I don't think that people who don't write professionally or with professional aspirations realize how actually hard it is to write a story
most people unfamiliar with the craft think it's just a matter of making up a sequence of events. this happens and then this and then this and then that and, then finally this, the end. but there are so many layers you have to make sure your story works on to be consistent and effective, layers that inform and modify each other in such way that makes writing feel sometimes like hellish game of jenga where fixing something on one layer causes problems in another one
one of such layers is the thematic layer. the ideas and philosophies you want to convey with your piece. "how to deliver this political commentary without feeling hamfisted", "what's the most nuanced way to approach trauma", "am I sabotaging this character's arc by having him forgive his dad in the end?" etc
the other one is the logistical layer, the one where you know what must happen in the story and what's the best way to make it happen. "I need Bob to lose a leg two thirds into the story to consolidate his arc, what chain of events may lead to that so it feels organic and not random?", "what's the most exciting way to set up the reunion between the lost twins?, "how can I plausibly explain Leslie, the impoverished housemaid character, being in Paris with the rest of the cast for the big climax?", etc.
then there's the structural layer. "what's the best point to plant a setup to that later payoff?", "how long into the story until that big reversal of fortune happens?", "is this twist reveal more effective in the midpoint or the third act break?", "how do you arrange low energy and high energy scenes for the story to keep the momentum", etc. at fist it might feel that the structural level is the same as the logistical level, but whereas the logistical is the what happens and how to make it exciting and plausible, the structural is more like what's the role of these events in the raw mechanics of the story.
and again, these layers all inform each other and making sure it all ties up neatly is no easy task, and something that frustrates me to no end is how some people just don't take into account the point of some controversial writing decisions on any of such layers before criticizing them. it's just "i didn't like that it happen, therefore it shouldn't have happened", and offer an alternative solution that either does not take any of the layers into account or only one of such layers with no regard with how it might have undermined the others.
