Does anyone NOT write very character driven fiction anymore?

[Mythopoet]

Fifthview I totally get what you are saying. The Lord of the ring references were great!

Yes, I can see how that it a problem, and how establishing a hook when you don't even have a plot yet would be tricky!

Funny enough this is how I typically design my stories! Maybe there are lots of us?

I think "hmmmmm, I want there to be a hidden treasure that pirates are after and the mc has to get it before the bad pirate does." So, plot first.

The I'd start brainstorming, ok, how did the mc get into this mess? How did they get involved? Character second.

Is that what you are referring to mytho? Plot first planning? Where the mc doesn't need any other goal than just the main plot goal? They don't have an inner, personal goal? I'm just trying to be clear on the discussion here.

i don't know if I would say "plot first". But I guess my problem is that I have a setting and I have characters and a concept/premise and I sit down to create an outline for my story and that is the point at which I start flailing around for actual things to happen within said setting to said characters to advance said premise. And pretty much the only advice out there is "well, think about what your character desires!" Which is all well and good except that most of my stories are bigger than just the characters. I'm trying to fill in the blanks in an epic mythological narrative and most of the time individual character desires just don't have much to do with it and nor do I think they should.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, I agree with you. I don't think there has to be a deep inner goal. There are plenty of examples of stories where the character doesn't have a deep inner goal. Indiana Jones. James Bond... Frodo certainly didn't have any deep inner desire for destroying the ring, other than he liked the shire and didn't want to see it destroyed.

I think the issue here is getting past your plotting issue. You absolutely can do that without your character having a deep inner goal.

My favourite method is writing loglines, which helps to hone in on the key story elements. I wrote about that in this post here:

https://mythicscribes.com/community/threads/plot-what-plot-there-is-not-plot.19243/#post-276331

Writing a variety of loglines in a variety of story types helps you really narrow in on what sort of story you want to tell and will give you a blueprint for how to make it unfold.

 

[FifthView]

Heliotrope

Since you brought up throughlines....

That older discussion of throughlines comes to mind. If the throughline is like a maypole, then everything else must not only be attached to it but circle it like ribbons. Other things will support the throughline also.

So....If you start out with the character's personal desires and goals when designing the plot, then other added elements will serve that character-driven plot. Maybe the elf and dwarf duo isn't there merely as an example of friendship but also to bluntly point out some of Frodo's flaws. They are friendly, but not yet friends of Frodo, so they don't have a stake in not upsetting him this way. I hadn't mentioned Frodo's flaws in that scenario, but let's say he has some stiff, slightly arrogant upper class tendencies when interacting with Samwise, heh. Gimli and/or Legolas might freely point this out to him at some point.

But if you start out with an event-driven plot, like the impending invasion of Middle Earth by Sauron, and the throughline isn't so much Frodo-Learns-How-To-Be-A-Good-Friend or whatever, but rather Little-Guy-Saves-The-World-With-Help-From-His-Friends, then the elements you choose for your story are going to be different or at least the process of choosing those elements would be different and the way they are incorporated will be different.

I'm just spit-balling this...

 

[Nimue]

i don't know if I would say "plot first". But I guess my problem is that I have a setting and I have characters and a concept/premise and I sit down to create an outline for my story and that is the point at which I start flailing around for actual things to happen within said setting to said characters to advance said premise. And pretty much the only advice out there is "well, think about what your character desires!" Which is all well and good except that most of my stories are bigger than just the characters. I'm trying to fill in the blanks in an epic mythological narrative and most of the time individual character desires just don't have much to do with it and nor do I think they should.

I wonder if you might have more success brainstorming from a theme. Something like hope, redemption, fate, an idea on the mythological scale. I think a lot of the advice out there about using a character arc to determine whether plot events work could be adjusted for a "story arc" where theme takes the place of the flaw/goal of a character arc. Take that single idea and splinter it into variations on a theme, whatever fits with your characters and world. Hope could become an exploration of despair, of unfounded optimism, of just gods, of a society seeking a promised land, magic returning to a forsaken kingdom, a character who finds a lost lover after many years, passing down wisdom to a new generation, etc etc.

Only an thought--I can't name any resources or books to back this up. I tend to focus on points of emotion when I'm first brainstorming (i.e. betrayal, sacrifice, abandonment, vindication) which do center around the characters.

 

[FifthView]

Nimue I was going to suggest something similar!

When creating that little Frodo scenario, I was trying to dig into his personal desires, how these interact with the living situation he currently has, and so forth, and trying to find disruptions and the ways other characters can be introduced to add friction/threat/help in those things.

Doing the same thing with a theme, elements of the world, an exterior threat/motivator, and so forth could be just the thing for deciding on the sorts of events, situations, and other characters that could be introduced to explore and navigate those things.

 

[Mythopoet]

The thing is that I have no problem with the big picture. I know my throughline. I know what ideas and themes I want to play with. I know my character's arc. I need help outlining scene by scene and filling in the details. But even in that situation people generally go "well, what is it that your character desires in this scene?" Man, he just wants to escape the maze he's lost in. No, not a metaphorical maze of identity or whatever. He's in an actual maze. He needs to survive it. I need to come up with tons of obstacles for him to face but ultimately bring him out of it. And I need ideas for like, monsters and traps and crap. I mean, sure, I suppose some of the monsters or whatever might play into his thematic journey, but mostly I need plot events right now on the ground level.

 

[FifthView]

In that sort of situation, I might ask how did this maze get here, who designed it and why, what was that designer like (more into creepy crawly inhabitants of the maze, or illusions, or vines; trap a person forever not letting him die or slowly transform him into one of the critters also; etc.) and so forth. This might help inspire the kinds of obstacles he'd encounter.

Now, this is kinda funny because in this case I'm exploring an antagonist's deep, inner character, heh.

But it's kinda just an issue of worldbuilding. Why is the world as it is? This helps to define the MC's relationship to that world. What the MC wants may not be so much of an issue, but regardless of what he wants, the world is as it is and he must deal with it.

IF you have an end goal in mind, you know how the story will end, then some of these earlier obstacles can be foreshadowing for that end, also.

 

[Nimue]

Hmm, at that granular level, it's tough to say. I'm at that point myself as well, actually, where I'm going through and summarizing/outlining each scene. (The outline is at 12k midway through act 2, please send help.) All I'm working with right now is a million hours of daydreaming and notes that I've built up, meaning there's generally something, ideas, seeds, dialogue snippets, but a lot of the specifics just get developed as I reach them.

For that specific problem, I'd just browse mythology and art and try to dream up some vivid images. Hell, for monsters and traps maybe look at DnD. I don't know that there is writing advice to fill in all the gaps, I guess. If the question is "what do I put in this scene"....there are a million possibilities but it depends on the story you're telling and who you are as a writer.

Edit: Also, if you have a big blank space in your scene, I'd consider what else you're trying to do in the story besides get from plot beat A to plot beat B, even if it's not "further the character arc". Is this also a place for worldbuilding? Foreshadowing? Is this a place to build tension towards a specific climactic thing? The more story purposes woven into a scene, the more likely you'll get good, idea-generating interactions. ...Or it's an indication that you need to skip or cut to something else, but this doesn't sound like the case, this sounds like a big setpiece you're struggling with.

 

[Devor]

I'm going to put it like this. The push in the direction of character-driven stories is usually good advice, but you have to take it from the starting line of the type of story you're writing in. If you're writing an action-packed, plot-driven thriller, or a massive world-changing fantasy epic, those character moments are still going to be vital in relating to your audience and experiencing the depth that your story has to offer...... but that doesn't mean you need to dump the thriller and the epic and can only write slice of life melodrama.

As with many such things, you have to ground it in your individual context, and can't just hear it - or say it - as though it's the end-all defining statement of the conversation.

Character-driven scenes and plots and moments are one of the many core writing skills, and improving your skill here will make you a better writer, hands down. But you should write to your skills. If you're really bad at the character-stuff, then of course lean the bulk of your work on your other skills. And vice-versa. But still improve your skills here, and elsewhere.

 

[skip.knox]

<snip> I need help outlining scene by scene and filling in the details. But even in that situation people generally go "well, what is it that your character desires in this scene?" Man, he just wants to escape the maze he's lost in. <snip> And I need ideas for like, monsters and traps and crap. I mean, sure, I suppose some of the monsters or whatever might play into his thematic journey, but mostly I need plot events right now on the ground level.

Outlining what you describe seems pretty straightforward. You already know that getting out of the maze means left, left, right, third door, right, left and out. So you decide how many traps you'll drop in there, where the monster encounter is -- this is plain ol' dungeon design. If you have never been a DM, grab some old D&D adventure manuals to see how it's done.

No, you don't need to start such scene design with the character, but you might ask yourself this: why would I as a reader care if this guy gets out or not? To my mind, I'm not going to care what monsters are in your world, what the geology (dungeon) is like, or even who winds up ruling the world or if it's destroyed. I'm going to care about someone in that world. Preferrably several someones. And that does bring you back to character.

Down there in that dungeon/maze, there can still be an opportunity--not a necessity--for character revelation if not character development. How does the MC get through this maze? By clever reasoning? Brute force? Working with a team? Dumb luck? Succeeds in spite of himself? Each of these reveals something different, and they don't all go together. So again, the author is going to have to think a bit about the character or else wind up with an inconsistent character. We all hate the character who is clever when the plot needs clever, stupid when the plot needs stupid, and lucky when the author obviously couldn't think of anything better.

Finally, ideas for monsters and traps? I refer again to the manuals. Not D&D only but all the other wonderful RPGs made in the 1980s and 1990s. Make some lists, then take those lists to the internet for even more variations.

 

[skip.knox]

To respond to the OP: I tried. I really did.

When I came up with the idea for Goblins at the Gates it was all concept--the goblin invasion of the Roman Empire, the point at which Altearth history diverged from Earth history. I had other stories I wanted to write, but this was sort of the origin story, which I based on the Battle of Adrianople in 378AD. That was it. I didn't even have characters. When I did, I simply grabbed real historical characters.

And began. Wrote some scenes. Then this odd thing happened. I had a specific scene and it had the future Emperor Theodosius there along with what became my exiled barbarian princess, and some others. At the table, down at one end, I had a notion about a younger fellow. Sarcastic, sophisticated, he could offer counterpoint to my principal, Theodosius. I quickly realized that in Julian I had a good foil--a standard way to write about a Great Man is from the perspective of an aide or subordinate or friend.

The more I wrote, the more interesting Julian was to me, and he grew into becoming the main character. Now, the plot was still paramount. I was constrained by history: a huge battle had to happen on 9 August, and Julian had to be there. He had to survive the disaster. He had to begin up in Dacia, north of the Danube River, then get his legion back across the river, so there logistical considerations. This was all very much plot-driven.

But, just as happened with the feast scene, with Theodosius and Julian, I kept finding that the plot scenes where things had to happen became more interesting the more involved I was with the characters present. And the more "real" my characters were to me, the more I felt compelled to write strong narrative, good dialog, vivid settings ... because they deserved my best efforts. A silly sort of notion, I agree, but there it is.

In short (hah!), all the story-telling elements are hopelessly intertwined. To give one precedence, either in approach or importance, is nonsense to me. It also means that my writing process is hopelessly intertwined. No matter which end of the stick I grab, I quickly wind up with a pile of twigs and me trying to strike a spark. A story does emerge, but the whole thing feels as mysterious as the first campfire.

 

[Peat]

I think 99.9% of all writing advice that implies something is the only way is wrong, and that goes with anything saying the only way to write a story is to focus primarily on the emotions and desires of the characters.

That said, I think its hard to overstate the importance of character. Clearly not impossible, but hard. That's not just a personal thing but a reflection on all the reviews, all the complaints, all the reader comments about how "I couldn't read X because I hated Y" or "What Y did made no sense and ruined it". In fairness, that's partially because things like bad grammar and bad prose just doesn't make it to the pro market, but they're a very easy way to ruin a story or put people off quickly.

To echo Skip, story-telling elements get intertwined, but I think character gets the most easily intertwined. Your world building and plot don't have to meet all that much. But your world building will be observed to no small degree through who your characters and who they react. Your plot will only make sense as long as the characters have a reason to be there.

Can you write awesome fiction with flat characters? Yes, I believe Tom Clancy did. But then Tom Clancy said he never plotted, but simply had the characters do what would make most sense to them. Which just goes to show character driven fiction can be a very broad church. Its not all deep emotional feelings and soaring character arcs.

*shrugs* All things are possible, but I think there's a good reason people preach so loudly about character these days.

 

[Rkcapps]

Mythopoet, I don't wish to inflame the discussion further but I thought you may find it useful to watch on YouTube, Brandon Sanderson's lecture on Story Structure (the box). Maybe that'll encourage you to not feel as isolated in your beliefs. I'd share it but I can't on my iPad. Google it.

Brandon has character, plot and setting in a box and shows them interconnected. I can't find the particular video I watched but he writes 3 headings, one each of, character, plot, setting and under each heading writes what he needs to happen for characters to go from point a to point b. Really, the way this is set up you wouldn't need characters to drive the plot but you'd need the character to intersect with plot and setting. He does encourage interesting characters, but I don't recall him saying your book needs to be "character driven". If anything he encourages you to write the book you want and shows you the different tools you can choose to use or not use.

I read many articles that propound character driven stuff and the the author of those articles may have a few books published but this guy has so many published books I've lost count, so if he's sharing what he knows on YouTube in his college lectures, I'm watching.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I think part of the disconnect here is the idea of a character driven story. Look I'll start by saying first that all three elements - character, plot and world build are vital to any story and that to try and minimise any one of them is likely writing suicide. I'll also state that I agree completely with the view that there are no absolute rules in writing. The moment anyone says you must do this - they're pretty much wrong in my view.

The issue as I see it here is actually about how the character arc feeds into the plot. Is the story about the character achieving certain goals etc - eg wizard achieves ultimate next level power and defeats bad guy? Or is the story about something else and the character arc is tangential to it - eg wizard achieves next level power in the course of defeating ultimate bad guy? In both examples the story can be character driven, but only in the first case is the plot character driven.

Now to put these things in context, most detective fiction (I've heard!) is plot driven. The plot is everything as its what readers want - they want to know how it was done. And when you think about it, it has to be that because the genre loves sequels and more mysteries with the same characters and how can you have that if in every story the character is achieving uber life goals / understandings etc? You can't. In order to start the next story the character has to end up in nearly the same place as he began. James Bond, Poirot, Holmes always have to be who they were for next book to start.

But that doesn't mean the story can't still be character driven even if the plot isn't. And in fact it needs to have a lot of character stuff in it in my view. Because the character in many cases is what brings the story to life for the reader. What makes it important. It's the difference between a police report of an incident and a personal retelling. "Eg The woman got run over by a runaway steam roller" versus "My wife! She tried desperately to stop that monster. She really tried! And it ran her over! I saw it! It was awful. I heard her scream! And I tried to save her - but I couldn't! etc etc"

As to which is more important - I don't think any of them are. Some may be more relevant to different stories, but you risk creating a story that no one enjoys if you leave out too much of any one of them. It's like baking (again - so I've heard). You have a recipe for a delicious sponge cake - now leave out half the flour, half the eggs, or half the sugar and see what you get!

So my thought is don't leave any of them out.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Russ]

I think there are a couple of interesting observations that can be made on the topic from some of the responses posted on this thread.

The first thing that jumped out at me, with the exception of Heliotrope's discussion of the Jack Reacher novels, and Cussler etc is that many of the examples people gave of more plot driven work (Christie, Tolkien, Bond) are either old or film (as is the example of Indiana Jones).

So I think the initial observation that way more fiction being published today focusses on characters desires than ever before, and moves farther on the spectrum (if there is such a thing) towards character driven than in the past. Many editors today will tell you they think Tolkien could not sell his work in today's market. There is nothing wrong with coming to grips with that, it is not an insult to their work, it is just a reality, like it is in athletics.

Standards change, and I think readers today are more demanding on the issue of character than in the past. And I suggest that is a good thing. Readers care about outcomes because they care about the characters and what the outcome means to them. Good plot is also great, but the heart of fiction is about people.

On a basic level all stories are about character desire, and so are scenes, and the obstacles that prevent them from obtaining those desires. So yes, character desire is critical from page one.

And I might suggest psychotick is also a little behind the curve on detective stories in today's publishing. Editors in that field for at least a decade, probably longer, have told people many times they are no longer looking for "who dun nits" but now are looking for "why dun nits" which focus more on the character of the protagonist and the antagonist than they have in the past. This is particularly true in the thriving British detective lit scene with the great successes of say D.I. Grace and D.I. Banks. Or if you want to look at in on the small screen say..."Luther".

Right now character is considered a more important component of good fiction than it used to be.

 

[Russ]

There was one other point I wanted to make and forgot and now I can't edit the post.

There is another reason that character desire and a deeper exploration is important to good fiction.

At some point the actions of the protagonist have to drive the plot, a plot where the protagonist is purely reactive is a very poor idea. The actions of the character have to come from their desire and who they are. The solution to the book's problems should be unique to the character and their personality. To do that you need to understand and illuminate your character's personality and particularly desires. Without desires and a personality how can the protagonist ever be truly proactive?

If your fascinating quest to gather the 13 elements of Zambatla and assemble them to defeat the really cool enemy in your totally fascinating world could be carried out by just anyone, this falls into a category of stories that many editors, critiques and academics now refer to as "chasing plot coupons". And it won't take you, or your reader, very far.

 

[Heliotrope]

I just wanted to add that though I've argued that one does not necessarily need a strong/deep inner character goal, I am in the camp of others that say that you should.

I think that it comes down to your own, personal goal. Are you just wanting to write old fashioned style pulp fantasy for a small indie audience and self pub? Then I don't see why it really matters. Write what you want to write.

But, I agree with others here (especially Russ' points) that if you are hoping to break into todays market with an agent then I would strongly encourage a more character driven focus.

 

[Heliotrope]

If your fascinating quest to gather the 13 elements of Zambatla and assemble them to defeat the really cool enemy in your totally fascinating world could be carried out by just anyone, this falls into a category of stories that many editors, critiques and academics now refer to as "chasing plot coupons". And it won't take you, or your reader, very far.

Or, as I've also heard it put: If the MC died, would someone else be able to pick up and finish the quest with the same outcome? If the answer is yes then why should the reader care about the MC?

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

^That's an intriguing way of putting it. Would it apply to Lord of the Rings, though? [Though debating about what might have happened doesn't help much...]

 

[Heliotrope]

Oddly enough that is a debate that comes up a lot in my house lol. My husband hates LOTR (he only saw the movies) and one of his biggest criticisms is that Frodo could have died and anyone else could have taken the ring. "Why didn't Gandalf do it?" He always asks. "It's so stupid." He also hates how the eagles came to save Sam and Frodo at the end. "Why didn't they just fly to Mordor in the first place?" He asks. He thinks it's a pretty lame Deux ex machina ending.

I do think that Tolkien really tried to make Frodo appear to be the only one who could do it. He goes into great depths explaining his lineage and how the Took family (or is it the Baggins family? I can't remember) was a bit outcasted from the shire, not just because of Bilbo but because they always did have a taste for adventure. He also makes it clear that neither man, elf, or dwarf could do it because they would be too easily corrupted. Istari, like Gandolf are the same. We know that the eye of Sauron is watching, so using a little tiny non-descript messenger is the best bet. Better than an obvious warrior...

At any rate, I do think Tolkien tries. I also do think that Frodo does have a deep inner goal that often gets over looked. That goal, in my opinion, is not to change. He wants things to stay the same as they always were. He wants to be who he always was. He promises Sam that he won't change. But in the end that is obviously impossible and he can't possibly go back to live in the shire, so he goes with the elves on the ship. It is a deep, personal journey for Frodo, not simply a "Get the Macguffin, save the world, go home" sort of plot driven story.