Act 3 totally broken...keep writing?
I'm ready to enter the final act, Act 3, of my (first big) story and by now I'm pretty sure I'll have to rewrite 50-70% in ACT 1 and 2.
I outlined the whole story but it is clear that my main hero is boring, his motivations (and story arc) change every few chapters and basically the whole script now feels like a mess. There's even a sinking feeling that my actual hero is one of the allies: i.e. the one who actually does stuff. My main char just 'gets dragged along' and doesn't decide a thing and if he does, it's the allies that do what he tells that should be done (he's a retired general).
Everyone keeps advising me to 'write until the end' and then rewrite. But writing act 3 will probably feel like a drag (which was already starting to happen near the end of act 2). I'm pretty sure nothing of it will make sense because nothing I'll write in act 3 will be in-line with how I (think I) need to rewrite the first two acts. I've been staring at a blank page for a week now not sure if I should actually write this last part.
So the question: should I keep writing these last 20k words that are most likely very useless. Or is it (finally) time to go back to the 'drawing board' and fix what needs fixing and then write act 3, knowing what I know now.
Thank you in advance, Tim
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/27987. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
Start over; new file, using what you have as a reference. I've actually done it, put aside nearly 200 pages and begun anew.
Your story problem is what I think of as the original "Star Trek" problem: It is completely implausible for the Captain of the Ship to personally engage in fist fights, away missions, spy-type infiltrations, etc. Star Trek used red shirts to to take the damage, but in real life, military leaders haven't led the troops into battle since the middle ages. (Negotiations, ambassadorial work, attending conferences, all okay).
Generals are like CEOs, that is not where the action is. In the old Mission Impossible series, each show starts with the orders from the top: we only follow the "away team" and their subterfuge, danger, etc. In Saving Private Ryan, we hardly care about George Marshall giving the orders; for most of the movie follow Tom Hanks and his hand-picked crew, the guys with the guns.
Same comment about 007: "M" is the person giving the orders (Judi Dench; then later Ralph Fiennes), but we hardly care; they get a handful of lines: We follow the best secret agent in the field.
All the action is in the field, not behind a desk.
I obviously don't know your story, but you probably can follow the General as a well thought out Secondary character (instead of just a cardboard walk-on); just like General George Marshall in SPR, or M in 007.
But most of your story should focus on the highest ranking (or most experienced) character that is naturally still in the field, dodging bullets and punching the bad guys.
You can still open on the General, just keep him in his natural environment, in command and making big picture decisions. If you do that, be sure to introduce your hero by reference; Somewhere in the first 2-3 minutes characters need to be at least talking about the hero, preferably as a top field operative.
To me writing is an exploratory exercise in finding a story. It sounds to me like you found a story, or at least a compelling hero. Have no grief over the lost pages, they did their job on you. Perhaps they also helped you clarify the plot and invent other characters, traits, settings and descriptions you can use.
If you write a hundred pages to get five good ones, at least you got five good pages! Eventually those add up to a complete story.
0 comment threads
Fix it now.
If you realize you made a mistake, go back and fix it now. Not, I stress, because the last 20K would be "wasted," because no writing is wasted, but because it's clearly blocking you and you don't want to write it.
Carve off whatever pieces aren't going to fit and put them in a slush file. I like this method because it feels less painful than outright deleting, and because sometimes I can reuse or repurpose character beats or even specific sentences or phrases somewhere else in the book.
0 comment threads
Stop writing and put it in a drawer. Go write something else for a while.
There is no point in continuing when you know, as you clearly do, that this story is off the rails. It is not going to yield either usable prose or usable insight.
At the same time it is clear that you have not yet had the positive a-ha moment that reveals what the true story actually is. You have only had the negative realization that you don't know what the true story is. Going back and starting revisions immediately without that a-ha moment is not likely to make things better.
Some will advise that you should keep plowing on in this circumstance, hoping that the true story will reveal itself if you just keep working the problem. That's a good Protestant Work Ethic approach, but I seriously doubt its artistic validity. A good story emerges when you get that glorious click in your head and all the pieces of your vision fall into place. After that it rushes onto the page with effortless excitement.
Writing is sometimes a way to get to that point, but it sounds like that is not working for you at the moment. So the other alternative is to put it aside, work on something else, let your subconscious work on it in the background, and come back to it later.
If there is something real there, it will tug at you and tug at you until you are forced to go back to it. If there isn't, it will sit in the draw forgotten and unmourned and you won't waste any more time on it. You are too close to it know to know which it will be, and the only way to find out is to put it aside and wait for that spark of excitement to return.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads