A question for writers

[Grandy]

Originally posted by Phayre
Pff, the world needs more silly books. Too many authors take themselves waaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.
I've found that if I think of the end, I get bored getting there. All I want to write is the climax, the aftermath. It's bad juju!

 Same here. You know what I do then? I think of the climax and then ask myself: "How the **** everything turned that way?!"

 Everything else just fits in place.


This also leads to internal dialogue.
 As an example, I once had this idea in which this character had this flashback about this traumatic experience, in which is the climax of his story, it's when he kills his best friend.


 Now, that's good, I like it in his story, but why did he kill his best friend? They became enemies? No, then it wouldn't be as dramatic. His friend asked him to kill him? No, way to corny. His friend died crying for help, that's traumatic. What if he had a reason to kill his friend? Good, which was? Revenge? Nah. To save himself? Maybe... but no. To save someone else? Mmmmaybe. Who? No one too close to him. Why not? Because it just adds to everything: He killed his best friend to save someone who he didn't even know. Why would he do that? This person he saved... most likely a small boy or girl. Good, that just fits. Now, why would killing his friend save this boy? How about.... they were at war. Huh huh, continue. And... this boy was captured. Wait, was he fighting? No, he was just a victim, you know, like as if he was a jew boy in WW2. Oh, I see. Even so, what would save him if the guy's best friend died. The reason... what about... the enemy soldiers were toying with his mind. Setting him against his friend? No, a game... they give him a gun with a bullet. He either kills the boy or his friend. If he doesn't kill any of them, both will be killed. Hey, that's actually good. I know. What then? They kill the boy anyway. ... ... ...dude.





 And that's how it goes.