Plot vs. Character Development

the Jester

the Jester

Active Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
28
So, fellow aspiring writers, how do you feel about the importance of strong and clever plot vs. good character development? If you had to read a book that had one in abundance but a paucity of the other, which would you want to read?

Obviously both are important, but I'm curious as to where the balance lies in your opinions.
 
We had a thread like this not so long ago, and it was kind of a long discussion. Maybe you'd want to look up that thread?
 
A book with really awesome characters that did nothing of importance and weren't really connected in any way, would be a super boring book. It's not even really a story. On the other hand, plot with almost no character development is still a story, albeit a bad one. So in your hypothetical situation of books with almost no character development or plot, I'd prefer the plot one, but in a real book, I think I'd choose character development over plot. As long as there was some basic plot. I mean people can use the same general plot line that thousands of others have used, and still make an enjoyable book, as long as they do the other aspects of the story well. Like characters and good writing.
 
In general I would prefer a good plot, but if the other elements weren't developed to some degree -- character, setting, theme, good writing, ... -- I would still probably give up on the story pretty quickly.
 
I agree with Brian.

But I would choose the book with well-developed characters, if it was amusing. Plot without good characterization, in my opinion, is nothing more than the author manipulating characters like puppets, which always annoys me. On the other hand, I have read stories that were almost pure characterization, written in clever prose, and I did find them entertaining, though they were hardly page-turners.
 
I really don't like a book with either or I prefer stories with a good middle ground. Books that have lost the plot bore me stupid and ones without decent characters have to have an engaging author's voice to get over it.
 
I can't really see any excuse for a book not having both. It's not like you can only have complex characters at the cost of plot, or vice versa. The more complex the plot, and the more complex the characters, the better.
 
I have to have both

Fail in one or the other, book goes back on the shelf. (But character edges out plot -- if the character is right, the plot is right, bcause, as Brian says, character IS plot. Not just the MC but every character who acts within the book -- their actions/reasons/motivations make the plot)
 
A case could be made that The Lord of the Rings is a great plot book with very little character development. Aside from the Hobbits, none of the other characters change in any significant way. Is the character building in the Hobbits enough to call this a strong character building set of books?????
 
Depends -- are we talking character development as in 'Character is developed enough to be a distinct personality on the page?' (Which is what I was taking as the question). In which case, yes, LOTR has good character development.

And you rarely have every character in a book change over the course of it. Some change, (usually the MCs as in LOTR, and I'd posit that Aragorn changes, as do Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli, to lesser extents) and some don't.

But do they live on the page? For me, yes.
 
Kissmequick said:
I have to have both

Fail in one or the other, book goes back on the shelf. (But character edges out plot -- if the character is right, the plot is right, bcause, as Brian says, character IS plot. Not just the MC but every character who acts within the book -- their actions/reasons/motivations make the plot)
Click to expand...

Both as well, and the rest as above.

That saved on typing! :)
 
I said:
The characters are the plot. :D
Click to expand...

This.

Not sure about the Lord of the Rings angle, Kissmequick. True, there are a lot of cardboard cut-outs, but apart from the Hobbits a fair amount of development occurs.

Aragorn stops messing about in woodlands, grabs his destiny and also commits to Arwen, Boromir comes to love Aragorn and also realise the flaws of his ancestry, Gimli and Legolas overcome their mistrust of the others' people and form a strong bond, Arwen trades immortality to be with Aragorn, Faramir overcomes his blind faith in his father and Gondor, and the Gatekeeper at Bree learns not to stand behind a door about to be kicked in by Nazghul (it is, admittedly, the last thing he ever learns).

The immortal characters (and yes, that includes wizards) do not change, largely because they do not exist in the same timeline. The events of the books are a minor blip on their existence.
 
Jake Reynolds said:
This.

Not sure about the Lord of the Rings angle, Kissmequick. True, there are a lot of cardboard cut-outs, but apart from the Hobbits a fair amount of development occurs.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I think immortal characters is a bit different -- if you've been around for a few centuries, you've probably done most of your changing....but even Legolas and Gandalf managed to change somewhat. I think all the main characters change (ie the ones in the Fellowship) to a certain extent.

But I was trying to ascertain in my post what sort of development we're talking about -- developed enough so they are a distinct character, or actual change within the story (or both)?
 
in my personal opinion i think it's the characters that drive the plot, a plot with poorly portrayed characters is merely a sequence of events happening to a cast of protagonists nobody cares about in the first place.
 
Kissmequick said:
Exactly!

I think immortal characters is a bit different -- if you've been around for a few centuries, you've probably done most of your changing....but even Legolas and Gandalf managed to change somewhat. I think all the main characters change (ie the ones in the Fellowship) to a certain extent.

But I was trying to ascertain in my post what sort of development we're talking about -- developed enough so they are a distinct character, or actual change within the story (or both)?
Click to expand...



perhaps changed as a result of the plot.
 
I think the very best stories have plots that are driven by character and by things outside the character's control. Good stories employ all three types of conflict; intra-personal, inter-personal, and environmental. The first two are inherently character-driven but the last isn't.

Likewise, dramatic tension is achieved through employing a narrative device known as the three locks; a situation which restricts the narrative with increasing limitations in three key areas; option lock, time lock, and location lock. (The classic example is the trash compactor scene in Star Wars). Neither of these are character driven.

Of course, the extent of character driven plot will depend a lot on the type of story. Any sort of "survival" story typically involves a lot of environmental conflict, so it's going to be inherently less character-driven. Likewise, an investigative narrative is inherently not character-driven as the investigator necessarily responds to what they discover.
 
Plot should go hand in hand with character development. One shouldn't be more important than the other. A good story should develop good characters, and good characters should make a good story.

But to be honest, I agree with Gumboot that character driven stories are better. Nonstop action with shallow characters is fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Boaz A Posting of Ice and Fire: Enjoying twenty years of plots, theories, and characters while the story is in production. SPOILERS! George R R Martin 3
S Character driven/plot driven - what is SFF all about? Writing Discussion 75
MoominAhoy On dark characters and plots. Writing Discussion 21
sozme Medical plotlines/characters/realism critique Writing Discussion 16
Fried Egg Plot vs Character driven development Book Discussion 28

Similar threads


Back
Top