
Before they even reach for a pen, most fiction writers are sold on a lie: that great novelists are geniuses who generate masterpieces from their subconscious. According to this culture of Romanticism, writers are born, not made, and writing isn’t a skill that is learned. Believing this, many new writers start by trying to create a masterpiece. After they fail and realize that learning is a necessity, they will finally seek instruction. But they will do it so they can make another attempt at a masterpiece.
The Masterpiece Is a Mirage
A novel doesn’t qualify as a masterpiece by being engaging, beautifully written, nor anything else that can be found in its pages. The only thing that makes a story a masterpiece is that people, particularly educated people with influence, worship it. They’ll say it’s deep and profound, with interwoven symbolism and multiple layers of meaning. It’s breathtakingly original. It provides a new paradigm that forever transforms the genre. Its characters are complex and flawed and so real. It’s provocative, heartbreaking, and challenges its readers. It conveys the author’s truth with heart and soul. Did I mention it’s deep and profound?
For this worship, writers will fight several crusades and battle some windmills and yet never get their hands on the holy grail, because which works are chosen for this treatment has as much to do with privilege, marketing budgets, and the outdated values of a few snobs as it does with the quality of the work. Classics are among the most worshipped stories, but most classics are simply stories that sold well on release and happened to influence other works. When these classics are judged without the influence of hype or extra credit for being written so long ago, they often compare poorly with works today.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t want approval, validation, or fame for that matter. Storytelling is largely about pleasing an audience. Those of us who genuinely don’t care about our work’s reception might as well keep our stories to ourselves. Similarly, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to feel like you’re a master or that you’ve created a great work. But even if we want these things, we should recognize the masterpiece is a mirage: an optical phenomenon in which hot hype reflects the trendiest takes in the desert of ignorance.
What’s more, worshipping specific stories as masterpieces and specific people as creative geniuses harms us, because real people and real works can’t live up to this ideal. As long as you chase the masterpiece, you’ll be insecure about whether your work is deep, profound, and deep and profound enough. Because masterpieces are crystallized genius, the only way to believe you’ve created one is to drink your own Kool-Aid.
On the other hand, humility is a writer’s best friend. It can help us accept critical feedback, improve our skills, and soften disappointment. But in a culture that fosters beginner’s hubris, humility may have to be nurtured. Beware pretentious writing spaces that inflate some stories beyond reason, use hype in place of critical analysis, and sort writers into amateurs and geniuses. While some of us are more experienced than others, we all have more to learn, and no story is perfect.
Chasing Masterpieces Warps Our Priorities
A writer toiling to become a supermodel that’s been photoshopped takes a different approach to writing. Instead of focusing on what they’re interested in, they’ll aim for the type of story that attracts literary gushing. After all, this gushing defines what a masterpiece is.
These characteristics play a starring role in literary hype, and therefore are sought after by many writers yearning for validation.
- The story has to be a novel. A great work is a tome that will break your toes if you drop it.
- It must be dark. You know, a serious work that a serious person would write. That unflinching torture scene will really challenge and provoke readers.
- To be deep, it needs lots of backstory for each character. Every time you dump a bunch of exposition about a character’s backstory, it gets deeper.
- Characters must have an extensive collection of flaws, and all relationships must be dysfunctional. Each happy character moment gives you -1 to your masterpiece score.
- The story should be riveting, but be careful not to add any action. Action makes it plot-driven, not character-driven, a lowly genre work that will never be great.
- If it’s straightforward and easy to understand, it doesn’t have enough layers and is clearly not profound. Put in some obscure symbolic references, add framing devices, and create ambiguity everywhere.
- If you’re going to add speculative elements in there, they’d better be surreal, avant-garde, or obviously symbolic. Otherwise, you’re fired.
Let’s go over these characteristics and examine how choosing them for the sake of praise can sabotage us.
It has to be a novel.
While results vary from person to person, starting with short stories and slowly moving up in size is probably the best way to learn novel writing. Short stories force writers to focus, allow them to experiment, and give them frequent fresh starts. Slowly moving up in length gives writers a sense of how much complexity fits into a given word count, so they are less likey to outline five books thinking it’s one book.
A bigger story has more to keep track of, more room to go wrong, and requires more revision to fix when it does go wrong. A new writer might spend ten years just trying to make their first novel work, and that’s incredibly discouraging.
It must be dark.
If you love dark stories, then by all means, write one, but they have a narrower audience. They are also easier to get wrong. Mishandling sensitive topics will make a work exploitative and harmful to marginalized groups. Adding upsetting events just to shock or otherwise emotionally provoke the audience feels cheap and immature. Dark elements require more from an audience, so to make up for that, they must add something important to the story. That’s less likely to happen when a writer is adding them to make their work appear more serious.
It needs deep and flawed characters.
While we don’t recommend writing a character that is perfect and glorified at every opportunity, there’s a huge gap between that and focusing almost exclusively on character flaws. A flaw or two is generally good for a character, and if you want to focus on flaws, you certainly can. However, the cultural emphasis on flaws has led many writers to create characters that are no more than their flaws. This is still one-dimensional; it’s just a different dimension. And while it’s possible to create extremely flawed characters who are likable, it’s also much harder than making a well-balanced character likable.
As for adding backstory, sometimes that is called for. However, backstory exposition should be limited to what makes the actual scenes of the story more engaging. It can quickly overstay its welcome. When writers insert backstory to make their story feel deeper, they won’t think as critically about whether it’s doing more harm than good.
It should have action. Wait, no, it shouldn’t. Should it?
Action is the most complicated one here, because it is both sought after and reviled. People add action when they don’t want it because they think that’s the only way to make their story exciting, and people might avoid it when they like it because they think that makes their story empty entertainment. Both of these ideas are false.
First, what makes a story riveting isn’t action or violence, it’s tension. You can use action to raise tension, but there are many other means of doing so. That means you can craft a high-tension, riveting story without any fight scenes or explosions. However, those things are also not mutually exclusive with compelling characters and important messages. You should write action if you enjoy writing it and it fits your other goals for the story.
It must require deciphering.
Have you ever taken a literature class where you had to figure out what the hell the writer’s intent was or what the deep underlying theme of the work was? Literary fans love this because it gives them more to analyze and makes them feel like they’re part of an exclusive club that knows the true meaning of a masterpiece. But it also gives writers a perverse incentive.
Making the audience puzzle out the story’s message or inserting things to uncover on a second read isn’t a sign of skill – just the opposite. Readers always catch on to less than we think. If we’re deliberately obscure, they’ll be confused rather than intrigued. Even if we want some aspect of the story to be ambiguous, we need to make it clearly ambiguous. Otherwise, it will look like a mistake.
And no speculative fiction!
Since this is a speculative fiction blog, I doubt I need to convince you why this is wrongheaded. But suffice to say, trying to write a speculative fiction masterpiece means toiling to please people who will dismiss you out of hand. Some speculative writers are on a mission to get literary approval, and I wish them well, but I believe most of us will be happier if we reject the culture that rejects us.
Setting aside the problems with over-applying each of these characteristics, trying to write something you aren’t interested in will probably weaken your story. Writing what you’re passionate about will give you energy, motivate you to finish, and encourage you to add interesting details. Fighting uphill against your desires can lead you to create a story at war with itself. It might start as one thing and end as another. It might take long breaks from the central plot to indulge in material the story wasn’t designed for.
Don’t get me wrong, if you’re an established author and your agent tells you that dark stories are in demand right now, catering to that is a valid choice. But demand changes quickly. In most cases, catering to the requirements of an agent or publisher will make less difference to your story than following your passion.
One Story Can’t Be Everything
Writing a masterpiece means pursuing a fantasy of perfection. A masterpiece in progress isn’t allowed to be a fun romp, a sweet little romance, or an intriguing whodunit. It has to be all of those things, plus anything else the writer likes in a story, with everything anyone on the internet says is a must-have for great stories thrown in.
Imagine you’ve just finished an outline. You think it’s in pretty good shape, but you’re still really unsure of yourself. Then you visit one of your favorite writing blogs, and the latest article says that every great story has an emotional reversal during each scene. Oh no, your story doesn’t have that. If you don’t revise your outline, you’ll look like an amateur. Then, you struggle to revise each scene. How does an emotional reversal fit into a scene where the character talks to a shopkeeper about the crime they witnessed? Maybe the shopkeeper can also bring up the protagonist’s dead mom and make them feel bad?
Then, this other website says you need a complication in each scene; you’d better add that too. The hero’s goals have to change during the course of the story, or they haven’t experienced real growth. So you insert another goal. The story needs a reveal. The climax must include a moment of truth. One advice giver says you need a hook, another says you need a problem, so you add them both without knowing they’re the same thing.
Next, you read a story that is beautifully mysterious. You want that atmosphere for your own story. You just got an exciting idea for something cool in your world. That has to go in, or your story won’t be complete. You read a blog post about the heroine’s journey and fell in love with the formula. No problem, you’ll go through your outline and make it fit the heroine’s journey.
Of course, your story has to be epic, covering a conflict that embroils many cultures over the whole world. Five or ten viewpoints ought to do the trick. And it needs to be part of a long and complex history, so the world feels larger than life. After you write a 100-page world primer, you’ll need to work all of that history into your story. Otherwise, your readers won’t understand anything that’s happening.
Once your outline is contorted to follow every piece of advice to the letter, is as big and complex as your wildest dreams, and embodies everything new and shiny, it’ll be a mess. As we’ve discussed time and time again, there’s a limit to how much complexity a story can handle. Plus, each new requirement constrains the story, making it that much harder to tell. These constraints are the reason that sequels are rarely as good as the first story in a series. Finally, some story choices don’t work together. You can’t make your magic mysterious and also have magic appear everywhere.
No one story can fulfill you. A story can be anything you want to write, but it can’t be everything you want out of writing. When you work on a story, remember that it’s simply one work in a long writing career. Focus on a few specific things you’d like to accomplish with it. Give it a specific atmosphere and tone, choose one central message to convey, and pick the most important character. Does that mean it’s missing the cool ghost tavern you wanted? Make your next story about that ghost tavern. If it’s not perfect, that’s okay; apply what you learned to the next work.
Once you’ve added something to your story, you might get attached to it. After you’ve added enough things to create a tangled web, you’ll have to kill your darlings to make the story work again. Save the darlings by narrowing your focus and making them central to the story to start with. Then, resist exciting new ideas. If you discover that your passion lies in a different direction than you thought, you’ll need to rethink the whole thing.
As for writing advice, naturally I’m not going to tell you to simply ignore it. However, at Mythcreants we try our best to build a foundational understanding of storytelling so you can make your own choices. Ask yourself what the purpose of a new requirement is. Is it to build tension? There’s lots of ways to do that. Is it to develop characters? There’s more than one route to that as well. If you don’t fully understand the advice, you probably won’t even do what the blogger intended, much less make your story better.
If you’ve spent years working on a masterpiece, try writing something new and simple. Does your writer’s block disappear? Do you feel less pressure to make it perfect? Do you enjoy writing it more? Did you actually get it done? Is it better than the masterpiece you’ve been hell-bent on finishing? We all love our masterpieces, but the cost is too high.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
Luckily, two years or studying literature have cured me of the idea that every book has to be a masterpiece. I write the kind of story I would want to read, something that will entertain my audience while they read it. That’s all. I want to entertain, I want for people to enjoy the couple of hours they’ll spend with one of my books. That doesn’t mean I’m not careful crafting the story, working on the characters, doing my plots justice. It just means that I don’t think every story has to be perfect. If it can amuse, it does its job.
I was so excited when I saw the title of today’s post. I love your commentary on writing culture posts, Chirs! They’re always enlightening and encouraging, and this article was no different!
I think it would be super fun and useful if you or Oren wrote an analysis post covering old, “classic” books and how their story structure could be improved by modern standards. As a kid, I used to think I was “supposed” to read the classics, and I’d try to power through them despite thinking “Wow, this is terrible.” The plot would never progress in a satisfying way, all the characters would be 2-dimensional and illogical, and/or the wordcraft would be unclear or incredibly distant. I know there are cultural differences between then and now that made readers value different things in a story, but I’d love to hear theoretical ways to make an old story “better” without dramatically changing its core values. I know you include older stories in your analysis sometimes, but I think an article focused on this angle could be useful. New writers might be tempted to mimic the classics, but come away with lessons that will only work against them.
For example:
-I abandoned Bram Stoker’s Dracula about 80% of the way through because all the rich men kept talking about how great they were for trying to stop the vampire instead of actually trying to stop the vampire.
-Lord of the Rings spends too much time on plots completely unrelated to the Ring, and the narration swerves strangely between close play-by-play and distant summary.
-1984 starts out building up a mystery about a woman acting strangely, which is abandoned in a single line of dialogue where she says she’s actually in love with the protagonist, despite them not really knowing each other. The two characters are instantly in love after that.
-I was disappointed when I finally read The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe in full because the entire story takes place in the first encounter the protagonist has with the police. I always thought his guilt built over days and weeks, which would’ve been more realistic and compelling. Otherwise, he just caves in at the first sign of trouble.
I also wonder if the analysis – or even enjoyment – of some books is hampered by the fame that’s built up around them. For instance, with Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, their being the same person was originally a twist ending – the turning point in Mythcreants parlance. For the first 80-90% of the book, the POV characters don’t know, and the reader is assumed not to know either. These days, it’s hard to even *get* into the mindset to analyse it on its own terms.
That’s a problem with a lot of stories which included ‘twist endings’ originally. Both “The Mark of Zorro” and “The Scarlet Pimpernel” have a guy who seems as un-heroic as is possible, but turns out to be the hero (Zorro/The Pimpernel) in the end. The original ‘cowardly rich guy.’
For a modern reader, that’s something they already know – even if you’ve never read the books or watched a movie version, you have learned about Sir Percy and Don Diego by osmosis. I have to admit, though, that it made “The Mark of Zorro” more funny for me to know that Don Diego, who is Zorro, pretended to know nothing about fencing and complained about riding a full three miles to meet with his love interest (and asks her if it would be alright if one of his servants serenates her, because he’s so lazy…).
I watched a video by Dominic Noble who compared a 1980s movie version of the Pimpernel with the book and pointed out that the movie did away with the ‘who is the Pimpernel?’ part and was all the better for it. While the characters in the book who were not supposed to know still didn’t know, the audience was never supposed not to know.
Your complaints about The Lord of the Rings (which I don’t quite agree with) are the exact same complaints I had about Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett. That book just felt meandering, to the point where I’m still not sure who the main character’s supposed to be.
It’s been a few years since I tried rereading them, but I remember the POV being in Frodo’s head for most of Fellowship, then in Sam’s head for the second halves of Two Towers and Return. But for the rest of it I don’t remember it being clear that we were ever in one character’s head over another.
Lord of the Rings in written in omniscient, so it’s not technically in any character POV. When Frodo and Sam split off from the rest of the fellowship, the focus is generally on Frodo. However, there’s a sequence where Sam thinks Frodo is dead and decides to carry on the mission without him until it turns out Frodo is alive. That’s pretty unusual considering Frodo is the main character.
Guards! Guards! is also in omniscient, so they have that in common.
To be honest, many of the ingredients you list for a “masterpiece” don’t sound like ingredients for a good book at all. In fact, some of these ingredients, taken together, have actually made for some pretty horrible books altogether.
“Characters must have an extensive collection of flaws, and all relationships must be dysfunctional. Each happy character moment gives you -1 to your masterpiece score.” – And also gives the reader no one to root for, and no investment in the story.
“It must be dark. You know, a serious work that a serious person would write. That unflinching torture scene will really challenge and provoke readers.” – And also alienates readers with an ounce of decency, and quite possibly advocates for harmful things by accident.
This post isn’t condoning those views at all. Those paragraphs were satire showing that people often have twisted notions of what makes writing good, and that darkness does not automatically equate to a meaningful or valuable work.
“Do not let perfect be the enemy of good”
It is easy to see the the titans of literary history and feel overshadowed and disheartened. I have a dozen half-finished stories just sitting there in the cloud, taunting me. The best works of fiction ever written are probably half-finished and abandoned in desks and hard drives, forgotten long ago by their would-be creators.
Remember, even in SF&F, most of the classics are not popular purely on their own merits. Lord of the Rings is a classic not because it is good (Though, for the record, it is good), but because it caught on with the counterculture who would go on to essentially create an entire genre from it. Dune is a classic not because it is good (YMMV, though the writing was a little dry for my taste), but because most sci-fi before it was either pulp adventure or heavily technical, and Dune was one of the first to focus on sociological and ecological themes the way it did.
Had they been published for the first time today, neither would have even gotten past the publishers; this very site would probably have pilloried them both were it not for the grandfather clause. This is not just because this or that element has aged poorly, but because these works- and most works from the era, come to think of it- were meandering, self-indulgent, and in some ways deeply bizarre, in a way out of step with modern trends. The common practice in SF&F was to have a Big Idea (or sometimes several) that the story would explore in depth and at length, structure and characterization be damned.
This style has a certain charm, at least for me. I often find the weird plot tangents and weird philosophical navel-gazing the most interesting parts. But this style is practically a 180 from modern conventions, where the rule is ‘Narrow your focus, cut anything not essential, make every word count’.
The only surefire way to write a great, or even good, story, is to write lots and lots of them. For two reasons:
First, practice. Even a failed project is still a learning experience, if you are willing to learn the lessons it has to teach. Not all experiments work out as planned, that is what makes them experiments. Part of this means being willing to show it to others, even if they may not like it. Especially if they may not like it. Criticism, even harsh criticism, is good and even necessary to hone your craft. Drink it up, and it will make you stronger, even if it burns a bit on the way down.
Second, statistics. Even great authors do not write great books every single time. Earthsea deserves it’s status as a classic, but few of Le Guin’s other books are even close to it in quality or influence, and she wrote dozens in her career. For a more extreme example, Isaac Asimov wrote over five hundred books in his lifetime (Though some were collaborations, and some were non-fiction), and countless short stories. Literally countless, as even the Asimov estate gives inconsistent estimates. Sometimes, quality is a matter of luck as much as of skill.
Thanks for this comment. It, and this post, mean a lot. It’s easy to get disheartened when I read my favorite books and think I’ll never be that good, so sometimes it can be reassuring to read earlier or more flawed works of theirs. They’re reminders that everyone is human. If they can improve and grow over the course of their lives, so can I.
This is so helpful, thank you for posting this. That bit about real people and real works not living up to some “masterpiece” ideal really resonated with me. The Inner Critic can be fierce when all you really wanna do is get a story out of your head and onto the page!
“It must require deciphering.” Yeah, that’s probably the one I’m most guilty of, but not on purpose. It happens way too often that I’m happily rambling on about stuff that makes perfect sense to me, but then I look up and see someone’s glazed-over expression.
Even Mythcreants is an example. I’m here because I’ve independently come to a lot of the same conclusions that you guys have. Only, I’ve invented a whole different set of neologisms to describe them. So when Chris talks about “fractal stories”, I find I’ve described the same thing in my design Bible, but I’ve called it a “nested story structure.”
I find I have to be careful about that sort of thing. It’s a flaw, not a feature.
Yeah, this post pretty much describes my entire struggle with writing. I’ve always tried to write novels, because of course every great work is a novel, and always gave up partway through because my original plan was way too ambitious. It’s still really hard to make myself write a short story rather than spending all my time outlining a long book.
You could try the middle ground and write a novella. Those are, roughly, between 20,000 and 60,000 words, so easier to manage length-wise, but have more space than your average short story for character development. I’ve written quite some when I really got into writing – until one proved to be too long and became my first novel.
Hmm… I don’t think I 100% agree with everything stated in “It must require deciphering” the way it’s formulated right now, although I do agree with the overall point.
Specifically, I don’t agree that inserting things to uncover on a second read is necessarily the opposite of skill. For example, I’d say that one case where it can be a sign of skill is if you read a story after a reveal or twist – and that’s when, on a second read, you notice all the little foreshadowing details, and some scenes and descriptions suddenly take on a different sense: it’s incredibly cool and satisfying when someone can pull this off, and definitely a sign of skill.
However… no matter what the thing to uncover on a second read-through is, as far as I can tell, it’s usually something that makes a good story even better, an additional bonus or cool shiny detail, and all the things there should also, crucially, work without the additional knowledge or noticing the detail at all; if the whole story consists only of “things to uncover on a second read” that serve no purpose during the first read, then it’s probably not going to be much of a story, let alone a good one (I mean, someone could pull it off, but I can’t quite see how… hmm, some short formats and jokes work with this concept?). And from context and everything you’re saying around that 1 sentence I’m referencing, the latter is what you’re rightfully critisizing.
As someone who *does* have a certain love of seeing new details on a second read, though, I did want to at least add some qualifiers to the criticism, just in case it puts someone off of doing that at all when it actually would work.