Writing a brilliant fanfic story

Oct 18, 2008 by Jackie Speel

This is meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek. Many of the comments can be applied in part to other areas of fiction writing.

As the author of the Grand List of Overused Science Fiction Clichés says, some entries on the list can be used as starting points for ‘stories that work’ – and it is the manner in which the story is developed which defies the issue.

‘Most writers’ have probably produced at least some stories which fall under the following categories – and more drafts (when plot development takes precedence over style) will contain such components, which will be developed, refined or removed as the story progresses.

Just because you find present entries in a particular category boring does not mean that you shouldn’t make the attempt – a dispassionate observer can write as well, if not better, than someone who is enthused about the topic. Likewise, you will be the one who brings about the revival of long-neglected or occasionally visited fields, rather than merely stirring the embers of a dead topic (or producing more than the ‘once every five years’ story that the area can support). It is not necessary for the under-utilised genre to inspire you directly: you will shine merely because of the absence of recent other stories. [Such under-populated areas #can# be explored productively.]

If ‘most stories’ in a group tend to adopt a particular plot device (object being used or pattern of action etc), follow the herd. [Rather than the mirror image – Y coming from place X instead of going there, or the back story as to why the situation arose.]

Just because the story requires much persuasion to be developed does not mean that you have picked a non-runner – it always requires yet another week’s work to make persistence pay.

It is not necessary to replace the ‘scaffolding passages’ written while the story was being developed with the ‘neat descriptive phrase’ that suggests itself: readers do not wish to be deprived of your deathless prose. Likewise the ‘plot possibility passages’ included as the story is being developed can be left in, despite leading nowhere, and also reused elsewhere. Characters and plot developments should be kept firmly under control – you are in charge, however interesting the byways and characters’ wishes seem.

Only ask for positive feedback: your style is perfection itself, your plots are brilliant beyond compare and your understanding of the characters without parallel – there is no reason for anyone to complain or criticise. Those wayward souls offering what they call ‘constructive criticism’ are merely jealous of you, and attempting to mask your brilliance by getting you to ape their maundering meanders. Despite the inane mewlings of such persons, your grammar are proper, and yore spiel cheque all ways chuses thee rite wired. Your interpretations of the characters’ appearance, motivations and back histories are always correct, and you always get the sequence of events in canon correct (the books/videos/DVDs etc have been tampered with). There can be inconsistencies between several parts of a series you have developed without explanation. It is possible to ‘bend’ characters etc in whichever way you choose, even when the series itself states or suggests otherwise.

The fact that those giving so-called constructive criticism are usually developing their styles and creating more complex plots, while you see no such need for your work shows that you are an intrinsically better author than they. Existing writers are in cahoots to keep out new talent that will expose their writings for the pap that it is. That they get published, and their stories get high ratings on websites when you have neither pleasure, merely demonstrates that the fanfic reading populations are unappreciative of your undoubted merits. Editors are ignorant and biased in favour of the status quo rather than accepting exciting and innovative new talent (whatever they say to the contrary). There is no logical reason behind their occasional selection of a ‘new talent’ – and subsequent acceptance of further stories – beyond doing ‘just enough’ to keep interest and new subscribers.

A whole story can be constructed around two characters passing the time of day in general philosophising, and debating why they will stay in the present set-up rather than making use of their undoubted talents – canonical or assigned to them by the author – and achieving their stated ambitions. Long passages of talk, with few indicators of who is speaking or which use all possible variants on [x said] are acceptable. Likewise descriptive text that is longer than the actual chain of events described (a picture explored in five thousand words, even if a ‘missing scene’ or similar).

It is a very good, and thoroughly enjoyed plot device, to have a story end with a variant of ‘Well, dear reader, it was all a dream, a book, TV-program equivalents, a story within a story, or similar means of escape from canon (or plausibility in general).’ There is no need to drop any hints in the text that you are developing – readers should be able to deduce it for themselves, or will be delighted by the revelation. If the story contains or starts with a dream etc is not necessary for the characters to analyse, or be affected by, what their subconscious/choice of reading/viewing matter etc is trying to tell them, whatever the circumstances, even if other authors do so.

Similarly the reader should be able to deduce immediately that you are writing an AU, ‘what if’ or ‘tale with an unexpected twist’ category of story, even if you are saving the truly wonderful variation for the end. Claims of cop-out, plot jumps, and similar merely exhibit the reader’s stupidity – it is not necessary to drop even the lightest hints during the development of the plot. [Shaggy dog stories, and ‘joke plots’ to which the last line is a familiar quote etc are mostly not included in this.]

If having the characters behave in an unexpected uncanonical manner, it is not necessary to have passages showing why or how the character(s) have shifted between canon and your version (in either direction) or give a brief introductory note as to what you are doing. If you wish to ‘bend’ the characters to suit your purposes, do so, even if the story is not in the ‘what if’ category.

The characters you create are not Mary Sue/Mark Sukey variants, even if they bear a superficial resemblance to what you wish (your partner) to be, and spout your views as to what the characters should do/the political or social structure should be. Any ideas suggested will be adopted immediately as totally practical, without discussion, despite often coming from a different socio-cultural and technological environment and being expressed by a non-expert.

Opponents brought into the story are fully rounded characters whom the hero(ine)s find a challenge, rather than being Malign Stupidities whom the proverbial 5 year old (see Evil Overlord lists) could easily find a way of handling, whatever other writers, and readers say otherwise.

Readers complaining about plot holes, even if they only want a single sentence link or explanation added, are just incapable of making the necessary deductions. Likewise those who wish for more background detail are lacking in imagination: a story can float free in space, time and context, without any indication of how the characters got there to start with or what they will do next, and how the story relates to canon.

It is your story: if you want to give lots of explanatory detail, or all that you found in your research, whether relevant to the story or not, you can do so (and you can repeat the information, whether or not appropriate in other stories: your readers have partial amnesia). It is perfectly rational for the characters to discuss and describe absolutely familiar objects (in their context) in full and extensive detail, being something the reader needs telling about, while giving only a cursory description of something from the author/reader’s time or environment which the #characters# might find surprising or interesting.

The principle of using full-scale flowery flummery can be applied in all areas – why waste the technique on paint colour names, houses and similar for sale, advertising puffery, wine notes and ‘exotic foodstuffs’? A simple [brand name + functional name] will not suffice – nor will there be discussions of which of several models or variants is the best for the given situation. Manufacturers will not colour code (or otherwise mark) different types of objects within a category for ease of use and characters do not put readily identifiable markers on otherwise similar items to avoid confusion.

There are two schools of scene setting. In one you can assume that the reader lives entirely without interacting with any form of information providers, and cannot deduce logical scientific, technical and other developments within the context. Everything has to be described in glorious full colour all detail guidebook version, whether or not relevant to the story – this is also very useful for making a story reach the required length. Alternatively, it is only necessary to give merely the sketchiest detail – even where there is no equivalent object in the readers’ environment (what they actually encounter or what they read/watch) or the object is not ‘to be expected in the context.’ New terms have to be invented when present day terms will suffice and are likely to persist (eg ‘dialling’ a telephone number, and the ‘shift’ key on a computer keyboard in the present).

With sufficient rearrangement you can create a story out of several half stories and plot components you have not found a use for elsewhere. You do not need to interlink them up together in any way whatsoever. You can also put fifteen minor characters you have thought of into one story one after the other to give them a good home even if it would not be logical for them to be story-neighbours. Alternatively, you can ration the characters out, even if they would very well together. [Some of these plot devices could work in other contexts with due patience and imagination – and not just tongue in cheek/’see how it works’ etc.]

Your hero(in)es will never be minor characters in the stories in which your present bit-part players have the main role. These secondary characters need only exist for the duration of the tale: they have no have a back-story, after story, ambitions or aspects not directly relevant to the main story. The main characters take centre stage: the plans and interests of everybody else will revolve around them, directly or otherwise. It is extremely unlikely that local figures will have their own independent and separate agendas and plans with which the main characters and their opponents will have to co-operate or interact. Local divisions will correspond to, and mesh perfectly with, those of the main characters and their opponents. Local characters will be thoroughly grateful for whatever help is required, and be unable to decide what they require beforehand.

Aliens, and people from other times are just people of today tricked out slightly differently and disagree with the same points of their society that we do. Customs, languages, attitudes and psychological aspects etc will be identical to the main readership/the present day (as appropriate). However, if you wish to make a point of the differences, do so repeatedly, whether or not relevant – even if persons of the time would not see them as an issue, or merely take them as given. (Local calendars, status, customs etc). Political views are identical throughout a culture – and there will be no extremists (of any kind), political party and other activists etc.

Nobody significant will indulge in unpleasant habits, suffer long term or non-decorative illness or injury, go in for alcohol/substance abuse, lust after someone, go in for minor rule bending etc. They are all decent, ‘right thinking’, honest, law-abiding characters, who have no character flaws (and probably no character) at all, or totally depraved without redeeming features.

It is not necessary to mention local natural phenomena – unless it is to give a reason for A Falling Out or A Romantic Interlude etc. This applies even when people in Real Life would go to, or at least pause at, such places and events. It is not necessary to think through the logical consequences of particular phenomena – natural, social/cultural or species. (The effects of different ranges of visual/spectral perception on signs, and non-letter based writings and the printing press, types of mobility and access between different areas of a multi-level building for example.)

It is perfectly logical for someone to be an expert in several widely different fields without apparently having had the time to study them all given their age and educational/cultural background. This will also apply to hobbies and other outside interests – which will not be persisted in beyond a single story (so they can be read in any order). What the characters read, watch and listen (if they do so) can be identical to that of the writer/readers, despite living in a different environment (background, time, location, business and other activity etc).

There is no need to consider marketing and other background texts (Health and Safety signs, advertising materials, street signs etc). Likewise non-car (equivalent) based transports: pogo sticks, electric vehicles etc: and the ‘green’ or other cost aspects of a particular form of transport etc are not considered.

Visitors from elsewhere will not find local customs and language strange or compare and contrast their own lifestyle with those of the main character and vice versa as appropriate. (‘Station/port tannoys sound the same wherever you are. The TV (equivalent) is absolute balderdash, just like home… restaurants overcharge spectacularly… Local delicacies delicious. Some amusing tourist trash and local crafts.’)

If you wish to write s*x scenes, there are various options. You can go for gushy, twee and overblown language, and avoid the terms in general use in the fanfic/other market. Alternatively you can go for raunchy/bodice ripper/faux-period piece language, however over the top. Some readers *do* find such scenes written in the style of a car repair manual (ie all details given, in the correct order, with variants noted) to their taste, even if they claim it is an-erotic. Any combination of characters #you# choose will immediately desire each other, though sometimes they have to go through a traditional ritual of dislike. This applies even if their equivalents in real life would not do more than pass the time of day, or decide to ‘get on with it.’ Your audience may also enjoy such fiction written in the style of adult videos (even if they say they don’t). Anatomies, in science fiction, are always compatible whatever the species.

If someone says that you have made a particular combination of partners, or interpretation of activities work when normally it doesn’t for them they are somehow insulting you, rather than praising you.

If you have a style that worked once, persist in it regardless. Alternatively, follow the rules of whichever ‘How To’ writing book you read last, even if it contradicts the immediately previous ones, rather than allow them to provide directions for a particular point. (Similarly when on holiday, follow the guidebook come what may – even if the author has totally different interests to you.) Any attempts by the characters to develop the story as *they* wish should be firmly quashed – *you* are in charge. Go for the formulaic phrase, rather than the apt, thought provoking or startling.

Everybody shares your sense of humour – and all characters will enjoy the same sort of jokes and word-play. No character goes in for self development/change of interest, however long a timespan covered.

It is better to be unrecognised in your own lifetime with the expectation of being discovered in old age or after than go for the option that brings you present popularity.

About The Author: Jackie Speel enjoys researching obscure history.