Showing posts with label Twilight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twilight. Show all posts

Friday, September 19, 2025

20 Years Later: Dissecting Twilight


Twilight turns 20 this month, so I'm bringing you the story dissection and analysis no one asked me for, but everyone can learn from (with my editorial feedback too 😉). And would you believe it? We all misread this story from the start!

Twilight. As infamous as it is famous. Especially in the writing community. In fact, despite it being one of the biggest bestsellers of modern times, few in the writing community will touch it with anything other than a ten-foot pole. Almost no writer can reference this series without losing some respect. And if you must bring it up, you must do it derisively or at least apologetically; otherwise, no one will take what you say seriously.

So do I dare bring it up? In a whole article dissecting its strengths and weaknesses? On my blog? Apparently.

Say what you will about Twilight, but it has been more successful and the author has earned more from it than any of us could realistically dream of.

Which means, despite its flaws, it must be doing some critical things right. 

How did I get here?

Well, it all started back in January, when the films returned to my local theaters (though apparently they are returning to national theaters later this month). A family member asked me to see them with her, and I love going to movies. Naturally, I said yes--even though I remembered how cringy the films could be. (Why did they cast Kristen Stewart as Bella? Why use a CGI baby? How do they take such amazing music and place it in the most awkward, terrible places imaginable?)

I hadn't watched or read anything Twilight in over ten years, and the first film was as bad as I remembered.

Yet at this time, I was also writing a post on Meet Cutes, and I decided to go back to Twilight to read the Meet Cute--because it has always been memorable to me--and when I retrieved the book, I decided I wanted to also read the Early Glance, so I started at the beginning, feeling unsure what I would think about the text.

I had read the series when it was first getting popular, before I had any kind of professional understanding, training, or classes on writing. And I only read the books once each. So I wondered, would I hate Twilight now? Would I even be able to get to the Meet Cute?

To my surprise, I ended up reading all of Act I.

To my bigger surprise, as we continued attending the films, I . . . well . . . I got teary-eyed in Breaking Dawn, Part I.

Then a lot of things began clicking into place in my writerly brain. Despite its flaws, with my editorial background, I now clearly saw past its imperfect cosmetics to its core--what the series was really about, and even more, the potential for what it could be.

Just after this, I flew out to a writing conference, so I got the first audiobook to listen to.

Considering this was the first novel Stephenie Meyer wrote, ever, and that she didn't write it with intentions to publish, and that its initial request came from an assistant who was also brand new to the industry . . . I was curious how well it followed story structure, or if it even followed it at all.

I discovered some interesting things.

But first, I want to share some thoughts on the book, particularly with those who haven't read it.

***

And because this is a long one, I also wanted to list its sections up front:

Is Twilight “Good”? Or is it “Bad”?

Edward is the Protagonist; Bella is the Viewpoint Character

Character Arcs and Themes (Edward and Bella)

The Relationship Plotline as the Primary Plotline

The Structural “Skeleton” of Twilight

Act I: Moving from Classmates to Friends

Act II, Part I: Moving from Friends to Couple

Act II, Part II: Moving from Couple to (Physically) Separated

Act III: Moving from Separated to Reunited (Rescued and Rescuer)

Editorial Feedback (Improving Twilight)

Plot Points

External Plotline

Bella Swan

Thoughts on Controversial Cosmetics

Extra Diagrams 

Monday, June 9, 2025

How Long Should the Denouement be? (Short vs. Long Falling Actions)



The denouement, also known as the "falling action" or, potentially, "resolution" (depending on what approach you use), is everything that happens after the climax. It's where any remaining conflict or tension gets addressed and dissipated, where important loose ends get tied up, and where change (or the lack thereof) gets validated. It's also usually where a new "normal" is established, or at least hinted at.

People mistakenly think denouements are all about ending the story quickly. While some writers certainly approach them that way, it's more important to address what I just mentioned if you want a satisfying denouement.

Recently, a commenter asked me about the length of denouements, and even though I responded, my mind has still been mulling over the topic. Generally, my rule of thumb is this: Keep them short enough to stay interesting but long enough to cover the important parts. (The important parts being what I listed in the first paragraph.)

Monday, April 21, 2025

Why You Should Avoid Bored Protagonists (& When Not to)


It's usually a bad idea to have a bored protagonist (or viewpoint character). Often a bored protagonist means a bored reader, and perhaps even more often than that, it means that the writer didn't take the time to think about what the character should be doing. It's lazy writing.

It's also just problematic because it means there is no active, present goal. And/or there is no active, present antagonist. Which usually leads to scenes "flatlining" (no rising action). This will slow the pacing down (and not in the good way), and if it takes up a lot of word count, will bring the story to a grinding halt. A lack of goals and antagonists creates a domino effect that usually results in a lack of everything else related to a strong plot--a lack of conflict, a lack of progress, a lack of crises, a lack of tension.

Perhaps just as bad, is often the character's boredom segues into terrible play-by-plays, where nothing meaningful happens.

Boredom in a protagonist is typically a lost opportunity. Even if nothing "important" is happening in the plotlines (which is something that should give you pause in and of itself), the protagonist could still be doing something minor that is important to him or someone he cares about. This reveals character, and is therefore more interesting than him wasting time doing mundane things or doing nothing. Something as simple as giving him a hobby he loves, is better than boredom.

9/10 you do not want a bored protagonist.

But . . . as always, there are exceptions. These are the 1/10 situations.

So let's go over those.

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Surprise vs. Suspense--Which is Better?


 

You've probably heard about the concepts of surprise and suspense in writing. You may have even heard them compared and contrasted. From more than one source, I've heard it illustrated with the following story, which I think might actually come from an old Hitchcock movie, but I'm not sure, so if you know where it comes from, please feel free to leave it in the comments.


Surprise

Imagine watching a show where a bunch of guys are playing poker. As an audience we are watching, watching, and watching them play poker. They are talking about everyday things.

Then suddenly a bomb goes off.

That's surprise.


Suspense

In the suspense version, we are watching the same story, except before the poker starts, we see a scene where someone plants the bomb, with a countdown.

The players arrive and we watch essentially the same thing--them playing, talking about everyday things. The only difference is that every once in a while, we get a glimpse of the countdown on the bomb.

That's suspense.


In one version we don't know the bomb is coming. In another we are worried about it.

Usually the follow-up question to this lecture, is, which is better? Surprise or suspense?

Well, with this example, suspense, obviously.

The "surprise" version was actually pretty boring until the bomb went off.

But here is where my opinions start to deviate from this example.


Surprise


The surprise example isn't actually that great. I mean, don't get me wrong, this is a prefect, fast, and easy way to explain the difference to beginning writers, but good surprises are more than that. And in this example, we start with nothing.

A surprise is more effective when you start with at least something. I mean, to write a good surprise, the story still needs to be interesting. It should have other material. It should probably have foreshadowing of some sort.

In fact, some of the best surprises have foreshadowing, but we've misinterpreted it, were blind to it, or didn't have the full context for it.

A great example that comes to mind is The Sixth Sense. People may nitpick at the movie today, but when it came out, audiences' minds were blown. And it wasn't so much over the suspense. It was over the surprise of finding out Bruce Willis's character was actually dead. Sure, you can call those sorts of things "twists"--but I'd argue every twist has an element of surprise. That's why it's a twist.

Some of the best uses of surprise are twists.

It's where you provide the audience with something.

Sometimes the information you provide does not even have to correlate with the surprise. They can be two different things, but what matters is that the audience has something so that they aren't just sitting there getting bored watching people play poker. Usually that something does need to be resolved or play a part in the story, but my point is, the audience should still have story movement and direction.

Sometimes the best surprises happen in stories that take us in one direction, but then suddenly pop up with something unforeseen, completely unforeshadowed.



Surprises often have a place in mysteries, where you think the villain will be one person, only to discover it's someone else. In Sorcerer's Stone, the trio are convinced that Snape is the villain. Sure, there is suspense, about how to get the stone and deal with Snape. But the surprise is discovering that the villain is Professor Quirrell, not Snape like we all thought. Like the Sixth Sense, one of the things that makes this surprise great is that we can look back at the events of the book with more context and see how it all makes sense. But it was never stated on the page that Quirrell was even a suspect.

Surprise needn't lack power. 

I think the point where some people get confused about the surprise-vs.-suspense-and-which-is-better argument is that suspense is required to write a great story. Surprise isn't.


Suspense


Suspense means the audience is worried about what could happen. In the example above, the audience is worried the bomb could go off and kill someone, but they are hoping it doesn't, or that it's discovered, or that the characters get away. Suspense contains an element of worrying.

A classic example is when a character is trying to sneak somewhere without someone else, perhaps someone on guard, knowing. Maybe they are carrying something that might be noisy and give them away. Maybe they have to walk across a forest floor that is littered with twigs that can snap or little rocks that clack. As they make their way to their destination, the audience is sweating it out and on the edge of their seats. Can the character be quiet? Will the guard notice him? The character accidentally snaps a twig. Did the guard hear it? Will he spot the character?

Suspense comes out of tension. It's worry that something (usually) negative may happen. That means there is a hope in the audience that somehow something may not happen. Suspense isn't created by the inevitable. It's created through possibilities. Will the bomb go off? Will the character snap a twig?

Tension is often the promise or potential of problems colliding. Suspense takes place when the audience is invested in and worried about that, and often hoping it doesn't.

Maybe it should be noted, though, that suspense can also actually come from the possibility of something positive happening. Will Suzy get the job of her dreams? Will Frodo be able to throw the Ring into Mount Doom?

So you can hold readers with the promise of something good.

However, you can argue that most suspense set-ups innately have a positive or negative possibility. The positive part of the bomb, is the possibility that the characters will notice it under the poker table and get away safely. The negative part of Suzy's is that she may not get her dream job.

But I'd probably still argue that the bomb set-up is more closely related to the potential for the negative while the Suzy set-up is more closely tied to the positive.

You can play around with this sort of thing in stories. You can give the audience the potential for a really bad and a really good outcome to hike up suspense. Either Frodo destroys the Ring and saves the world, or he doesn't and the world is destroyed. Those are high stakes. The high positive and high negative amplify suspense.



You can have two negatives. Will Prim or will Katniss have to participate in The Hunger Games? Will Katniss have to die or will she have to kill other children? Both options of each are horrible.

You can have two positives. Will Bella find love with Edward or with Jacob? Finding love with either person would be a good thing, except you can't have both. So you get the "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob," and that's where the suspense comes from.

In a double-negative set-up, what pulls the reader in is the dread that something bad probably will happen and wondering what the outcome will be or if there is some way to avoid both possibilities. In a double-positive, what pulls the reader in is the hope that the protagonist gets the same outcome the reader desires.

Epic fantasies like Lord of the Rings, tend to have high positive and high negative set-ups. Dystopians or horrors tend to have double-negatives. Romances are more likely to have double-positives. This is a generality of course, and it's entirely possible to mix-up any one of these. For example, while I feel that in many romances, the protagonist has to pick between two good things (whether they be two people, love vs. a job, love vs. travel), there are still many many set-ups within the story that have a positive and negative, or even a double-negative. So this isn't so much a rule, as it is an observation, and may give you some idea of what your audiences expects.


Which is Better?


Usually this lecture ends with the idea that suspense is a better choice than surprise. While suspense is necessary for a good story, in some story parts, you might find that surprise is actually a more desirable option. The Sixth Sense was great because the people were surprised.

But here's the thing: Why are we telling writers to pick one?

Why not both?

Surely a fantastic story has suspense and surprise.

We know the bomb is under the poker table, but what surprises us is that there is more than one--someone else had the same idea, and it goes off earlier.

We know the bomb is under the poker table, but what surprises us is that one of the players actually came to play with his buddies with a similar intention. He pulls a gun and wants to kill one of the players who previously wronged him. He's actually a cohort of the bomber's, but the bomber didn't know he'd be there.

We know the bomb is under the poker table, but we didn't see the face of who planted it. The surprise is that we later learn it's the target's soft-spoken sister.

Consider when you can choose both.


My Blog Won an Award!




Hi everyone, quick note that some of you may have already seen on social media. I found out Sunday night that my blog, this one that you are reading, won the Writer's Digest award as one of the top writing websites for 2017! I'm so surprised and excited! I had no idea anyone even nominated me or anything.

Here's what's even crazier. I apparently won it in April, and I had NO idea until two days ago! There are only 20 websites listed in my category (writing advice), and I can't believe I was listed! It's like a dream come true!

Writer's Digest is the top magazine in the writing industry, and basically everyone who does writing stuff online knows about the awards. I'm so excited, and I get to put the award up on my site (already did actually).

I have daydreamed of someday having this award on this website--I had no idea that "someday" was last April! What?!

The only way I found out, was because Writer's Digest made a list of the top 20 out of the top 101 listed sites online on Sunday, and I noticed I was getting traffic from a Writer's Digest page (which shocked the pants off me), so I followed the link and saw myself listed! I don't know who or how many people nominated me, but thank you so much for helping make one of my dreams come true!

If you would like to nominate a writing website for 2018, send an email to writers.digest@fwmedia.com with "101 Websites" in the subject and which website(s) in the body. I'm not opposed to winning again ;) But I'm just floored I won and had no idea nor did I know anyone had even nominated me! Merry Christmas everyone!






P.S. The winner of my 10-page edit giveaway has been selected! I'm waiting to hear back from the winner before I announce who it is.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Coming up with a Plot (from scratch)


Anonymous said: I often have ideas for a scene or a character but there is no plot. How can I expand these ideas into stories? I just don't know what to do with my ideas to get a story out of them. Most plotting tips require that I know at least the beginning and the end of my story. But I don't even have that.




Hi Anonymous,

I've heard of other writers having this same problem, so you are not alone! Here are some ideas that come to mind when I think about this.

First off, you have ideas for characters or scenes, and that's a starting point, and you probably (I'm assuming, because it wasn't that long ago) saw my post What to Outline When Starting a Story, which can give some guidance on what to consider. However, if you have no idea where to even come up with a concept for your plot that post can only be so much help.

Monday, October 27, 2014

"The Emotional Range of a Teaspoon": Your Characters' Spectrum of Emotions


(Listen to this tip on Youtube.)

For the last month and a half, I've been rearranging and revamping a whole sequence of scenes in my novel. Moving stuff up, pushing stuff back, deleting this, adding this, and while I wasn't surprised at the time and work it took to complete this revamp, I was reminded about how a great novel should all interlock. So, by changing and moving things, I have to change and revamp other parts. Not just on a plot level, but on a character arc level, on a thematic level, on an everything level.

But what did surprise me was how I had to rewrite the emotional level of my characters. In that alone, in a way, I felt like I had to rewrite each scene. Because I had changed and rearranged plot elements, my characters were in different moods for different scenes. They had different emotional arcs in my scenes than what they had before. So for each scene, I had to get deep into my character all over again to convey his or her emotional status for the scene. And of course, in a lot of scenes, a character's emotional status changes throughout it. On top of that, I've been trying to do deep and thorough character edits anyway, making even their body language distinct from other characters.

Like real people, characters should react to, cope with, and manifest their emotions in individual ways. If your character hears that someone ran over her dog, what is her emotional reaction? Is she mad? Sad? Shocked? Devastated? Happy? Annoyed? Why? How she reacts emotionally reveals character. To take it to the next level, you ask, how is she mad? Sad? Happy? Etc. Does she try to hold it in? Does she keep her angry thoughts to herself and say something completely different outloud? Does she scream every profanity she can think of? Is it a cold anger that leads her into calmly seeking revenge on the driver?

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Limitless: What Authors do to their Characters


When Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer released, my friend and I discussed that someone should die in the last third, to make the story more interesting. But I think, somewhere, a part of me knew it wouldn’t happen. Meyer doesn’t kill good guys in the Twilight saga. Sure, Harry Clearwater has a heart attack, but I mean killing characters fans are emotionally attached to, like Alice, Emmett, or at least Seth. I’ve wondered if Meyer liked her characters too much to kill them.

In contrast, when I read The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins and The Runelords by David Farland, I found myself questioning whether the authors loved their characters much at all. In The Hunger Games, characters not only die, but are burned, poisoned, tortured, have limbs amputated, are forced into prostitution, and even brainwashed. Young, old, male, female, likable, unlikable, good guys, bad guys, named, nameless all suffered at Collins’ hands. Likewise in The Runelords, a stunning princess turns hideous, a stately King becomes mentally handicapped and can't even control his own bowels, and often strong, intelligent people are reduced to insanity and then murdered.

Sometimes in these novels, as a reader, I felt the authors had no limits. And I was scared. What could possibly happen next? Was anyone safe? Would the King ever regain his status, or was he doomed to die in his own filth? I had to read to find out.

Not all stories need to be as limitless as The Hunger Games and The Runelords to be good stories and to keep people reading, but notice that what Collins and Farland did added more tension to their novels. Also note that early in their stories, they let the reader know that nothing is safe. So as a reader, you have the whole series to worry.

And of course, putting your characters through heck doesn’t necessarily mean that you don’t love them or that you harm them senselessly. J.K. Rowling loved all the “good guys” she killed. In New York she said she hated writing a particular death scene for The Casual Vacancy, but felt it had to be there for thematic purposes. Collins and Farland didn’t harm their characters for the sake of it either. In their cases, their characters’ ailments came with the backdrop of the story—horrible things happen in the worlds and societies their protagonists live in.


Should Meyer have killed a likeable character in Breaking Dawn? Maybe not in the way we would see in The Hunger Games or The Runelords—the Twilight story didn’t call for it. But perhaps a different death or misfortune may have fit and added tension.  Or maybe I’m just twisted and like to see characters suffer and die. Or both.

Whatever the case, when we write, perhaps we should consider what our stories’ limits are and how early to alert our readers to them. Giving your reader a heads up not only makes them worry and adds tension, but if anything horrific is going to happen to a main character, they need a warning.  Our readers grow attached to our characters, and if we do something awful to the protagonist without any kind of foreshadowing, they’ll feel betrayed.

(Imagine, for example, if in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the main characters was suddenly hit and killed by a random car. Readers would say "Hey! That's not what I signed up for! I wanted a happy ending!" That incident doesn't fit with the limits the story set up.)



Thoughts? Do you like reading limitless books? Can you think of anymore examples?