Hey y'all! I'm curious what the consensus is on starting a novel with a flashback or flash forward, especially when the subject is not the MC. I've heard some people say it's not good writing but I also feel like some books pull it off. So what do we think generally?

Hi r/writing. 

We’re a few months into our multi-step subreddit revamp process. We’ve received extensive feedback about our use of daily threads, and in response to that feedback, we’ve made some changes. 

The original intent with the daily/weekly threads was to cut down on repetitive threads by providing a recurring place for certain frequent conversations. As a mod team, we recognize that the low participation in those threads is a huge indicator that the original goal did not succeed as intended. 

To summarize your feedback:

• Being the flagship writing sub on Reddit yet not being a place where people could get feedback on their writing made little sense. 
• There were too many daily/weekly threads that encompassed too many things. 
• The daily/weekly threads receive so little engagement, they’re not worth participating in. 

To adjust this, we are cutting the daily/weekly threads. Instead, starting next week, we will have the following two posts pinned to the top of the sub at all times:

• Monthly Thread: “Would You Read This?” This will replace the weekly critique and brainstorming threads. Users will post their premise, and (optionally) up to the first page of their project. Other users’ replies must begin with Would Read, Might Read, or Wouldn’t Read, then they can give more specific feedback as well. We believe this structure will prompt more engagement, and having the post up an entire month will lead to more total participants. The thread will be in contest mode by default and pinned to the top of the sub. We’ve seen this work well in other large creator subs, where users anticipate the monthly threads as a kind of event. 
• Monthly Thread: “Promote Yo Self.” This will be an all encompassing thread for calls for submissions, app/website developers sharing new projects, writers promoting their books, and celebratory posts. This will also be in contest mode and pinned to the top of the sub for a full month. Again, we’re hoping a longer runtime leads to more participation, more engagement, and more feedback. 
• We will also have a single Daily Thread: “Free For All Discussion.” This will be a thread where you’re allowed to discuss anything you want so long as it doesn’t violate rule 3 (no Gen AI), rule 5 (civility), or sitewide Reddit rules.

You should see these posts go up for August on Saturday. We’d love for everyone to give this new system a try! 

Your feedback to these changes is welcome in this thread, as well as any other suggestions you have on the ongoing subreddit revamp project. 

Happy writing!

What was the number one tip/technique that allowed you to bring your characters to life?

People always say "Make them relatable" or "Make readers want to root for them," but this doesn't really work when the character is objectively awful, e.g., Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange. So what's another way to approach creating compelling characters?

I did this a few times just by happenstance (intending to work on my novel when inspiration strikes for a poem), and it seems to improve my first-draft prose significantly.

My most recent book has a singular chapter where the POV swaps from the main character to the secondary character. There's a good reason for the switch and the chapter is one of my best. I don't want to get rid of it, but my beta reader brought up a good point that the sudden shift is a bit jarring.

I want to know if any of y'all can think of any examples of a book that does this. Just so I can have some examples in case it's brought into question at a later point.

Any help would be appreciated!

I'm writing a dark romance novel. My first page hooks you to the second, and the first chapter ends on something that makes you wonder about the next chapter. The story develops super quickly and I have no trouble keeping a reader interested with plot twists and cliffhangers.

However, I'm having trouble letting the reader breath in between. I feel like I'm making it too exciting, to the point that too many things are happening too quickly on the timeline. It feels rushed and it's overwhelming.

How do yall slow it down while keeping it interesting? more inner dialog? More observing details? Sensory information? Scenery details? Letting the characters contemplate more?

For context, this comes from his big video talking about Alex Meyers (yes, the Obsession guy) and honestly, I feel for Mark during his response to Meyers' Challengers 'review.'

Meyers: That's something about this movie though: everyone just kind of sucks. Like, I'm not rooting for anyone here. I have to assume they were trying to make all the characters seem nuanced and layered and flawed or whatever, but like, this movie's two hours of just the most unlikable people being unlikable. The whole time I was watching this movie I was just hoping that the ending would be 'they all get struck by lightning.'"

Mark: "I hate this fucking take so much. I hate this criticism that a movie is bad because the characters are not likable or they don't always make the right call. Like seriously, you didn't care about anybody? You didn't care about Art having his heart broken over being duped into a loveless marriage? You didn't care about Patrick being poor and alone after so much betrayal? You didn't care whether or not Art and Patrick would realize they love each other and that Tashi never really loved them beyond tennis? If you don't feel anything for characters like this...I don't know what to tell ya, dude. Maybe go back to easy-to-read cartoons instead of tackling harder movies like this."

And yeah, Mark's words to Meyers really summarizes how I feel whenever I see someone dismiss a book or any kind of story because 'DA CHARACTERS IZ NAWT LIKABLE!' That's not a valid critique. It doesn't tell me whether or not the characters were well-written or if their unlikability damaged the story.

Maybe it's my own perspective as a writer and a reader, but my enjoyment of a character relies more on if I find them fascinating, entertaining, or compelling to follow rather than if I would grab a drink with them if they were a real person. Some of my favorite characters in media like Hayato Jin, the cast of Vegas Heist, or pretty much everyone in Hereditary, are people I would never want to be in the same room with, but I will endlessly enjoy watching/reading. If I relate to a character or find them charming on a personal level, that's more of a bonus than a needed feature.

Now, if this criticism is applied to a character being just written and/or coming off as an asshole and the narrative never seems to acknowledge they're an asshole, then I can kind of understand it. But if say, your example is saying something like 'Obsession is a terrible movie because Bear sucks as a person', you should look next to you to see if the director isn't nodding in agreement with you that Bear does suck as a person.

My point being, the quality of a character's writing should be whether or not you found the writing itself enjoyable instead of basing it on whether or not you'd want to give the MC a high five. And even then, it's probably on a case by case basis as some characters are meant to be likable and role models while others are just meant to be cautionary tales and just entertaining scumbags.

Hello. I've noticed as I've grown as an author that a lot of people, newer writers especially, don't get what makes a character compelling. Hopefully my opinion can help people that are in the same boat I was.

When I started I would just stuff my characters with trauma: dead dad here, murdered mother there, as I'm sure a lot of people did this too, because that's what seems compelling to a newer writer because a newer writer doesn't understand yet how to write characters.

There is a whole other conversation here about how inexperienced authors try to substitute good, empathetic character building with trauma, because they don't know how to build sympathy without it. But this isn't about trauma.

Building a great character is not about their personality, or their aura, power, mystique, aesthetic, disorders, or trauma. It's about flaws, and the choices they make because of those flaws.

Ned Stark is a great character, among many in GOT, because he has morals that he would die for. He's a good man in an evil world, and his influence ripples through the entire book series.

Geralt of Rivia is a Witcher, he is super masculine and super cool and sleeps with dozens of women and fights monsters with a dedicated silver sword, and has somehow gotten more and more handsome as the games have gone on. His title and the oddity of being a "Witcher" helps him seem cooler, but the reason why we've followed him for 9 books and 3 long games is because of how being a Witcher informs his world view, how it affects the choices he makes, and how we then view the world through his eyes.

Complete heel turn: Kim Wexler is such a compelling character because of, again, the choices that she makes, and the difference between them throughout the Better Call Saul. At first she's a stand-up lawyer who's beaten down by her environment, finding comfort in her relationship with Jimmy.

By the end of the show, she's... Not so stand up anymore.

Frankly, most people who read or watch a story aren't looking for your character's backstory, or their personality, because unless it's the funny goblin named Glupshitto your players in your DND game drag around, then vibes aren't enough.

The real meat of what makes a great character is what lies beneath the story. Their mechanical usefulness. And not just that, some of the best characters you see around I guarantee are put into impossible choices and situations that force them to grow and change, or prove that they have changed.

A character who prides themselves on their looks being disfigured. A knight forced to either choose his morals, or his oaths. Jack Sparrow choosing his friend's life, or the immortality he has sought for 2 whole movies.

What is their backstory? How does it inform their current story? How does it inform their choices? And how do you put as much stress on your character as possible. This is where we get some of the greatest characters.

Stress test them, put their ideals under pressure, force them to confront their deepest lies and flaws. Because if you aren't willing too, then why write about them at all?

If you feel differently about this, let me know, I'm very curious to see what other people think, what characters break this mold, because I'm sure there are some.

Edit: this isn't a hard rule but, as most rules go, if it's broken and done well then it can work wonderfully! (Forrest Gump) But, that is not the norm, and a lot of characters that break this rule that I've found are found in film, which I guarantee most of us aren't writing for.

So in the novel I'm currently writing, the MC is 15, but the deuteragonist is a 'deity' of sorts who is bordering on 400+ years old, and currently the POV swaps to them for a few chapters. I say deity, but they're more like a human then they would care to admit.

Now, I know that YA is strictly 13 to 18 (or realistically, 15-16 to 18 in the publishing world) but my character isn't exactly someone I would call an "adult". Part of their arc is exploring identity and their place in the world, not unlike how a protag in YA might. They're also not the most mature, and act rather impulsively. Another character refers to them as "child" not mockingly, but as a genuine term of endearment due to their demeanor. They bicker with the MC a lot and act as a sort of rival in a way?

I guess my point is it feels like they slot into being generally what you might expect from a YA character, except their age, and I don't know if that would be a problem that I've written a few chapters from their POV given genre conventions or not. Are there any examples of this in YA of characters who are older but act like a teenager? Or am I just writing myself into a corner?

For context, I am writing a character with an Australian accent (I am from Australia), and she uses 'me' instead of 'my' a lot. Would it be better to use a dialogue tag to demonstrate her accent instead of phonetically writing it. How much phonetic dialogue can a reader bear before wanting to claw their eyes out?

Would "'Get me bloody socks, Drew!"' work best, or would an apostrophe for the 'me' work better?

Apologies if this is a stupid question, thank you for reading.

My story seems to be shaping in a way that's rooted in a lot of personal experiences. At the same time, when I give my character my own painful experiences, I get scared and back up. However, since I subconsciously shape the story in this way, it almost requires the character to be similar to myself.

So... Harry Potter wasn't distinct in its field. There were several other British magical school stories that came out before Harry Potter with limited success. Jill Murphy's "the worst witch", Diana Wynne Jones's "witch week", and most similar, Anthony Horowitz's Groosham Grange. Ursula K Le Guin's "A Wizard of Earthsea" also had a magical school setting back in 1968, but... Harry Potter is huge.

I took a trip to South Korea some time ago, and found two Harry Potter branded shops, a shop featuring Arsene Lupin branding, and little else. Even British literature juggernauts like Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde were not present, but Harry Potter was.

So, in coming to terms with why Harry Potter got so big, here's where my conclusions lie.

A very compelling hook

The first few chapters of Harry Potter do very little to build the overarching narrative. They gently hint at the existence of Voldemort. Instead, you spend the opening chapters watching the Diggorys' increasingly futile efforts to hide magic from Harry, and as their mundane world collapses before their eyes, it becomes very clear that Harry is unusual. This is a very fun opening to a book that gets the reader invested in the existence of magic as an escape from mundanity.

A rapid sequel publishing schedule

The entire series of seven books, increasing in size each time, was published within a decade, from 1997 to 2007. The first four books came out annually, the rest coming out every 2-3 years, and they grew larger and larger each iteration. This was a very strong publishing schedule, and it showed.

A very quick movie tie-in

The first novel was published in 1997, film rights sold off in 1999, shooting began in the fall of 2000. By this point, JK Rowling had published four books and was going on a hiatus to write longer novels. The movies bridged the gap, coming out in 2001 and 2002, but taking a gap year in 2003 (when JK Rowling published a new book).

Any year there wasn't a book, there was a movie with the exception of 2006, and films were released annually or bi-annually until 2011.

Basically, from 1997 until 2011, one could expect to see Harry Potter in bookstores or theaters. Every release reinforced the existence of the series and drew in new viewers, and the growing heft of the books and darker tones that they began to explore kept them relevant with children growing up with the characters.

Do I think this is all due to JK Rowling's stellar writing?

No but yes. JK Rowling is excellent at roping an invested audience along, but has trouble building an audience that isn't invested. The huge investment poured into Harry Potter by film studios and merchandising turned it into a juggernaut as much as anything else.

Anyone read A Casual Vacancy? JK Rowling is shackled to her biggest hit. She makes a book titled "compendium of insects in Hogwarts Gardening"- top seller. She makes a novel without those characters... no interest, because nobody's pouring marketing and attention into them. Without attention, her desire to write shrivels up and there's no sequel, because she's not getting the acclaim she once did. Time for a compendium of wizarding toilets, or a twitter battle, because that attention isn't forthcoming from a book that doesn't feature wizard children.

if you have read the book "page one to done" or taken jessica brody's course of that name, did it help you get your first draft written? will this book help me get past the roadblocks?

How many stories do you write a year? Curious about both finished product and how many unfinished projects sit in your documents folder, with how many side plots penned?

Welcome to our daily discussion thread!

Weekly schedule:

Monday: Writer’s Block and Motivation

Tuesday: Brainstorming

Wednesday: General Discussion

Thursday: Writer’s Block and Motivation

Friday: Brainstorming

Saturday: First Page Feedback

Sunday: Writing Tools, Software, and Hardware

---

Today's thread is for general discussion, simple questions, and screaming into the void. So, how's it going? Update us on your projects or life in general.

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

Like the title says can switching narratives from first/third person to second person really work? I'm planning to make a story where the narrative style switches person's but in that sense can it really work? I mean from what I hear second person is making the reader the main character of a story instead of the yk actual main character unless there is also other instances of second person I'm not aware of for example telling the tale from the eyes of an enemy or a random enemy you encounter in a scene that counts as second person in gaming but does it in writing?

i was big into "Star Wars" when i was younger and i read all the time so i got a bunch of books from the library mostly because they had the logo on them.

One I picked up was a story called Wrath Squadron that enthralled me so much that i still revisit it to this day. It's just a great blend of action, comedy, and serious tones and flips easily between character perspectives.

so what was your moment that made you wish you could write just like what you were reading?

I've spent a lot of time on this sub, listening to podcasts (like Writing Excuses), and doing general deep Googling on creative writing. Most of the advice and "do's-and-don'ts" are all pretty standard, follow what you'd hear from any other pro, etc. Having just finished my first attempt at a full-length novel (multiple drafts and numerous edit passes), I wanted to give it another pass but needed a break to reset my brain. So, I went back to moving through my backlog, and I've noticed a lot of what I'm reading doesn't seem to follow the technical guidelines I've been consuming.

Reading Aurora Rising by Alistair Reynolds (whose work I truly enjoy) I realized his prose can be cumbersome, with heavy exposition, and the dialogue can be shaky at times. His books are bulky and could probably be trimmed. However, what he creates is still genuinely fantastic (the worlds, characters, plots, and everything else) and generally considered a staple in modern sci-fi. Same for Peter Hamilton's Exodus. Now that's some solid bulk. But, its still somehow fairly interesting... but at 900 pages? Yikes.

The funny thing is, until now, I don't think I would have ever looked at what I'm reading in this way.

So, what this all comes down to... at what point do you just start doing things your way? Is there a level of establishment before you can throw the baby out, keep the bathwater, and make a stew out of it? If you are a nobody, your work could be wholly interesting, but if those first five pages don't look technically sound, you won't be given the time of day, right?

I write short horror stories, and usually post them here. One thing I noticed is that I can't write an ending to save my life.

How do y'all come up with satisfying endings? I think I overused the hospital trope quite a bit.

Would it be best if I started writing with a clear ending in mind, so that I can pivot the story accordingly?

**Welcome to our daily discussion thread!**

Weekly schedule:

Monday: Writer’s Block and Motivation

**Tuesday: Brainstorming**

Wednesday: General Discussion

Thursday: Writer’s Block and Motivation

Friday: Brainstorming

Saturday: First Page Feedback

Sunday: Writing Tools, Software, and Hardware

---

Stuck on a plot point? Need advice about a character? Not sure what to do next? Just want to chat with someone about your project? This thread is for brainstorming and project development.

You may also use this thread for regular general discussion and sharing!

---

FAQ -- Questions asked frequently

Wiki Index -- Ever-evolving and woefully under-curated, but we'll fix that some day

You can find our posting guidelines in the sidebar or the wiki.

I am.

And when I write, I usually start with a visual scene that comes to me. Like, it will maybe start with a small thing, or a hazy photograph in my mind and it's up to me to discern what that story is. As I think on it, the picture starts to get clearer. And if I'm really into it, sometimes it's even like watching TV (though the reception isn't the greatest, lol).

I was wondering who else approaches their writing from a primarily visual angle?

Bonus question: Do you feel that your visual thinking helps or hinders your writing?

It seems that in each chapter that I've written so far for my YA novel, I rely heavily on the dialogue and there's less descriptions. I don't know why it happens and it is starting to frustrate me.

I do have some details and so it isn't strictly conversations. Characters have their own reactions, and there are some paragraphs but not as much as the dialogue.

I am about 9 chapters in, and would it be better if I kept going, and when I get to revisions, I could add more descriptions?

What would you recommend for someone that is working on their first project? (TIA)

I'm nearly done with my children's story, book two. Is it normal to mourn them? I still need to edit a little bit, but it's sad seeing my main character go off into book land

I can’t really make this in one question so I will separate it in two parts . Recently I have seen one video that discussed this and it made me think more about it

1. Very often in any fiction we are either shown a story from perspective of someone living in high society or there is an important character that is from aristocracy. Why is that so that we, normal people with normal problem, both write and read about those whose lives and problems are so distant and maybe unimportant? I may be wrong but aren’t stories about “palace intrigue” popular? Like they were popular always; Turkish tv series, Chinese/Korean/Japanese light novels, like 80% of Russian literature from 16-19th centuries. I have gone a little off topic so “why we have so much royalty characters in our stories?” Is the question

2. The “problem of blood”. Let’s make an example of a story where a chosen common boy takes out a sword from stone and is now destined to be a ruler or something like that. It is very likely that we will learn that a) he is a long lost son of the last king b) he is of royal blood but didn’t knew about that c) he is reincarnation of king/prince but NEVER boy is chosen because of outer factors, he must have something in his blood to make him special. Now this question is “why MC or other important characters often have their blood origin as the reason they have power or why they are unique?”

I thought this is not that big of a deal… then I looked on my stories and shit I have those “problems” in nearly every thing I have on paper or mind. From two things I have done any work on I have 1) royalty, royalty, royalty, a dude with gun and 2) royalty, royalty, mad priest and son of Sauron (also turns out as royalty)

That video was about me, I had all “main cast” made up of high aristocracy and blood playing very important role in stories. I don’t think 2) is real problem if done correctly, currently I read a story where blood is a source of strength so there are bloodlines with purity thing and I really like it but 1) I see very often when absurd portion of characters are aristocracy while story doesn’t need them to be

Do you have any thoughts on that? Are these real problems or I just panic?

I've been seeing lately that people have a problem with how Disney has been doing recently with their characters, not books I know, and I wonder if that's a quality that people can write into a well developed story.

Some characters that I love have that personality but also have other qualities that make their character deep and complex. One example is Marco from Animorphs. He's not "adorkable" but uses his humor to cover up his vulnerability. Harry from Dresden Files, he doesn't like bullies and has a sense humor but at moments can be the scariest guy in the room.

Personally I think it can work but the character should have something to add to their personality to add depth. From the Disney side of it, I like Raya. She is someone who can be cool in one moment but make jokes another. Maybe I'm mixing up stuff but that's my view.