Plot-driven vs Character-driven
A post at Patricia Wrede’s blog: The Driver’s Seat
Since before the Internet began, it seems, there’s been an ongoing argument about “plot-driven” stories vs. “character-driven” stories. By this time, there are a metric ton of how-to-write articles arguing that one is “better” than the other. And all those scare quotes are there because everybody in this discussion seems to have very clear ideas about what each of those terms mean, but if one looks a bit closer, the definitions often don’t agree with each other. This makes the whole discussion highly suspect to begin with. Even the growing chorus of people pointing out that plot vs. character is a false dichotomy leaves out key factors (which I’ll get to in a minute, but first let me rant a bit).
This is an interesting post and you should click through and read the whole thing, but it ends thus:
For my money, the most effective and memorable stories tend to be the ones that deal in both plot and characters, rather than focusing in tightly on one or the other. External events feel more significant if they have changed the characters as well as the country; internal development feels more real when it’s a response to changes or challenges in the character’s world.
Emphasis in the original. Which seems as though it should be obvious. This reminds me very strongly about the nature vs nurture “controversy,” which is best resolved by asking:
“Well, but is it the oxygen or the hydrogen that makes water wet?”
And if that doesn’t bring the debate to a halt, I don’t know what will. I don’t remember where I got that water line, by the way, but I didn’t come up with it. Perfect line, though.
And yet!
This thing about plot-driven vs character-driven isn’t the same, because some books really do focus very much more on the plot and others do focus very much more on the character. The fact that most novels do both obscures the fact that they don’t have to and that stories can be really excellent at both extremes.
A great example of the extreme for plot-driven with zero character development is The Martian. Tremendously fun book, no character development.
A great example of the extreme for character driven is In This House of Brede, where the most important event that happened took place in the backstory and the events of the novel are … not nonexistent, but not important. Practically any events could have worked, because the interior journey of the protagonist doesn’t really depend on those specific events. Or so I would argue.
Regardless, I think that’s where to start in any discussion about character-driven vs plot-driven novels: That one is not better than the other and that most novels do both, not in a wambly sort of way, but in a very definite way, where both the plot and the internal journey of the characters are crucial.
Also, there is a tendency — or I think there is, and I have certainly seen other assertions that there is this tendency — for fans of the genre of literary fiction to declare that literary = character driven, while “genre” or “commercial” fiction = plot driven, and to the extent that this attitude exists, it’s so, so, so ridiculous that it’s hard to answer. It’s as though someone had read ONLY literary fiction plus some Sherlock Holmes stories and The Martian and then thought all commercial or genre fiction, everything but literary, was basically like that — with iconic characters that don’t change or with, um, non-iconic? original iconic? characters that don’t change. You have to ignore, like, 99.9% of all SFF to think that. It’s HARD to think of SFF books like The Martian, with so little character development over the course of the story.
But!
There is ALSO — I think — a tendency for people to declare that the dichotomy between plot-driven and character-driven is illusory and all fiction does both. Which is not the case, and that’s why it’s useful to remember that fiction with iconic characters is very popular and also, look, right there, The Martian is sitting right there, a beautiful counter example.
Please Feel Free to Share:
The post Plot-driven vs Character-driven appeared first on Rachel Neumeier.
newest »
I clicked through to Wrede, read, and bookmarked. Yay! Can a heavily plot-driven novel move one emotionally? Or is it just about the fun?
I think it's really interesting to look at some examples of successful novels that have flat or super-flat characters and then ask, "Well, how about it, how did that work? Why was that successful? Was that moving? Touching? Powerful? Am I going to remember that because it was fun or because it was meaningful or both?"There are a fair number of novels like this, and sometimes readers comment about the complex characters even though the characters aren't complex -- they're well-drawn and appropriate for the story, but flat. I think the reader is sometimes reading complexity into the characters when it isn't there. An example is Mary Doria Russell's Sparrow and Children of God. That duology is powerful and I think moving. Is it plot-driven? Partly. It's plot-driven and idea-driven. And the biology of the two alien species is not plausible, by the way, but for what Russell is doing, you just have to accept those alien species do work that way.
John Ringo's zombie quadrilogy is good in the sense of fun to read; it's purely plot-driven with very (very) flat characters. Mary Doria Russell has a knack for witty dialogue that Ringo does not, so his flat characters are more obviously flat than hers. I think there is one genuinely moving scene in that series, but a lot of the emotion arises from the plot, which can be summarized as Oorah, look at these ultra competent (and sometimes highly, highly implausible) characters destroy lots of zombies and reclaim the world for civilization through competence and heroism. It's very enjoyable, I got it for my dad, but I did like it a lot. But I do think there's only the one really moving scene. I also think the reader can put more emotion into the story than is actually there, just as the reader can put more complexity into the characters than is actually there. Which is fine! Inviting and encouraging the reader to do that, making space for the reader to do that, is one thing that can cause a story to be successful.
But I'm basically a character reader myself, so at least for me, emotional connection to the characters is really important for a story to be truly compelling or moving. A clever heist novel with brilliant plotting can be fun to read, but doesn't generally resonate for me and isn't moving. A powerful novel with characters I dislike definitely doesn't resonate for me and is repulsive rather than moving.
Great question and maybe I need to write another post about all this!
Rachel wrote: "I think it's really interesting to look at some examples of successful novels that have flat or super-flat characters and then ask, "Well, how about it, how did that work? Why was that successful? ..."I'm also about character. If I don't care about their plight, or what have you, why do I need to keep seeing the fireworks? Characters being made unlikable is a tricky one that has worked for me the reader, but I'd much rather see truths — if not my own, at least well drawn lines in the sand — reflected in the storytelling. Bits of wisdom to gnaw on or consider. I think you might be well on your way to "another post" with the size of this response. Apologies if your mind was looking for downtime before seeing my question.
Edit: Interesting take on the reader imparting emotion or complexity to a work which the author may not have intended.
Yes, and I may come back to this thread and lift part or all of it for that purpose!I love likeable unlikable characters, like El Higgins in the Scholomance trilogy. She's VERY likeable, for a character who perceives herself, and is perceived by those around her, as unlikeable. Novik did such a great job there. But characters who are genuinely unlikeable -- stupid, petty, selfish, mean-spirited, whatever -- ugh, no thank you.
And I thought of readers putting more emotion in complexity into a work than is really there because decades and decades ago, someone, I have no idea who, pointed out that this was a big reason the original Star Trek was so popular -- that readers put more into the show than was actually there -- and I thought that seemed true, and probably was one reason some of the Star Trek novels were honestly quite a bit better than the show. Really good writers were putting into the novels more complexity and depth than the show itself contained .... and I guess that's yet another post ....
