"You're Doing it Wrong, Jack."

Deborah Koren and I were discussing writing last week, particularly stories that don't seem to work. We compared stories we'd read and written, trying to pinpoint why some stories aren't as good as others. And I observed that some writers seem to come at writing stories backwards, thinking up things for the characters to do, rather than coming up with a situation and letting the characters react to it.

Yes, there's a big difference. I can remember when I first started writing, I would sit around brainstorming exciting things for characters to do. Rescue their kidnapped brother or stop a hold-up or capture a bad guy, whatever. The problem was, then I had to spend even more time thinking up reasons for my characters to do those things. Sure, I could say, "They're good guys -- this is their raison d'etre." But when I look back at those early stories, so many of the plots seem contrived, flimsy, or just plain unbelievable. Because coming up with things for your characters to do is just not a good way of approaching fiction.

If you have fully rounded, three-dimensional, interesting characters, you don't have to think up things for them to do. All you have to do is give them a situation and let them react to it. It's a subtle difference, I know, but an important one.

Let's take the Kidnapped Brother scenario. If I approach this story as, "Albert gets to go rescue Jules from a band of evil kidnappers," that sets up lots of stuff for Albert to do, sure. Talk to cops. Gather a ransom. Maybe find time to inform their other brother, Joseph, who's in the slammer for counterfieting. Outwit the kidnappers and rescue poor Jules. It's straightforward, it's exciting, and what's wrong with that?

But if we approach it the other way, it's even better. Someone kidnaps Jules and sends a ransom note to Albert. What Albert does is all up to him as the character you've imagined. If he loves his brother, he'll figure out who kidnapped Jules, decide whether they'll really let him go if Albert pays the ransom, maybe work with the cops to stage a preemptive rescue. But what if he doesn't? What if he's happy to have Jules out of the picture so Albert can marry that sweet young thing they've both been squiring around town? Then he'd be more likely to let the cops do what they can, and let the chips fall where they may. He might even decide he can't come up with the ransom. And what about brother number three, Joseph? He's probably met up with all sorts of unsavory characters in the hoosegow. What if he's trying to get revenge on Jules for testifying against him? Or hoping both brothers will get caught in the crossfire, leaving him the only heir to their uncle's not inconsiderable fortune. Or is he a loyal brother who uses his contacts to rescue Jules before the cops even get there?

Do you see how letting characters act for themselves creates more interesting, layered stories? Instead of forcing characters to follow a chain of events, you just create a problem and turn them loose. If you've got good characters, you're only problem will be keeping up with them as they act out your story.