# plot or character



## EmmaSohan (Apr 18, 2017)

Someone elsewhere asked what Hemingway contributed, and I thought of his relentless portrayal of what a man should be. I couldn't think of anyone doing that before his time; it seems common now.

Which led to . . . The plot of _The Old Man and the Sea_ is minimal. The point of the book is the character. Right?

So, are there books where the main goal is character, not plot? Or books that are mostly plot? Don't we usually talk about character in service of plot?

Of course, both would be best, but just doing one well is hard enough.

(Can setting me the main point of a book? I was surprised that character could.)


----------



## Ptolemy (Apr 18, 2017)

While I don't quite understand your question, I will say this: Characters are the subsidiaries of the overarching plot. Think of the plot as the Earth; and characters, setting, development of the world, tone, theme every other writing piece coexist on this Earth much like Humans, Animals, Plants do. You cannot write a book without a plot, but you can write a book without characters. Hence you cannot live on Earth if there is no Earth, but you can live on Earth without Humans for example. See, characters, to me are just a piece of the puzzle. You can make a book about the setting, make that setting the focus of the book and have it be the plot. While this would be hard, it is doable and has the ability to do well. 

Basically, we as writers serve the plot as a whole, adding in our own sprinkles of the puzzle like characters, theme, tone etc. We are here to build around a plot and make that plot not only make sense, but to come alive to readers.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 19, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> Characters are the subsidiaries of the overarching plot.



That's what I would have said last Sunday: The characters' personalities further the plot; we want the reader to care about the characters so that they care what happens in the plot; it's fun to have an interesting character.

But, in _The Old Man and the Sea_, the plot is, almost, man tries to catch a big fish. I think it's Hemingway's view of how to be a man, which means the story IS the old man. The plot is there just to help show the character. And maybe that's unusual, but the plot is also not the point in _The Fault in Our Stars_, that again is about the characters.

I am imagining that a horror story could get it's horror from the character, not the plot.


----------



## Ptolemy (Apr 20, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> That's what I would have said last Sunday: The characters' personalities further the plot; we want the reader to care about the characters so that they care what happens in the plot; it's fun to have an interesting character.
> 
> But, in _The Old Man and the Sea_, the plot is, almost, man tries to catch a big fish. I think it's Hemingway's view of how to be a man, which means the story IS the old man. The plot is there just to help show the character. And maybe that's unusual, but the plot is also not the point in _The Fault in Our Stars_, that again is about the characters.
> 
> I am imagining that a horror story could get it's horror from the character, not the plot.



The thing is, you need a plot first and foremost. Even if the characters IS the main focus there is still a plot to be had. In The Old Man and the Sea, the plot is the man trying to catch the fish, that is the plot even though the story focuses on character creation and building as it's main driving factor. The Fault in Our Stars also has a plot. The plot is to showcase a girls dealings with cancer and her relations with a love interest who is dealing with something similar. The plot cannot just be "character" you need to tell a story in fiction, that's the point in all honesty (outside of a few genres that are fiction but those are few and far between).

I think you may be getting tripped up on how a plot differs from characters or any other story element. Plot is the overarching story, without a plot you don't have a book. Characters, while they can be the focus of the book are contributors and suitors to the plot. They are at the plots whim when it comes to story telling.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 20, 2017)

I don't think plots need to be particularly complex if, like TOMAS, they depict a character or some other element deeply. I suppose that something needs to happen otherwise the book would be very static, saying "such asnd such a person IS XYZ way" rather than they "become" a certain way by doing ABC (where ABC is the plot).


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 20, 2017)

> The plot of _The Old Man and the Sea_ is minimal.


Stories are about people, not events. It's their struggle, moment-to-moment that matters. And it's how the character is _written_ that keeps the reader turning pages, not the things that happen. Plot comes in a distant second to that. You might say, "I loved the writing, but the plot was a bit thin. But you would _never_ say, "I hated the writing but loved the plot, because you'd not read far enough to experience any plot. Our goal, o every page, is to move the reader emotionally, not make them know what happened—make them care, not know.

Give the best plot ever conceived to a new writer and the result will be rejected in a paragraph. Give a lousy plot to a skilled writer and it will sell, because people buy writing, and decide to buy or say no in three pages or less, according to the studies made of book-buyer's habits.

That's why I'm such a bug on learning craft. We can never fix the problem we don't recognize as a problem.

The Old Man and the Sea is a classic, and has a strong plot. We begin with character development and backstory for both the man and the boy, told through conversation that makes us like the old man, know he's kind and intelligent, and want him to succeed. We learn that the boy loves him, and why, and that he's helping the man survive, and would fish with him if his father hadn't forbidden it. Tension is introduced in the form of our learning that were it not for the boy providing food and other help he might starve, so his future is uncertain. And that's the hook that will make us keep reading. We know the old man will have problems, because that's the nature of storytelling, but we will be cheering for him. And then, when the fish takes the bait we have a classic crucible situation, in which neither party can give up the fight. And as they fight tension steadily escalates as we wonder which of them will reach the end of their strength first. Notice that it's told in real-time, deep into the protagonist's viewpoint, as each new challenge is addressed and decisions are made, and implemented. As time passes the situation steadily worsens and danger increases for our protagonist. Good sense says cut the line, but pride, and a bit of necessity says, "not yet."

No plot? There's plenty of plot, as move and counter move make us wonder: will the line break? Will he end up too far from shore to survive? Will a storm kill him?

Then comes the victory that's worse than defeat. After all that effort, the fish is too big to fit in the boat. So his good luck is really bad luck, and all is lost. But is it?

In reality, when he comes home with the skeleton, he has all the admiration from his peers that bringing in the fish would have garnered. And his having done it triggers the true purpose of the story: The kid becomes a man and decides to tell everyone else that he's going to do what he wants, and fish with the old man. It's not the story about an old fisherman fighting with a fish, it's about a man doing manly things, and a boy becoming a man—just what you would expect from Hemingway.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 22, 2017)

Jay -- you seem to be inconsistent on the importance of plot?

At one point in _The Scarlet Letter_, Hawthorne mentions, out of the blue, that Pearl has inherited Hester's skills with clothes. It comes as little surprise that this explains the next element in the plot. Hawthorne was gerrymandering the character in service of plot.

Hawthorne has to fill in a lot between his brilliant start and end. One of his ideas was to have Arthur Dimmesdale climb only the platform that Hester stood on, at night, and then Hester walks by. To me, that's a great idea. (Is is plot or premise?) You could easily find a hundred writers who could write a great scene from that start. They would all be kind of the same, and all different. (So, again, plot first.)

Would you want to rewrite Hemingway's story but have the main character be a young man with narcissism? I think I could write about the same story about hunting in Africa. I still think character comes first in his story.

Or, one of my thrilling conclusions has the main characters saving the House of Representatives from terrorists trying to set off a bomb. It includes her shooting one terrorist, then him disarming the bomb as it counts down to zero. You are welcome to defend this plot, but I thought it was cliche. The point was the characters and how they act and respond. I love where this appears in the book, which counts as plot -- but I was adjusting the plotline away from typical for the sake of character.

So, I again invite thinking about this issue of plot versus character.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 2, 2017)

> At one point in _The Scarlet Letter_, Hawthorne mentions, out of the blue, that Pearl has inherited Hester's skills with clothes.


Hawthorn published that in 1850, when the norms of writing were very different, virtually 100% narration, so it cannot be used as as example of how to write today.





> Would you want to rewrite Hemingway's story but have the main character be a young man with narcissism?


Why would I want to rewrite it? He did a pretty damn good job—better than I could. I was simply pointing out that there is a _lot_ of plot to it, so it can't be used as an example of having characterization but no plot.





> I think I could write about the same story about hunting in Africa.


There are only about seven basic plots, so pretty much any story can be made to fit the matrix, just as the Gilligan's Island song can be sung to Amazing Grace or The Yellow Rose of Texas because they have the same structure. How many times is the plot of Cinderella—someone deserving, who is being held down by circumstance, is given aid by a kind outsider; and takes advantage of that to succeed—published each year?


----------



## Darkkin (May 3, 2017)

Ignore...Oops!


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 3, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Hawthorn published that in 1850, when the norms of writing were very different, virtually 100% narration, so it cannot be used as as example of how to write today.



Hawthorne (167 years ago) presumably had some old-fashioned notion of plot and character, which we now can do much better. True? Did Hemingway contribute to this change?


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 4, 2017)

This was moved; welcome to people first seeing this. This seems important. Ptolemy (above) says how I used to think: "Characters are the subsidiaries of the overarching plot." Do you write that way? One sign is jockeying your character to fit the plot you want.

Then Jay says, "Stories are about people, not events." I think there are a lot of books that fit this. Is it more modern? Look at your first paragraph. Is it a somewhat mundane situation that starts portraying your character?

Really? I have started a book with a plot and filled in character. I have started a book with character and filled in plot. They're different things, both okay._ Jurassic Park_ is mostly a plot book, right? And _Of Mice and Men_ is mostly a character book?


----------



## Terry D (May 5, 2017)

There have always been plot driven stories just as there have always been character driven stories. Nothing has changed in that regard, and neither is more 'modern' than the other. Hell, the case could be made that Homer's _Iliad_ is plot driven, while Sophocles' _Oedipus Rex_ is character driven. I think most authors make the decision which way to go with a story at the moment they are inspired to write it. For instance; Joe Bookwriter gets up one morning, has a cup of coffee, sits down with his paper and quill (Joe is very old-school, you know) and thinks, _okay, today I'm starting my book about a super-volcano that destroys civilization_. That's going to be a plot driven book. But, if good old Joe thinks, _today I'm starting my book about an estranged husband and wife facing the destruction of civilization by a super-volcano_, it's going to be character driven.

Books full of action and thrills can be character driven as easily as plot driven, just as romance novels and other less 'active' books can be plot driven. (Note: I know this last statement is a very broad generality, so let's not get into a knicker-twist about the merits of any particular genre.)


----------



## Bishop (May 5, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> I have started a book with a plot and filled in character. I have started a book with character and filled in plot. *They're different things, both okay.*_ Jurassic Park_ is mostly a plot book, right? And _Of Mice and Men_ is mostly a character book?



Emphasis mine, of course, but that's the point. They're different, that's okay, and at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. It's just how the writer writes it. Two different tools from the same toolbox.

No need to over-complicate it.


----------



## who me? (May 5, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Someone elsewhere asked what Hemingway contributed, and I thought of his relentless portrayal of what a man should be. I couldn't think of anyone doing that before his time; it seems common now.
> 
> Which led to . . . The plot of _The Old Man and the Sea_ is minimal. The point of the book is the character. Right?
> 
> ...


================================================================

One book said plot is the bus that takes the characters through the story.

Another says literary fiction is all about character whilst spy and murder mysteries are about plot.

Although some literary fiction is just beautiful words describing things that bore people to death as nothing really happens that anyone cares about.

So it would seem that you need some plot to make Hemingway's book worth reading even if the emphasis is on the character.
And likewise the murder mysteries need some character.  Some of those are actually  character driven with the  plot as a lagniappe. 

So I suspect that there is some ratio of character and plot in every book that is worth the time to read.
And if you only have one then that book would not be satisfying to most of us.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 5, 2017)

Trying to see where this would lead, I tried to characterize books as plot, character, setting, or premise. Like Terry did, though I would guess plot for Oedipus Rex. BTW, interesting character descriptions seem like a sign of a plot book, oddly enough.

Then I tried to see if the opening fit the book type. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes kind of.

But, it seemed like the reading-quality of the start was better when it fit the book type. And, when I thought about book type, I could see where the "kind of" starts could be improved. So, like, a setting book started out with setting, but kind of focused on character, so the setting didn't shine. I didn't like a character book starting with action (prologue! ugh), or an action book starting with an irrelevant trait of a character.


----------



## Newman (May 6, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> _Jurassic Park_ is mostly a plot book, right? And _Of Mice and Men_ is mostly a character book?



They're equally both. Not weighted one way or the other.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 6, 2017)

Newman said:


> They're equally both. Not weighted one way or the other.



Really? If you asked me to describe Jurassic Park, I would probably talk for 5 minutes without mentioning more about the characters than what they do in the plot. Not having actually read much more than the start of Mice and Men, I can tell you that it's about two men. One is mentally retarded, but he's strong and works hard, so they can find work. The other man has to take care of him (Lennie?), which is not as easy as it sounds. Um, plot-wise, the ending is that the retarded guy does something to a woman and his friend kills him. I would not actually describe the ending that way.

Newman, I was thinking about the first Star Wars Movie. Isn't Luke the only character with a good character arc? But in a way he's the least interesting character. Meanwhile, R2D2, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Darth Vadar are some of the most compelling characters ever.


----------



## Newman (May 11, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Really? If you asked me to describe Jurassic Park, I would probably talk for 5 minutes without mentioning more about the characters than what they do in the plot. Not having actually read much more than the start of Mice and Men, I can tell you that it's about two men. One is mentally retarded, but he's strong and works hard, so they can find work. The other man has to take care of him (Lennie?), which is not as easy as it sounds. Um, plot-wise, the ending is that the retarded guy does something to a woman and his friend kills him. I would not actually describe the ending that way.



_Jurassic_ is "noisy" and _Mice and Men_ isn't - makes it easy to overestimate plot in the former and underestimate it in the latter.



EmmaSohan said:


> Newman, I was thinking about the first Star Wars Movie. Isn't Luke the  only character with a good character arc? But in a way he's the least  interesting character. Meanwhile, R2D2, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Darth Vadar  are some of the most compelling characters ever.



I don't think Luke is the only one with a good character arc.


----------



## Terry D (May 11, 2017)

Any story is like a three-legged milking stool. The legs being Plot-Character-Setting. Something has to happen-to someone-somewhere. It has to have all three legs to work, but they don't all need to be the same length.


----------



## who me? (May 11, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Any story is like a three-legged milking stool. The legs being Plot-Character-Setting. Something has to happen-to someone-somewhere. It has to have all three legs to work, but they don't all need to be the same length.



i like that analogy 
sort of 

if the legs are not the same length that stool may easily tip over
or  you could slide off of it


----------



## aj47 (May 11, 2017)

3-legged stools are stable because 3 points define a plane.  It's geometry. 

They do not topple.  Ditto 3-legged tables.  It's why tripods.


----------



## who me? (May 12, 2017)

astroannie said:


> 3-legged stools are stable because 3 points define a plane.  It's geometry.
> 
> They do not topple.  Ditto 3-legged tables.  It's why tripods.



when they are not level you can still fall off easily 
you try to sit level and you break a leg then it topples


----------



## Terry D (May 12, 2017)

astroannie said:


> 3-legged stools are stable because 3 points define a plane.  It's geometry.
> 
> They do not topple.  Ditto 3-legged tables.  It's why tripods.



LOL! Not one of my better analogies, is it? A tripod may actually be a better one. It needs all three legs, but they can be adjusted to different heights to accommodate the angle the photograher wishes to present, or to compensate for uneven terrain. You are brilliant, Astro! Throw the milking stool out! Tripods it is.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 16, 2017)

Terry D said:


> LOL! Not one of my better analogies, is it? A tripod may actually be a better one. It needs all three legs, but they can be adjusted to different heights to accommodate the angle the photograher wishes to present, or to compensate for uneven terrain. You are brilliant, Astro! Throw the milking stool out! Tripods it is.



So you might have the character or plot play a bigger role depending on the terrain. But then what is the terrain?

Another example of trade-off. In _The Fault in Our Stars_, Hazel and Gus have sex for the first time and then the next day he tells her his cancer came back. Gus wouldn't do that, that isn't in his character -- he would tell her first. But that timing works perfect for the plot -- the basic plot line kind of ends, to be immediately replaces by another.


----------



## Ptolemy (May 17, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> So you might have the character or plot play a bigger role depending on the terrain. But then what is the terrain?
> 
> Another example of trade-off. In _The Fault in Our Stars_, Hazel and Gus have sex for the first time and then the next day he tells her his cancer came back. Gus wouldn't do that, that isn't in his character -- he would tell her first. But that timing works perfect for the plot -- the basic plot line kind of ends, to be immediately replaces by another.



My girlfriend made me watch and read The Fault in Our Stars (the sacrifices for love these days) and overall from a strictly outsiders view it actually fell into his character, which then drove the plot forward. This is also basic plot mapping, for every happy thing that happens, there must be a sad thing that happens to balance out the composition of the plot. (And yes, that is very basic and cookie cutter as it gets)

Basically, he's trying to make things easy for Hazel. Amsterdam, finding her favorite author, nice dinner, then they do it. Basically it's all a ruse though so he can comfortably tell Hazel that his cancer is no longer in remission. It's there for emotional impact, and parlays into his character that he wants to have the best scene first before doing anything. First kiss at the Anne Frank Museum, letting his friend break stuff to calm him down, egging said friends ex girlfriends house. He's a happy, go lucky guy with a paraplegic leg, who doesn't want to hurt someone emotionally until the very last minute, and it's shown throughout both mediums. 

This also advances the plot further, but that's the point. Gus's and the plots goals coincide here, and there is nothing wrong with that. The best plots (in my opinion) use characters to drive itself further, that's the goal of a plot; to keep moving on. 

(Also, from a boyfriend perspective and theoretically, I would wait as long as I reasonably could before telling my girlfriend that I has cancer or any form of terminal disease. I wouldn't want to put her through that heart break.)


----------



## Sam (May 17, 2017)

To further what Terry said half a dozen posts back, a story is an intersection of plot, setting, and character. The sticking point is that cars arrive at said intersection and are oblivious to who should yield or who has the right of way, i.e. no one knows who takes precedence over the other. Determining that is a decision left in the hands of the authority, in this case the writer, who may erect a set of traffic lights proportionally favouring one of those three. So plot receives more green lights than character, or vice versa, and so on. 

But no matter how many green lights any one of those three receives, the others will always receive some, otherwise the intersection will become a bottleneck. At least two of those, if not all three, must be given a green light at some point to ensure traffic flows. What that means in our world is that all three do not exist on a separate plane, but are by their very nature complementary. You cannot write a story without at least two of them, because no matter how many brilliant characters you create in a novel, something has to happen to give them purpose. No matter how amazing the plot is, how can it come to fruition without characters there to give it life? 

You ask your question as though plot and character are something that can be separated, and I'm sure you can point to a plot-driven novel with no characters, or a character-driven novel with no plot, but those are outliers on either side of the bell curve. For the majority, a novel is a trident of plot, character, and setting.


----------



## Terry D (May 17, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> So you might have the character or plot play a bigger role depending on the terrain. But then what is the terrain?



That would be the author's vision for the story, or, in some cases, the theme the author wishes to convey. Not all writers consciously have a theme in mind when they write, but many do and the balance between plot, character, and setting will be affected by that.

The balance can also shift within a longer work. For instance, in my novel _The Legacy of Aaron Geist_ (a mostly plot-driven horror story) the plot is paramount, so that leg of the tripod is always the longest, but early in the book the character leg is almost equally as long. That's not unusual. Watch any good horror movie and you will be introduced to characters and made to feel good, or bad, about them so later plot-driven incidents have more impact on the viewer/reader. I did the same thing in Legacy. In the middle section of the book, however, setting takes over. In fact, the case could be made that the setting becomes almost as important as the plot for a good section of the novel. I don't know if you've seen the movie _The Descent_, but like that movie a large portion of _Legacy_ takes place in a cave and the setting provides much of the book's intensity.

_The Legacy of Aaron Geist_ is not great literature. It was never meant to be such. It was always intended to be a thrill ride at a cheesy carnival, but, like the House of Mirrors, or Haunted House at a carnival, the setting is critical to making the experience all it can be. I even give a nod to the setting's importance in the last line of the back cover blurb: *In a world where the Sun never shines, how can you out run the dark?*


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 18, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> My girlfriend made me watch and read The Fault in Our Stars (the sacrifices for love these days) and overall from a strictly outsiders view it actually fell into his character, which then drove the plot forward. This is also basic plot mapping, for every happy thing that happens, there must be a sad thing that happens to balance out the composition of the plot. (And yes, that is very basic and cookie cutter as it gets)
> 
> Basically, he's trying to make things easy for Hazel. Amsterdam, finding her favorite author, nice dinner, then they do it. Basically it's all a ruse though so he can comfortably tell Hazel that his cancer is no longer in remission. It's there for emotional impact, and parlays into his character that he wants to have the best scene first before doing anything. First kiss at the Anne Frank Museum, letting his friend break stuff to calm him down, egging said friends ex girlfriends house. He's a happy, go lucky guy with a paraplegic leg, who doesn't want to hurt someone emotionally until the very last minute, and it's shown throughout both mediums.
> 
> ...



I will disagree. If you have sex for the first time with a woman and then the next day tell her you have terminal cancer, you are being a jerk. All the possible justifications are missing -- it's thoroughly discussed that Hazel would not do that to Gus and Gus knows that. Gus is invariably nice and thoughtful and caring about Hazel, so this is totally out of character. (And I can't think of anything Gus does that is happy-go-lucky -- the egg throwing is to help his friend.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 18, 2017)

Sam said:


> To further what Terry said half a dozen posts back, a story is an intersection of plot, setting, and character. The sticking point is that cars arrive at said intersection and are oblivious to who should yield or who has the right of way, i.e. no one knows who takes precedence over the other. Determining that is a decision left in the hands of the authority, in this case the writer, who may erect a set of traffic lights proportionally favouring one of those three. So plot receives more green lights than character, or vice versa, and so on.
> 
> But no matter how many green lights any one of those three receives, the others will always receive some, otherwise the intersection will become a bottleneck. At least two of those, if not all three, must be given a green light at some point to ensure traffic flows. What that means in our world is that all three do not exist on a separate plane, but are by their very nature complementary. You cannot write a story without at least two of them, because no matter how many brilliant characters you create in a novel, something has to happen to give them purpose. No matter how amazing the plot is, how can it come to fruition without characters there to give it life?
> 
> You ask your question as though plot and character are something that can be separated, and I'm sure you can point to a plot-driven novel with no characters, or a character-driven novel with no plot, but those are outliers on either side of the bell curve. For the majority, a novel is a trident of plot, character, and setting.



The question to me is if different ways of looking at this issue might be useful. For example, TerryD mentions using character to make the actions more powerful. Mr. Mercedes is a beautiful example -- King spends time introducing us to two characters, then they are killed (still in the prologue) when someone drives into a crowd. Waste of time? No. King knows that kill 30 people is a statistic, the reader has to "know" someone who was killed to give it horror.

So that's using character to serve plot. A different function is trying to have an interesting character. I often see "Plot Books" actually describing the character. Trying to make that description interesting.

I am thinking that a Character Book is about how the character interacts with the world (including other people and the character's own thoughts). So a description isn't really a part of that.

For example, I gave my MC a stutter. Does that make her interesting? Feeble. I can show her stuttering as she talks -- I'm guessing that's feeble _and _annoying. It's how she reacts to her stuttering that's interesting. For example, at her wedding:


> "I  d- d- d- " I am so embarrassed. I wish a hole would appear in this church floor and swallow me up. But it does not, and I must -- as always -- live with my embarrassment. "D- " I nod my head yes. I do. The preacher takes pity on me and accepts that as my answer. Roger squeezes my hand softly, telling me that everything is okay.


----------



## Ptolemy (May 18, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> I will disagree. If you have sex for the first time with a woman and then the next day tell her you have terminal cancer, you are being a jerk. All the possible justifications are missing -- it's thoroughly discussed that Hazel would not do that to Gus and Gus knows that. Gus is invariably nice and thoughtful and caring about Hazel, so this is totally out of character. (And I can't think of anything Gus does that is happy-go-lucky -- the egg throwing is to help his friend.



Uh... One of Gus's main character traits is that he is Happy-Go-Lucky. He's cheerfully unconcerned out anything outside of Hazel and only Hazel. It's a romantic story, and his main focus throughout the story is Hazel. He's charismatic, polite, generous etc. etc. And that whole character trait get's flipped on it's head when he learns that the cancer has spread and he needs to come to terms with it. And he feels terrible because he is "Letting Hazel down." because out of everything, that's what he cares for the most in the world. Not the future, (I mean read the dang oblivion quote, it's literally the point of his entire character and it's SAID BY HAZEL.) not his family, not his health. Just Hazel.

If you want a cringy character analyzation of Gus from the Fault in Our Stars then sure. I'll do it. 

The thing is: It's about enjoyment over practicality. 

If I had terminal cancer, and I had the momentous task to tell my girlfriend that I have an affliction that would kill me no matter what. I would make that the best goddamn day in her f***ing life. Because it isn't about me. Hell, I'm screwed already. Why would I want to just drop that guilt bomb on her? But just saying: "Yo, I have terminal cancer, want to go to Amsterdam?" is beyond jerkish. Going to Amsterdam, screwing, then saying something isn't jerkish, it's setting up the best environment for the situation at hand. Could he have handled it better? Sure. But it's not his "character" that he would say it first then fly to Amsterdam. Like hell. 

How is it out of character for the person who is nice, caring, the loving boyfriend etc. Not want to give his girlfriend the best environment to drop such a bombshell? Am I missing something or? 

And I think I should state this again: It's not being a jerk when you are setting up the best environment for terrible news. 

I should also credit my girlfriend for dragging me through that book and movie.


----------



## Terry D (May 18, 2017)

I don't think it is useful to think of novels as 'Plot Books' or 'Character Books'. That's far too simplified and takes away from what we really should be focusing on, which is; "How do I balance Plot, Characterization, and Setting to best tell my story." Or, maybe we shouldn't consciously consider them at all -- it might be best to just let that little Poe, or Faulkner, or Angelou inside our heads make that choice and write the words they send down the pike to us. After the story is written we can look at it, understand which tripod legs need some tweaking, and revise with that in mind.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 19, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I don't think it is useful to think of novels as 'Plot Books' or 'Character Books'. That's far too simplified and takes away from what we really should be focusing on, which is; "How do I balance Plot, Characterization, and Setting to best tell my story." Or, maybe we shouldn't consciously consider them at all -- it might be best to just let that little Poe, or Faulkner, or Angelou inside our heads make that choice and write the words they send down the pike to us. After the story is written we can look at it, understand which tripod legs need some tweaking, and revise with that in mind.



Thanks, Terry. You are always pushing me to justify things; sometimes I will think about your challenges for months.

One use is starts -- if you can plow your way through my types, I think it's useful to start with something on the book type. I think I mentioned the Setting Book which starts with Setting but I think wrongly also focuses too much on character (an otherwise normal Y/A choice). Anyway, if your start is "off-type", think about an on-type start. And then of course use whichever seems best.

I can't easily find the simple idea that sometimes character and plot conflict. Sam incorporates that into his model. Have we mentioned that before? It's so obvious once said, even if someone has disagreed with _every _example I tried to construct.

My worry would be that the notions from the Plot Story are assumed to apply to all stories. How many times have we talked about upping the importance of the final conflict? That just helps plot, right? Or imagine a literary agent who wants a verbal description of the characters. Ugh.

I also said three very different goals we might try to accomplish with Character. That list might help writers do characters better. The current tripod model is wrong, I suspect -- we don't want to balance plot, character, and setting, we want them to all be as good as possible. (Which might have trade-offs and might not.)

I suspect this could also influence my view of climax and resolution. In one of my Character Books, I close down one plot line (the romance), have the grand fireworks (saving Congress), and then have a 5K section completing the character arc. That gets to be different because most writers shut down after the grand fireworks.


----------



## Terry D (May 20, 2017)

For the life of me I can't think of a single book I've ever read that I would classify as a 'Setting' book. Setting naturally plays a big part in every book -- some more so than others -- but no one is going to read a book just because it has an interesting setting. So I don't think there is such a beast as a 'Setting Book.' That leaves us with the other two tripod legs; Plot and Character. If I were to try and visualize my book in terms of one or the other I'm afraid I'd never get a word written. It's not a choice I make. It's a choice the story makes as I write it.  Ideally I'll write a book which has compelling characters dealing with powerful, engaging, events (the plot). I think we put ourselves in danger of creating cardboard characters if we consciously choose plot over character, and focusing on character over plot, in my opinion, weakens the events of the story. Not choosing one over the other is no guarantee of balance. I think almost every book leans one way or the other in the end, and that's okay. It's just the writer's voice coming through, which is natural; more than that, it's what we want, isn't it?

This is why I don't work with an outline, or even much knowledge of my characters when I write. I want the story to guide me in the direction it needs, not one I choose. In real life we don't get to plan the future (as much as we like to think we can) or the people who come into our lives. We are shaped by people and events in equal (or not) measure. We don't get to decide that balance for ourselves, why should we get to do it for our books?


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 20, 2017)

Terry D said:


> For the life of me I can't think of a single book I've ever read that I would classify as a 'Setting' book.



Some people in the USA were illegally brought here by their parents when they were very young. They live their whole (known) lives in the USA, but are technically illegal immigrants. One Y/A book explored that for the MC. I agreed with you on there being no setting books until I discovered that book.

And we can say it doesn't matter how it's conceptualized, but that's the book that, to me, overemphasized character in the start.

Also, I decided that there are Premise Books. My short story was that -- what would it be like if someone made their decisions with a coin flip? A book I just read bent both character and plot for the premise that the MC's bestfriend had left her a list of 17 dares.

Another book starts out with the premise that a boy has a horribly deformed face (multiple birth defects). About half of the chapters are first-person from his perspective, but many chapters are from other people's perspective, including the minor role of his sister's boyfriend.


----------



## Terry D (May 22, 2017)

Nope. No 'Premise' books. Don't start making writing (and reading) more complicated than it needs to be. We don't need sub-divisions, and classifications for every aspect of writing. Your description of a 'Premise Book' simply describes the book's theme. Every book has a theme, or premise, which runs through it. How the writer expresses that theme is what determines if the book is more plot driven, or character driven. Some books slap you in the face with the theme, and in some the theme is less intrusive, but you can't write a book without one. The theme is the string onto which all the pearls of scene, dialogue, setting, character, and plot are threaded. Theme is story. Theme is what the writer is trying to say -- consciously or unconsciously.

In his book, On Writing, Stephen King suggests writing without giving theme a thought. Just let the writing go and then, in revision, pay attention to the theme and tweak the writing to enhance it.

I'm convinced that new writers spend way too much time and effort trying to 'figure out' writing. It's not that complicated, and it certainly doesn't need to be dissected like a frog in biology class before you start. Tell a story. Use whatever grasp you have of SPaG, and the innate sense of storytelling you develop from reading good stories, and just tell me a story. Lather-rinse-repeat.


----------



## Sc0pe (May 23, 2017)

I think focusing in on any one of them is an error, instead, i think drawing out the main point of your book, what it is that you or the writer is aiming for and how they have gone about doing that is what should be focused on. 
I mean a coming of age/ hero's journey book tend to have a plot that although serves well is not really the star of the show (I'm sure there are exceptions) but more time than any they are more a line of trials and obstacles the characters clashes with to grow into a better version of themselves. 

A plot driven story is something to the likings of a detective story or a story where the main character themselves hare not really one to grow per say from their experience because they are already seasoned and grown by the time we meet up with them, their coming of age arc is already compleat and so we are simply witnessing a turn of events that this character finds himself in and in turn the plot tends to take center stage. 

Again there can me leeway in erither side of this but in most cases, this is the main difference between a plot driven story to a character driven one.  

Now to really answer this question is depends on the kind of story the writer was trying to write and what they wanted the reader of takeaway of it. In other words, none of them is truly better than the other since they are both simply tools to severe the writers envisioned piece. 

Whatever the piece is, is what determine what one is better at that given time. But if they can work both of them so a high standard without taking away from the intended goal them more power to them. XD


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 24, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I'm convinced that new writers spend way too much time and effort trying to 'figure out' writing. It's not that complicated, and it certainly doesn't need to be dissected like a frog in biology class before you start. Tell a story. Use whatever grasp you have of SPaG, and the innate sense of storytelling you develop from reading good stories, and just tell me a story. Lather-rinse-repeat.



Right, apparently there's not much value in discussing the conflict between character and plot, I can't find anyone else mentioning it. And it should go without saying (it has so far?) to try to avoid those conflicts.

My opinion, looking at the last book I am reading, is that if you can't think of a good way of avoiding the conflict, don't present a bad one. "I don't know why I did it, but . . . ." More subtle (She's running away from a bad situation in her house):


> Then I started speed-walking down Greenleaf Road as quickly as possible. I probably should have taken a car; but some things were just habit, and the last time I'd snuck out, I'd been years away from getting my license.



Among other problems, her habit now would be taking the car. If the author had just not mentioned anything, I probably wouldn't have noticed.


----------



## C.Gholy (May 25, 2017)

Best of both worlds sounds good.


----------



## Terry D (May 25, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Right, apparently there's not much value in discussing the conflict between character and plot, I can't find anyone else mentioning it. And it should go without saying (it has so far?) to try to avoid those conflicts.



It may not be under discussion because there isn't a 'conflict' between character and plot. They are mutually supportive aspects of any good story. They never conflict. By definition (Oxford English Dictionary) a story is: [FONT=noto_serif_devanagari]An account of imaginary or real people [/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari](characters)[/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari] and events [/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari][/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari](plot)[/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari][/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari] told for entertainment.

Simple.
[/FONT]


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 25, 2017)

Terry D said:


> It may not be under discussion because there isn't a 'conflict' between character and plot. They are mutually supportive aspects of any good story. They never conflict. By definition (Oxford English Dictionary) a story is: [FONT=noto_serif_devanagari]An account of imaginary or real people [/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari](characters)[/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari] and events [/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari](plot)[/FONT][FONT=noto_serif_devanagari] told for entertainment.
> 
> Simple.
> [/FONT]



Really difficult to do well.

Everyone else here seems to agree that there can be a conflict between plot and character. Somehow I can't find an example everyone agrees with. Drats. Same author; again I think she should have just ignored the problem.

even though I knew there was probably no point to it, I crossed to the house . . .

A few pages later, it's convenient that she's sitting on the porch. Someone comes, she's too shy to talk to them, not to mention how embarrassing that is . . . but she does anyway. Oops.


----------



## Terry D (May 26, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Really difficult to do well.



Well... yeah. All good writing is difficult.



> Everyone else here seems to agree that there can be a conflict between plot and character. Somehow I can't find an example everyone agrees with. Drats. Same author; again I think she should have just ignored the problem.
> 
> even though I knew there was probably no point to it, I crossed to the house . . .
> 
> A few pages later, it's convenient that she's sitting on the porch. Someone comes, she's too shy to talk to them, not to mention how embarrassing that is . . . but she does anyway. Oops.



What "conflict" are you talking about? Do you consider the plot of a thriller, or adventure story to be somehow in 'conflict' with the characterization that takes place in that book? I assure you it isn't. I'm not suggesting that plot and character have the same weight in any given novel, but there will be a balance between them -- if it is a good book. I've read bad novels which have flat, cookie-cutter characters, and I've read bad books which have interesting characters, but thin, implausible story-lines, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about well-written books of any genre. Most people would probably call most of Stephen King's books plot driven, but what makes his best work memorable is the way he brings his characters to life in the fantastic situations he puts them into. He's also written some heavily character-centered books (Lisey's Story, Deloras Claiborne, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon), but they all have tight, dynamic plots.

Don't worry about trying to decide if you want to write a 'plot book' or a 'character book'. That's a waste of time and effort. Write the story that's wanting to be written and do the best job you can of creating great characters and an engaging plot. Always try to do your best at both and don't worry if they end up unequal. You'll have a great story and that's all that really matters.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 28, 2017)

Terry D said:


> What "conflict" are you talking about?



Characters should, if possible, behave plausibly, consistently, and (ideally) in character. That can conflict with your intended plot. Doesn't everyone experience this? If an author doesn't mind a character behaving implausibly or out of character, I guess there's no problem. I guess if you are writing an action book with a fearless high-agency MC, there might not be a problem either.

This conflict can play out in larger ways. If you start a scene with a plot but no "character" for the people in your book, then you have no conflict (and probably a "character book") If you start with a character, you don't have any conflict until you start deciding on a plot. Or like Sam said, Anne of Green Gables started with a plot point, but the author spent the whole book letting her characters be strongly "in character". The plot was serviceable.

As you might guess, there was nothing in the character or scene that would lead to her touching his forearm:



> Reed begins to move away when something comes over me. Desperation. I don't want him to walk away yet. Without thinking, I reach out and place my hand on his forearm.



In _Mr. Mercedes_ (King), the MC starts the book as depressed and low-agency. Then he transforms into the high-agency character needed to make the plot work. King probably didn't even try to have a plot that works for the original character.


----------



## Terry D (May 30, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Characters should, if possible, behave plausibly, consistently, and (ideally) in character. That can conflict with your intended plot. Doesn't everyone experience this? If an author doesn't mind a character behaving implausibly or out of character, I guess there's no problem. I guess if you are writing an action book with a fearless high-agency MC, there might not be a problem either.



One of the things that makes bad writing obvious is when characters act 'out of character'. Even when implausible events -- say a zombie apocalypse -- occur, the characters still need to react within their character, or something needs to happen to change their character on a fundamental level and that 'something' needs to be presented in the narrative. This happens all the time in fiction, often with the protagonist, but frequently with lesser characters.  That change is what fiction is all about. Good writing makes that change acceptable to readers, bad writing makes it laughable. Take for instance the character of Kyle Craig in James Patterson's Alex Cross series. Craig, an FBI agent, is a friend to Cross for a number of Patterson's early novels. But, suddenly and without explanation, he is revealed to be an evil criminal known as The Mastermind. That sudden reversal, with no reason other than a plot twist, was one of the last straws for me with Patterson. It was shoddy writing.



> This conflict can play out in larger ways. If you start a scene with a plot but no "character" for the people in your book, then you have no conflict (and probably a "character book") If you start with a character, you don't have any conflict until you start deciding on a plot. Or like Sam said, Anne of Green Gables started with a plot point, but the author spent the whole book letting her characters be strongly "in character". The plot was serviceable.



You can't start a book without both characters and events (plot) in mind. The very definition of a story is something happening to someone. The 'something' is the basis of plot. So, unless you are writing about someone lying in bed just thinking, you will have a plot. It might not be strong, it might not be your purpose for writing the book, but it is there. No, wait a minute! Stephen King wrote an entire book about a character lying in bed thinking; _Gerald's Game_.

Remember, it's not all about plot and characterization being perfectly equal, it's about doing what your story needs. Intentionally focusing on one over the other, in my opinion, leads to terrible writing.




> In _Mr. Mercedes_ (King), the MC starts the book as depressed and low-agency. Then he transforms into the high-agency character needed to make the plot work. King probably didn't even try to have a plot that works for the original character.



I guess we read different books, because in my copy of Mr. Mercedes, Bill Hodges is a very capable, effective cop dealing with depression due to his recent retirement and the resulting feelings of pointlessness. He doesn't suddenly "transform" into anything. He finds a purpose and begins to connect with people again. His basic character doesn't change at all. In fact, it appears you made the same mistake that the antagonist does in the book -- you only see the depressed ex-cop, not the bulldog investigator. King does a great job of showing his readers that old bulldog by having the antagonist send the retired cop a letter taunting him about his past cases. King sets all this up beautifully.

So, I say again, we need not worry about a perceived conflict between plot and character. Such a conflict doesn't exist. The only conflict we need to think about is the one between antagonist and protagonist. The story in your head already has a plot and it already has characters (at least one). If you don't have both then you are not ready to start writing it.


----------



## JustRob (May 30, 2017)

This thread spins off too many other issues for me to comment on it directly. I am clearly a long way behind others here in understanding how a writer fulfils readers' needs. Alternatively this thread is about the structure of stories with little regard to the impact that they may have on readers. I am not even convinced that a writer can control the balance of the various aspects of a story within a reader's mind, even if he or she is adept at balancing the words written. The reader will seek whatever they are reading to find and probably overlook the rest. Consequently exactly how much benefit they get from reading a story will depend on how well it matches their expectations. I doubt that any reader's mind is an entirely blank canvas upon which writers can paint their images as they choose. If only that were true. The character-oriented reader will see characters and the plot-oriented one will see a plot. Maybe there are some who will revel in the setting and explore it in their own way. Readers have imaginations and free will as well as writers. Which of these is the writer attempting to please? 

The theme of a story has been mentioned, but in my writing I have only been aware of motifs developing and wouldn't be so presumptuous as to force the reader into accepting any of them as the overarching theme. It has been suggested that characters should stay within character unless the narrative explains why they have not, but one should be careful not to confuse a character with their characteristics. A novel is a very small space within which to define everything that makes up a _person, _but if stylised characters are all that is necessary in a story so be it. I am a person and I did something totally out of character when I wrote a novel. That's reality. There's no simple explanation why I did it, certainly not one that could be fitted into a convenient corner of a novel. In fact it is my contention that my whole novel was itself just an explanation of that one act in a way.

People are complex and aspects of them may only surface when circumstances are favourable. I very much doubt that a reader can acquire sufficient information about any character from one novel to disagree with the author about their behaviour. Even over several novels the image may be blurred. In the first novel of my trilogy a young woman chooses a practical macho man to marry over a Walter Mitty type. In a subsequent novel she marries the Walter Mitty character and even later she appears to be in a possibly lesbian relationship living with a work colleague. Do I as the writer have to explain every one of her life choices, every facet of her complex character? 

As I said, I can't comment directly on this thread, except to say that the more elements one puts into a story the more likely any reader is of finding something in it that appeals to them, something to keep them reading. Looking at this thread I feel that I don't understand writers, but what concerns me more is that I don't even understand readers yet. Writers I don't _need_ to understand to write.


----------



## Terry D (May 30, 2017)

JustRob said:


> This thread spins off too many other issues for me to comment on it directly. I am clearly a long way behind others here in understanding how a writer fulfils readers' needs. Alternatively this thread is about the structure of stories with little regard to the impact that they may have on readers. I am not even convinced that a writer can control the balance of the various aspects of a story within a reader's mind, even if he or she is adept at balancing the words written. The reader will seek whatever they are reading to find and probably overlook the rest. Consequently exactly how much benefit they get from reading a story will depend on how well it matches their expectations. I doubt that any reader's mind is an entirely blank canvas upon which writers can paint their images as they choose. If only that were true. The character-oriented reader will see characters and the plot-oriented one will see a plot. Maybe there are some who will revel in the setting and explore it in their own way. Readers have imaginations and free will as well as writers. Which of these is the writer attempting to please?



This thread is all about considering the impact on readers of the decisions the writer makes. For all practical purposes the relationship between reader and writer is a cooperative enterprise. Like all such enterprises there is a contract between the parties. The reader agrees to try and believe the lies the writer is going to write, and the writer promises to make those lies as easy to believe as possible. Each enters the contract with their own expectations (no blank canvasses) and the ultimate result is a compromise which may, or may not, satisfy both parties. This thread, in my understanding of it, is about some of the choices we writers make to help create those believable lies. You are right that the writer has scant control over how each _individual_ reader processes the lies being told. But, when considered in the aggregate, over the total population of readers, that control becomes much stronger. While any one reader might see _To Kill a Mockingbird_ as a riveting legal thriller, and would be able to support his opinion based on the action in the book, most readers will see it as a far more character driven story. A skilled writer is absolutely able to, within limits, control the balance of character and plot within a reader's mind. They do it by balancing it within their own mind. Don't underestimate the power of the writer's vision. The writer is the window through which the reader sees the story. The color of the glass in that window cannot help but color the reader's perception. 



> The theme of a story has been mentioned, but in my writing I have only been aware of motifs developing and wouldn't be so presumptuous as to force the reader into accepting any of them as the overarching theme. It has been suggested that characters should stay within character unless the narrative explains why they have not, but one should be careful not to confuse a character with their characteristics. A novel is a very small space within which to define everything that makes up a _person, _but if stylised characters are all that is necessary in a story so be it. I am a person and I did something totally out of character when I wrote a novel. That's reality. There's no simple explanation why I did it, certainly not one that could be fitted into a convenient corner of a novel. In fact it is my contention that my whole novel was itself just an explanation of that one act in a way.



Many writers don't put much thought into how they will present the theme of their work. For others it is a major consideration. In either case the theme will exist. It is the reason the writing exists; from a grocery list to War and Peace all writing has purpose and purpose is theme.

As to character motivation and change justification, that is part of the unwritten contract between writer and reader. While sometimes in real life people do things which seem out of character, our fictional characters should not. Fiction is a simulacrum of reality -- it is not reality. So, just as we don't write dialogue which is verbatim transcription of how people actually speak, we need to provide a reason for our fictional characters to act as they do. It's all part of making that lie believable. Sure, we can have our characters do anything we want, have them behave as purposelessly as we choose, but in doing so we risk pricking the thin skin of the bubble of belief we have built with our readers. 



> People are complex and aspects of them may only surface when circumstances are favourable. I very much doubt that a reader can acquire sufficient information about any character from one novel to disagree with the author about their behaviour. Even over several novels the image may be blurred. In the first novel of my trilogy a young woman chooses a practical macho man to marry over a Walter Mitty type. In a subsequent novel she marries the Walter Mitty character and even later she appears to be in a possibly lesbian relationship living with a work colleague. Do I as the writer have to explain every one of her life choices, every facet of her complex character?



We are not dealing with real people. We are dealing with characters in a story, and the rules are different when we ask readers to suspend their disbelief.  Real life is not logical, but a fictional story requires a certain level of internal logic to work. Readers trust us to tell them what they need to know for the story to make sense. If we violate that trust we do so at our own peril.



> As I said, I can't comment directly on this thread, except to say that the more elements one puts into a story the more likely any reader is of finding something in it that appeals to them, something to keep them reading. Looking at this thread I feel that I don't understand writers, but what concerns me more is that I don't even understand readers yet. Writers I don't _need_ to understand to write.



Readers are visitors to a foreign land. They trust us to show them the sights without getting them lost. As my signature says: Our job as writers is to make readers dream, to infiltrate their minds with our words and create a new reality; a reality not theirs, and not ours, but a new, unique combination of both.


----------



## JustRob (May 30, 2017)

JustRob said:


> I am clearly a long way behind others here in understanding how a writer fulfils readers' needs.



Well, at least I got one thing right Terry.


----------



## Terry D (May 30, 2017)

JustRob said:


> Well, at least I got one thing right Terry.



Yours was a great reply, Rob. You brought up many questions that new writers struggle with. Many of us try to look at writing fiction like taking a photograph in which we try to portray our fictional world in absolutely accurate detail, when, in reality, fiction is more like a painting; a clever impression of reality crafted from color, texture, and lines.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 6, 2017)

I think it depends on the type of story you are going for, but a lot of people seem to agree, that character driven stories are better, or deeper.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 10, 2017)

Another conflict. I can learn about a character from how the character acts in a fire. However, if the author doesn't tell me that it's a fire, then I don't learn as much.

The last two books I have started reading have used this technique -- I don't know what is going on, and that's my hook to keep reading. But how can I learn about a character from her actions when I have no idea what the situation is?


----------



## Terry D (Jun 11, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Another conflict. I can learn about a character from how the character acts in a fire. However, if the author doesn't tell me that it's a fire, then I don't learn as much.
> 
> The last two books I have started reading have used this technique -- I don't know what is going on, and that's my hook to keep reading. But how can I learn about a character from her actions when I have no idea what the situation is?



You seem to labeling your confusion 'conflict'. There are no moments in a book where characters are divorced from plot. Plot, by definition, are the events in the story. Even a scene in which a character is simply talking -- a monologue -- involves events, the monologue itself. Now a book, or story told entirely in monologue would probably be considered more character driven than plot driven, but it would still have both. King's, _Dolores Claiborne _is one such book.

Remember, we are talking about good writing here. Effective writing. A writer who doesn't give the reader any context for a character's actions is doing one of two things: either she is intentionally creating tension in the reader by keeping them off-kilter, or he is writing badly.


----------

