
Disaster by Alpha Stock Images used under CC BY-SA 3.0
Most people want to give useful writing advice, but there are exceptions. I read a lot of writing advice to stay informed on the state of the industry,* and a lot of it is irredeemably useless. Since this is obviously a popular trend that people are following on purpose and not a symptom of poor understanding, I’ve created a list to help anyone else who wants to give useless writing advice. I promise it will be very useful for that!
1. Redefine Terms
Let’s say you’ve got an opinion to share, but there’s a problem: your opinion is really conventional. For example, you think that important characters should be fleshed out and three-dimensional, but they shouldn’t have so much backstory as to be boring or confusing. Everyone already thinks that, so there’s no way you’re going to get any clicks with such a pedestrian take!
You know what would get you a lot more attention? If you posted something with the title “Stop Developing Your Characters!” It’s provocative, so people are sure to click on it, even if it’s just to make sure they haven’t misunderstood something.
However, you’re not ready to stand by such an absurd statement, which is where redefining common terms comes in. After getting people to click on your boiling hot take of a title, your first paragraph redefines “character development” as giving a character so much backstory that it overwhelms readers. Obviously that isn’t what the term actually means, but that’s not your problem.
Now that you’ve redefined a common term to mean something negative, you can stand by your title and technically not be lying. As we all know, technically telling the truth is the best way of telling the truth. This also gives you a chance to introduce your own term like “character manifesting,” which you can define as giving the character enough backstory to be three-dimensional but not so much that readers check out.
None of this advice will be even a little useful to anyone, but it can fill up a lot of page space, and it has great traffic potential. A lot of people will hate share it, of course, but you’ll also get a bunch of genuine shares from people who enjoy the feeling of intellectual superiority without the pesky business of applying intellectual rigor.
2. Misinterpret Stories
A key facet of useless writing advice is creating arbitrary formulae that stories supposedly adhere to. Sometimes, you go the whole hog and say the formula applies to all stories ever. Sometimes, you’re a little more restrained and only claim it applies to all stories with spaceships or what have you. Writers eat this up, because they’re desperate. Writing is hard, and a preset formula is incredibly tempting. The main problem is that stories don’t actually conform to these formulae, so finding examples can be tricky.
Let’s say that one step in your formula is for the protagonist to leave most of their friends behind near the end of the story. You’ve just read The Fellowship of the Ring, and it’s a cool moment when Frodo and Sam break off from their companions, so all stories should do that. You grab Star Wars: A New Hope as another example, since Luke also leaves some of his friends on Yavin when he attacks the Death Star. It’s a completely different context, but that’s not important! And hey, Spock also leaves his friends on the bridge in The Wrath of Khan so he can sacrifice himself to save the ship. You’re on a roll!
Unfortunately, three examples isn’t enough to really wow anyone, but you’re out of low-hanging fruit. You need another famous spec-fic story that your marks audience will recognize, and Dune seems like a good pick. Only one snag: there’s no moment near Dune’s ending where Paul leaves his friends behind. Don’t worry, you have options.
First, you can just pick a moment from earlier in the story and use that as an example, even though it doesn’t match the others. Paul does leave a bunch of his friends behind when he flees into the desert to live with the Fremen about a third of the way through the book, so that should work just as well. How is anyone going to check? You’ll be publishing a blog post or YouTube video; it’s not like they can interrupt you to ask questions. Besides, you’ll add so many examples that checking them all would be exhausting.
But if you’re really worried that someone will notice the inconsistency in your structure, there’s another option: you can still use the end of Dune, but say that Paul metaphorically leaves his friends behind when he becomes emperor. This is 100% effective, because “metaphorically” can mean anything. By reading this article when your friends haven’t, you’re metaphorically leaving them behind right now!
3. Be a Genre Prescriptivist
In storytelling reality, genres are a collection of associated traits. Sometimes, these traits are aesthetic, like spaceships for scifi and castles for fantasy. Other times, they’re more plot focused, like how mystery stories usually explore the question of whodunit and romances feature a prominent love story.
These genres are always fuzzy around the edges. A story might have both spaceships and castles or a whodunit romance, inviting a wave of discourse about which story goes in which genre and whether tacos are sandwiches. Even so, genres are useful categorization tools. If you market your story as science fiction and there’s no advanced technology or aliens to be had, audiences will be mad.
That’s no good; you need to make your genre advice useless. So start assigning genres arbitrary meanings and hard borders. Ideally, whatever criteria you use should apply to at least some stories within a genre. That way, it will bring at least one famous example to mind, and people will be less likely to think about all the stories your definition doesn’t apply to. You might say something like “science fiction is about exploring the unknown,” which certainly fits famous TV shows like Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. It doesn’t fit Dune, Old Man’s War, Starship Troopers, etc., but shhhhh.
Your new definitions can be either complimentary or defamatory based on what you’re trying to achieve. If you say that cyberpunk stories are about uncovering what it means to be human in a dehumanizing world, that sounds pretty cool. Cyberpunk fans will probably like that and recommend you to their friends. If you say that urban fantasy is about denying the realities of life in favor of a comforting lie, that doesn’t sound good at all! Urban fantasy fans will get mad and talk about how wrong you are, boosting your profile in the process.
For best results, praise genres that are already culturally prestigious, and attack genres that are routinely derided. This way, you can appear to have a bold and provocative take without actually risking anything. Literary fiction is, of course, the most prestigious by default, so see if you can come up with some flattering definition like “literary fiction enriches the soul, while genre fiction is junk food for the id.”
Failing that, hard scifi is pretty high in the pecking order, so flatter it whenever possible. YA and romance are good targets for your pejorative definitions, and if you’re feeling particularly bold, you could always try ranting about how superhero stories are inherently authoritarian or what have you. Lots of people jump at the chance to hate on superhero stories, because they’re super popular right now, but superhero stories also have legions of fans on account of being so popular, so you’ll be sure to generate some extremely useless controversy.
4. Invent New Genres
If genre prescriptivism isn’t quite getting the job done, you can always invent new genres out of thin air. It sounds like that sort of thing wouldn’t be allowed, but there’s actually no law against it! Anyone can make up a new genre for any reason, and the process has a lot of incredibly useless applications.
First, if you want to make a big splash but don’t actually have any groundbreaking opinions, you can take a genre that already exists and give it a new name. Have you heard about the new genre called “jokepunk?” It encompasses any story with the goal of amusing the audience, be it through humor, slapstick, dry observations, funny noises, etc. Jokepunk is actually one of the most popular genres around, and it’s a direct refutation of all those grim and humorless Oscar-bait movies that no one except Academy voters like. So you’re actually being a rebel by supporting jokepunk.
Obviously, I’ve just described comedy, a category that’s existed for thousands of years. But no one’s going to click on a think piece about “comedy” as a hot new genre.
Alternatively, if you aren’t really sure what should go into your new genre, you can give it a fancy name that’s more about sounding cool than communicating anything. Maybe you want a genre that includes any stories with friendship arcs, language barriers, or alien monsters. That’s now the Darmok and Jalad genre. Trekkies will have a positive association, since they’ll remember the Next Generation episode that includes two characters overcoming a language barrier to become friends and fight an alien monster. For everyone else, it sounds mysterious and cool, like something from mythology. They won’t even notice that the definition would include a host of wildly different stories that have nothing in common!*
The third and best use of new genres is to repackage bizarre and unfounded opinions as objective categories. Consider: I really don’t like the novels House of Earth and Blood, Dune, and The City We Became. Simply saying I don’t like those stories isn’t enough; I need to define them as part of a trend that’s out to get me, even though they have almost nothing in common! That’s why I’m inventing the NOOBcore genre, which encompasses every story I don’t like for any reason. Is the throughline weak? NOOBcore. Are there a lot of graphic injuries? NOOBcore. Is there a dearth of airships? You’d better believe that’s NOOBcore.
Now, I can act like I’m being persecuted while also insulting stories I don’t like in the guise of neutral categorization. If anyone ever calls me on NOOBcore sounding pejorative, I’m prepared: the “NOOB” actually stands for “Not Optimal Oren Books,” which completely absolves me of any responsibility. That’s just what the words I chose abbreviated to.
5. Get Extremely Weird About Worldbuilding
Worldbuilding is a basic aspect of storytelling, and nearly every author practices it to some extent. Whether you’re designing a whole galaxy from scratch, integrating the supernatural into an urban landscape, or just portraying the small town you grew up in, there’s a bit of worldbuilding in all of our stories. There’s a lot of great worldbuilding advice available, with the best of it being grounded and practical. Obviously, that means that the easiest way to give useless worldbuilding advice is to get waaaaaaaaaaay out there.
If you’re new to this, a great place to start is by insisting that everyone take fringe fan theories seriously. Did you know that the live-action Beauty and the Beast is really a tragedy because of its worldbuilding?* If you pay close attention to minuscule details, you can sorta put together that it takes place in the late 1700s and conclude that Belle and her aristocratic boyfriend would lose their heads in the revolution. So you should be extremely sad when watching that movie!*
If Disney isn’t your thing, you can always try your hand at high fantasy. If you apply the most poetic of licenses, it’s possible to interpret some of Tolkien’s writings to mean that Middle-earth is meant to be a prehistoric Europe. Any useful advice would ignore this as meaningless trivia, as nothing about Middle-earth is prehistoric and the world isn’t at all Europe shaped. But since we’re trying to give useless advice today, we could instead take it as gospel and insist that anyone who doesn’t agree is spitting on ol’ J. R. R.’s worldbuilding accomplishment! This theory is mostly used to complain about Black characters appearing in Middle-earth, but I’m sure we could find many other useless applications for it!
Next, you can graduate to the top level of weird worldbuilding takes: making assumptions about a writer based on how detailed their setting is. If you like deep, exposition-heavy worlds, then you can claim anyone who doesn’t write like that is a reactionary who’s opposed to progress, because they can’t imagine a world that’s different from this one. Don’t worry, you can seamlessly do the opposite as well: anyone who gets really into building fictional settings is actually a conspiracy theorist, since they’re imagining a reality that’s different from the one we live in.
And don’t let your weird takes be limited to just the stories themselves. You might have heard that fan wikis are a great resource for keeping track of complex setting details, but that’s WRONG. Actually, the existence of such wikis demonstrates how entitled fans have become. Now, they feel like they own the stories, similar to the way newspapers claim ownership of the real world by documenting what happens in it. To really respect an author’s intellectual-property rights, fans should forget every worldbuilding detail as soon as they hear it. There’s no evidence to support any of this, of course, but since when has that ever stopped anyone from saying something useless?
Congratulations, you’re now fully equipped to give useless writing advice to anyone you meet! Doesn’t it feel liberating no longer being expected to say anything of value? It’s certainly easier than confronting the complex and ever-changing beast that is storytelling. I think that’s why Yoda urges Luke to take the quick and easy path in Empire Strikes Back; certainly nothing bad could happen!
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
Kudos on the Blade Runner reference.
All great advice, especially #1 – after all, who doesn’t love it when someone takes it upon themselves to change the meaning of a common term or make one up when a perfectly good one already exists?
And where would we be without the Guardians of Genre telling us what belongs where? My favourite example of this is authors who kindly point out that their work is literary fiction or “systems fiction” and not sci-fi. It’s good to know which is which so I don’t accidentally read the wrong thing and overstretch by poor brain cell.
Bonus points also to whoever thought of “science fantasy” so that truefans can enjoy their science fiction in peace without any lowbrow fantasy elements ruining it for them. I mean, I’d always thought that fantasy was a type of fiction but what do I know?
well, I’ve found that “science fantasy” can be a useful subgenre so that people will know ahead of time to expect space wizards, but I’m sure people are also snooty about it.
“Systems fiction” isn’t something I’d heard of before but some googling suggests to me that it’s entirely based on being suuuuuper pretentious.
I don’t mind science fantasy as a subgenre, in fact it makes sense a a signifier of space wizards. The trouble is, it’s often used as a way of saying that such and such isn’t science fiction at all, and therefore not valid.
And, yeah, systems fiction has to be the snobbiest literary term I’ve come across.
What I also meant to add was that claiming such and such is “science fantasy, not science fiction” (as so many people do) doesn’t even make sense:
“Star Wars isn’t fiction, it’s fantasy.”
Looks kinda ridiculous when you take out the word “science “. I know that some people’s entire worldview depends on Star Wars not being science fiction, but they could just drop the word “science” altogether and call it spacewizardcore.
Yeah it’s very silly to get on a hill about Star Wars not being “science fiction.” It is science fiction, and also part of the science fantasy subgenre.
I’ve heard ‘space opera’ mentioned for Star Wars – basically soap opera in space, but I do think it deserves to be science fiction.
On the other hand, ‘spacewizardcore’ sounds nice.
Or maybe spacewizardpunk?
Funnily enough, system fiction (note the dropped s) is actually one of the more lowbrow, looked-down-on genres. (System fiction takes place in a world with an RPG-style “system” where people have stats and levels and so forth.)
I always thought that was called LitRPG?
I looked it up, and ‘system fiction’ is apparently another name for LitRPG, albeit a slightly obscure one. From what I can tell, it seems to be used mainly as a genre classification on the site Webnovel.
Interesting, thanks for looking it up!
LOL! Not like we gotta put much effort into worldbuilding…
Very instructive!
“It sounds like that sort of thing wouldn’t be allowed, but there’s actually no law against it!” – this line got me! xD
So, I checked with my lawyer and she said I’m perfectly within my rights to make the following statement:
#6 Misinterpret the writings of famous dead people to give yourself credibility. I’m pretty sure Aristotle, Kant and Shakespeare all agree with your hot take on why stories need no conflict! All writers need to do to make that work is follow the three easy steps you’ll happily explain in your exclusive online course.
Extra points for abusing the words “Orwellian” or “Kafkaesque”.
Mmmmmh if anything is better than pretentious name-dropping, it is using adjectified Names! Extra fancy. Plus, you don’t have to even dig for actual quotes anymore!
Maybe you could even adjectify your own name? I for one plan on opening the Bellisian School of Story-Manifesting where I’ll call my students the “Bellisians” to foster an over-exaggerated group identity so they’ll feel personally attacked when someone doesn’t like something I published. There is no way that could go wrong.
I’m sorry but the Bellisian School is merely a reinterpretation of the much older, lesser known Antonine branch of literary philosophy. I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of it as only true students of the art have the talent and intellectual rigour to receive its wisdom.
You found me out! xD
The Bellisian-Antonine war was a dark time for all literary critics!
It wasn’t pretty but it was pretentious.
Everyone may hate us now, but at least we got famous.
#2 reminds me of the time in my writing group when someone thought he’d had an epiphany after watching the then-recent Batman Begins, and swore that ALL stories were about the protagonist overcoming a fear.
I asked about the fear being overcome in Star Wars: A New Hope and got a weak excuse of an answer.
The fear of missing that two-meter exhaust port while someone whom the whole galaxy fears is shooting at you, perhaps?
Just joking. Character development can revolve around fear, of course, but also on a lot of other aspects.
Sounds like someone noticed that emotionally powerful character arcs need some conflict to give them weight, like how Luke risks missing his shot by turning off his targeting computer and trusting in the force. Unfortunately, this person then assumed “fear” was the only kind of conflict.
Bruce Wayne choosing a bat for his symbol because it was his own fear was a nice innovation for Batman, but not something to make me completely revise my view of storytelling.
I think jokepunk would be anything that has the joker or possibly the riddler in it.
Maybe if one is really struggling to give useless writing advice they could, in a pinch, incorporate #6 ‘Feelgood Contrarianism’ where the advice is to ignore a common piece of advice that authors find annoying (even though that limitation could be beneficial). Examples include ‘stories don’t need any conflict’ or ‘said really is dead, go hogwild on those adverbs’.
This is what happens every time the “CIA invented show-don’t-tell” claims make the rounds.
The CIA?
Apparently, during the big US communist scare, there was this idea that proper western literature should be feely and showcase how characters experience things, whereas communist authors tend to write in a more “cold” style… or something… which evolved into all this writing advice insisting that you must “show not tell”!
I think Mythcreants have written very sensible advice on “show don’t tell”, so I’m not gonna repeat what they have to say in my comment. But I do think there’s writing advice out there that becomes dogmatic with the “show don’t tell” advice, and perhaps it’s true that this dogmatism has some kind of cold war origin…
Actually, if we go by TvTropes’ interpretation, x-punk genre is about a world built around a certain type of technology or concept.
In the case of Jokepunk, it could, for example, be a world where Rule of Funny is a central concept, for both good and ill. Something like “Who framed Roger Rabbit” or “Cool World”
Although, if we go by that interpretation, Jokepunk as a genre requires a lot of work. Now it mostly consists of characters inspired by kids’ shows engaging in sex and other vulgarities.
I’ve never actually seen tv tropes interpretation before (gotta admit I’m not a regular tv tropes persuer) and imo the -punk implies some sort of socially subversive theme or plot, so jokepunk would be a genre in which comedy was used for specifically revolutionary purposes, for example (I think) the Joker movie.
If we go with tv tropes based Jokepunk it certainly seems like Discworld could be one of the most iconic Jokepunk series out there!
However, if the goal is the most useless advice possible surely the most reductive definition is the best one, hence jokepunk is defined by clown villain. ;)
>ranting about how superhero stories are inherently authoritarian
Yeah, but superhero stories pretty much ARE inherently authoritarian
The only exceptions are subversions
And I say this as a lifelong superhero fan (although I do dislike the authoritarian aspect)
So uh.. what definition of “authoritarian” are you using? and how does it apply to: Spider-Man, X-Men, and, for a wild card and a DC property, Adam West’s Batman.
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
In each of those cases, law and justice are administered not by a force ultimately answerable to the people, but by an individual or individuals who appoint themselves as enforcers
Even Batman ’66, as it’s now called, although he worked w/ the police, was not chosen by the people
It’s easy to forget, because they’re virtually always depicted as being one hundred percent right, but superheroes are essentially vigilantes. There is no oversight, no “internal affairs”. They do not answer to the people
While most superheroes do turn criminals over to the police, there have been a few who have chosen to kill the criminal, not necessarily in self-defense. In these cases the criminal has no trial, no defense. We accept this because we see that the superhero in question is “right” and the criminal is “evil and got what they deserved”
Even when the hero does turn criminals over to the police, remember they are still enforcing their own morality and not that of the people. They are right to do this because the writer states that they are right, shows them to be right, and (usually) has them follow common morality so we don’t quibble
Indeed the core conceit of the superhero genre: Ordinary people are helpless. The only one who can save us is somebody special. All we can do is be grateful that this savior has chosen to be on the side of good. The fact that the story is set up to prove this conceit only means that a writer can set up a world to prove their thesis is correct
For reference, I would point out Five Stories That Violate Their Own Conceit, number 4 – Supergirl: Punching Crime
“(Supergirl) ignores police, causes an incredible amount of property damage, and contaminates evidence without a second thought…
“(She) shouldn’t be intervening in normal crimes because her methods disrupt investigations and are likely to escalate a situation…”
And for Five Injustices in Superhero Stories, I could pretty much quote almost the entire article. Note that in number 3. Needless Vigilantism, although in this particular case they singled out Jimmy Olsen in Supergirl, it actually applies to virtually the entire superhero genre
As Harriet Jones rightly points out (Five Falsely Vilified Characters in Speculative Fiction, number 3 – Harriet Jones, Doctor Who) we are dependent entirely on the whims of self-appointed heroes to defend us, and are unable to defend ourselves. When she tries to set things up to mitigate this situation, the Doctor, and by extension the creators, bring her down for daring not to know her place
As I’ve said, these stories are specifically set up so that the only ones who CAN defend us are these heroes
I mentioned Batman, and the other two should be obvious. The fact that they don’t work for any government does not mitigate my point
Again, I do enjoy superhero stories, and am currently writing one myself. But we do have to understand the power dynamics here
I admit that I chose the examples I did on purpose. X-Men frequently fight against the government attempting to detain and kill mutants without cause, which I would say is the opposite of blind submission to authority, since they are fighting back against the government’s authority, and holding them accountable to the people, and specifically the mutants.
The original Spider-Man movies had a number of points where ordinary civilians were not helpless at all. In the first one, Stan Lee’s cameo was him intervening to save someone’s life, and in the climax, a bunch of people, many of whom had previously held a negative opinion of Spider-Man, come to his defense not because of blind adherence, but because they see what he is doing (saving a bunch of kids) and want to help. In Spider-Man 2, he loses his powers, because he doesn’t want them, but still runs into a burning building and saves someone as Peter Parker, because even with just SOME power, he still has SOME responsibility.
The point of the stories isn’t “these people are the only ones who can help others” it is “if someone has the ability and the chance to help others, they should do it”. And sure, there are some bad examples too, but that’s what happen when you look at an entire genre written by many different people, especially when some of it is quite frankly bad (Supergirl sure seemed to come up a lot in your examples, even though she actually works for the government, and they, in theory, hold her accountable).
If the X-Men fighting against the government to protect mutants is authoritarian, then so is Star Wars with the Rebellion fighting against the Empire. If Spider-Man fighting the Green Goblin is authoritarian, then so is John McClane fighting Hans Gruber. And last I checked, nobody elected Kevin McCallister to protect that Toy Store in Home Alone 2, or said Elliot was in charge of deciding what to do with aliens in E.T..
I feel I have to agree with Alpha on this. I suppose my objection is that words mean stuff, and ‘authoritarian’ is an especially loaded word which implies a particular judgement. Plus, none of the examples Alpha raised were actually addressed in the ensuing response.
I agree with a lot of your points, and add that superheros very often torture people (that goes for other action heros too, for that matter). Beating someone to get information or a confession out of them is torture. Dangling someone from a rooftop to scare them into giving information or a confession is torture. It doesn’t matter that people don’t want to call it torture when they consume these stories, because it still is, and in real life, you’d get tons of false info that way from people who’d desperately say whatever they think will make the torture stop. In stories, though, torture done by heros always work.
Alpha is right that it’s fairly common, too, for superheros to fight the government (not just the X-men), but many of the problems you point out still stand (and I also write all of this as a lifelong superhero fan!)
I think it gets a little different, though, in stories that feature very powerful heros who deal with vast, cosmic threats, threats against the whole Earth or even the whole universe, stuff like that. (Which are also the kind of superhero stories I often prefer in comic books.)
Character manifesting? Excuse you, I think you mean “character conjuring”
*Amused wheeze* XD
Been a while, since we had one of these