Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them (It's a Guide)

Welcome to the first official thread affiliated with The Coffee Shoppe!

Here I will talk about several literary terms used to describe some very undesirable aspects of amateur writing, and even professional writing. Please, take the time to read through the terms and get a general idea of what they're about. That way you will recognize them if they're brought up in critique, and hopefully be able to prevent them coming up in the first place. Eliminate these from your writing, and you're well on your way to becoming the best writer you can be.

IMPORTANT

This guide is not the be-all end-all how-to-write list of commandments. It is an open discussion. No one is expected to follow this perfectly, nor is it absolutely required at any level. These are nothing more than general guidelines for any writing, and serious writing with a genuine attempt at true literary value should at least bear the points mentioned in mind.

This thread is as much open for "review" as any posted work.

So without further ado . . .

Characterization: Mary-Sues (and Gary-Stus)

Mary-Sue is a term derived from a character of that name who was, in short, perfect in every way. A Mary-Sue has no character flaws, is good-looking, is adored by every other character (except for the bad guy of course) and has multiple other characteristics that are more specific so I won't go into them. Mary-Sues are also called self-inserts quite often, because that is what they tend to be: an avatar for the author, as a way to live out his or her fantasies. Self-inserts are almost gauranteed to fall into the trap of Sue-ism, because be honest, you don't want to be in a story where you have to suffer actual hardship and deal with people you'd rather not. Instead, your self-insert is going to be all-powerful, beautiful, and well-loved.

Mary-Sues and their male counterparts Gary-Stus are BAD. Nothing is more annoying to a reader who is actually invested in a good story than a main character, usually a POV (Point of View) character, who is glorified as the epitome of awesomeness. They don't make good stories, because you know they're going to win. And whatever conflict the character is fated to win is likely the only conflict, since no one ever disagrees with the main character. Hence you have a story revolving around a single point of conflict that the reader knows the ending to. Boring. On top of that, the reader can't connect to the character because no one is perfect. The author is living his or her own fantasies through this totally unrealistic and godlike character, and unless the reader is out for some cheap thrills of a similar vein he is excluded from the experience.

Authors, always write for yourselves. But don't fall into this trap, which can be all to easy.

Purple Prose

If I critique your story and find purple prose, you had better find yourself a bullet-proof vest, a gas mask, and an underwater city. To put it shortly, purple prose is this: too many words.

It is a common mistake of new authors to pack their writing full of large words in an effort to sound more mature and educated. Folks, this achieves neither. All that will result from a developing writer attempting this is purple prose, and purple prose is public enemy number one to the literary world. All of your ideas are conveyed through your prose, and when the reader is forced to ingest ungainly sentences containing obscure words that aren't used in their correct connotations, you will not manage to get your ideas and stories across. This is why purple prose takes the number one postition on any list of "how not to write." No matter what the quality of your characters or world or plot, the reader needs a crisp and flowing medium through which to get at them.

Best thing to do to avoid purple prose: put away the thesarus. That's right, your friend Mr. Thesarus needs to take a vacation back to Oxford. No large word should be used where a smaller one would suffice, and the first word that comes to your mind is often the best. Once you've started hunting through the thesarus for a synonym of a perfectly applicable word that you think doesn't have enough spice, you have failed. Retake the test.

An Aside: The Word "Said"

One small, four-letter word. This word is one of the most used in fiction, as it recounts speech.

Do not think that because it is used so much, you shouldn't use it.

Oh, no. Another extremely common error for new writers is to purge their work of every occurence of "said" in favor of more descriptive words. Uh-uh. "Said" is your friend. It is invisible. Instead of distracting the reader with words like "enunciated," "proclaimed," "dictated," "barked," etc., use said. It's simple, and often all you need. You don't need to say, 'Get back here!' screamed Matt, purple in the face." We get that he's screaming. His face is purple and there is an exclamation point. "Said" is fine to use. Especially if there is an argument or a bunch of people yelling. Using every variation of "screamed" you and Mr. Thesarus can think of is not the way to handle that.

Don't Be Derivative

You may have heard the phrase, "all fantasy is derivative." This does not apply only to fantasy, so writers of other kinds, read on. This statement can be argued either way, but that is not my purpose. My purpose is to make sure you avoid being derivative to the best of your ability.

The world is full enough of stories about a colossal evil trying to take over the world, with a fortress behind a wall of mountains in a land of doom and gloom and one wekaness that the hero miraculously possesses or knows about. Don't write a story like this. Originality is hard to come by, but you can do better. The plot is not the center of a good story in any case. The characters drive the story. Avoid stereotypes. There are enough Aragorn, Gandalf, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Daphne from Scooby-Doo clones. A good cast of characters can help alleviate a derivate plot or setting if they can't be avoided.

An Aside: Slaves to the Plot

This will be brief. Do not, under any circumstances, let the plot take priority over your characters. Your characters are of the utmost importance, and the only reason anything happens in your story is as a result of the characters' actions and decisions. A believable character becomes unbelievable when you force him into the plot against his will.

Get the Facts Straight

In writing any piece of fiction, you must make it believable. Fanstasy requires a suspension of disbelief if you're going to have dragons and magic and such, but it is consequently the worst offender of this rule as writers try to justify gross inaccuracies with "it's fantasy." But to keep this on a general level: research.

In order for the reader to have any kind of involvement in your story, it must be fully grounded in reality. Therefore, you have to do your homework and educate yourself as much as you possibly can on anything you're going to use fictionally. Need a biological explanation for a creature you made up? Make sure it's actually plausible, instead of breaking every law of chemistry and biology. Using some medieval warfare? Look it up, study tactics, study weapons. Doing a crime fiction? Great. Research how a forensics team actually works (watching CSI doesn't count.)

In Conclusion . . .

I really do hope you enjoyed the first of many threads to come from The Coffee Shoppe. Please, use this thread for any questions you have, suggestions to add, or general discussion of the points I brought up. Keep this idea alive.

A rather good guide I would say.

Good points-

-Clear and direct

-Concise

-Makes several good points

Bad points-

-Could benefit from examples

-Could benefit from more content

As for the "don't be derivative" section... Though you shouldn't write an exact copy of another work, it's perfectly fine to use archetypes. After all, if you use too many prototypes, then you might actually turn the reader off from your story. You need a balance between the two so your readers can identify with the characters without suffering from boredom.

I could have gone on longer I think, but that had taken me over an hour and I needed to stop. I may add some more in later. The same goes for the examples; it was hard to come up with stuff when I was trying to get everything I wanted in within a reasonable timeframe.

I don't disagree that it's fine to use archetypes, but they can cause as much of a disconnect with the reader as prototypes so you have to find a balance. My basic goal was to give people a heads up, you don't have to follow this to the letter (AHEM) but eventually you will just know these things without trying.

Uh, maybe something about overusing/underusing pronouns? In some stories I've read people either go "Tim did this, Tim went there, Tim said, etc," which breaks the flow kinda thing, or in a scene with multiple people, overuse 'he' and pronouns like that without defining the speaker, which can get confusing.

Iunno, I'm just ramblin', to tell the truth.

IMPORTANT

This guide is not the be-all end-all how-to-write list of commandments. It is an open discussion. No one is expected to follow this perfectly, nor is it absolutely required at any level. These are nothing more than general guidelines for any writing, and serious writing with a genuine attempt at true literary value should at least bear the points mentioned in mind.

This thread is as much open for "review" as any posted work.

However if you take Langzor's comments onboard, think about them...maybe when you are not doing something...train, car I don't know... you can write a prototype arguement with pen and paper. When you get home just refine the arguement and slot it in.

In writing any piece of fiction, you must make it believable.

Biggest lie ever. The only different, it has been written, between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. That is a lie. Fiction never has to be believable, it has to be possible yes but believable and possible are very different things. Although research is a very important point when writing...but it doesn't stop a story if it isn't accurate...look at BBC drama...

For a story to make sense it has to be written by and for someone of similar intellect, for instance Star Trek is written by writers, not sci-fi fanatics. When you watch an episode you hear 'Neutron beam' and think Ahhh weapon. It doesn't matter what the actual proportions if a weapon is you can make most of it up. On the other hand you need to keep to the facts you have established...so you can't have a neutron beam slicing open a star, and cutting fabric...unless you justify that.

Though to use a more useful example, medieval tactics. Go into some depths but not masses. Its got to be understood by someone reading it once, not barely understood by you after the forth time you went over it in your head. I see this so often with professional writers, they overcomplicate things because they have spent too much time on research.

It is enough to say that the gates shut trapping thirty men in the courtyard as the archers appeared.

Than to say

The cunning Sir whatever, knowing that his foe would directly attack him carefully positioned the boiling oils over the gatehouse. As his foe approached he let the oil go and stop them from advancing anything further, then he revealed his thousand archers and turned the courtyard into a killing ground, however he enemies hide behind the thick castle walls that surrounded the gatehouse, so the archers couldn't kill them, but he trapped at least thirty men.

You go though something much too large for no real reason. Its not the best example but without a story to go with it...and the research I am thinking on my feet.

(Ten minute mark)

Next your all fantasy is derivative. Yes it is for the most part, and there are very few ways to avoid that because we are simple creatures, we like the big bang woosh of a superhero, more than the complicated stragey of real life. The trick is to get a balance between the two, get some orginality and some tried and tested stuff...If you have a story TOO out there then you will fail miserably because people won't understand you.

(Eleven)

Your example for Said is wrong... If you had 'Get back here!' said Matt, purple in the face. You get the impression of a violent character trying to keep a lid on his emotions. Some times description is a good thing. Though on the whole I tend to agree, over adjectifying a peice is much more destructive than using said over and over. You should create a pool of words that express most things, like Screamed, Whispered, Said under his breath and Droned.

(Sixteen)

Making the Character a slave to the plot. You shouldn't, but the plot should move along with your character. If your entire story consists of a Runescape style 'Oh thank goodness you have come' or people who are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs until your hero turns up then you have nothing new. If the plot is moving on...if at the beginning of the story you have the character's home village and somewhen later you come back and the scene has changed, its autum(Which I can't spell...), there has been a baby born, another hero has gone off...

This takes me to my second point, try to have more than one main character. It makes the story more complicated and more believable. The real world doesn't consist of one person going around changing things it consists of many people doing many things and those things coming together in weird and wonderful ways.

(Twenty)

Loved purple prose. Can't improve on it.

Mary Sues. Now then an example. Archimage A is, suprisingly, an alter ego of me in the BlueJay Chronicles. To spare you reading them(though you should) Archimage is perfect in every way. He is tightly controlled by morality, he has a keen sense of duty, he is powerful, he is practically God... What makes him different from Mary Sue...he is portrayed as the bad guy. He is a Despot. He is the sort of character that those who hate Stalin could only have nightmares about existing. He is a central tennet to the story because he links all these random people together.

None of the other characters are Mary Sues, but Bluejay, Powerent and Whiskers(and probably the rest of the characters) have the ability to harness emotion and project it as a weapon...none of them understand this it is just something that happens, and it does get them out of the jams...but its unexpected by Archimage. It is believable because it is unbelievable.

(twenty seven minutes)

Another issue would be that Archimage does connect with people, because he is someone who is dark and honest, what appeals to both sides of our ego. Someone who is so....Dark that society tells them to hide it, and yet when bad things happen to him he releases that darkness and makes things worse for his attacker...The sort thing we all wish we had...courage and justice...

(thirty minutes on the nose)

^^^I agree with Archi, thats [cabbage]...So Douglass Adams was trying to make the Hitchhiker series believable?

Writing is supposed to be a fine line between reality and fantasy, its supposed to transport us to places in the authors mind. When I read a book, I expect to be somewhere unbelievable, some books I expect some believability, but the medium of writing is based on telling a story so people can enjoy it. If everything were made to be believeable then where would writing be, and how would it be exciting?

I would switch 'believable' and 'possible' around. Stories should be believable, not possible. The reason being that something like a dragon breathing fire is just plain biologically impossible, but taken in the context of a fantasy world where there are likely magic and other outlandish things it is believable. This is where suspension of disbelief comes in. We know magic doesn't exist. Nor does the Force. People can't throw things around with their minds or shoot lightning from their fingertips. Not possible. But in a fictional world where these things are taken as a matter of course, our suspension of disbelief--which implies belief--allows them.

[Ratchet responded while I was typing this so let me emphasize the above paragraph. Paragraph has been emphasized.]

But as you yourself said, a world too outlandish just makes it difficult for readers to immerse themselves. That is why laws of our world must still be applied in some areas. You can be somewhat selective about what aspects of the real world you choose to keep, but choose wisely.

I agree on the point about not going too in-depth. I believe that would fall under purple prose in a way, but a mention is warranted. Going in-depth is not required to make things believable, but it would be were you aiming to make it seem possible. I hope you see what I mean by this. Anyway, I think writers will eventually start to pick up on the fact that it is not necessary to describe every minute detail about everything. The small words rule can be applied here, methinks. Only with sentences.

Also agreed that you must adhere to the rules of your own world.

Not the best example for 'said' I know, but I was trying to keep hold of my thoughts for everything else so I wasn't going to be spending too much time on that . . . I'll find a better one.

Totally agreed about the character and plot point, I didn't mean to imply that the world should be in stasis until your main character does something. All the other people in it are characters too.

Mary-Sues . . . alright. Don't see where you were going with this one, exactly. If you can pull off a character that has some of the characteristics of a Sue, by all means do it. It's just inadvisable to go too far as the temptation is pretty strong. And for new writers I think Sues are one of the biggest things to be avoided.

The reason being that something like a dragon breathing fire is just plain biologically impossible

Dragon's eat limestone. This decomposes in their stomachs to produce hydrogen. They have a zinc plate in the roof of their mouth. The hydrogen goes passed at pressure, igniting. Hydrogen is also lighter than air, allowing the dragon to fly.

Probably not accurately copied but it was on a program I watched once.

The force is possible. Mediclorian's act in a way to maximise the bodies innate bio-electric field, by communicating and controlling that field we could lift and throw stuff.

Magic is possible. You would have to accept that the world was like a computer game, where codes would unlock certain things. Alternatively by manipulation of the bodies bio-electric field you could create fire or lightening by colliding atoms in the air, or breaking them down and reforming them.

It is not suspension of disbelief, it is accepting a different set of variables, thus making what was once impossible, possible. They are believable because they are possible. Whereas if you said x=3 and y=5 you could not say that x=y. To exemplar this:

Robinson Crusoe striped naked, swam out to his ship, and filled his pockets with biscuits.

It is not possible nor is it believable.

Indeed we must be selective, we could not have Europe uniting and not arguing, or America and Britain not being mortally shocked by the other. Unless of course we have an intervening factor...for instance a war with most of Europe's population wiped out or America and Britain being one nation for hundreds of years, and being landlocked.

Depth depends on what you are writing...if you are writing a history of events...Ie How Britain became landlocked with America, then wide depth, or medium depth is required, because you want to explain everything, but not get bogged down. If however you are talking about one person's experiance of the war in Europe, depth is essential, but not on what is happening everywhere else, just this one persons. Alternatively describing characters is not always required because people construct their own character in their head when they are reading, without noticing, that way they relate much more readily to what happens...

I think, as to who will read this guide, we need to assume that these writers will eventually become better than we are now. If we tell writers 'Don't do this' then there is a good chance they won't do it, at the expense of the story. Also there is a chance that would be critics will read the guide and flip out when I write a sue like character...and I really don't want to spend a few minutes writing another response...not even my time is unlimited. :

It does depend alot on what you want to add because it is your guide (and I do speak in riddles, sorry, its either that or blunt points, and I haven't mastered that yet), I am just commenting on what I know to be true, as you are commenting on what you know to be true. If we can find common ground then great, if not then...well I might have to write a guide :o (its late and I want to go smiley crazy, hope you don't mind, shouldn't happen often. )

Oh one last thing, being this thread has had so much written about it, when you are COMPLETELY happy with it, repost it and I will sticky it(And *remove* this one)...make sure I am on first.

May I make a suggestion?

Well, believably in literature amounts to this. You have to be fair. Not logical, but fair.

For example, Peter Parker being bit by a radioactive spider and mutating into Spiderman. Now, in the real world, the odds of this happening are less than one half of one percent. But, it could happen, at least in the minds of everyone who is not a nuclear physicist or a biologist. Another example for you. Let's say you have a another superhero, yes? He is trapped in a plane that's about to crash, and is hand-cuffed to a chair. Now, to help your hero out of his plight you have him be strong enough to bend steel and break the handcuffs. Though not logical(who's ever heard of a man breaking handcuffs?), you're still being fair to your readers because he is superhuman, and therefore has superhuman strength. But how does he get off the plane? Well, you place a parachute underneath the seat. Once again, not logical, but fair.

However, you want to avoid using too many "not logical but fair" points, known as deux ex machina. Otherwise, your readers lose faith in your story, for it's not fair to give your hero too many free rides.

On Mary-Sues... Archimage, I hate to say it, but your character just might be a Sue. Sueness has more to do with weakness versus strength than good versus evil. Just because a character is evil doesn't free them from the crutch of Suedom. A Sue bends the world around them to fit their desires. If you can write them like this without breaking the "not logical, but fair" rule, them go ahead. However, most people can't, and it is very hard to pull off.

If you can write them like this without breaking the "not logical, but fair" rule, them go ahead. However, most people can't, and it is very hard to pull off.

Then clearly the guide needs to draw attention to this, that the rules are not cast iron and you should still experiment with everything...which sort of makes the guide redundant. :roll:

Well, believably in literature amounts to this. You have to be fair. Not logical, but fair.

Fair enough arguement...though the more logical the better...If 20 pages earier you have a seemingly unrelated conversation between two people about a the laxs-ness of the cleaners, saying that they wouldn't spot a missing parachute, and thus hides one under a seat...then it is humourous and the story takes on an even more believable angle because things are explained.

I suppose this could be summed up easily by a 'going back and thinking ahead' heading...When I first started writing I went with a very 'Stories are one time things, you can never go back' mainly because I was posting on Varrock and changing your story goes unnoticed most of the time.

(I appologise for the spelling my brain has been in overdrive for the past few hours...sleep does that, gives you different senerios then you wake up and try to explain why all of these things are not going to happen...mainly because my dreams involve a lot of aspects from my life but there you go and we are completely off topic)

The reason being that something like a dragon breathing fire is just plain biologically impossible, but taken in the context of a fantasy world where there are likely magic and other outlandish things it is believable.

It could be an analogue to the cavitation "death ray" that pistol shrimp use.

Or a variation on the spitfire's ability to squirt fluid.

Except in this case the fluid is napalm.

So it is biologically possible.

The flying, not so much. Not for a western dragon, anyway. Unless it's got bladders full of helium or hydrogen.

Bumping this due to renewed interest.

Guide has now become the entire thread. You can learn as much from the discussion as the OP. Which also means that I'm not going to edit the OP for every issue has. Please, voice them. Your opinion will be heard just the same.

And regarding the dragon thing, delving into every tiny natural possibility is pretty close to splitting hairs and not something that readers are likely to do. The point is, dragons don't exist in our world, and nothing short of millions of years of evolution or extreme advancements in genetic engineering are going to make them exist. But in a world alien to ours that has a completely different evolutionary history, sure. I'll believe it. If you can find biological evidence to back it up, good for you.

Naming conventions...

It kills suspension of disbelief when you launch into a piece of fantasy literature and the hero's name is Jack or Steve. Where possible, avoid modern English names, because when someone wants to escape reality by reading a story, they don't want to hear about a guy who has the same name as one of their friends, or worse, their boss.

It's not too hard to come up with an alternative spelling for common names. Celebrities (obnoxiously) do it all the time for their children.

Also, self inserts.

Avoid them. They're pretentious and only serve to annoy people.

Always write in context, not everyone has to have a cool sounding name. I tend to find that the main characters can have fairly generic names if they have fairly generic backgrounds...For instance Bob the Blacksmith. Whereas if they are this wonderful character with a big backstory you want a different name, Bob the Wizard is subject to comedic attack, which ruins a serouis drama.

There are two exception to this.

The first is if the character is, in some way, defined by the name. Tim the Enchanter for example has alot of 'Timid' connotations. So the character could be very timerous or very adventous and it is ironic that he has a name like that.

The second is when they are picked for the mission by accident. I do not want believe that Zambina was accidently chosen as a Wizardress, I would much prefer a name of moderate connotations like Amber or Rose, or a common name like Lizzy or Shelly. Always stay true to your characters roots; don't name the son of a blacksmith and dairy maid Fandango because its just not likely.

I disagree with Zonorhc on the issue of not wanting to read about people with the same name as someone you know, but it is a matter of personal taste, so listen to him on this point.

Probably my greatest annoyance when reading is encountering fifty different characters with radical names. Fine if these characters are key to the plot but if they are mentioned in one line it pulls the anticipation out from under you: - The human brain is lazy, if it has to remember a lot new things quickly then retain them, it loses interest...or at least my brain does, you might be different.

Its the same with killing of extranous characters:

Sam got into the space shuttle and met Grauu, Fra, Pol, Zambina, Ericeion, Mitchalall, who were *Large description of backstory*. Then a warship decloaked and fired its death beams, killing everyone except Sam and Pol.

Fine if we know these characters, if they do something on the shuttle together and we value these characters but if they are just there to fill space then the reader gets annoyed.

Self inserts:

Don't avoid them but don't do them on purpose. If you think a character should have the same name as your character then do it.

I have only done this twice, in both cases the character was very different from who I actually am.

But if you are going to put your whole self in the story, treat yourself like a character, give yourself flaws and strenghs. It does take a STRONG character to hold a mirror up to themselves and admit thier weakenesses for all the world to see, and to admit what is going though their head.

In summary weight the options carefully and do what would be best for the story.

On using non-standard names:

Keep it short, keep it simple. I myself am guilty of making a main character with a stupidly long name in the past.

You will find that people remember characters more easily when they have short, distinctive names. Two syllables is usually enough, or at least a name that can be shortened to that.