Writer's Block

In the West, plot is commonly thought to revolve around conflict: a confrontation between two or more elements, in which one ultimately dominates the other. The standard three- and five-act plot structures–which permeate Western media–have conflict written into their very foundations. A “problem” appears near the end of the first act; and, in the second act, the conflict generated by this problem takes center stage. Conflict is used to create reader involvement even by many post-modern writers, whose work otherwise defies traditional structure.

The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops and Internet “guides” to writing. A plot without conflict is considered dull; some even go so far as to call it impossible. This has influenced not only fiction, but writing in general–arguably even philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No. Such claims are a product of the West’s insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict “built in”, so to speak. Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as kishōtenketsu.

-straight people saying :/ love is love :/ gay or straight why does it matter ://///

-gay people saying wait no really i’ve never written a non-lesbian pls help

When Dick was Robin, he used so many ridiculous substitutes that they crept into Bruce's vocabulary. This was just barely tolerable when Batman had a tiny Robin beside him to be delighted by, and add to, any silly thing Batman said. As Bruce Wayne, he had to stop entirely, so the connection between the identities wasn't obvious.

Now, Dick is 25. He still uses some ridiculous language, but he rarely patrols with Batman anymore. Batman has NO EXCUSE for saying, "Holy guacamole." It would be embarrassing. To protect his pride, he must refrain from swearing, lest some childish phrase slip out.

Naturally people with disabilities are still just people and should be treated and written like everyone else, but obviously if the stories that chronically ill people are given were satisfying, there would be no point to ask at all.

 One post about the subject was talking about how heavy-handed and awful chronically ill characters’ storylines tend to be, they either get killed off or magically cured (especially if their illness doesn’t have a cure in real life). The message - which I hadn’t even realised as a complete outsider - was that ill people can’t just exist, they or at least their disabled status has to be wiped out, and that’s terrible.

 Able-bodied writers are squeamish about writing disabled characters, it’s easy to never think about something that you never have to think about, and there’s no way to word this that would make me look good, so I’ll just have to ask, how do you properly write a character with chronic illness?

1) RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. And I don’t just mean WebMD and stuff like that. Look up op-eds and personal articles by people with that illness. There are so many things WebMD won’t tell you. Join forums, if you can. (I don’t know if they let people without that illness join for research purposes. It may vary by forum.) Follow Instagram accounts and Facebook pages run by people with that illness, or devoted to that illness. Remember that every person’s case is different, but I think learning about the lived experience, vs. just a list of symptoms and drugs to treat it.

2) Our lives are not 100% misery (although when our symptoms are kicking our asses it may feel like that). We can have hobbies (although our illnesses can affect how we engage with those hobbies). We can have friends. We can find love. We can have pets. We can watch Netflix and Hulu and have shows we binge over and over again. What I’m saying is, think about who the character is outside of their chronic illness.

To say that chronic illness doesn’t define us is not entirely accurate. How can I say that, when our bodies never let us forget that we’re sick? It’s a way of defining us, but it’s not the only way. We’re multifaceted people. That’s one facet.

3) Having them get killed off is cheap, especially if they kill themselves. I wouldn’t say it’s bad to show them having some suicidal thoughts, because that does happen. I was suicidal for a bit after I got diagnosed. And then I realized that having this disease doesn’t mean I can never be happy again or that I’ll never be able to accomplish anything. I think it’s more impactful to show someone chronically ill who maybe does deal with suicidal ideations but actively chooses to live. And that is a continuous choice, by the way. You don’t just instantly stop being suicidal.

4) There may not be a cure, but there is management. They can be on a medicine that works well for them. They can find that certain diets or certain behaviors help alleviate symptoms. They can take a shit ton of Tylenol. They can learn their limitations and try not to push themselves too hard. I encourage writers to show that, because being chronically ill is A LOT OF WORK. It’s a full-time job, and one that we don’t get paid for.

(Let’s get it straight: Most societies over history have defaulted to skirts for everyone because you don’t have to take anything off to relieve yourself, you just have to squat down or lift your skirts and go. The main advantage of bifurcated garments is they make it easier to ride horses. But Western men wear pants so women wearing pants has become ~the universal symbol of gender equality~)

The book I’m reading literally just had its medievalesque heroine declare that peasant women wear breeches to work in the field because “You can’t swing a scythe in a skirt!”

Hm yes story checks out

peasant women definitely never did farm labour in skirts

skirts definitely mean you’re weak and fragile and can’t accomplish anything

skirts are definitely bad and will keep you from truly living life

The chief physician is an amorphous mass of tentacles and teeth that’s infested the entire medical bay, transforming it into a quivering nightmare of meat and viscera. It speaks with a conspicuously posh accent; the human crew members affectionately call it “Doc”.

The head of security is a lurking, probably humanoid something-or-other that’s mostly imperceptible in the visual spectrum, save as a faintly shimmering distortion in the air. Her lack of visibility is treated as a running gag, with the most frequent bits involving a. other crew members not realising she’s in the room until she speaks up, and b. her making reference to various unlikely anatomic features which, of course, the audience cannot see.

The ship’s computer is a blatantly rampant AI that speaks in a chorus of voices. It tends to talk in cryptic, pseudo-religious metaphors which contrast to humorous effect with the mundanity of the topic at hand, and sometimes wanders off on rambling philosophical tangents that require whoever it’s speaking with to remind it to get to the point. You can tell when it’s paying attention to a particular part of the ship because the lighting turns blood red.

The lead science officer is just a huge fucking spider.

If you’re sitting around sharing headcanons or brainstorming fic ideas with somebody else, and you want it to be a happy, mutually pleasant experience, don’t throw cold water on someone’s idea just because you don’t vibe with it. (If you hate it, them, and all their works, maybe you’d want to icebath them, but this advice is intended for people who are like “But why can’t I make friends in fandom???”)

Improv theatre has what’s called the “Yes, and...” rule. If you want to encourage people to be creative and throw ideas around, you have yo foster that process with your actions. In simple terms, this means: When you’re doing improv with someone and they introduce an idea, the way to make it better isn’t to say “Nope, bad idea, I don’t like it.” It’s to say, “Yes, this is the idea, AND...” and then add something on that spins it in a more interesting direction.

If someone you’re building an idea with says, “AU where they all go on a relaxing beach vacation,” then yes, you definitely have the option of saying, “I hate tropical resorts because the workers are exploited and they’re bad for the environment.” That would definitely kill that idea.

You could yes-and by trying to ameliorate the things you don’t like: “Relaxing vacation... where they house-sit for a relative who’s off on a scientific survey, so they don’t get served drinks on the beach but they’re responsibly tied into the local economy and helping local nature conservation efforts.”

Or you could yes-and by using your concerns to flip the idea on its head: “Relaxing beach vacation at a resort whose workers all go on strike their second day there, and the whale-watching tour is interrupted by revenge of the psychic dolphins who commandeer the boat to rescue a whale caught in a fishing net.”

So many great things can happen when you remember that you’re not creatively tied to someone else’s ideas, but you do have the power to encourage them, but go off in your own direction.

This message brought to you by a tweet I just saw that literally replied to a fic idea to say, “I hate the idea of a [the fic premise] but I feel if it did happen [the characters would do the absolute opposite]”

You don’t need to tell someone you hate their idea! You could avoid the conversation entirely if you felt nothing good would come out of it—keeping your mouth shut is an underrated but truly noble choice.

But you could also just add a “yes, and...” by including a bit of affirmation and then trying out a new spin. Like, you could say, “Interesting idea! I don’t usually see the characters doing that, but when I think about it, I imagine them doing the opposite. Here’s my idea.”

Twist x2: There isn’t actually a terrible price attached. In the Devil’s own words, they don’t make deals – anyone who’d willingly sell their soul already belongs to them – and they’re pretty sure it’s technically not even a sin, since the girls didn’t know it was the Devil when they took the offer. The Devil claims they just did it for fun.

Twist x3: The Devil is, of course, lying: they actually did it to win a bet with God. (Again.)

Twist x4: There isn’t even a final battle. The girls end up holding an intervention for God’s gambling problem.

or, more specifically, that you must instantly drop it and never speak of it again, no questions asked

mostly because if you try to only read books by the most ideologically perfect people, you’re going to rapidly run out of things to read. for one, anything written before like…1960 is out. for another, that one shining individual whose work alone you’re willing to read doesn’t exist.

every adult has done problematic things. the only difference is the scale and nature of the mistakes made

sure, voting with your wallet is a thing. I’d definitely be willing to buy a book by a currently-living author who isn’t always kind to their fans, and not by one who committed sexual assault. but there’s nuance to the simple act of reading or liking a book, separate from giving the author money, and it must be approached as such

what did the author do that you don’t like? how much of it comes out in their work? in what ways? what aspects of their work have value to you? is there enough value in it for you to continue liking it, even if you don’t condone the way the author behaves? will you continue recommending it to others? is the negative behavior confirmed to your satisfaction? can you, personally, reconcile disliking the author with liking their work? (because in the end, it’s a matter of personal choice and conscience)

saying “this author did/does bad things, so anyone who reads or likes their work must also be bad” is an appealing way to absolve yourself of the need for critical thinking. and guess what? that’s an important part of life

it’s easy to say “this is cancelled because the author sucks” for works you don’t care about. but someday, it will be something you love under the microscope. count on it. you’ll have to grapple with these questions, and it won’t be easy

has a writer done a sexual assault? that’s fucking bad. no one at any point should sexually assault another person. is a writer using their platform to broadcast bigotry? also bad. you’re totally free to hate someone who wants you and/or your friends dead.