What elements does a TnT story really need?

[Aquarius]

Right again, WG.

In giving the question some more thought, "good" stories--regardless of the show it's based on or the characters one chooses to write about--all start with the same, more empirical and less subjective elements. At my Han/Leia forum, we posted the following as a reference for readers who were frustrated because they wanted to leave thoughtful critique when they read something, but "just didn't know what to say/how to say it." We realized later that this was also a handy reference for beta readers and authors, to make sure that critical things were covered before submitting a piece for public consumption, since the "public" would be actively looking for these things:

So here is a partial list of the kinds of things to refer to when offering a thoughtful critique of a piece of fanfiction.

1. Plot - Did what happened in the story make sense? Was it believable? Did the pacing of the events match what was happening? Did everything get resolved, or were you left hanging?

2. Setting/Description - Did the author paint the scene for you, so you knew many of the elements of the setting as though it were a video playing in your head? Were the descriptions adequate for you to visualize what was going on?

3. Characterization/Dialogue - If canon characters were used, did their portrayals ring true? Could you see those folks from the movies acting that way, talking that way? If the author invented some original characters, did they fit in with the canon characters, become a part of the SW universe for you? Did the interactions among the characters SOUND like a real conversation? Could you hear their dialogue; did you even find yourself taking on one of the roles and speaking that person's words aloud?

4. Tone/Genre - If this piece was written to a specific genre, for example, angst, drama, mystery, action, or humor, did it meet your expectations for that genre? Did the tone match the genre? Was it "just enough", or excessive? If angst or drama, did it make you cry or cause you to become introspective? If humor, did you laugh out loud? If a mystery, was it suspenseful? Did the action leave you on the edge of your seat?

5. Imagery/Language Expression - Did the author use words artfully? Was the wording appropriate? Were descriptive passages painted so well you stopped for a minute and let your mind take it all in, creating the scene in your head?

6. Language Mechanics - Did the author check carefully for spelling, capitalization, punctuation and other grammatical errors?

7. Overall Effect - What was your gut level feeling about this work? How it it make you feel? Did you immediately want to find something else by this author to read?

Now as I said, this was written with Star Wars authors/readers in mind, but you can see how this can be easily modified to cover any fandom. I think all you'd have to change here is "movies" to "show".

The bolding and color change in #4 was my addition for the purposes of posting this here. The emphasis is meeting your expectations for a particular genre--if a humor piece, was it actually funny, etc. Because I get dismayed when I see people leave commentary based on something like whether or not they even like angst, or female pon farr, or whatever. Stories here are labeled. We give you a heads-up on content. It baffles me to no end how a reader will disregard a warning and read any way, then self-righteously leave blistering commentary slamming the story's very premise--but whether or not the premise was well-executed gets ignored.

The point is, a "good" story isn't defined by whether or not it's angsty, funny, action-packed, romantic, or whatever. There are both good and bad stories of all types. A "good" story is defined by how well the author did what he or she set out to do. It's not the goal that should be called into question, but whether or not they made it.

[WarpGirl]

Aquarius if you keep saying I'm right I'm going to fear I've been replaced by a pod-person!

Well I'm not a Han/Leia person but we have something simular at the KOTOR fansite, so you can replace the word movies, with video games too. Basically it boils down to this... There has never been a "perfect relationship" between to people where nobody gets hurt, and there are no problems. So 99.999999999999% of people who write are not going to write those stories. If you really want to read stories where the characters never ever say or do anything wrong, you're reading selection is limited. If you are going to write those stories yourself... You are going to have to work 10,000 times harder to make it believable. And 100,000 times harder if it is a multi-chapter fic. I personally do not write to give myself a stroke. So you won't see those stories from me.

[panyasan]

Very interesting thread. I especially liked the Questions Aquarius posted, because there are good questions to ask. Good to go over them before I started commenting.
I have a splitting headeache so I hope I make some sense when I add my two cents. For me, labels don't say that much. I can read a story that is labelled angst and loving it. For example there was a story where T'Pol really got injured or when T'Pol and Trip are stranded and are confronted with horrors of war and have to fight to survive. Angst can be also about difference in cultures and miscommunication and very interesting. I agree that conflict is interesting and that a relationship is never totally happy (differences can make a relationship very interesting), but that doesn't mean I like all angst. There is an angst I don't so much like; the angst when T'Pol is pushing Trip away for IMHO unlogical reasons and keeps on pushing him away. I also like the angst a bit realistic; when I have a hard time believing it that this could happen in real life, I lose interest and I mostly don't comment. This is not a jugdement if a fic is good or bad.

When I do comment on a fic, I try to read the fic with attention and give my impression and sometimes questions. (Comments for my own stories can be inspiring, which could make me change a thing in the fic, other times I disagree with the comment.) Sometimes my respons on fic's is colored by my own emotions (sometimes I regret jumping to write a comment) and I do enjoy discussion about a fic.
The fun thing is, some of the fic's that stirred such an emotional response in me are the ones that grow on me. They make me uncomfortable, they make me think, they provoke and make me glad at the end. There is one fic I made a comment like this "You mean, you mean... aahhhhh... this means that..." Author "Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to say." It's still a fic that I am so glad I read it.

[WarpGirl]

That leads to another thing... "Lables" most of the time lables are hardly empirical. What might be considered "angst" to someone, doesn't necessarily count as angst to another person. For example, I don't find Transwrap's stories at all angsty. I don't think stories dealing with the death of Baby Elizabeth angsty. They're sad, and hard, but to me that's not what angst means. My definition of angst, is a story where Trip is still dealing with his hatred of the Xindi. Or T'Pol is still trying to come to terms with her own demons, and goes through internal personal pain. And you know what, I like those stories. Because we all have to come to terms with our own flaws and foibles in life.

And it's not just "angst" that can be a subjective lable. I can't tell you how many action/adventure stories I've read and was left wondering, where is the action?

So sometimes a lable can be misleading.

[Aquarius]

This is actually a pretty good "food for thought" topic. WG's observation led me to one of my own:

Yes, labels can be misleading. Never mind the fact that the right idea in the hands of a skilled writer can change your mind about what you "don't normally like."

But on the issue of a misleading label--I agree that sometimes it's subjective. I think the word "angst" especially gets thrown around a lot to be a catch-all for "drama/reality/grit that I don't like," or to encompass any story where the author has colored outside the lines, so to speak, and used their fic to explore difficult issues and the complexities of relationships.

-BUT-

When a story's label doesn't seem to match what's in it, how often is it necessarily subjectivity of said label...and how often might it actually be an author *thinking* they're written an action story, or a funny story, or whatever....and maybe they've missed the mark? Which kind of dovetails into my earlier observation that a "good" story isn't necessarily defined by the premise, but how well-executed the premise is.

Maybe another reason to think of #4 the next time we read something, or as we write something, since whether or not we've delivered what we said we were going to in the labels is one of the things a reader thinks about?

[WarpGirl]

I get what you're saying Aquarius, but it leads me to think of one other point. Whether or not an author "misses the mark" of what they labeled their story as cannot be empirically proven. What's funny to someone is not funny to others... Case in point, I do not understand why Monty Python is considered funny. It's just not my thing... I also do not understand it when people don't laugh at Oscar Wilde or Shakespere. But some people don't. Now am I going to say Monty Python isn't comedy because it doesn't make ME laugh??? Nope I don't have a death wish. Am I going to say Shakespere never wrote comedies because a friend of mine didn't laugh at "Much Ado About Nothing"? Nope. They just didn't find it funny.

My point is both the writers of Monty Python and the Bard would both say they wrote comedy. So I doubt someone who writes a fanfic they consider to be "angst," "andventure," "comedy..." whatever is going to cange their opinion just because I don't think that's what it is. The only person who can correctly label a story is the person who wrote it. Whether or not I agree is immaterial.

[Aquarius]

No, it can't be "empirically proven." But let me give you an example.

You're in court, on trial for murder, and you've entered a plea of self-defense. Maybe somebody broke into your house and you thought they had a gun or something. So, while there are as many possible different specific reactions as there are people on this planet, the prosecutor and the defense attorney are only interested in one thing: did you react the way a "reasonable person" (and this is a term that comes up in law a lot) would; would "most people" have thought what you thought in the situation and done what you've done? And it's a jury of your peers that gets to decide if you did or didn't, regardless of what they personally would have done

So we could pick away at the semantics of "angst" and "humor" and "action" all day long, but the fact of the matter is, if you're trying to reach a readership of more than a few people, then as an author, you *do* have to concern yourself with what "most people" would think in terms of whether or not you wrote what you said you wrote. If one person comments "I didn't think it was funny," then you're probably dealing with subjectivity. If several people comment "I didn't get the joke," then chances are you actually have an issue worth exploring there and should either rethink your execution of humor, or your target audience.

True, whether you like labels or not.

[WarpGirl]

OK let me give you an example... People will pay 10,000,000 dollars for a painting of a Huge red dot in the middle of a white canvas. Is that art? A lot of people will say "NO WAY!" A lot of people will say "YES!" How do you define what "most people" consider art, and what is good art? There is no equasion, or method of determining how people see art, no matter what the medium is.

I don't really think Law is an area where this question can be illustrated with. Law is bound by certain absolutes, where art and creativity is not.

In the end art of any type is 100% subjective, and the artist is the only person who matters.

[EntAllat]

I'm starting to ponder a serious question. What is needed to write a good TnT story? The (unfortunately) most-used element appears to be angst, which to my dismay seems to be a favorite among the women folks around here.

In an ff-comment to a hideously angsty story I read this: "Angst is salt for any good drama" and somewhere within the comment section of a story on TriS someone (again female, IIRC) wrote: I'm of course a sucker for suffering Trip and agonized T'Pol.

Well, Shakespeare's works were mostly angst. He seemed to do okay for himself.

What is a good TnT fic simply boils down to 'what is a good fic'? Good writing, a decent plot, good pacing, excitement?

I think that question can really only be answered by the reader based on their own taste. There are sections of Barnes&Noble I avoid because I don't don't care for that style of writing/storytelling no matter how well written or even well respected it is. I have a few friends who would never pick up a science-fiction novel because they can't stand that genre (including Star Trek as a whole). There are still arguments in academic circles over whether certain author's works are worthy of attention or not. For me, as long as the writing is well done, the pacing is good, the characters are familiar and believable and the story keeps my attention, be it angst, humor, action/adventure, mystery, fluff, thrillers - it's all good fiction and therefore good TnT fan fiction.

I'm asking the experienced writers in here. What would be needed to construct a nice and interesting TnT fic, without T'Pol shutting out and downright abusing Trip or any of that will-they-won't-they malarkey? Is it realistic to write multi-chaptered piece, where TnT are together from the beginning?

Sure! Speaking as someone who loves a lot of will-they-won't-they malarkey , yeah, absolutely you can. Just put them together and make the challenge of the story be something external. A bad guy alien. A group of refugees they have to help but they have to deal with uncooperative cargo ships ... A mystery they have to solve and their solid relationship and bond is the key to solving it. Team TnT! You get the idea.

Most fanfic writers write what they would want to read (rather than writing for a mass market audience). So if you're feeling like there's a lack of good stories that don't involve angst then I'd say it sounds like that's the inspiration and challenge for writing your own fanfic.

[aadarshinah]

I'm asking the experienced writers in here. What would be needed to construct a nice and interesting TnT fic, without T'Pol shutting out and downright abusing Trip or any of that will-they-won't-they malarkey? Is it realistic to write multi-chaptered piece, where TnT are together from the beginning?

Does this mean you're thinking about starting another insanely ambitous project? (Not that I mind ). But if you can find a way to put the two together at some point during or around "Broken Bow" and make it somewhat realistic, or, at least, plausible, more power to you. Like EA said, so long as there's some kind of conflict to drive the plot, external or otherwise...

Now you've made me curious. Providing that everything else in the series remains the same, what is the earliest point Trip and T'Pol could enter into a relationship without it seeming forced, overly OoC, or otherwise strange? I'm gonna have to think on that one...

[Aquarius]

OK let me give you an example... People will pay 10,000,000 dollars for a painting of a Huge red dot in the middle of a white canvas. Is that art? A lot of people will say "NO WAY!" A lot of people will say "YES!" How do you define what "most people" consider art, and what is good art? There is no equasion, or method of determining how people see art, no matter what the medium is.

I don't really think Law is an area where this question can be illustrated with. Law is bound by certain absolutes, where art and creativity is not.

In the end art of any type is 100% subjective, and the artist is the only person who matters.

It is a fair comparison. Even with your example, intent is key. And self-defense can be subjective. That's why you have to *prove* it, it's not a gimme.

We struggled with the question "Is it art?" in my creative writing class last semester. A couple of the assignments involved going to performance art/readings there at the University, and I have to tell you, my personal opinion is that some of it was kind of "out there." One of the things was this guy reading from random pieces of paper scattered all over the stage. It wasn't scripted/planned--some of what he read was homework collected from people in the audience, etc.

So some of my classmates said "That's not art."

And in the debate, I asked my professor (Anna Vitale, who is a published poet and free-form DJ at an Ann Arbor radio station), "So...if I kick over the contents of a used litter box and stick a price tag on it, is it art just because I say so?"

She had a good answer: "If you kick over a cat box as a metaphor for some kind of social issue or something you've observed, something that's bothering you, if you're intending to compare something to cat poop, albeit abstract, yes, it's art.And to the people who say 'No, it's not,' I'd say, 'It's more accurately *art you don't like*.' BUT, if you kicked over a cat box purely by accident, and left it there because you just didn't feel like picking it up, then I'd say no, it's not art, it's just you being lazy. Yes,some more artistically-oriented people may find something aesthetically interesting or pleasing about the arrangement of the box and used litter on the floor...but you weren't being artistic, you were being clumsy."

No different than someone saying something funny even though the weren't "trying" to *be* funny. You can still end up with a result that's funny, but the the difference is in the intent. Think about the last time you laughed your ass off because you read something that was -so- bad you cracked up. That author probably didn't intend to write a humor piece, but their execution has probably invalidated whatever action or romance or whatever label they put on it.

Any way, I'm going to drop this here, because I already can see where this is going to go. Suffice it to say, the fact remains that if you tell a joke to a room full of people and nobody laughs (aside from a couple of polite guffaws to protect everyone from a totally awkward moment), you either told it wrong, or you told it to the wrong people. It's up to you to figure out which it is for next time.

[Silverbullet]

I once heard a person give his definition of art "If it makes my soul soar it is Art" Never quite understood that but it made the person happy apparently.

[WarpGirl]

Well, I'd agree with your creative writing teacher, but there's one thing wrong with the theory...Plenty of great artists were not recognized as such during their lifetimes. Emily Dickenson wrote 15,000 poems each a brilliant piece of literary art... Yet her "intent" was not to be a great artist. Her poetry was a hobby, not to be shared with the outside world. They were never meant to be "art" at all.

The reverse is also true, Vincent Van Gogh sold ONE painting in his lifetime. ONE! Nobody thought he was a great painter, in fact his paintings were compared with unfinished children's drawings. His "intent" was to be one of the great painters of all time during his own lifetime.

So who was the artist? What constitutes art? There is no correct answer, therefore the only true determination of success or failure rests with the artist. And even then, they are sometimes wrong... Van Gogh certainly wasn't a failure but he died believing he was.

LOL Ironically, I'm just being inspired by my former English Lit, and Art History Professors myself. My English Lit Prof... He was a poetry phenom, and Emily Dickenson devotee, and my Art History Prof... He was obesessed with Van Gogh and Michealangelo. So we got into this stuff a lot.

[Aquarius]

That someone engaged in an artistic endeavor purely as a hobby make it somehow "less" artistic is ridiculous. Doing it for fun doesn't invalidate it or mean that it won't resonate with a lot of people. Emily Dickinson is no less an artist because of the reasons you outlined. The only way that holds up is if you're drawing the distinction between a professional artist (as in one who does it full-time and makes their living from it) vs. a non-professional...but that distinction doesn't make one artist any "better" than the other.

And you're talking about career intentions ("the greatest painter," etc.), not the paintings/works themselves. What we're talking about for the purposes of this thread is not whether anything said her is going to make anyone the greatest thing to hit fan literature ever...but rather things like developing your characters in a way the reader cares about what's going to happen to them next, writing humor that's actually funny to the audience you're going after, writing action that keeps your audience on the edge of their seat wondering what the characters are gonna do next, etc. We're not defining "good" by how big of a mark you leave or whether you *meant* to leave a mark at all.

There are certain things that are universal, and one is that context is important. Are characters who "sound" just like TnT necessary to have a "good story" in general? Of course not...but I'd say that in order to have a "good" *TnT* story, it's going to be important to most people seeking out a TnT story. So if--and here it is again--"most people" reading agree that "yeah, Trip talks like that" or "yeah, that's consistent with how we've seen T'Pol behave," then chances are you've done your job as a TnT writer, no matter what the individual variances are in your audience--the "subjectivity" if you will. Now if you've shown this same story to a Buffy/Spike crowd, chances are most of them are not even gonna know or care if your TnT are in-character, because you've obviously targeted the wrong audience. It might be a well-told story but if it isn't what they came to see...?

[WarpGirl]

That someone engaged in an artistic endeavor purely as a hobby make it somehow "less" artistic is ridiculous. Doing it for fun doesn't invalidate it or mean that it won't resonate with a lot of people. Emily Dickinson is no less an artist because of the reasons you outlined. The only way that holds up is if you're drawing the distinction between a professional artist (as in one who does it full-time and makes their living from it) vs. a non-professional...but that distinction doesn't make one artist any "better" than the other.

OK that was my entire point! Emily Dickenson IS a masterful artist even though before her death NOBODY not even one family member knew she even wrote poetry. Her art was not targeted to any audience at all. But it is still art.

And you're talking about career intentions ("the greatest painter," etc.), not the paintings/works themselves. What we're talking about for the purposes of this thread is not whether anything said her is going to make anyone the greatest thing to hit fan literature ever...but rather things like developing your characters in a way the reader cares about what's going to happen to them next, writing humor that's actually funny to the audience you're going after, writing action that keeps your audience on the edge of their seat wondering what the characters are gonna do next, etc. We're not defining "good" by how big of a mark you leave or whether you *meant* to leave a mark at all.

Again, you brought up intent. And intent has very little to do with true art, that was the point I was trying to make. Sure kicking over the litter might have been "clumsy" it doesn't mean it isn't art, if after the accident you realize hey this is a great metaphore for... and then all of the sudden it can be art, regardless of intent.

There are certain things that are universal, and one is that context is important. Are characters who "sound" just like TnT necessary to have a "good story" in general? Of course not...but I'd say that in order to have a "good" *TnT* story, it's going to be important to most people seeking out a TnT story. So if--and here it is again--"most people" reading agree that "yeah, Trip talks like that" or "yeah, that's consistent with how we've seen T'Pol behave," then chances are you've done your job as a TnT writer, no matter what the individual variances are in your audience--the "subjectivity" if you will. Now if you've shown this same story to a Buffy/Spike crowd, chances are most of them are not even gonna know or care if your TnT are in-character, because you've obviously targeted the wrong audience. It might be a well-told story but if it isn't what they came to see...?

I agree. But only up to a point. Because people are always going to see TnT differently. Look at Misplaced's Unexpected Too... Some people are saying Trip should be outraged at Ah'len because she violated him. Some people are saying he's perfectly in character. Nobody is "wrong" there. And it's not Misplaced's job to cater to either side if she doesn't choose too.