What To Do If You Are Stuck Writing a Story

As someone who reads a lot of short stories, I often think about story structure and whether or not it is an important element of effective storytelling. It makes sense that structure is related to good storytelling but how does this relationship work exactly?

The majority of my favorite stories have a structure. If you take a screenwriting course, narrative structure is going to be one of the first things you learn. The traditional method of analyzing a story is to divide it into three sections called acts. This method is interesting but I have never found it to be particularly helpful.

One of my favorite philosophies when it comes to fiction writing is that a writer should include only what is absolutely necessary. This idea is helpful to me because I usually feel like I am flying by the seat of my pants while writing. If I have planned enough in advance, then I usually can tell if what I'm writing is necessary to my story. It may be unclear if what I'm writing is necessary. In this case it is helpful to reflect on where you are and think about the various paths that your story could travel. Something that I have found helpful in this situation is Pixar's 22 Rules of Storytelling. Rule #9 explains what to do when you are stuck:

#9: When you're stuck, make a list of what WOULDN'T happen next. Lots of times the material to get you unstuck will show up. 

It doesn't matter what is on this list. The only thing that matters is making the list. This exercise is essentially a way of increasing your chances of writing something that coheres with the rest of your story. You must take a second to get all the bad ideas out of your head before anything resembling a good idea can show up. This directly relates to rule #12:

#12: Discount the 1st thing that comes to mind. And the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th - get the obvious out of the way. Surprise yourself.

Unless you want to write boring stories your entire life, you should make this rule a habit. Writing the first thing that comes to your mind is a great way to create predictable stories.

Writing effective stories is difficult and it takes practice. Even if you manage to complete a first draft, you should revise that draft to make it better. Although writing stories is difficult, there are many tools to help you make it through. I find that focusing on thought processes while writing helps me recognize and thus break free from the patterns that limit my creativity. It also helps to consistently question whether what you are writing is necessary to your story. The most important question you can ask yourself while writing is "why does my story need this section?".

Why Starting at the End of a Story is best.

I recently read an interview where author Ted Chiang talks about his writing process:

"The way it usually works is that I have an idea that I’ve been turning over in my head for a long time: for example, the idea of a world where everyone is engaged in lifelogging. I think about different possible stories set in such a world; I can usually come up with a bunch of starting points, but I don’t know where those would go. It’s only when I come up with an ending that I can actually begin writing; I need to have my destination in mind. I don’t have the whole story worked out in detail, but I have a general sense of what needs to happen."

I love when writers talk candidly about their process and Chiang seems like the type of writer who would be completely honest about how he writes. It's interesting that Chiang can only begin writing when he knows how a story will end. Chiang refers to this as a "general sense of what needs to happen" as opposed to a sense of what could potentially happen. Writing is difficult so writers should use anything they can to produce their stories. Starting at the end works for Chiang because it allows him to see where things will eventually end up. Isn't it ironic that the ending is a more practical starting point than the beginning?

When I think about the most important stories in my life, I usually gravitate towards these stories' endings. The ending is naturally the most resonant part of a story because nothing comes after an ending. Often when I write stories, I find myself getting stuck somewhere in the middle, questioning every possible direction that the story could go. It also helps to have some idea of how an ending will affect an audience emotionally. The best endings leave readers in an extreme emotional state.

My goal is to write stories that resonate with readers. To make this happen, it helps to have a systematic method to make things easier. The less random I can make the process, the more likely it becomes that my stories will be effective. Starting at the end is one possible method that can make stories better. It may not work for everybody but it is definitely worth a try.

George Saunders on Process

In a piece titled “On Process”, George Saunders discusses several interesting ideas about fiction. Saunders starts his process by looking at a single sentence and repeating it until a next step appears. Ideally the next step should come should come unwilled. Saunders hopes that the forward movement of his stories feels natural, instantaneous, and unstoppable. However the mechanism of this process is mysterious. Where do narrative impulses come from and can their quality improve? Saunders cares deeply about the quality of his writing, as most fiction writers do, so it behooves him to understand process as much as possible.

An enabling characteristic of Saunders’ mentality is zero investment in the writing. Saunders wants to feels like he is reading a piece for the first time. Saunders cares not about the piece’s success or quality and focuses only on the story’s natural energy divorced from any thematic aspirations. Saunders wants to keep it interesting and believes that the most interesting connections come from the mind of someone with zero previous experience with a given story.

The other critical idea for Saunders is iteration, or repeating the process over and over until a story becomes its own unique thing. On a given day, Saunders averages about three readings, each followed by integrating changes into the text and generating a new printout. Yet Saunders runs into trouble when he says, “the result will be more like you, the writer, than even you, the ‘person’ is.” It’s difficult to pinpoint what Saunders means by this.  He obviously supports the iterative process, but how does making something more like the writer than the person improve quality? To clarify, I think Saunders wants to keep his “real self” out of his writing because deep down, he considers himself a boring person.

So what is the point of fiction? Why go through the trouble of Saunders’ intensive writing process? Well have no fear because Saunders is here to give us the answer:

“Most of us, at a certain point in our lives, come to understand that we are here to grow. To grow in love, patience, gentleness; to become more able to deal with the harshness and victories of life with aplomb and generosity. But how to do it? Art can be a way of training ourselves in these virtues – not in a holy or precious or dogmatic way, but in the same way that a crazy night on the town, or a catastrophic love affair, or a close brush with death, can train us. Reality says: here I am. Likewise in a story, the truth says: here I am, albeit in a strange garb.

Here is what I think Saunders is getting at. To grow in virtue, people need “reality” checks. Normally people get this from formative experiences but fiction can also provide it. Fiction should mirror reality. The work should be an accurate encapsulation of a realistic situation. If something is an accurate depiction of reality, it is more likely to resonate

Ok, that is enough for now. I want to stop before I jump to any more conclusions about what George Saunders may or may not be trying to say. You can find the piece on the Kenyon Review website.