What Does 'Raise The Stakes' Mean For Your Novel?

Writers hear it all the time. Raise the stakes. Raise the stakes. Raise the stakes. Unfortunately, after working with a few authors and reading some modern, published works, I am convinced that there is an unsettlingly large number of writers who have no idea what this means. So this blog post is meant to guide, aid, and educate! 

Writers hear it all the time. 'Raise the Stakes.'

Many writers have gleaned that ‘raise the stakes’ means to create a cataclysmic, life-altering, biggest, baddest climax. But that’s not quite right. While in some novels, it does mean increasing the severity of problems, hurdles, setbacks, etc., it does not always mean that. In modern English to raise or up the stakes means to increase the rewards of winning a competition. As it pertains to writing, ‘raise the stakes’ means primarily to increase the consequences if your character does not achieve the (eventual) goal of their story. I think of it like this: what happens if they don't achieve the main story goal? Rather than dwelling on definitions, let’s look at some examples. 

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

Katniss Everdeen is a pretty unlikable hero. Even if we already root for her in the beginning (because she has all the elements of an underdog right from the get go), we still care more about her winning the games at the end of the novel than we do at the beginning. Why? Well, because Collins raised the stakes gradually throughout the novel. First, she reveals that Katniss, not her mother, takes care of her family. If she loses the games, her family will probably starve. And considering that she just volunteered to save her sister, we immediately hope she'll be rewarded for such a selfless act. Then she reveals that there might be a love match between Katniss and Peeta. This is meant to pull on our heartstrings, then she ups the stakes by revealing the Gamemaker's declaration that "if two from one district survive, two victors will be allowed". This increases Katniss’s need to find Peeta and her freedom to embrace a possible relationship with him. And finally, after hinting at Katniss's likely role as a fated revolutionary figure throughout the novel, Collins culminates this idea when Katniss and Peeta are forced to choose between fighting each other or dying together.

The stakes are:

-If Katniss loses, her family may starve.

-If Katniss loses, her sister will live without her.

-If Katniss loses, she will not get a chance to be in love.

-If Katniss loses, the districts' chance at a revolution dies with her.

The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

Frodo is an interesting hero in that most readers (and viewers) like him more at the beginning of the story than at the end. But by the end, we have become well acquainted with so many members of the fellowship that we care deeply about what will happen to them all. J.R.R. Tolkien raised the stakes gradually as well. Initially, the threats are small and the hobbits do not fully grasp the severity of the ringwraiths' power and evil intent. But as the story progresses, the innocent hobbits begin to realize that if Sauron obtains the ring, it will mean the destruction of everything. As they begin to care, so do we.

Another way he raises the stakes is by increasing the antagonistic powers gradually, as well as those powers' hold over the heroes. We see Boromir begin to fall prey to the power of the ring, and of course we see Frodo gradually fall prey as well. Additionally, Tolkien makes each threat more and more intense and powerful. First it's the ringwraiths, then the fight at weathertop, then the 'watcher in the water' outside Moria. Then, ever more disastrous, the orcs and balrog within Moria. While this isn't quite the same as raising the stakes, it has the same effect of making readers root for the heroes more with each monster the heroes face. Particularly when some of those heroes fall, and we, as readers, do not want them to have died in vain. While Tolkien did raise the stakes by making each monster or battle fiercer than the last, that was generally for pacing and tension, I think. Honestly, the battles at Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields were far more "big and bad" than the one at the gates of Mordor. But the one at the gate matters more because there is so little chance at victory and still they fight with all they have. Tolkien knew that the most compelling battle isn't the one with the fiercest, coolest fighting, but rather the one with the most at stake.

The stakes are:

-If the heroes lose, they may never see home again.

-If the heroes lose, Boromir, Haldir, and Gandalf (so Frodo thinks) will have died in vain.

-If the heroes lose, their growth by fighting increasingly terrifying monsters will not come full circle.

-If the heroes lose, all they love and all they've fought for thus far will be destroyed.

My own example

I theorize that you can have essentially the exact same story but readers will care more about the outcome of the story with higher stakes. Don’t believe me? Let’s compare two stories…

You can have essentially the exact same story but readers will care more about the one with higher stakes.

Story 1

Alicia, a stay at home mom, drove to Target for her morning starbucks. While browsing the store, she received a phone call. The school secretary called and asked her to hurry and bring her son’s lunch to the school. She doesn’t have time for this but Alicia drives to the school but an old woman crosses the road slowly in front of her. Then she gets stuck behind a tractor. Finally, she makes it to the school. 

Story 2

Alicia, a high school dropout and stay at home mom, drove to Target for her morning starbucks. While browsing, she received a phone call. “This is an automated message. Intruder Alert at ABC Elementary. This is not a drill.” Alicia races down neighborhood roads, desperate to arrive and hold her son in her arms. Suddenly an old woman steps into the road. Alicia slams her brakes, and watches the grey haired woman shuffle across the street. She continues driving, then gets stuck behind a tractor. “Will I ever get there?” she yells aloud. Finally she makes it to the school, and eyes brimming with tears she searches for a sign of her son. 

These are the same story; the mom is at Target, she gets a call, she drives to the school. But we care infinitely more about the second story because what happens if she can't get to the school quickly? Her son may be injured and taken away to a hospital, her son may be scared and having. apanic attack, or her son could have been a victim of the attack. Give your character stakes that are commanding and powerful in your story.

Raising the stakes is important because it makes readers care about the outcome of the story. It keeps them reading. But it is vital that the stakes be inextricable from the character(s). In other words, if your character is fighting the big, bad villain whose plan is to take over the world, we aren’t going to care too much about that… we already see that in so many movies and books. We will care if there are individual characters in that world whose life will be altered as a result of that takeover. 

It is vital that the stakes be inextricable from the characters.

We care whether or not Sam gets back to tend to his garden in the Shire. We care whether or not Katniss can return home and inspire a revolution. We care whether or not the mom makes it to her son’s school and hugs his living, breathing body. The stakes must personally, inextricably affect the characters in your story or the stakes will not matter. It’s not enough to make the world end, you have to show what that world end means for your character(s).