The 'driving force' of my story that I seem to lack

[HourglassMemory]

I feel that I lack a 'driving force' for my story.
'driving force' is really the only thing I can come up with.
I have conflicts and characters 'standing for something', but I'm lacking a bigger picture.

My story has a heavy dose of landscape exploration. And my story is basically that.
But even though I have all these adventures and conflicts that spurt out of a group of people exploring, I still feel that I'm lacking something. And I want that something to be truly original and exciting.

I feel that even though I have these adventures and situations with this group of characters, I still feel that it needs to be more adventurous, and I can't seem to have the adventure level rise more, without resorting to things like "finding an ancient civilization/ruins/city with natives deep within a forest or under the ice/old scrolls leading to a big material discovery.
I really really don't want to do that.
I feel that the readers wouldn't find exploration and conflict alone exciting.

I find that the reasons they go exploring to not be exciting enough, because they're this idealistic effort in the mind of a megalomaniac. I'm afraid the audience just won't buy it and feel that lack of 'something more exciting'.

I truly am trying to get to something original, and everything seems to be taking extremely small baby steps towards it. At this pace I'll have something worthwhile (not that I don't think the story is cool as of now) in 10 years.

[Toothpaste]

Why not, instead of upping the stakes from the outside, up the stakes on the inside? Why not delve into the personal relationships between the characters, the stresses of being in an isolated group of people for so long? In the end, though people love their adventure stories, they have to care about the MCs more, otherwise any danger they face is not of any particular high stake to the reader. People love Indiana Jones for the excitement sure, but they love it more for the man himself.

Also, I really don't understand your story so forgive me if this is not what you are saying, but do you have a plot outside of a random series of separated adventures? Is there a story arc? All these explorations should be building to something, some discovery - even if that discovery is that there actually is nothing to discover. Your characters should learn something about themselves (and not in a cheesy way, "The importance of friendship" etc, but they should evolve), they should grow, change, become different from who they were at the start. Or if not, then that alone has to be your point. That despite all the amazing things they have been through, this group of people are as stubborn as ever, unwilling to change in the face of the obvious.

Anyway, those are my two thoughts - 1) work within the characters, don't always affect them from the outside, 2) make sure you actually have a plot and story arc to your novel.

Hope this was helpful!

[HourglassMemory]

I think I do have a plot and an arch, at least for the main character. I do have things he wants to strive for, which is basically the same as all the others in the group, and he does learn things about himself and other people that he doesn't have at the start.
I'm still in the process of trying to find out what each member of the group might change on.

But is it all just a bunch of small adventures all put together?
Sort of, yeah.
That's probably why I feel that there's something lacking. It isn't smooth underneath. there isn't this pulsating heartbeat besides "Get to the place from where you came."

It's like trying build a trail of wooden planks, but the terrain goes up and down and has rocks and and empty spaces underneath the planks.
It's hard to explain. I just feel that I need something more.

:D And yes, everytime I come here all the replies help. :D

[October]

If they're megalomaniacs, then don't they have some mental problems? I bet if you made part of the force in your novel exploring thirst for power, it would be easier to write. Anyway, if the current story isn't exciting enough, I think you should focus on more conflict. Try making the characters hate each other sometimes. Or make somebody or something take away what they want for a little while.

[HourglassMemory]

Only one has these very eccentric ideas. I do have several scenes where they find themselves having tremendous conflict of interests, especially at the beginning, and also especially where the whole group disagrees with the eccentric member and he tries to convinced them all to go on this exploring.

It's this very "convince the rest of the group" scene, that I feel lacks something.
Some people might find it powerful as it is, because he tries to make the case for exploration. But it's RAW exploration. Not knowing what could come.
I feel that this constant all throughout the story might make people expect something more, and even I want something more, but the story sort of remains in this very grounded, human vs human vs Nature, sort of plot. I feel that it needs to be human vs human vs Nature, vs unexpected village where they're made hostages and find out that they're ultimately aliens (or something of the sort). but at the same time I don't want this 4th thing to be there, because it would make this story like all the others out there.

[Orchestra]

That's probably why I feel that there's something lacking. It isn't smooth underneath. there isn't this pulsating heartbeat besides "Get to the place from where you came."Now, to me, this reads as a thematic statement as well. It has deeper connotations than you might see at first.

Why not have the main character try to "go where you came from" on other levels as well? Contrast the outer journey with the inner and show how the adventuring really relates to his own issues of idealism. Have him search for something he can never get with what he's doing now – and let the reader see it before the character. Or better yet, have each of the central characters approach the issue from their own perspectives and therefore act differently. Who's out there for the thrills? Who wants to keep going at all costs because s/he's afraid to go back? Who wants to go back but can't – and why?

This is basically what the scifi adventure series Farscape is about: different people trying to find their way home and finally coming to understand that "you can never go home again", that getting back what they once had can no longer make them happy. It's a good example how every good adventure story is always about more than just evocative scenary and thrilling action. Adding all the conflict in the world won't matter if no important issues are at stake.

The secret of compelling fiction really lies with how you develop (consciously or unconsciously) the themes in your work. Themes are contact points between the text and the reader's own experience. They bring structure and unity. They are powerful and important. Understanding them will give you the pulse of life you need. I do think it's useful for a writer to be at least somewhat aware of how s/he's exploring the abstract ideas and issues of human experience his/her text inevitably touches on.

This is something I'm keen on discussing, so do ask follow-ups if this strikes a chord.

[zornhau]

It sounds as if you're lacking an actual story. Novels tend to be woven from several threads each representing some sort of conflict.

Generally, for a modern Fantasy novel, you need a strong physical/practical thread running through the whole thing. Everything else hangs off that.

So, though you may have arcs for all the touchy feely stuff, you need one big arc tieing all the adventures together.

[Sophia]

Perhaps instead of trying for something original and exciting straight away, you could begin with a very basic idea. The group could be doing their job as normal. They are researchers who are funded by a pharmaceutical group, perhaps, and search remote regions for new ingredients.

From that basic idea, you could tweak it a little. There is a competitor's group out there, too, and they've both heard of some heretofore unknown plant and are both searching for it to try to get the patent first.

Then you could concentrate on the characters within the group. Give them all different reasons to be there. Think about any job - everyone who works on a team doing that job won't be there for exactly the same reason. Their lives will give them all different priorities and aims, and the job will fit in there in different ways for each of them. Some of your team could be thinking of shifting to the rival company because they're not getting what they want where they are. Try to make your characters as distinct from each other as you can, while not making them unrealistic.

Once you have a basic reason for them being there, and know their individual wants, you need to have a problem turn up that gets in the way of them achieving their goals. Your story then becomes about them trying to get back to the situation they were originally in. They'll all have different ways they want to tackle the problem given their own personalities and priorities, and you can have additional problems pile up as everyone's plans intertwine.

If you approach the story in this way, you may find that some particular aspect of it feels more exciting to you than the others. You can then work with that one and strengthen it, and hopefully end up with a story idea that is original and exciting to you.

[maestrowork]

It seems like you have characters, plot and maybe even themes, but you don't have an arc. You can't tell what exactly the story is about. I mean if you reduce your story to "landscape exploration" then you end up with a travelog.

Adventures, etc. are only elements in a story. Certainly they can be the main thrust, if your story is adventure (Journey to the Center of the Universe, for example). But you already find out that you need more than just "get characters to go places and do things."

If it's the motivation that is the problem, then give them more conflicts and desires (both external and internal). But conflicts themselves are not enough. You also need stakes. The higher the stakes, the better. Maybe that's the kind of "driving force" you're looking for. People don't do things just because they're megalomaniacs. What's at stake here? Power? Fortune? Fame? Love? The common good? Saving the world? I think if you can drill down and come up with one of these high "stakes," you will find your driving force.


Take Indiana Jones for example. It's just not enough that he likes to explore and finds relics. Yes, it's an action/adventure, but there still needs to be high stakes. What drives Indy to look for the Ark of the Covenant? Not just because it's cool (of course it's cool), but also because the Nazis are also looking for it for evil use. It's a race. Good vs. evil. The stakes make it more fun and more exciting and more "important" than just go and have a good time. That's the driving force.

[Danthia]

Sounds to me that you're lacking narrative drive. You have a premise you like, characters, a plot, but that spark isn't there. What you are probably missing is the "why should I care?" reader factor, which equates to stakes.

What are your characters risking if they fail? This adventure has to have consequences, something bad that will happen if they don't accomplish the goals you've set in front of them. If none of it matters, then what's the point of reading it?

I'd suggest looking at each of your characters -- especially your protag and antag -- and figuring out what they are trying to do, why they are trying to do it, and what happens to them if they fail. Make sure the stakes are personal and costly. And remember that "huge stakes" doesn't mean body count or end of the world. It's the personal cost to the protag that tugs at the reader's heartstrings.

The stories that tend to grab readers are the ones with a character they really like (or feel compelled to follow) trying to overcome a problem that intrigues them, with stakes worth worrying about to invest the time to read through to the end. If the story lacks any one of these things, it often becomes just a description of how an event plays out. The event might be cool and vaguely interesting, but no one really cares what happens because there's no character to root for and worry about.

[Phaeal]

I just happen to be rereading Thomas McCormack's The Fiction Editor, the Novel and the Novelist for the umpteenth time. Some of his ideas might help you.

The central dynamics of story, he writes, the forces that create "vital motion," are:

Character
Situation
Theme

Character is "everything constant [about a character] from the skin in. That a person is rich is not part of character, but that he's smart, callous and bigoted is. That she's pregnant or has a terminal illness is situational rather than characterological, because it's not constant."

Situation is "comprised of two components: character circuitry and circumstance...Circuitry assumes the color and vibrance of individual characters; but it goes beyond to the chemistry, the electricity that runs between them -- i.e., how they affect each other...The elements forming circumstance include basic time-and-place, and its characterization, which is what's often called setting. If time-and-place may be thought of as background, the more dramatically useful elements of circumstance are the foreground, the gads: a dust storm in Oklahoma in the thirties, a new eligible bachelor at Netherfield...a man-eating shark offshore...The notion of a gad, a stimulant, a spur, will be important to all this.

"In some stories, the precipitating tilt, the gadding force, come primarily from the circumstance; in others it comes from the circuitry. In the most gripping orthodox fiction, all elements combine synergistically: Vital, driven, braided characters complement ingeniously a plunging Olympic slalom of circumstance, and we get hurtling, headlong drama."

Haven't reread the complex discussion of theme yet, so I'll leave that for later. ;) But I find thinking about the interactions of character, character circuitry and circumstance is very useful to developing "plot" from the inside out.

[Bufty]

You love 'cool ideas' involving 'lots of research', apparently.

But in novels one also has to think about characters, motivation, conflict and resolution. You are getting a lot of helpful pointers here -as you did the last time you raised this issue. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103860

Maybe you need to read more books similar to the one you are writing -but on the other hand you appear to be trying to convince yourself you are creating a 'new' type of adventure.

Good luck.

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Lots of Jules Verne novels are exploration-stories, with very little "driving force" besides the exploratory urge (e.g. Journey to the Center of the Earth, Voyages of Captain Hatteras, etc). That said, even in these stories there is always some end-point or goal towards which the exploratory effort is aimed (e.g. reaching the North Pole for Captain Hatteras, winning the bet in Around the World in 80 Days, and so on). The central arc of such stories is the difficulty of reaching that goal, the strain this difficulty puts on the characters, and how they react/grow/go insane as a result of the strain.

[Toothpaste]

Okay after reading that other thread I can see your problem. Your plot is all about getting to X, and then them having adventures once they get there. But that actually isn't much of a story. That sounds more like a make believe game to play in the school yard. You need an arc. So. First off, who is your MC? I have read about a madman, is that him? Or is it one of the Scientists? Or are they all equally important (I warn you though, if that is what you have written, you have given youself a big challenge)? So let's start at the beginning with this one question before we do follow ups:

Who is your main character? (answer simply and short, this does not require a lot of explanation, and if it does, then that could be part of your problem . . .)

[NeuroFizz]

This is only partly tongue-in-cheek as others have hinted around about it. And it's not a solution to your problem, but something you may want to include as part of the story solution:

Put in a ticking clock.

Exploration for its own sake is going to be hard to carry through a novel-length story. But, as others have suggested, if there is some sort of competition involved, the story has the rudiments of an arc. Add a ticking clock to the competition and the stakes are increased.

I'm a little worried how one person can always convince all of the others to go along with his/her wishes if it is just exploration for the sake of exploration. Even if that one person is funding the adventure, there still has to be some goal or any thinking person may not be able to buy in to all of the wishes of the "boss."

[HourglassMemory]

I'm going to reply to just a few. But ALL of the replies have made a contribution. Just because I don't address you here doesn't mean I don't agree with your points.

'Orchestra:
My story has certainly created moments where I do notice the abstract connotations and I think I'm slowly getting into a mindset where I HAVE to think about the connotations on human experience and how I feel more impact once I start connecting with the characters deeper than before and thinking about the abstract ideas, making comparisons with Death and Life, Curiosity and Fear, I can't help finding curious nuggets of truth here and there as I develop my story. This mindset also helps me create scenes mainly inspired in pure thought concentrated in the abstract connotations that you talk about.
Your first two chunky paragraphs do talk of things I've noticed in my own story and have explored. Perhaps I should explore them more.

ElaraSophia/NeuroFizz:
I have considered having a team "right behind them" or having a "ticking clock".
As for the “other team” concept, the way I would want to tell the story wouldn't allow the reader to see that they're having another team on their trail, unless they spot each other, which would ruin the sense of isolation I want to create.
I feel that if I keep the reader around these 6 characters, they will grow to like and attach to them.
As for the "Ticking Clock" concept. I do agree. It would certainly add a THRUST to it.
And as you say, Neurofizz, even if I do have this megalomaniac talking about going on raw exploration, each individual member must have his or her motives. I guess I haven't really really delved into each character's mindset and past (to find motivations).

Maetrowork:
"Stakes" gets close to the bulls eye of what I'm lacking.
Exploration for this society, from where the characters come from, is part of their culture. But lately, several groups have been failing to come back unharmed, or even alive, and exploration is starting to become a needlessly dangerous "sport". There is a past filled with Death and the population has started creating this public mindset that they really don't need to explore anymore. They live in a sustainable society already, they have generated a routine that is comfortable for every member.
To make this mindset even more encrusted in the culture, the main character comes out and says that the planet is larger than they previously thought (the book actually starts at this moment). This might not seem much to us, on planet Earth with our History, but to them it brings all these memories back and they simply find it a safer bet to keep away from the outside world and "stay home".
What's "at stake"? The eccentric man, who gathers all of these scientists, says that if they do not do this, curiosity and the excitement of exploration that so much characterized their society in the past, and the thrill of acquiring new knowledge will be gone from the city they live in.
The main character had a father who was all into exploration, whom we later find the eccentric man knew, and this does have heavy drama and impact on the main character. The fact that he's announcing this discovery (the planet’s size) is hard for him to begin with. The book starts with the MC having his reputation pretty much ruined!
I hope you understand but I simply don't want to put all of my story out here on the Internet.

Toothpaste:
The MC is not the eccentric man, although I get a strong sense that he's the MC of his own story. The story could very well be written from his point of view.
I would really like to have each character to be as powerful as the eccentric man. I don't feel the same confidence when I think about writing the story from their point of view as I feel for the eccentric man. Awkwardly enough I find him more interesting and compelling then even my MC. And that's very weird because I've always preferred secondary characters in stories and I tried to design my MC in a way that "felt" that he was a secondary character. Even so, my main secondary character started becoming my favourite character.

They are six, and I think that I could only do that(write from each member’s point of view) with three of them at this moment. I am very aware of the "big challenge" that it is to be able to look at the character and feel that solid backround in their past.

Who is my main character? He's a young inventor who has grown to care about the society he lives in. He is actually known for developing machines and gadgets or perfecting the machines of others. The comfort of the city he lives in his often on his mind.
He'd be the sort of person at the corner of the room, with a plastic cup in his hands as the rest of the party talks happily. Even though he's famous, people sort of feel that talking to him will distract him from developing something new for society. So they leave him alone. He's innocently built a wall around him and he is very conscious of his reputation and what people view him as.
And the story begins with him ruining it, because he cares about publishing mathematical truths. As others have mentioned, I do notice this whole "Truth vs emotion/reputation vs what you believe in" conundrums. I'm constantly finding moments in the story where I can think of this “X vs Y” abstract conflict.


I hope this makes it clearer.

[Toothpaste]

I wasn't asking for clarification, I am asking you a series of questions to try to pull out a story arc for you. That was simply the first one.

So we have an MC who is a young inventor, a bit of a recluse, and someone who used to be famous but now his reputation is ruined, who finds himself suddenly on this boat forced into going to a place by a madman.

Next question: how does he feel about his current situation? And why was he attending the original "meeting" in the first place?

[HourglassMemory]

Well, he sees this meeting as a way to regain his status as an individual who really does care about the society he lives in. He receives a letter (which comes from the eccentric man) and the letter is written in a way that generates this sense of "status/eminence regained" in him.
The letter is a sort of bait, that the eccentric man knows will touch the MC deeply.
What does the letter talk about? The MC's father is mentioned in PS. And it says that if the MC goes to where the letter is asking him to go, and agrees to work on this 'project', his dignity will be renovated and the people will basically forgive him.

If you're talking about his situation when he finds himself in a boat: I don't think he can change much beyond "Exploration is going to give them new knowledge, he wants truth and he thinks it is important to give that to the society, so if this group wants to acquire it, he'll help." Also, it's something his father would want him to do.
It might sound extremely boring but he's just "going to go along with it" after he deliberates. However, this is not something that lasts for the whole story. this is only the first part. This is the feeling you have (going along with it) UNTIL something happens to their boat, and they have to go back to the place they came from, but the long way around. At that time he cannot just go along with it. He's going to try and survive with his fellow group members and this is going to bring out parts of him that he's never explored.

If the "original meeting" you're mentioning there is the one where he reveals the errors in the size of the planet, and ruins his credibility..
He's the one who summons the meeting. He's a famous guy, known for his discoveries. People just expect him to tell them something new, and it is, but they don't expect it to be this hard hitting and almost insulting.
Why does he do it? It's this sense of duty he has for truth. He puts mathematical fact above people's emotions, and he himself is being hit by it. His father was one of those who "went and never came back". So even though he's suffering inside, he still does go up to the podium and speak.

I think there's a start of a character arc here. :tongue
I wonder if my story arc is simply the weaving of all character arcs in one string.
I still am lacking strings though.

[JoniBGoode]

Well, he sees this meeting as a way to regain his status as an individual who really does care about the society he lives in.

If you're talking about his situation when he finds himself in a boat: I don't think he can change much beyond "Exploration is going to give them new knowledge, he wants truth and he thinks it is important to give that to the society, so if this group wants to acquire it, he'll help." Also, it's something his father would want him to do.
It might sound extremely boring but he's just "going to go along with it" after he deliberates.

Just my 2 cents, but I think it helps if the character passionately wants something, or is running to or away from something. It may be that eventually he will find that the journey was more important than his original goal. But there needs to be an original goal, first.

For me, the "regaining status as an individual who really cares about society" doesn't work. First of all, people who are apathetic are usually quite happy to remain that way. They don't care...because they are apathetic.

And, second, apathy doesn't make for strong motivation. Now, if he's looking for the magic cup, or ________ (fill in the blank) so that he will be accepted by his peers, or redeem himself after a terrible sin, that's powerful.

"Characters standing for something" doesn't work that well for me, either, because standing for something is static. I think characters need to be in motion, in conflict, to provide a good story.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think that strong conflict comes when a MC has strong desires, and big obstacles to overcome on the way.

[HourglassMemory]

Just my 2 cents, but I think it helps if the character passionately wants something, or is running to or away from something. It may be that eventually he will find that the journey was more important than his original goal. But there needs to be an original goal, first.

For me, the "regaining status as an individual who really cares about society" doesn't work. First of all, people who are apathetic are usually quite happy to remain that way. They don't care...because they are apathetic.

And, second, apathy doesn't make for strong motivation. Now, if he's looking for the magic cup, or ________ (fill in the blank) so that he will be accepted by his peers, or redeem himself after a terrible sin, that's powerful.

"Characters standing for something" doesn't work that well for me, either, because standing for something is static. I think characters need to be in motion, in conflict, to provide a good story.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think that strong conflict comes when a MC has strong desires, and big obstacles to overcome on the way.

I do understand your points and I agree with you that they would work better if he had more 'solid' motivations. I just can't think of anything beyond "Caring for Truth and agreeing to acquire the new knowledge that this exploration will give them."
I don't see my main character as apathetic. The fact that he's an inventor shows the very opposite of apathy. He might be shy and not that social, but that's not apathy towards wanting to contribute to the betterment of his society. He might be shy and quiet, but he can still publish works and patents.
The thing with what he does at the begging of the story is that, people are expecting him to give them more good news, more new inventions or some discovery, but instead receive this almost insulting revelation from this guy who is famous for giving them inspiring discoveries.
He loses that characteristic at the beginning of the story, and he sees this meeting with the eccentric man as a way to regain that position in people's minds.

I would really like to avoid having them go after an object, or find an object while on their trip.

All the characters want to go back to their city as they make this journey. I think this evokes good symbolism. One might think more about their family, one might think more about the impact of achieving such a journey and what that would do to their society's mentality, and another can think that this will enable him to regain his status in this society if he survives.

But I do understand your points. And I thank you for giving your two cents.:D

[hammerklavier]

You need to give people personal reasons and conflicts for doing what they do. For instance, you might have someone who was studying for a doctorate in archeology when his commitee chair had a falling out with the student's philosphy and ended up costing him the chance of earning the doctorate. Now he becomes an amature archeologist and comes up with info about the lost city. But he must enlist the help of the condescending professor who burned him. etc etc.

[Aschenbach]

There is great advice here on story arcs and conflicts and so on.
But it is your prose that will have to carry it all off at the end of the day.

It is very possible to have a story where nothing much happens, but is still compelling because of how it is told. Likewise you can have a story packed full of incident that is boring because the writing is pedestrian.

Look after the prose, and the plot will look after itself...