Character Vs. Plot: Which is more important?

[BWFoster78]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.