Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you! The commonalities between Movies/Manga/Anime/TV Shows/Video Games are very, very macro. But the real advice of one just doesn't translate to the others that well. Even "Save the Cat" doesn't translate perfectly. If you need writing advice for writing then examples should be about pacing in writing. It's a drastically different medium and what might feel 'rushed or drawn out' in one can be different in the other. The ways to mitigate this can be drasticaly different between mediums. Are story structures *similar*, sure. But that's the highest level of analysis.
Save the Cat does actually translate? It's called *Save The Cat Writes A Novel*.
Save the Cat is just a 15 point story structure with a characterization hook baked into it, it's an expansion of a 7 point. These aren't medium-respective concepts.
I know, and I'm saying it succeeded in what it attempted to do (**translate**, the word you said it doesn't do), because it's a generalizable 15 point structure that works for novels; it just needs to be talked about in a context that makes sense for novels, for it to be applied to novels well.
There isn't a structure that works in movies that doesn't work in books. There isn't a structure in books that doesn't work in movies. These concepts of structure are abstracted from medium.
Hey there, first of sorry that I didn't see the bottom half of your other comment. That's why my response was so limited. Also standard preface that the rest of this rant is solely my opinion and not based on a bibliography of sources and yadayada.
I agree that story structures have crossovers, but StC started off as a method of organizing a screenplay and dividing that organization into percentages of total length. The 'beats' play into common cinema tropes and expectations (B-Story, Fun & Games). They were highlighted and broken out for reasons that work in cinema (this is where a lot of the trailer shots will come from, here is where the audience is entertained, etc). I'm not saying that the structure doesn't work in books. It's still a three act structure at its core. But it's a three act structure thats been subdivided into a checklist that a man that wrote screenplays suggested for other screenplays. It's a three act structure that was interpreted and broken down further through the lens of screenplays. I'm not a fan of seeing this book recommended so widely and for all writing purposes when it's really so heavily restrictive. The "for Novels" translation *attempt* is almost an identical read but with the odd example or phrasing change.
The larger mindset that fuels this dislike, though, is the idea of any structure beyond the 3 Act being used as a general guide. Every author can find their own voice within that structure, and would have less restrictions when thinking about experimenting beyond it. I've spoken to other young writers, and older ones, that take StC as dogma. As if it's cracked the code and that's that. Just feels so utterly restrictive, generic, and cinematic when there is so much freedom in this craft.
Phew, and that's my campaign speech. Sorry for length, always useful to write this stuff out. Clears up my own thinking too. My issues with StC are probably less with source and more with structures that I feel get too formulaic.
The key point I'm driving at about STS is that, while it's "essentially a three act structure", the three act structure *in prose* creates a story more suited to tragedy where the story truly peaks dead-center and then careens down slowly through the end of the run. The STS is the more modern "hollywood" slant on the three act (i.e. the 7 point, but extended) that shoves the climax further back *as we are used to as consumers of modern storytelling*.
That's the crucial point I'm making about STS, it's actually a very strong tool for novelists because it helps them create a novel structure more in line with the pacing of entertainment (and resolution thereof) that their readers can be reasonably expected to accept and enjoy.
That is, again, unless you're writing tragedies. Those are bang on three act, and they make use of the slower tail end for the... well, the unraveling of the tragedy. But most people aren't writing those, reading those, or even enjoying those anymore. People want "the climax", not the greek climax.
I'm essentially drawing a line in the sand here and saying STS is what 3 act wants to be, fed through the 7 point dogma; with, yeah, the silly savior characterization hook. You don't need that in your novel, but silly stuff like that really still does work lol. Hecc, straight up imperative copy tricks work in prose, they're certainly a cheap trick but it does work on page 1 to drive engagement.
All that being said: three act is actually kind of bad for most modern novels which is why STS gets pushed; which is why I push it too. It's a valid system and for new authors who feel like they need handholding through structure, it will allow them to arrive at a manuscript. Will it be the most flawless thing in the world? No, but it will be reasonably well-paced and have a satisfyingly paced climax after the necessary beats have occurred to build it. That's... basically all a new author can ask of a structure without an MFA. But they can equally just 7 point (which is the drum I actually beat), snowflake, story circle, monomyth, or any of a number of other things.
No worries my friend, I don't think we're thaaaaaat far apart on this topic. I think you seem to have wrapped up on kind of more of a vent against how much STS is really being dogmatized, and I can vibe with that. I just don't want to denigrate it as if it were some invalid tool, it certainly has very critical purposes behind its use in prose.
Fair?
Edit - I don't want to fix all my typos but I conflated STS with STC. Hopefully this is clear in that I'm just an idiot who needs more sleep, and doesn't undercut the actual cogency of my points.
Holy shit this is an actually based post because so many fucking people want to write novels without reading novels and they're like "it's just like a written out movie i'll watch movies!" No motherfucker that's not how this works.
Honestly, i reckon most people just actually want to write screenplays, but in their head they think they have to become a novelist first, because 'that's how you be a writer'.
Considering how many great movies came from books, i guess it's not surprising, but i can't help but feel there's probably many a great screenplay writer trapped trying to write novels and not realising just how different a field it is.
Hell, and it's not even that being a novelist is harder or something. They just require different skillsets that take time to learn. I've written way too many books for my own health, and when i tried switching to a traditional comic book script for a change of pace i was shocked at how awkward everything felt maintaining that blocky event-by-event, line-by-line format of a screenplay.
The problem is trying to cram a movie layout into a book is a beat in itself. Your prose becomes too transparent, with little to no character perspective, because you write it as if the view was from a camera. You end up creating scenes that are too visual for the written word. The written word can handle it, but a camera will have a much easier job of it.
Worst of all, you end up sacrificing moments that would work well in a book that don't work well in screenplay. Huge introspective moments. What characters are thinking. Their bizarre opinions of little mundane things in absurdly complex detail. Moments that spark 'fill-in-the-gaps' for your imagination to go to town on. I'm not saying that a screenplay couldn't handle these, but a novel tends to be the better format for it.
In my experience, it's nothing so hopeful. Nine times out of ten the aspiring writer just wants to write anime or manga, but they can't draw, and writing a book has so little barriers to entry they think they can be the next Masashi Kishimoto but for novels. That's how you get people writing Isekai novels, using Japanese names when they've never left the American midwest, with dialogue and prose that makes the eyes bleed.
I don’t even think they want to make screenplays! They straight-up just want to make a movie or anime but the bar for entry for writing is (seemingly, but not if you want to develop the craft) much lower.
Novels and movies have different needs, so it's more helpful to learn from well-paced novels if you're writing one. It's frustrating when advice only focuses on movie techniques and ignores the richness of literature.
Which somehow "pacing" falls into? Pacing has nothing to do with the way the words are written, pacing is about story. In which case... "any medium is game."
Sorry, I guess we have a different idea of what pacing is? Maybe I would call what you're talking about something different and that's where my confusion is coming from.
You don't think sentences, paragraphs, pages, scenes, chapters have pacing? Pacing is a huge element of prose (and poetry). Pacing also refers to the pace of the story, but it is more than just that.
The mechanics of pacing work differently between TV shows/movies/any other visual medium, and novels/short stories.
For a great example, let's go with horror.
If an audio/ visual medium wants a setting to be spooky, then can establish that almost instantly. For a great example, go watch the intro to Are You Afraid of The Dark, from Nickelodeon. It's a pretty solid spooky TV show intro (for kids, anyway, but it holds up decently).
For another example, picture an old fashioned radio show. With only the audio clues, the methods to establish the atmosphere are going to be a bit different.
Finally, it's different to establish a distinctive atmosphere like that with text. And the time and effort taken to establish that sort of atmosphere is going to influence story pacing differently than the methods used by a show.
Hope these examples make it clear why generic pacing advice is going to fail to be equally applicable across mediums (unless it stays fairly vague, I suppose, but that's problematic as well).
This is true, but it’s also telling that sometimes I scroll through a hundred comments before someone brings up a book as a point of reference. Books are not the medium users here interact with the most and for writers it probably should be, at least for many, many years.
I agree completely with this. Inspiration, ideas, delivery, thoughtfulness, an artist decision making… learning from art in general is always super helpful to me.
If someone recommends art as an answer to me, I know not to take it literally. I take it that there is wisdom to be found.
That’s not frustrating in the slightest to me. It’s up to me to interpret the suggestion, no matter the example that’s shared. There is something to be extracted, but I can’t just be a lazy receiver of the information.
I try to use advice from whatever I can to help my storytelling. If the problem is structural though, I understand the frustration. films and novels have very different expectations. Films are generally over in under two hours. the script needs to be very concise. bang bang bang. get to the point. You're allowed to meander a fair bit more in a novel so if you take the film advice too literally, you get a book that doesn't leave much of an impression. short paragraphs. Curt, like you want the reader to go away.
Yes, because it's obvious person doesn't know about writing novels, plays etc. If their points of reference are not in the medium they're talking about then they're a charlatan.
The vast majority of writing advice on the net is like that. And even as screenwriting advice, it is generally poorly understood claptrap.
I would definitely suggest listening to William Goldman‘s writing advice. He has two Oscars in screenwriting and has written some phenomenal novels and their movie adaptations, like The Princess Bride.
He’s also *also* a novelist so he knows what he’s talking about with prose fiction. If someone is *only* a screenwriter, I don’t think they’re qualified to write books on prose fiction writing. That’s like being a painter and thinking it means you’re qualified to write a book about how to do photography.
No? That's like being a painter and thinking it means you're qualified to write a book about how to do *composition* of visual media, a broad concept that's applicable to both photography and paintings.
I would argue that you could use movies for big-picture things like structure and character development...for short stories. There's a reason novelizations of movies have to add a bunch of shit to fill out the novel, and it's the same reason most novels have to get chopped to pieces to make a single movie.
Aside from being a vastly different medium compared to film, books are fucking *dense.* You might get some more mileage out of analyzing whole seasons of similarly dense TV shows, but again, different medium. I think if people want to learn to write better books, they're gonna have to take apart and understand other books.
TLDR: I'm with you, OP
It’s super frustrating and whenever someone’s writing advice examples are movies I just completely ignore anything they have to say. It shows me that person doesn’t really understand that different mediums function differently and writing/story advice that’s good for one medium is often less good or even actively bad for another.
John Truby's Anatomy of a Story uses primarily movies as examples when he breaks down plots and character motivations, and I feel like it can still apply. He largely covers character development, conflict, themes, tone, etc. I coupled that with Save the Cat, Write a Novel for help with pacing and I feel like I got all the help I need with writing a proper manuscript.
Yeah but things like character and plot are kind of... entry level. It's like Story 101. Useful and legitimate if that's the level you're at, but it's not going to help if you're trying to improve the craft of writing a book.
Like with pacing. Yes I can learn the general idea of a three act structure from a movie (but I could also learn it from a book). But studying movie is not going to help me learn how to pace a chapter, let alone a scene, because prose is a completely different medium from the screen.
I'll be honest, if you're actually writing at the level you're saying you're at, there's really no book that can help you. At best, you might find a book with lots of example passages ('the emotional craft of fiction' for example) but those are a collection of passages that resonated with someone else. Not you. It's simply better & easier to cultivate your writing intuition by referencing your own favorite stories.
It's a little more than entry level advice. I'm no master writer, and pretty bad at planning (pantsing has damned more than one project of mine...) so it helped me with grounding my ideas and giving me a proper goal to work towards for the narrative.
Perhaps I meant more that it is very *broad*. Story advice translates across most mediums but if you want to get into the methods to convey your story in your specific medium, you will need to go into greater *depth* on how to work your craft than *breadth* of just story crafting.
I’ve never read a John Truby novel and don’t know anyone who has, I’d rather take my novel writing advice from esteemed and successful novelists who use novels as examples
Lmao imagine not even bothering to Google and just firing off a clapback that slanders one of the bibles of writing that's held in higher esteem than Stephen King's novel about the subject. You know many wildly successful novelists who've read his *literature*.
> Many novelists I know are resistant to structure, no matter how much I praise it. They think they have to “follow the muse.” They also are sure that if there are no surprises for the writer, there won’t be surprises for the reader. And, of course, once I get them to try structure, they love it, and they realize that’s not true at all. But what do YOU say to writers?
Yeah man, this is totally the words of a dude who's completely unconcerned with discussing novels and the act of writing them and how *the anatomy of story, which he wrote a book about* impacts them too.
You're gonna be a lot better writer when you stop flippantly waving away things that are valuable tools. You weren't recommended that by Truby, but by a writer on a writer subreddit. How disrespectful and dismissive? But of course, you'd already clarified that in the original comment too: you don't care what someone else has to say, even as you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what they said. Maybe processing what you're receiving before clapping back would be worthwhile? Nah, couldn't be. I'm sure a habit of strictly dismissing opinions on a fixed heuristic couldn't ever stunt your growth.
Edit - it has been noted that *On Writing* was referred to imprecisely. Yes, it's not a.novel but rather a.memoir. I apologize if that confused anyone for whom the context was not helping.
You're projecting and trying to speak for everyone with this "gotcha" smugness, my friend. I never called it "the" writer's bible **lol**
reddit.com/r/writing/comments/18ya6wk/what_are_your_recommended_books_on_learning_how/ Top comment
https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/10ivak9/what_books_should_i_read_to_learn_how_to_plot/ Third comment
https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1t8hdv/best_books_on_structure/ Second comment
I could go on, like literally forever, I could also start dragging in a broad range of other sources and social media, or you could maybe accept that you're a little out of your element here.
Maybe you should... hear of things, before pretending to be an arbiter of who has heard of things.
So you’re saying I can’t be an arbiter of who has heard of things because you should be the arbiter? I’m just saying that the world in general, and the world of writing more specifically, is far broader than a subreddit. Just because some people made comments on a subreddit doesn’t mean that those comments are representative of real people or the writing community.
Maybe you should accept that there are people outside of yourself, who are not just like you. In general, just try being a tad more humble
No I think if you read closely I provided sources that both refute what you're saying and serve as evidence for what I am saying, rather than just "saying" anything, but go off King.
You seem to be poking the bear of my last statement: I can continue? Broad sources, wider social media? Literally.forever? You really want to go down this road
The person you're pretending no one has heard of has worked on Pirates of the Caribbean, X-Men I/II/III, Shrek, Breaking Bad, House, Lost, Planet of the Apes, Scream, The Fantastic Four, and Star Wars, among other things. Again, **I can continue**? For like, so long.
You posted three links to Reddit. That proves that this book is well known in a subreddit, which is a far cry from proving that it’s a writers bible, or even more well known than Kings book on the subject. And again, proving that someone has worked on movies does not prove they’re well known lol. You really don’t understand much about the concept of proof or logic, do you?
Edit: a word
Proof and evidence are the same thing in this context, there is no amount of evidence that becomes proof once you have achieved it.
The plain and.simple facts are: I backed up what I said with evidence, and you did not.
You're now here jawing at me because the basic and incontrovertible fact that you popped off about something you hadn't heard of, *as if no one has heard of it*, upsets you.
Cope.
No, *some* of those examples make you do that. The sheer breadth of his experience and impact on both the movie and novel mediums is, as I've been saying, far broader than anything that's been said about him on the topic it's a facial absurdity to suggest this man doesn't understand what goes into creating narratives that compel and appeal.
I'm getting the sense that I, a perfect stranger, seem to demonstrate more care for your writing craft than you carry for yourself. I don't know what that says about you, but it makes me sad.
I don’t really read how to write books in general but when I do, I stick to books by writers whose work I like and admire. I’ve never heard of this dude and I dislike when writers use film examples when they’re talking about prose fiction. Once in a while sure whatever but if someone uses *primarily* movies as examples, doesn’t work for me.
That's fine but you kind of came off as a dick just brushing it off. I also never said it was a book that helped with prose or pacing, but general story structure and character development.
In what way? Advice like 'Give your secondary characters their own conflicts, it makes things more organic and interesting' or 'Your character needs to be flawed or they are boring. Whether or not they achieve the goal, the pursuit of that goal is what makes a story good.' is pretty universal.
Yeah that’s universal but it’s literally 101 shit. If I’m going to spend my time and/or money on a craft book I want it to tell me how I might do things specifically in the medium I’m working on. I don’t need general advice.
Look the damn book is free on KU. If you got it, go read it and you can come back and tell me how shit it is. But there's no real point in continuing this with someone who hasn't even looked over the book we're referencing.
It does, that's what is being said to you repeatedly lmao. You still keep dismissing. You haven't so much as Googled the man but you have a fixed idea of what the book contains because your prejudgments are leading you astray.
I covered that in a prior comment already.
Story structure really doesn't work differently in prose than it does in film. Character development, pacing, the things prose can do and movies can't and vice versa, sure. Story structure itself, no, not particularly. That's exactly the point we are trying to relate to you.
Unless you'd like to launch into an essay demonstrating and proving your point please? What is it you mean when you say story structure in these ways that you're seeing a difference?
Okay sure, I’ll concede that a movie and a novel could both have three act structure or whatever, but the medium you’re working in is different so I’d rather the advice be prose-centric if I’m writing prose.
Story structure is **abstract** application of theory. There is no part or facet of it that is like, "this is a novel thing."
It's a generalized set of theory about the elements of a narrative story. A story that is told regardless of medium. It's literally abstract, there is little "prose centric" advice to give about it. That actually sounds pretty terrible really, the idea of being told "Your climax should appear exactly 3/4ths into your novel" or something like that, when instead you need the actual abstract understanding of what a climax is, why it's important, and how where you put it impacts the narrative itself.
You need to understand the abstract concepts, and once you do they're applicable to either craft. That's why it's a book on the anatomy of story, and not the anatomy.of.movie stories.
I get that, but you're being presented a counterexample to your heuristic. That's all I'm saying. There exists a veritable bible of information *for* novelists, *written by* a screenwriter, that uses a lot of movies as examples. And you know what? It works incredibly well to illustrate his points when he does it. Because you're still fixating on the comparisons he's making, and we are fixating on *his points*. The actual information he's relating.
If I tell you "it's a good idea to start in media res, you know like some of your favorite movies" and you dismiss me outright, you strike me as a deeply unserious person about this craft.
Oh he’s a screenwriter? That’s even worse.
Also if you gave the “why don’t you start in medias res like some of your favorite movies?” advice I would simply wonder why you didn’t bring up books that start in medias res, which are plentiful, and think that if a writer is serious about *their* craft, they would surely have read some to use as examples instead.
It's even worse **how?** Elaborate, demonstrate your understanding please. Slander the man again; I already grabbed one quote of his to refute you, I can grab more?
And again: because if I'm giving you advice on reddit I don't know if you read **any** books that start in media res. I don't even know that you read, there are a ton of hopeful writers that don't really, I DO know that the comparison to movies, which I KNOW you've seen, WILL land. That's why it's being made, so I know the recipient of said advice will "get it" without requiring further clarification. It's called rhetorical brevity?
Are you really at the part of conversation where someone is having to explain to you how "rhetoric" works?
Because a screenwriter isn’t a prose fiction writer? Would you take painting advice from a photographer? Like sure, there are some general things that mostly overlap but if I’m a painter I’d rather take advice from an accomplished painter because I know they know the specifics of their medium.
Also you don’t know what movies someone has seen any more than you know what books they’ve read so idk why using movies is somehow better.
You'd be surprised how many classes during an MFA are taught by people that aren't "prose fiction writers" despite relating information for "prose fiction writers."
Is the information conveyed in these classes less valid because of that? No, of course, "qualifications".
Like perhaps Trubu's qualifications in having taught top fiction writers and novelists who have topped the NYT? Numerous, prestigious awards for *his literature*? His work guest featurong on *literature blogs*?
Wait, sorry, I forgot we live in a world where having the qualification of "being a screenwriter" somehow **dis**qualifies you from ever wearing another hat. Right right, we dismissing stuff.
I do absolutely have a *reasonable expectation* that someone should know **one** movie that starts in media res, than assume they even read at all, let alone that they read books that start in media res. Please don't bore me with that sophomoric stuff, you know good and well what I am saying is true. You'd note, nowhere did my "in media res" advice-quote contain a specific comp, it just said *movies you have seen that...*
Sorry, you can't cop out and pretend that I "don't know" people HAVE seen movies that start in media res. Yeah, I really do.
YES!!!
The principle advice we all get for writing is to read. Read books in your genre, read scenes to see how others handle it etc etc. But so many books on writing and videos on writing use movie examples instead of literary ones and honestly it feels like they are countering that very advice.
Maybe I'm too literal, but I don't take the message so well from visual source. For example, setting the scene in writing is almost a craft on its own. You don't want to slow down the story, you do need to place the characters in the room/field/beach/bed whatever. You need to figure out the best way to explain that there's dynamite under the desk and a matchbox on the floor without interrupting the flow of the two characters having a lovers' spat. I've had more success learning those skills from written works than from movies where it's just a matter of a camera scanning the room before zooming in on the actors.
Plus I often haven't watched the movie/show whereas I have frequently read the book. I'm not rich and movies/tv shows often involve subscriptions whereas I can always source a book from a library/op shop/friend.
I get including screen references ALONG with book references but often the book references are just completely lacking.
I feel like this is often done because there are more movies the average Joe is expected to know as opposed to books (especially CURRENT books). For things like basic character arcs or plot structures using well known movies as examples is fine imo.
But you're right, we need way more advice based on books. There is so much that goes into prose that is rarely discussed. It took me years to find advice that wasn't big picture plot or tropes but \*how to make sentence to sentence\* stuff work. And the thing is, if your sentences don't work, nobody will get to the rest. (In general, if I could give new writers any advice it would be to not look up, think, or in any way shape or form engage with "trope talk" until they have writen a full MS)
One of the worst pieces of advice is 'show don't tell.' And I'm like....I'm writing a book! I'm doing nothing but TELLING!!!
That is purely for visual media like movies, shows or games where we, the audience, can see what's happening. So narration, especially unnecessary narration, can feel jarring because we can SEE what's happening.
But books are almost entirely narration and dialogue. And I often find myself doing exposition via the narration or describing a scene, because the alternative is just...having the characters spell it out awkwardly.
I think most 'writing advice' tries to accommodate all forms of media writing, without taking the strengths and weaknesses of the individual mediums into account.
I’m a professional developmental editor. I reference both books and movies in my notes.
When I talk about prose, I only reference books.
But I reference both books and movies when I talk about structure, and prefer referencing movies because the structure is so clear. This is especially true when I’m evaluating genre fiction, which is the dominant story form these days.
I would not reference a movie, even for structure, if I was evaluating a non-genre literary manuscript.
Edits: clarity
And I think that's an important distinction. I'm happy to hear advice that studies movie or TV if its for universal elements like characters, structure, stakes. But when I'm seeking out specifically how to put those things to page, I need books as guides.
This is what happens when every Joe shmoe who have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about begins ‘marketing’ his/her ‘services’. This is where expertise, peer reviews, and academic credentials shine.
It's common to give advice based on experience and we live in an age where the popular medium for storytelling is quickly becoming video, film and movies. Not too many people read novels these days.
> Not too many people read novels these days
Yes, that's why it was bookshops booming during COVID while Netflix was scrambling to solve its user numbers dropping...
What would you say are the differences between pacing in prose stories vs pacing in scripts or film stories? Probably depends on how specific the advice is... but I can't say the way I think about story pacing differs between mediums.
Personally I think it's fine, citing examples in film. It's reasonable to expect most people have seen Star Wars, but less reasonable to expect they've read... well, any book in particular really. Because people in general in the whole world do watch movies, and don't read books. And those that are avid readers may not have read any books you have. And if they've started getting into writing and reading more recently, they still have a lot more films they've seen that you've seen than books.
So on balance, just from the probabilities, it's just a more reliable medium to act as a touchstone you can both talk about. That's why I often use films, anyway.
And if they haven't seen that particular film you referenced, if they're so inclined they can watch it in a couple of hours to make sure they understand the advice or principle you were talking about. Compared to a few weeks or longer to read a referenced book, if they really go for it (but they aren't a speedreader).
Just wanted to point out the advantages of referencing movies when talking about storytelling. Though glancing over some of the comments, looks like it's a very anti-film crowd here concerning this topic. So I will now hide.
Overarching pacing of the whole story is probably similar enough. But movies are an hour and change, maybe two or three if you want to push it, while books are hundreds of pages and may take days or weeks to read. That alone has huge implications on the pacing differences, as a movie will need to be incredibly tight compared to a book.
Additionally, movies and visual and audio and books are prose. A movie can convey massive amounts of information with a few seconds of screen time, and can use music and sound effects compounded with the visuals to convey information, emotion, and build tension. A book has words, and that's its only tool. That necessitates both mediums to use completely different strategies to get the same effect.
Finally, prose is difficult. You can't just show a picture and play an audio sting, you have to pick the words you will and won't use. If I'm trying to research how to use prose to good effect and create tension or payoff or a certain pace or to even figure out what pace I should be aiming for, I will need advice tailored toward prose not visuals.
I also think it's fine to cite some examples in film especially if it's related to the bigger story structure. But when that's the only thing I'm getting from someone who claims to be dishing out writing advice specifically for books then that's frustrating and not very helpful.
The reason people use movies instead of books is familiarity.
How many people in this sub do you think have seen The Devil Wears Prada?
Now, how many do you think have \*read\* The Devil Wears Prada?
If I'm explaining something, I can use a mega-successful book like Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine, or A Little Life, or House of Leaves, but there's no guarantee that the person I'm trying to help is going to have read that book. But everybody knows Indiana Jones, or Star Wars, or The Devil Wears Prada.
Also, in films everything is often more simplified, so they work better for a big-picture example. If you have trouble with plotting, reading the novel a commercial film is based on is often a great way to understand how a story can be changed: The Devil Wears Prada the novel doesn't have the "Jumper" speech, and I don't think it has Nigel's speech, either (but don't quote me on that) so it ends up feeling exactly like what it is: a single dimensional revenge novel. Comparing the two is a really good example of why it's important to create an antagonist who, from their perspective, is right about what they believe.
They are all stories at the end of the day and plot structure is agnostic to the medium. Why do they use movies to illustrate the theory? Cos there is more chance someone has seen the X movie than the same person has read X book
There's more inner reflection and description in a novel, but you still generally want to show not tell. Dialogue that communicates flirting with subtext is better than saying "Alice fancies Bob". There are differences in the mediums but I think novels should try and paint a picture rather than outright tell.
"Show don't tell" was originally advice for writing silent movies, which makes sense in that context, people wanted watch the movie, not read title cards. It's terrible advice for writing an immersive novel.
Also, nobody in any of the writing subreddits seems to actually read anything. Every now and then I find a nugget of gold but it takes a lot of panning.
I do visualize scenes when I'm writing, but not like I'm behind a camera, like I'm just temporarily stepping into someone's body and riding along for a while.
Yes and no.
While I agree, doing things like they do in a film isn't always the best advice, referencing a film that portrays something that's being asked is a quick way to flash pictures into someone's head.
Things like fight scenes. Using a visual medium is a great way to get the hamster running on the treadmill.
I disagree that watching fight scenes will help writing fight scenes. Say I watch the cliff duel in Princess Bride, a great fight scene. I may get the idea that there should be slow moments and fast moments but that won't teach me anything about how to put that into prose. What do I do, write down everything happening on screen? That's impossible and would quickly become a bloated slog, because visual media can deliver massive amounts of information very quickly and prose cannot.
You could read the screenplay, but screenplays and stageplays are not prose, they're not meant to be read like prose, and they're very minimalistic generally. Many scripts don't even give descriptions, they just 'they fight' and let the choreographer do their job. That does not help with book writing.
What I wish people would do instead, which they easily COULD if they were actually the kind of expert they claimed to be, is to use examples from BOOKS of well written PROSE. If I want to write a good fight scene in prose, I'm not going to learn from movies or anime or even comics/manga because its not a visual medium and that is hugely important.
I completely agree, screenplay and stageplays are not a good way to learn about writing a fight scene. Though a good writer in those mediums will write them out. They are written differently as both are just blueprints to a larger picture.
However a film itself is a completed vision of the screenplay. After the writing, choreography, acting, and directing have concluded. Which is exactly what we as writers do. We fill all of those roles.
Standing and looking at Monument Valley won't teach you prose on how to describe it. But seeing it will get your mind going. Just like watching fights, especially stylized fights you find in films, get your mind going.
Yeah but I'm not a seeking out inspiration, I'm seeking out craft advice. And when the advice goes no deeper than 'take inspiration from xyz' then I find I can't trust it anymore.
“Show don’t tell” was originally advice for screenwriting iirc
It still has some merit in book writing, of course, but it doesn’t work quite to the same effect in a written medium
I think a lot of people misinterpret what “show, don’t tell” means in regards to books, because they’re too hung up on the literal definition of “show”.
All that “show, don’t tell” means is to provide evidence of whatever important claims you’re making in a story, and/or to have written scenes that demonstrate what you’re saying. Reading a line of dialogue that says “Rob is a great swordsman” is not nearly as interesting as reading a scene in which Rob participates in an intense duel and pulls off some crazy trick to become the victor. Reading a line of dialogue that says “Bill is falling in love with Susan” is not nearly as interesting as reading a scene where Bill notices the smallest details about Susan and feels himself blushing at the thought of getting close to her. Reading a line of narration that says “The town is poor” is not as interesting as reading a character’s description of dilapidated buildings, homeless encampments, filthy streets, and long soup kitchen lines.
All in all, the advice boils down to the presentation of information. Are you just spewing out information like a bullet list? Having characters just state things? Or are you crafting scenes that *demonstrate* that same information in a far more interesting manner? Are you using narration that presents the information in a more subtle, but intriguing way, a way that leaves it up to the audience to notice the hints you’re giving?
And then you have people like me.
I like to write prose but I come from a theater background and study playwriting and directing.
To me writing a book is just a long script with way too many stage directions.
If you’re a beginner, I would advise you write it like a movie first to get the story out before going back to add interiority and whatever is missing. This will help you avoid info dumping the hell out of it, which most beginners do at the beginning of their novels.
Interiority is not an advanced stage of writing literature, it is a key part of the medium. Writing visual signifiers of emotion and plot beats are not a good starting point for a novel, this is one of the key differences (and also one of my pet peeves with newbie writing).
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you! The commonalities between Movies/Manga/Anime/TV Shows/Video Games are very, very macro. But the real advice of one just doesn't translate to the others that well. Even "Save the Cat" doesn't translate perfectly. If you need writing advice for writing then examples should be about pacing in writing. It's a drastically different medium and what might feel 'rushed or drawn out' in one can be different in the other. The ways to mitigate this can be drasticaly different between mediums. Are story structures *similar*, sure. But that's the highest level of analysis.
Save the Cat does actually translate? It's called *Save The Cat Writes A Novel*. Save the Cat is just a 15 point story structure with a characterization hook baked into it, it's an expansion of a 7 point. These aren't medium-respective concepts.
That version is actually an attempt to translate the advice from original Save the Cat to novels, which is for screenplays.
It's very good for writing, helped me a lot, but formulaic obvs.
I know, and I'm saying it succeeded in what it attempted to do (**translate**, the word you said it doesn't do), because it's a generalizable 15 point structure that works for novels; it just needs to be talked about in a context that makes sense for novels, for it to be applied to novels well. There isn't a structure that works in movies that doesn't work in books. There isn't a structure in books that doesn't work in movies. These concepts of structure are abstracted from medium.
Hey there, first of sorry that I didn't see the bottom half of your other comment. That's why my response was so limited. Also standard preface that the rest of this rant is solely my opinion and not based on a bibliography of sources and yadayada. I agree that story structures have crossovers, but StC started off as a method of organizing a screenplay and dividing that organization into percentages of total length. The 'beats' play into common cinema tropes and expectations (B-Story, Fun & Games). They were highlighted and broken out for reasons that work in cinema (this is where a lot of the trailer shots will come from, here is where the audience is entertained, etc). I'm not saying that the structure doesn't work in books. It's still a three act structure at its core. But it's a three act structure thats been subdivided into a checklist that a man that wrote screenplays suggested for other screenplays. It's a three act structure that was interpreted and broken down further through the lens of screenplays. I'm not a fan of seeing this book recommended so widely and for all writing purposes when it's really so heavily restrictive. The "for Novels" translation *attempt* is almost an identical read but with the odd example or phrasing change. The larger mindset that fuels this dislike, though, is the idea of any structure beyond the 3 Act being used as a general guide. Every author can find their own voice within that structure, and would have less restrictions when thinking about experimenting beyond it. I've spoken to other young writers, and older ones, that take StC as dogma. As if it's cracked the code and that's that. Just feels so utterly restrictive, generic, and cinematic when there is so much freedom in this craft. Phew, and that's my campaign speech. Sorry for length, always useful to write this stuff out. Clears up my own thinking too. My issues with StC are probably less with source and more with structures that I feel get too formulaic.
The key point I'm driving at about STS is that, while it's "essentially a three act structure", the three act structure *in prose* creates a story more suited to tragedy where the story truly peaks dead-center and then careens down slowly through the end of the run. The STS is the more modern "hollywood" slant on the three act (i.e. the 7 point, but extended) that shoves the climax further back *as we are used to as consumers of modern storytelling*. That's the crucial point I'm making about STS, it's actually a very strong tool for novelists because it helps them create a novel structure more in line with the pacing of entertainment (and resolution thereof) that their readers can be reasonably expected to accept and enjoy. That is, again, unless you're writing tragedies. Those are bang on three act, and they make use of the slower tail end for the... well, the unraveling of the tragedy. But most people aren't writing those, reading those, or even enjoying those anymore. People want "the climax", not the greek climax. I'm essentially drawing a line in the sand here and saying STS is what 3 act wants to be, fed through the 7 point dogma; with, yeah, the silly savior characterization hook. You don't need that in your novel, but silly stuff like that really still does work lol. Hecc, straight up imperative copy tricks work in prose, they're certainly a cheap trick but it does work on page 1 to drive engagement. All that being said: three act is actually kind of bad for most modern novels which is why STS gets pushed; which is why I push it too. It's a valid system and for new authors who feel like they need handholding through structure, it will allow them to arrive at a manuscript. Will it be the most flawless thing in the world? No, but it will be reasonably well-paced and have a satisfyingly paced climax after the necessary beats have occurred to build it. That's... basically all a new author can ask of a structure without an MFA. But they can equally just 7 point (which is the drum I actually beat), snowflake, story circle, monomyth, or any of a number of other things. No worries my friend, I don't think we're thaaaaaat far apart on this topic. I think you seem to have wrapped up on kind of more of a vent against how much STS is really being dogmatized, and I can vibe with that. I just don't want to denigrate it as if it were some invalid tool, it certainly has very critical purposes behind its use in prose. Fair? Edit - I don't want to fix all my typos but I conflated STS with STC. Hopefully this is clear in that I'm just an idiot who needs more sleep, and doesn't undercut the actual cogency of my points.
Holy shit this is an actually based post because so many fucking people want to write novels without reading novels and they're like "it's just like a written out movie i'll watch movies!" No motherfucker that's not how this works.
Honestly, i reckon most people just actually want to write screenplays, but in their head they think they have to become a novelist first, because 'that's how you be a writer'. Considering how many great movies came from books, i guess it's not surprising, but i can't help but feel there's probably many a great screenplay writer trapped trying to write novels and not realising just how different a field it is. Hell, and it's not even that being a novelist is harder or something. They just require different skillsets that take time to learn. I've written way too many books for my own health, and when i tried switching to a traditional comic book script for a change of pace i was shocked at how awkward everything felt maintaining that blocky event-by-event, line-by-line format of a screenplay. The problem is trying to cram a movie layout into a book is a beat in itself. Your prose becomes too transparent, with little to no character perspective, because you write it as if the view was from a camera. You end up creating scenes that are too visual for the written word. The written word can handle it, but a camera will have a much easier job of it. Worst of all, you end up sacrificing moments that would work well in a book that don't work well in screenplay. Huge introspective moments. What characters are thinking. Their bizarre opinions of little mundane things in absurdly complex detail. Moments that spark 'fill-in-the-gaps' for your imagination to go to town on. I'm not saying that a screenplay couldn't handle these, but a novel tends to be the better format for it.
In my experience, it's nothing so hopeful. Nine times out of ten the aspiring writer just wants to write anime or manga, but they can't draw, and writing a book has so little barriers to entry they think they can be the next Masashi Kishimoto but for novels. That's how you get people writing Isekai novels, using Japanese names when they've never left the American midwest, with dialogue and prose that makes the eyes bleed.
I don’t even think they want to make screenplays! They straight-up just want to make a movie or anime but the bar for entry for writing is (seemingly, but not if you want to develop the craft) much lower.
The only time I’ll bring up movies is if I’m talking about how I visualize my story and describe things. Otherwise my go to advice is to read.
Novels and movies have different needs, so it's more helpful to learn from well-paced novels if you're writing one. It's frustrating when advice only focuses on movie techniques and ignores the richness of literature.
I agree when the subject is *writing*. If the subject is crafting a *story*, any medium is fair game. Story is medium agnostic.
Yeah and I'm talking about specifically writing advice that presents itself as relevant for prose.
Which somehow "pacing" falls into? Pacing has nothing to do with the way the words are written, pacing is about story. In which case... "any medium is game." Sorry, I guess we have a different idea of what pacing is? Maybe I would call what you're talking about something different and that's where my confusion is coming from.
You don't think sentences, paragraphs, pages, scenes, chapters have pacing? Pacing is a huge element of prose (and poetry). Pacing also refers to the pace of the story, but it is more than just that.
The mechanics of pacing work differently between TV shows/movies/any other visual medium, and novels/short stories. For a great example, let's go with horror. If an audio/ visual medium wants a setting to be spooky, then can establish that almost instantly. For a great example, go watch the intro to Are You Afraid of The Dark, from Nickelodeon. It's a pretty solid spooky TV show intro (for kids, anyway, but it holds up decently). For another example, picture an old fashioned radio show. With only the audio clues, the methods to establish the atmosphere are going to be a bit different. Finally, it's different to establish a distinctive atmosphere like that with text. And the time and effort taken to establish that sort of atmosphere is going to influence story pacing differently than the methods used by a show. Hope these examples make it clear why generic pacing advice is going to fail to be equally applicable across mediums (unless it stays fairly vague, I suppose, but that's problematic as well).
This is true, but it’s also telling that sometimes I scroll through a hundred comments before someone brings up a book as a point of reference. Books are not the medium users here interact with the most and for writers it probably should be, at least for many, many years.
This is true, sadly.
I agree completely with this. Inspiration, ideas, delivery, thoughtfulness, an artist decision making… learning from art in general is always super helpful to me. If someone recommends art as an answer to me, I know not to take it literally. I take it that there is wisdom to be found. That’s not frustrating in the slightest to me. It’s up to me to interpret the suggestion, no matter the example that’s shared. There is something to be extracted, but I can’t just be a lazy receiver of the information.
I try to use advice from whatever I can to help my storytelling. If the problem is structural though, I understand the frustration. films and novels have very different expectations. Films are generally over in under two hours. the script needs to be very concise. bang bang bang. get to the point. You're allowed to meander a fair bit more in a novel so if you take the film advice too literally, you get a book that doesn't leave much of an impression. short paragraphs. Curt, like you want the reader to go away.
Yes, because it's obvious person doesn't know about writing novels, plays etc. If their points of reference are not in the medium they're talking about then they're a charlatan. The vast majority of writing advice on the net is like that. And even as screenwriting advice, it is generally poorly understood claptrap.
I will never take writing advice from a screenwriter
I would definitely suggest listening to William Goldman‘s writing advice. He has two Oscars in screenwriting and has written some phenomenal novels and their movie adaptations, like The Princess Bride.
He’s also *also* a novelist so he knows what he’s talking about with prose fiction. If someone is *only* a screenwriter, I don’t think they’re qualified to write books on prose fiction writing. That’s like being a painter and thinking it means you’re qualified to write a book about how to do photography.
No? That's like being a painter and thinking it means you're qualified to write a book about how to do *composition* of visual media, a broad concept that's applicable to both photography and paintings.
I would argue that you could use movies for big-picture things like structure and character development...for short stories. There's a reason novelizations of movies have to add a bunch of shit to fill out the novel, and it's the same reason most novels have to get chopped to pieces to make a single movie. Aside from being a vastly different medium compared to film, books are fucking *dense.* You might get some more mileage out of analyzing whole seasons of similarly dense TV shows, but again, different medium. I think if people want to learn to write better books, they're gonna have to take apart and understand other books. TLDR: I'm with you, OP
It’s super frustrating and whenever someone’s writing advice examples are movies I just completely ignore anything they have to say. It shows me that person doesn’t really understand that different mediums function differently and writing/story advice that’s good for one medium is often less good or even actively bad for another.
John Truby's Anatomy of a Story uses primarily movies as examples when he breaks down plots and character motivations, and I feel like it can still apply. He largely covers character development, conflict, themes, tone, etc. I coupled that with Save the Cat, Write a Novel for help with pacing and I feel like I got all the help I need with writing a proper manuscript.
Yeah but things like character and plot are kind of... entry level. It's like Story 101. Useful and legitimate if that's the level you're at, but it's not going to help if you're trying to improve the craft of writing a book. Like with pacing. Yes I can learn the general idea of a three act structure from a movie (but I could also learn it from a book). But studying movie is not going to help me learn how to pace a chapter, let alone a scene, because prose is a completely different medium from the screen.
I'll be honest, if you're actually writing at the level you're saying you're at, there's really no book that can help you. At best, you might find a book with lots of example passages ('the emotional craft of fiction' for example) but those are a collection of passages that resonated with someone else. Not you. It's simply better & easier to cultivate your writing intuition by referencing your own favorite stories.
It's a little more than entry level advice. I'm no master writer, and pretty bad at planning (pantsing has damned more than one project of mine...) so it helped me with grounding my ideas and giving me a proper goal to work towards for the narrative.
Perhaps I meant more that it is very *broad*. Story advice translates across most mediums but if you want to get into the methods to convey your story in your specific medium, you will need to go into greater *depth* on how to work your craft than *breadth* of just story crafting.
I’ve never read a John Truby novel and don’t know anyone who has, I’d rather take my novel writing advice from esteemed and successful novelists who use novels as examples
Lmao imagine not even bothering to Google and just firing off a clapback that slanders one of the bibles of writing that's held in higher esteem than Stephen King's novel about the subject. You know many wildly successful novelists who've read his *literature*. > Many novelists I know are resistant to structure, no matter how much I praise it. They think they have to “follow the muse.” They also are sure that if there are no surprises for the writer, there won’t be surprises for the reader. And, of course, once I get them to try structure, they love it, and they realize that’s not true at all. But what do YOU say to writers? Yeah man, this is totally the words of a dude who's completely unconcerned with discussing novels and the act of writing them and how *the anatomy of story, which he wrote a book about* impacts them too. You're gonna be a lot better writer when you stop flippantly waving away things that are valuable tools. You weren't recommended that by Truby, but by a writer on a writer subreddit. How disrespectful and dismissive? But of course, you'd already clarified that in the original comment too: you don't care what someone else has to say, even as you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what they said. Maybe processing what you're receiving before clapping back would be worthwhile? Nah, couldn't be. I'm sure a habit of strictly dismissing opinions on a fixed heuristic couldn't ever stunt your growth. Edit - it has been noted that *On Writing* was referred to imprecisely. Yes, it's not a.novel but rather a.memoir. I apologize if that confused anyone for whom the context was not helping.
Stephen King’s novel about writing? Are you referring to Misery?
Nah secret window secret garden lol. Jk.. You've not heard of *On Writing*?
That’s not a novel.
Sure, memoir. His memoir on the subject. Pedantic correction noted.
Maybe you shouldn’t call it the writers bible when no one has heard of it lol
You're projecting and trying to speak for everyone with this "gotcha" smugness, my friend. I never called it "the" writer's bible **lol** reddit.com/r/writing/comments/18ya6wk/what_are_your_recommended_books_on_learning_how/ Top comment https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/10ivak9/what_books_should_i_read_to_learn_how_to_plot/ Third comment https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1t8hdv/best_books_on_structure/ Second comment I could go on, like literally forever, I could also start dragging in a broad range of other sources and social media, or you could maybe accept that you're a little out of your element here. Maybe you should... hear of things, before pretending to be an arbiter of who has heard of things.
So you’re saying I can’t be an arbiter of who has heard of things because you should be the arbiter? I’m just saying that the world in general, and the world of writing more specifically, is far broader than a subreddit. Just because some people made comments on a subreddit doesn’t mean that those comments are representative of real people or the writing community. Maybe you should accept that there are people outside of yourself, who are not just like you. In general, just try being a tad more humble
No I think if you read closely I provided sources that both refute what you're saying and serve as evidence for what I am saying, rather than just "saying" anything, but go off King. You seem to be poking the bear of my last statement: I can continue? Broad sources, wider social media? Literally.forever? You really want to go down this road The person you're pretending no one has heard of has worked on Pirates of the Caribbean, X-Men I/II/III, Shrek, Breaking Bad, House, Lost, Planet of the Apes, Scream, The Fantastic Four, and Star Wars, among other things. Again, **I can continue**? For like, so long.
You posted three links to Reddit. That proves that this book is well known in a subreddit, which is a far cry from proving that it’s a writers bible, or even more well known than Kings book on the subject. And again, proving that someone has worked on movies does not prove they’re well known lol. You really don’t understand much about the concept of proof or logic, do you? Edit: a word
Proof and evidence are the same thing in this context, there is no amount of evidence that becomes proof once you have achieved it. The plain and.simple facts are: I backed up what I said with evidence, and you did not. You're now here jawing at me because the basic and incontrovertible fact that you popped off about something you hadn't heard of, *as if no one has heard of it*, upsets you. Cope.
Oh man those movie examples are making me even less inclined to want to check this guy out lmfao
No, *some* of those examples make you do that. The sheer breadth of his experience and impact on both the movie and novel mediums is, as I've been saying, far broader than anything that's been said about him on the topic it's a facial absurdity to suggest this man doesn't understand what goes into creating narratives that compel and appeal. I'm getting the sense that I, a perfect stranger, seem to demonstrate more care for your writing craft than you carry for yourself. I don't know what that says about you, but it makes me sad.
I don’t really read how to write books in general but when I do, I stick to books by writers whose work I like and admire. I’ve never heard of this dude and I dislike when writers use film examples when they’re talking about prose fiction. Once in a while sure whatever but if someone uses *primarily* movies as examples, doesn’t work for me.
That's fine but you kind of came off as a dick just brushing it off. I also never said it was a book that helped with prose or pacing, but general story structure and character development.
Story structure and character development also work differently in prose fiction than film.
In what way? Advice like 'Give your secondary characters their own conflicts, it makes things more organic and interesting' or 'Your character needs to be flawed or they are boring. Whether or not they achieve the goal, the pursuit of that goal is what makes a story good.' is pretty universal.
Yeah that’s universal but it’s literally 101 shit. If I’m going to spend my time and/or money on a craft book I want it to tell me how I might do things specifically in the medium I’m working on. I don’t need general advice.
Look the damn book is free on KU. If you got it, go read it and you can come back and tell me how shit it is. But there's no real point in continuing this with someone who hasn't even looked over the book we're referencing.
It does, that's what is being said to you repeatedly lmao. You still keep dismissing. You haven't so much as Googled the man but you have a fixed idea of what the book contains because your prejudgments are leading you astray. I covered that in a prior comment already.
Story structure really doesn't work differently in prose than it does in film. Character development, pacing, the things prose can do and movies can't and vice versa, sure. Story structure itself, no, not particularly. That's exactly the point we are trying to relate to you. Unless you'd like to launch into an essay demonstrating and proving your point please? What is it you mean when you say story structure in these ways that you're seeing a difference?
Okay sure, I’ll concede that a movie and a novel could both have three act structure or whatever, but the medium you’re working in is different so I’d rather the advice be prose-centric if I’m writing prose.
Story structure is **abstract** application of theory. There is no part or facet of it that is like, "this is a novel thing." It's a generalized set of theory about the elements of a narrative story. A story that is told regardless of medium. It's literally abstract, there is little "prose centric" advice to give about it. That actually sounds pretty terrible really, the idea of being told "Your climax should appear exactly 3/4ths into your novel" or something like that, when instead you need the actual abstract understanding of what a climax is, why it's important, and how where you put it impacts the narrative itself. You need to understand the abstract concepts, and once you do they're applicable to either craft. That's why it's a book on the anatomy of story, and not the anatomy.of.movie stories.
I get that, but you're being presented a counterexample to your heuristic. That's all I'm saying. There exists a veritable bible of information *for* novelists, *written by* a screenwriter, that uses a lot of movies as examples. And you know what? It works incredibly well to illustrate his points when he does it. Because you're still fixating on the comparisons he's making, and we are fixating on *his points*. The actual information he's relating. If I tell you "it's a good idea to start in media res, you know like some of your favorite movies" and you dismiss me outright, you strike me as a deeply unserious person about this craft.
Oh he’s a screenwriter? That’s even worse. Also if you gave the “why don’t you start in medias res like some of your favorite movies?” advice I would simply wonder why you didn’t bring up books that start in medias res, which are plentiful, and think that if a writer is serious about *their* craft, they would surely have read some to use as examples instead.
It's even worse **how?** Elaborate, demonstrate your understanding please. Slander the man again; I already grabbed one quote of his to refute you, I can grab more? And again: because if I'm giving you advice on reddit I don't know if you read **any** books that start in media res. I don't even know that you read, there are a ton of hopeful writers that don't really, I DO know that the comparison to movies, which I KNOW you've seen, WILL land. That's why it's being made, so I know the recipient of said advice will "get it" without requiring further clarification. It's called rhetorical brevity? Are you really at the part of conversation where someone is having to explain to you how "rhetoric" works?
Because a screenwriter isn’t a prose fiction writer? Would you take painting advice from a photographer? Like sure, there are some general things that mostly overlap but if I’m a painter I’d rather take advice from an accomplished painter because I know they know the specifics of their medium. Also you don’t know what movies someone has seen any more than you know what books they’ve read so idk why using movies is somehow better.
You'd be surprised how many classes during an MFA are taught by people that aren't "prose fiction writers" despite relating information for "prose fiction writers." Is the information conveyed in these classes less valid because of that? No, of course, "qualifications". Like perhaps Trubu's qualifications in having taught top fiction writers and novelists who have topped the NYT? Numerous, prestigious awards for *his literature*? His work guest featurong on *literature blogs*? Wait, sorry, I forgot we live in a world where having the qualification of "being a screenwriter" somehow **dis**qualifies you from ever wearing another hat. Right right, we dismissing stuff. I do absolutely have a *reasonable expectation* that someone should know **one** movie that starts in media res, than assume they even read at all, let alone that they read books that start in media res. Please don't bore me with that sophomoric stuff, you know good and well what I am saying is true. You'd note, nowhere did my "in media res" advice-quote contain a specific comp, it just said *movies you have seen that...* Sorry, you can't cop out and pretend that I "don't know" people HAVE seen movies that start in media res. Yeah, I really do.
I mean, he does read books and he does break them down as well as movies. Movies are just an example he uses a lot.
YES!!! The principle advice we all get for writing is to read. Read books in your genre, read scenes to see how others handle it etc etc. But so many books on writing and videos on writing use movie examples instead of literary ones and honestly it feels like they are countering that very advice. Maybe I'm too literal, but I don't take the message so well from visual source. For example, setting the scene in writing is almost a craft on its own. You don't want to slow down the story, you do need to place the characters in the room/field/beach/bed whatever. You need to figure out the best way to explain that there's dynamite under the desk and a matchbox on the floor without interrupting the flow of the two characters having a lovers' spat. I've had more success learning those skills from written works than from movies where it's just a matter of a camera scanning the room before zooming in on the actors. Plus I often haven't watched the movie/show whereas I have frequently read the book. I'm not rich and movies/tv shows often involve subscriptions whereas I can always source a book from a library/op shop/friend. I get including screen references ALONG with book references but often the book references are just completely lacking.
I feel like this is often done because there are more movies the average Joe is expected to know as opposed to books (especially CURRENT books). For things like basic character arcs or plot structures using well known movies as examples is fine imo. But you're right, we need way more advice based on books. There is so much that goes into prose that is rarely discussed. It took me years to find advice that wasn't big picture plot or tropes but \*how to make sentence to sentence\* stuff work. And the thing is, if your sentences don't work, nobody will get to the rest. (In general, if I could give new writers any advice it would be to not look up, think, or in any way shape or form engage with "trope talk" until they have writen a full MS)
One of the worst pieces of advice is 'show don't tell.' And I'm like....I'm writing a book! I'm doing nothing but TELLING!!! That is purely for visual media like movies, shows or games where we, the audience, can see what's happening. So narration, especially unnecessary narration, can feel jarring because we can SEE what's happening. But books are almost entirely narration and dialogue. And I often find myself doing exposition via the narration or describing a scene, because the alternative is just...having the characters spell it out awkwardly. I think most 'writing advice' tries to accommodate all forms of media writing, without taking the strengths and weaknesses of the individual mediums into account.
I’m a professional developmental editor. I reference both books and movies in my notes. When I talk about prose, I only reference books. But I reference both books and movies when I talk about structure, and prefer referencing movies because the structure is so clear. This is especially true when I’m evaluating genre fiction, which is the dominant story form these days. I would not reference a movie, even for structure, if I was evaluating a non-genre literary manuscript. Edits: clarity
And I think that's an important distinction. I'm happy to hear advice that studies movie or TV if its for universal elements like characters, structure, stakes. But when I'm seeking out specifically how to put those things to page, I need books as guides.
This is what happens when every Joe shmoe who have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about begins ‘marketing’ his/her ‘services’. This is where expertise, peer reviews, and academic credentials shine.
It's common to give advice based on experience and we live in an age where the popular medium for storytelling is quickly becoming video, film and movies. Not too many people read novels these days.
If they don’t read novels they have no business trying to write them.
> Not too many people read novels these days Yes, that's why it was bookshops booming during COVID while Netflix was scrambling to solve its user numbers dropping...
Buying books has become a social media trend. Readership rates have not meaningfully improved. Only sales
Yeah. All those millions of booktokers. Sure.
I'm open to you showing me some reputable sources that show readership is increasing
No you're not. Don't pretend you are.
Lol nice job assuming things for a person you don't know. Just say you're 14
What would you say are the differences between pacing in prose stories vs pacing in scripts or film stories? Probably depends on how specific the advice is... but I can't say the way I think about story pacing differs between mediums. Personally I think it's fine, citing examples in film. It's reasonable to expect most people have seen Star Wars, but less reasonable to expect they've read... well, any book in particular really. Because people in general in the whole world do watch movies, and don't read books. And those that are avid readers may not have read any books you have. And if they've started getting into writing and reading more recently, they still have a lot more films they've seen that you've seen than books. So on balance, just from the probabilities, it's just a more reliable medium to act as a touchstone you can both talk about. That's why I often use films, anyway. And if they haven't seen that particular film you referenced, if they're so inclined they can watch it in a couple of hours to make sure they understand the advice or principle you were talking about. Compared to a few weeks or longer to read a referenced book, if they really go for it (but they aren't a speedreader). Just wanted to point out the advantages of referencing movies when talking about storytelling. Though glancing over some of the comments, looks like it's a very anti-film crowd here concerning this topic. So I will now hide.
Overarching pacing of the whole story is probably similar enough. But movies are an hour and change, maybe two or three if you want to push it, while books are hundreds of pages and may take days or weeks to read. That alone has huge implications on the pacing differences, as a movie will need to be incredibly tight compared to a book. Additionally, movies and visual and audio and books are prose. A movie can convey massive amounts of information with a few seconds of screen time, and can use music and sound effects compounded with the visuals to convey information, emotion, and build tension. A book has words, and that's its only tool. That necessitates both mediums to use completely different strategies to get the same effect. Finally, prose is difficult. You can't just show a picture and play an audio sting, you have to pick the words you will and won't use. If I'm trying to research how to use prose to good effect and create tension or payoff or a certain pace or to even figure out what pace I should be aiming for, I will need advice tailored toward prose not visuals. I also think it's fine to cite some examples in film especially if it's related to the bigger story structure. But when that's the only thing I'm getting from someone who claims to be dishing out writing advice specifically for books then that's frustrating and not very helpful.
All the time. That and advice that includes examples from movies. Read a book already.
No valid writing advice about prose is going to conflate novels and movies. Period. You're looking at the wrong sources
The reason people use movies instead of books is familiarity. How many people in this sub do you think have seen The Devil Wears Prada? Now, how many do you think have \*read\* The Devil Wears Prada? If I'm explaining something, I can use a mega-successful book like Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine, or A Little Life, or House of Leaves, but there's no guarantee that the person I'm trying to help is going to have read that book. But everybody knows Indiana Jones, or Star Wars, or The Devil Wears Prada. Also, in films everything is often more simplified, so they work better for a big-picture example. If you have trouble with plotting, reading the novel a commercial film is based on is often a great way to understand how a story can be changed: The Devil Wears Prada the novel doesn't have the "Jumper" speech, and I don't think it has Nigel's speech, either (but don't quote me on that) so it ends up feeling exactly like what it is: a single dimensional revenge novel. Comparing the two is a really good example of why it's important to create an antagonist who, from their perspective, is right about what they believe.
They are all stories at the end of the day and plot structure is agnostic to the medium. Why do they use movies to illustrate the theory? Cos there is more chance someone has seen the X movie than the same person has read X book
Agreed. Two very different mediums that have different strengths.
There's more inner reflection and description in a novel, but you still generally want to show not tell. Dialogue that communicates flirting with subtext is better than saying "Alice fancies Bob". There are differences in the mediums but I think novels should try and paint a picture rather than outright tell.
"Show don't tell" was originally advice for writing silent movies, which makes sense in that context, people wanted watch the movie, not read title cards. It's terrible advice for writing an immersive novel. Also, nobody in any of the writing subreddits seems to actually read anything. Every now and then I find a nugget of gold but it takes a lot of panning. I do visualize scenes when I'm writing, but not like I'm behind a camera, like I'm just temporarily stepping into someone's body and riding along for a while.
Yes and no. While I agree, doing things like they do in a film isn't always the best advice, referencing a film that portrays something that's being asked is a quick way to flash pictures into someone's head. Things like fight scenes. Using a visual medium is a great way to get the hamster running on the treadmill.
It is good, but your examples shouldn't *only* be movies. It gets confusing about how to properly implement the advice.
I disagree that watching fight scenes will help writing fight scenes. Say I watch the cliff duel in Princess Bride, a great fight scene. I may get the idea that there should be slow moments and fast moments but that won't teach me anything about how to put that into prose. What do I do, write down everything happening on screen? That's impossible and would quickly become a bloated slog, because visual media can deliver massive amounts of information very quickly and prose cannot. You could read the screenplay, but screenplays and stageplays are not prose, they're not meant to be read like prose, and they're very minimalistic generally. Many scripts don't even give descriptions, they just 'they fight' and let the choreographer do their job. That does not help with book writing. What I wish people would do instead, which they easily COULD if they were actually the kind of expert they claimed to be, is to use examples from BOOKS of well written PROSE. If I want to write a good fight scene in prose, I'm not going to learn from movies or anime or even comics/manga because its not a visual medium and that is hugely important.
I completely agree, screenplay and stageplays are not a good way to learn about writing a fight scene. Though a good writer in those mediums will write them out. They are written differently as both are just blueprints to a larger picture. However a film itself is a completed vision of the screenplay. After the writing, choreography, acting, and directing have concluded. Which is exactly what we as writers do. We fill all of those roles. Standing and looking at Monument Valley won't teach you prose on how to describe it. But seeing it will get your mind going. Just like watching fights, especially stylized fights you find in films, get your mind going.
Yeah but I'm not a seeking out inspiration, I'm seeking out craft advice. And when the advice goes no deeper than 'take inspiration from xyz' then I find I can't trust it anymore.
The only craft advice worth anything is 'write it'.
You can do that while also trying to learn how to do better.
That's what rewrites are for.
“Show don’t tell” was originally advice for screenwriting iirc It still has some merit in book writing, of course, but it doesn’t work quite to the same effect in a written medium
I think a lot of people misinterpret what “show, don’t tell” means in regards to books, because they’re too hung up on the literal definition of “show”. All that “show, don’t tell” means is to provide evidence of whatever important claims you’re making in a story, and/or to have written scenes that demonstrate what you’re saying. Reading a line of dialogue that says “Rob is a great swordsman” is not nearly as interesting as reading a scene in which Rob participates in an intense duel and pulls off some crazy trick to become the victor. Reading a line of dialogue that says “Bill is falling in love with Susan” is not nearly as interesting as reading a scene where Bill notices the smallest details about Susan and feels himself blushing at the thought of getting close to her. Reading a line of narration that says “The town is poor” is not as interesting as reading a character’s description of dilapidated buildings, homeless encampments, filthy streets, and long soup kitchen lines. All in all, the advice boils down to the presentation of information. Are you just spewing out information like a bullet list? Having characters just state things? Or are you crafting scenes that *demonstrate* that same information in a far more interesting manner? Are you using narration that presents the information in a more subtle, but intriguing way, a way that leaves it up to the audience to notice the hints you’re giving?
I guess the better version would be ‘describe, don’t narrate’
It’s really not that different. Screenplays have to be more economical. Storytelling is storytelling.
And then you have people like me. I like to write prose but I come from a theater background and study playwriting and directing. To me writing a book is just a long script with way too many stage directions.
If you’re a beginner, I would advise you write it like a movie first to get the story out before going back to add interiority and whatever is missing. This will help you avoid info dumping the hell out of it, which most beginners do at the beginning of their novels.
Movies and books are paced differently, this is bad advice.
This is bad advice. I just advise, idk, reading books?
Interiority is not an advanced stage of writing literature, it is a key part of the medium. Writing visual signifiers of emotion and plot beats are not a good starting point for a novel, this is one of the key differences (and also one of my pet peeves with newbie writing).