2 thoughts on “A good article from Charlie Jane Anders (in other news, water wet).”
It’s always worth rereading this one.
Today, number 6 sticks out for me. I’ve been thinking about this technique lately, particularly in regard to red herrings.
And number 7 made me think about how we can also make those characters significant to the antagonist. Personally, I think backstory and relationship dynamics are huge importers of depth, and anyone who’s caught between two friends, or trying to forget they were ever friends with someone, or who wants to profit from neutrality, anyone like that is more interesting for it. If you’ve done all the rest.
And that has the advantage of making the stakes seem higher, because the antagonist seems closer, part of the protagonist’s world.
Today, number 6 sticks out for me. I’ve been thinking about this technique lately, particularly in regard to red herrings.
And number 7 made me think about how we can also make those characters significant to the antagonist. Personally, I think backstory and relationship dynamics are huge importers of depth, and anyone who’s caught between two friends, or trying to forget they were ever friends with someone, or who wants to profit from neutrality, anyone like that is more interesting for it. If you’ve done all the rest.
And that has the advantage of making the stakes seem higher, because the antagonist seems closer, part of the protagonist’s world.
It’s always worth rereading this one.
Today, number 6 sticks out for me. I’ve been thinking about this technique lately, particularly in regard to red herrings.
And number 7 made me think about how we can also make those characters significant to the antagonist. Personally, I think backstory and relationship dynamics are huge importers of depth, and anyone who’s caught between two friends, or trying to forget they were ever friends with someone, or who wants to profit from neutrality, anyone like that is more interesting for it. If you’ve done all the rest.
And that has the advantage of making the stakes seem higher, because the antagonist seems closer, part of the protagonist’s world.
It’s always worth rereading this one.
Today, number 6 sticks out for me. I’ve been thinking about this technique lately, particularly in regard to red herrings.
And number 7 made me think about how we can also make those characters significant to the antagonist. Personally, I think backstory and relationship dynamics are huge importers of depth, and anyone who’s caught between two friends, or trying to forget they were ever friends with someone, or who wants to profit from neutrality, anyone like that is more interesting for it. If you’ve done all the rest.
And that has the advantage of making the stakes seem higher, because the antagonist seems closer, part of the protagonist’s world.