Break Your Story or Readers Will
How I tore my science fiction concept apart and built a four-step workflow for fixing it
Science fiction is magical when you get the technical details right.
When a story respects the actual rules of physics and engineering, the impossible feels possible and the wonder feels earned. Too many stories collapse under the weight of their own technical impossibilities. A problem I learned to solve not in a writing workshop, but in a much more intense environment.
What if we approached broken stories the same way we approach broken systems?
There's Always an Answer
Imagine this: It's 3 AM and your phone rings. On the other end is a Fortune 100 client experiencing catastrophic system failure. Infrastructure impacting hundreds of millions of customers, hitting international news. When standard troubleshooting fails and engineering teams panic, they call you.
Your team is the force brought in when attempts to negotiate with technology reach an impasse. You don't hang up for days. You eat, brush your teeth, and catch short rests while staying on the bridge line. Through methodical analysis and hypothesis testing, the breakthrough always comes. That brilliant spark when everything clicks: "Holy shit, I've got it!"
I've learned from years of these crisis engagements: there is always an answer. Always. We just haven't uncovered it yet.
"The devil is in the details, but so is the salvation." (Hyman Rickover)
How I Systematically Broke and Fixed My Story
I thought my engineering days were behind me when I started writing. Then my story concept started collapsing, and I discovered the same methodical problem-solving approach that debugs critical systems could save a broken narrative.
My original concept seemed solid: humanity's first interstellar colony ship to Kapteyn's Star. During the 40-year journey, something goes catastrophically wrong with the AI navigation system. When the crew finally investigates the malfunction, they discover they traveled in the wrong direction for decades. They're now heading toward empty space with insufficient fuel to turn around or reach any other star system.
I wanted to confront readers with humanity's ultimate isolation. The discovery that their sacrifice and decades of travel had been meaningless. Nothing ahead but empty void. No way home. Nothing to do but drift until their resources run out and they die.
But when I started applying systematic pressure, everything started breaking down.
The Real Problem: Impossible Ignorance
I started with my standard diagnostic: If I'm using "somehow" or "mysteriously" to explain story elements, I've found something broken.
The concept had emotional weight. A 40-year journey represents multiple generations of sacrifice. The crew gives up their entire lives for humanity's expansion. Discovering that sacrifice was wasted creates genuine horror.
But the logistics were brutal.
✗ How do competent navigators not notice they're off-course for decades? These are career space professionals with advanced instruments. Even with AI handling primary navigation, they'd constantly verify their position against known stellar references.
My solution:
✗ The AI develops a subtle malfunction that slowly corrupts navigation data over years, while simultaneously feeding false confirmation to all verification systems.
A growing pile of bullshit to explain an impossible constraint.
Questioning the Core Requirement
Instead of engineering better excuses, I stepped back and asked: What's the real purpose this navigation mystery is serving for my story?
The purpose was existential horror. The terror of discovering your entire purpose was meaningless. That decades of sacrifice led nowhere. But the mechanism of hiding navigation errors from professional astronauts was fundamentally broken.
Why does the horror have to come from being lost?
That question changed everything. What if they knew exactly where they were going, but discovered their destination was worthless? What if the horror wasn't misdirection, but futile direction?
Instead of a navigation malfunction, what if their destination star system had gone dark? Stellar collapse, supernova, or simple stellar death. Kapteyn no longer existed as a viable target.
But they're already committed. In deep space, at relativistic speeds, with enough fuel to reach their destination but not enough to stop or turn around.
Finding the Real Constraint
I had two choices: abandon the concept or ask What if this constraint became a feature instead of a bug?
The breakthrough came when I realized I was trying to tell the wrong kind of story entirely.
Instead of a space mystery which asks how we got lost, I had the foundation of a trapped group survival story asking how we face certain death together. Instead of manufacturing ignorance about navigation, I could eliminate the need for mystery.
The new concept: They receive confirmation that Kapteyn has undergone stellar collapse. Their destination is gone, but they're already committed to a 20-year deceleration toward empty space. They have perfect navigation, complete information, and no options.
No mystery. No hidden reveals. They know exactly what's happening and must live with that knowledge for decades.
Tracing the Improvement Chain
This single change fixed multiple problems simultaneously:
✓ The ignorance problem disappeared. Professional astronauts don't need to be inexplicably incompetent.
✓ The navigation problem vanished. Their instruments work perfectly. The problem is their destination, not their direction.
✓ The existential horror became authentic. Instead of a malfunctioning AI, the universe itself became the antagonist.
✓ The story structure clarified. No longer a mystery to be solved, but a trapped group dynamics story. Think The Mist in space, with resource scarcity instead of monsters.
But the solution created new constraints that needed systematic treatment.
When I decided they needed to survive decades in space, I couldn't handwave life support systems. Real colony ships need closed-loop environmental systems, redundant food production, and sustainable resource cycling. The technical requirements became enormous.
But that constraint became a feature: resource management pressure creates natural dramatic tension. Rationing decisions. Equipment failures. Social hierarchies around access to limited resources.
Each constraint I embraced instead of fighting made the story stronger.
When I worked through the fuel physics, I discovered another potential story-killer: if they're decelerating toward empty space, why not just coast and preserve fuel? They could survive longer without the fuel burn.
But what if the deceleration isn't optional? What if their reactor requires active fuel consumption to prevent containment failure? They must burn fuel to prevent the engine from going critical and destroying the ship.
The story-killing limitation became a tension-building mechanism. Every day they decelerate toward nothing, they're burning irreplaceable fuel they can't conserve. The constraint forces them toward their fate.
When I examined the social dynamics, another challenge emerged: how do you maintain civilization among people who know they're going to die? What's the point of rules, relationships, or planning?
But that constraint revealed the real story: not how people die, but how they choose to live when death is certain. Some people find meaning in preservation and maintain human knowledge and culture even without an audience. Others find meaning in connection and deepen relationships despite their temporary nature.
The impossible social constraint became the thematic foundation.
"A problem well-stated is half-solved." (Charles Kettering)
The Four-Step Method That Emerged
Through this debugging process, a clear methodology emerged.
Before we break down the details, here is the four-step framework at a glance:
List What's Breaking: Ruthlessly identify the failure points.
Question the Requirement: Ask why the broken element must exist.
Find the Real Constraint: Turn the limitation into a feature.
Trace the Improvement Chain: Map the ripple effects of your solution.
Now, let's look at each step in detail.
Step 1: List What's Actually Breaking
Be specific about failure points:
✗ Weak: The navigation doesn't work
✓ Strong: Professional astronauts wouldn't miss navigation errors for decades
Diagnostic question: If you're using "somehow" or "mysteriously," you've found something broken.
Become your own red team. Outside of engineering, you might know this as adversarial thinking or dialectical reasoning. Don't just list obvious problems. Actively try to destroy your concept using the strongest possible arguments. Switch to the other side of the chessboard and attack your work as ruthlessly as a hostile critic would.
The Breaking Bad writers room was famous for this approach, with Vince Gilligan and his team systematically breaking down story concepts "moment by moment, plot beat by plot beat" and exploring "every conceivable thought under the sun, no matter how stupid" to find plot holes before viewers could. If your story can survive genuine attempts to break it, you'll know the foundation is solid."
Step 2: Question the Core Requirement
For each broken element, ask:
Why must this exist?
What's the real purpose this serves for the story?
What if it didn't exist at all?
Instead of asking How do I make faster-than-light travel believable? ask Why does my story need FTL at all?
Step 3: Find the Real Constraint
Identify what limitation is creating your problem, then ask: What if this constraint became a story feature instead of a bug?
The most elegant solutions turn limitations into mechanisms. Look for ways this constraint could create drama, conflict, or interesting story mechanics instead of problems to patch.
Step 4: Trace the Improvement Chain
Map how solutions create new constraints:
What does this fix? (Original problems + new dramatic possibilities)
What does this break? (New limitations + story elements that must change)
Document the cascade effects. How does this one change ripple through your entire story structure? Remember: the new constraints aren't bugs, but features waiting to be discovered.
When new problems emerge, return to Step 1 and apply the same systematic process to each new challenge.
Constraints are Creative Catalysts
"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." (Orson Welles)
This systematic approach doesn't constrain creativity but focuses it. We're not constraining the imagination—we're grounding it in truth. When you can't handwave a solution, you're forced to find an ingenious one.
You already do this instinctively. Every time you read a scene and think "this doesn't feel right," you're doing diagnostic analysis. When you catch yourself explaining plot holes with "somehow" or "mysteriously," you've spotted a broken element. When you realize a character's motivation doesn't ring true, you're questioning core requirements.
You may already sense this process instinctively. Every time you read a scene and think this doesn't feel right, you're performing a diagnostic. This method gives you a structured framework to amplify and trace those instincts to a solution. Instead of worrying about problems or patching around them, you systematically turn them into features.
The real story isn’t the perfect idea you started with; it’s the brilliant one you discover by fixing what was broken.
My space navigation mystery became a resource management survival story, and it was infinitely stronger for the transformation. Not because I learned to think like an engineer, but because I learned to trust my writerly instincts and follow them methodically to better solutions.
Try this: Pick your current story's biggest handwave. What makes you nervous when you think about smart readers noticing it? Apply the four-step method. What's really breaking? What constraint could you use instead? What would happen if you made that limitation into a feature?
Have you encountered situations where systematic questioning transformed your story concept entirely? I'd love to hear about your breakthrough moments in the comments.
Coming next month: A Field Guide to Tau Zero
All posts are, and will always be, free.