"What Ifs" and Third Rails
Some thoughts on stories, genres, and how we ever get around to writing what we want to write.
So, this post is coming in pretty late. I’ve had a ton of priority deadlines to hit, plus work on my current novel, and also preparing to travel to Paris next week(!!). I’ll make sure my next update includes lots of pictures of my flaneurie while I’m there. In the meantime, here’s some reading I’ve been doing that’s been a major eye-opener for my writing. I hope there’s something helpful in here for you, too!
In a recent Twitter thread (which I can no longer embed here because boo), bestselling author Delilah Dawson recommended that every aspiring author read Lisa Cron’s Story Genius. In her words, she used to write one book every year that would absolutely miss the mark — until she read Cron’s book. Now, she’s hitting her stories out of the park every time, nailing the execution even if the market doesn’t always recognize her brilliance.
It was a hell of a recommendation. Cron’s book has been on my shelf for a while, and I guess this was the push I needed to see what all the fuss was about.
Cron argues that while most of us know a good story when we read it, very few of us have the innate ability to understand why said story is so good, let alone replicate what makes it good.
Many best-selling authors are too talented and intuitive to be much help; they explain their success in terms of prose and plot, and this highly variable and idiosyncratic advice ends up forming generally unhelpful creative writing syllabi the world over.
But neither prose nor plot make a story, according to Cron. Neither accounts for the actual experience of closing a book and saying, “Damn that was good.” What does make sense of this is the “third rail”: the inner life of the story’s focal character, and the intense emotional development they go through as they’re forced to change in order to get what they want—or not. More than any heroic journey or plot twist, this personal, emotional “rail” is what’s going to drive us as readers through the pages of a book.
To have a strong “third rail,” it isn’t enough that a character want what they want and face a tough road to get it. There’s another ingredient: what some screenwriters call the “Wound” or the “Big Lie”. This is a bias or a misperception that the character has about reality—a “misbelief.” It’s deeply engrained, affecting their desires. It’s the reason why what a character wants can be a far cry from what they actually need:
A misbelief feels identical to a belief that’s spot on. That is, it feels right, not to mention true. And here’s the key thing: it doesn’t feel right because the protagonist is a big fat idiot or so flawed he or she can’t tell the different between what’s right and what isn’t. It feels right because at a crucial moment in your protagonist’s life, it was right. Right, that is, with an asterisk. (Cron, 80)1
A good story will rally all its symbolic and setting elements around this discrepancy and its consequences, creating an organic and cohesive-feeling world in which the story’s central question can play out. That central question is, of course, “Will the protagonist escape their core misbelief, or will they dive deeper into it?”2
To write a truly riveting story, Cron recommends a three phase process:
Determine the point you want to make. What feeling or message do you want your story to convey to your audience? What’s the theme?
Create a protagonist whose wants, needs, and wounds can deliver your message with maximum impact.
Flesh out the pivotal moments in your protagonist’s past, then outline a plot that references that past and forces your protagonist to confront it.
I like Cron’s approach. It resonates with another lesson I’ve been learning lately: that good stories get us to ask and answer questions in fundamentally new ways. These questions don’t arise at the level of plot (Cron calls the “What If” writing prompt one of the biggest perpetuators of bad story instincts). Rather, they arise at the level of feeling. The emotional arc of the protagonist puts me in touch with a whole suite of sensations that tell me, “Hey, there’s something here worth thinking about here.” And, as Cron writes in her introduction, emotion—rather than logic—is the midwife of meaning: “without emotion, we can’t make a single rational decision.”
Cron also points out that while there are a finite number of really compelling emotional arcs you can trace, there are an infinite number of ways to tell those stories. But that infinity also feels like a bigger problem than Cron lets on. She’s very aware of this problem, and of the bigness you take on when you start creating from such an intuitive, emotional space. This is why Cron keeps doubling down on specificity in her exercises. And yet, several times, I found myself reading an example and saying, “Wait, that’s not specific enough yet?!”
It made me realize that I was going to need to do a lot more front-end work if I was going to follow Cron’s process. I think that goes for a lot of writers I know, actually. We’re so used to starting from the “What If”, from the vibes of an imagined world. What happens if you’re just not as used to starting with the questions Cron starts with? I think there’s a small danger of feeling you’re doing things out of order, and that can cost valuable time and energy.
Thank God, then, for John Truby’s new book, The Anatomy of Genres, which has worked perfectly for me alongside Cron’s book as I refine my brainstorming and outlining process.
While Cron is implicit about stories being great big questions, Truby puts that thesis right out in front. What’s more, he shows that certain genres have solidified around certain core thematic questions. For example:
Horror: How do I confront the reality of death and/or the ghosts from my past?
Science Fiction: What are the right choices I need to make right now to ensure a better future for everyone? What are the social structures on which a society stands or falls?
Western: What is the meaning of “home?” Of “help?” Of “freedom?”
Truby provides a more reliable jump-start, I think, to the kind of process Cron recommends. It works for those of us who still start with “What If,” or with vibes. Who start out with grand vistas or gothic castles, houses of cosmic horror and weird gods with veiled faces and hands where there shouldn’t be hands.
Truby meets writers like me where we are. He provides the right tools to start with the “What If”, but still move into a process much like what Cron recommends. Anatomy of Genres does this by helping you understand that your vibes are already asking crucial questions for you.
For example, I’ve been sitting a long time on a novel idea about a wintery wasteland, maybe something post-apocalyptic, where priests have 40 days to calm the spirits of the dead before they transform into terrible wraiths. The vibes of this story already cross three or four genres with built-in questions:
Horror: These characters are regularly confronting death and undeath. They’re haunted by past mistakes, and some even get the chance to very briefly come back from the dead in order to close their accounts. But they’re also asking about the meaning of life and death, and so this is a very religious story.
Western: This world I’m imagining is very spread out and sparsely settled. Of course it would be, what with constant threats from ghouls. How do people help one another in a world like this? How are they afraid to help? What does “thriving” look like, here? Who achieves it and how?
Fantasy: How does this weird blend of traditional clericism and necromancy I’m playing with lend itself to expressing deeply held values such as faith, mercy, hope, etc?
Gangster: Tying back to the ways horror lends itself to religious themes, I’m imagining a corrupt Church at the heart of this story, frustrating the good that its necromancer-priests try to do in the world. How does that corruption affect people’s ability to find hope in the face of a supernatural threat?
These are, according to Truby, the sorts of thematic expectations that accompany the genres I’m vibing with. Stories with these thematic concerns will feel right for the “What If” already in my head. So now that I know which genres I’m vibing with, I can more confidently seek out that “third rail” and figure out what the hell happens:
One character in the “40 Days” story is a revenant, raised from death by a priest who hopes to lead them to absolution. Except that this revenant was betrayed and executed by the Church, her family wiped out by their negligence. She plans to use the priest as a tool in her own pursuit of revenge. Her wound leads her to believe this priest is also her enemy, and her Third Rail involves the question of whether vengeance is really more important than justice and salvation.
The priest, meanwhile, is haunted by his failures as a parent. One child was killed by ghouls, and the other responded by joining an especially zealous and militant sect of the Church. Because of his response to the tragedy, the priest’s own ideas about love and faith have fallen into disrepute, and since he’s been deposed from leadership the Church has become a much more draconian institution. His Third Rail involves reckoning with his past, recognizing that he’s using his ministry to the dead as a substitute source of redemption for his failures as a father. Will he seek forgiveness, or despair of everything he teaches his ghostly wards?
Neither of these are as specific as Cron would recommend, yet, but Truby helps me get three quarters of the way there just by thinking about the conventions I'm already attracted to.
The biggest upshot of this process? It helps you pitch your story with much more success. I write some weird and fantastic stuff, and I’m no stranger to others’ eyes glazing over when I talk about my work unless those others are writers themselves, or at least into the genres I’m into. But since I’ve been practicing this approach — What are my genre questions? What’s my third rail? — I’ve had much more success getting people interested in my stories. Even people who aren’t into horror or fantasy at all perk up when I talk about the emotional journeys of my characters — and what’s more they recognize the genres I’m working in as fitting places for exploring those emotions and asking those questions.
We all share certain assumptions about genre, and we all share big feelings and big questions attached to those assumptions. Use those to your advantage when sharing your ideas, and I bet you get a lot more people interested in your plot.
In fact, how about you start in the comments here? What genres are you most attracted to? What questions does that genre tend to ask? What are some memorable “third rails” you’ve experienced that you think can only be told within a particular genre? Let me know; I’d love to hear what you’re writing/reading, and why you love it.
If this sounds like the textbook definition of a coping strategy, you’d be right.
If I may make a philosophical aside here, this also means that our sense of drama lives down in our ideas about whether it’s really possible for us to overcome bias: the wounds and misbeliefs “that prevent the instinctive dynamism of our minds from attending to experience, seeking to understand, and making a disinterested judgment on the evidence that life offers.” Stories are about characters—and us through them—navigating those things that keep us from seeing life as true, good, or beautiful.
Cron’s book sounds a lot like Will Storr’s The Science of Storytelling. I haven't read Story Genius and hadn't heard of it till reading this piece. But what Cron refers to as the character’s wound, Storr calls The Sacred Flaw. Now, Storr’s book came out five years after Cron’s, which makes me wonder if he had been influenced by Cron. I have a copy of TSoS, so I should look through the sources and see if he cites her work.
Interesting read. Thank you.
Long comment inbound...It's just, yeah, I took the ending of your piece as creating an occasion for laying some things out, grappling with some thoughts. I'd obviously welcome thoughts, but we're also all busy; the question I'm left with I articulate all the way at the end, so everything else could be skipped to that point.
This was, for me, a clarifying read. I've started multiple projects since I was in my early 20s (I'm now just over 35, so, yeah...) and I've never finished even one of them. One issue I can see now is that, yeah, while I had imagined vividly a number of scenes and characters and whatnot, I hadn't figured out the _specific_ "third rail" of the main character(s), which meant I never knew how the rest of the story had to be unfolded and structured. Because, yeah, the books I've found most compelling (Ender's Game (especially Ender's Game), Brideshead Revisited, even, at least on a communal level, the first two books of Asimov's Foundation trilogy and others) have run on just that. So hey, maybe I can get something done, now...
I do wonder if a certain amount of self-knowledge is necessary/helpful around third rails--and, subsequently, which stories to attack and which to place on the mental back-burner? Like, I've got one story where I think I a) have the third rail sufficiently figured out and b) have enough experience and insight, and have gotten past the relevant life-stages where I can see where things can or should go.
Uh, the following paragraph is just me laying out the story idea around the third rail I think I most get, understand, and can realize. I do love it, and I think it's the one thing I could realize well, but...it is long, and it can very well be skipped for time...
For instance, the one story I have in mind (which I've mentioned to you over in Twitterland, and which I've started multiple times and...never gotten far with) centers around a teenage boy who, on one level, wants nothing more than complete independence while on a deeper level, despite himself, wants--and needs--connection--although his life has so far taught him that he cannot trust anyone. That is his third rail: he's seeking complete independence, but this seeking means fighting his deeper wants and needs--deeper wants and needs those around him, despite what he wants, would meet because love is worth it, and he is loved. (I think: gotta think of this still.) He's the one surviving member of his cohort artificially conceived and heavily modified from conception on for the purposes of meeting intra- and extra-galactic threats; his cohort, including his one friend, was, quite literally, liquidated in their sim pods when implant integration wasn't quite happening rightly; he gets out because he's the one the base pod engineer is able to free. So yeah, he's alive but also not not messed up from the experience of just losing someone like that--and also formed by training that militates against personal connection, and not-quite-right pod integration that kind of impedes the healthiest psychological functioning. The engineer is able to get the kid to a colony of Byzantines (yeah, _a_ form of Christianity survives 5k years in the future; I'm interested in how being Christian in a hyper technologically advanced and interstellar human community, and the sort of society-wide isolation that will entail, would work out) who have a viable plan to flee the Milky Way, which seems like the only pathway open to the MC that doesn't involve premature death. So, we jump ahead a bit, the colony (because, yeah, there's discontent elsewhere, and they have connections and sympathizers in different places) has commandeered one of the faster, more advanced large ships in service and is fleeing toward a stable singularity inside the Milky Way through which an expedition went successfully ~50 years ago. Well, the MC never fit in with that community. They have taken him in, sheltered him, given him food and clothing and care because that's what a Christian does, but they neither trust him nor like him: he's a mod, which is contrary to Church teaching as it's developed and something that makes him a continued existential threat to them (if the MC decided to turn on them, given how his mods give him easy access and use of all contemporary military technology, they would be dead, especially in flight). So, what is the MC doing? Well, he hates the reigning government that they're all fleeing, and government agents would be under orders to kill him anyway if they got him (he's defective), so trying to rejoin them is out, and he also dislikes, looks down on, and wants freedom from, the people around him (while longing to be an actual, integrated member of such a community, which longing he pushes down), so he's hard at work causing trouble, asserting his freedom in various ways, and working on an AI that could replace an entire ship's crew: once they're free and set up somewhere, he could take a ship and go off on his own, completely independent. Well, causing trouble gets the MC locked in his workroom by someone he had gotten to help him on the code of the AI but then a little more than slightly betrayed, and that when the ship they're on is sabotaged as they're beginning their approach to the singularity/wormhole. They can't do anything but abandon ship (there's no time to fix the thing and correct course with a large enough margin of error), so everyone abandons ship while the MC can't get out in time; once he gets the room unlocked, it's either get the ship through the singularity or die. So, he installs the AI, and, with its help, gets through. The MC is subsequently alive but in an entirely different galaxy all by himself. It would then seem like he's achieved his primary goal, but that quickly turns out not to be the case: something happened in that passage through the singularity, and the AI is no longer an AI--or, rather, something has taken its place but influenced by the matter of the AI; it, like the MC, wants connection (it sees the MC as something like a father), but it also refuses to be simply subservient to the whims of the MC--who created it precisely for that purpose. The need to survive, and the problems that arise from being on a severely damaged ship in a completely alien place with things afoot (the expedition that successfully went through ~50 years ago (which we know because they reported back for the first year or so) stopped reporting abruptly not because their gear just broke down), forces things to a crisis, and the MC is able to set aside his longing for independence and allow what he actually most deeply wants and needs to take its place--which results in him becoming an unexpectedly valued member of the community he had been separated from. Or so I am thinking.
Simplification is necessary, but that can happen later. I jive with the MC's third rail because I understand it, understand it pretty deeply. And the genre, science fiction, allows for explorations of human isolation and community that makes sense to me out of my own experiences. (I think I see, now, why I've tended to gravitate towards sci-fi: you have people moving around in the vastness of space, which, on one level, foregrounds the smallness of human beings; it also, through contrast with the vastness and coldness of the greater environ, helps bring out human connection when it happens). I just don't gravitate towards other genres because they aren't the genres--as your piece above helps me see--in which my own personal concerns, which I would explore authentically in authentic writing, find a natural home.
Now, the above story is something I think I could manage because I understand the MC's third rail, and I understand his third rail because I've gotten to a point in life where I understand, through experience and reflection, both the shape that kind of set of desires can take and how life can force a working out of it. That is, I know something of the insights and knowledge I have. I also, like anyone, have my own concerns, and those concerns I've brought to explicitness for myself feed into that kind of story. There are other stories I'd like to write, but, as far as I can tell, my knowledge, experience, etc. does not yet allow me to fashion a robust-enough third rail and guide things toward a satisfying working-out: I would love to write a coming-of-age story about a gay teen from a pretty conservative Catholic homeschooling family moving toward a more authentic existence through a relationship with a Daoist teen who prevents the MC from killing himself on one family vacation in a coastal town (the Daoist kid had fallen for the MC when he saw him the previous year but never saw an opportunity to reach out and meet). But yeah, while I really like the above idea, and while I definitely vibe with it, eh, I can't get very far, and I think that's because I can't see my way toward a fully fleshed-out third rail for the MC, which I think is the case because *I* have not gotten to the point where *I've* passed over the relevant hurdles and reflected on the same enough to see how that could be done. So yeah, I guess that'd be my question: writing stories is a great way to work out personal questions and concerns (and help others do the same), which we do by fashioning characters with sufficiently robust third rails; but we can't really do that terribly well until we've achieved that knowledge, insight, maturity we're maybe groping toward by writing--no?