• 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 .

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
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

Istar
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.
 

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
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

Istar
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

Istar
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
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.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Istar
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

Myth Weaver
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

Istar
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

Istar
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

Myth Weaver
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

Myth Weaver
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

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

1318268.jpg


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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Xaysai

Inkling
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

Istar
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.

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

Inkling
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

Istar
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...
 
Top