# Should Character or plot development, come first?



## ironpony (Jul 18, 2015)

I want to get better at writing but I often find myself with this problem when trying to create a story. I read a lot of books on writing and as much as I can from gurus. I read The Anatomy of Story by John Truby, and he said something that really stuck out at me, that other writers have not touched on much.
He said that when you come up with the premise line, you have to come up with what you think would be the best ending to that premise line, and you have to do it pretty close, so you can build the rest of your story into that.

I agree that that seems to make sense, and a lot of stories seem to have that.

However, when I have my work criticized by other people, one criticism I often get is that the characters behave illogically in order to get the predetermined ending I want... And that is true, since I came up with the ending first, after coming up with the premise, the ending is already predetermined.

This is the paradox, because my characters are not allowed to make the most logical and natural decisions in their quests, if the ending is predetermined. They have to do what it takes to get to that predetermined ending. You could change the characters around to make it so their behavior is more natural but there is only so much you could change about a character before it becomes forced, or before you feel that their depth and themes are compromised within the change, just to have the ending.

I also tried taking an opposite writing approach and came up with the best characters I could and gave them everything I wanted, and have them behave in the most naturalistic ways to what they are. I did this without coming up with an ending and just let them play a chess game at each other, without knowing what is going to come.

However, I find that doing this approach can lead to an underwhelming or anticlimatic ending. I had this conversation with other aspiring writers, and used Die Hard as a recent example, as to how some of John McClane's actions were illogical and they said that if McClane made the most logical decisions, the movie would be over in 40 minutes.

So you see this debate going on even in the professional storytelling world, when it comes to making the reader believe your story, how do you come up with a predetermined ending, but at the same time, build into that ending without having a character plot hole along the way? Is it possible?​


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 18, 2015)

If you need characters to make illogical decisions, limit their information, intelligence or sanity. 

I'd opt for different plot arcs, though, so as to not require my characters to be compromised.


----------



## Sam (Jul 18, 2015)

Depends on whether it's a character- or plot-driven story.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 18, 2015)

Okay thanks.  I'd say they are both but my current one is much more plot driven.  What then?


----------



## Sam (Jul 18, 2015)

Plot development usually comes first in a plot-driven story, since the plot is the main catalyst that drives the story forward, but that doesn't mean that character development is conspicuous by its absence. You can have both, but it stands to reason that if you are writing a plot-driven story, plot should be the first thing that develops. 

If it doesn't develop, the story stagnates before you have a chance to develop the characters.


----------



## Sam (Jul 18, 2015)

[ot]Out of curiosity, and since _Die Hard _is one of my all-time favourite movies, what are the decisions McClane makes that are illogical?[/ot]


----------



## Patrick (Jul 18, 2015)

The story and characters always form themselves as I write. I am not obsessed with being omnipotent over everything in the story. I allow characters to surprise me, and the best and most authentic plot lines come out of those surprises for me. I despise formulaic writing, so I never plan the chapters of a novel. The real trick is having a great premise, so you know where to jump in, and something interesting about your characters; the rest takes care of itself.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 18, 2015)

Okay thanks.  My current story is a plot driven story, but I constantly find myself not being able to build into the ending without the characters having to step out of character or something like that just so something can happen in the plot, in order to get there.  This is a problem I constantly face as the stories I try to create are pretty much all plot driven.

As for Die Hard, it's really own two things McClane does.  One is a bit of a minor quibble but I used it as an example.  When McClane is wacking the chair against the window trying to break it, he hears someone come into the room.  McClane draws his pistols at him and tells him to drop his gun.  He tells him it repeatedly, until the next thug comes up behind.  McClane is able to shoot that that thug, but tried to get the other one to surrender before.  Why? He has no back up to take the man to take the man down to the station, and he has no hand cuffs either.  What could he possibly do with a surrendered man, since he would have to babysit him the whole time.  He could use him as a bargaining chip, but the villains have many more hostages to waste and I think they would easily call his bluff, logically.

The much bigger illogical character behavior is when McClane is faced to deal with Karl's brother, Kristoff, near the beginning of the siege.  Kristoff is looking for McClane who is hiding.  He has a submachine gun and already tried to shoot at McClane once already.  McClane comes at him from the side points his pistol at his head, and tells him to drop the gun.  The man does not so McClane decides to pistol whip him, and then jump on him and try to wrestle a submachine gun out of his hand?  I thought really?  No logical thinking cop would attempt to fight a man with a loaded submachine gun and they would just shoot.  I felt it was an illogical character decision, just to have a fight sequence.  Not that I usually mind, sometimes illogical behavior is necessary, but I feel I am making my point, that I have the same problem, and just using as example.

But that's how I read it anyway.  Perhaps thought like you said, by story has stagnated in some way.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 18, 2015)

Writing is about doing a lot of things well, unfortunately. You just have to turn up at your desk every day and turn it over and over in your head until you start finding solutions to the problems in your plot and characters.


----------



## Sam (Jul 18, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  My current story is a plot driven story, but I constantly find myself not being able to build into the ending without the characters having to step out of character or something like that just so something can happen in the plot, in order to get there.  This is a problem I constantly face as the stories I try to create are pretty much all plot driven.



What's out of character? 

Nothing is really ever out of someone's character. A smart guy can do something moronic from time to time. A calm person can have a paroxysm of rage given the right circumstances. A loyal person can betray their best friend out of the blue. These are the things that make us human, so depriving your character of the ability to do something against his/her ordinary instinct is a little bit limiting.  



> As for Die Hard, it's really own two things McClane does.  One is a bit of a minor quibble but I used it as an example.  When McClane is wacking the chair against the window trying to break it, he hears someone come into the room.  McClane draws his pistols at him and tells him to drop his gun.  He tells him it repeatedly, until the next thug comes up behind.  McClane is able to shoot that that thug, but tried to get the other one to surrender before.  Why? He has no back up to take the man to take the man down to the station, and he has no hand cuffs either.  What could he possibly do with a surrendered man, since he would have to babysit him the whole time.  He could use him as a bargaining chip, but the villains have many more hostages to waste and I think they would easily call his bluff, logically.



The first terrorist surprises McClane. He's trying to break the window to get some kind of signal to the beat cop, Al, but the terrorist hears the noise and comes to investigate. By the time McClane drops the chair, draws his sidearm, and squares up with the terrorist, they're both at an impasse. McClane could shoot, but he'll likely get shot in return, so he's trying to buy some time to figure out his best move. That choice is made for him with the arrival of a second terrorist. 



> The much bigger illogical character behavior is when McClane is faced to deal with Karl's brother, Kristoff, near the beginning of the siege.  Kristoff is looking for McClane who is hiding.  He has a submachine gun and already tried to shoot at McClane once already.  McClane comes at him from the side points his pistol at his head, and tells him to drop the gun.  The man does not so McClane decides to pistol whip him, and then jump on him and try to wrestle a submachine gun out of his hand?  I thought really?  No logical thinking cop would attempt to fight a man with a loaded submachine gun and they would just shoot.



A cop can't indiscriminately shoot anyone they want. That's what Kristoff knew, and that's why he said "there are rules for policemen". McClane had him at gunpoint, with him posing no danger to McClane, and because he was a good cop he couldn't pull the trigger or it would have been cold-blooded murder. So he tried to knock him out by coldcocking him with the pistol. When it didn't work, he had no choice but lunge for Kristoff. He'd lost the upper hand. Kristoff knew he wasn't going to murder him.


----------



## scrub puller (Jul 18, 2015)

Yair . . .

Hallo folks, interesting thread and comments.

I have had two 'phases' of writing in my life.

The first in my late teens early twenty's when I found I had read enough Zane Grey, Louis L'Amour and that Aussie bloke who wrote for Cleveland to write nearly twenty credible American Westerns of my own.

Never having been to the US the Characters and the plots and the descriptions of the country were all artificial and were rehashes of what I'd read in those books . . . when I wrote a similar more authentic tale set in 1870's Australia my agent thought it was a great joke and told me the story was okay but to rewrite it in the US as he couldn't sell it in its Australian form.


I was pizzed off bigtime by the attitude never wrote for over forty years. When I started again on short stories and articles I have found it much easier as I know my characters . . . they are always amalgams of people from my past and I can relate their thoughts and feelings for I have lived their lives and shared the things they've felt and seen. 

I believe (hope?) this, and the life experience reflected in the plots adds a sense of authenticity to my present work.

I find I know the how a tale starts and how it ends and do my best with the bits and pieces in the middle.

After much investigating and research this ability to write of life . . . and people a characters and events experienced, is the only advantage of growing old. (Big Grin)

Cheers.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Jul 19, 2015)

Hello Iron Pony

Yes.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## BryanJ62 (Jul 19, 2015)

*This is a hard one to answer. Which brings the question: Why am I trying to answer it? I just sit down and tell the story. I don't worry about anything. Soon, the story unfolds and sometimes it becomes something I never imagined. For me, if I worry to much about all the rules I lose the story I'm trying to write.*


----------



## ironpony (Jul 19, 2015)

Sam said:


> What's out of character?
> 
> Nothing is really ever out of someone's character. A smart guy can do something moronic from time to time. A calm person can have a paroxysm of rage given the right circumstances. A loyal person can betray their best friend out of the blue. These are the things that make us human, so depriving your character of the ability to do something against his/her ordinary instinct is a little bit limiting.
> 
> ...



Okay thanks. I understand what you mean but I was told by other writers that my character step out of character, when I sent in my work for review.  It's just what I was told.  For example, the villain in my script makes a mistake which gets him caught, but readers have said that the villain has been supersmart not to get caught for the whole story, so why would he then become stupid and make such a mistake in the first place all of a sudden.  Things like that are plot holes, I was told.

  As for McClane not being able to kill Kristoff, I asked two cops when researching police behavior for my own script, which is a thriller, and they said that if a guy comes at you with a machine gun that he is already fired and you know to be loaded, you can shoot him, if you are trapped in a building and have several other gunmen to fight.  You will not be going against the book in anyway, since you are trapped and alone, with others to face, and most cops would have shot, and not have tried to wrestle a loaded machine gun out of someone's hands. They said that Kristoff saying that a cop having rules, is total BS and does not apply in that particular situation.  That's what I was told by two real police officers when doing research anyway.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 20, 2015)

Personally, I usually build characters first. Kinda like The Sims. I create them, flesh them out a little in my mind, then kick them into reality and watch them run about, trying to survive.

They often fail.


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Jul 20, 2015)

Personally I really like it when the plot itself provides opportunities to develop the characters, but it's tricky to balance that in a way that doesn't seem contrived.

When writing I don't always flesh out the characters completely and just see what I come up with based on how I write them reacting to plot events.


----------



## AaronR316 (Jul 20, 2015)

In my opinion, I'm no expert but I think it's best to get the characters where they need to go and watch them develop along the way. It's kind of fun that way, like reading a story only you are creating it and watching them grow.


----------



## qwertyman (Jul 21, 2015)

ironpony said:
			
		

> ...I was told by other writers that my character step out of character, when I sent in my work for review. It's just what I was told. For example, the villain in my script makes a mistake which gets him caught, but readers have said that the villain has been supersmart not to get caught for the whole story, so why would he then become stupid and make such a mistake in the first place all of a sudden. Things like that are plot holes, I was told.



Find another way for the villain to get caught.


----------



## Lumaria (Jul 21, 2015)

ironpony said:


> I want to get better at writing but I often find myself with this problem when trying to create a story. I read a lot of books on writing and as much as I can from gurus. I read The Anatomy of Story by John Truby, and he said something that really stuck out at me, that other writers have not touched on much.
> He said that when you come up with the premise line, you have to come up with what you think would be the best ending to that premise line, and you have to do it pretty close, so you can build the rest of your story into that.
> 
> I agree that that seems to make sense, and a lot of stories seem to have that.
> ...



To me it seems like you are stuck between having a strict guideline for the plot, and having loose story and have characters define the plot. Overall, i dont believe its bad to try to aim toward a certain direction. Its always good to have characters that act on their own, but even then we don't always knwo whats "out of character". So keep in mind, that you can always direct characters toward a certain way by providing new information, or a certain situation a character can't avoid. you can also work on finding the best combination of characters that will help build your story.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 21, 2015)

There are probably as many different answers to your question as there are writers. Never trust anyone who tells you what you 'must' do to develop your story and characters. All anyone can do is tell you what works for them. For some that's knowing exactly how the story is going to end before they begin, for others it's creating characters and following them around. For most it is somewhere in between. I have a very general idea of the end of my books before I begin them, but, so far, that ending in my head has never been the one that gets put on paper. That's because my plot changes as my characters change, and my characters change based on what happens to them in the story. Writing wouldn't appeal to me if I had to control every aspect of the process.


----------



## Foxee (Jul 21, 2015)

Questions like this make me itchy. Ways of working are so incredibly individual that what works for me might turn another writer into a roaring alcoholic. 

(Not that I've actually had that happen to anyone yet that I know of? If so, I'm sorry, okay?)

Thing is, if you're just starting to get to grips with writing you're going to have to try things. Maybe start by doing what some say you 'should' do and 'shouldn't' do and see if that fits. If it doesn't, take it off, return it to the rack, and by all means try another combo of 'should's' and 'shouldn'ts' but don't commit! 

It's miserable to get married to a set of instructions that do not work for you. Play the field heartlessly, experiment, and you'll come up with what works for you.

...and don't mix your metaphors, that's always bad, right?


----------



## ironpony (Jul 21, 2015)

Okay thanks.  What about when you need a character to make crazy, perhaps stupid decision, but it's a minor character that doesn't have as much development time?  How can you convince the reader of such character behavior for minor characters compared to ones that you can give more development time?


----------



## AtleanWordsmith (Jul 21, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  What about when you need a character to make crazy, perhaps stupid decision, but it's a minor character that doesn't have as much development time?  How can you convince the reader of such character behavior for minor characters compared to ones that you can give more development time?



Stress, money, lack of money, drugs, alcohol... there are a lot of things out there that can make someone do crazy [EXPLETIVE DELETED].  You could also make the character a teenager.  Nothing like hormones to [PLEASE STOP] up your decision-making skills.  I mean, I remember when I was a teenager.  [SERIOUSLY, STOP IT], was I stupid then.

Hope that helps.  Sorry for the language.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 21, 2015)

Oh okay.  Well in this case it's a district attorney, who decides to not press charges against a fugitive if the fugitive can go out and get proof on another villain.  The fugitive however, just shot some cops in the legs in a firefight, just before the DA decides to not charge him and let him go, so I need the DA to make that kind of decision without being on drugs or alcohol lol.  But I can keep trying to rework it.


----------



## AtleanWordsmith (Jul 21, 2015)

Ah, well, the DA could have a relationship with said fugitive.  Friend, lover, relative.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 22, 2015)

Okay thanks.  The DA drops charges against him during a hostage stand off though, and so the cops let him go even though he took hostages, because they figure why bother, since the DA won't prosecute.  Is it believable that the DA will tell cops to let a hostage taker go, cause he is not going to prosecute, right in the middle of a hostage situation?


----------



## qwertyman (Jul 22, 2015)

I would stop reading a book where the MC takes hostages, shoots policemen and is released without charges by the DA.  If the plot demands the MC is freed to advance the story you have to find another way.

I would rather believe a convenient earthquake, terrorist bomb or train crash, disrupted the hostage-scene and gave him a chance to escape.

Anyway, wouldn't the hostages and gunned-down cops have the right to bring charges?


----------



## ironpony (Jul 22, 2015)

Okay thanks.  In stories you see DA's cut deals with crooks all the time though, and say that they will let they won't prosecute them, if they can give me the bigger fish to prosecute instead.  So the hostages and gunned down cops do have a technical right to press charges but the DA also has the power to not prosecute, as long as they are given the bigger fish, so what then?


----------



## Offeiriad (Jul 22, 2015)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks. I understand what you mean but I was told by other writers that my character step out of character, when I sent in my work for review.  It's just what I was told.  For example, the villain in my script makes a mistake which gets him caught, but readers have said that *the villain has been supersmart not to get caught for the whole story, so why would he then become stupid and make such a mistake in the first place all of a sudden*.  Things like that are plot holes, I was told.



One word: ARROGANCE. It is not outside the realm of possibility that your villain is _so_ arrogant that he makes a mistake and ignores it, believing the cops will never be clever enough to pick up on that mistake. Criminals always think they're smarter than everyone else.


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 24, 2015)

It's a conundrum. I personally would be wary of: a. looking for a simple answer to this question; and b. taking advice from gurus.

A. Because sometimes the plot is what suggests itself, and other times it's the character, and rather than trying to second guess those things, when they pop into your head just go with them. If it's a plot point, then the plot came first; if a character, then the character did. Free yourself from the tyranny of one-size-fits-all answers  

B. Because the villain in my WIP is a guru. Ok, that's not a reason, but again, what works for one may not work for the other. Your guru is ultimately telling you what works for him. Take it on board by all means, but be loathe to consider it gospel.

So what's the answer. My questionable opinion on the matter is go with your instinct. If that means your characters must do illogical things to get to the endgame then make them do those things. The skill you must show is to shade in their rationale for doing so so that it looks plausible. A quick glance over the internet will show you all manner of plot holes to get character X from A to B in a convincing manner, but in many cases it's taken us all twenty years to twig. Use unreliable narration, dream up scenarios to smooth the passage from one inconceivable situation to the next. Good luck. There is always a way


----------



## bazz cargo (Jul 24, 2015)

Hi Ironpony. I suspect it is not the actions of the DA that is the problem, it is not explaining the logic/reasons behind the actions. 

Back into the sandpit for some more experimentation my friend.


----------



## KellInkston (Jul 24, 2015)

Sam said:


> Depends on whether it's a character- or plot-driven story.



Seconded. The big thing is to figure out whether the reader wants the story, or the characters- if one stands out, focus on that.


----------



## GVictoria (Jul 25, 2015)

In my opinion, plot and character development are, in a way, related to each other. A character makes a decision depending on his personality. If one of his bad qualities is being tested, then most likely he will make a bad decision and with it, consequences. Then he will learn from those, which is character development.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 25, 2015)

I have to have a mixture of the two to start writing. Starting with a great character is important, but if I have no idea what's going on I'm liable to get bored following them around as they do mundane things. On the other hand, an exciting plot is worthless if the characters are like cardboard cutouts. It's easy to lose interest without the right balance.


----------



## Caragula (Jul 25, 2015)

For me, at this stage of my writing career, while I have a plot I'd like to tell, I spend a lot of time figuring out characters, because when you know your characters well, how the story unfolds becomes far more obvious, and you can adjust accordingly, and of course, adapt characters accordingly, like two strands of a dna helix, or something.  Either way, I flesh out characters a lot before writing prose.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 28, 2015)

okay thanks.  sorry for not using cap locks.  my cap lock button is not working right now.

since i decided on what ending i thought would be best for my premise, i had to to work my way backwards in the plot to build into the ending.  when i create the ending first and then work my way back to build into it, my problem is, is that the characters conflict with the plot twists sometimes in order to get there.  i can change the characters around somewhat but there is only so much of their development i can stretch before it starts to feel forced.

plus sometimes after creating the ending, i have to create new characters just to get there.  is it worth creating a character who's job is just to fill a plot gap?


----------



## Apex Predator (Jul 28, 2015)

Plot, in my opinion, ought to be the most integral part of a story. 

It is the nexus from which the characters, dialouge, events, and themes all flow through.

I would put greater emphasis on a solid plots whose conflict is both understandable and can relate to the reader. 

Afterwards should come characterization, the dimension and emotion of the characters which are created are what help bring the plot to life and truly create a story. :joyous:


----------



## Blade (Jul 28, 2015)

ironpony said:


> plus sometimes after creating the ending, i have to create new characters just to get there.  is it worth creating a character who's job is just to fill a plot gap?



A better question might be do you *need *a new character to fill the plot gap. If you can find another method of making ends meet you will not have t assume the baggage of a new, and hitherto unnecessary, character.:-k


----------



## qwertyman (Jul 29, 2015)

ironpony said:


> .
> plus sometimes after creating the ending, i have to create new characters just to get there.  is it worth creating a character who's job is just to fill a plot gap?



I agree with Blade. 

 However, if it is a physical act, which could not possibly be enacted by the MC - Yes, but don't cheat the reader. The buyer of a plot driven book will have bought it for it's 'plot quality' and will spot a convenience character. My best tip is; place the character a few chapters before they are used to deliver the plot point, the character can 'disappear' in between the introduction and the act...if you're clever. As for the baggage of the 'convenience' character...kill him!


----------

