Character Vs. Plot: Which is more important?

[Xaysai]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steerpike]

. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.