Writing Try/Fail Cycles: Strengths vs. Weaknesses

What is the Try/Fail Cycle? 

The try/fail cycle is a writing approach where a character attempts to achieve a goal multiple times and fails at least twice before succeeding.

For example, our child protagonist may have the goal to own a bike. She goes to a neighbor who has outgrown hers, and asks if she can have it (try), and the neighbor says no (fail). So, then she decides to do a bake sale on her sidewalk to earn money to buy a new one (try), but it rains, so no one shows up (fail). She learns about a contest that has a new bike as a prize, so she competes (try), and wins (success). She now has her own bike.

This is a very simple example, but the try/fail cycle is simple in and of itself (which is simultaneously a strength and a weakness).

The try/fail cycle approach was common in the 1950s, and taught by author, editor, and critic Algis Budrys. Unfortunately, though, no one seems to know who originated it, since it wasn't Budrys himself. I first learned about it from David Farland, who was mentored by Budrys, but I've never been able to track down the original source (though David talks about it in his book, Million Dollar Outlines). David himself mentored many writers who went on to become best-selling authors (like Brandon Sanderson and Dan Wells, to name two). And in more recent times, some of those writers (and others) have evolved the concept. For example, Mary Robinette Kowel pairs it with the "No, and" vs. "Yes, but" rule. And I've seen others relate it to Orson Scott Card's M.I.C.E. quotient. 

In its initial form, though, the try/fail cycle is that simple. The character tries and fails at least twice, before succeeding.

Why Write Failures?

A story where a character fails is more interesting. If the character succeeded on her first try, then the antagonistic forces weren't formidable. They were weak or nonexistent. It also, in some sense, isn't much of a story.

At the most basic level, a strong plot needs to have a goal, antagonist, conflict, and consequences. But if little Suzy wanted her own bike, went and asked a neighbor for one, and the neighbor said yes, we would be missing the antagonist and conflict. The plot would be unsatisfying. 

And not only does it weaken plot, but it weakens the character. It's only through antagonistic forces and conflict that we can truly show how badly little Suzy wants this bike and what it means to her. If she fails twice and keeps trying, we know it's that important to her. 

Also, without opposition, we can't have much of a character arc, because Suzy can't grow. She's not being challenged to change or remain steadfast. Likewise, we can't show much depth with her, because a person's layers usually come off only when facing difficulties. The easy road rarely reveals true character. The hard road does. The hard road reveals things about Suzy we wouldn't know otherwise.

If the character succeeds on the second attempt, the story isn't much better. It takes three attempts to convey the difficulty and test the character's perseverance. (There is also something about the human mind that prefers the number three in general.) It also makes the final success feel "earned," and therefore more satisfying.

Strengths of the Try/Fail Cycle

As I alluded to above, one of the strengths of the try/fail cycle is its simplicity. It's easy to teach. It's easy to learn. It's easy to plot with (though it won't guarantee you'll never have problems). It also inherently ensures you have a goal, antagonist, and conflict in your story.

And like most approaches to story structure, it can work within scenes, acts, or the whole narrative arc (the whole story). However, it's most frequently referenced in relation to the narrative arc.

Most stories follow the three-act structure, with the second act taking up about 50% of the story (though often that second act gets split in half by a major turn, the midpoint). I like to diagram it like this:

When the try/fail cycle is applied to the whole narrative arc, it shows up like this:

As a note, the first major peak in the story, Plot Point 1, is often neither a success nor failure, but rather used to get the protagonist into the main conflict. However, it can appear as one or the other, so with the try/fail cycle, it can show up as a fail, like this.

The idea behind the try/fail cycle is that the character is failing two or more times, until he succeeds at the end.

As another example, perhaps the goal is to return a magical artifact to its home at the other end of the region. At Plot Point 1, the character is given the artifact and sets off on his quest. He decides he and his company will travel around the mountain, but a group of bandits has taken over that area and attacks them (midpoint). So instead, the protagonist decides they will climb the mountain, but when a snowstorm becomes dangerous, they have to retreat (Plot Point 2). Finally, the protagonist decides they will attempt the questionable cave system. He succeeds, returning the artifact to its rightful place (climax).

Ideally, we want to organize the story so that it becomes increasingly difficult to get the goal and the protagonist has to try harder with each attempt. Logically, the protagonist tries the simplest way forward first (going around the mountain / asking a neighbor for a bike), then the next simplest (over the mountain / having a bake sale), until he or she has to take a more dangerous or costly path (going through the caves, where perhaps people have gotten lost and died / entering and winning a contest). What exactly this looks like may depend on what's set up in the story.

By following this method, it's not too difficult to brainstorm a plot. This is what can make the try/fail cycle great.

*As a note, some people refer to each of these attempts as a try/fail cycle. So the attempt to go around the mountain, would be try/fail cycle #1, and the attempt to go over the mountain would be try/fail cycle #2, and the journey through the caves would be "try/fail" (or rather "try/success") cycle #3.

Weaknesses of the Try/Fail Cycle

One of my issues with the try/fail cycle is that it can really limit the types of plots you write. So while it's great for teaching new writers how to plot, it can also put a ceiling on their potential.

The biggest limitation is that it inherently forces the writer to stick to one overarching goal through the plot. While you can absolutely write a fantastic story where the protagonist pursues one main goal (like in The Lord of the Rings (returning the Ring) or The Hunger Games (win the Games) or Jaws (kill the shark)), it's not a requirement. 

Yes, the plot needs a goal, but the goal can change. It can be abandoned or even completed before the story is over. Star Wars is usually my go-to example of this. A New Hope wouldn't exist as it does, if George Lucas was using the try/fail cycle. Luke's main goal changes every quarter. First, it's to go to Academy, then it's to go with Obi-Wan to deliver the message and become a Jedi, then it's to rescue Leia, and then it's to destroy the Death Star. Luke also doesn't fail through the entire middle; rescuing Leia is a success, not a failure.

It's completely possible to write a story where the character succeeds in getting the main goal at the midpoint. In Into the Woods, all of the characters get exactly what they set out for right at the 50% mark.

Creating such plots is more complex, but you'll never create them if you only follow the try/fail cycle. This doesn't mean the try/fail cycle is bad, of course. It may be exactly what you need for the story you are writing. But it is limiting if you think you need to use it for every story.

The try/fail cycle can also be damaging if you adhere to it "religiously." The truth is, no one wants a long-form story where the protagonist is constantly failing through the beginning and middle. If your character is literally failing at every turn, in every scene, and never having any success, then he's not making any progress. And the audience wants to experience a sense of progress, otherwise the plot feels stagnant. Imagine a version of Lord of the Rings where Frodo wasn't able to leave the Shire until the last act. He kept trying, and he kept failing. No one would like that. It'd be boring. It'd be repetitious. We would likely be "circling" the conflict, which we usually don't want to do. Instead, the audience wants to see him making progress. They want to see him get away from the Ringwraiths and make it to the Prancing Pony.

One of the problems here is that this hypothetical writer misunderstands how the try/fail cycle is meant to be used. It's not literal failure scene after scene, but that, within a structural unit, there should be at least two failures. So, within an act, or a scene, there should be at least two different try/fail cycles before the final one. There should be at least two attempts before solid success. Frodo should try to go this direction and get blocked, then try to go that direction and run into a problem, then try the last path and succeed, for example. He should run into obstacles that create setbacks at least twice, before succeeding (theoretically speaking). 

It's also not a requirement that the character ultimately succeeds. A character may fail to get the goal, and it could still be a great story.

Sometimes the try/fail cycle just seems too simplistic; not every moment in every story is easily labeled a success or failure. Stories may get more complex than that. A character may succeed in one aspect while simultaneously failing at another.

I think it's because of these weaknesses, that more recent authors have started evolving the try/fail cycle, incorporating other elements (like the "No, and" vs. "Yes, but" rule). Because while it's useful, it's often not enough.

Some approaches, like Save the Cat, even want you to put a success at the midpoint (or at least what seems to be a success at first glance), and to stagger failures and successes. So, you may have a success at the midpoint, a failure at Plot Point 2, and a success at the climax. 

So basically . . . there are really so many other ways to write a story.

The try/fail cycle can be useful for the right story and the right writer, but it can also be rather limiting if it's the only approach you follow.