What Makes a Good Story?

Hi, I'm new to WritingForums. Bear with me for the long post.

In my introduction thread, the idea was suggested to me to create a thread based on a question I posed to myself while I was in the process of letting my ideas develop. That question being: "What makes a good story?"

While this might seem like a rudimentary question at first, it's one that I realized is so pervasive and far-reaching that it makes it very important. Yet, it is one that us writers may tend to overlook in trying to find answers to more pointed, specific, challenging questions, especially ones where we're looking for one most-satisfying answer.

By comparison, the question of what makes a story "good" invites all kinds of interpretations and beliefs. Ones which may vary greatly between people, cultures, histories, nations, backgrounds, and so on. Because of this complex variability, we tend to push that aside in favor of more ordered, general advice. And for good reason too, because generally(!), most good stories, even those from around the world and throughout time, do actually have alot in common.

However, on one hand, sometimes much of what we take to be general advice can be, in reality, rather culturally and historically context-specific. And on the other hand, some fundamental concepts which we think of as recent inventions (that is, from within the past century), like the 3-Act Structure for example, are really the modern incarnation of things which go as far back as ancient times.

I say all this to say, while "What makes a good story?" may seem like a basic question, it is also a very vast, transcendent, and fundamental one. One which we've been asking ourselves, and each other, practically since we've even been able to speak.

This brings us to now, thousands of years later, where I'd like to continue that very, very, very long conversation. Where we not only ask what makes a story good, but also, what makes a story good—or even great—to you? And better yet, what makes a story bad (heaven forbid)? And how would you fix it? Both objectively and to your own satisfaction? It can be your own, or someone else's. One man's bad story is another man's good story, after all.

While I mostly ask in terms of fiction, this can extend to other genres, including non-fiction. Stories are everywhere, you know. Anyway, I hope this was a good start for the thread. Let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for reading!

 

Welcome to the Forum!

I think 'a good story' is subjective. It really depends on what one likes to read. Genre, tone, and what tropes are used. Yes, all stories use tropes. They are building blocks. No way around it.

Anyway, the following is my own opinion and so it's very subjective and generalized. (Sorry.)

So, in a story, I like the following:
1. Some kind of magic. (Most stories feel boring to me without it.)
2. Some kind of in-story politics (because I like reading about fantasy worlds dealing with issues in-story that may or may not reflect real life.)
3. Characters who are anti-heroes or villains. (Because I just never relate to characters who are paragons. For example, there are several series where I'm like, 'oh. Yeah. This character's the main character. He seems boring/invisible'.)
4. Lots of dark elements and angst (I like when consequences are real. Like, giving main characters PTSD or something from events that happened.) I also read fanfiction and I find I like stories where the main character dies or almost dies at the end. Because, that's what angst is all about!

Things I don't like:
1. Pointless romance shoved into a the story. (I am not a fan of romance, gay or straight being shoved into a story, because it needed a 'romantic subplot'.)
2. Endings that don't stick the landing. Answer all the questions, give me at least two-three chapters from the climax to the conclusion. Don't rush. Please.
3. Edgy to be edgy. Yes. I like angst and dark fics, but at least have a reason. Don't make your character EDGY for the sake of it. Give them a reason and a good one.
4. Authors who WANT to write dark angsty stuff and are TOO SCARED to actually do it. They may allude to things, but NOT actually have the guts to do it. This also applies to historical stuff that people shy away from. Like the fact all the Greek Gods are related or whatever. You can't really tango around that, but I have seen people TRY with all their might. It's annoying to me.

How I fix the things that bother me in stories:
Just don't do them in mine as much as possible? I let the characters dictate the romance in the story, rather than forcing them together. I spend a lot of time with endings and go slowly to make sure all lose ends are tied. I TRY to give my characters reasons and feelings and all the things. Also, I just stick with the myths. No matter how twisted. But what can I say? I study Ancient Roman History and that's a real-life mess. Nothing phases me anymore, I think. The shock value has worn off.

 

A good story is one that makes the reader want to read to the end. That's all, really.

 

Finally, someone who likes magic! I like magic too, it's fun. I have a friend who really dislikes magic in fiction. Especially online, magic tends to get a ton of flack when it doesn't feel well thought-out by the author and is used as the solution to every problem, without the necessary tension being built first. In other words, it isn't as satisfying if it feels like the characters can just "Poof!" away any possible conflict, especially without any explanation. It begs the question, "How come this problem is a problem at all, if so-and-so can just use his or her powers to just 'Abracadabra!' it away?" At least, that's the Anti-Magic crowd's argument. She once told me that supernatural or reality-bending abilities, can be "Just a lame plot device", in her opinion. Or something along those lines.

But here's the secret: they actually do like magic, but they only like magic if it has "rules" first. (Fullmetal Alchemist is said to have "magic that actually makes sense", whereas Sailor Moon "does not".) Though, it's tricky to come up with a system with rules that are broad enough that you (or the characters) don't have to explain them in so much detail. Otherwise, that'd be too much exposition, and then the magic would really be less fun. Either that or the character should work to gain those abilities over time, and can't start the story without all of them. Even magic can lose its magic.

She said, "Solution, just don't do it". But I can't, because it's a huge part of one of my stories! So of course, that's not an option.

 

Ah yes, the classic page-turner. I think that's a great rule of thumb!

A good story is definitely one that is engaging, and is good at holding your attention. Though, at some point the question becomes: As the author, how can you naturally build interest throughout your story, enough that it matters so much to the reader or audience that they're willing to see what happens next? And if anything, are excited to see it through to the end? Especially these days, when people's attention spans aren't as forgiving as they used to be. How do good stories do that?

It reminds me of something I read about once. There was a scientist who was trying to study how to keep people's attention, and teach his students better. He went through many scientific books (written for a general audience) about various topics, trying to find patterns between the ones which were "interesting" and the ones that were, well, "not so interesting". Most of what he found, he had expected. Books that had sentences with poorly defined purpose/meaning and esoteric techno-babble weren't that interesting. Especially not for the general public. But one thing he discovered about interesting stories was pretty eye-opening. He found that even if the book was about a topic or answer that, in plain-text, wasn't "inherently interesting" in itself, it's the way which the book was written that really built interest.

There was one book he came across which was about the journey in discovering what Saturn's rings were made of. It was one of the most interesting articles he came across in his study. So, what did it do so well that the other articles didn't? How did the writer achieve holding the audience's attention? What he found was, it was really about the way it created curiosity. The book was written as if it were a murder-mystery or detective novel: Scientists went after clues, chased promising leads that went nowhere, found new evidence that made them disagree and argue with each other, and so on.

Long story short, it was dust. Dust. As in, the dust on my desk. But he was flipping through it like there was no tomorrow. He said, "Now, I don't care about dust, and the makeup of the rings of Saturn is entirely irrelevant to my life. But the writer had me turning pages like I was a speed-reader"! Mysteries, he says, are powerful because they inspire a "need for closure". They make you want to stick around, always asking "...and what happened next?!" But, even if the answer to that mystery isn't inherently interesting, if the story is written in a way which is naturally dramatic, even dust can put you on the edge of your seat. In other words, it's not about the destination, it's about the journey!

 

Plot twists, strong characters, compelling bad guys, original initial idea, subtly integrated social commentaries, lots of conflict, etc.

 

What I like in a story is interesting characters that I care about, and that usually involves something at stake for them. Also, there needs to be things happening, I guess what you would call a narrative arc. Good ones, I think, involve twists and turns. And all the while, we see how the characters react to these plot points, and how they make the characters change.

 

Yeah! I love magic! It's hard for me to read any story without it. Unless it's heavily political. (See Game of Thrones. I hear there are dragons, but I am not a huge fan of dragons, so I don't really care.) And ugh, I am sorry that you have disagreements with your friend. I think the key to understanding is that the type of magic system that your friend dislikes is similar to ones I don't enjoy either.

Because magic in stories can be classified as 'soft magic' or 'hard magic'. Soft magic is like the kind in Lord of the Rings where Gandalf just does something flashy and problems are solved. Which I agree, can feel like 'poof!' everything is fixed! Which annoys the hell out of me. Because I want to know WHY and HOW this magic works. Not be told it doesn't need to be explained, because it's magic. Which I have been told countless times before.

Whereas, 'hard magic' has rules. Limitations. A framework that creates consistency and transparency for the reader. Fullmetal Alchemist is a great example of this. But, these systems have a downfall- which is if the system is too complicated for the reader to understand. (Looking at you, Hunter x Hunter.) But these are the types of systems I use in my stories all the time. Hard magic that the reader can understand and won't get a character out of a bind just because I, the author say it does.

Of course there is a middle-ground to both of these systems. I think Harry Potter sits in the middle nicely. There's magic that doesn't make sense, but also there are some rules that shape the story.

Again, it comes down to the framework and rules that dictate magic. I think readers want to feel like the author isn't pulling one over on them, just to make the plot work. Or create some drama that wouldn't need to happen if there were actual rules to all this magic. Also, on the reader side, it feels like the author's being 'lazy' by not figuring out HOW this magic works. Maybe it's just me, but I always get annoyed when authors are like, 'it's magic. Doesn't need rules.' Cooking doesn't either. You can put anything in a pot, cook it and eat it. But will it taste good? No.

Yeah! Don't 'not do something' in a story, because someone doesn't like it. Write the story for you. Write whatever you want, no matter what people tell you.

 

Hey, i loved hxh

 

I understand. I like it, too. I think my issue was I couldn't grasp the concept of Nen. Because even though the magic classes were different, they felt the same to me. Manifest something and use it. But I do know it is a complex system.

 

Yes, the importance of narrative structure really sticks out to me. Especially how important that is to the characters. The author figuring out how the characters would make thought-out or on-the-fly decisions (based on who they are!) in response to those events, how best to space those things out, and so on, are one of the key things in good stories.

But this also brings to mind something I was looking into which I hadn't really considered before. Lately, I've been playing this lovely little game called "Yume Nikki". Recently, I got curious about the name "KIKIYAMA", the person who created the game, and I thought "Who is that?" So this morning, I looked it up, and found a pretty interesting description from them about Yume Nikki itself.

This stood out to me, because when you're playing the game, this is not really the impression that you get! Besides the exploring part, at least. So at first, I was rather surprised by this. "There's no particular story or purpose? Really?" But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

See, the thing about Yume Nikki is, everything which a single specific/definitive story would have is all there, if there were one being told. There is a beginning, and an end. The necessary characters and setting are established from the get-go, and there are ones which you meet along the way. There is a progression and development (which is you playing the game), and things come to a head. You come across unexpected or surprising things in the world, or conflict with enemies that force you to restart and "wake up" from the dream. So, there are twists and turns in there. Everything feels very deliberately designed, and well-placed. There is imagery and words used which have their own individual meanings or associations, and those pieces really start to pile up. Everything which you would need in order to tell a story, especially a "particular story", is already there. However, it doesn't stop to explain itself to you, besides just how to play the game. Nor does it go out of its way to chain these ideas together directly in a way that'd undeniably suggest an explicit authorial intent. Thus, the moment that you, the player, begin weaving deeper interpretations of all these things with a singular throughline, (which I myself did without even realizing) it's sort of your own story which you create, especially as you play the game. And from what I can tell, this was by design. Me personally, I love that! I feel like that's part of the reason it developed such a following, because for many people, that's a very appealing niche. Yume Nikki is very Yu-Nikki.

It's the kind of story which can only be told through the medium of video games. Or at least, is easier to tell. You see this in alot of similar exploration-based or "open-world" video games today. It can be hard to imagine that same idea played out in a book or a movie in the same way something like Yume Nikki does it. (Unless it's some kind of experimental/Avant Garde film, which would be very cool for a YN movie adaptation!!) But this is part of why the author's intent when creating a story has always fascinated me. Not just that, but also the way they choose to describe what they've created in their own words too. It can be very insightful into what they were aiming to accomplish with their work, and why it's presented the way that it is.

I say all that to say, while a specific narrative structure can be extremely vital, it's possible to tell a good story without having to suggest any one true narrative interpretation. Especially depending on the strengths of the medium or genre the story is in. Though, it seems like it can be hard to pull off. So, not every story needs to be told that way to be good or anything, it's just an example of an exception to that rule of needing a concrete plot. Which was something I hadn't thought of like that before.

 

Yeah, something like this sounds most ideal to me. Just enough to make sense, but leaves room for the audience's imagination. If they're willing to make use of it, that is. Not quite soft, not quite hard, but just right. The Goldilocks Zone of magic, if you will. The imagination part is what I love most about magic, and it's the kind that I want to achieve in my own stories. Not at the expense of making any sense though, of course.

Also, not very familiar with Harry Potter. I remember reading the first book, but I didn't get very far in. Knowing this, maybe I'll look into it soon.

Lol, yeah, that's a good way to put it. Just because the rules can be ignored doesn't mean you'll cook something that tastes any good! It makes me think of the "Dubious Food" from Breath of the Wild, which happens when you slap ingredients together with no rhyme or reason. It still replenishes your health, but going off Link's reaction, it's not very appetizing.

 

In a word, a good story's just got to be interesting. I don't care how the author goes about that so long as she's committed and confident.

 

This is true. What makes a story “interesting”? Either to you, or in general?

 

I agree, though it does raise the question:

The answer probably doesn't narrow it down all the much. The plot can be important, and may need to carry the heavy load. Plot's usually down my list. Command of language, with something worth saying, that doesn't preach, that holds surprise, fearless and authentic without pandering to the "broad audience", has character whether or not it has "characters", with jagged edges that don't follow a neat trajectory and doesn't end with everything wrapped up in a neat package. With a cool cover.

I like creative use of language that either resonates or reveals a new way of looking at things, big/small/whatever and even those elements can be massively varied.

 

That sounds like a good place to be if it feels right to you. I tend to go further into the hard magic zone. But that's what works for me.

And oh, really? You might enjoy the books.

Thanks. I am glad I made sense. As for the food in Breath of the Wild, that is exactly what I am saying. Also, that's a fun game mechanic.

 

I agree language can make a style, but I still think it has to be combined with a strong plot. My two favourite authors, Jack Vance and Stephen Donaldson have very distinct ways of using language, but I also like Isaac Asimov, who isn't that strong on prose or even characterisation, but on ideas.

I also enjoy period language, as long as it's authentic, not just trying to *sound* authentic. That's why "thees" and "thous" in fantasy sound off to me, because most people don't know how to use them, and it isn't even (pseudo) period-appropriate. You'd do better with word choices and grammatical constructs, than trying to insert archaic-sounding words.

 

Whatever qualities make the work stand out in the medium?

I'm full of cop-out answers, but it's the best I got. I don't know which elements will make a story interesting until I encounter them. It could be a few small things, cool dinosaurs, or something broad like language/plot/character.

How many people picked up House of Leaves because they already liked experimental format storytelling? I bet more people were instead introduced to the idea through that book.

 

You said these things probably don't narrow it down all that much, but I think everything you listed here sounds extremely compelling! I especially like that aspect of it having "character" whether or not is has "characters". Character, in that sense, are defined as distinguishing, unique moral or mental individual attributes. So in the terms of a story, this would be in the form of it having its own sort of "personality" and "values", so to speak, like a normal person would. As though the story itself is this massive character, which may or may not have actors within it.

That last part at the end is especially helpful for me. Not everything has to be perfect, and not every story needs to have some "and they lived happily ever after," ending. But how can you make the ending of a story interesting in that way, without making it unsatisfying to the audience, if there are still some untied loose ends?

 

A story doesn't have to tie up all loose ends to come to a conclusion. Some don't, to make room for a sequel. What is unsatisfying is a plot or character arc that delivers no payoff, which doesn't have to mean concluding it. You, the reader, have spent the entire book or books shipping two characters together, but at the end, their relationship is exactly the same as it was at the beginning with no forward (or backward) movement whatsoever. That's unsatisfying.

 

I've been thinking about this concept in the back of my mind since yesterday. The idea of a story arc that makes the events leading up to it meaningful, or makes the audience's time invested into it worth it, without leaving everything off with a book-end resolution still making for a good, satisfying story is pretty interesting. I think that those two concepts are often conflated with one another, and that it's assumed that a story's events are only meaningful if everything is brought to an end.

Also, that scenario which you posed as well is a good example. At that point, all the developments would seem ultimately insignificant. Sequence without consequence, if that makes sense. It seems like that would just make you think to yourself, "Wow. Nothing changed. Why did I spend my time reading all that? What was the point?"

Not everything needs to be resolved, it just needs to have a result.

 

That's what I thought when I reached Book 7 of the Wheel of Time.

 

Or, the Acoylte TV Show. LOL.