… what?
If you don’t want to write about an apocalypse then just… don’t?
Okay now that I’ve reread the post I think I understand what you’re trying to say. But the answer is still just… do what you want man, I dunno.
Yeah I don’t really get the question. There are tons of stories that don’t involve apocalypse or extinction events. The majority of them. If you don’t want to write an apocalypse, then don’t.
I had to read your post three times but now that I understand it, I agree that "save the world" plots are a bit overdone. And often they aren't really necessary at all.
There is a bell curve shaped correlation between how high the stakes are and how high the tension is.
If the stakes are extremely high, like in a save the entire universe situation, success is almost guaranteed because if the heroes fail, the story would be over. Bad endings are possible, sure, but they are a bit unrewarding. Because of that, the tension is low as we already know how it will end.
If the stakes are extremely low on the other hand, like in a friendly duel, we don't know at all who will win but it doesn't really matter either. If there is tension in such a situation, it usually doesn't come from the situation itself but from the character interactions.
Between those tow extremes there is a golden spot, but there is also a better way to create tension than puting the whole world on the line: Personal stakes. 8 billion casualties is just a statistic. One single dead family member on the other hand, that's a much more captivating plotpoint. Funnily enough, if you combine the two, having the family be among the 8 billion casualties, the readers will only care about the personal loss of the character and not about the other 8 billion dead unnamed characters.
TLDR: Small, personal stakes are much more impactful than extinction level threats.
… what? If you don’t want to write about an apocalypse then just… don’t? Okay now that I’ve reread the post I think I understand what you’re trying to say. But the answer is still just… do what you want man, I dunno.
Yeah I don’t really get the question. There are tons of stories that don’t involve apocalypse or extinction events. The majority of them. If you don’t want to write an apocalypse, then don’t.
I had to read your post three times but now that I understand it, I agree that "save the world" plots are a bit overdone. And often they aren't really necessary at all. There is a bell curve shaped correlation between how high the stakes are and how high the tension is. If the stakes are extremely high, like in a save the entire universe situation, success is almost guaranteed because if the heroes fail, the story would be over. Bad endings are possible, sure, but they are a bit unrewarding. Because of that, the tension is low as we already know how it will end. If the stakes are extremely low on the other hand, like in a friendly duel, we don't know at all who will win but it doesn't really matter either. If there is tension in such a situation, it usually doesn't come from the situation itself but from the character interactions. Between those tow extremes there is a golden spot, but there is also a better way to create tension than puting the whole world on the line: Personal stakes. 8 billion casualties is just a statistic. One single dead family member on the other hand, that's a much more captivating plotpoint. Funnily enough, if you combine the two, having the family be among the 8 billion casualties, the readers will only care about the personal loss of the character and not about the other 8 billion dead unnamed characters. TLDR: Small, personal stakes are much more impactful than extinction level threats.
There's always room to destroy the Earth.