"But just because the conflict isn’t at a global scale does not mean that the stakes can’t feel huge." "Because while all stories don’t have world-level stakes, every story should include personal stakes for your hero." This is so important, I feel, for writers to remember. There are different kinds of stories.
Thank you for sharing all of these great points and useful examples!
"Not all stories will have world-level stakes, but all great stories have personal stakes for the hero."
I suppose it depends how one defines "great." By your definition, you exclude pretty much everything Raymond Carver and Amy Hempel wrote. Beckett? Borges? Calvino? Joyce? Even Rachel Cusk's trilogy?
I suppose I should have said "many great stories." Ultimately, my point was that adding personal stakes for the hero will often increase reader investment in the story. Of course, writing/reading is incredibly suggestive. What works for some of us won't for others.
Right re: "many," but then your proposed "rule" (and the title of this post) doesn't quite hit the same note: "Your book may or may not need compelling stakes" or some variant.
Without a doubt, you raise a valid point. Adding personal stakes can increase reader investment. But that's not to say Waiting for Godot could have been significantly improved had Beckett cast one of the characters in the role of the "hero" and gave him personal stakes. And, ultimately, 100 years from now, people will still be reading Beckett and Joyce and Carver and Calvino and, in all likelihood, Beach Read will be long out of print.
That's not to say Beach Read isn't without merit. Lots and lots of people loved it. I guess I'm merely pushing back on the prescriptive notion that "all great stories" must... something or anything other than capture the imagination and attention of readers.
Personal stakes exist in literary fiction. Isn’t there something personal at stake if the protagonist of If On A Winter’s Night A Traveler never finds the book he’s looking for? Doesn’t it feel like it will drive him mad?
And I think you’re being a bit of a snob about Beach Read. It’s quite impossible to tell what will still be in print in 100 years.
Lots (and lots) of novels deemed "literary fiction" have protagonists with personal stakes. No doubt. But my point is that it's not a requirement for a novel to be "great." Or are you suggesting it is? It's an absolute rule, i.e., in the absence of personal stakes, no book can possibly be deemed great?
Re: If on a winter's night... who is the protagonist? Isn't it you? The reader? And what happens if you don't find what you're looking for? Does your life go on or do you go mad?
And, yes, you're absolutely correct that Beach Read may be nestled neatly on the shelf next to the works of Virginia Woolf, Nunez, Catton, etc. and end up on the syllabi of thousands of lit. classes at universities in a hundred years. We simply don't know.
Bart, I never say anywhere that this is a rule everyone MUST follow. In fact, in almost every post I've written on craft, I tend to say "your milage may vary" or "take what resonates here and leave the rest." This happens to be one of the few posts that I didn't. And of course I'm not implying that in the absence of personal stakes, no book can possibly be deemed great. Neither is Parker, I don't think. That would just be silly. "Great" can mean a lot of things to different people. It can mean literary merit. It can mean simply entertaining. It can mean soul crushing or unputdownable or funny or tragic. It all depends on the reader. I agree with you that the definition of "great" will vary between readers. Ultimately, I think we're just arguing about semantics at this point, because we seem to agree that personal stakes exist for heroes across all genres.
I see why you take issue with the title of the piece. However, it's a title that's purposely written to be short, to the point, and a little catchy. That's what entices people to read on. It's also my personal opinion—Even after this conversation, I still believe that novels need compelling stakes.
Lastly, it seems worth mentioning that I tend to break down popular and mainstream fiction in my Substack because it is relevant and relatable to a large number of my subscribers. If that's not your jam, and/or you're looking for craft posts that dig solely into literary fiction and/or classics, this won't be the Substack for you.
It's cool that you "believe that novels need compelling stakes." That's valid. 100%. Other people believe that "great" novels need unicorns or love or hate or dialogue or no dialogue, or that they must show and not tell, or must tell and not show. "Great" is subjective. We couldn't agree more.
The only point I meant to make is that you staked a claim, actually, two: "Your book needs compelling stakes" and "all great stories have personal stakes for the hero."
Neither is true, and I appreciate that you recognize that.
I also appreciate that you made those claims not because you believe them, but because you intended them as click-bait, the sort of title/snippet that's hyperbolic and skirts the truth but will hopefully get people to "read on."
That's cool. And I do mean that seriously because at least you own it.
I suppose... and, honestly, I'm not being contentious or snarky or troll-y or whatever when I say this, but I do wonder if, given the "semantic" nature of this discussion, if really it's a question of presentation. You opted to present "craft advice" in a way that you knew was demonstrably false but hoped would garner clicks. In contrast, you could have written something like, "Is your novel missing this special ingredient?" then talked about upping the stakes. Yeah, I know, it's wordy and not "catchy," and I'm also thinking off the top of my head (because, seriously, it's your stack, not mine), but, substantively it would have been the same without presenting it as a "thou must..." prescription, i.e., you could have underscored the importance of stakes for a protagonist without making a claim that you know and readily admit is false.
It's merely a question of packaging, though, honestly, I suppose it's more than that. People are looking to you for advice. You're presenting yourself as someone with the knowledge and experience who can provide it. Yet, you're stating something in unequivocal terms, even when you know and readily admit it's false. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Or maybe that's what you figure appeals to a large number of your subscribers?
More simply... rather than claim "all great stories have personal stakes for the hero," why not simply say something like, "If you hope to succeed marginally in this miserably competitive business, let alone become the next Colleen Hoover or John Grisham, then put the wind at your back and, for the love of God, give your protagonist some serious-ass stakes!"
NEVER A HERO by Vanessa Len was stakes out the wazoo! Oh my gosh! I don't want to ruin anything because it's such a great first 5 chapters. It's YA contemporary(?) fantasy with people whose power has such a horrible cost they call themselves monsters. But it's monster vs monster-slayer... when both of them have totally believable motivations.
And now I need to go watch You've Got Mail for the 3000th time :D
You're welcome! 😜
"But just because the conflict isn’t at a global scale does not mean that the stakes can’t feel huge." "Because while all stories don’t have world-level stakes, every story should include personal stakes for your hero." This is so important, I feel, for writers to remember. There are different kinds of stories.
Thank you for sharing all of these great points and useful examples!
Thanks for reading. Glad you found the piece useful.
"Not all stories will have world-level stakes, but all great stories have personal stakes for the hero."
I suppose it depends how one defines "great." By your definition, you exclude pretty much everything Raymond Carver and Amy Hempel wrote. Beckett? Borges? Calvino? Joyce? Even Rachel Cusk's trilogy?
I suppose I should have said "many great stories." Ultimately, my point was that adding personal stakes for the hero will often increase reader investment in the story. Of course, writing/reading is incredibly suggestive. What works for some of us won't for others.
Right re: "many," but then your proposed "rule" (and the title of this post) doesn't quite hit the same note: "Your book may or may not need compelling stakes" or some variant.
Without a doubt, you raise a valid point. Adding personal stakes can increase reader investment. But that's not to say Waiting for Godot could have been significantly improved had Beckett cast one of the characters in the role of the "hero" and gave him personal stakes. And, ultimately, 100 years from now, people will still be reading Beckett and Joyce and Carver and Calvino and, in all likelihood, Beach Read will be long out of print.
That's not to say Beach Read isn't without merit. Lots and lots of people loved it. I guess I'm merely pushing back on the prescriptive notion that "all great stories" must... something or anything other than capture the imagination and attention of readers.
Personal stakes exist in literary fiction. Isn’t there something personal at stake if the protagonist of If On A Winter’s Night A Traveler never finds the book he’s looking for? Doesn’t it feel like it will drive him mad?
And I think you’re being a bit of a snob about Beach Read. It’s quite impossible to tell what will still be in print in 100 years.
Lots (and lots) of novels deemed "literary fiction" have protagonists with personal stakes. No doubt. But my point is that it's not a requirement for a novel to be "great." Or are you suggesting it is? It's an absolute rule, i.e., in the absence of personal stakes, no book can possibly be deemed great?
Re: If on a winter's night... who is the protagonist? Isn't it you? The reader? And what happens if you don't find what you're looking for? Does your life go on or do you go mad?
And, yes, you're absolutely correct that Beach Read may be nestled neatly on the shelf next to the works of Virginia Woolf, Nunez, Catton, etc. and end up on the syllabi of thousands of lit. classes at universities in a hundred years. We simply don't know.
Bart, I never say anywhere that this is a rule everyone MUST follow. In fact, in almost every post I've written on craft, I tend to say "your milage may vary" or "take what resonates here and leave the rest." This happens to be one of the few posts that I didn't. And of course I'm not implying that in the absence of personal stakes, no book can possibly be deemed great. Neither is Parker, I don't think. That would just be silly. "Great" can mean a lot of things to different people. It can mean literary merit. It can mean simply entertaining. It can mean soul crushing or unputdownable or funny or tragic. It all depends on the reader. I agree with you that the definition of "great" will vary between readers. Ultimately, I think we're just arguing about semantics at this point, because we seem to agree that personal stakes exist for heroes across all genres.
I see why you take issue with the title of the piece. However, it's a title that's purposely written to be short, to the point, and a little catchy. That's what entices people to read on. It's also my personal opinion—Even after this conversation, I still believe that novels need compelling stakes.
Lastly, it seems worth mentioning that I tend to break down popular and mainstream fiction in my Substack because it is relevant and relatable to a large number of my subscribers. If that's not your jam, and/or you're looking for craft posts that dig solely into literary fiction and/or classics, this won't be the Substack for you.
It's cool that you "believe that novels need compelling stakes." That's valid. 100%. Other people believe that "great" novels need unicorns or love or hate or dialogue or no dialogue, or that they must show and not tell, or must tell and not show. "Great" is subjective. We couldn't agree more.
The only point I meant to make is that you staked a claim, actually, two: "Your book needs compelling stakes" and "all great stories have personal stakes for the hero."
Neither is true, and I appreciate that you recognize that.
I also appreciate that you made those claims not because you believe them, but because you intended them as click-bait, the sort of title/snippet that's hyperbolic and skirts the truth but will hopefully get people to "read on."
That's cool. And I do mean that seriously because at least you own it.
I suppose... and, honestly, I'm not being contentious or snarky or troll-y or whatever when I say this, but I do wonder if, given the "semantic" nature of this discussion, if really it's a question of presentation. You opted to present "craft advice" in a way that you knew was demonstrably false but hoped would garner clicks. In contrast, you could have written something like, "Is your novel missing this special ingredient?" then talked about upping the stakes. Yeah, I know, it's wordy and not "catchy," and I'm also thinking off the top of my head (because, seriously, it's your stack, not mine), but, substantively it would have been the same without presenting it as a "thou must..." prescription, i.e., you could have underscored the importance of stakes for a protagonist without making a claim that you know and readily admit is false.
It's merely a question of packaging, though, honestly, I suppose it's more than that. People are looking to you for advice. You're presenting yourself as someone with the knowledge and experience who can provide it. Yet, you're stating something in unequivocal terms, even when you know and readily admit it's false. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Or maybe that's what you figure appeals to a large number of your subscribers?
More simply... rather than claim "all great stories have personal stakes for the hero," why not simply say something like, "If you hope to succeed marginally in this miserably competitive business, let alone become the next Colleen Hoover or John Grisham, then put the wind at your back and, for the love of God, give your protagonist some serious-ass stakes!"
Fantastic letter, Erin. Stakes that feel real, personal, and immediate are key to keeping me invested in a story. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
Love this, Erin! Back to the outline I go…
NEVER A HERO by Vanessa Len was stakes out the wazoo! Oh my gosh! I don't want to ruin anything because it's such a great first 5 chapters. It's YA contemporary(?) fantasy with people whose power has such a horrible cost they call themselves monsters. But it's monster vs monster-slayer... when both of them have totally believable motivations.