# Character Vs. Plot: Which is more important?



## Devora (Jan 25, 2013)

This question has been asked to many writers, but i feel that it is one that needs to be asked over and over.

Which do you think is more important: Character, or Plot?

Explain your decision.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 25, 2013)

Character. 

Great characters can overcome a mundane plot. I wouldn't consider the reverse to be true.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 25, 2013)

I agree with T.Allen.Smith. Further, bad characters can destroy a great plot.


----------



## Devor (Jan 25, 2013)

Character.  But really it depends on what you're writing and how.  I think there are definitely styles which an author can deploy to compensate for poor characterization skills.  And a poor plot bugs me to no end.  But people read primarily for the characters, and that unique emotional journey is the most effective way to leave a lasting impression with your readers.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Jan 25, 2013)

Take either away and you have nothing. Which should have greater emphasis - characters most definitely. But without plot they just sit round scratching their backsides, staring into the middle distance.

IMO, good characterisation can't overcome a bad plot and neither can a good plot overcome bad characterisation. Sure there are things that I watch, for instance, jsut for the hell of it even if I know they're bad - maybe to have a laugh or to spend some time not having to think much - but I wouldn't invest my time in a novel in the same way.


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 26, 2013)

Character, certainly. I'd also have to disagree with WyrdMystic - I'm sure I've seen shows/read stories where there is no interesting plot to speak of, but the characters themselves are engaging enough to carry it all.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jan 26, 2013)

I voted character too for the same reasons as everyone else. I actually have an easier time conceiving of characters than I do plot lines anyway.


----------



## Sparkie (Jan 26, 2013)

Like everyone else so far, I voted Character.  But I'm not sure of what the question entails.  The question asks "Which is more important?"  In reply, I'd like to ask "Important to what?  Important to who?"  Is this question for a reader?  A writer?  A publisher?

I assume, since this is a storytellers forum, that we approach the question as writers.  If so, then I'd stick with what I voted for and say that if I had to choose between being a good character-builder and a good plot-builder, I'm going with the former.

Still, the part of me that enjoys reading is nagging me about plot.  I enjoy reading a good plot.  Do I enjoy reading a good plot more than reading a good character's POV?  Depends on the writer, I suppose.  Hercule Poirot was a very good character, but Agatha Christie's true talent lay in weaving an outstanding plot.

If you're looking to get published, I'd stick with character over plot.  Agents, editors, and executives know what sells, and great POV's do sell very well.


----------



## Darkblade (Jan 26, 2013)

I voted plot, mostly because I consider characters to be a part of plot. A character may be the most in depth, realistic and fully fleshed out person you can possibly devise but without a plot they exist within a vacuum, with nothing to do but sit there are try to engage you.

Good characters may help a story but without a plot there just is no story to begin with.


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 26, 2013)

*terminology*

I'm sorry, I've seen polls like this in other forums, and people always choose character over plot. And I'm not sure it's for the obvious reason.

I think this says less about the importance of the two than how we writers tend to think of "plot" as something more separated from other writing elements, while "character" seems to draw in how much everything comes together to make a good character. Example, Indiana Jones: he's got a lot of appeal from how Harrison Ford makes him fun, but even more because he's just the center of some great movies-- and yet people describe him as simply "a classic character."

I'm not trying to attack character, or say it couldn't actually be more important. (I did a "Character-centered" blog post last year that found a number of reasons to keep character on top.) But I think it's hard to separate any of these elements from each other when we're talking in large terms, and harder yet in this particular case.

EDIT: thanks, Darkblade. There really is more than one way to look at these.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 26, 2013)

There's certainly interconnection between character and plot. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The OPs question simply asked which we each think is more important.

A writer's own opinion likely derives from how characters & plots are conceived. For my writing, I first create characters that are different from one another in terms of their histories, cultures, belief systems, etc. By forcing them into action (for or against one another) I generate major plot lines & sub-plots.

A writer that creates plots first, then creates characters to react to those events, may see the importance of either entirely different. In all honesty, I work with both methods but I lean heavily towards character creation as a foundation.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 26, 2013)

For me, it's pretty easy: character. 

Why?

I just looked through my bookcase of everything I've read over the last ~10 years and I can describe FAR MORE about the characters in these books than I can about the exact plot details.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 26, 2013)

I voted plot because I enjoy being contrary sometimes. And also because I tend to think of plots first and think of characters to act them out afterwards. It's kind of like my book is a movie and my characters are the actors. I write the script, they follow it. If they have a few issues or changes they'd like to be made, I'll oblige them. Especially if it makes the work better. But if they outright object to the part I've cast them in, I'll fire them and get someone else.

But even that is an oversimplification I think. Maybe I'm just weird, but writing has been an iterative process for me. Plot determines characters, who then alter the plot, which then changes the characters, who then alter the plot, etc. The result being that my plot has gone through countless small changes and several large ones, and my cast has changed just as much if not more. I've gone through three different phases with my main character. At first he was cast as a 12/13 year old, then a teenager, and now he's a young adult in his early 20s. (Of course, that might have more to do with him maturing as I do than it does with the plot itself.) 

But like I said, I'm odd. I'm kinda like Christopher Nolan (yes, I realize that's a really egotistical comparison), I'm not a touchy-feely kinda guy and I tend to latch on to plot a bit more than characters. That's part of why I actively avoid writing romance.


----------



## advait98 (Jan 27, 2013)

It' a hard decision, mate, but I think I'll get through this.
Plot. Elementary to explain. Characters are important for the emotional and moral development of the story but these voids can also be filled by a detailed and determined plot. If you remain detached from the character, in my opinion, is no big deal as long as you are primarily conscious with the happenings in the story and are satisfied.


----------



## FatCat (Jan 27, 2013)

Gonna have to agree with the majority and say character. I believe a good plot is derived from the character, i.e. Jamie Lannister in SoIaF. Anyone can plot someones hand being cut off, but what made it so epic was Jamie's vanity and pride. If you build a plot that doesn't conform to a well-thought character, then you're placing a surrogate within a story. That doesn't sound very appealing to me, I want a real story!


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 27, 2013)

advait98 said:


> It' a hard decision, mate, but I think I'll get through this.
> Plot. Elementary to explain. Characters are important for the emotional and moral development of the story but these voids can also be filled by a detailed and determined plot. If you remain detached from the character, in my opinion, is no big deal as long as you are primarily conscious with the happenings in the story and are satisfied.



I think there are very few opinions I've seen on this forum that I disagree with more than this one.

Yes, you can certainly create a story while being detached from the character.  IMO, it's difficult in the extreme to create a story I'd even consider wanting to read in such a manner, though.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

FatCat said:


> Gonna have to agree with the majority and say character. I believe a good plot is derived from the character, i.e. Jamie Lannister in SoIaF. Anyone can plot someones hand being cut off, but what made it so epic was Jamie's vanity and pride. If you build a plot that doesn't conform to a well-thought character, then you're placing a surrogate within a story. That doesn't sound very appealing to me, I want a real story!



See, I think there might be a bit of a semantics issue here. Take an example from my WIP:

My main character, Reuben, is a king, hunter-warrior, firecaster, and something of a vengeful hothead. He's called in by his best friend Prince Elyas to investigate a sinister plot, etc. etc. Now this is supposed to be a secret mission, so Elyas tells Reuben not to leave any evidence or kill anybody. Reuben goes in and discovers that the baddie's henchmen are constructing their world's equivalent of WMDs. So, remembering his best friend's instructions to maintain a low profile and report whatever he finds, he immediately slaughters everyone in the place and burns the compound to the ground. Elyas is not thrilled. The event completely wrecks their friendship, ends up actually giving the villains the upper hand, gets Reuben temporarily banned from his own kindgom, and on top of all that- Elyas dies. All because of Reuben's one bad choice.

Now I ask you, is this domino tragedy a function of _plot_ or _character_?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 27, 2013)

Always a problem to discuss things without defining the terms first...

Character and plot are intertwined so much that it is difficult to separate which is more important.  I say Character as a way of advocating against your story being driven so much by "what" is happening that you forget to filter those events through the emotional lens of a character.

One of my main principles of storytelling is that Events have no meaning without emotional context.  A billion people dying is a statistic.  One man whose suffering is shown to the reader is impactful.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

See, I define plot as "that which is intentionally designed by the author"- the art and artifice of storytelling. If it's the result of intentional design and you have any control over it whatsoever, it's plot. So basically, everything is plot.

_All serves the plot, and the plot is all._ HAIL THE PLOT! :insertevillaughhere


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Always a problem to discuss things without defining the terms first...
> 
> Character and plot are intertwined so much that it is difficult to separate which is more important.  I say Character as a way of advocating against your story being driven so much by "what" is happening that you forget to filter those events through the emotional lens of a character.
> 
> One of my main principles of storytelling is that Events have no meaning without emotional context.  A billion people dying is a statistic.  One man whose suffering is shown to the reader is impactful.



Agreed. Great example.

Stories which are plot driven, pale in comparison to those that show a world through character POVs. I just don't see how a story driven by itself is remotely as interesting as one that we get to live through within the skull of another person. It's the ultimate voyeuristic experience that draws me into a story. Great characters immerse me into a plot. A great plot doesn't have the same power to make me care about characters.

There are theories that claim there are a limited number of plots and a limited number of character archetypes. I think most of us would agree that, as writers, we are repackaging plots and characters in different, fresh ways...maybe odd combinations. However, the number of available plot lines, if you subscribe to these theories, is far smaller than the potential number of character combinations.

If plots are of greater importance, wouldn't all stories be stale and unimaginative at this point? I'd think so. Different characters, forced into opposition or alliance, the odd mixing of cultures & ideologies, personality & belief differences, goals & motivations, etc. Yes, the lines blur on what is considered plot and what is character here. Yet, the imaginative & creative parts that combine to make a modern story, a story that feels new, lies in the realm of characters that readers & viewers care about. Otherwise, rotating and combining the same old plots, well that would likely be very uninteresting. 

Let's assume i have a static selection of 5 characters. Next, we take all possible plots, write them down on slips of paper and place them into a bag, drawing out 5 plot lines. We do this 5 times and write a story for each to analyze the results. Next, we do the opposite,5 plot lines, drawing characters from all possible combinations..... Now, which stories, once written, would seem the most original when compared to everything else written through time? I'd have to think the character driven stories would offer greater diversity.

The potential for any sort of originality and fresh story making lies in character creation and interaction. If you're relying on plot to perform this function, I feel you're missing the boat.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

But I don't _remember_ characters the same way I remember plots in terms of a storytelling experience. Don't get me wrong, I do remember characters and some of them really stick with me (Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Optimus Prime...) but when I remember a story, what stands out to me most are _moments_. Little concentrations of awesomeness. 

Liking a character is not enough for me to list a story among my favorites. When I think of the Codex Alera, I don't think of Tavi (the main character), I think of the things Tavi _did_, what he accomplished. When I think about Lord of the Rings, I don't think about the Fellowship's inner struggles, I think about what they _achieved_. When I remember the Lion King, I don't remember Simba or Scar per ce, I remember the stampede of the wildebeasts, the Death of Mufasa, the scouring of the Pridelands. I can list moments like that for every story I enjoy. I have more favorite moments than I have favorite characters. And that same feeling of awesome wonder and epicness, that "wow factor" is what I try to capture in my writing.

For me, a story isn't so much about emotions as it is about deeds and events, i.e. plot.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 27, 2013)

Okay, understood. However, I'd have to ask you this question:

Why do you care about what those characters accomplished?

It seems that, by your example speaking of events & accomplishments, you may be just as entranced by a significant story in the news.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

I don't think that's an even comparison. News anchors and reporters aren't storytellers, they're reporters. They report to you what happened. No more, no less. There's a big difference between that and what an author does. A better comparison would be witnessing such an event firsthand- like the time I witnessed an F4 tornado heading straight toward my dorm during my freshman year. And you can bet that moment left an impact.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 27, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I don't think that's an even comparison. News anchors and reporters aren't storytellers, they're reporters. They report to you what happened. No more, no less. There's a big difference between that and what an author does. A better comparison would be witnessing such an event firsthand- like the time I witnessed an F4 tornado heading straight toward my dorm during my freshman year. And you can bet that moment left an impact.



The comparison wasn't meant to be fair. It's an intentional exaggeration meant to illustrate a point.  Setting that aside, I'd ask the question again:  

Why do you care what those characters accomplish?


----------



## WyrdMystic (Jan 27, 2013)

What would characters have to accomplish without plot (whether its character driven or not)?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 27, 2013)

WyrdMystic said:


> What would characters have to accomplish without plot (whether its character driven or not)?



I don't dispute that.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 27, 2013)

Devora said:


> This question has been asked to many writers, but i feel that it is one that needs to be asked over and over.
> 
> Which do you think is more important: Character, or Plot?
> 
> Explain your decision.



Er... I'm generally confounded by this sort of question. Obviously, you're not supposed to neglect either.

If I had to pick one, though, I would say characters. I believe readers can generally forgive a mediocre plot if the characters are likable enough, but won't care how good your plot is if the characters are annoying or offensive. Plot is something you only see once you get into the story, while characters are more emidiately present.

It depends a bit on what kind of writer you are, though. My plots are heavily character driven, because characterization is my strongest point as a writer. I'm sure a lot of writers do it the other way around, however, and allow the characters to be shaped by the plot instead.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jan 27, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> But like I said, I'm odd. I'm kinda like Christopher Nolan (yes, I realize that's a really egotistical comparison), I'm not a touchy-feely kinda guy and I tend to latch on to plot a bit more than characters. That's part of why I actively avoid writing romance.


Wait, Christopher Nolan emphasizes plot over characters? Maybe that explains why I couldn't keep track of what was going on in _The Dark Knight_ (well, that and I didn't care for its take on the Joker).

Deep, convoluted plots without compelling characters have a tendency to confuse or distract me. I don't mind a few plot twists and turns to surprise me, but I would prefer a clear-cut plot with great characters over a complicated one with a less interesting cast.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> Wait, Christopher Nolan emphasizes plot over characters? Maybe that explains why I couldn't keep track of what was going on in _The Dark Knight_ (well, that and I didn't care for its take on the Joker).
> 
> Deep, convoluted plots without compelling characters have a tendency to confuse or distract me. I don't mind a few plot twists and turns to surprise me, but I would prefer a clear-cut plot with great characters over a complicated one with a less interesting cast.



I was more referring to Nolan not being the touchy-feely type. But some of his critics believe he favors plot over character.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 27, 2013)

Mindfire,  You still haven't answered my question. In the examples you gave (Codex Alera, LoTR, Lion King)....

Why do you even care about what the characters accomplish?


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> The comparison wasn't meant to be fair. It's an intentional exaggeration meant to illustrate a point.  Setting that aside, I'd ask the question again:
> 
> Why do you care what those characters accomplish?



Sorry, I'm doing like seven things at once.

And the answer is: because I like them. But I'm not sure that's necessarily grounds to say character as a concept is superior. If a character just exists in a void without _doing_ anything, I don't think anyone is likely to keep interest for very long. In order for a character to be interesting, they must do something. And that's plot.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

Clever rhetorical trap btw.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Sorry, I'm doing like seven things at once.
> 
> And the answer is: because I like them. But I'm not sure that's necessarily grounds to say character as a concept is superior. If a character just exists in a void without doing anything, I don't think anyone is likely to keep interest for very long. In order for a character to be interesting, they must do something. And that's plot.



I agree with some of this. Although I'd venture to say that some characters maybe interesting even void of any plot. Again though, here is where the line between character and plot blurs. 

This wasn't meant to be any sort of rhetorical or verbal trap. Im sorry if it came off that way. I am genuinely interested in why a reader might care about a plot for any reasons more powerful than caring about the characters within that plot.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Well, from my point of view, the things that most people agree make a character interesting- their emotional reactions, backstory, personality, opinions, beliefs, etc.- those things only come out on display _when they act_. That's the entire point of "show don't tell". We learn about a character through their actions. (Talking is also an action.) So if they never do anything, we never learn about them and thus they never become interesting. In order to make a character engaging, you need plot. The alternative is to just have your character sit in a vacuum and tell the reader their life's story. Except you can't do that either, because that would also require a plot. A character without a plot is a motionless, silent automaton. And again, I doubt anyone is going to sit through an entire book of a character just _being_ there.


----------



## SineNomine (Jan 28, 2013)

It's a question I've been grappling with lately since the latest story I have wanted to tell was inspired by characters, and their growth, and crafting a plot around that has mostly just been an excuse to let them grow but...I feel like I have been fighting an irresistible pull.  After all, this is genre, not literary fiction, and the heart of it has always been something happening.  The plot can't just be an excuse, it has to be interesting enough that people care to stick around for character growth, and the balancing act for me has been trying to figure out at what level does the plot, the events and their resolution become the A plot and the character growth become the B plot?

The more detailed and the stronger I make the events the more I feel I am betraying the "core idea" of the story being about the characters which is, of course, incredibly silly.  But it's something I've been unable to avoid feeling...

Does anyone get what I am saying or am I just stupid?


----------



## Varamyrr (Jan 28, 2013)

I voted for 'character'. Simply because if I like characters to I can relate to. And for those that I can't, I want to understand why they are doing what they are doing.
A mediocre plot can still be very good if it has superb characters.


----------



## Jamber (Jan 28, 2013)

I dare someone to write characterless plot as an example, and try to make it engaging... Or to do make plotless character (not one mention of change; not one iota of development). Is it possible?

For me, character and plot (at least in conventional novels) are thoroughly mingled. But an interesting underplotted character will definitely keep me reading longer than a boring one caught up in dazzling events.

Must be why I'm enjoying Gormenghast. It's an editor's nightmare but absolutely hilarious.


----------



## Chilari (Jan 28, 2013)

I don't think this is about character or plot taken in a vacuum. They both need one another in a story, so a character who exists in a void or a plot which exists without a character are not useful concepts. I take this question to be about which it is more important to get right. If you've got a good plot and mediocre character, is that a better book than one with a good character but a mediocre plot?

I think a story with a mediocre plot can be more convincingly carried by a strong character than a poor character can be by a strong plot. I think it is the character's perspective and how they act that makes an engaging story, not the events they are involved in. I will put down a book with an interesting plot if I find the main character boring, annoying or offensive. I have done this several times. I have also put down books within a matter of pages if the main character doesn't materialise quickly - if the author starts with some strange prologue about the world's formation or a particular location or political situation. Why? Because I have no reason to care about what the author is saying. I have no perspective on it. It has no impact. I have put down books which start with a character (as far as I know, a main character) who then talks politics with another character for five pages straight. The political talk indicates intruiges and the potential of the plot, but it isn't interesting because the characters discussing it aren't compelling and I have no context for what they're talking about. They are just talking heads. Oh, apparently they're half-brothers and one is noble and the other isn't. Big woop. I still don't care. So I stop reading.

Without a main character who is interesting, compelling, relatable - someone the reader can easily fall into the perspective of, someone for whom the reader cares, the plot is a moot point because it will never get read.


----------



## SineNomine (Jan 28, 2013)

I think this is also something that changes, or at least has changed, through time.  In the beginning of genre fiction it was a LOT easier to create an intriguing plot with very, very basic characters who could come off as interesting just as a byproduct of the environment they were in.  In time, as more and more stories got written, more plots unfolded, and more worlds explored, the unfamiliar slowly became for familiar and the newness of it wore off, and then poorly-crafted characters were exposed.  I truly believe that novelty can excuse poor characterization, but the problem is that there isn't a lot of novelty left.  Perhaps more importantly, you as a writer should never be so content as to try and allow the novelty of the story cover up for bad characters, even if you could get away with it.

This is also why people first getting into genre fiction can find generally percieved as poor stories as incredibly interesting, and why we can go back and read some books that we loved as kids and be amazed we ever loved them.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Chilari said:


> Without a main character who is interesting, compelling, relatable - someone the reader can easily fall into the perspective of, someone for whom the reader cares, the plot is a moot point because it will never get read.



And unless that character starts doing something really interesting really quickly, I'm going to stop reading, and so will many others. 

An underplotted novel with a well developed character is almost the dictionary definition of literary fiction (no offense to those who like it), and I had enough of that in high school English. It bores me to tears. When I pick up a book, I do so based on the plot. Things happening that I want to read about. The summary on the back hardly describes the character in most cases. And as I said, unless that character does something interesting, I'll be bored to tears and start not caring. 

And the number of my tears shall be ten thousand and one, and ten thousand and one shall be the number of my tears. And my tears shall water the earth wherein lies the mountain of my not caring. And the height of this mountain shall be twelve thousand cubits, and the width thereof shall be four thousand cubits, and the weight thereof shall be immeasurable, for that is the magnitude of my not caring. And the strong men of the earth shall come to the mountain, to try to lift it. And they shall fail. And all men shall see this mountain and shall say, this is the great Mountain of Not-Care, girded by the River of Ten Thousand and One Tears, which Mindfire erected through his sheer boredom and apathy when he tried to cross the plotless waste, vainly searching for some deed to care about.


----------



## Chilari (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> And the number of my tears shall be ten thousand and one, and ten thousand and one shall be the number of my tears. And my tears shall water the earth wherein lies the mountain of my not caring. And the height of this mountain shall be twelve thousand cubits, and the width thereof shall be four thousand cubits, and the weight thereof shall be immeasurable, for that is the magnitude of my not caring. And the strong men of the earth shall come to the mountain, to try to lift it. And they shall fail. And all men shall see this mountain and shall say, this is the great Mountain of Not-Care, girded by the River of Ten Thousand and One Tears, which Mindfire erected through his sheer boredom and apathy when he tried to cross the plotless waste, vainly searching for some deed to care about.



tl;dr

But as to your other point, yes the character needs to do something. I never said they didn't. Plot is more than a swift beginning, though. It could be an uninspiring plot, a cliche plot, a predictable plot, but if it has a strong character I believe it will be better than the most original plot ever with a character who is boring, annoying or offensive.

The way I see it is like this:

A plot focus is like a Michael Bay film: lots of cool visuals, not much substance.

A character focus is like The King's Speech: compelling, with emotional depth, capable of winning Oscars but not necessarily much to look at.

I really enjoyed the King's Speech. Others did not, and would prefer to watch Transformers: Pink Floyd album title slightly changed with all its explosions and, um. Transformers. I honestly can't remember what actually happened in that movie. Something about the moon (but only because of the title). Explosions. Transformers. Possibly wotsisface, Shia leBeouf. I dunno. King's Speech I do remember. I remember the stuttering, the anger over failures, that awkwardness when Bertie was trying so hard to get the words out in front of huge crowds, the bit where he can't hear his own voice as he speaks, then listens to it being played back to him.

I saw each film once only. I remember the King's Speech with far greater clarity, and had a much stronger emotional reaction to it. The Transformers one did not leave an impression.

I know which I'd have rather directed.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Your argument has one gaping flaw: Transformers didn't have much of a plot either. A better comparison would be The Avengers or a Chris Nolan film like The Dark Knight or Inception.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Jan 28, 2013)

Also, The King's Speech had a strong plot (for those kinds of movies/stories/plays whatever).


----------



## Chilari (Jan 28, 2013)

I'd argue that Avengers at the least had very strong characters too. Avengers had a varied and interesting ensemble cast with interesting dynamics - case in point the exchange between Tony and Steve when they're arguing in the lab on the flying wotsit, then something goes wrong with the flying wotsit and they set their differences aside and go fix it - each stage marked by the same line "get your suit on" (or whatever it was) but with a different tone.

The Dark Knight films again had a compelling character at the helm - Batman. He's scarred (emotionally and physically), he's an anti-hero, he's got two very distinct sides to his personality and that makes him very interesting. In Dark Knight Rises you can understand his desire to keep out of things, to not get involved, because of his grief and self-blame, but when it counts he stands up and does what he can, and that makes a compelling main character.

As for Inception, I don't think I really understood or followed the story well enough to comment.

But for Avengers and The Dark Knight series at least, those films did have strong plots, but they also had strong characters.

I can't think of a single film that has a strong plot but no strong characters, if you want to discount Transformers.

My argument still stands: a strong character can better carry a weak plot than a strong plot carry a weak character.

The King's Speech had a very simple plot, one which was focused around the character overcoming a personal struggle in a time of need. It was the character that was important.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

WyrdMystic said:


> Also, The King's Speech had a strong plot (for those kinds of movies/stories/plays whatever).



I don't think Chilari was arguing that TKS had no plot, but that character took precedence. Her example of Transformers was meant to illustrate an opposite case. I countered by saying that this was not a true comparison, as Transformers has a flimsy plot and doesn't fall into either camp. I then named films which actually do place plot before character, such as Nolan's work, to show that plot-first is viable.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Chilari said:


> I'd argue that Avengers at the least had very strong characters too. Avengers had a varied and interesting ensemble cast with interesting dynamics - case in point the exchange between Tony and Steve when they're arguing in the lab on the flying wotsit, then something goes wrong with the flying wotsit and they set their differences aside and go fix it - each stage marked by the same line "get your suit on" (or whatever it was) but with a different tone.
> 
> The Dark Knight films again had a compelling character at the helm - Batman. He's scarred (emotionally and physically), he's an anti-hero, he's got two very distinct sides to his personality and that makes him very interesting. In Dark Knight Rises you can understand his desire to keep out of things, to not get involved, because of his grief and self-blame, but when it counts he stands up and does what he can, and that makes a compelling main character.
> 
> ...



You may think Nolan's characters are masterful, and Wyrd may think The King's Speech had a plot. But that doesn't mean the films don't lean a certain way. Nolan leans heavily on plot. Very heavily. It's the one thing he's consistently criticized for: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/08/christopher-nolan-what-are-we-watching-exactly/

His work is often called cold, unemotional, and plot-heavy, and yet his films are awesome. This proves my point that character can take a backseat to plot and still make a strong story.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I don't think Chilari was arguing that TKS had no plot, but that character took precedence. Her example of Transformers was meant to illustrate an opposite case. I countered by saying that this was not a true comparison, as Transformers has a flimsy plot and doesn't fall into either camp. I then named films which actually do place plot before character, such as Nolan's work, to show that plot-first is viable.



Isn't it kind of silly to be using movies to talk about writing?  It seems to me that the mediums are too different to draw any real conclusion.  

The strength of books is the ability to get inside a character's head in a way that a movie cannot.  The strength of a movie is to show you things in a way that a book can't.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

I thought we were discussing storytelling in general.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah, you can get away with things in movies that aren't as workable on the written page, which is one reason people don't often sit around reading screenplays for fun.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

That's alright, because I have a literary example as well: the Codex Alera, which happens to be my favorite book series of all time. While not devoid of character, the plot takes precedence and it's what I remember most. 

Also, genre fiction generally tends to be plot-first while literary tends to be character-first, if that trivioid has relevance.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> That's alright, because I have a literary example as well: the Codex Alera, which happens to be my favorite book series of all time. While not devoid of character, the plot takes precedence and it's what I remember most.
> 
> Also, genre fiction generally tends to be plot-first while literary tends to be character-first, if that trivioid has relevance.



Probably one reason I didn't like Codex Alera all that much...

I happen to think that the best genre fiction focuses on the characters as much or more than the plot.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Also, in a paradoxical way, if the character is carrying the plot, then the plot has the focus because it is what's being carried, in the same way a king is accorded more prestige than his litter bearers. Having able bearers may be important, but the king is the main event. Likewise, the character is serving as a vehicle for the plot rather than the reverse.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Probably one reason I didn't like Codex Alera all that much...
> 
> I happen to think that the best genre fiction focuses on the characters as much or more than the plot.



Not like the Codex Alera? Heresy! I'm going to PM you about that. Rarely do I encounter an opinion so alien to me, and I am fascinated by it. Also, my own writing/plotting style is inspired by it so I'd do well to avoid its pitfalls.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Not like the Codex Alera? Heresy! I'm going to PM you about that. Rarely do I encounter an opinion so alien to me, and I am fascinated by it. Also, my own writing/plotting style is inspired by it so I'd do well to avoid its pitfalls.



Actually, I think we already discussed this in a different thread.  I thought it got repetitious; the same thing happened in book after book.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Also, in a paradoxical way, if the character is carrying the plot, then the plot has the focus because it is what's being carried, in the same way a king is accorded more prestige than his litter bearers. Having able bearers may be important, but the king is the main event. Likewise, the character is serving as a vehicle for the plot rather than the reverse.



I completely disagree.

Plot has absolultely no relevance without the filter of a character.  If you show a war with billions of people dying, the reader doesn't care unless you filter the events through a character.  I can't think of a way to get a reader to care about any series of events without providing the emotional context of a character, hence why most people on this thread are saying, "Character is more important."

I think that, perhaps, your personal tastes are involved quite a bit here, but I think that even genre fiction has moved toward focusing on characters.  I'm thinking back to the old days of sci fi (when I read it as a teenager anyway), plot did dominate.  A story was about the things that happened.  Now, authors write about people to whom stuff happens.

Personally, I think the new way is better.

If you really think that plot is so important, I would guess that you probably want to consider carefully the closeness of your POV and whether or not your work is getting enough emotion to connect with your reader.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Actually, I think we already discussed this in a different thread.  I thought it got repetitious; the same thing happened in book after book.












BWFoster78 said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> Plot has absolultely no relevance without the filter of a character.  If you show a war with billions of people dying, the reader doesn't care unless you filter the events through a character.  I can't think of a way to get a reader to care about any series of events without providing the emotional context of a character, hence why most people on this thread are saying, "Character is more important."
> 
> ...



But the emotional reactions of the character are useful _because they inform the plot_, not because the emotions have some virtue in and of themselves. If the emotions are simply there without having any greater importance to the story (i.e. plot relevance), then they're just pointless touchy-feelyness. I tend to want to skip over moments like that in books. Having a character get tearful about her life story is only useful if it somehow impacts or informs _what is currently going on_.

And yes my writing does tend to be a bit detached. I generally try to make up for this by having my protagonists and villains do interesting things rather than relying on their emotions however. I will concede that emotions are my biggest weakness as a writer and it's why I stay the heck away from romance. I went so far as to strategically position the time-skip between my books so I could skip over my MC's courting period with his wife (who starts off as his friend and bodyguard in the first book). The sequel starts off with them already married with kids. Whether a reader will feel cheated by that I know not.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Not like the Codex Alera? Heresy! I'm going to PM you about that. Rarely do I encounter an opinion so alien to me, and I am fascinated by it. Also, my own writing/plotting style is inspired by it so I'd do well to avoid its pitfalls.



Here is the reason I am not a huge fan of Butcher: the plot is repetitive and the characters aren't dynamic.

There's only so many times I can stomach Harry Dresden cracking jokes, finding himself in the middle of an impossible situation, having his power fail him when he needs it most, leading him to find a more conventional way to solve the problem.

Tavi in the Codex Alera follows almost the exact same formula, just he cracks less jokes, but still needs to find a conventional way to succeed without power (at least in the first few books).

Now, I LOVED the Iron Druid Chronicles by Kevin Hearne which follows the EXACT SAME formula as Dreden Files, except the main character, Atticus O'Sullivan is WAY funnier and more endearing than Dresden as are the supporting characters (his dog, Oberon is hilarious).

So between the two, I go for characters over plot.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> Here is the reason I am not a huge fan of Butcher: the plot is repetitive and the characters aren't dynamic.
> 
> There's only so many times I can stomach Harry Dresden cracking jokes, finding himself in the middle of an impossible situation, having his power fail him when he needs it most, leading him to find a more conventional way to solve the problem.
> 
> ...



Then the cardinal question becomes, would Butcher's work have grabbed you more had the plots been more elaborately constructed or simply more aligned with your tastes? Though how anyone can find the Codex Alera boring or repetitive is beyond me.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Then the cardinal question becomes, would Butcher's work have grabbed you more had the plots been more elaborately constructed or simply more aligned with your tastes? Though how anyone can find the Codex Alera boring or repetitive is beyond me.



Like I said, the Iron Druid Chronicles follows the exact same formula as Dresden Files every book: funny lead character, always gets caught between 2 or more conflicting forces which will kill him if he doesn't do their bidding, power always fails him when needed most, next book rinse and repeat with different boogyman.

The difference is that the characters are funnier and more dynamic.

The problem I have with Tavi is that he's just too flavorless. He's like Richard Rahl in SoT. I found him to be predictable and boring.

Just to be clear, I am not here crapping on your favorite series or saying you are wrong for liking it, I'm just relaying why I didn't enjoy them.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Eh, to each his own. As I said, I'm not the touchy-feely type, so my tastes may be out of sync with those of "normal" people. Emotion doesn't carry the same weight for me when it comes to storytelling. Or if it does, I don't notice it. Which gives me the idea for another thread...


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Eh, to each his own. As I said, I'm not the touchy-feely type, so my tastes may be out of sync with those of "normal" people. Emotion doesn't carry the same weight for me when it comes to storytelling. Or if it does, I don't notice it. Which gives me the idea for another thread...



I don't think it's all about emotion, though.

One of my favorite fantasy characters of all time is San dan Glokta, a crippled torturer from Joe Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy.

I wouldn't say he's full of emotion, but he has an endearing fatalistic irony about him, coupled with an amazing backstory I very much enjoyed learning.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> But the emotional reactions of the character are useful because they inform the plot, not because the emotions have some virtue in and of themselves. If the emotions are simply there without having any greater importance to the story (i.e. plot relevance), then they're just pointless touchy-feelyness. I tend to want to skip over moments like that in books. Having a character get tearful about her life story is only useful if it somehow impacts or informs what is currently going on.



No one is claiming that characters don't depend on plot. Likewise no one is stating that plot doesn't depend on characters. That has never been the basis of this argument. Both plot & characters are story telling devices that work together along with other elements to tell a tale. Somehow, we keep coming back to "one can't survive without the other."

The discussion is focused on which is the greater driver for the story; well-constructed plot lines or the emotional lens of a great character. Which has greater power towards reader influence? Trying to argue which element supports the other doesn't really carry much weight. If that were the discussion we'd have to include other elements as well, like setting.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 28, 2013)

Exactly, T.Allen.Smith.

It's not all or nothing. They're both usually important components of a story. The question was simply this: as between the two, which is _more_ important. I think if you want to have a successful product, it's characters.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 28, 2013)

Jamber said:


> I dare someone to write characterless plot as an example, and try to make it engaging... Or to do make plotless character (not one mention of change; not one iota of development). Is it possible?



John Berger wrote a book of short "stories" full of engaging snippets from his life. I don't think there is any plot at all in the book, but it's engaging. I count it as one of the books that influenced me greatly in my writing, and  I think all young writers should read a bit from because it shows what you can do with simple language and how the simplest things can be engaging. Photocopies: Encounters: Amazon.ca: John Berger: Books Yes it's "literary writing", but let's not treat that like it's a dirty phrase. Each genre has something to offer. 

As for who John Berger is, he's an artist and writer who has won the Booker Prize, to name one, for his writing. Now this doesn't automatically mean everything he writes is gold, but it sure adds credence that he knows what he's doing. John Berger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 28, 2013)

Not sure that qualifies. Even if it's just a slice-of-life: if _anything_ happens, there is a plot.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 28, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> . Even if it's just a slice-of-life: if _anything_ happens, there is a plot.



I don't think so. John goes to the store is not a plot. John goes to the store because his son is sick and he has no insurance and he's desperate to find something to help his kid until the free clinic opens the next morning is a plot.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jan 28, 2013)

There are cases where plot trumps character, in many cases from the standpoint of commercial success.  Dan Brown's Davinci Code is filled with cardboard characters (I can't even remember the MC's name, much less a significant trait) but it was a real page-turner and made millions thanks to a tremendous plot.  A lot of the big-money "airport bookstore" novels have the same characteristic -- cardboard characters, good (sometimes gripping) plot.

I think most authors *want* character to be more important than plot, simply because it's easier for a reasonably talented author to write a character that readers care about than it is for them to come up with a truly strong, interesting plot.  For most, it's easier to write a story that makes the reader say, "I really loved the character" than it is to write a story that makes the reader say, "I read until 5 in the morning because i had to see what happened next."  

To be fair, even "master of plot" Dan Brown only had one Davinci Code in him.  His other novels have decent plots, but not strong enough to overcome his stock characters from central casting.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 29, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> There are cases where plot trumps character, in many cases from the standpoint of commercial success.  Dan Brown's Davinci Code is filled with cardboard characters (I can't even remember the MC's name, much less a significant trait) but it was a real page-turner and made millions thanks to a tremendous plot.  A lot of the big-money "airport bookstore" novels have the same characteristic -- cardboard characters, good (sometimes gripping) plot.
> 
> I think most authors want character to be more important than plot, simply because it's easier for a reasonably talented author to write a character that readers care about than it is for them to come up with a truly strong, interesting plot.  For most, it's easier to write a story that makes the reader say, "I really loved the character" than it is to write a story that makes the reader say, "I read until 5 in the morning because i had to see what happened next."
> 
> To be fair, even "master of plot" Dan Brown only had one Davinci Code in him.  His other novels have decent plots, but not strong enough to overcome his stock characters from central casting.



As much as I hate to admit it.... I really like your argument. I'm still strongly in the character camp. However, I loved the DaVinci Code before it was a smash success and it illustrates your point well. I still contend though that character would tend to draw a reader deeper into the experience than plot. Imagine if Dan Brown would've written characters with a more emotional reaction to events, greater back story, and still overcoming obstacles.... This begs the question: What differentiates the smash commercial success from the classic? - 

Granted I've drank a decent amount tonight so I may be reaching a bit with that question. Still, are there any literature classics or novels of high praise that would fit into the plot > character camp?


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> As much as I hate to admit it.... I really like your argument. I'm still strongly in the character camp. However, I loved the DaVinci Code before it was a smash success and it illustrates your point well. I still contend though that character would tend to draw a reader deeper into the experience than plot. Imagine if Dan Brown would've written characters with a more emotional reaction to events, greater back story, and still overcoming obstacles.... This begs the question: What differentiates the smash commercial success from the classic? -
> 
> Granted I've drank a decent amount tonight so I may be reaching a bit with that question. Still, are there any literature classics or novels of high praise that would fit into the plot > character camp?



Honestly, I didn't think Da Vinci Code was anywhere near as good as Angels & Demons, even though I thought the ending of the latter was lame.

BUT...here is another example of a series in which the formula is almost EXACTLY the same for each book.

I also think that a lot of the success of Da Vinci Code is owed to the history and mythology of the subject matter.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 29, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> Honestly, I didn't think Da Vinci Code was anywhere near as good as Angels & Demons, even though I thought the ending of the latter was lame.
> 
> BUT...here is another example of a series in which the formula is almost EXACTLY the same for each book.
> 
> I also think that a lot of the success of Da Vinci Code is owed to the history and mythology of the subject matter.



I couldn't agree more (other than Angels & Demons being good on any level). The fact is, Dan Brown capitalized on the research of other men. He turned it into fiction that a lot of people loved, was sued, & eventually exonerated in legal terms.

It was a subject matter that has been adored for centuries of storytelling. However, it had current historical thinking and research behind it. Brown gave it life in the moden time...wait for it...through characters. They may not be the best example of characters, yet they still gave new life to a tale older than the crusades.

Same old story...new characters....smash success.

Character > Plot.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I couldn't agree more (other than Angels & Demons being good on any level). The fact is, Dan Brown capitalized on the research of other men. He turned it into fiction that a lot of people loved, was sued, & eventually exonerated in legal terms.
> 
> It was a subject matter that has been adored for centuries of storytelling. However, it had current historical thinking and research behind it. Brown gave it life in the moden time...wait for it...through characters. They may not be the best example of characters, yet they still gave new life to a tale older than the crusades.
> 
> ...



Okay, now you're reaching. Hard. You're not even taking into account the quality of the characters, just that they were "new". As I've said before, characters serve as a vehicle for the plot. I haven't read The DaVinci Code, but it seems to illustrate that point. The plot is what will keep me engaged, prevent me from being bored, and it's what I'll remember afterward.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 29, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Okay, now you're reaching. Hard. You're not even taking into account the quality of the characters, just that they were "new". As I've said before, characters serve as a vehicle for the plot. I haven't read The DaVinci Code, but it seems to illustrate that point. The plot is what will keep me engaged, prevent me from being bored, and it's what I'll remember afterward.



How can you possibly comment on the characters or plot in a story you haven't read? 

Stating "as I've stated before, characters serve as a vehicle for the plot" is not only extremely arrogant, as if your word on the matter is final, but it also contends that this position is an absolute...a position you've railed against in other posts on other subjects. 

Considering that I have read the story, I am the only one, between you & I, that could take the quality of the characters into account. I liked the characters. Could they have been more engaging? Yes. However, I really dug the intellectual character of Robert Langdon, his view on the world as a symbolist, and how that view related to the story at hand. He was a man, entrenched in the safe world of acedemia that was yanked into an underground current of religious and intercontinental intrigue. He brought a unique perspective and level of expertise. I also loved the villain character Silas and his warped religious fervor that another man bent to his agenda. Never did I argue that the success was due only to the characters being "new".

Again , you're confusing the argument with which element carries the other, which is not the argument at all. It's all about which has greater power to impact the reader. In this case, the old story is given fresh emotional connection though new revelations revealed through modern characters with differing and contrary outlooks. I can't grasp why that concept is difficult for you to understand.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 29, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> There are cases where plot trumps character, in many cases from the standpoint of commercial success.  Dan Brown's Davinci Code is filled with cardboard characters (I can't even remember the MC's name, much less a significant trait) but it was a real page-turner and made millions thanks to a tremendous plot.  A lot of the big-money "airport bookstore" novels have the same characteristic -- cardboard characters, good (sometimes gripping) plot.
> 
> I think most authors want character to be more important than plot, simply because it's easier for a reasonably talented author to write a character that readers care about than it is for them to come up with a truly strong, interesting plot.  For most, it's easier to write a story that makes the reader say, "I really loved the character" than it is to write a story that makes the reader say, "I read until 5 in the morning because i had to see what happened next."
> 
> To be fair, even "master of plot" Dan Brown only had one Davinci Code in him.  His other novels have decent plots, but not strong enough to overcome his stock characters from central casting.



Another note, but this is on a solitary, personal level so it may not be valid across a broad spectrum of readers:

Years & years ago, I read a book by Baigent & Leigh called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." As a lover of history, I read this little known research on modern revelations about what the holy grail actually was. The book drew some conclusions that laid contrary to many things I'd learned about the subject before. After I'd read it, my reaction was "that's interesting". I set it aside without much further thought (a fact I regret).

A couple years later, I read Brown's DaVinci Code. Afterwards, I remember being captured by the idea, and the tale, more so than I was by the intellectual account. 

What was the difference? The revelations & presentation of new ideas were the same. The difference was that one was a version that explained the idea and one told a story through characters involved in the outcome.


----------



## SineNomine (Jan 29, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> There are cases where plot trumps character, in many cases from the standpoint of commercial success.  Dan Brown's Davinci Code is filled with cardboard characters (I can't even remember the MC's name, much less a significant trait) but it was a real page-turner and made millions thanks to a tremendous plot.  A lot of the big-money "airport bookstore" novels have the same characteristic -- cardboard characters, good (sometimes gripping) plot.
> 
> I think most authors *want* character to be more important than plot, simply because it's easier for a reasonably talented author to write a character that readers care about than it is for them to come up with a truly strong, interesting plot.  For most, it's easier to write a story that makes the reader say, "I really loved the character" than it is to write a story that makes the reader say, "I read until 5 in the morning because i had to see what happened next."
> 
> To be fair, even "master of plot" Dan Brown only had one Davinci Code in him.  His other novels have decent plots, but not strong enough to overcome his stock characters from central casting.



This, I think is the most important point, though I would make a few quibbles.  I don't think it is necessarily what writers feel they can write that causes them to prefer characters over plot.  I'm not completely certain why, but I feel it is undeniable that there is more room to express yourself as an author and as an artist through your well-developed characters than through well written plot.  Literary critics would obviously agree, and as we are taught how to appreciate what makes a good story, what we learn is more having to do with analyzing the characters than analyzing the plot.  This is a community of authors and it isn't surprising to see the results of the poll.  At the same time, I think if you gave the same poll to a bunch of random joe shmoes on the street, the trend would be reversed.  

Yes, good characters are important, but what drives people to read into the wee hours of the night is almost entirely _what's going to happen next_.  And yeah, this gets into the heart of literary fiction vs genre fiction, and even into popular fiction vs critically acclaimed fiction, two things which obviously writers are VERY acutely aware of.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 29, 2013)

SineNomine said:


> This is a community of authors and it isn't surprising to see the results of the poll.  At the same time, I think if you gave the same poll to a bunch of random joe shmoes on the street, the trend would be reversed.
> 
> Yes, good characters are important, but what drives people to read into the wee hours of the night is almost entirely what's going to happen next.



I don't agree on either point. People love great characters...even the non-writers among us. The populace gravitates towards a great character at least on an equal basis, if not more so, than a grand plot.

Your example of reading into the night is also flawed, in my opinion. I read further because I care what happens to the character I've formed a bond with... I care about what happens because I'm invested in the character. Of course, this outlook may differ from reader to reader. I accept that.


----------



## SineNomine (Jan 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't agree on either point. People love great characters...even the non-writers among us. The populace gravitates towards a great character at least on an equal basis, if not more so, than a grand plot.
> 
> Your example of reading into the night is also flawed, in my opinion. I read further because I care what happens to the character I've formed a bond with... I care about what happens because I'm invested in the character. Of course, this outlook may differ from reader to reader. I accept that.



This runs into the overwhelming issue that we can't deal with either in absolute terms simply because all stories contain both, and all stories that were good enough to be published and read will generally be decent at both or better.  I'm certainly not trying to imply that character development is unimportant or that you can safely ignore making your characters interesting if your plot is interesting.  Ideally you have both in heaps. There certainly isn't a limited amount of creativity that you have to allocate in a certain way.

You still care about the characters only as seen through the lens of the plot though, how they affect it and how it affects them.  I can't imagine continuing to read a book where the main character just stopped having to overcome all conflict and just _existed_ no matter how awesome that character is, however I can imagine continuing, and in fact have at times continued, to read books where the main character started interesting but seemed to devolve into simple fantasy stereotypes thanks to a plot that was interesting enough to want to know the resolution of.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> How can you possibly comment on the characters or plot in a story you haven't read?
> 
> Stating "as I've stated before, characters serve as a vehicle for the plot" is not only extremely arrogant, as if your word on the matter is final, but it also contends that this position is an absolute...a position you've railed against in other posts on other subjects.



Okay, now you're putting words in my mouth. I resent that emphatically. Never have I said my way is the only way. Only that I believe it's a valid position and one I will defend. My point was not to assert that my position is the absolute, but that I am dissatisfied with your counterargument. I reiterated the point because I don't think you've yet actually countered it. And I'm not judging the books characters. Neither did you- that's my point. You didn't say that Dan Brown's _good_ characters improved a stale plot and this is an example of character superceding plot. Never did you claim his characters were good or well-developed. You merely said the characters were "new", as if I could plop new characters into any story and they would revive it simply by virtue of novelty. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but it's hard to read intent over the internet.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> Considering that I have read the story, I am the only one, between you & I, that could take the quality of the characters into account. I liked the characters. Could they have been more engaging? Yes. However, I really dug the intellectual character of Robert Langdon, his view on the world as a symbolist, and how that view related to the story at hand. He was a man, entrenched in the safe world of acedemia that was yanked into an underground current of religious and intercontinental intrigue. He brought a unique perspective and level of expertise. I also loved the villain character Silas and his warped religious fervor that another man bent to his agenda. Never did I argue that the success was due only to the characters being "new".
> 
> Again , you're confusing the argument with which element carries the other, which is not the argument at all. It's all about which has greater power to impact the reader. In this case, the old story is given fresh emotional connection though new revelations revealed through modern characters with differing and contrary outlooks. I can't grasp why that concept is difficult for you to understand.



You may have felt this way, but can you be sure that all or even most people felt this way? How do you know that some or even most weren't attracted to the book simply because of its interesting premise and plot twists? And how is the matter of which element carries which irrelevant? I don't recall this discussion being filtered through the lens of reader impact until just now. And even if it were, can we really adequately discuss reader impact? For one thing, it's impossible to know how every reader feels about everything. The best we could try to do is use the forum as a microcosm, and that's likely to be inaccurate because here we tend to be writers first, readers second. And the matter is so subjective even then we're not likely to come to any kind of solid conclusion.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> How can you possibly comment on the characters or plot in a story you haven't read?



This could almost be a separate topic. I think Mindfire and I have partly covered it elsewhere


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

> And yes my writing does tend to be a bit detached. I generally try to make up for this by having my protagonists and villains do interesting things rather than relying on their emotions however. I will concede that emotions are my biggest weakness as a writer and it's why I stay the heck away from romance.



Emotions are my biggest weakness as a writer as well.  Rather than avoid them, though, I'm working hard to try to improve in that area.  I can't help but feel that, if I could just get that one technique down, my writing would get to the next level.

I think that you can write a decent story that keeps people turning the pages without being great at emotion.  To go to the next level, though, to really get the reader to live the book and FEEL something, for that, you absolutely have to get the emotion part down.

Another point, though: the character isn't just about infusing emotion; it's about adding context.

Side A defeats Side B in a battle. 

So?  It's an event.  It's a statistic.  Why should I care?  And, if I don't care, how are you to engage me?

Character is the way you bring context to the battle so that I care about the outcome.  What are the personal stakes of the battle to the character?  If you can convey that to me, then I begin to care.

Because of this conversation, I covered this issue in today's blog post.  I seriously suggest you check it out.  I cannot understate how important this concept is to improving writing; it's not just about emotion as much as about how to truly engage the reader and take writing to the next level.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Another note, but this is on a solitary, personal level so it may not be valid across a broad spectrum of readers:
> 
> Years & years ago, I read a book by Baigent & Leigh called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." As a lover of history, I read this little known research on modern revelations about what the holy grail actually was. The book drew some conclusions that laid contrary to many things I'd learned about the subject before. After I'd read it, my reaction was "that's interesting". I set it aside without much further thought (a fact I regret).
> 
> ...



I don't think you can really equate a focus on plot with a straight-out academic explanation. If we're discussing Character vs. Lecturing, then I agree, character wins. But while from your perspective what made the difference between HB,HG and TDVC was that the latter had characters, someone else could easily say that the two books are different in an equally if not more significant way: TDVC has a plot, HB,HG doesn't.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I don't think you can really equate a focus on plot with a straight-out academic explanation. If we're discussing Character vs. Lecturing, then I agree, character wins. But while from your perspective what made the difference between HB,HG and TDVC was that the latter had characters, someone else could easily say that the two books are different in an equally if not more significant way: TDVC has a plot, HB,HG doesn't.



Aren't you kinda arguing that the presence of characters makes a series of events a plot?

Without the characters, you have a lecture.  With the characters, you have a story and a plot.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Emotions are my biggest weakness as a writer as well.  Rather than avoid them, though, I'm working hard to try to improve in that area.  I can't help but feel that, if I could just get that one technique down, my writing would get to the next level.
> 
> I think that you can write a decent story that keeps people turning the pages without being great at emotion.  To go to the next level, though, to really get the reader to live the book and FEEL something, for that, you absolutely have to get the emotion part down.
> 
> ...



Perhaps I have misrepresented myself. I'm not advancing the opinion that characters are unimportant. I love my characters and I try to do them justice as best I can. But consider this: perhaps, in order for the reader to be engaged in the plot, there is a "minimum character threshold". Above this threshold, the reader will most likely follow along gladly. Below this threshold, they put the book down and walk away. It's impossible to know exactly where that threshold is and it varies from person to person, but I would suggest that the threshold might be lower than most writers think it is. That is my position encapsulated: the threshold just might be lower than you think it is.

For example: Eragon has notoriously flat characters, but I read it anyway because the minimum character threshold was met and I love Star Wars I wanted to see what would happen.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Aren't you kinda arguing that the presence of characters makes a series of events a plot?
> 
> Without the characters, you have a lecture.  With the characters, you have a story and a plot.



Not quite. A lecture's focus is merely on relaying information, on teaching something. A plot's primary purpose is not to instruct, but to entertain, though instruction may be a useful by-product. The focus is different. How they engage the reader is different. There are fundamental differences between my calculus textbook and a novel, of which character is only one.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Perhaps I have misrepresented myself. I'm not advancing the opinion that characters are unimportant. I love my characters and I try to do them justice as best I can. But consider this: perhaps, in order for the reader to be engaged in the plot, there is a "minimum character threshold". Above this threshold, the reader will most likely follow along gladly. Below this threshold, they put the book down and walk away. It's impossible to know exactly where that threshold is and it varies from person to person, but I would suggest that the threshold might be lower than most writers think it is. That is my position encapsulated: the threshold just might be lower than you think it is.
> 
> For example: Eragon has notoriously flat characters, but I read it anyway because the minimum character threshold was met and I love Star Wars I wanted to see what would happen.



No.  You haven't misrepresented yourself.  Maybe the problem is the definition of "important."

I read the initial question as: Character or Plot - Which is most responsible for making a book really, truly awesome?

Perhaps your standard is: Character or Plot - Which is most needed to make a book readable?

I still say character.

Really, though, this post was more about me trying desperately to convince you to at least consider what I'm saying about filtering through a POV character.  If you're really not doing that already, I seriously think it will improve your writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Not quite. A lecture's focus is merely on relaying information, on teaching something. A plot's primary purpose is not to instruct, but to entertain, though instruction may be a useful by-product. The focus is different. How they engage the reader is different. There are fundamental differences between my calculus textbook and a novel, of which character is only one.



I've read history texts that try to entertain.  Generally, they don't succeed except when they're able to filter the events through a character.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

I will grant you that character goes a long way to making a book enjoyable or just tolerable to read.  But I actually entered this on the same reading of the question that you did, which I why I stand on the plot side. There are very few characters I remember in and of themselves. Hardly any in fact. They're like people- you meet them and forget their name the next day. But if they _do something in the plot_ that's staggeringly awesome, then I actually care. It's those moments I remember, not the characters themselves per ce, and certainly not the characters in isolation. And I hold on to the memory and impact of an engrossing plot longer than I hold on the impact of an interesting character. There are very few exceptions to this rule for me. Maybe I'm just different, and whatever pixie dust feeling other people get from these characters is just beyond me.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 29, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> There are very few characters I remember in and of themselves. Hardly any in fact. They're like people- you meet them and forget their name the next day.



That's an odd comment from a contributor that has commented on so many characters in so many other posts.

EDIT for clarification: I never meant you helping others with their characters. I am referring to characters, already established in media, that you espouse your love.

I don't want this to devolve any further into an argument away from the intended question at hand so this will be my final post.

HBHG was entertaining because of the ideas and events that the book asserted and brought to light. It did not however, capture the idea in the same fashion as when Dan Brown relayed it through characters that had an emotional connection to those ideas. That writing left a greater emotional impression.

From your prior comments, its obvious that you've read neither book so arguing about that point, with imagined assertions on your part, seems rather pointless.

I suppose we'll have to just agree to disagree on the importance & impact of character vs. plot.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I will grant you that character goes a long way to making a book enjoyable or just tolerable to read.  But I actually entered this on the same reading of the question that you did, which I why I stand on the plot side. There are very few characters I remember in and of themselves. Hardly any in fact. They're like people- you meet them and forget their name the next day. But if they _do something in the plot_ that's staggeringly awesome, then I actually care. It's those moments I remember, not the characters themselves per ce, and certainly not the characters in isolation. And I hold on to the memory and impact of an engrossing plot longer than I hold on the impact of an interesting character. There are very few exceptions to this rule for me. Maybe I'm just different, and whatever pixie dust feeling other people get from these characters is just beyond me.



I think you're missing the point.  To me, this question has nothing to do with how memorable a character is.

Perhaps this is what's going through your mind: I don't care about emotions all that much, and all the characters really add is emotion.  What I really like is the stuff that happens.  The stuff that happens rules!

My contention is that the characters add a lot more than just the emotion.  The filter of the character is what allows the events to have impact.

Let me say that again: The filter of the character is what allows events to have impact.

An event has to happen to someone.  It's importance is derived solely from it's importance to the character.  If you can't sell the personal connection between what is happening and it's importance to your character, the event is going to have no impact on your reader.  It will be nothing but a dry history lesson.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That's an odd comment from a contributor that has commented on so many characters in so many other posts.



Why should that be odd? If people ask for opinions to help improve their characters, I'm glad to help if I can. I'll never say characters don't need to be developed. Just that I care a bit more about what they do than who they are.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think you're missing the point.  To me, this question has nothing to do with how memorable a character is.
> 
> Perhaps this is what's going through your mind: I don't care about emotions all that much, and all the characters really add is emotion.  What I really like is the stuff that happens.  The stuff that happens rules!
> 
> ...



Ah. I get it. I suppose I could counter-propose that the character's reactions could be subsumed under the plot label, cause and effect, but then we're back to semantics again.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Ah. I get it. I suppose I could counter-propose that the character's reactions could be subsumed under the plot label, cause and effect, but then we're back to semantics again.



The important thing isn't whether you agree with my point of view on an internet poll.  Frankly, it really doesn't matter that much.

I'm trying to take this as an opportunity to pass along some information that I've found to be particularly important to my development as a writer in the hopes that that information might help you as well.

I can't recall if I've read anything of yours or not, so I have no idea as to your skill level.  However, from your comments. I would think that really studying the idea of filtering might be a great idea for you.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The important thing isn't whether you agree with my point of view on an internet poll.  Frankly, it really doesn't matter that much.
> 
> I'm trying to take this as an opportunity to pass along some information that I've found to be particularly important to my development as a writer in the hopes that that information might help you as well.
> 
> I can't recall if I've read anything of yours or not, so I have no idea as to your skill level.  However, from your comments. I would think that really studying the idea of filtering might be a great idea for you.



Thanks for the tip!


----------



## WyrdMystic (Jan 29, 2013)

Let's face it people - if it wasn't for semantics....we'd have a lot less to say to each other 

PS - Character + Plot = happy me!!


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jan 29, 2013)

> Side A defeats Side B in a battle.
> 
> So? It's an event. It's a statistic. Why should I care? And, if I don't care, how are you to engage me?
> 
> Character is the way you bring context to the battle so that I care about the outcome. What are the personal stakes of the battle to the character? If you can convey that to me, then I begin to care.



I think this is a good point up to an extent.  However, I'd also argue it's a simplification and points to the reason that most authors *want *character to be more important than plot.

The fact is that there are ways to plot Side A's defeat of Side B in battle that would make most readers care even if the characters involved were for the most part two-dimensional cardboard.  A battle scene can be gripping and engaging for the battle itself -- *if *well plotted.  If the author can also provide emotional attachment to the characters, that of course ups the total payoff to the reader.

However, most authors find writing a gripping, well-plotted battle scene very difficult.  To get over that hump, they write a bog-standard battle scene ("Side A defeats Side B in battle -- insert a few stock clashes of arms here") and use the personal stakes of the battle to the character to make their readers care and find meaning in the scene.  Then they tell themselves that character > plot, nobody cares about the actual battle itself and it's the _emotion/personal impact _that counts.

There's nothing wrong with that, but in a way I suppose I'm arguing it's a bit of a crutch.  Just as we as writers try to challenge ourselves to improve characterization, I'd suggest we challenge ourselves to improve our plotting as well.  Next time we write a battle scene, let's try to make it interesting and engaging even outside the impact on our characters.  Check out some of the better writers in this area (Allan Cole & Chris Bunch, David Webber, David Drake, Bernard Cornwell, William H. Keith Jr.) -- they're good on character but character aside they write a damn fine battle.

Extend that concept to all the other routine plotting running through our fiction and with great characters + great plot we could be on to something really special...

For the avoidance of doubt, all of the above is purely theoretical for me -- I can't write great characters or great plot.  Er, yet...


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

> I think this is a good point up to an extent. However, I'd also argue it's a simplification and points to the reason that most authors want character to be more important than plot.



The only thing I WANT is to write the best books possible, and I'm firmly convinced that this is the way for me to achieve that goal, not by putting plot first.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jan 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The only thing I WANT is to write the best books possible, and I'm firmly convinced that this is the way for me to achieve that goal, not by putting plot first.



Sorry, didn't mean to suggest putting plot first (for me, plot and character are of equal importance) and certainly meant no offense.  Obviously every writer has to do what is best for their own story and what they think makes the best book.

I was struck by the huge disparity in the importance of plot vs character in the poll and it led me to think two things:

1) Either character really is more important than plot in a well-told story...which I'm not sure I believe
2) There is an underlying reason(s) authors generally prefer to focus on character rather than plot

And ultimately I do think it's easier for most people to learn to write good characters than it is to learn to good plotting, so that's where most people focus their attention (including me).  I guess I'm taking it as my own challenge to try to make my plots more compelling, though I'm not sure exactly how one learns to do that.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 29, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to suggest putting plot first (for me, plot and character are of equal importance) and certainly meant no offense.  Obviously every writer has to do what is best for their own story and what they think makes the best book.
> 
> I was struck by the huge disparity in the importance of plot vs character in the poll and it led me to think two things:
> 
> ...



This is an interesting perspective, and one that I respect.

I don't necessarily agree with the concept that it's easier to create characters than plot.  I think that I do a much better job conveying the what in my story than I'm doing portraying the emotions and motivations of the characters behind the actions.  I'm having to work my butt off to get that right whereas the plot came quite easily to me.

I think that, perhaps, you may have dismissed my theory of filtering as being less important than it actually is.  I simply do not think that you can achieve the same results by plotting, which is why I think most of the authors on this site chose "character."


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jan 29, 2013)

> I think that, perhaps, you may have dismissed my theory of filtering as being less important than it actually is. I simply do not think that you can achieve the same results by plotting, which is why I think most of the authors on this site chose "character."



Just read your blog post on filtering and think you do make a good point.  In my own writing I do try (to a certain extent) to filter events through POV characters as you say.  My tendency is to use filtering moderately as describing everything through its emotional/personal impact on the POV character can be just as boring/tiring for the reader as providing no sense of impact whatsoever.  

Hemingway, with his journalist background, famously just described things and left 90% of it to the reader to figure out what his characters felt based on what they said and how they acted.  Now he portrayed emotions and motivations extremely well (he was good at "character") but he was not very transparent about it.  My sense is that filtering can in many cases be a very transparent mechanism for characterization, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how it's used.

In terms of plotting, I think the part that often needs to be worked is not so much conveying "what" is happening as it is making the "what" more interesting.  Put simply, there are a lot of boring, bog-standard plots and scenes out there and coming up with interesting twists and turns that generate excitement in the reader can be a difficult task.


----------



## Devor (Jan 29, 2013)

One reason, I think, that character is so overwhelmingly favored over plot is the medium in question.  Novels can get you inside a character's head really well.  They struggle, though, to get you into an involving action scene.  I love Tolkein, but the Battle of Helm's Deep, for instance, was so much better on screen than in the book just because the visuals did it better than the words.  Meanwhile, the character's POV flows right into the basic narrative and completely overshadows the basic plotline.

I'm also partial to where Mindfire is coming from when he talks about respecting the characters because of their _Crowning Moments of Awesome_.  As writers, we should not forget that despite the immersive POV narrative, our characters are mostly received by readers according to their words and their actions.  When I write, I do tend to focus on those moments which everything - characters, plot and setting - are building up to.  And when I do, I tend to get the results that I want.

I think semantics are an issue here.  A character's _Moment of Awesome_, to me, still belongs to the _character_, as much as to the plot.  It's not awesome because somebody just rips all the wires from a nuclear bomb, expecting it to blow, and finding that it worked in disarming it; it's awesome that _Richard Castle_ did it because that's the kind of crazy thing that works for him.

In other threads, I've tried to suggest a basic storytelling formula:

Character + Plot + Setting = Story

These _Moments of Awesome_, to me, happen when those elements come together in cool and surprising and seemingly inevitable ways to produce memorable results.  They belong to the story - they are your story - and it's important to build them by using your storytelling elements effectively.


----------



## glutton (Mar 24, 2013)

Characters and plot are inseparably intertwined IMO, if you have significantly different characters you'll probably have a different plot so I'll say characters.


----------

