What Makes Great Heroes and Villains?

Your protagonist and antagonist are your major driving forces within your story. Since their journeys are so closely intertwined, it's vital to understand them both--and to know what makes them tick.

While you should normally begin plotting a story by understanding the threat to your main characters (i.e. the villain), let's start with the hero.

Protagonist Traits

Have you ever heard a reader complain that a main character is "unlikable" or "boring"? If a reader says this about your main character, that can be some devastating feedback.

Your reader will be spending the most time with your protagonist, so this character is essential to get right. Regardless of personality, each protagonist needs at least one of these traits for the readership to want them to succeed. 

• Likability 
• Competence 
• Determination

Likability: Could you be friends with this character? 

This trait defines how their personality comes across to the audience. Obviously, this is one of the most YMMV scales, as different people find different personalities likable. 

Likability doesn't mean the character is perfect, or always nice. It means their flaws balance their personality. Aladdin may be a thief and a liar, but one of his first actions is to give his hard-earned food to a couple of kids who need it more, showing his generosity. Even rough characters usually get a "pet the dog" moment somewhere early on that proves the audience did the right thing in wanting them to win.

Arrogant, broody types can vary pretty far on the scale of likability. Some people find them enjoyable, and others not so much. If you want to boost likability for your arrogant or loner protagonist, counter it with other positive traits, like loyalty or generosity. Wit and a sense of humor or snark can also be a good boost, depending on your story's tone and your audience. 

If readers' mileage varies so much, how do you determine your character's likability? Find out how this character handles relationships, and how they balance other people vs. themselves. Their likability is probably going to take a hit if background characters are disposable, if they push away their friends frequently or in cruel ways, or if they're always sacrificing their relationships to do what they think is best for themselves. 

Competence: How good are they at what they do? 

It's fun to watch people succeed! MacGuyver types are especially exciting as they solve almost any problem with chewing gum and a paper clip. 

Especially if your antagonist is powerful, it's nice to see someone be able to counter them. It makes it clearer why your protagonist fills that role, if they are the only one who can outwit or outfight the villain.

Also, there's a very important reason certain audiences loved "Captain Marvel" and "Black Panther" so much. It's fantastic to watch people who look like you fight evil and oppression so effortlessly. And, more importantly, it's deeply satisfying. Readers are looking for that kind of fist-pumping moment, whatever the genre or audience. 

Determination: How active a character are they? 

Some characters let themselves be blown around by the plot. There are instances where this can work, done carefully. But at some point, your protagonist needs to push their own journey forward. Determination can be a powerful factor in wanting to see your character succeed. The odds keep stacking up, but they keep moving forward because they have to, either for their sake or for the world's.

Determination is an important factor for underdog characters or for someone going up against a seemingly invulnerable figure. It's also vital for characters in the same vein as Spider-Man or Captain America--people who keep getting knocked down, but rising up anyway until they can succeed. While they will need some skill sooner or later if they're going to win, that ability to get back up over and over, despite all life has to throw at them, makes audiences want them to succeed.

Another way to put determination: ambition. While greed can be harmful, ambition is not. (And as a Slytherin, this is where I disagree with J.K. Rowling's usual pessimistic portrayal of her most ambitious House.) Is your character ambitious enough to go after what they want, if the antagonist stands in the way? Fighting for what they desire despite the odds can get me cheering for your protagonist. 

You don't need to max out all three traits on each protagonist to have them succeed. Action heroes, for example, probably would make pretty terrible friends in real life. But they're astoundingly competent, most of the time, so we root for them anyway. 

Some other examples: 

Kvothe from The Name of the Wind is not very likable to me. He's unintentionally unsympathetic in a lot of ways. But he is very competent, which is exciting to watch regardless. 

Martin Crieff from the BBC radio drama Cabin Pressure is pretty incompetent (though not as much as Arthur, who can ruin even a simple microwave dinner). As a rule-follower and obsessive control freak--albeit one played by Benedict Cumberbatch--he varies on likability from episode to episode. However, he is bound and determined to be a pilot, and he won't settle for not getting to do what he loves. That determination gets me to root for him, even in a fairly low-stakes sitcom. 

Antagonist Traits

Villains share a similar scale. However, the higher they rank on all three, the more terrifying--rather than Sue-ish--they are. Their traits: 

• Believability
• Personality
• Competence

Believability: Could this person actually get away with this? 

This does not necessarily apply to superpowers or the kinds of weapons they have. It's now they use them, and whether it's believable in-universe. 

A villain who is not believable may stretch the suspension of disbelief. A character with no charisma or competence shouldn't be able to boss around generals or an army. If your villain must fill this role, how easy is it for the character to make others do what they want? If they don't start out in this role but grow into it, how do they reach that point so that their actions are believable?

• Remember that, if I may refer to D&D for a moment, charisma also applies to traits like intimidation and physical presence. No one really wants to push back on a villain who has carried out severe punishment for insubordination before. 

Personality: What makes them stand out when they walk in a room?

Darth Vader stands out as one of the top film villains because of this. He takes the place of Flash Gordon villains from the 1970s. These were over-the-top, easily-beaten villains, and Star Wars moviegoers might have thought they'd get one of these. Enter an imposing, heavy-breathing figure all in black. He is calm, cold, and unfazed by anything. He even comes close to strangling an admiral just for mouthing off. That's starkly different to what his predecessors were like. 

Is your villain lacking in personality? As long as they're believable and competent, and don't take up a lot of page/screen time, they may not need one. In Lord of the Rings (both the books and Peter Jackson's film trilogy), we don't need to see much of Sauron himself or hear him monologuing about his plans to understand that he is a threat. We don't even need much of his backstory at this point. It's enough that he has greedy or fearful allies, a country full of Orcs ready to gut Middle-Earth on command, and the resources to find the One Ring if the Fellowship is not very careful about their journey.

However, if your villain has to confront the hero in person, or if they get to share their POV from time to time, personality becomes a must. A bland, cardboard villain will not be much of a threat to your reader, even if they are incredibly strong.

Competence: How good a villain are they? 

These days, we don't think much of villains who monologue themselves into falling into a vat of acid. They're easily beaten, and therefore not much of a threat. They just aren't entertaining enough, especially against a competent Batman character. 

We want villains who pose a real threat to our protagonist and to their world. We want villains who are (seemingly) impossible to outwit or outfight, raising the stakes with every page or episode. If they're too easy to beat, then the audiences may look at the story with a sigh and a "so what?" Worse, if your characters don't have to reach down inside themselves to beat the villain, they probably won't ever grow. 

"So what?" indeed.

Antagonist Analysis

After 22 Marvel films, 13 X-Men films, Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, and the beginnings of the DCEU, I am still a fan of superhero films. I am also a big fan of supervillains--the catalysts of the genre. YMMV on the best type of villain across film and book genres, but there is no denying the pull of supervillains and how they often use the best of these elements to go toe-to-toe with the hero. 

Wilson Fisk (Netflix's Daredevil)

Fisk doesn't need to command a room from the start as Vader does. He seems unassuming and shy when introduced, and he has a stutter. But he's one of those villains who makes you doubt yourself and the hero, because he believes so forcefully in what he's doing and that he's right. He is also polite and respectful in an almost Hannibal Lecter way. Fisk looks out for those he genuinely cares for, even as he is ruthless in destroying those in his way.

Wilson Fisk throws both his money and his literal weight around to make things happen, turning him both believable and competent in the extreme. It's not hard to think that someone that powerful couldn't make life hard for the little guy to get them vulnerable to his machinations.

The Joker (The Dark Knight)

The Joker appears with sheer force of personality from the start, although what we see first is his massive competence. He pulls off a heist with barely a word to anyone else, escaping so smoothly that it's easy to believe everything was timed to the last second. Immediately, we can understand what a threat this character is. And within the grimdark Gotham, it seems entirely plausible that he can get away with his actions.

Once that mask comes off, Heath Ledger's performance sears the Joker's personality into the audience's minds. He doesn't need to shoot everyone just to get attention; his characterization does that all on its own.

Hela (Thor: Ragnarok)

As soon as Odin drops his last big reveal and--in classic Allfather fashion--nopes out of the story, we get the biggest threat to Asgard in the MCU: Hela. 

Hela begins with massive competence by shattering Mjolnir, invading Asgard (RIP Warriors Three), and booting both Thor and Loki out into space. Right away, we know this is a character who will take what she wants--and worse, has both the skill and the right to do so. Thor's triumphal return won't knock her out of power, the way it did with Loki back in the first film. That also adds to her believability: Odin keeps secrets about all his children, so what makes this instance different?

But Hela isn't a cackling madwoman; she's regal, intelligent, and snarky. Among some of the blander villains in the MCU, her personality stands out. It doesn't hurt that she's played by the charismatic Cate Blanchett, either. 

Thanos (Avengers: Infinity War)

Spoilers, if you still haven't seen Avengers: Infinity War or the ensuing memes.
This post will NOT contain spoilers for Avengers: Endgame.

Sometimes, villains are competent enough to win. Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War stands as a competent threat to the heroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in his goal to wipe out half of all life. 

By the end of "Infinity War," they've lost. While they've taken hits, and while some people have died, they have never lost. Thanos is a stark contrast to every other Marvel villain, who've all ended up dead or in prison for their evil machinations.

Plotting with Hamlet: The Relationship Between the Inciting Incident and Climax

If you look at a 3-act plot structure, you'll find two points on either end of a steep slope: the Inciting Incident and the Climax. Your inciting incident and climax can be vital for tying together your beginning and ending. Finding the connection between the two can lift a saggy middle, keep your characters on track, and informing theme.

While this analysis comes from script-writing for the stage and screen, it's a helpful tool for any type of storytelling structure.

Inciting Incident

At the Inciting Incident, the world changes forever. Here is the real point of no return, where the hero must progress to protect their world or try to pretend nothing has happened.

• Hint: don't ever go with the latter if your antagonistic forces won't push the hero back into their adventure very early. Your hero might resist the Call to Action at first, but successfully ignoring the world crumbling around them will kill your story. It will also kill your story if Fate--not your antagonist--pushes them to act, battering your character onward whether they want to or not.

The Inciting Incident always comes with a decision. No one wants to read a story where the world irrevocably changes, but the main character simply waits for fate to lead them to their next plot point.

From that decision comes the Major Dramatic Question (MDQ). 

What is the MDQ?

The Major Dramatic Question is the driving force of the entire story. The MDQ should always be a "yes/no" question, answered at the climax.

You want your readers always asking this one question. It keeps them moving toward the climax. If you find readers losing interest before you answer the question either the question is not strong enough, or your characters aren't holding onto it tightly enough.

A good, powerful MDQ should drive your characters. Done properly, it should also inform your theme. Checking scenes and character decisions against the MDQ can be a good way to determine tension and to make sure your plot is going forward. That can be vital for tightening up a saggy middle.

The MDQ isn't the only question you can ask in a narrative. The story might ask other questions, but these, generally, are either thematic or related to subplots--for example, if two of your characters begin expressing romantic interest amid the main action. These other questions ("will they, won't they?", "will this supporting character get what they want?") are still important to subplots and character development, but they are not the MDQ.

Climax

Here is where your readers find the answer to their question. In the 3-act structure, it is the moment of highest plot-related tension. 

No, it does not mean the moment where the plot has the most explosions.

Usually, this is where the protagonist and antagonist clash for the last time, with all the tools they need to win. Neither gets to walk away anymore; their options to do so have evaporated by this point. Only one can leave, or neither. After the climax, the resolution begins, and brings the (surviving) characters to a new stasis. 

Theme

Earlier, I mentioned that your MDQ can affect your theme. Just by asking the question, you can find a major element of your theme and plot. 

Look at the first Thor movie (also highly Shakespearean in its telling). Early on, Thor's arrogance gets him cast out to Midgard. Will he ever be worthy again of his powers and being king? Worth and the rights, responsibilities, and consequences of ruling a realm figures heavily into the theme of this movie as well as The Dark World and Ragnarok. 

The more detailed your MDQ is, the more likely you'll find a theme buried in there somewhere. 

Structure and Hamlet

The ghost's appearance is the inciting incident of the play. Without the old king making his appearance from beyond the grave, nothing would change. Hamlet would complain and resist making nice with his uncle, who--for the sake of his wife--would likely continue to tolerate him as long as he didn't get too annoying.

Unwilling to act too hastily, Hamlet's choice is to pretend madness and see what information he can gather. But he has begun his first steps towards obeying the ghost's words by doing so, even if he thinks he's delaying.

The Major Dramatic Question for Hamlet, then, is "Will Hamlet kill his uncle and avenge his father?"

The plot builds in the rising action with stakes and plot turns. Things get worse for Hamlet, especially when he kills Polonius, and he eventually decides to act once he has gathered all the information (and motivation) he thinks he needs. He plans for his final showdown--as does Claudius.

Here, at the climax, we answer the Major Dramatic Question.

"Will Hamlet kill his uncle and avenge his father?" Yes.
Because it's a tragedy, there's a "but" attached to that. "Yes, but he--and half the Danish court--die, too."

By including the choice of murder in the MDQ, the play introduces themes of revenge and making the choice to take a life.


What MDQ is your plot asking? Is your plot asking the question at the right moment in your story? Are you answering your question too early, or too late? If so, it's time to find what's rotten in the state of your story, and repair that foul and most unnatural plot point. 

10 Romance Clichés That Need to Die

Ranked from simply annoying, to unhealthy, to flat-out creepy. 

1. Romeo and Juliet comparisons for star-crossed lovers

I have no disrespect to Shakespeare for Romeo and Juliet. It's a fascinating play, with a lot of obviously great lines. But it is a tragedy, not a romance. 

What I dislike is using this story as a comparison/background theme for the characters to bemoan how they can never be together because of class/emotional baggage/plot drama the author creates. Rather than tell me how this book has an epic romance that will overcome social and personal issues, it suggests to me that the author is simply inserting the bits they want to remember from high school literature classes in hopes that referencing Shakespeare or a Bronte sister will do the hard work for them. 

If your book really compares to a famous romance and you want to say so as a theme, prove that you have read that piece of literature and understand the themes. Don't let some long-dead author do all your work for you; prove to me that this is a romance worthy of the comparison. 

2. Win him over with a makeover!

This puts a woman's worth right back on her appearance, no matter what else she is capable of in the story. 

Maybe the guy started liking her for her sarcastic quips, but it's not until she shows up with a perfect blowout and strappy heels that he realizes, "wow, she's hot. Even ... dare I say ... dateable!" 

If she gets dirtied up again, the guy might make another "you're not like the other girls" sort of backhanded compliment to show that he loved her All Along, which puts down those women who do like to dress up and get treated to a day at the salon. 

3. Can women really "have it all?"

Once women started reaching positions of power (which are still few and far between, mind), movies began to appear where a businesswoman suddenly realizes that she has been neglecting romance! Time to fix that! Enter a really hot man, either new to the business or an underling she never cared about before. 

The problem comes later in the story, when she realizes it's because of her intelligence or ruthless work ethic. She pulls back on these to have a boyfriend--or possibly gives up her job for romance. Note that a male character would never have to tone it back or wonder if he's single because he's being a nasty shrew, let alone sacrifice his job so he can have a girlfriend. 

Don't force your female characters to sacrifice who they are and what they've worked for just so they can get a boyfriend! This unhealthy trope that suggests romance is more important than self-improvement or success, which is already fed to women often enough. 

4. "Oh, [name,] you're not like 'other girls.'" 

What is wrong with other girls? 

I understand that authors want to make their heroine stand out to the hero/love interest. There's a reason these two catch each other's eye.

But it is toxic to claim that all the other girls in the story are vapid, self-obsessed, or "slutty." It creates a stereotype against women that, unless they are the protagonist, they are unintelligent, uninteresting (to him), and/or have loose morals. It also suggests that the man is subtly putting down all these other girls for not dating him or for not making more of an effort to surround him with Manic Pixie Dream Girls. 

Fix this by having your love interest focus on what makes her special as a person, not on what other girls or women lack. She doesn't have to be anything but herself to stand out. You can also fix this by fleshing out the story with other women who are well-rounded, believable characters rather than one-note stereotypes. 

5. "She's so cute when she's mad!" 

Another gross cliché is when a female character is angry or riled up about something. Not that the guy cares; he zones out of her rant to consider how "cute" she is when she's mad. 

This diminishes and infantilizes your female characters. It shows that their feelings are not worth serious consideration, and that if they're mad or concerned about something, it's probably not that important. After all, women are just hysterical beings, right? It'll blow over after some hot romance. 

It also shows something about your male characters: that they can't actually take their love interest seriously. Remind me again how they're going to work out in the long term? 

6. The Interrupting Kiss

We've all seen it: the girl is ranting, either angry or scared. She's expressing her feelings. And so the hero, who we know can't handle Feelings™, grabs her and plants a kiss on her mouth. 

It's not romantic. It's trying to shut her up. Either he's turned on by her "cuteness" and that female-talking-thing is distracting to the mood; or he is done listening to her feelings and wants to get back to him. Both show that he actually has no interest in her if it's not about him. 

You know what is romantic? Him listening to her, and not focusing on her body. Emotional depth and actual trust in one another builds a healthy relationship with a strong foundation. 

7. Miscommunication or lying as plot device

Miscommunication for comedy is fantastic. Comedy requires surprise and the unexpected to be effective, and miscommunication for comedy's sake generally incorporates that. 

Miscommunication for drama, however, is massively predictable, especially in romances. 

Especially this tired scenario: the hero and heroine have fallen in love. Someone disapproves of the relationship, and creates a rift--possibly by framing the heroine or spilling her secret. The hero breaks off the relationship without allowing for an explanation. The heroine leaves in tears. And then, after learning the truth secondhand, the hero catches her at the airport before they are separated forever, and they reconcile just in time for a Big Damn Kiss...! Aww, it's a perfect photo op...

It's not just clichéd; it makes the audience question why this relationship will work out in the end. They can't be honest with one another. No, they don't need to share all their secrets at once, but generally emotional connection is vital in a long-lived, healthy relationship. Before the big finale when all the truth comes out, let your characters talk to each other and confide in each other.

8. Cheating because they've found "The One"

If you’re going to have one half of your romantic pair already engaged, and they’re going to cheat with the protagonist because it’s True Love, you really need to question why they are with their partner in the first place.

Openly antagonistic people shouldn't have attracted your love interest in the first place. Otherwise, that says something bad about their character: that they are oblivious, that they are willing to put up with anything for how someone looks, or that they're complicit in the bad things their partner did.

If the fiancé(e) is a good person, why did a new face turn the romantic interest's head from a healthy and faithful relationship so fast? This still shows that they're shallow, or easily bored. I’d be wary of them if they left their own partner so easily.

Worse, a vital component of this trope is miscommunication for romantic drama. Lying and hiding things from each other does not persuade me to believe in their romance. If they hide really important things from each other (e.g. “Oh, but I never loved her! Dad just wanted me to marry her! I really love you!”) because it’s “awkward,” what are they going to do about money problems? Or pregnancy, infertility, family planning? Cheating?

(And I would bet money that without a drastic personality shift, that love interest would realistically cheat again. Because they get bored or because their HEA has unforeseen flaws. (Hello Princes from Into the Woods!) They did it once, what stops them doing it again?)

Unless the author really figures out why they're going to make it work beyond looks and just being "better" than the other person, their characters' marriage doesn't look like a long-lived one, my friends.

There are better obstacles to a romance than "Oh no! They're already engaged to this shallow mean person!" See what else you can throw in your characters' path besides such a lazy cliché.

9. Overprotectiveness

Some authors, especially in action or danger-oriented novels, want to create a character who looks out for their partner's welfare. All the time. To the point that the love interest can't drive their own car (for safety reasons), or use a personal phone (same), or talk to their friends. 

This is not romantic; this is controlling. These are early signs that a relationship may turn abusive. Unless this is the point of your story, stop pretending that dictating all behaviors (whether coming from a man or a woman) is cute or protective. 

Another sign of overprotectiveness comes in the form of "for your own good." One character, believing he or she is dangerous or has dangerous knowledge, pushes away their love interest. (Likely so they can have more time brooding alone.) 

Let your hero/heroine treat their friends and love interest as human beings who can make their own decisions. If it's really that dangerous, let them decide for themselves what risks they want to take. And if they know the risks and are willing to go anyway, aren't those the kind of people you want to take on your dangerous mission? 

10. Persistence disguised as romance

Characters trying to force their presence on another person who has already expressed their disinterest aren't romantic; they're used car salesmen. Again, this damages belief in your romance. Did they actually fall in love, or did one party just get tired and as soon as they have the chance, they're going to flee? 

This also veers into Creep territory. If a guy can't take no for an answer, what other boundaries might he disrespect? If a girl demands more and more from you, when do you think she'll stop? 

Is this element a vital part of your plot? Get rid of it.
If your characters just won't get together believably otherwise, take a good look at them. What can you do to improve this chemistry? Add similar core beliefs, similar love languages, etc. to make sure that they're not just butting heads over everything. If that doesn't work out after all, maybe these characters (as they are) just weren't meant to be. 

--

What romance tropes are you tired of seeing in fiction? 

Avoid Cooking Fails and Dessert Disasters

Do you relate on a deeply emotional level to Pinterest Fails, cooking fail videos, and this comic by The Oatmeal?

Many people I speak to about my book, Cooking Through College, insist to me, time and budget aside, “I just can’t cook!” The fear of burning cookies or setting the house on fire while they try to boil water is overwhelming, and they’ll resort to anything but learning this essential life skill.

If you didn’t grow up helping a parent or older sibling out in the kitchen, moving out to face that first college dorm or apartment’s decade-old stovetop with unrecognizable brown stains burned into the drip pan is, frankly, terrifying. Many college students resort to ramen, unhealthy freezer-aisle meals, or eating out rather than try out of fear they’ll fail. But these, eventually, turn unsustainable, for either your health or your budget. Or, you realize last-minute that you can’t bring instant noodles to a potluck.

So you’ll break out the rusty, faded memories of whatever your mom or dad was doing with that marinara sauce and pasta, or a Pinterest recipe you’ve been craving since you saw that photo of gooey cheese. And then it takes hours longer than you thought it would, because how were you supposed to know that the chicken had to thaw? Or that cakes had to cool? While you watch that green digital clock tick closer to your deadline, you decide to cut a few corners. It won’t matter so much, right?

What did cookies ever do to you???

Et voila—you lift a monstrosity out of the oven, half-burnt or clumped together hideously, and you wish you had never tried, swearing to the sky that you’ll just work longer hours so you can afford to eat out more, and wondering where you went wrong.

Let me assure you: This has happened to every chef and cook out there. Everyone botches at least one recipe beyond all salvation and repair, and resorts to a bread-and-butter sandwich at the end of the day because their energy has been spent. Four years ago, as I stared hopelessly into a pan of burnt seasonings and veggies that was supposed to be homemade chicken soup (yes, I have successfully burnt soup!), I could never have imagined that I’d later write a cookbook. My secret? Getting up and trying again—maybe not that same day, but try I did.

That, and learning why recipes fail. Like with writing or art, there are rules you have to learn before they can be broken or improved on.

Rule #1: Have patience!

The reason behind most of those Pinterest fails? The frustrated cooks behind them tried to cut corners and save themselves a little extra time, only to regret it when they opened the oven. Understand that cakes have to cool before you frost them, pastries in the oven are done when they’re done and will suffer if you impatiently open the door to check on them before it’s safe to do so (about halfway through the cook time, FYI), and frozen foods often need to thaw before you try making them. Understand that if the recipe says to let the dough chill in the fridge for an hour prior to baking, there’s probably a good reason.

Apparently you can cut corners on Cup Noodles. Who knew?

Rule #2: Don’t rush yourself. 

Before starting a recipe on a time limit, read through the instructions completely. Factor in an extra half an hour for nitpicky prep tasks, like dicing vegetables and trimming chicken, or even just cooldown. If you have three and a half hours to finish a project before carting it off to a dinner with family or friends, don’t risk a three hour entrée or dessert—especially if you’ve never tried it before. Even if you make it in time, it can be difficult and sometimes even dangerous to run out the door with a heavy pan that’s still sitting at a comfortable 400 degrees Fahrenheit.

Rule #3: Set timers

Keeping an eye on the time will help avoid a large portion of kitchen disasters. Also, it's a good rule of thumb not to walk too far away from anything that’s not in a crockpot.

If you’re not going to be sitting in your kitchen for an hour or your microwave timer doesn’t work, set them on your phone, your iPod, or your computer. This is actually the reason I’ve succeeded at burning soup. I thought I’d just have the presence of mind to go check before all the water evaporated and the remains would scorch themselves to horror-movie-black on the bottom of my pot. Turns out when you have a movie on and it’s a lazy, hot Sunday, and then you top it with a hearty helping of adult ADD, that doesn’t actually work. Save yourself the smell of burning vegetables and heartache—make sure you’ll know for sure when to go check your recipe before it’s too late!

Rule #4: Check your equipment.

Has this happened to you? Have you lost the blade of a knife out of its handle mid-chop? You probably shouldn’t use those tools anymore. I understand it’s not always in your power and budget to go buy a new set of knives and pans. However, Goodwill centers or Deseret Industries—even the dollar store!—can carry inexpensive kitchen tools. I recommend investing in one or two at a time if your knives or frying pans are at risk of breaking like this. Safety and not having to clean up a hot mess before it scorches or stains the cheap plastic tile on your kitchen floor will be worth it.

Also, test out your appliances when you first move in, and maintain them afterwards. Your microwave will last longer if you never try to heat up Styrofoam or metal, even “for SCIENCE!” 

Along with all this, use the right equipment. Bonus points for creativity if you try making pasta in a coffee maker, but it’s not going to turn out quite the way you want, and you may mess up your coffee maker. Don’t try to use a microwave for everything, either. Chances are, you’ll end up with more explosions than a Michael Bay film by the time you move out.

 It should go without saying that these would be better off in a cupcake tin. Those poor, poor cupcakes...

Rule #5: Understand that Pinterest posts, usually, are done by professionals with a lot of experience.

It’s easy to get frustrated when your Cookie Monster cupcakes turn out weird-looking, even when you really did remember to let them cool before frosting. It’s honestly okay when your frosted cake isn’t nearly as smooth as rolled fondant, because the pin you were looking at was created by someone who spent years studying food photography and presentation. Also, if their dessert didn’t turn out right the first time, it’s likely that they scrapped it and started over (!) for the best-looking cupcakes, where you and any other non-Pinterest blogger simply hopes to get a nice-looking batch to take to your friends. You probably won’t copy these bloggers without equal amounts of practice.

This also goes for fancy Disney or other movie cakes that can be ordered from a professional bakery. I know they’re expensive! But they’re pricy for a reason. It’s likely that this cake takes hours of labor in the bakery itself. Are those hours worth it? Probably not. It’s not going to save your budget to buy dozens of tools you’ll only use once trying to recreate it. You may just be better off picking a different look overall, like printing a popular image on rice paper and putting it on the top of a sheet cake.

 So put down the fondant and back away slowly from the Elsa’s ice castle recreation.

Last of all, take a deep breath when it looks like your oven is glaring a challenge at you. Remember to read through the instructions. Remember that it’s okay to fail and try again. No one ever starts off as a gourmet chef. You’ll only learn how to cook your way through college or the early months of marriage by getting in there and trying.

Now go conquer that oven!

Polish Your Prose: Show Without Saying

Think of a sad sentence, or scene, or song in something you might have read or heard. Think of the most heartbreaking thing your character (or even you yourself) has experienced. How might you write it?

Now consider the following paragraph (if it isn't too spoiler-ific for you. I've tried cutting names if you haven't read the book or seen the movie).

“He tasted dusty and sweet. He tasted like regret in the shadows of trees and in the glow of the anarchist's suit collection. She kissed him long and soft, and when she pulled herself away, she touched his mouth with her fingers...She did not say goodbye. She was incapable, and after a few more minutes at his side, she was able to tear herself from the ground.” 

― Markus Zusak, The Book Thief

Notice how this moment is described without mentioning death, tears, or sadness by name. As such, this gets a reaction from me because it relies entirely on sensory details like touch and taste. The character's action in the last two sentences is visceral, is extremely realistic and provokes memories I have of being incapable, of helplessness, of mute grief I experienced during a tragedy a few years ago. It doesn't bring up crying, or the character realizing she's crying; it's implicit, buried past the more interesting and deeper feelings. 

This moment, with these details and using such vivid imagery, invites the reader in deeper to the action. It's like the music in the background of those lyrics that always make your eyes sting a little. It is an excellent example of "showing" without "telling." 

When you write a sad scene or about a tragedy, try this as an experiment to encourage sensory details and showing without using minimal, common abstracts like "sad": write about the tragedy, especially through one character's eyes, without mentioning what it was. 

A similar exercise is Richard Price's advice to "write small": 

"You don't write about the horrors of war. No. You write about a kid's burnt socks lying on the road. You pick the smallest manageable part of the big thing, and you work off the resonance." Try writing about your tragedy with these tiny, more painful details. 

You can even practice this with dialogue. I've found I can get more zinging, emotional conversation out of my characters if I let them dance around the elephant in the room, or cover it up though it's trying to come out. Compare this to when you walk in on a friend or family member, and they're crying. Are they likely to say simply "I'm sad" in response to a concerned query? Chances are, they'll either be honest or try to deflect until they're comfortable expression the reason for their tears. 

While the examples here are about writing sad scenes, happiness and joy can be shown in the same ways. Just remember to avoid over-expressing large, important emotions and scenes with abstracts. Abstract ideas like "I was sad" only elicit sympathy, or pity, when you want to make the audience react. 

LDStorymakers and Encouraging Authors

This last weekend, I attended LDStorymakers, a conference in Provo, UT. It's centered heavily toward LDS writers of all levels, from the New York Times bestsellers like Brandon Sanderson or Dan Wells to the unpublished hopeful writers with their first manuscripts in hand. This is my second time going to this conference representing the publishing company I work for. Even though my face feels like it's going to fall off from too much smiling by the end of it, I love every minute of talking to authors and seeing their expressions light up with passion as they talk about their works in progress.

At least 12 hours is better than smiling as often as Barbie does.

One of those authors stopped by to talk to me. I recognized her from the same conference last year. There, she had approached me with her query to see if her book was something my company might like to pick up. I had just been told by my editorial board to avoid memoirs or other personal nonfiction, so I had to tell her no. However, I did not leave it at that. I felt that her story was an important one that many people in my area might want to hear, and I let her know not to give up.
This author told me that because of what I had said a year ago, she had kept pushing, and her book--exponentially improved--was going to be pitched to an agent for consideration. That agent, should it work out, will find the right market for the book where my company could not take a memoir.
Of all the things I learned at LDStorymakers, I think what has stuck with me most is that an opinion does matter, especially to an author. I know that in my capacity as an editor, my opinion and my word is taken with rather more weight, so I must watch everything I say and convey. This, however, applies to everyone with whom an author takes the risky chance to share their work.
There are stories of bestselling authors, composers, playwrights, musicians, and so on who were told to quit, burn their manuscript, get a real job. They didn't listen, and went on to change the world.
Think, though, how many other authors may have stepped out to change the world if the criticism had been tempered with encouragement. How many of them gave up, hid their manuscript in a dresser drawer, and sat behind a desk?
This is not to say that criticism or some harshness does not have its place. I'm an editor, for goodness' sake. Sometimes my job is to criticize, or be harsh. But I am always aware of my impact I may have an author's dreams, whether I'm sending an acceptance or a rejection letter.
Encourage, rather than disparage. Yes, even if the writing sucks. Frankly, we all sucked once at writing. We improved, or will do in time, if we are just given the chance.

Why I Hate Sending Rejection Letters

It's Soul-Crushing Day! In other words, the day I spend raking through my slush pile and deciding what to reject or pass onto the editorial board.
These are hard days all around, for both a busy editor and some poor author consigned to a day of tears. But I open that slush pile expecting that I'll reject most if not all of it, and hoping desperately to be proven wrong.

Before I became an editor, I had a very different opinion of that faceless reader on the other side, who either had no feelings whatever or gleefully tore through the submission pile with vicious claws looking for lives to ruin.
Now, I have a confession to make. As an editor, I don't like sending rejection letters.

First, on a selfish note, they sometimes make a lot of trouble for me. Angry authors flare up via email to demand why I didn't love them. Some of them call me directly, which makes for a very awkward situation for me. What can I say? The professional response is "We're sorry, your book is not what we're looking for/ready for the market." Trust me, this does nothing to assuage an author who's already got flames on the side of their face.

About 15% of my authors after being rejected.

((By the way, NEVER shout back to an editor about why they did not accept you. It does not make them feel good about you as a potential author, and you may sabotage further attempts at acceptance.))

Second, they're vague. Professional rejection letters are written to hurt as few feelings as possible, and thereby hopefully prevent the above angry-author scenario. But this is never enough, and I don't want to write a time-consuming letter about everything that the submission did to underwhelm me. It's that or be blunt about their writing quality or arrogance in their query letter. And I'd really rather not crush all their dreams.

Third, on an unselfish note, I'm an empathetic person. Having received rejection letters, I know how it feels to open up my inbox and find such a response to writing I spent hours (or years) on. So I can only picture the crestfallen look on an author's face.

Just picture this when you're about to send that nasty reply. Effective, no?

Fourth, what worries me once I press Send is that this author may have had a real talent budding under what was then merely slush, but their disappointment and sorrow will crush that future. I worry that this author, like many others, will decide that after one rejection (or twenty) that it's not worth it anymore. Sure, some people are not writers. But they're not writers now.

Fun as this looks, I'm sure your novel would disagree.

Regardless, it's still my job to send rejection letters.

The way I want my authors to picture a rejection letter is not as a rant of how much I hated them/their writing. I want them to picture it as opportunity.

So an editor didn't like your story. So twenty editors didn't like your story. Find out why!
Maybe you've landed on a genre so overdone every publisher is scared of it. It's not impossible to alter your story to something new and upcoming. Maybe you haven't quite hit the interest and readability of your target audience.

If you are truly serious about writing, get out there and do your research. See what's new on the market, what's similar to your book. Join writing groups and polish your prose. Grow your platform. That one rejection from that one evil, clawed editor happily chewing your work apart cannot hold you down. If you really want to make your book shine, prove them wrong.
Prove me wrong.