Thread: The prospects of writing fiction without using 'what if?'

It has been suggested to me that in order to make my stories more acceptable*, I need to utilise the ‘what if’ technique. It has been said my writing is merely a recitation of events as they might occur in real life.

That is what my writing’s like. I’m the first to admit it.

* for acceptable, read exciting, thrilling, stimulating.

But this ‘what if’ caper has me buffaloed. It appears my mind doesn’t think that way.

For example, in the normal course of my writing, I might write a line that says, “John piloted the heavy car skilfully over the two miles of narrow winding road leading down to the water,” but would never think to say to myself, “What would happen if his brakes failed halfway down the hill?” I would simply get that character to the bottom of the hill in one piece and then have him go about his regular business down there.

This may be a reflection of that part of my personality that wants to live in a perfect world. I am a perfectionist. Having things go wrong is anathema to me. So I guess I want stuff to go right in my stories also.

So, given I dislike things going wrong, what would you say about my prospects as a fiction writer, IF, as a consequence of that dislike, my writing doesn't include things going wrong?

Stories are about conflict. If you can't create internal and external conflict for the characters, you aren't going to sell a lot of stories. But that doesn't mean every single little thing that could go wrong has to. You could make a story al about someone spilling a frying pan full of eggs, and no other external conflict than that, and it could be interesting if you handle the internal conflict well.

but would never think to say to myself, “What would happen if his brakes failed halfway down the hill?”

Who told you to write that then?

Seriously, I see two alternatives,
"Faction", take a real story and alter the names and places, maybe mess with the plot a little to make it run smoothly.
"Theft", I was working last night on a story about Mafia families in America, but the plot line is a straight steal from a story from Herodotus that must be about two and a half thousand years old, has to be out of copyright by now.

*acceptable might mean stimulating, not necessarily exciting or thrilling, thought provoking or metaphorical would work as well for many readers.

"They" (whoever they are) tell you to put your character through the wringer. I'm a huge proponent of this, but it works for my stories because I write thrillers. It may not work for your genre, OX. Having said that, it is important to place obstacles for your character to overcome. I just do it to exponential degrees. If there's not a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter I write, I believe I've failed as a thriller writer.

but it works for my stories because I write thrillers

Precisely, a lot of the best stuff I have seen of yours, Ox is gentle humour or reminiscence, which does not really call for "Kill Bill" action and excitement, it has its own attractions. Maybe "they" were simply not your natural audience, you will never please everyone.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Who told you to write that then?

I expected that, even before posting.

But thanks for the support. I appreciate it.

So, given I dislike things going wrong, what would you say about my prospects as a fiction writer, IF, as a consequence of that dislike, my writing doesn't include things going wrong?

I would say they are very bleak indeed. Perfectionism can be both blessing and curse. It allows you to do things well, yet can be very limiting when one needs to plunge into the fertile mud of creativity. It can also make you a pain in the ass as a roomate. Taken to its extremes perfectionism can be a sickness, like the person who doesn't leave her room because of the 'chaos' outside, who can't abide a dented tin in the cupboard.

I would encourage you to take the leap, to let things go totally, horribly wrong in your fiction. Let imperfect feelings of despair, abandonment, rage, lust, ecstasy, whatever, pour into your stories. They will come to a climax, resolve, heal, and emerge as something new on the other side. Otherwise, the writing simply becomes a kind of controlled homage to who we think we are. And that's as boring as it sounds. There's plenty of room for perfectionism in fiction in the editing process that comes after the flood, as it were.

Hmmm...I know I have offered you the advice to ask yourself 'what if?' to help generate an idea of where to go next but that was just a suggestion. It had nothing to do with making your writing more acceptable and everything to do with giving you different potential paths to follow.

Conflict doesn't have to be about physical or disastrous 'things going wrong' and you write conflict just fine without it. Here's an example:

This year his cousin Nancy joined the group and created a tiny ripple that went unnoticed by most

That doesn't mean that Nancy set the house on fire or anything else dramatic like that but you DID set up an intriguing conflict for Morgan. Morgan did not have a smooth and uncomplicated family dinner. Something went, in a sense, wrong. (And I like how you worded the sentence, too)

Two and two finally made four. She was doing it, with her foot. But why? This was something new to him. He didn’t know how to react. A short-term solution was to turn slightly sideways on his chair and angle both legs out in a different direction. His grandmother jerked as her gouty ankle was kicked and she turned and glared at Morgan.

Morgan sighed and closed his eyes.

“Are you alright, dear?” Mary said. “Your piles aren’t bothering you?”

A barely audible snort occurred, across the table.

Morgan opened his eyes. “No, I’m fine,” he replied. “Just stretching.”

A nicely set up conflict. You have a protagonist (Morgan's just trying to get through dinner) and an antagonist (Nancy is bound and determined to make dinner more interesting than he's prepared for). The conflict even escalated a bit with grandma glaring and Mary asking an embarrassing question.

So I don't think you have to add brakes failing, cakes falling, or boats sinking if that's not what you're writing about. Conflict between two characters like you have here is just fine, it's intriguing and I enjoyed reading it. Conflict doesn't have to be physical occurrences just like humor doesn't have to be physical humor. Conflict is a stumbling block or:

actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests

Your character can be in conflict with himself, with another person, with his neighbor's dog (nature), etc.

The 'what if' suggestion can be useful if you're stuck and want to brainstorm various things that could happen next. It has nothing to do with making your writing more acceptable to anyone.

Originally Posted by Foxee

Conflict between two characters like you have here is just fine, it's intriguing and I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks Foxee, you have reassured me immensely. You weren’t to know, but there has been some off-site disagreement between myself and another person about that story. I was told it lacked those qualities that you so easily found, and that disagreement was the catalyst for this thread. In future, I might ignore narrow-mindedness. Thanks again.

You're welcome! Oddly enough I just had a lesson in conflict in an online course I'm taking.

Ox - Your stories are always enjoyable, just as they are written.

But you have reminded me of one of my father's favourite sayings, which I will use as a new signature line.

Conflict is awesome for making a story exciting. Problems raise the tension level for the reader, which can keep them engrossed, and then when the problems get resolved, the reader is relieved. Puts them on an emotional roller-coaster, which, as Sam touched on, is particularly important for thrillers. If not essential.

It's basically up to the writer how many "bad" things happen. There's at least one movie I can think of that has way too much tension, in which nothing good happens, called The Strangers. The MCs get brutalized, psychologically and physically, and then at the end, when we're hoping for some kind of saving grace, they get stabbed to death. The end. I was like, what. That's what I would call a bad example of problem resolution.

Using another movie as an example, Toy Story 3 was great for introducing lots of problems and solving them one by one. Woody loses hat, woody finds hat. Toys about to get thrown out, toys escape. Keeps me on the edge of my seat and interested. The same principles apply to books, essentially.

caelum, I haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet, thou shalt not give me too many spoilers.

lol, I won't (just don't read my review in the lounge). Oh you gotta' check it out, Foxee. It's awesome.

Originally Posted by Foxee

caelum, I haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet, thou shalt not give me too many spoilers.

Bring tissue.