Melanie's Rules For Writing That Doesn't Suck

(Or: Why I Stop Reading Stuff)

1. Drama Is As Drama Does
Drama is an integral part of any good story. Conflict is necessary to move a story forward, whether that conflict be physical, emotional, or mental.
Nevertheless, there is such a thing as taking that drama too far. Adding drama to artificially extend the life of a story is an indicator, in my opinion, of a writer who is either incapable of letting a story go, or who wants to torure their readers. This same rule applies to television.
Example: Glee is a great example of this, to the point that there's really no reason to go into specific examples since the entire show qualifies. Charles Dickens would have been proud.

2. Weak Characters Are Poor Characters
It is important to understand the difference between an engaging character with flaws and a character whose sole purpose for existing is to advance a plot point that any sane character would resist. Yes, there are people in life who do not stand up for themselves. These people are boring.
Literature is meant to be engaging, and as such, engaging characters are a must, and a character who lays down without a fight to any and all opposition does not, in my opinion, qualify as an engaging character. Too often such characters are used to excuse situations or actions that otherwise would never be allowed to happen.
Example: There is quite a bit of "forced femme" where this situation applies, and the changed character simply lets those around them do as they please with no expression of their own feelings or personality. Granted, many situations in these stories require such characters, but if that is the case, it is better to either rework your situation, or to create a character who still has personality yet might have reason to go along with such actions.

3. No One Ever Holds All The Cards
In a fight between a ball of putty and an anvil, the anvil would win. We know this, and as such most readers would never care to read the putty's story.
Too often writers will rely on the concept of an all-powerful force or individual to justify characters pursuing actions that are counter to their personalities, justifying this by having that force capable of countering every possible action the character could pursue.
This is not so much bad writing as it is typically lazy. "It's easier to force the characters to go the way you want than to justify them taking said action on their own." This also links back into rule 2, as it implies that in no uncertain terms your main character or characters are too weak to carry the story on their own, and require an outside force to make things go your way.
Examples: Nearly any story where an individual is forced to work for a government organization qualifies for this, from "Schlock Mercenary" onward. While doing so is certainly reminiscent of certain real-world situations, those situations do not typically revolve around players with a long life expectancy, since the organization will inevitably remove any evidence of its actions. Avoiding this in stories will often result in a deus ex machina to justify the characters escaping or surviving.

4. Use Deus Ex Machina sparingly
Speaking of deus ex machina....
There are things that occur in life that are outside a character's control. Weather, or the actions of characters who don't appear in a story, nevertheless have an effect on the events of said story in some small way. It is when these actions result in changing the outcome of a story in a major way that a writer needs to reevaluate their story.
As often as possible, actions in a story should be either justified or foreshadowed by other actions within said story. If we know ahead of time that there is an organization working to counter an action, it is less likely to be jarring when that organization shows up and saves the day later. Likewise, if we know multiple targets are pursuing a goal, it is easier to accept the arrival of a new antagonist or character associated with such a goal than if they come out of nowhere.
Examples: The arrival of Michelle Rodriguez's character in "Machete" during the final battle is just one of many examples of such events, where an element that has either been removed from a series of actions or not present previously has ended up helping to turn the tide of an event.

5. Know When To Stop
Every story has an ending. That ending may be the beginning of a new story with the same characters, but nevertheless it is important for a writer to be able to recognize the starting and stopping points of events in their own writing, since pulling an event along too far often results in diluting the effectiveness of the overall story. This happens quite often in TG writing, where an author can be goaded into continuing a story's characters past the point of the primary conflict, oftentimes resulting in violations of the first rule on this list, since there has to be some driving force behind the actions of the character's new story.
Knowing when to stop can help to solidify the message delivered by a piece of writing. The battle is over, the hero has learned a valuable life lesson, and things are looking up (or not.) When a writer has said what they need to say, anything extra they add will typically be inferior to the main meat of the story, and do little more than bore most readers with meaningless drivel.
Examples: As opinionated and possibly controversial as it may be, the "Drizzt" books to me represent an excellent example of this. A story that could have had great endings at several points in its past has been drawn out to the point of ridiculousness. Read them if you want an example of "What Not To Do."

Welp, that's it for now. Keep in mind, everything you see here is all my personal opinion, and should not be seen as the work of a professional in the field who knows what they're talking about. Have I broken these rules myself? Yep. Doesn't mean they don't tend to irk me.

Melanie E.