normalcy?

Okay, I'm not a writing expert or anything, but I don't think you should assume off the bat that an idea has never been done, because chances are it has. There are thousands upon thousands of books out there.

But honestly, I'm having difficulty deciphering what you're REALLY trying to ask.

But there are a LOT of different aspects to a good story. All three of those included.

I think you can add in layer after layer of odd or complex things as long as the readers A) believe you and B) don't have to remember/keep up with all of it themselves. But if you keep up with it for them, I don't think complexity is a problem.

It depends on genre, etc, too, of course.

If it feels wrong to you, though, that's not good. If it just feels hard to pull off, go for it

Oh, bugger...

Well very good! And it's a good question, btw

It's normality. The word is normality.

scarletpeaches said:

It's normality. The word is normality.

Click to expand...

Not true, it's one of words we academics use.

Outside of academia though, normality would be more normal [unless you like sounding like you've swallowed a Thesaurus . . . )

'Normalcy' makes baby Jesus cry. Says so in the Bible.

It's good to have a grounding element in your story, something relatable. Perhaps the characters are caught in a love triangle, someone lost a job, best friends can't stand each other but have to rely on each other, etc. In Star Wars the characters—despite being in space surrounded by wild technology and threats of evil—were relatable with human problems. A young man who lost his father, a young girl who wants to be free, even the robots had a real aspect. You can get away with tons if you add that home base for the reader to come back to.

I've always heard normalcy. Maybe it's a regional thing, I don't know. I'm glad to find the proper term though—thanks Scarlett.

You're welcome!

You can make every aspect of a story or book absolutely bonkers, and it can still work if you're a clever enough writer. Ever read any Philip K. Dick?

But you'd better write as well as Dick to pull it off.

proxy said:

my problem: the main premise of my story is so twisted (but good), and the environment the characters are thrust into so equally twisted, that it somehow just feels ... wrong. its like im trying to fit two stories into one. i cant explain.

and im in love with both the premise and the story/environment.

does a good story pretty much require a simple aspect, whether it be the environment, the premise, or the characters themselves?

Click to expand...

In speculative fiction, there seem to be no limits. But there are. It's difficult to give advice on this without knowing specifics, which is why just about all the responses you've received so far are vague.

What worries me about your statement is that YOU, as the creator of this story, think it feels wrong. In my experience, if you have a nagging feeling that something isn't right, then usually, something ISN'T right. The "something" in question might not be what you think it is, though.

In my opinion, high concept is overrated, and I try not to pile it on too thick in my speculative fiction. Others are able to do so, however, without it feeling overdone. So it really depends what YOU feel is worth it to include and your presentation of it.

Libbie said:

You can make every aspect of a story or book absolutely bonkers, and it can still work if you're a clever enough writer. Ever read any Philip K. Dick?

But you'd better write as well as Dick to pull it off.

Click to expand...

Iain M. Banks comes to mind as well. If I ever tried to write like him, I'd die of a headache. But he seems to pull it off effortlessly.

If everything in the story is weird, then weirdness is normal in that world.

I tend to approach my plots with the view "this is fucked up and I love it."

There has to be something in there of interest to the average reader otherwise they won't care about your brilliant idea. Concept can only keep a reader for so long.

For me the best anchoring point is always character.

I personally think a good anchoring point can still be weird. I mean, take this example: The book is about demigods playing an ultra-violent version of soccer. Now, a lot of the readers who would pick up a book with that blurb are the sort of people who have a good understanding of the nature of demigods. The point is, even though it's weird to have the demigods be the point of contact in the story (the closest thing to a human element) plenty of people will happily read a book about them because these are the sorts of people who CAN put themselves in the shoes of demigods.

Now, your story may be even weirder (probably is - demigods is a pretty standard fantasy trope) but there'll still be people out there who can connect - you don't need a normality in there for the sake of the readers, because most readers are intelligent enough to be able to go with the flow. In fact, I'm one of those readers who likes having to connect with the weirder side of things. I love first person stories about vampires, for instance. Now, I'm not a vampire, and logic would say that you need to make the MC a human for my sake, but I'm fully capable of putting myself in the vamp's shoes, especially if it's written well. So for me, the book just gets better and better by having a non-human MC - which is a weirdness, but one that just works for me.

So my rambling point is, you don't have to have normality in there just for the sake of it. People can connect to all sorts of things. If it's something you, as the writer, have been able to connect to, then surely plenty of readers will connect as well.

Good luck.

Oh, and the parts that don't feel right need the little red pen of justice.

proxy said:

my problem: the main premise of my story is so twisted (but good), and the environment the characters are thrust into so equally twisted, that it somehow just feels ... wrong. its like im trying to fit two stories into one. i cant explain.

Click to expand...

Listen to that. Look for something that's not quite right in the story. Might not be what you think it is. Like maybe the two elements aren't synced together properly.

Maybe you could be more specific on where it starts to feel wrong.