How to make your story more Engaging to the Reader

[WyrdMystic]

Ever watched the classic movie 12 Angry Men? Essentially character-driven. Takes place mostly in one non-descript room, except for a tiny bit at the beginning and end.

Okay so two out of three - still has plot.

 

[WyrdMystic]

Characters are flat without emotion, not setting. I think I could develop an engaging story without a setting, but I'm pretty sure that someone, somewhere has. Maybe Steerpike has a reference for you.



I think it's of the utmost relevance. I think a lot of beginning authors go wrong trying to let the plot drive their story instead of the characters. Again, it can be done, but it's a much harder row to hoe.

Characters can't have motivation without history which is disenfranchised without setting.

I agree - character driven plots are the best, but they are plots nonethteless.

 

[BWFoster78]

Characters can't have motivation without history which is disenfranchised without setting.

See, I don't buy this at all. There are common human experiences that we find relateable with or without a shared history. Love. A desire to right a wrong or protect the innocent. Jealousy. I could go on.

If I indicate that a character is infatuated with a girl, I don't need to go into his history or the setting to provide his motivation. It's quite understandable and relateable to everyone who has ever loved.

As for the rest, I'm kinda confused over what we're arguing: I said -

I agree that you can't have characters without a plot or a plot without characters, but I think you can make statements about the overall engagement produced by a character-driven story vs. a plot-driven one. I think that, overall, (and obviously you can find examples of good stories on each side) you'll find it easier to create an engaging story by being more character driven.

You seem to agree with me...

 

[WyrdMystic]

1. True, but emotion is only one dimension. Setting provides context whether its straight forward or implied. In the case of 12 angry men, one juror grew up in street where he witnessed knife crime - setting, though not direct still pertinent to the character and their motivation.

So whether it is the current setting or not, there is or has been a setting in which a character grew up to explain their outlook and how they interperet and react to the emotions they feel.

2. Yes we agree, hence I said I agree Seems to be a trend with us two.

 

[BWFoster78]

1. True, but emotion is only one dimension.

Okay, but is more than that dimension needed to set a character's motivation? Yes, you can certainly use setting to add depth; I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing whether, at its core, that extra depth is needed for engagement, and I still say it's not.

Let's say I have a story about two guys arguing over a girl. The setting is never defined. I don't tell you whether they're on a city street or in a spaceship.

Both guys are in love with the same girl.

Don't you think I can make an engaging story out of that without ever mentioning a single setting detail?

 

[WyrdMystic]

Don't you think I can make an engaging story out of that without ever mentioning a single setting detail?

Honestly? Not really, but I'm happy to be proved wrong and of course what I think differs to what others think so its all a matter of opinion anyway.

I'd just end up thinking why??

Do it - we'll see

But just to be clear it would have to be a complete story and not just a single conversation with an ultimate resolution - I don't define that as a story.

EDIT -

Sorry, that's probably unfair a slightly trapping. Because I would always wonder why the person reacts the way they do - just reacting because...that's not enough for me.

 

[BWFoster78]

Honestly? Not really, but I'm happy to be proved wrong and of course what I think differs to what others think so its all a matter of opinion anyway.

I'd just end up thinking why??

Do it - we'll see

But just to be clear it would have to be a complete story and not just a single conversation with an ultimate resolution - I don't define that as a story.

EDIT -

Sorry, that's probably unfair a slightly trapping. Because I would always wonder why the person reacts the way they do - just reacting because...that's not enough for me.

Let's see if anyone else has read a story that meets the description first. I'm knee deep in editing and don't have a ton of time for it.

 

[WyrdMystic]

Me either...but maybe if I dwell on it a bit

Just to shoot myself in the foot, I think I may have a it.

If you were good, really good. You could to tell the story of the creation and destruction of a planet without it ever sustaining life. You could give the illusion of character by anthropormorphisissisisingning (I have no idea how to spell that).

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Tension should always be ramping up, for each POV character, through every sentence, scene, paragraph, chapter, & story. Some may feel that it's okay to take pause in the buildup of tension. I wouldn't agree. I don't want to ease the tension build-up until the story's conclusion.

That's not the type of story that I prefer but to each his own.

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Everything in a scene should serve the purpose of advancing the story. A story is driven by conflict. Conflict creates tension. There are times where a story slows down, giving pause in action, while still building conflict & therefore tension.

I'm not trying to claim that pace constantly has to be gaining speed to increase tension.

EDIT - Looks like the conversation shifted a bit before I wrote this reply. I didn't read all the posts prior to this response.

 

[BWFoster78]

Just to shoot myself in the foot, I think I may have a it.

If you were good, really good. You could to tell the story of the creation and destruction of a planet without it ever sustaining life. You could give the illusion of character by anthropormorphisissisisingning (I have no idea how to spell that).

I still think that the world becomes the character regardless.

 

[BWFoster78]

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Everything in a scene should serve the purpose of advancing the story. A story is driven by conflict. Conflict creates tension. There are times where a story slows down, giving pause in action, while still building conflict & therefore tension.

I'm not trying to claim that pace constantly has to be gaining speed to increase tension.

At one point, I had a viewpoint much like what I think you're saying here.

I realized, though, that I liked scenes that took a minute away from any conflict that served pure character development. That happy moment where the characters joke around a fire, etc.

I don't think it's a good idea to do a lot of, but I think they're effective from an emotional standpoint even if they don't drive conflict or story.

I kinda think emotion is a worthy ambition all on its own, and, if you have a scene that can make a reader feel, it's important to include even if it doesn't advance story.

I don't know. Am I wrong in this?

 

[WyrdMystic]

I still think that the world becomes the character regardless.

Yeah - I think it is plot without character = exposition. In that case, I stand by all 3 of my points until someone proves me wrong

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

At one point, I had a viewpoint much like what I think you're saying here.

I realized, though, that I liked scenes that took a minute away from any conflict that served pure character development. That happy moment where the characters joke around a fire, etc.

I don't think it's a good idea to do a lot of, but I think they're effective from an emotional standpoint even if they don't drive conflict or story.

I kinda think emotion is a worthy ambition all on its own, and, if you have a scene that can make a reader feel, it's important to include even if it doesn't advance story.

I don't know. Am I wrong in this?

No. I don't think you're wrong. However, I'd argue that a well written scene geared towards character development will, in some way, advance the story by introducing elements of characters that will serve conflict & tension at some point. For example, if I have 2 characters sitting around a fire getting to know one another, I could be creating an opportunity for those characters to either bond, or realize they really don't like one another. As long as those developing feelings come into play in the greater story (i.e. characters fall in love and then one needs to rescue the other) then your still serving conflict and tension since your upping the stakes by adding the element of love. I'd say if the scene doesn't serve a purpose like this then it isn't necessary and should be cut.

 

[Penpilot]

Coming in very late here. I think you can have a complete story without mentioning much or anything at all about the external environment. To me there's the external environment and the internal one. The internal environment, what's in the POV character's head, is the most important thing about engaging the reader.

If the author has engaged me with the character, I'll gladly read about them scratching their rumps all day. Give me a character that's interesting and that I connect with, I'll follow them anywhere.

I think there are plenty of good stories where the external environments are sparse but the internal character environment is rich. Has anyone ever watched any one person play with just an empty stage? Has anyone every heard of the play called Waitng for Godot by Samuel Becket? Full disclosure, I haven't seen this play, but It was voted "the most significant English language play of the 20th century". There is only one scene throughout both acts. Two men are waiting on a country road by a tree. That's the whole setting.

I remember watching... it's either an episode of the Twilight Zone or The Outerlimits... the whole episode took place in a cell with low lights. It was just two people talking. It was engaging, and the ending was one that made me gasp.

Does anyone remember the movie Heat? One of the best scenes in that movie was Al Pacino and Robert De Niro just talking at a nondescript diner.

To me setting is a spice. It helps flavor the emotions of the character with an external analog, but it's not 100% necessary. In fact, if one isn't careful, it's possible to over-season something that's already perfect without it.

Any way my two cents

 

[Steerpike]

I've read Waiting for Godot. I had the same thought, in fact. It's well done.

There are some great character-based stories where the setting could basically be anywhere, and could be interchangeable.

 

[ThinkerX]

Even in a story which has no immediate setting, setting would still enter into it by way of dialogue and internal thoughts.

One of my stories (which I have to redo AGAIN) features something like this: the primary setting is a single room with a table, some chairs, and a few curios on the walls. Most of it is three people talking to one another, trying to determine the possible wherabouts of a fourth person. Yet, in the course of that conversation, by argument and anecdote, the reader gets a fair overview of my primary world. Then, again, that was a major goal of the story.

I would submit that at least *some* of the exterior setting would 'leak' into a story just through the thoughts, words, and actions of the stories characters, even if the setting is very bland.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Wow I did not expect this many responses so fast!

I heard a lot of people mentioning to make characters a person can relate to. I've never really understood this. Samwise and Gandalf are my favorite characters from LOTR (and in my top 3 in all of Fantasy) but I never felt like I related to them in anyway. Can anyone here explain some more about how to do this?

(Oh and just a word of warning to everyone: Just already assume BWFoster is going to disagree with everything you post XD I mean that with all sincerity and is in jest, your opinion BWFoster is always appreciated!)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Wow I did not expect this many responses so fast!

I heard a lot of people mentioning to make characters a person can relate to. I've never really understood this. Samwise and Gandalf are my favorite characters from LOTR (and in my top 3 in all of Fantasy) but I never felt like I related to them in anyway. Can anyone here explain some more about how to do this?

Okay, let's take your example for relatable characters and whittle it down to Samwise. Have you ever felt extreme loyalty to a friend? Did you ever stand up for a friend, even in the face of insurmountable odds? If you haven't, could you envision yourself doing so? Are you curious even to your own detriment? Are you a loyal friend? Sam is so loyal you could consider it a level of expertise at being loyal.

Point is, there are many attributes in a character like Sam that make him relatable or sympathetic. We could continue listing these characteristics for quite awhile. Within you are some elements represented by the character Samwise Gamgee. That's what makes a character relatable.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

But when I watch or read Lotr I don't consciously think to myself that he reminds me of myself or that he did something I would do. I've just liked him because of his character not because he reminded me of myself.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

But when I watch or read Lotr I don't consciously think to myself that he reminds me of myself or that he did something I would do. I've just liked him because of his character not because he reminded me of myself.

Why would you think a good relatable character requires conscious sympathy by the viewer/reader? I'd actually say, those characters which illicit that response without our thinking on them, may well be the most powerful.