start his career and ended up with the wrong kind of people. He's an over-achieving sort of fella, and a very rational guy too. In the process of figuring out that rats are angels, he'll break inside and go slightly mad, like Freddy. In the end his rat-eaten corpse will be found and people will assume he went loco ultimately and killed himself somehow. Couldn't tell how: the rats ate all the evidence.

Notice that even though there's a lot of “what” in here (what with the whole going crazy and suicide thing), but that these whats are actually part of “character development”. Scary word, I know.

You should do this for one character at least; if you can already see now what other characters you'll need, at least sketch them out in your mind as well. Keep in mind, you're still not writing. I'm going to ask you to write in Part 3.

2.3: When and Where, or: Setting the setting.
Sometimes, oftentimes, stories need not be set explicitly at all. Every story is implicitly set, whether you like it or not. Sometimes, not setting a story is the clever thing to do.

The setting should really be very sketchy here; no need to go look at city maps (yet?). Very often, “a middle-sized western city” will do just fine. If you have intimate knowledge of a certain place and the place would lend itself to your story, by all means, do use it! Extra points if you live in London: every goddamn classic is set in London.

Here's some good news finally: I'm not asking you to write down anything at this stage; not yet!

* * *

Part 3: The Plot

3.1: Plotting, or: in which I tell you about space-chickens
A star is basically a lot of hot air; hot gas, rather. Mostly, sun-type stars have lots and lots of hydrogen, which is the simplest gas there is. Four little happy hydrogen atoms get together and do the fusion dance: you end up with a helium atom, which is a little lighter than four hydrogen atoms. The weight-loss goes straight into energy. At some point, the star is all out of hydrogen; then it gets angry and it huffs and it puffs and it grows bigger and redder, and then it collapses.

Stick around four and a half billion years and you'll get to see it in the sky. Hey, stick around long enough and you can touch the sun sitting leisurely in your garden. Provided you got the right sort of sun blocker.

My point is that if a star is big enough (which our sun is not; pity), it collapses into a black hole (otherwise it just becomes a cute little white dwarf). A black hole is so heavy that time stands still inside. I know that doesn't make any sense; blame the physicists.

A black hole also attracts things and swallows them and grows, thus attracting more things. Can you feel the metaphor coming?

That's how your story should be now: it should have grown to a certain point: a tangle of concepts and people and places. Suddenly, there was enough stuff, and it collapsed; maybe you have a name for it already, maybe you don't, but from now on you're more likely to think of the whole of the new story than of its aspects. If it's good enough, it'll make you happy (and you should really pause here and check if you're happy; if you're not happy, you may want to start over) and it'll start attracting new things like crazy. Let it do that; help it, even: now's the time to start the writing. But not the writing of the story; what I typically do is create a file called something like rats_are_angels_notes.rtf (yes I like rtf; it's very portable and does all the shiny stuff I need), and I start writing stuff. I don't stop myself, I don't look at how pretty my words are (okay, even while writing notes I'll look up this and that, but I'm obsessive compulsive like that), I just write, write, write, and add raw material to it. Typically, a note file looks like this:

Pierre LaCroix, father, 56; civil servant; tax official; very boring man; ironically always advertising “Le Système D”--the famed chaotic life-style in which the French are supposed to make things work somehow. When Pierre was younger, he'd lost a letter from the veterinarian that he had retrieved from the mailbox. He loved his dog. His father said they had to euthanise the dog now, because they didn't have the letter anymore. Pierre became traumatised and the most orderly Frenchman to ever live.

You don't worry about anything while writing these notes; just keep writing (keep on dancing, KEEP on dancing). Keep making up things. No-one will ever see this note file. Most of the things you write there you'll never use in the story; trust me, this stuff still helps you get a better grip on the characters in your mind. You will probably want to write these notes around the main characters; this is how it works best for me. However, you're doing a lot more than just develop the characters: you're telling the whole story as well. In the end of this first bit of notes, I like to have a rough timeline for myself to refer back to. Of course, we'll deviate from this chronological order, because, hey, Tarantino!

If there were space-chickens, they'd be attracted by black holes.


“Have you split up now?”

“Are you being funny?”

People quite often thought Marcus was being funny when he wasn't.

3.2: The Hook, or: tag 'em and bag 'em
I began this with a Nick Hornby quote; this is from “About a boy”, a quite remarkable book. This is what we call a hook. I'm not certain whether or not Hornby was aware of the fact that he's writing a hook there, but seeing how he's a pretty darn good writer, I'll guess he was not aware of it; that's how things go. Writing is like Kung-Fu: first you learn the rules, then you become one with the rules, and then you forget the rules.

The other day a friend of mine told me that with all the one-liners I'm putting out, I sounded like something between Ahnold and Keanu Reaves. As MinorKey once pointed out, you can tell a friend by the insults he uses.

The hook is important. The hook is the most important thing about your writing. No, really. Now if you're calling me mainstream, and sell-out (I wished), consider this:

“When shall we three meet again?
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
When the hurly-burly's done,
When the battaile's lost and won;
That shall be ere the set of sun.”

But we all agree that Shakespeare was a sell-out anyway.

We're drowning in writing these days. The internet is great and all, but this unfiltered mass of letters necessitated an unconscious filtering; these days, when I look at fiction outside dA, I read the first few lines; if they do nothing for me, I discard the piece. Yes, I'm horrible like that. On dA I read on anyway, because I'm not expecting anything else. Nothing like a good insult to keep your readers reading.

(not really; don't try this outside a semi-humorous essay)

You need to sink your hook in soon, fast, deep, and hard. Optimally, the first sentence makes me say “what the fuck?”, and I'll keep reading.

Technically speaking, a hook is a surprise. Since we don't have a lot of innertextual context to contrast this surprise to in the very first sentence, we need work on this-world concepts to surprise our readers. There are certain concepts, especially when reading a story, that we can work with here. You can work on a linguistic level; for instance, you could hook us with a lot of interesting words:

“The rich milky-mocha skin of her hand in her lap stood out in sharp relief against the little white dress: stain-proof, wrinkle-proof, overembellishment-proof.” That'd be a decent hook.

Or you can work on the presupposition that a word like “this” should describe something already introduced by using that word as a first word of a story, and add to that the fact that we expect something relevant in the first line / first sentence, and come up with this classic:

“This is a walnut.”

Or you could take the idea that our narrator should typically be alive to tell his story, and end up with something along the lines of:

“Dying wasn't as bad as it's always made out to be.”

And so on. You get the idea.

Like all other things I'm mentioning in here, the hook is not restricted to one place. Just yesterday, I read yakitate-art's very entertaining “Jade Dragon”; about a third into the story, there's a hell of a hook in the form of a three word sentence (you do not want to read this if you haven't read the story; don't let me spoil it; skip to the next paragraph; really): “Li is dead”.

When I said in the beginning that I can't teach you how to write well, I meant it. There is so much about writing that you learn as you go along; I have so many concepts in my head about good story telling and how to deliver a message and so on that I cannot even put into words. All I can do here is start you out. That's what I'm trying to do.

Write hook-conscious at first; you really want to think about your hook. My “Death of a Dreamseeker” story used to begin with a dull description of the character Jacob (who really isn't a very central character at all), likening types of people to types of cars. That was rather witty, rather poorly done, and overall not a hook at all. I remember walking around my village muttering to myself “I need a hook I need hook”. Then the walnut came to me; I actually yelled “I have a hook!”.

Look at your plot now; where can you start to hook your people? Or if you don't want to distort the chronological order of things, how can you word your first thought, how can you zoom in or zoom out in the beginning, what odd angle can you choose, what can you do to make me want to read your story? Figure that one out before you go on; this is important.

If you want to give background, and setting, and characters, and all that, that's fine; but please, hook us first. We won't care a bit for all your wonderful background and all if you start your book with, oh I don't know, say a whole chapter discussing a made-up race and their habits (I think to remember that “Concerning Hobbits” was only added in later editions; some Tolkienite correct me if I'm wrong; Tolkien is something altogether different anyway, his mere diction is the hook). Thus: Hook us!

3.3: The Narrator, or: in which I scare the last two of you away with big words
Internal focalisation. Extradiegetic narrator.

Now that the scaring away is all done, let's look at a VERY rough sketch of narrative perspectives. I'm keeping this as short as I can, I promise.

3.3.1: He or I?
Your first decision is this: first person narrative or third person narrative? You only get to use second person narrative if you're Kevin Wilson and you're writing a short story called “the choir director affair”. This is the baby and yes, those are teeth. They are not important. Don't think about them.…

3.3.2: I
First person narration is simple, and yet it's not. Essentially, you're telling the story from the perspective of a person. There's a LOT of factors here, but I was going to be short. Consider only these brief questions: is the narrator important for the plot? Can we trust the narrator to tell the truth?

Optimally, you'll be imitating a certain voice and certain figures of speech that aren't yours; you may or may not have a justification for why this narrator is narrating (you could pretend he's writing a report about the thing in question; you could pretend he's writing a foreword to a book (hi Tim!); you may or may not allow mistakes; and so on. But, brevity, Daniel, brevity!)

3.3.3: He, or: but in that third person narration, what things may come, when we have shuffled off the coil of first person, must give us pause...
And there's the respect that makes calamity of such long writing. I promise I'll quit quoting the bard now.

Third person is a hundred times trickier than first person. Most people don't realize this. There's a whole science dedicated to analysing the telling of stories (if you know what a referentless pronoun is and just why there is no such thing as a figural narrator, you might be studying Narratology). I have a certain passion for narratology, but once more, I'll try to subject myself to the bitter yoke of brevity.

The classic distinctions we all learn in school (and which are rather useless, but let's not go there) are between an omniscient and a non-omniscient narrator. In most cases, what we'd call an omniscient narrator indicates authorial narrative, while a non-omniscient narrator implies figural narrative. I know you don't really care, but we'll need this to properly look at the options you have:

You can write your short story in the tone of a narrator, a distinct author, who might or might not know everything, be everywhere at once or not, and who might or might not comment on what happens. You may or may not allow this narrator to look into your characters' thoughts.

Or you can write as if it was first person narrative, but turn all first person sentences into third person. For instance:

“I was gonna have to tag her as mine and send her off to hell. I'm sure someone had a real good laugh that moment. Someone down here or up there, I don't know.”

would become:

“He was going to have to tag her as his and send her off to hell. He was sure someone had a real good laugh at that moment; someone down in hell or up in heaven, he did not know.”

(obviously this is not how figural narrative is done; I just used this to point out its similarities to first person narrative; you write figural narrative in third person right away.)

This is figural narrative. Figural narrative should usually not be omniscient; everything you tell should be seen from the eyes of a certain figure. The only introspection allowed is into this figure's thoughts and comments. This style came into use with the modernist movement; Hemingway, Woolf, and Joyce all did some experimenting with it.

If you've gotten a little curious about narratology, I highly recommend the following script:…

This is part of the generally awesome “Poems, Plays, and Prose: A Guide to the Theory of Literary Genres” script by Manfred Jahn. It wouldn't hurt to read all of it. It's a lot more entertaining than what I'm doing here (it's also longer though ;p).

This much on perspective. I suggest you consciously decide on a mode for now (and it wouldn't hurt to try out something you've never done; always look for new things, no?) and try to stick to it when it actually comes to writing.

3.4 Re-arrangement, or: how to make re-inventing the wheel fun
Now we pretty much have the story; many aspects of how to tell it have been answered already, but a last look at it won't hurt.

Will you tell things in a chronological order? Often it's best not to, but be careful not to let this deteriorate into a gimmick. If you're using flash-backs and flash-forwards (I've yet to see someone pull off a decent flash-forward; I'll have to do it myself, I'm afraid), there had better be a good reason for them.

Will you stick to your angle (that is, narrative perspective) at all times? Will you maybe change the figure the figural narrative is attached to now and then? For an added bit of twistiness: will you maybe change first person narrator half-way through?

Which parts will you leave out? You can never tell the whole story because there's always going to be another why and another “and then?”. Decide now which aspects of the story you want to tell, where to start, where to stop.

If your story grows very long, you might want to think of chapters; this is basically outside the scope of this essay, since I'm dealing with short stories here, but many of the things I say can be applied to novel writing as well, I expect. Consider doing a chapter breakdown.

Even if you're not writing a novel, you might want to consider doing a scene breakdown. Many short narratives kind of flow from here to there without real scene breaks, and that is fine; highly descriptive prose, however, will naturally divide into scenes. It might help to get an overview of these scenes. In your story, you may want to indicate a change of scenes with three asterisks, like so:

* * *

Epilogue: The Writing

Have you worked through all this? Good. Go to your notes file. All the little things you've decided during the plotting stages, write them down. Expand. Invent. Go wild, no-one's watching.

Then let it gestate. That is to say, put it aside. Don't work on it for a few days. But during those days, keep thinking about it. How will this work, how will I connect this and that, and so on. Let your mind mull over the things you have and those you don't. I promise magic things will happen. Take a long walk (this won't hurt either, unless you live in an area with a high density of rabies-crazed grisly bears preying on writers) and think about what you're going to do. Look at it from all sides.

Then take a deep breath; set aside a good chunk of time; and write.

At this point, it'll be the simplest thing in the world.

If you're curious what happened to the toilet premise: it turned into "The Importance Of Being Frank". Find it in my gallery.
5000 words
Abstract: an analytical approach to plotting and writing fiction upwards of 1,000 words

This thing has been... gestating in my mind for a few months now; I finally spat it out.

Consider this not so much a theoretical breakdown of the creative process, but much rather a step-by-step how-to to writing fiction. Quite obviously this is just one approach, but what I'd really love would be for as many people as possible to use this outline as an actual guide to writing; I want you to try and write a story with this approach, and I really want you to tell me how it went. Where did you have problems? Where did you get stuck? What did work? What things did you find yourself doing that weren't covered in here? Which steps did you skip? Where do you disagree with me?

In the end, anything that yields you a good story works. This is my approach, and it's never let me down.

From the people outside my target audience (that is, those people who already know very well how to write longer fiction and who don't need my advice at all; there's lots of you!), if they can find the time to read this (I tried to make it light and fun; and hey, I'm talking about space-chickens), I would very much like feedback on how their methods differ from mine. I'm expecting that most of you won't be doing any planning at all, at least not in writing; that is fine, again, as long as it works. But still, look into your minds: how do you do that planning? I'd be very, very curious to know.

If you've only ever written short things (substantially below 1,000; restricted to very short periods of time...), and if you don't want to try something longer, give me a good reason why!

If you have editorial feedback or other comments on the style and the execution of this essay, sure, let's hear 'em; but know that I'm not very interested in that kind of feedback here. This was written to get a message across, not to be shiny and polished and perfect. I've used a very lax style on purpose; I'm trying to keep people reading here. So keep reading!
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Couldn't sleep until I got this out of my head. Never made a stamp before, but I didn't see one of this, so I felt that I needed to fill the void.

If you don't know who this is or what this is, you must be enlightened...

Stamp template used:
by :iconsparklum:

And now that I have gotten that odd notion out of my head, I sleep at last...
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Active Voice

Active voice occurs when the subject or agent in the sentence performs the action, often towards an object. For example, let's look at the following sentence written in active voice:

Katie spilled the milk.

In this sentence, Katie is the subject, and she performs the action (spilling) on the direct object (the milk.) The most obvious way to spot active voice is through the use of active verbs, which are simply verbs that express actions. In most cases, the sentence will take on the simple form of the tense it's in, whether past, present, or future.

Passive Voice

In passive voice, the object being acted upon is emphasized over the agent. A passive version of the previous sentence would look like this:

The milk was spilled by Katie.

In this sentence, our object (the milk) appears before the action (was spilled) and the agent (Katie.) You will also notice that this sentence is in the progressive form of the past tense and uses a "being" verb prior to the action.  Additionally, the preposition "by" tells us who is performing the action on the object.

In some cases we won't know who or what the agent acting is. This is called agentless passive, and in this form, our sentence might look like this:

The milk was spilled.

Our agent (Katie) is unknown. We have only the object (the milk) and the action (spilled).

Prescriptions Against the Passive

One of most persistent "rules" in academic and creative writing is "Never use passive voice." We might wonder what on earth is wrong with passive voice when it is not grammatically incorrect and or inherently wrong.

The primary issue with passive voice is that it deemphasizes the subject. For instance, Katie appears to play a lesser role in spilling the milk in our passive sentence. In the agentless passive, Katie disappears altogether. Passive voice feels more detached from the subject and the action.  Characters and speakers are more engaging with they directly act and interact. By placing emphasis on objects acted upon, we take away some of the involvement the reader has with the story.

This idea connects to the idea of showing, which was explained in another article.  We are quite simply trying to draw the reader into the scene. When we show the characters acting, we are usually showing the reader what is happening, as opposed to simply telling them.

In most cases, we should consider what George Orwell suggests in his 1946 article, "Politics and the English Language":

Never use the passive where you can use the active.1

This is actually the best summation of what we're discussing, because there will always be times when passive voice is unavoidable and even preferable to active voice. Let's take that agentless passive form we discussed earlier. If you recall, the subject is unknown. There are times when we can't know the agent of the action.  Let's say Katie finds a toy:

The doll's face was broken.

In this case, Katie has no idea who broke the doll. Passive voice is unavoidable, because the subject is missing or unknown. Also, the fact that the doll is broken might have some importance.

But considering the rule Orwell presents, we could shift this to active by emphasizing Katie, who has discovered the doll:

Katie found a broken doll on the floor.

In both cases, it depends on what we need to emphasize. If no one is in the room, and we're attempting to guide the reader through the scene, we might choose passive over active.

Passive voice can also convey a character's weakness. Let's say we have a character in a fight.

Daniel was pushed against the wall.

In this sentence, Daniel is emphasized as the object. This may serve to highlight his role as the weak man in the fight, which could aid the atmosphere and even characterization.

Overall, Orwell's conclusion should be our conclusion. If passive does the job we need it to do, we may leave it. But in many cases, active voice should be preferred. What we need to consider is how the relationship between subjects, verbs, and objects aids or detracts from our story. Active voice often does the job better.





  1. "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell, 1946.…

The wayward reader is invited to peruse… for more information on grammar and writing.

Refer also to our article on showing:…

This is a new version of the active/passive article. Unlike the last version, this is not billed as a "primer" on the subject. The goal here is to familiarize you with the very basics of active and passive voice, as well as when and where to use each. It is assumed that the reader has some basic knowledge of grammar terminology.

For more detailed information regarding grammar and style, visit the suggested links at the end of the article.

Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Part 3

You know, I haven't had Chinese in ages, and as tempting as that pretzel sounds, I'm really craving me some sesame chicken...

"I think I'm going to need something more filling than a coffee and pretzels," Nathan said, smiling at Alton. "Which way to Chinese?"

The other man laughed and lazily pointed out the window. "You'll want to turn right out of my shop, go straight through the next intersection, and turn right again at the corner of Midas Street and Banner Avenue. You should be able to spot the Golden Frog with no problem."

Nathan nodded, committing the directions to memory as he started towards the door. "Thanks, for letting me use the phone and the info. Uh, I guess see you later."

"Yes, see you later."

Nathan hesitated for a moment before leaving. The way he'd said that... he shook it off. Alton was a nice guy. He'd offered a complete stranger the use of his business phone, and even given him directions. Nathan knew he really needed to get past his discomfort around the bookseller. It was just an unusual eye color. Hell, he could do that himself with a pair of contact lenses.

Nathan stopped walking, took a deep breath, and shook his head. "You're thinking about this way too much," he muttered to himself. He continued on his way to the restaurant, hungrier now more than ever.

The Golden Frog was clearly one of the newer establishments in town, judging by its spiffy clean exterior and crisp, unscathed signage. Either that, or the owners were very meticulous with the upkeep. Stepping through the wooden doors, Nathan was instantly greeted by a gigantic pair of eyes, staring straight at him from the head of a large, golden, frog-shaped statue. A little velvet rope sectioned it off from the entranceway, a small sign in front reading "No Hands Off Please!" under which was written what was probably the same (albeit more grammatically correct) phrase in Chinese characters. Nathan cringed at the sign, but followed its instructions and walked through a second set of doors into the restaurant proper. He sighed in relief at the "Please, Seat Yourself" sign, getting himself a small booth by the window so he could watch the people walking outside.

While he waited for a waiter, Nathan looked around. It wasn't too busy for lunch, since there were still a few empty tables, and it looked like quite a few families were there. He could see over the take-out counter back into the kitchens and saw the chefs shouting back and forth to each other in Chinese, probably over what orders needed to be cooked up. He watched the waiters making their rounds, some speaking barely intelligible English, and he worried for a moment that ordering his lunch was going to be more complicated than he would like. Maybe he should have gone to the coffeehouse...

"Welcome to The Golden Frog." The sound of very American English startled Nathan almost as much as the waiter's sudden appearance. "My name is Avery," he continued, handing him a menu. "And I will be your server today. Can I start you off with something to drink?"

Avery really did stand out amongst the mostly Asian employees with his platinum blonde ringlets framing his round, boyish face, and he couldn't have been much older than nineteen or so. He smiled expectantly at Nathan, waiting to take his order.

"Uh, actually, I already know what I want," Nathan said, handing menu back to him. "Just a cola and whatever the lunch portion of sesame chicken is?"

The waiter stared at him, a little surprised, but nodded as he jotted down his order. "Sure thing. I'll be right back with your drink shortly."

Avery took the menu and headed back to the kitchen to place the order. As soon as he was gone, Nathan looked down at the paper placemat in front of him, emblazoned with the Chinese zodiac and all the little details that told customers what their sign was. He didn't even need to read the years to know he was a dragon; it was just one of those little factoids about himself that he had memorized, as easy for him to recall as it was for him to say his birthday was May thirteenth. He had just begun reading who his love matches were when something crashed on the floor, causing the restaurant to go silent for a few seconds.

Nathan looked up towards the source of the noise, curious as the chatter of the patrons returned to its original level. One of the waiters was apologizing profusely to a couple while he picked up the shattered remains of the dishes he'd dropped. The wife seemed perfectly fine with the accident, but her husband was looming over him, screaming obscenities at the young man for his clumsiness.

"You idiot!" he shouted, stomping his feet. "Look what you did! We've been waiting for thirty minutes, and you do this?!"

"I'm very sorry, sir," the waiter apologized again. "I didn't know the tray was broken. I'll get you a new meal right away."

"You had better! It's bad enough they let you people work in this country without you being completely inept at it!"

Nathan started to rise from his seat, but stopped. The man was out of line, but it really wasn't any of his business. He spotted Avery headed back towards his table and sat back down, but he couldn't help but keep looking over at the confrontation.

"Your soda, sir?"

"Hm? Oh, yeah, thanks..."

"Don't worry about him."

"What?" That got Nathan's attention, and he looked up at Avery as the teen nodded towards the angry man.

"He's the owners' son," he explained, although his brows were furrowed with worry. "And he's a good waiter. If things get too out of hand..."

"But shouldn't we do something?" Nathan asked, not at all comforted by Avery's words. The waiter frowned, chewing on his lip as he began to nod, then shook his head instead, mumbling something about being right back before he hurried away towards the kitchen. Nathan huffed, looking back. The man wasn't shouting anymore, but didn't look any happier. Most of the other patrons had gone back to their meals, completely ignoring the incident, except for one other man. He was staring at the husband while he continued to berate the waiter in a hushed tone, whatever he was saying clearly upsetting the youth and making him cringe away as he continued to try to clean up his mess.

A chill ran down Nathan's spine. The man was watching too intently to just be a curious onlooker, and he could have sworn that he was mouthing along to the husband's words. It didn't sit well with Nathan, and he couldn't just watch anymore.

I have to do something. I don't like where this is going, and that guy looks way too invested in what's going on. Poor kid looks terrified...

What should I do?
Nathan gets more than he bargained for at the Golden Frog. Should he intervene? Confront the stranger? Or just stay out of it?

THE CHOICE HAS BEEN MADE: Read Part 4 to see his decision!


ON TO PART 4 >>>

Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.