# Does anyone NOT write very character driven fiction anymore?



## Mythopoet (Oct 27, 2017)

I know there's lots of non-character driven fiction out there. But does anyone actually think it's a good thing to write anymore? It seems not. Everywhere I look when people talk about writing fiction they talk almost exclusively about it from a character driven standpoint. Setting- it's all about your character. Plot- it's all about your character. Every single guide I have seen lately for plotting a story revolves around the main character and what they want. 

Call my old fashioned. I'm sick and tired of hearing about character's desires. Screw their desires. I don't care about their desires. Certainly not toward the beginning of a story, anyway. (Later on I'll consider them.) So it seems to me that figuring out your entire plot based on your character's wants is... problematic. 

Perhaps it's me. I really just don't relate to characters based on their desires. It's not that I want a lack of characterization in the books I read and the stories I write. It's just that.... I want so much more than that. I want a fascinating world and interesting events and thought provoking ideas. I don't want those things to be short changed for characters.  But I'm beginning to feel like I'm one of only a few who feel this way. 

I'm probably not expressing myself very well here. I just felt the urge to put this out there after seeing yet another guide to plotting a story that was basically all about the character's wants. SIGH. 

Anyone else feel something similar?


----------



## psychotick (Oct 27, 2017)

Hi,

I certainly like characters. But there are some writers who seem to be shying away from getting too deep into personal development. One who springs to mind - and who basically changed his style to become more plot driven and fast paced etc is Simon R Green. His Deathstalker books and Eddie Drood books are a world away from his earlier stuff.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 27, 2017)

Mythopoet I know exactly what you mean, and I've felt the same way about it—when discussing things here. There's a very strong emphasis on character driven stories and plots.

I do enjoy reading stories that do this when they are written well, but I think other types of stories exist. Mysteries for instance. Stories that explore worlds, concepts, and so forth. A lot of straight-up adventure tales are less concerned about a character coming to terms with themselves, their pent up desires, their flaws and relationships than with, heh, the trip through the obstacle course, so to speak.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 27, 2017)

Yeah, I read a ton of plot driven stuff. Adventure tales for sure, like books by Clive Cussler, or Action/Adventure like the stuff by Lee Child are all plot driven. There is lots of that stuff out there still, being written every day. Many books that are series' are plot driven.

I _do _tend to think that character drives the plot in most scenarios. I mean, you have no story if the character has no goal, even if that goal is simply to "find out who killed Mr. Peacock in the study with the candlestick."

That goal would be considered the character's _want, _and that _want _could be deepened if there are high stakes, like the detective must solve the mystery because he is almost 65 and the agency wants to push him into retirement.

So even the plot driven stuff does have to have a character driven plot, to some extent.


----------



## Incanus (Oct 27, 2017)

I relate to this very, very well.

Everything I write is concept and plot driven, so I feel pretty well buried under 1000 tons of “You shouldn’t do that!  Bad, bad, bad!”

I simply can’t help myself, and I’m going to write the kind of things I’d like to read.  Of course I work on character aspects of my stories, and they’re important.  But an ‘all character all the time’ story is just too boring for me.  I’ve never been much of a fan of ‘character study’ stories.  I prefer well-rounded stories that blend all the major elements in more or less equal measures.

It kind of puts me in a weird spot—I suspect no publisher would want anything to do with what I’m working on.  And yet, I’m going to keep on writing because I enjoy the creative process so much.  I love playing with words and ideas.

If this character stuff we’re talking about is an absolute must (and I think it’s debatable), then no more than a dozen people will ever see my stories.  Basically, I’ve gotten comfortable with that idea.

On the other hand, I see a great many discrepancies between what amateur writers are supposed to do, and what I find on bookshelves.  Strange, that.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 27, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> I _do _tend to think that character drives the plot in most scenarios. I mean, you have no story if the character has no goal, even if that goal is simply to "find out who killed Mr. Peacock in the study with the candlestick."
> 
> That goal would be considered the character's _want, _and that _want _could be deepened if there are high stakes, like the detective must solve the mystery because he is almost 65 and the agency wants to push him into retirement.



I don't think the question is having either an empty shell for a character or having a vibrant, realistic and relatable character.

Mysteries are a good place to look. I've not read any of the Poirot novels, but I've watched a couple or three seasons of the television show. A character like Poirot is driven to solve a crime, and those aspects make him interesting. Sherlock and Father Brown are similar—although, I think that aspects of what drives each are different. So characters can be driven by...their characters, heh.

But that's a far cry from saying the story and plot exist to resolve these character issues or for some other more intensely personal reasons beyond those aspects. You see, none of those three went exploring for clues because some exterior agency was forcing the retirement issue, heh. (Although I do recall a Father Brown episode in which something like this came into play, I had no doubt that he'd've tried to solve the crime regardless.)

Similarly, the fantasy adventure hero might go on an adventure to kill some mythical beast for any number of reasons. Maybe he wants the glory. Maybe he likes gold, and a city is paying mega fantasy-equivalent $$$ to kill the beast. Postulating an intensely personal motivation—his girlfriend has been taken to its lair, his father never believed in him and this is his one chance to prove his father wrong by killing the beast that ate his father, etc.—is not necessary. Another way of thinking about this is that said hero might go on any number of wildly different adventures for the very same reason, let's say gold, whereas saving his girlfriend and avenging his father's death while proving himself worthy of his father are one-shot goals.

There _is_ a twitchy line between these things. I could imagine a series of fantasy adventures in which the hero is always trying to prove his worth to his father. Let's say that's always his issue, and it forces him to do very dangerous things. I'd say in that case, this perpetual desire to please his father is like Poirot's perpetual desire to prove his intellect superior to every criminal's.

That sort of thing seems more obvious in a series of tales, and characters like Poirot or Father Brown are typically said to have "flat character arcs." I don't think that's a negative. 

But what about a standalone book? This is where things are twitchy, heh.  Giving personal stakes is great advice for a number of reasons. It connects the character to the outcome, helps to prevent purely reactive characters, and helps a reader engage with both the character and the story.

Poirot has a personal stake in proving his superior intellect.  Or let's say, reaffirming it. But I think the stakes of solving the murder are greater. There's a question of whether we live in a world where criminals can easily get away with committing murder—and may easily live among us without repercussions!  The poet Auden wrote in an essay about detective novels, called "The Guilty Vicarage," that "The job of the detective is to restore the state of grace in which the aesthetic and the ethical are as one."  Basically, he meant that the appearance of a murder, with an uncertainty about who among a group did it, muddies the water of our world and we want our water to be made pristine, heh.  In any case, the stories don't exist for the purpose of helping Poirot come to that state of personal grace, himself—although he does find his intellect muddied from time to time and wants to come to a clear view of what happened!  Heh.

So this is where I've felt something like what Mythopoet said. Someone new posts on the forum and gives a bit of background on the worldbuilding for a story, some general features of a character or a few, and asks how to find a plot. One of the first suggestions is to explore what the character _wants_.  What is the character's personal goal?

The potential problem with that approach is the elimination of those greater stakes, those grander themes. Yes, there's evil in that fantasy world, murders, whathaveyou; but the story isn't about those, heh. Those exist _merely_ to give an excuse for taking a character from her personal muddied waters to a pristine state.  The larger conflict is merely a convenience, almost a plot device.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that. Many great stories are precisely about that sort of thing, the exploration of character. This exploration can even be a Big Theme. This is where words like Forgiveness, Love, Courage, Compassion, Family can come in to play, and these are things that are important to many readers. (There are also negatives in this initial-cap group, but you get the idea.)

But the danger still exists: This is a story about Sally's personal journey, and perhaps some readers don't care if she ever finds a boyfriend and forgives her father. (Although even here, there's a target for that in the market.)

I think the advice to explore the character's deep-seated goals can work regardless, because this will help to create an interesting, engaging character. It'll help in navigating the plot. Some personal stakes in the story can be a great justification for why this particular character keeps moving forward, becomes proactive, and so forth.  But I think this holds true even if the story doesn't exist merely for that exploration of character, and if the plot isn't built as a vehicle for resolving those personal stakes.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 27, 2017)

FifthView said:


> So this is where I've felt something like what Mythopoet said. Someone new posts on the forum and gives a bit of background on the worldbuilding for a story, some general features of a character or a few, and asks how to find a plot. One of the first suggestions is to explore what the character _wants_.  What is the character's personal goal?
> 
> The potential problem with that approach is the elimination of those greater stakes, those grander themes. Yes, there's evil in that fantasy world, murders, whathaveyou; but the story isn't about those, heh. Those exist _merely_ to give an excuse for taking a character from her personal muddied waters to a pristine state.  The larger conflict is merely a convenience, almost a plot device.
> 
> .



Interesting. Yes, I've noticed the same thing and have been guilty of using the response "What does the character want?"
But I think, when I use it, it's to help the writer address a clear goal. A clear 'through line' as it were, from beginning to end. If we take Jack Reacher, for example, in the book Tripwire, the story starts when Jack discovers a detective is looking for him. Weird. Why? But in the next chapter that detective winds up dead. So someone was looking for Jack, but someone else doesn't want him found. Very strange. Jack's goal for the novel is to find out what the heck is going on. That is his goal. Sure there is a bunch of other stuff about con men and missing money and identity theft, but all that is really just the background noise to the larger question of "what does all this have to do with Jack?"

It's very much a plot driven story, in that Jack is not reunited with his long lost father and learns to love and trust family again blah blah blah... but the MC still must have a clear and quantifiable goal.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 28, 2017)

I'd really rather this not devolve into a discussion of "character driven" VS. "plot driven" because I believe that's a false dilemma. It's simply not necessary to elevate any one element of story telling above another. It's fine to do that, if you WANT to, but you should never feel you HAVE to. And that's one of the things I'm objecting to here, writing advice that makes it seem that you HAVE to elevate character above all else. I've seen so many books, articles and posts that get very vocal about how character is EVERYTHING. Well, I simply disagree. 

I'm one of those people (the only person?) who strongly believe that there is NOTHING truly NECESSARY in fiction. At it's most basic fiction is one person telling another person (via some type of media) about stuff happening that person 1 made up in order to interest person 2. EVERYTHING else is a matter of choice and taste. No exceptions.

It's perfectly valid to personally be most interested in character development and so to put that at the center of your story and make everything else subordinate to it. If that is what you like and that is your choice then you should absolutely do it. 

Just like with every other element of fiction, the problem comes when people confuse what works for_ them_ with what should work for _everyone_. Then they go around telling everyone to put character first and somehow it become a huge trend and then it practically becomes writing industry law and people like me begin to despair. 

Again, I'm NOT a "plot driven" person any more than I'm a "character driven" person. I LIKE characterization. I even like character driven novels. (And I'm not looking for novel recommendations.) I just get sick to my stomach when it looks like EVERYTHING is tending toward "CHARACTER IS ALL. CHARACTER IS ALL." Which is what it seems like sometimes. I want to see more talk about how character, plot, setting, and idea work together, balance each other, and support each other. Less "plot your story directly from what your character's narcissistic desires are" and more "think about how your character exists within your world and what types of events might happen from that relationship".


----------



## Viorp (Oct 28, 2017)

Interesting/Good characters are the most important part of any fiction.

Good worldbuilding and Plot are just a cherry on top. 
Example: Shingeki no Bahamut
It has a very bad/average setting and a mediocre plot.
But the character interactions and personal growth are what makes the series great and one of my personal favorites.

Or Star Wars. Star wars has a plot which is bassicaly a hearoes journey how we know it from 1000 B.C while the setting is an incoherent mess of fantasy and bad Sci-Fi. Yet people love it due to the characters.

I've seen many good promising works of fiction with interesting settings be mediocre at best due to shitty and bland characters.

CHaracters are the most important part of the story. Their want does not have to be the driving factor of the story, but in the end they are what drives the story.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 28, 2017)

Viorp said:


> Interesting/Good characters are the most important part of any fiction *TO ME*.
> 
> Good worldbuilding and Plot are just a cherry on top,* IN MY OPINION*.
> Example: Shingeki no Bahamut
> ...



Fixed that for you.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 28, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> I've noticed the same thing and have been guilty of using the response "What does the character want?"
> But I think, when I use it, it's to help the writer address a clear goal. A clear 'through line' as it were, from beginning to end.



It may be a chicken-egg sort of thing, but with consequences heh.

An author with a world and general character in mind asks, "Gah! I can't figure out a plot! What do I do?"

A helpful guide/catalyst asks in return, "What is the character's personal stakes? What does the character want?"

Without some kind of plot or set of plots in mind already, how can that last question be answered? 

Well, Frodo like parties, drinking in the tavern, eating and dancing. He likes being with his friends, just kinda coasting. Sometimes he sits in the wood alone reading a book. So...aha! I need to disrupt that, since these are his driving [internal] motivations. He'll need to work to resolve these disruptions, return to the life he wants. Or else he needs to change, grow, start wanting other things.

Hmmmm. Samwise gets a girlfriend who doesn't fit in with the group of his friends. Actually, she's one of the distant Bagginses. She has her sights set on a particular hole in the ground and is using Samwise to worm her way closer to Frodo and Bilbo. All kinds of character conflict ensues. Samwise is angry with the way Frodo treats her, and this causes a split between them... OK, heh, I could go on with this and add even more events in Shire society, more threats to Frodo's comfy life, working in Merry and Pippen. I don't know yet whether Frodo will succeed in thwarting this threat and reestablish his old life or change somehow and find a new life doing some other things, which might involve new friends. But the throughline _could be_ in thwarting these things.

^That could be an interesting fanfic, heh. Even if part of the worldbuilding already in mind includes a distant land called Mordor and all that comes with it, as well as the humans and elves...well, that could be the breaking point. Something this girlfriend does inadvertently signals the presence of the Shire to a wandering band of orcs—maybe she's conspiring with a traitorous human to cause disruption in Bag End, and it's this human who has dealings with orcs....All this comes to a head when she's revealed for what she is, the threat to Bag End is removed, and friendships are restored. Heck, let's say Merry will be the redshirt when the orcs come a-callin'.

We could work in another traveling duo. An odd friendship between an elf and a dwarf. They've been tracking this band of orcs because they like killing orcs and keeping the lands free of those bands. But they've somehow lost track of the band. This isn't revealed right away, not until much later. Their real purpose in the story is to remind Frodo of what he's missing, his friend Samwise. At some point they regale him with the tale of how they didn't get along at first but eventually came to trust each other. Friendship theme. 

Ha so I've actually gone on and on with this scenario. It was fun. It's a little funny for me because I know the real story. But for some other conceived world and general character....Well, this approach could lead to a very enjoyable story. Unless we don't want to write that kind of smaller focused friendship drama.

But...chicken/egg. Let's say we know Sauron's about to launch armies beyond Mordor, and the whole world outside Mordor is threatened. That's part of the worldbuilding we've established, the general threat. We want to write an epic. We have a special love for a character we've already created, Frodo. How do we find the plot, the throughline, and kick things off?  

Well, what does Frodo _want_?  Same things as above. So maybe we can disrupt that comfy life and involve Frodo in this bigger threat by bringing that threat directly to him, to the Shire. I do think that introduction of other characters into the tale won't be merely as examples of Friendship, heh, but rather as allies and antagonists affecting this pursuit. And we can still weave in the Friendship theme, themes of Home, Good and Evil. Samwise goes with Frodo, obviously—as a reminder of home among other things. A strong ally in this pursuit. We can sprinkle the whole tale with these personal stakes to make the tale more engaging. It's not just another "World's about to end!" tale.


----------



## Viorp (Oct 28, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> Fixed that for you.


-_- No, you can't write any good work of fiction if you plan on having shit characters and an interesting story. A "fantasy world encyclopedia" won't be interesting.

Please don't say "fix" when all you did was try to delegitimaze statements you disagree with.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 28, 2017)

Viorp said:


> -_- No, you can't write any good work of fiction if you plan on having shit characters and an interesting story. A "fantasy world encyclopedia" won't be interesting.
> 
> Please don't say "fix" when all you did was try to delegitimaze statements you disagree with.



You're apparently misunderstanding the point of this thread. AT NO POINT did anyone advocate "shit characters". In fact, I have more than once asserted that I do consider characterization important. But I do not consider it important ABOVE ALL OTHER elements of story. Personally, I enjoy stories with a good balance of all the 4 pillars of story (plot, setting, character, idea/theme) the most.

You seem to be unable to comprehend the possibility that one can write good characters AT THE SAME TIME that one writes a good plot and setting. Perhaps that's not what you mean, but it seems that way. Anyway, I reject that idea completely. Furthermore, you seem unable to comprehend that everything you were stating was an opinion and I merely edited your post to reflect that. Writers need to understand that fiction is all about taste and your taste is NOT objective.

Speaking of Shingeki no Bahamut (if you are talking about the anime and not the game) then I would say that in the first season the overall characterization is average as is the plot and setting, though the setting has the most potential. It was an enjoyable season. The second season took what was good from the first season as its foundation and added to all of it and managed to achieve truly excellent characters, setting AND plot. Being more of a fantasy action romp, it was somewhat low on the idea/theme side, but that's ok. It was a great season. I think it was great because of the excellent balance of 3 of the story pillars. None was far above the others and only one pillar was low. It was very well done.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 28, 2017)

Interesting character does not mean character driven. Either way, I think character driven and plot driven are overblown, The main thing in genre fiction is that the story must be driven, it doesn’t matter what’s behind the wheel so long as the motor’s started and the gas pedal is down... and take off the parking break... well, you get the idea, heh heh.


----------



## Viorp (Oct 28, 2017)

"You seem to be unable to comprehend the possibility that one can write good characters AT THE SAME TIME that one writes a good plot and setting."
WRONG. I do. I clearly said that worldbuilding and Plot are the cherry on top. Also "balanced" assumes that you can't have a great plot + characters + worldbuilding. That's what balance means. I advocate the exact opposite. Make everything as good as possible.

You clearly said you dislike "character driven fiction" so fiction which has characters which are good. If what you wrote in that one out of contrext sentence is correct then we agree. That's my opinion.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 28, 2017)

Viorp said:


> "You seem to be unable to comprehend the possibility that one can write good characters AT THE SAME TIME that one writes a good plot and setting."
> WRONG. I do. I clearly said that worldbuilding and Plot are the cherry on top. Also "balanced" assumes that you can't have a great plot + characters + worldbuilding. That's what balance means. I advocate the exact opposite. Make everything as good as possible.
> 
> You clearly said you dislike "character driven fiction" so fiction which has characters which are good. If what you wrote in that one out of contrext sentence is correct then we agree. That's my opinion.



You think... that "character driven" equals "good characters"? Really? And you think that balanced story elements is the "exact opposite" of making everything as good as possible? Seriously? I am... mind boggled. 

And no. You can look up the thread and see where I said "I LIKE characterization. I even like character driven novels." 

Anyway, I don't think there's any point the two of us trying to work out these differences because you are determined to misunderstand everything I say and have some very strange working definitions. I don't think we can ever agree.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 28, 2017)

Fifthview I totally get what you are saying. The Lord of the ring references were great!

Yes, I can see how that it a problem, and how establishing a hook when you don't even have a plot yet would be tricky!

Funny enough this is how I typically design my stories! Maybe there are lots of us?

I think "hmmmmm, I want there to be a hidden treasure that pirates are after and the mc has to get it before the bad pirate does." So, plot first.

The I'd start brainstorming, ok, how did the mc get into this mess? How did they get involved? Character second.

Is that what you are referring to mytho? Plot first planning? Where the mc doesn't need any other goal than just the main plot goal? They don't have an inner, personal goal? I'm just trying to be clear on the discussion here.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Oct 28, 2017)

I must say, I do like books that have a balance of character-driven plot and in-universe mythology-driven plot. Although my second book is half actual story and half appendices...


----------



## Viorp (Oct 28, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> You think... that "character driven" equals "good characters"? Really? And you think that balanced story elements is the "exact opposite" of making everything as good as possible? Seriously? I am... mind boggled.
> 
> And no. You can look up the thread and see where I said "I LIKE characterization. I even like character driven novels."
> 
> Anyway, I don't think there's any point the two of us trying to work out these differences because you are determined to misunderstand everything I say and have some very strange working definitions. I don't think we can ever agree.



Sure. I am the one misconstruing the others points.


Mythopoet said:


> You think... that "character driven" equals "good characters"? Really? And you think that balanced story elements is the "exact opposite" of making everything as good as possible? Seriously? I am... mind boggled.
> 
> And no. You can look up the thread and see where I said "I LIKE characterization. I even like character driven novels."
> 
> Anyway, I don't think there's any point the two of us trying to work out these differences because you are determined to misunderstand everything I say and have some very strange working definitions. I don't think we can ever agree.



Sure I am the one misconstruing the other's points. Says the person who rewrote my comment so it sounds more pleasant to them.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Oct 28, 2017)

Look, we all have our own opinions. Can we just agree for a moment that it's alright to have those opinions, without trying to change other people's views? In the heat of an internet debate, it's all too easy to forget that.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 28, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Fifthview I totally get what you are saying. The Lord of the ring references were great!
> 
> Yes, I can see how that it a problem, and how establishing a hook when you don't even have a plot yet would be tricky!
> 
> ...



i don't know if I would say "plot first". But I guess my problem is that I have a setting and I have characters and a concept/premise and I sit down to create an outline for my story and that is the point at which I start flailing around for actual things to happen within said setting to said characters to advance said premise. And pretty much the only advice out there is "well, think about what your character desires!" Which is all well and good except that most of my stories are bigger than just the characters. I'm trying to fill in the blanks in an epic mythological narrative and most of the time individual character desires just don't have much to do with it and nor do I think they should.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 28, 2017)

Yeah, I agree with you. I don't think there _has _to be a deep inner goal. There are plenty of examples of stories where the character doesn't have a deep inner goal. Indiana Jones. James Bond... Frodo certainly didn't have any deep inner desire for destroying the ring, other than he liked the shire and didn't want to see it destroyed.

I think the issue here is getting past your plotting issue. You absolutely can do that without your character having a deep inner goal.

My favourite method is writing loglines, which helps to hone in on the key story elements. I wrote about that in this post here:

https://mythicscribes.com/community/threads/plot-what-plot-there-is-not-plot.19243/#post-276331

Writing a variety of loglines in a variety of story types helps you really narrow in on what sort of story you want to tell and will give you a blueprint for how to make it unfold.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 28, 2017)

Heliotrope 

Since you brought up throughlines....

That older discussion of throughlines comes to mind. If the throughline is like a maypole, then everything else must not only be attached to it but circle it like ribbons. Other things will support the throughline also.

So....If you start out with the character's personal desires and goals when designing the plot, then other added elements will serve that character-driven plot. Maybe the elf and dwarf duo isn't there merely as an example of friendship but also to bluntly point out some of Frodo's flaws. They are friendly, but not yet friends of Frodo, so they don't have a stake in not upsetting him this way. I hadn't mentioned Frodo's flaws in that scenario, but let's say he has some stiff, slightly arrogant upper class tendencies when interacting with Samwise, heh. Gimli and/or Legolas might freely point this out to him at some point.

But if you start out with an event-driven plot, like the impending invasion of Middle Earth by Sauron, and the throughline isn't so much Frodo-Learns-How-To-Be-A-Good-Friend or whatever, but rather Little-Guy-Saves-The-World-With-Help-From-His-Friends, then the elements you choose for your story are going to be different or at least the process of choosing those elements would be different and the way they are incorporated will be different.

I'm just spit-balling this...


----------



## Nimue (Oct 28, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> i don't know if I would say "plot first". But I guess my problem is that I have a setting and I have characters and a concept/premise and I sit down to create an outline for my story and that is the point at which I start flailing around for actual things to happen within said setting to said characters to advance said premise. And pretty much the only advice out there is "well, think about what your character desires!" Which is all well and good except that most of my stories are bigger than just the characters. I'm trying to fill in the blanks in an epic mythological narrative and most of the time individual character desires just don't have much to do with it and nor do I think they should.


I wonder if you might have more success brainstorming from a theme.  Something like hope, redemption, fate, an idea on the mythological scale.  I think a lot of the advice out there about using a character arc to determine whether plot events work could be adjusted for a "story arc" where theme takes the place of the flaw/goal of a character arc.  Take that single idea and splinter it into variations on a theme, whatever fits with your characters and world.  Hope could become an exploration of despair, of unfounded optimism, of just gods, of a society seeking a promised land, magic returning to a forsaken kingdom, a character who finds a lost lover after many years, passing down wisdom to a new generation, etc etc.

Only an thought--I can't name any resources or books to back this up.  I tend to focus on points of emotion when I'm first brainstorming (i.e. betrayal, sacrifice, abandonment, vindication) which do center around the characters.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 28, 2017)

Nimue I was going to suggest something similar!

When creating that little Frodo scenario, I was trying to dig into his personal desires, how these interact with the living situation he currently has, and so forth, and trying to find disruptions and the ways other characters can be introduced to add friction/threat/help in those things.

Doing the same thing with a theme, elements of the world, an exterior threat/motivator, and so forth could be just the thing for deciding on the sorts of events, situations, and other characters that could be introduced to explore and navigate those things.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 28, 2017)

The thing is that I have no problem with the big picture. I know my throughline. I know what ideas and themes I want to play with. I know my character's arc. I need help outlining scene by scene and filling in the details. But even in that situation people generally go "well, what is it that your character desires in _this scene_?" Man, he just wants to escape the maze he's lost in. No, not a metaphorical maze of identity or whatever. He's in an actual maze. He needs to survive it. I need to come up with tons of obstacles for him to face but ultimately bring him out of it. And I need ideas for like, monsters and traps and crap. I mean, sure, I suppose some of the monsters or whatever might play into his thematic journey, but mostly I need plot events right now on the ground level.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 28, 2017)

In that sort of situation, I might ask how did this maze get here, who designed it and why, what was that designer like (more into creepy crawly inhabitants of the maze, or illusions, or vines; trap a person forever not letting him die or slowly transform him into one of the critters also; etc.) and so forth. This might help inspire the kinds of obstacles he'd encounter.

Now, this is kinda funny because  in this case I'm exploring an antagonist's deep, inner character, heh.

But it's kinda just an issue of worldbuilding. Why is the world as it is? This helps to define the MC's relationship to that world. What the MC wants may not be so much of an issue, but regardless of what he wants, the world is as it is and he must deal with it.

IF you have an end goal in mind, you know how the story will end, then some of these earlier obstacles can be foreshadowing for that end, also.


----------



## Nimue (Oct 28, 2017)

Hmm, at that granular level, it's tough to say.  I'm at that point myself as well, actually, where I'm going through and summarizing/outlining each scene. (The outline is at 12k midway through act 2, please send help.)  All I'm working with right now is a million hours of daydreaming and notes that I've built up, meaning there's generally something, ideas, seeds, dialogue snippets, but a lot of the specifics just get developed as I reach them.

For that specific problem, I'd just browse mythology and art and try to dream up some vivid images.  Hell, for monsters and traps maybe look at DnD.  I don't know that there is writing advice to fill in all the gaps, I guess.  If the question is "what do I put in this scene"....there are a million possibilities but it depends on the story you're telling and who you are as a writer.

Edit: Also, if you have a big blank space in your scene, I'd consider what else you're trying to do in the story besides get from plot beat A to plot beat B, even if it's not "further the character arc".  Is this also a place for worldbuilding?  Foreshadowing?  Is this a place to build tension towards a specific climactic thing?  The more story purposes woven into a scene, the more likely you'll get good, idea-generating interactions.  ...Or it's an indication that you need to skip or cut to something else, but this doesn't sound like the case, this sounds like a big setpiece you're struggling with.


----------



## Devor (Oct 28, 2017)

I'm going to put it like this. The _push_ in the direction of character-driven stories is usually good advice, but you have to take it from the starting line of the type of story you're writing in. If you're writing an action-packed, plot-driven thriller, or a massive world-changing fantasy epic, those character moments are still going to be vital in relating to your audience and experiencing the depth that your story has to offer...... but that doesn't mean you need to dump the thriller and the epic and can only write slice of life melodrama.

As with many such things, you have to ground it in your individual context, and can't just hear it - or say it - as though it's the end-all defining statement of the conversation.

Character-driven scenes and plots and moments are one of the many core writing skills, and improving your skill here will make you a better writer, hands down.  But you should write to your skills. If you're really bad at the character-stuff, then of course lean the bulk of your work on your other skills. And vice-versa. But still improve your skills here, and elsewhere.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 28, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> <snip> I need help outlining scene by scene and filling in the details. But even in that situation people generally go "well, what is it that your character desires in _this scene_?" Man, he just wants to escape the maze he's lost in.  <snip> And I need ideas for like, monsters and traps and crap. I mean, sure, I suppose some of the monsters or whatever might play into his thematic journey, but mostly I need plot events right now on the ground level.



Outlining what you describe seems pretty straightforward. You already know that getting out of the maze means left, left, right, third door, right, left and out. So you decide how many traps you'll drop in there, where the monster encounter is -- this is plain ol' dungeon design. If you have never been a DM, grab some old D&D adventure manuals to see how it's done.

No, you don't need to start such scene design with the character, but you might ask yourself this: why would I as a reader care if this guy gets out or not? To my mind, I'm not going to care what monsters are in your world, what the geology (dungeon) is like, or even who winds up ruling the world or if it's destroyed. I'm going to care about someone in that world. Preferrably several someones. And that does bring you back to character.

Down there in that dungeon/maze, there can still be an opportunity--not a necessity--for character revelation if not character development. How does the MC get through this maze? By clever reasoning? Brute force? Working with a team? Dumb luck? Succeeds in spite of himself? Each of these reveals something different, and they don't all go together. So again, the author is going to have to think a bit about the character or else wind up with an inconsistent character. We all hate the character who is clever when the plot needs clever, stupid when the plot needs stupid, and lucky when the author obviously couldn't think of anything better. 

Finally, ideas for monsters and traps? I refer again to the manuals. Not D&D only but all the other wonderful RPGs made in the 1980s and 1990s. Make some lists, then take those lists to the internet for even more variations.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 28, 2017)

To respond to the OP:  I tried. I really did.

When I came up with the idea for _Goblins at the Gates_ it was all concept--the goblin invasion of the Roman Empire, the point at which Altearth history diverged from Earth history. I had other stories I wanted to write, but this was sort of the origin story, which I based on the Battle of Adrianople in 378AD. That was it. I didn't even have characters. When I did, I simply grabbed real historical characters.

And began. Wrote some scenes. Then this odd thing happened. I had a specific scene and it had the future Emperor Theodosius there along with what became my exiled barbarian princess, and some others. At the table, down at one end, I had a notion about a younger fellow. Sarcastic, sophisticated, he could offer counterpoint to my principal, Theodosius. I quickly realized that in Julian I had a good foil--a standard way to write about a Great Man is from the perspective of an aide or subordinate or friend.

The more I wrote, the more interesting Julian was to me, and he grew into becoming the main character. Now, the plot was still paramount. I was constrained by history: a huge battle had to happen on 9 August, and Julian had to be there. He had to survive the disaster. He had to begin up in Dacia, north of the Danube River, then get his legion back across the river, so there logistical considerations. This was all very much plot-driven.

But, just as happened with the feast scene, with Theodosius and Julian, I kept finding that the plot scenes where things had to happen became more interesting the more involved I was with the characters present. And the more "real" my characters were to me, the more I felt compelled to write strong narrative, good dialog, vivid settings ... because they deserved my best efforts. A silly sort of notion, I agree, but there it is.

In short (hah!), all the story-telling elements are hopelessly intertwined. To give one precedence, either in approach or importance, is nonsense to me. It also means that my writing process is hopelessly intertwined. No matter which end of the stick I grab, I quickly wind up with a pile of twigs and me trying to strike a spark. A story does emerge, but the whole thing feels as mysterious as the first campfire.


----------



## Peat (Oct 28, 2017)

I think 99.9% of all writing advice that implies something is the only way is wrong, and that goes with anything saying the only way to write a story is to focus primarily on the emotions and desires of the characters.

That said, I think its hard to overstate the importance of character. Clearly not impossible, but hard. That's not just a personal thing but a reflection on all the reviews, all the complaints, all the reader comments about how "I couldn't read X because I hated Y" or "What Y did made no sense and ruined it". In fairness, that's partially because things like bad grammar and bad prose just doesn't make it to the pro market, but they're a very easy way to ruin a story or put people off quickly.

To echo Skip, story-telling elements get intertwined, but I think character gets the most easily intertwined. Your world building and plot don't have to meet all that much. But your world building will be observed to no small degree through who your characters and who they react. Your plot will only make sense as long as the characters have a reason to be there.

Can you write awesome fiction with flat characters? Yes, I believe Tom Clancy did. But then Tom Clancy said he never plotted, but simply had the characters do what would make most sense to them. Which just goes to show character driven fiction can be a very broad church. Its not all deep emotional feelings and soaring character arcs.

*shrugs* All things are possible, but I think there's a good reason people preach so loudly about character these days.


----------



## Rkcapps (Oct 28, 2017)

Mythopoet, I don't wish to inflame the discussion further but I thought you may find it useful to watch on YouTube, Brandon Sanderson's lecture on Story Structure (the box). Maybe that'll encourage you to not feel as isolated in your beliefs. I'd share it but I can't on my iPad. Google it. 

Brandon has character, plot and setting in a box and shows them interconnected. I can't find the particular video I watched but he writes 3 headings, one each of, character, plot, setting and under each heading writes what he needs to happen for characters to go from point a to point b. Really, the way this is set up you wouldn't need characters to drive the plot but you'd need the character to intersect with plot and setting. He does encourage interesting characters, but I don't recall him saying your book needs to be "character driven". If anything he encourages you to write the book you want and shows you the different tools you can choose to use or not use. 

I read many articles that propound character driven stuff and the the author of those articles may have a few books published but this guy has so many published books I've lost count, so if he's sharing what he knows on YouTube in his college lectures, I'm watching.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 29, 2017)

Hi,

I think part of the disconnect here is the idea of a character driven story. Look I'll start by saying first that all three elements - character, plot and world build are vital to any story and that to try and minimise any one of them is likely writing suicide. I'll also state that I agree completely with the view that there are no absolute rules in writing. The moment anyone says you must do this - they're pretty much wrong in my view.

The issue as I see it here is actually about how the character arc feeds into the plot. Is the story about the character achieving certain goals etc - eg wizard achieves ultimate next level power and defeats bad guy? Or is the story about something else and the character arc is tangential to it - eg wizard achieves next level power in the course of defeating ultimate bad guy? In both examples the story can be character driven, but only in the first case is the plot character driven.

Now to put these things in context, most detective fiction (I've heard!) is plot driven. The plot is everything as its what readers want - they want to know how it was done. And when you think about it, it has to be that because the genre loves sequels and more mysteries with the same characters and how can you have that if in every story the character is achieving uber life goals / understandings etc? You can't. In order to start the next story the character has to end up in nearly the same place as he began. James Bond, Poirot, Holmes always have to be who they were for next book to start.

But that doesn't mean the story can't still be character driven even if the plot isn't. And in fact it needs to have a lot of character stuff in it in my view. Because the character in many cases is what brings the story to life for the reader. What makes it important. It's the difference between a police report of an incident and a personal retelling. "Eg The woman got run over by a runaway steam roller" versus "My wife! She tried desperately to stop that monster. She really tried! And it ran her over! I saw it! It was awful. I heard her scream! And I tried to save her - but I couldn't! etc etc"

As to which is more important - I don't think any of them are. Some may be more relevant to different stories, but you risk creating a story that no one enjoys if you leave out too much of any one of them. It's like baking (again - so I've heard). You have a recipe for a delicious sponge cake - now leave out half the flour, half the eggs, or half the sugar and see what you get!

So my thought is don't leave any of them out.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ (Oct 29, 2017)

I think there are a couple of interesting observations that can be made on the topic from some of the responses posted on this thread.

The first thing that jumped out at me, with the exception of Heliotrope's discussion of the Jack Reacher novels, and Cussler etc is that many of the examples people gave of more plot driven work (Christie, Tolkien, Bond) are either old or film (as is the example of Indiana Jones).

So I think the initial observation that way more fiction being published today focusses on characters desires than ever before, and moves farther on the spectrum (if there is such a thing) towards character driven than in the past.  Many editors today will tell you they think Tolkien could not sell his work in today's market.  There is nothing wrong with coming to grips with that, it is not an insult to their work, it is just a reality, like it is in athletics.  

Standards change, and I think readers today are more demanding on the issue of character than in the past.  And I suggest that is a good thing.   Readers care about outcomes because they care about the characters and what the outcome means to them.  Good plot is also great, but the heart of fiction is about people.   

On a basic level all stories are about character desire, and so are scenes, and the obstacles that prevent them from obtaining those desires.  So  yes, character desire is critical from page one.

And I might suggest psychotick is also a little behind the curve on detective stories in today's publishing.  Editors in that field for at least a decade, probably longer, have told people many times they are no longer looking for "who dun nits" but now are looking for "why dun nits" which focus more on the character of the protagonist and the antagonist than they have in the past.  This is particularly true in the thriving British detective lit scene with the great successes of say D.I. Grace and D.I. Banks.  Or if you want to look at in on the small screen say..."Luther".

Right now character is considered a more important component of good fiction than it used to be.


----------



## Russ (Oct 29, 2017)

There was one other point I wanted to make and forgot and now I can't edit the post.

There is another reason that character desire and a deeper exploration is important to good fiction. 

At some point the actions of the protagonist have to drive the plot, a plot where the protagonist is purely reactive is a very poor idea.  The actions of the character have to come from their desire and who they are.  The solution to the book's problems should be unique to the character and their personality.     To do that you need to understand and illuminate your character's personality and particularly desires.  Without desires and a personality how can the protagonist ever be truly proactive?

If your fascinating quest to gather the 13 elements of Zambatla and assemble them to defeat the really cool enemy in your totally fascinating world could be carried out by just anyone, this falls into a category of stories that many editors, critiques and academics now refer to as "chasing plot coupons".   And it won't take  you, or your reader, very far.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2017)

I just wanted to add that though I've argued that one does not necessarily _need _a strong/deep inner character goal, I am in the camp of others that say that you _should. 
_
I think that it comes down to your own, personal goal. Are you just wanting to write old fashioned style pulp fantasy for a small indie audience and self pub? Then I don't see why it really matters. Write what you want to write. 

But, I agree with others here (especially Russ' points) that if you are hoping to break into todays market with an agent then I would _strongly encourage _a more character driven focus.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2017)

Russ said:


> If your fascinating quest to gather the 13 elements of Zambatla and assemble them to defeat the really cool enemy in your totally fascinating world could be carried out by just anyone, this falls into a category of stories that many editors, critiques and academics now refer to as "chasing plot coupons".   And it won't take  you, or your reader, very far.



Or, as I've also heard it put: If the MC died, would someone else be able to pick up and finish the quest with the same outcome? If the answer is yes then why should the reader care about the MC?


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Oct 29, 2017)

^That's an intriguing way of putting it. Would it apply to Lord of the Rings, though? [Though debating about what might have happened doesn't help much...]


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2017)

Oddly enough that is a debate that comes up a lot in my house lol. My husband hates LOTR (he only saw the movies) and one of his biggest criticisms is that Frodo could have died and anyone else could have taken the ring. "Why didn't Gandalf do it?" He always asks. "It's so stupid." He also hates how the eagles came to save Sam and Frodo at the end. "Why didn't they just fly to Mordor in the first place?" He asks. He thinks it's a pretty lame Deux ex machina ending.

I do think that Tolkien really tried to make Frodo appear to be the only one who could do it. He goes into great depths explaining his lineage and how the Took family (or is it the Baggins family? I can't remember) was a bit outcasted from the shire, not just because of Bilbo but because they always did have a taste for adventure. He also makes it clear that neither man, elf, or dwarf could do it because they would be too easily corrupted. Istari, like Gandolf are the same. We know that the eye of Sauron is watching, so using a little tiny non-descript messenger is the best bet. Better than an obvious warrior...

At any rate, I do think Tolkien tries. I also do think that Frodo _does _have a deep inner goal that often gets over looked. That goal, in my opinion, is _not to change. _He wants things to stay the same as they always were. He wants to be who he always was. He promises Sam that he won't change. But in the end that is obviously impossible and he can't possibly go back to live in the shire, so he goes with the elves on the ship. It is a deep, personal journey for Frodo, not simply a "Get the Macguffin, save the world, go home" sort of plot driven story.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 30, 2017)

Hi Helio,

I agree with your husband about the eagles - but there is an explanation put in the books about how the eagles couldn't have flown to Mount Doom before because the ring wraiths would have torn them apart. It feels a bit contrived to me.

But the more pertinent bit I think is about the plot. LOTR is highly plot driven and theme driven as opposed to character driven - at least the characters do not drive the main plot. That's purely get the ring into the volcano and as your husband said anyone could have done it save for the restrictions placed on them by the author. The characters do however drive the sub plots - Frodo's desperate effort to save his home, Samwise's unflinching loyalty to his friend, Aragorn and Arwen's nearly doomed love etc etc.

The key thing though is that while the characters do not drive the central plot, the plot drives the characters. LOTR is not a story about trying to hurl a ring into a volcano. It's a story about how that desperate quest impacts upon the characters. That's what makes it so compelling - at least in my view.

And Russ, you may well be right about the detectives. I don't read a lot of the genre and what I do read is likely older.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Oddly enough that is a debate that comes up a lot in my house lol. My husband hates LOTR (he only saw the movies) and one of his biggest criticisms is that Frodo could have died and anyone else could have taken the ring. "Why didn't Gandalf do it?" He always asks. "It's so stupid." He also hates how the eagles came to save Sam and Frodo at the end. "Why didn't they just fly to Mordor in the first place?" He asks. He thinks it's a pretty lame Deux ex machina ending.
> 
> I do think that Tolkien really tried to make Frodo appear to be the only one who could do it. He goes into great depths explaining his lineage and how the Took family (or is it the Baggins family? I can't remember) was a bit outcasted from the shire, not just because of Bilbo but because they always did have a taste for adventure. He also makes it clear that neither man, elf, or dwarf could do it because they would be too easily corrupted. Istari, like Gandolf are the same. We know that the eye of Sauron is watching, so using a little tiny non-descript messenger is the best bet. Better than an obvious warrior...
> 
> At any rate, I do think Tolkien tries. I also do think that Frodo _does _have a deep inner goal that often gets over looked. That goal, in my opinion, is _not to change. _He wants things to stay the same as they always were. He wants to be who he always was. He promises Sam that he won't change. But in the end that is obviously impossible and he can't possibly go back to live in the shire, so he goes with the elves on the ship. It is a deep, personal journey for Frodo, not simply a "Get the Macguffin, save the world, go home" sort of plot driven story.



But it's so simple. Gandalf couldn't carry the Ring at all without turning into the Dark Lord himself. This is explicit in the books. Same for Galadriel or any powerful Elf or Man. And the whole point of the quest was that it had to be secret. They had to get the Ring to Mount Doom without being seen by Sauron. How exactly do you secretly fly a giant eagle through Mordor? The Eagles could only fly there with Gandalf at the end because Sauron's power had just been destroyed. Sauron isn't a helpless giant eye stuck on the top of Barad Dur, the way the movie makes it seem. He doesn't have the use of all of his power, but he's still a very powerful sorcerer and one that, for instance, neither Gandalf or Saruman would have dared face. Secrecy was their only hope. It's all spelled out in the books.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2017)

I totally agree with Heliotrope's analysis of Frodo not wanting change.  And I should take this moment to  point out that Moorcock's controversial essay about Tolkien (Epic Pooh) adopts the same thesis.

I love LOTR, it entertained and amazed me as a child, inspired me as a teenager and young man, and still calls me back as an adult.  But now as an adult I read it differently.  I read it now as not only a great exercise in world building and cultural creation, but also a social commentary.   I read the work as glorifying the common man, represented by the hobbits, and traditional British virtues of work and stoicism.   The hobbits to me are what many called called the "nation of shopkeepers", the quiet enduring men and women who just kept doing their callings under the most horrific circumstances including WWII.   They are to be contrasted with the Imperial adventurers who lived totally different lives with a different worldview.  To me, through the hobbits, Tolkien is sending a social message about the British common man of his era, and a rather positive one.

I think Frodo and Sam and others certainly had some motivations and depth as characters, but not what is expected in works today.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

psychotick said:


> But the more pertinent bit I think is about the plot. LOTR is highly plot driven and theme driven as opposed to character driven - at least the characters do not drive the main plot.



I strongly disagree that LOTR is highly plot and theme driven. I think LOTR is one of the finest examples of a work where all 4 pillars of storytelling are well balanced. There is an abundance of brilliant characterization for those who are willing to see it, as well as the most wonderful fantasy setting ever conceived, a plot full of drama and heroics and themes that will resonate with humanity for all of eternity. But perhaps you could say that of the 4 story elements, it is the plot and the setting that comes most easily to the reader no matter how they approach it. The characterization and themes you have to work your brain a bit for. Which, in my opinion, is no bad thing.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

To be honest, it's getting very annoying that people keep coming into this thread and think that I am advocating for a LACK of characterization in favor of more plot-driven stories. 

For the last time, I DO NOT WANT A LACK OF CHARACTERIZATION AND NOR AM I INTERESTING IN WRITING PLOT DRIVEN STORIES. WHAT I DESIRE IS MORE BALANCE BETWEEN THE 4 PILLARS OF STORYTELLING. STORIES WHERE CHARACTERS, PLOT, SETTING, AND IDEAS/THEMES ARE ROUGHLY EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE. THAT MEANS GREAT CHARACTERS, GREAT PLOT, GREAT SETTING AND GREAT THEMES. NONE SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER. 

Is it clear now?


----------



## FifthView (Oct 30, 2017)

There does seem to be different interpretations of what "character-driven" means. I'm not sure an actual, definitive definition exists, heh, but maybe there is a common use definition. Or two.

On the one hand, great characterization serves as a kind a draw for the reader. Let's call the character a keyhole through which the plot, world, and story in general are experienced; _and_, the significance of those is experienced by the reader through that character's experience of those things. That might make a given book seem "character-driven."

I have a related example, already used, of Poirot. When I first started watching the series, I just didn't like Poirot. I watched two or three episodes, trying to give the show a chance on the basis of the reputation of that series of mysteries. But then I stopped. I'd been watching other series with detectives I liked, and Poirot seemed ridiculously arrogant in comparison. Couldn't stand him. Then, I came back to the show about a year later to give it another try. This time, for whatever reason, his character didn't irritate me as much. As I watched episode after episode, I began to like his character. Heh. I grew to enjoy watching _his_ style of solving crimes, and I began to see more hints of his inner nature—something deeper about his questing than merely reaffirming his intelligence and bragging about his "little grey cells." (Brain cells.)

Perhaps the first time around he was just weird in comparison to other lead characters in murder mysteries, and I couldn't see that other stuff because I only saw the arrogance.

This experience exemplifies what I mean by this first interpretation of "character-driven." The mysteries in the Poirot series are not greatly different than the mysteries of other murder mystery shows. If I, FifthView, were drawn by plot much more than by character, then the first time around I would have stuck with the show instead of shelving it for a year or more.

The second definition of "character-driven" is the one I use.  In this definition, the plot forms, develops, and resolves as a result of the character's very personal inner drives, desires, goals. That might not be the perfect description of what I mean. But for me, in this type of story, all that other stuff is almost like a keyhole through which we view the character, explore the character, rather than the other way around.

I think that obviously some stories can be far more balanced, so that the question of what is driving what becomes almost moot. The character is the keyhole through which we view the larger events, and the larger events are a keyhole for viewing the character. Personal, intimate themes and meaningful character arcs exist side-by-side with the larger, world-relevant and/or society-relevant themes and arcs.

However, I think the second definition of "character-driven" is more useful than the first, because for me the question isn't what "drives" the reader but what "drives" the plotting and story. Poirot might be the vehicle through which I, the viewer, experience the events of the plot, but that doesn't mean he's driving the plot for me, his passenger heh; or, even if he is, according to that first definition—that could be said of almost _all_ main characters in every book, rendering the issue of "character-driven or not?" moot. Plus, it seems to me that a straw man argument is being set up in which we devolve to arguing whether only two choices exist, empty shells called characters or vibrant, interesting characterization.


----------



## Devor (Oct 30, 2017)

For what it's worth, I definitely agree that people ignore plotting and theme way too much. A plot can be character-driven without being spontaneous "wherever the character leads me" without concern for a coherent plot.*  And being character-driven without some kind of focus on theme?  That's an oxymoron, in my view.

However, I disagree with the traditional 4 pillars.  I think storytelling has more like seven pillars:

Character - Conflict - Setting - Theme - Creativity - Structure - Voice

If you ask me, writers who ignore any of these elements do so at their own peril.

*The quote is for the sake of the point, not to imply that those of you who say that necessarily ignore plot, although it's a risk you need to look out for.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2017)

Devor said:


> For what it's worth, I definitely agree that people ignore plotting and theme way too much. *A plot can be character-driven without being spontaneous "wherever the character leads me" without concern for a coherent plot.**  And being character-driven without some kind of focus on theme?  That's an oxymoron, in my view.
> 
> .



The bolded part is an interesting point.

I would think though that a well developed character following their desires should lead to a coherent plot, unless the character is undeveloped or irrational in some way.   That strikes me as being at the core of organic character based writing.


----------



## Devor (Oct 30, 2017)

Russ said:


> The bolded part is an interesting point.
> 
> I would think though that a well developed character following their desires should lead to a coherent plot, unless the character is undeveloped or irrational in some way.   That strikes me as being at the core of organic character based writing.



No . . . . a good plot involves the careful intertwining of many different characters. Having them follow their own organic path could very well lead them to walk away from each other.  You've got to keep your plot in mind, and that often means finding ways to use the conflict to push your characters back to where you need them in the story.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

Devor said:


> For what it's worth, I definitely agree that people ignore plotting and theme way too much. A plot can be character-driven without being spontaneous "wherever the character leads me" without concern for a coherent plot.*  And being character-driven without some kind of focus on theme?  That's an oxymoron, in my view.
> 
> However, I disagree with the traditional 4 pillars.  I think storytelling has more like seven pillars:
> 
> ...



I see what you mean about 7 pillars, but I disagree. Conflict is not a necessary ingredient to story. It might be something that should be used for the vast majority of stories to various extents (the way most recipes call for at least some salt, even if you are making something sweet) but not necessary. I realize most people disagree with me here. But most people are not able to see beyond what they personally enjoy or what the current mainstream idea of story to what the most basic nature of story really is. Depending on how you define character, I think it could even be argued that character isn't even technically necessary (though obviously any storyteller but a real genius would be a fool to not use character). Plot is, I believe, ultimately more fundamental than any other aspect of story. Something has to *happen*, or it's not a story. (But AGAIN that doesn't mean I don't personally consider characterization EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because I DO.)

And for the record, I am attempting to look at story from a timeless point of view. What defines story as it has been experienced by humanity since we first evolved to today and until the day the last of us perishes. Trends are temporary. People in the 19th century had very different ideas of what was an entertaining story from what we do today and it will change again in another hundred years. Most of what we love as stories today will be totally forgotten. But not all. What are the stories that will survive? Those are the stories we should look at when considering the true nature of story.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2017)

Devor said:


> No . . . . a good plot involves the careful intertwining of many different characters. Having them follow their own organic path could very well lead them to walk away from each other.  You've got to keep your plot in mind, and that often means finding ways to use the conflict to push your characters back to where you need them in the story.



I think that theory works as long as the pushing of the characters does not drive them to act in a way that is inconsistent with their personalities and motivations.   I think what it speaks to the need to make sure that the plot and the characters are compatible with each other, further demonstrating a tight entanglement between the two concepts.  Which is decided first is really a matter of personal taste, but the two must work together to produce a harmonious and effective whole.

And the conflict should arise from the desires of the characters being aligned, opposed or at cross purpose should it not?

The other great thing about being a writer is that you can write in any order you want.  So if the character goes off on a tangent that you think better suits their motivations and enhances the story, you can simply go back and change your plot to accommodate what you think is new or better.   Or if you don't think the tangent serves the story better you can change their motivation to make sure it doesn't happen.   I am definitely not in the "characters are living things with a mind of their own school" but I do think sometimes as you get to know the characters better their personalities can feed your imagination and help you write better plot that you did not originally envision.

As an aside, I was at a writers conference listening to a friend of mine on a panel last year and an audience member asked him what he did when characters do things that don't fit into his story the way he would like.   His response was:

"They get one digression.  On the second one I kill them because I write to a deadline."


----------



## Devor (Oct 30, 2017)

Russ said:


> I think that theory works as long as the pushing of the characters does not drive them to act in a way that is inconsistent with their personalities and motivations.   I think what it speaks to the need to make sure that the plot and the characters are compatible with each other, further demonstrating a tight entanglement between the two concepts.  Which is decided first is really a matter of personal taste, but the two must work together to produce a harmonious and effective whole.



Sure, that's the risk you take with plotting, just like a bad plot is the risk you run with character-driven stories.

I just binge-watched Stranger things, so I'm going to use that as an example, and hopefully you've seen it already and can make sense of this, and if not, hopefully I still make enough sense.

But in Stranger Things 2, Dustin finds a polliwog and makes a decision about what to do with it that drives the plot.

If one of the other characters had been in Dustin's place, they would've made a different choice that may not have had the same impact - they even say so. So in this situation, the conflict (i.e., the discovery of the polliwog) pushes the character into the plot, even though it's the character's unique choices driving things forward. It's all about the interplay of the two.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I see what you mean about 7 pillars, but I disagree. Conflict is not a necessary ingredient to story. It might be something that should be used for the vast majority of stories to various extents (the way most recipes call for at least some salt, even if you are making something sweet) but not necessary. I realize most people disagree with me here. But most people are not able to see beyond what they personally enjoy or what the current mainstream idea of story to what the most basic nature of story really is. Depending on how you define character, I think it could even be argued that character isn't even technically necessary (though obviously any storyteller but a real genius would be a fool to not use character). Plot is, I believe, ultimately more fundamental than any other aspect of story. Something has to *happen*, or it's not a story. (But AGAIN that doesn't mean I don't personally consider characterization EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because I DO.)
> 
> And for the record, I am attempting to look at story from a timeless point of view. What defines story as it has been experienced by humanity since we first evolved to today and until the day the last of us perishes. Trends are temporary. People in the 19th century had very different ideas of what was an entertaining story from what we do today and it will change again in another hundred years. Most of what we love as stories today will be totally forgotten. But not all. What are the stories that will survive? Those are the stories we should look at when considering the true nature of story.



I think you are starting to talk circles around yourself here.

There is no doubt something has to  *happen* for a story to take place.  But it also has to happen to *someone* to have any meaning or importance.  And sure, in the driest technical sense conflict is not necessary for a story.   But it is a necessary element for any half decent story worth talking about.  

Sure, technically, a rock rolling down a hill without anyone there to see it is a story, but it is a damned boring story.   Now throw in a pregnant woman at the bottom of the hill who we can care about coming and it might be interesting.

Stories without conflict or a focus on character really belong in the realm of science or maybe history, but in the field of storytelling to entertain, educate or inspire an audience.  

It is the human aspect of story that moves tories towards that "timeless" point of view that you seem to  think many of us "are not able to see", when in fact we are perfectly capable of doing so, perhaps even better than you are.   I would argue that it is the essential humanity of the characters or themes that can transcend their era to make a story relevant to later eras.   The Odyssey is not a classic about a guy on a boat who kills people hitting on his wife and has some cool adventures, it is a classic because of what it says about humanity, and themes like revenge and love and overcoming.  I would ague that plot is the least important aspect of the transcendent story that apparently you think worthy of discussion. 

While trends may pass, story and our ability to tell it evolves.  It improves and progresses.   Some forms become completely extinct, and often for good reason.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

Russ said:


> I think you are starting to talk circles around yourself here.
> 
> There is no doubt something has to  *happen* for a story to take place.  But it also has to happen to *someone* to have any meaning or importance.  And sure, in the driest technical sense conflict is not necessary for a story.   But it is a necessary element for any half decent story worth talking about.



I don't think so. And you might notice that I said "depending on how you define character" and I also said that only a real genius would be able to make a story that doesn't utilize character. As conflict goes, it also depends on how you define conflict. If you get really general you might say it's any entity in opposition to another entity. But I think there has to be some type of opposition to count as conflict. Forces pushing or pulling against each other. And yes, I do think you can write a story without that. It might not be a story that entertains many people these days but it would be a story. Yes, I AM being technical. No, I'm not advocating this stuff for the average writer or book. I'm NOT EVEN SAYING I WANT TO WRITE WITHOUT CHARACTER OR CONFLICT. (My stories have a heck of a lot of character and conflict.) I was thinking about the very foundation of story itself which I believe can be very educational for understanding how people relate to story today.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I don't think so. And you might notice that I said "depending on how you define character" and I also said that only a real genius would be able to make a story that doesn't utilize character. As conflict goes, it also depends on how you define conflict. If you get really general you might say it's any entity in opposition to another entity. But I think there has to be some type of opposition to count as conflict. Forces pushing or pulling against each other. And yes, I do think you can write a story without that. It might not be a story that entertains many people *these days* but it would be a story. Yes, I AM being technical. No, I'm not advocating this stuff for the average writer or book. I'm NOT EVEN SAYING I WANT TO WRITE WITHOUT CHARACTER OR CONFLICT. (My stories have a heck of a lot of character and conflict.) I was thinking about the very foundation of story itself which I believe can be very educational for understanding how people relate to story today.



I never thought what you wanted to write was part of this discussion at all.

But just so I am clear, I don't think a story that lacked conflict has ever been part of the great story telling tradition, not "these days"or any days. 

By the by, in many corners, the use of caps is considered shouting or rude.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

Russ said:


> I never thought what you wanted to write was part of this discussion at all.
> 
> But just so I am clear, I don't think a story that lacked conflict has ever been part of the great story telling tradition, not "these days"or any days.
> 
> By the by, in many corners, the use of caps is considered shouting or rude.



Oh dear. I certainly wouldn't want you to think me rude. 

My apologies for thinking that a post in a thread I made about what I think about writing might have something to do with me. 

I'll go back to my personal policy of never addressing you on this website, because it's always, at best, a waste of my time.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> My apologies for thinking that a post in a thread I made about what I think about writing might have something to do with me.
> 
> I'll go back to my personal policy of never addressing you on this website, because it's always, at best, a waste of my time.



No apology required.  The reason I wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that we were discussing your writing in particular was to avoid you taking my disagreement with your position on transcendent writing for the ages personally.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 30, 2017)

Devor said:


> Sure, that's the risk you take with plotting, just like a bad plot is the risk you run with character-driven stories.
> 
> I just binge-watched Stranger things, so I'm going to use that as an example, and hopefully you've seen it already and can make sense of this, and if not, hopefully I still make enough sense.
> 
> ...



I love this example.

I'm not sure how much his decision drives the plot as a whole, although it does have an effect on 



Spoiler: Just-in-case-spoiler



assembling the party later and, as a further consequence, in giving said party an idea that will prove very useful later. Plus, something very near the end of the season is possible because of Dustin's choice.


 So it does affect the _unfolding_ of the plot. I'll not quibble on what is meant by "drive," because I think the example is great regardless.

I'd say that it's the rare story in which character actions have no downstream effect, however, heh. A character just sits in a chair the whole story, doing nothing; or, a character does things and this has _some_ effect, at least. And in all stories, characters are moving about. Horror might be a great example, because in some types of horror the characters are rather reactive; a part of what makes horror horror is this inability of the characters to alter what's coming, heh. Nonetheless, choosing to go search the basement alone with nothing but a flashlight is likely to have some effect on what happens in the story.

Your example brings to mind another way that disregarding plot, having everything character-driven, can introduce problems for the story. The polliwog was relevant to the plot. It was the plot forcing Dustin back into the plot; his decision was forced by the plot. But for a negative example of the character-driven impulse, we might look at the sort of Mary Sue stories in which obstacle after obstacle is introduced for no other reason than to show how the Mary Sue is strong, clever, or whatever. Or, in other stories perhaps, how loyalty between two characters is rock-solid; or, the reverse, i.e. how they hate each other.

Those random encounters, random obstacles, can work occasionally, briefly, if something else is achieved, like building theme, the world, or even for developing a reader's understanding and sympathy with a character. But too much of that can grow very tedious.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> Conflict is not a necessary ingredient to story. It might be something that should be used for the vast majority of stories to various extents (the way most recipes call for at least some salt, even if you are making something sweet) but not necessary. I realize most people disagree with me here. But most people are not able to see beyond what they personally enjoy or what the current mainstream idea of story to what the most basic nature of story really is. Depending on how you define character, I think it could even be argued that character isn't even technically necessary (though obviously any storyteller but a real genius would be a fool to not use character). Plot is, I believe, ultimately more fundamental than any other aspect of story. Something has to *happen*, or it's not a story. (But AGAIN that doesn't mean I don't personally consider characterization EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because I DO.)
> .



Ummmmmm. how do you have plot without character or conflict? Plot _is a collision of _conflict and character.

"Guy buys ice cream." is not a story. "Guy goes to buy ice cream but they are out of his favourite flavour" _is _a story.

That is, and always has been, in every possible culture and every possible language the most basic nature of what story really is.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Ummmmmm. how do you have plot without character or conflict? Plot _is a collision of _conflict and character.
> 
> "Guy buys ice cream." is not a story. "Guy goes to buy ice cream but they are out of his favourite flavour" _is _a story.
> 
> That is, and always has been, in every possible culture and every possible language the most basic nature of what story really is.



No. Neither of those are a story. And no. At it's most basic, plot is merely a series of events. Who or what are involved in the series of events and whether or not there is a conflict is another matter. You're letting your personal feelings about story get in the way again.

Honestly, I keep say that I'm talking about story at it's MOST BASIC but people aren't paying attention. I'm looking at the subject of story from its foundations and working my way up from there, adding the things that I personally think make a story enjoyable. You are working from what you personally consider to be an enjoyable story and assuming that is what is necessary. Sorry, it isn't. Just because you can't imagine an enjoyable story without certain things that you like doesn't make it impossible.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

Also, I don't know, it seems like everyone here considers "necessary" to be equal to "desirable". Which I think is pretty problematic. (Or perhaps I just approach everything from too much of a philosophical stand point?) 

Everyone here seems pretty gung ho on the "characters with desires are what drive good stories" bandwagon. I guess I'll just go back to silently disagreeing and writing the way I want to anyway. Personally, I'm sick of books focused on characters achieving their personal desires. 

It's no secret that I'm a huge Tolkien fanatic. One of the best things about his stories, imo, is that neither Bilbo or Frodo really have personal desires and that's what makes them so heroic. They are worthy and able to carry the Ring because there's nothing the Ring can really tempt them with. They both just love their home so much. They don't do what they do for themselves and they never ask anything for themselves. Frodo in particular knows that even if he saves the Shire, it isn't really for him anymore. That's why they get as far as they do. It's why they are the instruments that are meant to carry the Ring to destruction. That's why they deserve admiration.

Nowadays, most "heroes" in fantasy fiction are people who say "screw the world, I do what I want". Even if they save the world and other people, they usually do it not by sacrifice but by doing their own thing, elevating themselves above others as the ones who get to decide the future. I can't admire that. I can't admire heroes who drive the story to achieve their own personal goals. I guess that's what it all comes down to. 

People give advice to think about what your character's personal desires are and I just hate that. I hate it all being about a character's personal desires. It's not that they don't have anything to do with the story, but to me they certainly don't decide where the story goes. I do that. It's MY story. 

And it just seems like I'm the only one who wants to own their own story anymore instead of giving it over into the hands of my characters and what they selfishly want.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> No. Neither of those are a story. And no. At it's most basic, plot is merely a series of events. Who or what are involved in the series of events and whether or not there is a conflict is another matter. You're letting your personal feelings about story get in the way again.
> 
> Honestly, I keep say that I'm talking about story at it's MOST BASIC but people aren't paying attention. I'm looking at the subject of story from its foundations and working my way up from there, adding the things that I personally think make a story enjoyable. You are working from what you personally consider to be an enjoyable story and assuming that is what is necessary. Sorry, it isn't. Just because you can't imagine an enjoyable story without certain things that you like doesn't make it impossible.



No. I'm not. I'm drawing from six years studying literature in a variety of languages from a variety of time frames, then another ten years teaching it.

We are paying attention. You are the one who isn't listening because you want to "add things you _personally think _makes a story enjoyable." Your words. Not mine.

At its very basic core a story is a character and a conflict. Either a choice, or an obstacle. The "but". If you submitted a "story" of a guy walking to a store to buy ice cream, buying the ice cream, and eating it.... so a _series of events _(again, your words, not mine) 100% of the time the manuscript will be returned to you with the words "NO STORY." Or "NO PLOT".

In order for it to be a story there _has _to be conflict. You rewrite the story. The guy goes to the store, he is going to buy mint chocolate chip. Oh no! They don't have it! What is he going to do? Is he going to get strawberry? He hates strawberry. Is he going to get chocolate? No he had chocolate yesterday. He calls the manufacturer. They give him the number of the distributor. They give him the number of the delivery guy, who tells him he delivered an order of mint chocolate chip to a store across town. Success! He buys the ice cream.

It is maybe not a very good story, but it is still as story.

Now... why isn't it a very good story?

This is where it get's interesting.

Because there is no deep inner character goal or stakes. It is not "character driven."

So we will change it again.

Boy goes to get ice cream. He wants mint chocolate chip because his girlfriend just dumped him and he wants to wallow in self pity for a while and mint chocolate was her favourite type. He goes to the store. They are out of mint chocolate chip. There is a girl there. She wanted Strawberry, but they are out of that too. She looks sad. He hates that she looks as shitty as he does and he wants to help her. He thinks if he helps her it would be a bit like helping himself. He has a purpose now. A goal. Something he hasn't felt in some time.

He calls the manufacturer, who gives him the name of the distributer, who gives them the name of the delivery service. An order of mint chocolate chip was delivered to a store across town. A delivery of strawberry was sent to a different store in another direction.

What does he choose? Hmmmmmmm. Tough one.

He chooses to help the girl.

Together they sit in the sunshine and share the strawberry ice cream. He finds he really likes strawberry....

Better.

At its very basic level a story MUST have character and conflict. To make a great story it must have deep, personal inner and outer stakes.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2017)

Ok thanks. We'll just disagree. As usual, it was a mistake to start a thread about my personal views of story.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 30, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> Ok thanks. We'll just disagree. As usual, it was a mistake to start a thread about my personal views of story.



It's fine to talk about one's personal views of story. Just don't be surprised when others disagree. Adamantly. People have strong ideas about what constitutes good story. That's why there are genres--because there are always people who think *this* is wonderful but *that* is rubbish.

For myself, I am fascinated by what fascinates others. I find it both instructive and salutary for me to try to understand the other points of view, even if I conclude that, at the end of the day, it's still rubbish.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 30, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Now... why isn't it a very good story?
> 
> This is where it get's interesting.
> 
> ...



At the risk of spiraling back to the beginning and reinaugurating all that has gone before, I don't think that final sentence is true on the "inner" aspect.

The trip to the ice cream parlor and the events that ensue can be used to spotlight something other than this character's deeply personal journey. During the conversation in this thread, I've been thinking about how all this ties into the MICE quotient. Some stories are primarily about a milieu or idea, and these can be explored in interesting ways without also making sure the character is on an end-all, be-all personal quest with powerful personal stakes.

How that would be done in an engaging way...I only have some vague ideas, because I've not tried doing it.

Let's say this character goes to the parlor, they are out of the flavor of ice cream he wants, but as the character is feeling downcast and looking downcast, some other customer says, "Hey bub, I know a place where you can get some mint chocolate, but it's like no other mint chocolate you've ever had. It's better than any mint chocolate you've ever had, believe you me." That customer hands the kid a card with his name and number and an address and tells the kid to come over in about an hour. The kid does, the location is an odd looking place, and—well, to make a long story short, that customer was an alien, takes him on a wild journey around the universe, and the story is about these odd and interesting things that happen to the kid. Maybe the story could even be about some weird idea or theme also: The whole universe is "a tub of mint chocolate," metaphorically. Or whatever. But even though the kid complains throughout, asking when he's going to get the mint chocolate, he's also often distracted by the crazy things that he sees and all that happens, and we can call these interesting events little "side plots" in this exploration of the milieu and/or idea. The kid doesn't even need to change much, throughout (although I think he might, a little, as his mind is slowly blown; but the story doesn't need to be _about_ blowing his mind.)

I think something like that could make a great story.

My only problem is that I doubt I could write it, heh. I don't know if this is simply because it's not the sort of thing I normally would want to write, or if I don't have the chops to do it well.

Basically, I think that a reader's interest could be highly engaged through the environment and ideas and events. True, an interesting character, or at least a non-irritating character, would be necessary also. I suspect that the story outlined above would also be helped by a lot of humor. But I have a kind of natural reaction against the idea that the _only_ way to make a reader care about a story is to put the main character through a deeply psychological wringer—or, that the reader will only care about the milieu, ideas and events if the character has a very deep stake in what is happening.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2017)

Yeah, so a bit like Hitchhiker's Guide, which was basically a string of subplots all tied up under one theme, with no real deep or personal inner goal or conflict. 

I think yes, which is why my original post was "Yes, this can be done, and has been done many times and is still being done today (Jack Reacher etc)." 

My reaction was to the "A story doesn't have to have character or conflict to be a story," which is, IMPO, a bit of a strange statement to say the least.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 30, 2017)

A story doesn't have to have character or conflict to be a story.
The race is not always to the swift, nor victory to the strong.
But that's the way to bet.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 30, 2017)

Mythopoet,

I think it's perfectly fine to prefer less character driven stories. You don't need anyone's permission to write or read as you wish. Far as writing advice goes, I think the reason for that is quite simple: readers connect better with characters than any other part of a story. This has been something I've learned more and more over the course of time in talking to readers and other writers. Not all--but many--readers place themselves in the hero's shoes. They are that character throughout the duration of the book and this is perhaps why most writing advice is skewed in this direction.

However, if you prefer to write something that's not character driven that's fine, too. I happen to think there's an audience for every story type for the most part. But what it really comes down to is the story YOU want to write. Who cares what anyone else thinks? Write what YOU want. Simple.

Now, if you want to market that story then it's helpful knowing where that story will fit in. But you didn't make a mention of that in your OP post so I won't go there. A story can be well written and balanced depending on what your point with it is...if you get my drift. I prefer character driven stories because it's what I love to read. This is one of the reasons why I don't plot--because my characters often lead the show within parameters. 

But character driven, I believe, has more to do with today's market than anything else.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 30, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Interesting character does not mean character driven. Either way, I think character driven and plot driven are overblown, The main thing in genre fiction is that the story must be driven, it doesn’t matter what’s behind the wheel so long as the motor’s started and the gas pedal is down... and take off the parking break... well, you get the idea, heh heh.


I agree with this.

Mystery: totally plot driven.
Romance: totally character driven.
Fantasy: EITHER


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Oct 30, 2017)

What about Agatha Christie? Aren't her books sort of a balance of plot and character?


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 30, 2017)

>readers connect better with characters than any other part of a story.

Yes and no. I can remember vividly  _Childhood's End_, for example, but I cannot recollect any of the characters. The same goes for a great many SF short stories, where the concept was more important than the players. I think that is peculiar to SF. Even with mysteries, characters matter, though they don't run very deep. Once I got Miss Marple or Poirot, that's all there was to them, and the other characters were hardly more than walk-ons. At the same time, Easy Rawlins is vivid in my memory, and Walter Moseley absolutely did develop the character, along with Mouse and others. If anything, the characters and the setting stand out even above the story. Bosch is another one that qualifies there.

I think I'll just say there are different kinds of stories and different kinds of readers. I really don't think it's any more profound than that.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 30, 2017)

Agatha wrote some seriously deep characters. Even the ones from book to book were deep with varying degrees of motivation being where they were from time to time. Just my 2 cents (and I've read every single book she's ever written except for Murder on the Orient Express and her plays...so I've read her a ton).


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Oct 30, 2017)

Generalizing is surprisingly hard and easy to do.


----------



## Russ (Oct 31, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> >readers connect better with characters than any other part of a story.
> 
> Yes and no. I can remember vividly  _Childhood's End_, for example, but I cannot recollect any of the characters. The same goes for a great many SF short stories, where the concept was more important than the players. I think that is peculiar to SF. Even with mysteries, characters matter, though they don't run very deep. Once I got Miss Marple or Poirot, that's all there was to them, and the other characters were hardly more than walk-ons. At the same time, Easy Rawlins is vivid in my memory, and Walter Moseley absolutely did develop the character, along with Mouse and others. If anything, the characters and the setting stand out even above the story. Bosch is another one that qualifies there.
> 
> I think I'll just say there are different kinds of stories and different kinds of readers. I really don't think it's any more profound than that.



Bonus points for talking about Moseley.  That guy is simply awesome.

And while it is true there are different stories and different types of readers, the argument leads to a tad of intellectual nihilism or "exception" syndrome.  

Childhood's End, a magnificent work, was written in the early 50's.   Very early in the development of modern SF, and well before even the start of the New Wave.  A modern author even in SF would have very different expectations put on them even with that same premise or theme.


----------



## Ban (Oct 31, 2017)

Personally I believe all good plots need a character, but I am very lenient with that term. A setting can be presented in such a way that it can serve as the main character. You can even give it goals and aspirations, either through the omniscient perspective or through the perspectives of the minor characters inhabiting the greater setting. I believe it all comes down to good writing. A central character(s) should be present, but it is up to you to decide what that character actually is. With effort and a bit of skill you could make a character out of an overarching theme or concept.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 31, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Yeah, so a bit like Hitchhiker's Guide, which was basically a string of subplots all tied up under one theme, with no real deep or personal inner goal or conflict.
> 
> I think yes, which is why my original post was "Yes, this can be done, and has been done many times and is still being done today (Jack Reacher etc)."
> 
> My reaction was to the "A story doesn't have to have character or conflict to be a story," which is, IMPO, a bit of a strange statement to say the least.



I realized at the time I was veering into Hitchhiker's Guide, heh. I originally had something like Gulliver's Travels in mind—but I've never read it! And other things, maybe Baron Munchausen, another I've not read although I vaguely remember the movie.

I agree:  I have difficulty conceiving of a story with no character and conflict. Even if there's no humanoid/animal type of character, I think inanimate objects, perhaps even the world itself, would begin to take on some aspects of character. I also think that conflict can take many forms; a rock rolling downhill _could_ gather moss, and at the very least the friction of the hill if not the gathering moss could be considered conflict if handled right. Or a tree could appear in front of it, a crash, then a  new direction rolling down hill....

In another thread  you'd mentioned our different tendencies. From the examples of your writing I've seen, I think you do that close character heart and soul almost naturally, seamlessly, and I admire it. Sometimes for me, introduction of thoughts and emotional character reactions can be almost like a cudgel: I'll have all that sensual, tactile stuff then tag on a character reaction at the end, heh. In any case, it's not my mode in the way it's your mode. So I think that you view writing through that lens, and it's a great lens. I envy your ability in that regard. But my response to your comment above was more like a "yes, but." Yes, you hit an important mark, but there are other ways of approaching the writing of a story.

I'd said in my comment that I didn't know if I had the chops or natural inclination to write the kind of story I described. A part of me actually wonders if that's what I _should_ be writing. Well, you know I can tend toward abstractions, so, ideas and concepts, heh. But I've not challenged myself to try to write a long project in that mode. I think, now, that maybe I could sustain a short story doing something like that, but not a longer length story like a novel. Because I do always have that cudgel ready. I naturally imagine characters reacting deeply to what they experience, I like that consideration of character, and that'd naturally creep into the story the longer it lasted.

Along those lines, I do believe that a type of shorter story exists that might often forego the deep character development and great personal stakes and still come out a pretty good, interesting story. A type of fable does that, for instance one that might start with something like,

_One day, the goatherd boy Damrin was leading his goats to their normal pasture grounds, and he ran into the hermit Supilak who happened to be walking down the mountain from the very same pastures. Supilak lived in a cave much further away, on the other side of the village, so this was odd. Damrin asked him what he was doing._

And then Supilak could launch into a story about watching a mountain brook to discover the secret of mortality. Or, whatever, heh.

Some of Plato's dialogues involving Socrates are similar—although, even some of those will involve side characters who _do_ get worked up.

So...I was just reacting to the blanket statement that all great stories must do the one thing that you seem to do so well and naturally...


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2017)

Yeah. I can see how that would come across pretty bad lol!

For me, saying a story doesn't need a character is like saying a sentence doesn't need a subject. "Running," is not a sentence. Someone has to be running, even if we don't know what that someone is. In a story, you may claim you don't have a character, but who is the narrator then? The narrator would add the human element necessary for reader connection, thereby taking on the role of "character voice" and offering (even possibly without knowing it) opinions and subjective thoughts. But just as in a sentence, your story would have to include "something" doing "Something", so that something, be it a rock or a blade of grass would need to be doing "something." The rock or blade of grass would be the character. If it is just blowing in the wind then it's not a story, it's a long sentence. As soon as you introduce conflict then it becomes a story. 

The blade of glass blew in the wind. Above it roamed the deer, teeth bared, ready for lunch.


----------



## Devor (Oct 31, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> For me, saying a story doesn't need a character is like saying a sentence doesn't need a subject.  "Running," is not a sentence.



Truth: People write sentences without a subject all the time.  It just takes... what's the word?  Ahh, right. Context. I'll show you.  I just need to take an example and run with it.  And that's what I'll do.  Here we go.  Running.




> Someone has to be running, even if we don't know what that someone is. In a story, you may claim you don't have a character, but who is the narrator then? The narrator would add the human element necessary for reader connection, thereby taking on the role of "character voice" and offering (even possibly without knowing it) opinions and subjective thoughts. But just as in a sentence, your story would have to include "something" doing "Something", so that something, be it a rock or a blade of grass would need to be doing "something." The rock or blade of grass would be the character. If it is just blowing in the wind then it's not a story, it's a long sentence. As soon as you introduce conflict then it becomes a story.
> 
> The blade of glass blew in the wind. Above it roamed the deer, teeth bared, ready for lunch.



This is a problem with conversations like this. At some point we're taking character and conflict to such an abstract place that they don't mean much anymore.  And then we can define a "story" to require these things, as separate from, say, a "vignette" which doesn't.  So where does that leave us?

"For sale, baby shoes, never worn."

^ Where's the character?  Where's the conflict?  Is it a story - it's commonly called the "six word story" - or something else?  Is it enough that the baby's life and death are implied, or are they key elements of character and conflict making it a story?  Or are the shoes the character, and is the "never worn" what's creating the conflict?  Nothing here is changing - except by the implied backstory.

At what point does it become so abstract and tenuous that any useful purpose of the analysis falls apart - except to prove the integrity of the analysis?  And instead of stretching things beyond any functional purpose or substance, can't we just admit there are exceptions to everything?


----------



## FifthView (Oct 31, 2017)

Heliotrope

Ah, the narrator. I hadn't thought of that in this context. You know I've talked about on-the-nose narration before. I tend to always view the narrator as a type of character, although I do think that some objective approaches eliminate the subjectivity in the narration. Even a close third limited will try to hide the narrator behind character voice, or at least give no clue of a _second_ character heh.

And there'll always be a narrator, whether that narrator _is_ the author or not. I'd not thought of this in terms of adding the human element, but I think you are right. If nothing else, that would add it, even if only subtly. A story without a narrator is like prose without words, heh. Doesn't happen.

But there's also another human already present: the reader.

As a reader, I can see a dog being kicked and still feel my hackles rise _without_ needing another character in-story to react with anger, plan a complicated plot to hunt down and kill the dog-kicker. I don't even need the dog to be that character's dog. This is one of the reasons I become a little confused with the insistence that we need a character reacting personally to things in order for the reader to care about those things, or a plot that is character-driven for readers to care about what happens.

It's _almost_ insulting. What, I, the reader, can understand and care about something only if some main character is having conniption fits about it? The other direction can become frustrating: What, I'm supposed to care about that inane event or situation simply because the character does? I could care less if Sally wins Bobby's heart; Bobby's a creepy guy, anyway, and Sally's ignoring her ailing father because she's too wrapped up in romanticizing about Bobby. And in any case, this is every pop love song ever written, heh.

When I mentioned the "greater stakes" re: murder in my second comment to this thread, I was alluding to something like this. The reader can have a stake in what is happening without—or, regardless—of whether the main character has a stake in it.

_But_, none of these considerations eliminates the power that connection to a character may have in creating reader engagement. Just as I may care about that dog being kicked, I may care about the character.

I do think that, if we are going to put more of the heavy lifting on the ideas, milieu, and events in the story, and less on engagement through character, then that introduces a need to really make those other things worthy of attention and engagement. That's another reason the thought of writing that space-going odyssey myself gives me pause. But maybe it shouldn't. [I think this is where we can insert that advice to work on these areas, in addition to characterization, for everything we write, heh.]


----------



## Russ (Oct 31, 2017)

Devor said:


> ?
> 
> "For sale, baby shoes, never worn."
> 
> ...



Good place to import the concept of vignette vs. story.

But I will rise to your challenge.  The famous six word story has at least two characters, the baby and the person who obtained and is not selling the shoes.  There is also change.  There was a perceived need for shoes, and now that perceived need is no more.  That is enormous change.   This is all due to the fact that the entire story is not contained in the plain reading of the  six words. 

It is an outstanding execution of minimalist story telling.   But it supports the argument in favour of the need for character.  The story is not really about the buying and selling of shoes.  It is about the desire of the character who bought and sold the shoes and what change has occurred for that person.


----------



## Devor (Oct 31, 2017)

Russ said:


> But I will rise to your challenge.  The famous six word story has at least two characters, the baby and the person who obtained and is not selling the shoes.  There is also change.  There was a perceived need for shoes, and now that perceived need is no more.  That is enormous change.   This is all due to the fact that the entire story is not contained in the six words.
> 
> It is an outstanding execution of minimalist story telling.   But it supports the argument in favour of the need for character.  The story is not really about the buying and selling of shoes.  It is about the desire of the character who bought and sold the shoes and what change has occurred for that person.



Yeah, but all of that is implied, not actually featured. And now above FifthView and Heliotrope are discussing the narrator, and the reader, as characters in the story? And that's after topics like the "setting" as the character, and now the backstory is the character?

It's getting to be a little much.

Doesn't the character have to have some kind of role in the story to qualify as a character?


----------



## FifthView (Oct 31, 2017)

Ah, as for the reader and narrator:  not a character in the story, but a human element present with the story.*

Part of the original concern in the OP is the emphasis on needing all those deep character desires shape a tale. This has been related to reader engagement during the course of the discussion in this thread. So I think reader and narrator fit in the discussion. Somewhere. Helio and I have certainly gone there, heh.

*Edit: But, when writing I do sometimes think of the narrator as a type of character. Maybe a character in _our_ world, heh, if not in that world...


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2017)

Devor said:


> This is a problem with conversations like this.



Nope. This is the problem with me and FifthView constantly going on existential targets  We do this a lot.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 31, 2017)

Sorry if this is off topic, but would someone kindly explain to me what on-the-nose is? I've seen it a couple of times on this site and I'm not too sure what it is.


----------



## Russ (Oct 31, 2017)

Devor said:


> Yeah, but all of that is implied, not actually featured. And now above FifthView and Heliotrope are discussing the narrator, and the reader, as characters in the story? And that's after topics like the "setting" as the character, and now the backstory is the character?
> 
> It's getting to be a little much.
> 
> Doesn't the character have to have some kind of role in the story to qualify as a character?



I didn't take them to say that reader and narrator are characters in the story, but necessary elements.  But that is a different question.   I would not like Fifth say they are present in the story in this case, (in other stories they can be) but not in this one.

But in this case the implied backstory contains reference to at least two characters, and ongoing participant in the story (someone is selling the shoes) are all characters in the story.  They are more akin to subtext or implied participants.  Like gravity in a fall.  When you write about falling off a rock to the ground you don't have to write that gravity is the acting force, it is simply understood as a participating force.  In this case it is understood that for the purchase and sale of baby shoes to be necessary there is a need for a baby (or anticipated baby) and someone with the agency to chose to buy and sell the shoes.  It is the height of minimalist writing and implication.

The words themselves through the careful crafting and power, do tell a story about characters, actions and loss through implication, understood meaning and subtext.  All the evoke all of the necessary elements in the reader without explicitly explaining them.  Thus its brilliance.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2017)

Exactly. And this is exactly where I was going to go with the word "running" as a sentence. Sure,in the right context it _could _be used as a stand alone sentence. But within that context it is understood _what _is doing the running. Something has to be doing the running. That something is the subject (or character) in this case. It is impossible for there to be a predicate without there being a subject, even an invisible one as described above.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I see what you mean about 7 pillars, but I disagree. Conflict is not a necessary ingredient to story. It might be something that should be used for the vast majority of stories to various extents (the way most recipes call for at least some salt, even if you are making something sweet) but not necessary. I realize most people disagree with me here. But most people are not able to see beyond what they personally enjoy or what the current mainstream idea of story to what the most basic nature of story really is. Depending on how you define character, I think it could even be argued that character isn't even technically necessary (though obviously any storyteller but a real genius would be a fool to not use character). Plot is, I believe, ultimately more fundamental than any other aspect of story. Something has to *happen*, or it's not a story. (But AGAIN that doesn't mean I don't personally consider characterization EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because I DO.)
> 
> And for the record, I am attempting to look at story from a timeless point of view. What defines story as it has been experienced by humanity since we first evolved to today and until the day the last of us perishes. Trends are temporary. People in the 19th century had very different ideas of what was an entertaining story from what we do today and it will change again in another hundred years. Most of what we love as stories today will be totally forgotten. But not all. What are the stories that will survive? Those are the stories we should look at when considering the true nature of story.



My views on how conflict and character are fundamental elements of plot (in fact, plot could not exist without them) is related to the above post by Mytho. She argues that neither are necessary to plot and I wonder:

How? How is that even possible?

She says something has to happen... but character and conflict are not necessary.

How can something 'happen' without there being something for it to happen _to? 
_
Something merely _happening _is not a story.

_Explosion. _

Not a story.

So even if there isn't a character (as in, a person actually there, experiencing the explosion) the reader could attach to the _narrator's voice _to gain understanding and perspective on that explosion. 

_The explosion blew through the city, knocking buildings over as if they were wet cardboard. 
_
But even narrators have opinions and subjective thoughts, because a different narrator may say: 

_The explosion levelled the deserved town, which would never dominate with evil again. 

_In that way, the narrator replaces a "character" by still offering thoughts and opinions. But there are still people in the town. There are still "subjects" that were affected by the explosion.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2017)

CHessie, On the nose is the term used when something (usually dialogue) is too obvious. 

Simply put, on-the-nose dialogue is dialogue that says exactly what it means–nothing more and nothing less:

_“You’re a terrible boyfriend,” Melissa sniffed.

I shrugged. “I know, and I’m sorry. But just think about the horrible example my father set me. He was gone all the time when I was a kid.”

“That doesn’t matter to me. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m breaking up with you.”

My heart fractured. “I understand where you’re coming from. But I still love you.”_

And why is that a bad thing? Because it’s two-dimensional, because it’s obvious, because it’s boring, because it’s unrealistic.

Usually we know it when we see it and it gives us the queazies. lol. 

Fifthview and I have debated about on the nose narrative, which does a similar thing. 

You could say: 

Sophie closed her eyes and thought of her father. He had died ten years earlier and she missed him a lot. _I wish you weren't dead, _she thought, tears running from her eyes. She wiped them and her hand felt wet.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 31, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> She wiped them and her hand felt wet.



OMG you made my day.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 31, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> CHessie, On the nose is the term used when something (usually dialogue) is too obvious.
> 
> Simply put, on-the-nose dialogue is dialogue that says exactly what it means–nothing more and nothing less:
> 
> ...



OMG. Reading that, I threw up a lot in my mouth. It's a good thing it's Halloween because The horror. The horror.


----------



## Chessie2 (Oct 31, 2017)

Hm. It seems more a stylistic choice for me. This is one of the things that troubles me about these sorts of conversations: when does telling a story just get to be telling a story? What's obvious to one reader may not be obvious to the next. I find these sorts of terms restricting. All I want to do is tell a story.

Same with Mythopoet's concern here. If she prefers to write a story where characterization is less important then so be it. I'm reminded of many a fairy or folk tale where other story elements are honed in on more than characters (like plot, for instance).


----------



## pmmg (Oct 31, 2017)

I think I should get a prize for reading through all of this.



Mythopoet said:


> Perhaps it's me. I really just don't relate to characters based on their desires. It's not that I want a lack of characterization in the books I read and the stories I write. It's just that.... I want so much more than that. I want a fascinating world and interesting events and thought provoking ideas. I don't want those things to be short changed for characters. But I'm beginning to feel like I'm one of only a few who feel this way.



I want all of these things too. And, I want it with characters I like to enjoy the story with. I suppose I don’t care if its character driven, or plot driven or what have you, but I would like all of it to keep me engaged, and wanting to have more.

I suppose, when considering the elements that make up a story, they all have their pluses and minuses, and any story could take one above the others and come out great, so I see no reason to short change any story because it does not follow the current view that characters matter more. The proof is in the pudding? Is it not? Great stories do not need further justification to remain great. And if some do it with plot, or with character, or some other element (setting perhaps?), either way they've done it.

Mytho, it seems, is responding to a current trend to say characters first. Truth is, I am not sure if this is a trend or not. I'm still going along the lines that I see plenty of a whole mix of things. I will say I do see the advice given out often. So...is it good advice? Well, I think it is. But it would also be good advice to say figure out the conflict and map out how the story might go.

(And Sorry Mytho, while I am open to the idea of a story with no conflict, I think I lean, and perhaps a little more than lean, that a story is not a story without a conflict.)

Personally, I like writing characters, and so I like my stories to feature them heavily. I used to call my story character driven, but after this thread, I am not sure that is true. I think they just feature heavily, and the story is still about things outside of their control, thereby plot driven. I think maybe my characters need to get some ice cream, so they can enjoy success at some personal goals.

Any rate, what’s all this talk about characters being great and plotting taking a back seat? I don’t think plotting will sit still for that for very long. But as I try to write the best story I can, I look to bring all the pieces together, so it all does the job. I saw a post earlier about intersecting of these ideas. I think that would be a worthy goal for telling a great tale.

I advise people to find what they're good at, maximize that, and minimize what they are not good at. I wanted for myself to write great engaging characters, and I think I do that fairly well. But if that is not what interests you most in the stories you want to tell, there is no harm. Its a big pool. We can all fit in.

If the current trend is to beat on a drum of character driven stories first, then I would see that as an opportunity to buck the crowd and write something that none of them are doing and see if I can chart a course that brings the pendulum back towards some of the other story elements for change.


----------



## Rkcapps (Oct 31, 2017)

I totally agree Heliotrope. I can see both sides of that argument. I wonder if your husband, not having read the book, only sees the Hollywood version? I must admit I have tried reading LotR a few times but only last until they set out on their journey. I think i fall in that category of modern reader who needs a stronger hook. Therefore, I've only seen the movies. And I like the first two movies of LotR but not the third. I can totally see your husband's point of view.

However, now I'm writing, I see the necessity of reading LotR, so I've just started (Bilbo has just left the Shire) so I'll particularly watch out for your comments on it. From the last time I read, what you say rings true.

Could that debate be a Hollywood v book debate? I don't envy a script writers task condensing a book to film. They must lose some parts of the book in the translation, it's only natural.

I hear Russ too, I know personally I want, as a reader, a proactive character not a reactive character. There needs to be a personal connection for the protagonist to the goal, or any Jo Blow could step into the role.


----------



## pmmg (Oct 31, 2017)

I am happy that I read Lotr rings many years ago, but I am also happy I that I don't have to read it again. An awesome creation, but Tolkien is not a writer I enjoy.

In fairness, I do think the Tolkien followers have good reasons why some of the stuff the story is criticized for happened the way it did. Course, it is just a story, and its really hard to nail down all the things people might nitpick at.


----------



## psychotick (Nov 1, 2017)

Hi,

Can you write a story without characterization and conflict? I suspect you probably could. But I would guess that to misquote Jurassic Park - Your writers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

The point being it probably isn't a good idea in my humble opinion.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Nov 1, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I know there's lots of non-character driven fiction out there. But does anyone actually think it's a good thing to write anymore? It seems not. Everywhere I look when people talk about writing fiction they talk almost exclusively about it from a character driven standpoint. Setting- it's all about your character. Plot- it's all about your character. Every single guide I have seen lately for plotting a story revolves around the main character and what they want.



Consider the target audience for these guides. Authors who know what they want to do and how to do it are not in the target audience. For aspiring authors, the advice to focus on characterization is sound. IMO.



Mythopoet said:


> Call my old fashioned. I'm sick and tired of hearing about character's desires. Screw their desires. I don't care about their desires. Certainly not toward the beginning of a story, anyway. (Later on I'll consider them.) So it seems to me that figuring out your entire plot based on your character's wants is... problematic.



There are desires, and there are story-elevating motivations. "I want blue hair because it's cool" is a desire. "I want to get my foot out of this bear trap or the water level will rise over my head and I'll drown" is story-elevating motivation, brought about by the circumstance of stepping in a bear trap in a pit during a tropical storm. Why was the person in the pit? Maybe someone said they would dye his hair blue for free if he fetched something they dropped in the pit. What did the author plot first, the falling in the pit, or the desire for blue hair? Does it matter? Either way could lead to the same result. Whatever process works for you is the way to go.



Mythopoet said:


> Perhaps it's me. I really just don't relate to characters based on their desires. It's not that I want a lack of characterization in the books I read and the stories I write. It's just that.... I want so much more than that. I want a fascinating world and interesting events and thought provoking ideas. I don't want those things to be short changed for characters.  But I'm beginning to feel like I'm one of only a few who feel this way.



You're not alone. I want all that too. That's why I did a ton of world building before writing the first sentence of an outline for my WIP. People have told me I'm doing it all wrong. It's not the way they would do it, but it's my choice, not theirs. Perhaps my way of doing things has caused me more work in the long run, but again, that's my choice. I'm enjoying my process, and I'm damn proud of how the novel is turning out.

I'll mention here about proactive characters. An MC won't necessarily start out being proactive, and even when she decides to be proactive, things will still happen she has to react to. They're called obstacles. Imo, good stories can be written in which the MC is reacting most of the time, and squeezing in a few moments of being proactive, so she can inch her way to success over what appear to be insurmountable odds. If you have a giant constantly trying to stomp you, you might have difficulty even thinking how you can be proactive.



Mythopoet said:


> I'm probably not expressing myself very well here. I just felt the urge to put this out there after seeing yet another guide to plotting a story that was basically all about the character's wants. SIGH.
> 
> Anyone else feel something similar?



I understand the feeling. You read one person's blog about writing, and everyone else who can't think of their own topics jumps on the bandwagon and regurgitates what they liked about the first person's blog. Or they think they have a new perspective on it. Whatever. You have to take from these guides what you can, and not let the rest bring you down. Every writer is unique, with a different approach to writing, and you have to find your own unique approach. That's my perspective. Some may agree, some may not, but no one on this forum is the god of writing. We're here to discuss our opinions, maybe take something from it or give something to someone else.


----------



## Peat (Nov 5, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> Hm. It seems more a stylistic choice for me. This is one of the things that troubles me about these sorts of conversations: when does telling a story just get to be telling a story? What's obvious to one reader may not be obvious to the next. I find these sorts of terms restricting. All I want to do is tell a story.
> 
> Same with Mythopoet's concern here. If she prefers to write a story where characterization is less important then so be it. I'm reminded of many a fairy or folk tale where other story elements are honed in on more than characters (like plot, for instance).



If Mythopoet - or anyone - wants to write a story using X that goes against the tide (or perceived tide), then they should. But they don't need a long debate on the necessity of X for that. Just go and write it.

If someone wants to write a story using X and wants to hear why people reckon doing the opposite of X is the right way, maybe in order to try and avoid pitfalls, then there's something to be said for that. But there's no point taking part in that debate if you're not going to give your honest informed opinion and no point asking for it if you're not going to listen. 


Personally, I think most of what the character focused advice these days is getting at isn't that the plot should be driven solely by what the characters want, but that their reactions to the plot should be driven heavily by what the characters want. The former - well, I don't really recognise the former as something that is the lodestone of modern fiction. Most of what I read, I feel like the protagonist is put into something they'd rather not do within the opening chapters. The latter... the latter is a storm wind and good luck sailing against it in terms of being commercially viable. Or maybe even just in terms of good story telling. Its certainly very difficult to get away with a plot where characters are manifestly acting against their own desires, and I think if its impossible to divine what the characters desire, there's a solid chance they're not interesting enough.

Tbh, I don't see any necessary conflict between character-driven and plot-heavy.


----------



## Alora pendrak (Nov 29, 2017)

personally i love characters and character driven fiction. i also  think its damaging for a story to only focus on characters. Its like bakeing a cake entirely out of sugar. You need the eggs, butter, flower ect.....i've seen stories that were so focused on character  they didn't have much of a plot and while i enjoyed some of them, i still found myself wanting the characters to have an end goal and the bad guy an overall plan that didn't get forgotten about so quickly. So i think plot, characters, and setting need to be equally cherished and not have one promoted over the other, style and prose are also not to be ignored. All the elements blend together to create something.


----------

