But this was an interesting post, none the less. Thanks again for writing in such an easy to follow way, and have a great day! Happy writing!

Awesome news! Btw, I didn’t misunderstand anything. I knew you probably had it down, but I didn’t have a lot of information to go on, so all I can posit is a best guess from what I am given. If you have those external forces, then you did it correctly, which is evidenced by the fact that you are agented. If you look at my comment, I put that in my response. I said that if you had done it correctly, you would know by how others responded to your work…which is in the postive. so GREAT! 😀

But, in fairness, I didn’t know that you were agented and had very little to go off. I do have to expound on my responses in that there are many hopeful writers who are reading the comments for futher explication. So if I don’t qualify statements, I can create confusion for others.

I knew what you were talking about and you are correct. That is a HUGE misconception. I was guilty. I heard the word “antagonist” and the mustache-twirling guy popped in my head.

And yes, you are correct that someone doesn’t have to know all the jargon to write a good book, but training in our craft can only help us be stronger writers. Like someone can naturally have a great voice, but voice coaching might take that singer to a new level. Training in our craft also makes us more efficient in our work. Doing things by instinct can work, but training can make it work faster and better.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I didn’t say the character suddenly changed one day. He takes 90,000 words to change, and the external forces that cause him to want to change are those mentioned above, his uncle, his mother, and his uncle’s girlfriend. When I initially responded to you, I was simply saying that I hadn’t considered that the definition of “antagonist” as defined in most books on writing includes people who aren’t necessarily mustache twirling villains, but instead can have the protagonist’s best interest in mind. At that point I wasn’t suggesting that there didn’t need to be an outside force causing the character to change. I’m not sure where you got that.

As a matter of fact, I had an agent for a year and I got an offer from a publisher, but ultimately decided I wanted to publish it myself. I’m not sure why you’d assume I’m a beginner who hasn’t even shopped my novel.

For the record, I don’t think a person needs to know all the definitions or understand all the jargon to write a good book. We internalize stories from early childhood. I would say the majority of authors do a lot of what they do by instinct, drawing on what we have absorbed. Later we may learn why we did what we did and find ways to do it more successfully. Or we may learn skills that allow us to fix what was missing or not working.

There is no such thing as a character-driven piece. That is a myth (in my opinion). There is always an external plot. The only difference is the importance placed on the change. Is the character change paramount? Or is the situational change paramount. There is always an external plot driving inner change.

In the drama “Gran Torino” it is the gang that forces Walter to care about his neighbors and ultimately chages who he is.

In “Steele Magnolias” it is Shelby’s choice to have a baby despite life-threatening diabetes that starts the plot rolling and forces M’Lynn to give up trying to control everything.

There is an external narrative that forces the character to grow.