Adventures in Storytelling 6

Entry 6, gathering brushwood.

There was a time in my life when I didn’t write short stories. And by that, I mean that I had this youthful, naïve belief that I was a “novelist” and would never write a short story. It was really just an excuse for the simple fact that I didn’t know how to write one.

In school we read tons of short stories—I even liked some of them—although none of them covered genres I read for pleasure. As a reader I’ve always gravitated towards fantasy. I like stories with swords and sorcery, something with an evil to overcome, heroes I can click with, and an adventure I can get lost in. 

Needless to say, the “great American short story” was not something I read unless a class made me. I don’t like Virgina Woolfe, I loathe Mark Twain, I don’t have the life experiences of Ernest Hemmingway or Edgar Allen Poe.

Short stories always felt like opaque little pieces of highbrow literature. High art, rich in irony, drama, and meaning, with messages or morals I usually disagreed with or a muddy, bleak modernist outlook I definitely disagreed with. They were the kinds of work I was expected to read and write essays about. All of them far from the kitschy, heartfelt fantasy I love.

When I finished high school and was able to distance myself from the drudgery of school work and look at short stories as a piece of fiction and not as an assignment, I bent a little. I discovered H.P. Lovecraft, Robert Howard, gained a deeper appreciation for Edgar Allen Poe, read Hemmingway and fell in love with him.

I still don’t like Virginia Woolfe, and I’ll never enjoy Mark Twain. But I found Flanery O’Connor and the short works of Leo Tolstoy. While F. Scott FitzGerald has become one of my favorite authors.  

But before any of that, I over-corrected and spent the first few years out if high school reading nothing but absolute junk food. I flew through every shallow, vapid, horrendous teen-fic fantasy I could get my young adult hands on.

I knew I was reading dreck, and yet I still imbibed. I was happy to drink up any piece of romance-laden, hand-wringing melodrama. I could slurp them up within a couple of days; the characters, setting, and story promptly forgotten as soon as I picked up the next terrible piece of mass produced, corporate trash.

And so my stubborn, arrogant “I’m a novelist” attitude metastasized. I wanted to be like these YA authors, you know, but better.   

But one day, I woke up and couldn’t stand the idea of picking up another novel.

Every book I’d read from high school until about 2015 was exactly the same. A plucky heroine who isn’t like other girls meets about 2.5 boys who needlessly squabble over her while the overtly masculine villain schemes and makes sexist comments until the heroine discovers her inner warrior and defeats the poorly contrived symbol of the patriarchy.

After that I found myself only reading non-fiction. Medieval history, specifically.

As I exhausted my local library’s poorly stocked history section, I turned to medieval literature. I read Dante’s Divine Comedy and Boccacio’s Decameron, various Arthurian tales, poems, etc.

I fell in love with Dante. His entry into my life spurred me into a frenzied trajectory that would alter the way I viewed the world. I’ll have more to say about my patron, later. Just know that it was through his work and my desire to understand it that lead me to reading Aristotle, Virgil, Plato, Homer, Plutarch, Machiavelli, Gottfried, Thomas Aquanis, Cretien de Toyes—

About the time the COVID lockdowns began, I started to really miss fiction. I wanted to escape, I wanted to be anywhere but in America circa 2020.

I was mentally exhausted by the drama going on in my real life, I was working full time, trying to write on the weekends. I watched as my future plans evaporated under the corrupting heat of COVID. I couldn’t focus on history the way I had been.

I tried to hop back into fiction; picking up some paperbacks from my local used book store.

I couldn’t read them. I didn’t have the patience or, rather, the tolerance for modern fiction anymore. I’d been feasting at the table of the Greats for so long, a mass market paperback seemed like thin gruel.

I mentioned in the last entry that COVID was a turning point for me. I had committed years of my life working on a novel that was too long to be published by an unknown author. I couldn’t abandon it; I won’t abandon it. But it was clear that I needed a different strategy.

As my life took a dark turn, I began to pull apart the things that bothered me about modern fiction—the pandering, the limp prose, the lame moralizing, the overwrought, needlessly complicated plots masquerading as “subversion”, the tiresome deconstructed heroes.

I knew I wasn’t the only one getting sick of the same-old-same-old, I just needed to find an in. An “in,” by the way, that I’m still searching for.  

Regardless of my chances of success I knew I could either quit entirely or make myself a better writer.

Dante loomed large in the back of my thoughts during this time, pushing me onward. He demanded excellence of himself, trusted that he possessed the tools to reach the absolute heights of his craft. Could I do no less?

What I began to understand was that I needed to learn how to write short.

Looking back, it felt like a monumental task.

The first thing I needed to do was relearn to enjoy fiction.

The Lord of the Rings has eluded me my entire life. This fact is highly embarrassing to me, but there is it. I could never make it past Tom Bombadil. I just couldn’t fall in love with the books like it seemed everyone else could. I knew tons about the books and about Tolkien but the prose never sang to me the way it seemed to sing to others.

I was aware of their Anglo-Saxon/Germanic heritage. I knew that Tolkien wrote the Hobbit specifically to be read aloud to children. I was also highly familiar with Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Germanic storytelling and poetry because every medievalist, amateur or not, eventually realizes that they have to read Beowulf and the Norse Sagas in order better understand the cultural context of the history they’re studying.

These people did not write things down. Beowulf isn’t meant to be read; it’s meant to be heard.

I made the logical conclusion that I should listen to the Lord of the Rings. I bought an Audible subscription and started to relearn how to enjoy fiction.

It worked. Not only did I finally fall under the spell of LoTR, I rekindled a passion for fiction.

I began to listen to books at work, before bed, while I brushed my teeth, while I did the dishes, while I went for a walk. I even listened and enjoyed books I’d written off as unreadable while in high school.

Never in my life had I thought I would stay up until 2am listening to Pride and Prejudice. But I did that. More so, a book I once disliked became a book I enjoyed.

While I listened to the more time-intensive works, I started reading shorter ones. I was already a fan of H.P. Lovecraft, so I went looking for others like him.

I found myself getting really into horror, I picked up a lot of classic ghost stories. I learned about Weird Tales and met Robert Howard. I fell in love with his Conan the Cimmerian.

It was Howard that really woke me up to the possibilities of short fiction.

Conan is a fantasy hero; he gets by with a canny mix of cleverness and brute strength. He fights monsters, he steals treasure, he saves maidens, he even becomes a king.

All of Conan’s stories are self-contained and short (usually under 50,000). You can read Tower of the Elephant, or the Jewels of Gwahlur, skip Red Nail (you shouldn’t), and still get to know Conan and lose yourself in the Hyperborean Age.

Once I worked my way through every completed Conan tale, I knew that fire was kindled again. My stubborn unwillingness to learn was broken down, the debris removed as brushwood for the firepit.

While I was still adventuring with Conan, I took a chance and penned an old-school sci-fi short story and submitted it to Cirsova Magazine. It was my first, published in Spring 2023. I’m going to break that one open in the next entry.

For now, let me leave you with what writing this entry has taught me. I refuse to give up. Writing has the flavor of a Vocation. I am called to it.

Even if the fire goes out, as it did with me especially during that depression spiral of 2020-2022, you can start another fire, relearn, reframe.

Humble yourself and commit. Gather brushwood to burn, you’ll be surprised at what happens when you pledge yourself to becoming a better writer. It takes just one spark to set everything ablaze.  

Above: Saint Paul bitten by a viper in Malta. Ceiling of the Gallery of Geographical Maps in Vatican City.

Writer’s Review: Buffy and the Art of Story

When I purchased Buffy and the Art of Story I had a very different notion of what I was ordering verses what I got. It was an impulse buy, I admit. I love Buffy—okay, I love the first three season of Buffy with some select episodes from the other four. The book promises that I’ll be “writing better fiction by watching Buffy.”  

I expected the book to go through the entirety of the Buffy series, break down the character development, plot, motifs, symbolism, etc., all of this towards the goal of enhancing my writing abilities. It wasn’t until the book was in my hands that I realized it said “Season 1.”

When I made my cursory flip-through, I saw that it went through episode by episode. As I began reading, I learned it’s scope was very specific—structure, with some limited commentary of character development and story devices.

The disappointment was my fault. I misunderstood the scope and point of the book. I also got a bit too excited about the gimmick.

Gimmick really is the word here. One of the things that you start seeing with most of the how-to-write books is the reliance on gimmicks.

It makes sense. There are literally thousands of these kinds of books on Amazon alone. If you’re writing one of these books, you have to make yourself stand out.

For example, my own Adventures in Storytelling is, at its core, a how-to-write “book.” It’s gimmick is to share tips, tricks, and advice through the perspective of a personal odyssey.

Buffy and the Art of Story’s gimmick is Joss Whedon’s incredibly successful 1990s horror/comedy/drama television show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Buffy and the Art of Story, Season One by L. M. Lilly

Disclaimer: Per the introduction of Buffy and the Art of Story, the book is a transcript of a podcast by the same name. Because I review how-to-write books and not podcasts, I didn’t listen to it.   

Let’s start with the vampire in the room: this book is extremely niche.

I’ll be the first to admit that I shun fandom. I don’t like the cringy, obsessive, argumentative ways that some fandoms operate (particularly online). So, I’m really not sure if there is much of a modern Buffy fanbase—that is, younger generation fans, not Gen Xers and Millennials like me.

My first taste of Buffy was catching a random re-run some October while I was in high school. I began to borrow the DVDs from my local library, some of which didn’t work properly, so I never ended up finishing the entire series until COVID gave me a chance to sit down and binge.

Although I’m a “new” fan, I’m not really sure how many new fans there are out there. The first episode aired in 1997, I wasn’t even ten! My age bracket is probably the upper limits of someone who would even be familiar (that is, nostalgic) for the cheesy 90s’ and early 00s’.

Buffy and the Art of Story is clearly for established fans of the Vampire Slayer. There are no recaps or synopses at the beginning of each chapter. Lilly simply “dives into the Hellmouth.”

You must already know the basic story and characters of every episode in season 1 in order to get anything out of this book.

The chapters are named by episode, so if you want to skip around and examine specific episodes, you can. Each chapter is arranged the same, starting with some background information about the writers and director; listing the particular story elements the author wants to highlight; a chronological breakdown of the episode catching each one of Lilly’s seven-pointed plot structure; some spoilers and commentary; and finishing up with a list of questions for your writing.  

In the first chapter, Lilly gives us an introduction to her preferred story structure: “Key plot points and turns for your story.”

It’s solid, seven-pointed structure:

  • Opening Conflict, which opens the story and draws the reader in.
  • Story Spark (aka, Inciting Incident), the event that sets off the story at about 10% in.
  • One-Quarter Twist, the first major plot point that “spins the story in a new direction” and typically comes from outside the protagonist.
  • Midpoint, where the protagonist commits to the quest or suffers a major reversal.
  • Three-Quarter Turn, the next major plot point that spins the story in a new direction but usually comes from within the characters. It usually comes in two-thirds through a story.
  • Climax, the “culmination of the main plot.”
  • Falling Action, the end of the story.

As I read the book, I found myself, for the most part, agreeing with Lilly’s use of the structure. However, this book has some serious flaws and it’s for that reason that I cannot recommend it.

I don’t like doing “negative reviews.” The goal of these essays has always been to help other writers find how-to-write books that might expand their horizons. But if that is my stated goal, then I have to be honest. 

Lilly’s seven-pointed structure is a good structure; it’s just not the only one. And it’s especially not the only structure Buffy uses.  

For example, a lot of Buffy’s one-off episodes—the monsters-of-the-week—do not fit neatly into this structure. Some of them use what I would call a “pulp structure.” The episode isn’t really about the characters changing or growing in any profound way, it’s about the characters overcoming obstacles.

This kind of structure is easily seen in any given Conan the Barbarian story. There is a goal and a series of hurdles that the character must overcome in order to achieve said goal. The story is in the lengths a character will go in order to achieve their ends.  

And while Lilly hits the mark for most of the episodes i.e. the two parts 1st and 2nd episodes (Welcome to Hellmouth/the Harvest); episode 7, Angel fits well within her structure; even the one-off I, Robot…You, Jane. She misfires by trying to squeeze every episode into her seven-pointed story structure.

That said, I think the structure is a strong one, it’s should be. It’s the Holy Trinty, the Tripod, better known as the Three Act Structure.

An ocean of ink has been spilled over the vagaries of plot structure and ultimately that’s the thing here. There are better books on plot structure.

But, there are also some problems in her analysis.   

Take her chapter on episode 6, the Pack.

It’s a standalone Xander-centric episode wherein Xander and a gang of obnoxious bullies are possessed by the demonic spirit of a hyena. Here’s a link to a quick summary and analysis if you’re unfamiliar or need a refresher.

The main problem with Lilly’s analysis is that she misplaces story beats because she’s misidentified the active protagonist as Buffy when it’s Xander. This doesn’t mean that Buffy and Willow aren’t active protagonists—they are, but it’s Xander who sets off the story, it’s Xander who commits, and it’s Xander who saves Willow.

Lilly misremembers that Xander is with the Pack when they eat the school mascot and I think this is the critical error in her analysis. This causes her to misplace her midpoint because “from a storytelling perspective [the pack] are not the protagonists.” In a way, she’s right. The four “packmates” aren’t the protagonists, but Xander is. He’s their leader.  

Another issue I have with Lilly’s analysis is episode Eight and I’ll admit that it’s somewhat a nit-pick, she says:

“…in addition to Moloch being this sort of mustache-twirling villain who is just evil for evil’s sake, we also have the people support this kind of demon apparently just for evil’s sake…

…so I know we were told from the beginning that Moloch preys upon the weak of mind. Also he’s the Corruptor, and that he has this way over people. So it’s probably unfair to say they are choosing to follow this demon. But it feels a bit like weak storytelling to me. It is less interesting to have a demon who just has this magic power of making people follow him rather than the followers having some reason. Some deep need the demon is filling, something that makes us understand why they would devote themselves to this demon.”

Buffy and the Art of Story, Pg. 168-169

There are several instances where I think Lilly’s grasp of symbolism and motif is woefully atrophied. And while this episode doesn’t have a great rap, I find it a wealth of almost painfully obvious symbolism.

Moloch is a demon, he preys on the lonely, he’s called the Corruptor, his name is Moloch.

Moloch is traditionally understood to be an ancient Canaanite deity, throughout the Bible the Israelites find themselves falling into idolatrous worship of him. Idolatry is best understood as misplaced love or corrupted love.  

I, Robot…You, Jane is one of those episodes that I feel falls a bit short of the lofty symbolism it’s playing with, in part because the symbolism is clunkily spoon-fed to the audience. Moloch is a symbol of the tension between the characters. Willow’s unrequited love of Xander; Buffy’s crush on Angel; Giles’ utter distrust of technology; Fritz obsession—idolization—of technology.

Lilly’s miss regarding this symbolism was when I truly realized that I couldn’t recommend this book.

Final Thoughts.

Story is more than tight structure, its more than making sure each chapter ends on a hook, its more than twists and turns and reversals.

If Lilly kept strictly to breaking down structure, leaving out any analysis of the characters or plot, it would still be a flawed book, but it would be one with some minor use for novice writers who are also Buffy fans.

As it stands, this book isn’t terrible, it’s just not useful.

Writer’s Review: How to Write a Novel Using the Snowflake Method

If you’re familiar with my Adventures in Storytelling series, you’ll know that I’ve mentioned my preferred method of outlining. I started writing as a hardcore organic or “pantser” type. And while that method worked for me, I’d often find myself quickly losing control of the process and flying off into all sorts of interesting directions. In order to remedy this, I turned to a soft form of outlining I call wish-listing, where I jot down major plot points and connect and collate them as needed.

Naturally, I was intrigued by the premise of the Snowflake Method. The book promises a Goldilocks method, something in between plotter and pantser.

How to Write a Novel Using the Snowflake Method by Randy Ingermanson  

Many how-to-write books have little gimmicks to interest the reader, but I don’t think I’ve ever read a how-to with such a cute one. Mr. Ingermanson writes the book as a book, as in, it has a plot, characters, stakes, conflict, etc.

It’s cute and the charm managed to keep me reading. That said, it’s also short. Any longer than 160 pages and I’m pretty sure I would have gotten tired of it.

The way Mr. Ingermanson relays his information is through the plot and characters of the story.

Goldilocks is our protagonist. She has a dream: to become a best-selling author. The problem is, she doesn’t know where to start when it comes to writing a book. Goldilocks signs up for a series of writer’s workshops, hosted by the Three Bears, the eponymous Papa, Mama, and Baby.

Goldilocks quickly discovers that Papa’s method of plotting is far too rigid; Mama’s organic method is too open; but Baby Bear seems to be onto something with his method, one that splits the difference between his parents.

This method is the Snowflake Method, it is made up of ten steps and its underlining goal appears to be limiting the number of drafts and corrections without dulling the edge of the creative process.

The largest benefit to the rigid outline is its ability to see over the horizon and catch mistakes before they happen. While the biggest benefit to the organic method is the free flow of creative energy that gets words on a page. As someone who struggles with both methods, you can see why I find premise of the Snowflake Method interesting.

To see how it works, I actually took the time to write out a snowflake for a novella I’ve been planning. I won’t be listing any details here, as the snowflake is really designed for the writer, sharing it would give too much away.  

The Method consists of 10 steps:

  1. One sentence summary
  2. One paragraph summary
  3. Write a summary sheet for each character
  4. One page synopsis
  5. Write a character synopsis for each character
  6. Four-page synopsis
  7. Write a character bible
  8. List all the scenes
  9. Write a plan for each scene
  10.  Write your novel

Like most how-to-write guides, Ingermanson’s base is the Three-Act Structure. He also refers to it as the Three-Disaster Structure. His idea is that readers want three things: excitement, decision, and new directions—a disaster. Some might call this a plot point, or a beat. But it’s the incident that forces the character into confrontation with the plot, demanding they answer, and move the story forward.

So, let’s look at these steps.

One Sentence Summary

Fairly self-explanatory. Ingermanson states that it should “give [the reader] a taste of the story in twenty-five words or less.” (pg. 19) I actually call this a “mission statement” and use it as a statement of intent more for myself than anyone else, but I’ve been known to whip it out when a friend or family member asks me what I’m “writing about.” 

It’s a solid idea that I would recommend to the novice and expert alike. You want to be able to tell your friends and family what you’re writing, most importantly you want to be able to tell yourself what you’re writing.

One Paragraph Summary    

Again, another self-explanatory step. Each of Ingermanson’s steps build off the previous the steps, which is very intuitive. For the novice, this semi-solid structure may provide an example of what a writer needs to discern naturally.

The idea of the one paragraph summary is that you take the one sentence summary and expand it into five sentences, paying special attention to characters, setting, the disasters. It should hit all the story beats of each act and include your conclusion. Ingermanson doesn’t want you to bog yourself down with how you get to your conclusion or how characters respond to disaster so much as he wants you to draw the most basic of lines between persons, places, and events.  

Summary Sheet for Characters

For those familiar with my Adventures in Storytelling series, you’ll know that I’ve mentioned a character chart. I typically only make them for major characters and they not absolute, meaning, the character I chart might be completely different in the finished product.

The idea behind the chart is to throw every idea I have for that character down and I then draw lines connecting each piece of personality or backstory to each other. What I like to think I’m doing it making cause-and-effect clear to myself. Why is Character A like this? How did this event effect Character A?

Ingermanson’s character sheet is far from my blasé charts.

While Ingermanson makes it clear that this step isn’t necessary for every character, or that not every step within this step is needed for each character, this is where some of the tedium began to set in for me.

Ingermanson’s right, of course. There’s no need to produce a sheet for every character. As with my charts, it needs to be done for your main characters. You need to know your characters names, their values (“nothing is more important than X…”); their ambition (abstract desire); their goal (achievable); their conflict; their epiphany; a one sentence summary of their story; and a one paragraph summary of their life both in and out of the story.

As I said above, I struggled through this step. I worked out my main characters, wrote down some basic information for my minor characters, and moved on to the next step.

One Page Synopsis  

Unlike the one paragraph summary, the one-page synopsis might be useful for the marketing of a book. Editors and agents are busy people, they need a synopsis to hook them to make sure their time is used wisely.

Ingermanson suggest you take your one paragraph summary and turn each sentence of it into a paragraph.

For me, I found that easier said than done. But I understand Ingermanson’s point. It’s something that probably should be done. That said, I’ve done this only after I’ve finished a work.

I see the point; however, it does take that thin single paragraph and broaden the lines to build a skeleton which can be incarnated in the four-page synopsis.

Character Synopsis     

I’ll be honest, it was about here that I began to think that this method wasn’t really for me. I tried to convince myself that I’m just being averse to hard work, but that’s not being fair to all the hard work I’ve done in writing.

I determined that I would only write a synopsis for my two POV characters. Honestly, my conclusion was that the one paragraph summary I did of my characters in step 3 was all I needed.

Now, this might be because I’ve been brewing this novella for about a year now. It could also be that I don’t intend it to be a full novel. Frankly, this step felt “hand-holdy” if you catch my meaning.

Ingermanson is incredibly clear about how you don’t have to do all the steps of the Snowflake Method, and I appreciate that sentiment because this step isn’t for me. I don’t see its use other than to help you feel like you’re making some kind of progress.

Four Page Synopsis   

I skipped this step. I knew if I forced myself to write a four-page synopsis for my work, it would cause me to resent the Snowflake Method.

But I understand why he suggests it. Ingermanson is taking the rigid outline and hiding it in paragraphs instead of bullet points. He wants the writer to have their story idea locked down so that they know where they start and where they finish.  

Character Bible

Okay, so I was a little harsh on those last two steps. This step is a lot more useful to me. That said, it’s also something I would collapse into the character summaries of step 3.

Ingermanson’s character bible is meant to be the sheet that helps a writer keep track of the nitty-gritty detail of character, i.e., hair and eye color, age, height, DOB, favorite food, the way they take their tea, favorite movie/book, etc…

Not all these details are going to be relevant, although you should always make note of the way certain characters look, especially if they have certain defining features like scars or hair color. A character bible is the place to put that information.   

List all the Scenes

As Ingermanson says, the scene is the basic building block of any story. Each scene ought to play out the three-act structure in miniature, with a conflict and a resolution.

I didn’t do this or step 9. Why? Because I wrote a full page and half outline in step 4. And if I had completed step 6, what purpose would step 8 and 9 serve? I’ve already written the outline.    

In Chapter 8, Goldilocks realizes the crux of the method:

“The Snowflake Method was forcing her to think about things she hadn’t really worked out yet, but she could see that it was filling in the gaps in her story nicely. Every time Baby Bear asked a question, she could easily make up something on the spot to answer it.”

How to write a Novel using the Snowflake Method, Randy Ingermanson Chapter 8, page 69

Final Thoughts

The Snowflake Method is an ordering of the creative process. Its goal is to take the rigid outline and soften it with organic-looking paragraphs; Ingermanson cuts the hard work with fun work, and even gives approximate times you should give yourself to complete a task. He alternates the writer between character development and plot development to keep the writer from going lopsided in any direction.

Ultimately, I believe the Snowflake Method is a training tool. This book is not for people who already know how to write. This is for people who have no idea where to start, what to do, or where to finish. Honestly, I should have figured that out from the beginning. Goldilocks is a complete novice.

This feels like the kind of book a writer can use to get started. But after a while, you should start intuiting some of this process. Writing is an organic endeavor; you should always be getting better. Or as I like to say, where you start isn’t where you finish.

At some point, I think any writer who uses this method will eventually let it fall by the wayside as they develop their own writing tools. This is great for the novice. If you have absolutely no idea where to start, start here.  

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑