If I may change a thing on this, it would be the title: 100 questions before you EDIT your novel.
Don't ask yourself questions before writing, it's distracting and boring.
Thank you for your comment - that was the first thing that came to my mind.
There are writers that edit while they type, they are rare and odd and beautiful creatures. I have a problem with the list being aimed at an almost formulaic novel. It seems all geared to a hero journey with a clear antagonist. Also what did the main character do wrong? I mean it seems like you are constantly advised to make his life more miserable: 18. How can you make the threat, the danger, more excruciating, agonizing, humiliating? Who can do that? Why should they? 34. What does your hero – falsely – expect that won’t happen? 83. What is the most humiliating, painful extremity your hero will experience? etc. There isn't a question of what is a moment of bliss your hero will feel? who is going to actually be of assistance? etc. Kurt Vonnegut has the wonderful idea that writing must contain compassion to all your characters. I like that. I am sorry, I am slightly drunk and I should probably delete this when sober, it's just it seemed that the entire list is against the protagonist.
That is a great thought, I agree completely. It seems like many books just see how much crap they can make their protagonist go through before they run out of pages. Granted, heroes always face hardships, but this kind of seems extreme. If I ever finish a book or even an idea for a book I just hope I don't follow right along with a specific "formula" for it. I want to catch readers' attention and take them by surprise. I want them to be shocked that there are good things happening and that no one has died yet. I want to write something to the effect of an apocalyptic novel where the characters are ridiculously optimistic and great things happen to them.
I hate it when there's too much suffering in any story. I decided, almost immediately and stubbornly, that my current little project with superheroes was that the protagonist was going to have a loving and whole family, dammit. Some of the conflict in the plot comes from that, secret keeping and fears for safety and all that jazz. You don't need to surround the characters in tragedy to get emotions and actions. Just have them care about each other is a good start. Too many young adult books are filled with orphans or neglect and it makes no sense.
Exactly. So much tragedy and heartbreak just seems so common now it makes me feel jaded toward it all. Like I read about someone's entire family dying in a book and it's like "well that's to be expected, sure." Like what?? Nah. That's not the only way to draw emotion and interest from readers.
It's lazy, I think. It's an easy way to get motivation with less supporting characters and thought. Sure, grief is something that can be interesting to write and explore, but do you really have to kill off the entire family for it? Plus, half the time the worst offending authors focus on only the anger side of losing someone. Yeah, sure, I get that you despise the antagonist for murdering your entire family, hero. But how does that make you feel? As a reader, I want to get to know characters, I want a story with actual people in them. Not rage machines turned badasses which seem to be the norm in the teenage girl YA stuff I read in high school. And it was stupid.
Agreed! Though there are some people who can plan it all out in advance in meticulous detail, and I hate them. I've got a friend who knows every line before he starts writing. I couldn't do it. My friend calls me a "seat of the pants-er" — someone who makes it up as they go along and fixes everything in the edits. There are some advantages to planning it all out, I think — you can control the pacing with a lot more skill. On the other hand I think it kills some of the spontaneity, so it's a trade-off.