• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Character Vs. Plot: Which is more important?

Character or plot?

  • Character

    Votes: 28 84.8%
  • Plot

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

Mindfire

Istar
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.
 
Last edited:

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
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.
 
Last edited:

Mindfire

Istar
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

Staff
Moderator
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?
 
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

Banned
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

Istar
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Istar
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.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
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

Istar
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

Minstrel
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

Minstrel
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

Sage
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Minstrel
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

Istar
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.
 
Top