6 Misconceptions I Had About Writing Craft

Writing craft improves faster when writers stop treating “realism,” “personality,” or “maximum emotion” as automatic guarantees of quality. In a self-roast built around six misconceptions, ShaelinWrites traces how earlier drafts went wrong—not because of lack of effort, but because of deliberate choices made under the belief that those choices were the correct path.

The first misconception was about dialogue. Earlier work tried to mirror everyday speech as closely as possible, including verbal clutter like frequent ellipses and pauses (“um”-style hesitations). That approach produced dialogue that felt realistic in isolation but read as messy on the page. The takeaway: good dialogue can sound natural without replicating every stutter, pause, or conversational “mess” that transcripts contain.

Second came realism. The belief that realism should be the ultimate goal led to redundant, overly literal scenes where “perfectly realistic” details crowded out what was actually engaging. Fiction, the creator argues, often requires editing reality—sometimes even making it intentionally less believable—to serve story and drama. The point isn’t to avoid realism entirely, but to prioritize what makes the narrative interesting over what merely looks accurate.

Third was character development. A clear personality was treated as the finish line, with less attention to specificity—concrete details that make a character feel particular and knowable. Personality helps, but without tangible, specific information, characters can come off generic. The missing ingredient wasn’t “more traits,” but more grounded detail.

Fourth was point of view, misunderstood as a simple choice between first and third person rather than a flexible technical tool. Several related errors followed: treating third-person narration as separate from the protagonist’s voice, misunderstanding psychic distance, and using italics for thoughts even in first person—an attempt to distinguish “narration” from “thinking” that didn’t match how POV blending works. The misconception also extended to assumptions about audience attachment: first person was viewed as inherently more immersive and third person as more “mature” or literary, even though both can deliver investment.

Fifth was emotion. Earlier writing chased intensity—more feelings, more melodrama, endings as sad as possible—while overlooking subtlety. The later lesson is that emotional power often comes from restraint: small, understated reactions can land harder than overt displays.

Sixth was protagonist design. The earlier rule was that protagonists must be likable and relatable. Over time, the focus shifted toward what matters most for readers: interest. Likability can help, but it’s not the deciding factor; flawed, even unlikable characters can be compelling if they drive conflict and reveal something worth reading about. The creator now frames character flaws less as a checklist of traits and more as the core conflict that makes a character’s story engaging.