The Pen & The Sword: A Discussion Book

Trope Breakers #35|A Pen & Sword Article

Originally, I intended to write a different article about a more traditional trope, but I wasn't really feeling it. So, I decided to tackle something a little different, but just as important.

Stakes are extremely important in stories. For the story and characters to feel important, readers need to know what will happen if the goal is not accomplished. They need to know the worst-case scenario, and what to expect if the protagonists fail so said reader can be invested in the narrative. However, a lot of authors seem to be operating under the belief that bigger stakes automatically equals bigger interest. This led to a trend of astronomically high stakes, such as the entire world, which are unlikely to actually be sacrificed in the story. It is a pattern in a lot of novels—and in other creative mediums—that authors will set up stakes and either undo them or not follow through on them. At this point, it has almost become a trope, hence why I decided to cover it.

Firstly, I would like to note that insane, lofty stakes are not necessary for a story. Stakes can be as simple as a character receiving a poor grade or the character dying. The point is that the protagonist or point-of-view character cares about this very dearly. This is where a lot of authors seem to struggle. If the world is in danger and that is what readers are supposed to care about, but the main character is willing to sacrifice the world to save their paren or love interest, the stakes feel cheap. Readers will feel deceived, like they were not supposed to care about the original stakes. That's a big reason why "Save the World" and "Stop the Apocalypse" stories are so easy to check out of. Sometimes it is better to focus on the little things, or to mix the stakes throughout. Readers know the villain is probably not going to take over the country or kingdom, but they do not know whether the love interest will forgive the MC for lying. One of my favorite book-focused YouTubers, Abbie Emmons, always stresses that the events of the story do not matter nearly as much as why those events matter to the character. Don't be afraid to tell a smaller story.

Secondly, no stakes are better than reversing stakes. I would much rather read a story where no characters die than one where eight characters die and five either faked their deaths or come back to life. There was a trilogy I adored—I have listened to the books on audio and read them several times. The books have a place on honor on my shelf. I am a huge fan of this series, but the third book did something immensely frustrating. There was a battle in which many characters were attacked in a very story-specific way and others died. It was a big moment. It had consequences. It was important and really hit me while I was reading. Then, at the climax of the final book, every consequence except the deaths was completely undone in an unforeseeable event. It cheapened the entire series. It's is a pattern with this author, which makes her stories harder to care about because I do not trust her to follow through on promised consequences. So, make sure that you if punish or harm your characters, don't undo those consequences unless it is very important to the narrative or was adequately set up.

Finally, make sure the stakes are foreshadowed enough, but not too much. Another frequent issue I see when something bad happens to a character is that bad thing coming out of nowhere. It is a random or poorly set up event rather than the natural follow up to a story element. Sometimes, these surprised can work well. Other times, though, these surprises cheapen the tragedy. For another direct example, I show I really like killed off a character suddenly in a way that had never been mentioned or established before, leading to the majority of the fandom refusing to accept the character truly died. After all, if the death was intended to be permanent, surely they would have made it make sense, right? In a superhero story, having a villain or fellow hero do in the protagonist or another character is logical. having the hero die of pancreatic cancer they never knew they had suddenly at the end is ludicrous and would seem thrown in to deliver a bittersweet or unsatisfactory/shocking ending. I kind of touched on this idea in my grim dark trope breaker, but having something terrible happen just so something terrible happened in the story is kind of lazy writing. Do not draw too much attention to what you intend, but leave enough breadcrumbs that readers will be thinking how they should have seen it coming, or how horrible that this chain of events took place. You do not want readers complaining that an aspect of the story seems poorly thought-out.

Basically, stakes need to feel real and established. Weak stakes or reversed stakes have almost become their own trope with how prevalent they are. YA novels especially like to tease horrific things occurring but rescues the characters at the last moment. Definitely something to look out for if you're writing in that genre.