Interior. Grey void with splotches in background. Day. The scene opens to
reveal JP standing there with his dumb meme face that’s so old now that most
people don’t even realize its cringe. He holds his usual pencil in his hand with
a book labeled ‘best story ever’ in his other. The camera zooms in on his stupid stupid face.
JP (speaking in a strained tone that suggests he clearly doesn’t believe in what he’s selling)
Hey, everyone! Terrible Writing Advice is here to set the scene… on writing scenes!
A scene is a building block of storytelling. It’s a self-contained unbroken chunk of the
story without a major shift in setting or time. Characters walking down an alley and talking is
a scene as is characters going crazy at a party or two characters dueling under the moonlight.
Linking, transitioning, and constructing scenes is an essential skill for a writer to master.
But not me! I’m going to coast by on sheer talent! I don’t need to know how to write a
scene because I am just so amazing on my own! That makes me the best person to listen to on the fine
details of scene building! Self-proclaimed know it alls who revel in ignorance are the
best guides of course! So with the scene set, let’s dive into how to write a scene!
Now when building a scene, what’s the first thing a writer should do? Why a good writer
jumps right into the good stuff like action and dialog. I’m not forgetting anything right? Nah.
Nothing is wrong as characters talk to each other in a freaking void! Especially for book
writers. Book writers don’t need to worry about forgetting to set the scene because I’m sure
the audience will be able to read my mind and see the scene just as I do in my head. Fanfic
writers I’m looking at you… for being great as they don’t need to set the scene at all!
If I remembered to set the scene then I would be stuck doing all kinds of annoying,
unnecessary things like, using descriptive details, engaging all the senses, using a
character’s perspective and point of view to describe the scene and thus also provide
characterization on top of description, or move the location description from abstract to concrete
using solid descriptors. Concrete descriptors are basically the difference between describing
a house or a two-story suburban home with vinyl siding and a manicured lawn. Or a house vs a
shanty hobbled together with stray rusted metal sheets with a rickety pickup up truck parked in
a gravel driveway. A house is pretty basic and abstract, but the other two paint a much clearer
picture. A clear unnecessary picture that can be ignored because I’m sure the audience will
be able to magically glean my mental image without the need for any clarification.
If a writer does want to go the extra mile to describe the setting of the scene,
then that writer should get easily distracted by the setting itself and forget to put anyone
in it! This is definitely something that I’ve never done in my earlier drafts,
and YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE I ERASED IT! Just stick to describing the scene because
that’s what scenery is. The goal definitely isn’t to create a solid sense of place,
especially a place that people frequent and live in. Descriptive prose works best when dumped into
the scene like the perfunctory sidenote it is and not be regarded as an essential part of the scene.
Speaking of setting in a scene, writers should always default to the following; Coffee Shops
in contemporary fiction, taverns and campfires for fantasy, and science fiction has its ever present
briefing room. That’s not to say that these are bad and that a writer should never use them.
The main takeaway is that a writer should always simply go with whatever default first thing that
pops into their head setting and never consider moving the scene to a more interesting setting.
If it’s not a theatrical production, then changing up the setting is an option… that a writer should
never exercise. Just trap the audience in that freaking coffee shop every scene until they go
insane. Never consider moving the scene to a park, or car drive, or anything else more dynamic. Treat
the setting just like a static background prop that is described exactly once and then forgotten.
With the background safely ignored, what happens in the scene. Well the characters talk. They talk
and talk and talk. Just big blocks WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS. Everyone loves talking heads and
huge chunks of unwieldy dialog. Endless scenes of people just talking will never get old or stale or
just bore me to the point of tears. Should I break up the dialog a bit with gestures,
facial expressions, actions, or just about anything really even if just to make the
paragraphs look a little less like a wall. No. Just talking heads for freaking ever.
Of course the characters are just standing around and talking. Everyone knows that scenes can only
do one thing at a time! Like a scene dedicated to exposition cannot also have characterization at
the same time. Have a tense argument about a world building detail that highlights not only a sharp
difference between characters informed by their backstory in rival economic and social groups,
but that also provides the audience key insight into the existing hierarchies within the world?
No way. Write a scene with a mix of world building, characterization, plot advancement,
or exposition?! Impossible! It’s too hard I say, even as amateur fanfic writers pull it
off. I’ll instead just stick to a plain old info dumping scene to handle my exposition while I put
everyone’s character on hold. Never have scenes pull double or even triple duty. Good writing
doesn’t let the writing multitask and instead the writer should reduce scenes to a singular
aspect no matter how boring it makes the story. I refuse to learn how to write a scene that does
more than one thing at a time nor am I willing to fix this issue during the revision process. See,
from my perspective, I don’t need to bother to multilayer my scenes.
Speaking of perspective. Point of view can be easily ignored when writing a scene. Now point
of view is another of those larger topics I plan to cover sometime in the future. For
the purposes of scene writing though, it’s important to remember that point of view is
more like a suggestion. Fell free to throw out an entire tightly written first-person narrative to
describe a scene suddenly from third person. Or start head jumping between character POVs
in the middle of a scene no matter how jarring it is to read. The criteria for
breaking POV in a scene should basically come down to ‘I feel like it’. Consistency first,
unless it contradicts with my creative whims while also not providing any creative payoff.
What about pacing in a scene? Yeah. What about it? Pacing can be safely ignored,
especially during the revision process. Why should I have to worry about the scene dragging too long?
All of my scenes are perfectly paced even if they don’t flow naturally while reading them. Now,
in my experience, slow pacing tends to happen more than pacing that’s too fast. Slow pacing
is also easier to fix since a writer usually can just make a few snips here and there that
can improve and smooth a scene’s natural flow form one point to the next. Finding
pacing that flows is more art than science and can be difficult to diagnose, especially since
critique groups tend to misattribute a lot of other problems as pacing problems. When a beta
reader says ‘this scene drags’, it could be that the scene just goes on too long,
but it could also mean that the conflict in the scene isn’t engaging, or the characterization
isn’t firing on all cylinders, or a host of other problems that can make readers disengage. How to
tell what the real problem is? Don't! Instead, just blame the beta reader for reading it wrong
and get into a huge argument. That’s way more productive than just fixing the stupid scene.
Similar things could be said about transitioning between scenes. Basically, a writer doesn’t need
to worry about that at all. This is very noticeable in older books before we got all
fancy and scene transitions became the norm. But I intend to buck newer trends of smooth endings
and return to the days that a writer could simply end a scene on a whim. Have audience expectations
shifted to expect more smooth transitions between scenes? No. It’s the audience who is in the wrong!
Besides, scene transitions are more art than science again. The scene ether ends
on something punchy or witty that brings the scene to a close. This leaves the audience
with a small pithy line that adds levity while closing out the scene in a way that
feels natural. There is also ending on something that creates a new situation for the next scene,
like a character barging in and exclaiming that something has happened. This ends the scene by
shifting focus away from the previous conflict and begin setting up the very next conflict or
situation the characters have to deal with. Another way to end the scene is on something
ominous and dark that foreshadows a future conflict much further down the road. The
main thing is to focus on having a final line that feels like an end point. But rather than
focusing on something that feels like a natural endpoint, I think instead I’ll just end the
scene when I get bored with it. Then I’ll just stumble into the next scene without preamble.
So I’ve dismissed needing to master point of view, pacing, and transitions. That means that I
will still consider tone… Right? Right!? No. Of course not. Writers don’t need to worry about tone
in a scene. The last scene featured an orphan burning to death seconds before he got adopted
by the loving family that were crushed trying to rescue him. Clearly the next scene should be
a lighthearted romp with no space in between for the audience to emotionally process the previous
scene. When a story has an emotional high point, it can often take the audience a bit to process
said emotions and allow for a scene’s tone to smoothly transition from light to heavy. See,
this isn’t a problem because a good writer doesn’t ever bother to elicit any emotional reaction from
the audience at all. Good writing only leaves the audience in a boredom induced stupor or a sense
of vague jealously directed at the power fantasy wish fulfillment self insert main
character. This makes trying to balance between serious and light tones largely a wasted effort.
This frees the writing from having to space out more serious scenes as to not overwhelm
the audience with endless darkness. This is really hard to do while also sprinkling in
lighter scenes to balance out the mood somewhat. Good thing I don’t need to worry about that!
Can a writer just move a scene? No. Never. Not under any circumstances. Now sometimes,
the plot demands certain things happen at certain times. This also means that a
writer should be equally inflexible with all scenes as a result and never should
they consider moving scenes around to account for things like tone, pacing, or story flow.
What if a writer has mastered tone, pacing, point of view, and transitions, but still feels like
a scene isn’t working? Well then the scene may have a problem with its conflicts! Conflict is
one of the main drivers of storytelling. That’s why writers go on and on about it. I often find
that conflict issues within a scene tend to vary based on writer skill level. Which are as follows.
No Conflict: Ah. The best kind of conflict. This is what I see most commonly in amateur fiction.
Many new writers don’t know that conflict is often what makes character interactions interesting.
These new writers tend to just forget to put any kind of conflict in their stories. Which
is good! We aren’t here for conflict. We’re here to watch a character just get everything they want
without having to raise a finger. This no effort, all reward approach is the best way to write.
Forced Conflict: Intermediate writers tend to understand that fiction sometimes needs
conflict. But they are not always good at writing it. So their solution is to force
it into a scene. This never leads to issues like characters fighting over nothing or
more often when the audience sees through the conflict as a transparent ploy by the
writer to pad out the scene. How can this be fixed? By ignoring it and hope it goes away,
not by workshoping it until the conflict in the scene feels more natural.
Pointless Conflict: This is bane of professional writers. It is shocking common with big name
authors who have achieved the coveted cash cow status with their publishers. This results in
the removal of the spinal columns of any editors assigned to the author. Don’t want to upset the
cash cow after all. These writers are still skilled though, I mean usually, and as such
are competent at writing scenes with engaging and natural feeling conflict. Said conflict
though has nothing to do with the plot. It’s well written conflict, but is largely pointless in the
larger context to the story. Can this be fixed? Of course, but it won’t be because the sales
figures will still be the same either way. But why doesn’t the writer simply remove the scene?
Because it’s my Darling Scene! It doesn’t have to tie into the main plot or fit within the context
of the story because the scene is well written. Well written scenes don’t have to justify their
existence within the story! Now people often say “Murder your Darlings” in writing… which is why I
murder those people first before they can turn me against my precious darlings! Never remove
a scene that adds nothing to the story. Protect your precious darlings no matter the cost! Even if
1) No characters develop and the audience doesn’t get to see the characters in a new light.
2) The plot doesn’t move forward. 3) There’s no exposition or world building.
4) Nothing changes at all. Characterization in a vacuum
is good enough for me. Who cares if it spoils the pacing. I will simply
ignore that literary every member of my writer’s group, every beta reader,
and my editor all agree that the scene needs to go. I will defend my darlings to my final breath!
A writer should never stop and ask “what does this scene add to the
story? What is its purpose in the larger narrative? If this scene were removed,
would anything of value be lost?” Writers don’t need to worry about such questions
during the revision process because writers shouldn’t be revising anyway. All I pen to
page is golden on the first try and anyone who suggests otherwise are just haters and
naysayers jealous of my immense talent and endearing collection of non-murdered darlings.
Remember that a good scene is written all in one go on the first draft, not revised into a being
a good scene usually after multiple drafts. Scene writing isn’t a skill honed over time
and experience until it becomes more instinct than anything. This means that a writer doesn’t
need to keep an open mind and develop an eye for key revisions to tweak each scene for maximum
performance until every scene hums along nicely and maintains a feeling of natural narrative flow.
Yes this scene doesn’t add anything to the story, but that fact that it’s well written is always
justification enough for the scene’s inclusion. A writer should never worry that just because
they are unwilling to murder their darlings, that their darlings won’t hesitate to murder the story.
SPACE COMMUNIST: Wake up, capitalist pig!
REBEL 1: Oh hey! It’s the space communists. We’ve been looking for you guys!
SPACE COMMUNIST: Silence, Bourgeoisie! Stand in awe of our leader! Comrade Prime!
COMRADE PRIME: I welcome you, foolish though you are, to our Glorious Space Commune!
COMRADE PRIME: I am Comrade Prime!
SPACE COMMUNIST: You mean ‘we’ right?
COMRADE PRIME: Oh. Uh. Yes. I mean ‘we’ are Comrade Prime! Collectivist leader
of the Collectivist Space Communists who are very collectivist and you have been caught trespassing!
REBEL 1: Hear us out! As a revolutionary against the Evil Empire, I’m a big fan of yours!
CULT LEADER: We were hoping to join forces against Greed and-
COMRADE PRIME: Silence! As trespassers there
is only one punishment!… You shall be subject to… A tour!
COMRADE PRIME: Observe, the glorious motherland! Where we all are rewarded each according to their
ability, each according to their needs! Fully automated and luxury. A true utopia!
REBEL 1: Wow… How does it work?
COMRADE PRIME: Uh… It just works! Trust me!
GREED: Greetings my wayward space communists. Now put down your silly books on theory and listen up!
CULT LEADER: What’s that?
COMRADE PRIME: Ugh! Greed has been bugging us for months now. He’s been spamming our transmission
lines with his endless shilling. As if we would ever join a pathetic capitalist dog like him!
GREED: I have been very reasonable and patient,
but time is almost up. This is your last chance to join up with the winning side. There’s more
than enough room in my camp for you, but I am not going to leave my flank exposed.
REBEL 1: Flank?
COMRADE PRIME: I don’t know what he’s talking about either.
CULT LEADER: I think he’s referring to having a strategy.
REBEL 1: Strategy? What’s that?
COMRADE PRIME: Sounds like a capitalist thing.
GREED: Regardless, it’s time to make a choice. If I don’t hear back from you then I will have
you removed. The thing is, I have an edge that you do not, especially in information warfare.
At first, I had completely missed the Screen Actor’s Guild agreement with the Alliance of
Motion Picture and Television Producers over AI. The story having been buried under a deluge of
twenty-four hours news, especially considering recent events. Thankfully I was able to sort
through the nightmare of information overload that our media oversaturated internet inflicts
on us thanks to a special tool in my arsenal. This video’s sponsor, Ground News which lets me see the
news without the tiresome partisanship that has divided our media landscape. It’s a website and
App developed by a former NASA engineer that utilizes a data driven approach to the news.
Every story comes with a factuality, political bias, and ownership of the reporting source,
backed by ratings from three independent news monitoring organizations. Like for the
coverage of the Screen Actor’s Guild’s story, Ground News shows that of the 89 sources,
over half lean center while a little over a third leans to the left and 14 percent lean to
right. The owners of these sources were mostly media conglomerates at 47%. We can even see
the difference in headlines with right leaning sources focusing more on AI in their headlines.
Compare and contrast related stories from different sources to see what details are
highlighted or downplayed. The blind spot feed is handy as it shows what stories one side of
the political isle are focusing on while the other sees fit to ignore. Having a complete
understanding of what all sides are thinking is rarely a disadvantage. We must adventure
out of comfort zone every so often and even if you consider the other side your enemy, wouldn't you
rather know what they are thinking? Challenge your assumptions, or risk having them used against you.
To help with this, Ground News even has a new feature in its Vantage Subscription plan called
My News Bias. It’s a handy dashboard that breaks down your news consumption habits,
what topics you engage with, and how your reading habits have changed. TWA fans can
go to Ground News slash Terrible Writing Advice to get the best deal of the year with 40% off
the Ground News Vantage Subscription. You can check out the link in the description
below to get unlimited access to all Ground News features for just $5 a month until November 30th.
GREED: Regardless, my offer is on the table. Your move,
but don’t take long. Its winner take all, and I intend to take everything.
COMRADE PRIME: Fool! We are on the verge of victory! Greed is already too late! The
Terrible Writing Advice Expanded universe is as good as ours! We shall unveil our secret weapon!