The only thing that matters is that you entertain your readers and keep them interested. They do not sit down with checklists to find whether an author has this and that and this in their book. IMHO !!!
-
Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work
must all novels have a plot
- Thread starter jaus tail
- Start date
Here's a question - how would you know when you've finished the book? If you can say "that's the end of the story," there's likely a plot. If you say "hmm, 300 pages, I should stop writing now," there probably isn't.
I'm not sure how a novel could exist without a plot? Would it be a novel at all? I think telling a story is a key defining characteristic of a novel, otherwise it can be a 'book' ... nonfiction, a stream of conciousness rambling etc. ... but plot of some kind compels fiction?
I've read a few novels without plots. Basically, what's going on in them is that other things are taking the place of plots. And those other things are just as unifying, cumulative, and conclusive. Are they still "books" or "fiction?" It really doesn't make a difference. Readers don't care about classifications. They just want to be entertained, or have their horizons widened. I believe too that plot in the traditional sense is more of a western phenomena. In the east it isn't as quintessential. Just my two cents. I am not advocating anything. Write the sorts of stories you want to write and never count something out if you are into it. Readers may be too and yours may be just what they're after 
Did anybody call in the dictionary yet?
: an area of land that has been measured and is considered as a unit
: a usually small piece of land that is used for a particular purpose
: a series of events that form the story in a novel, movie, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plot
: an area of land that has been measured and is considered as a unit
: a usually small piece of land that is used for a particular purpose
: a series of events that form the story in a novel, movie, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plot
Hmm... so the next time I'm stuck figuring out a plot, I can just buy some land in my story's name and call it good.
Whattaya mean it doesn't work like that? It's right there in the dictionary!
If things are happening - "things" including internal conflicts and thoughts - then that, in and of itself, constitutes a plot, IMHO. It may not constitute a story arc, but it fulfills the basic definition of "plot" as "a series of events that happen in a novel." If there are words on the page, it's hard to imagine how some manner of event sequence would fail to happen. Personally, I prefer some sense of beginning, middle, and end, some feeling of progression and growth (even if it ends in ultimate failure), though I suppose some Literary works get away with simply exploring a particular character or a theme. Still, you gotta have an idea where to step onto the train and were to hop off; as a reader and a writer, I have a hard time understanding how one can know either without some manner of plot arc in mind, but that's just not the kind of story my brain relates to.
It's far from simple, from a writing standpoint
Unless the character spends the entire duration of the book lying in bed (and I'm sure there's at least one novel where that happens), there are still "events that form the story". It's just that many such novels are not compelled to follow a particular structure or conventional ideas about story arcs. It doesn't bother me at all; a good story is a good story, whether it takes place entirely within a character's head or in reaction to external events.
It's kind of hard to have a story without a plot. Without a plot, it's just a bunch of tangents and characters rambling on and on. Maybe you do have a plot, but you just don't know it.
- Joined
- May 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,820
- Reaction score
- 738
I think all novels have something happening, even if some of it is internal character-stuff. Are you thinking about slice-of-life stories or literary novels? Even they have some kind of theme or some manner of events happening to the character in some way. Something has to happen, internally and/or externally....
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- 430
Maybe the climax of the novel must be visible from the beginning. As in the reader must have some idea as to how the book is about to end. Not the details of whether the person will be killed or whether the goal will be reached, but it should be clear(from a little ahead than beginning) what the protagonist's goal is.
That was the issue with the current novel I was reading, I guess. That the ending isn't visible. It's not that I want to know what happens but I must have some idea where the book is going.
Even with Ayn's books(Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), I wasn't sure how the book would end and that bored me to some extent.
That was the issue with the current novel I was reading, I guess. That the ending isn't visible. It's not that I want to know what happens but I must have some idea where the book is going.
Even with Ayn's books(Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), I wasn't sure how the book would end and that bored me to some extent.
Usually, if I figure out how a book is going to end long before I reach the final page, THAT'S when I'm bored. There's no surprise or a-ha moment. When the writer has thouroughly befuddled me as to how the book will end, that's when I race towards the final page in eager anticipation. Though I have to say I'm tired of the "Scooby-Doo_ endings of late where in the final few chapters you're led to a first, second, fifth final ending after multiple "twists." Thank you, M. Knight Shyamalan.
With Ayn Rand, her prose wasn't the best, she hopped heads, she used long passages to rant about her beliefs, but in the end, she somehow managed to weave stories intriguing enough that I needed to find out how they ended. For me, that's good writing.
I don't think there is complete agreement (at least between different groups, such as readers, authors, and critics) as to what "plot" means. I'm not going to try to say who's right, but I'd like to make a couple suggestions.
First, a definition so broad that no book but the telephone directory can fail to meet it is unlikely to be as useful as one that makes a distinction.
Second, a definition so rigorous that most books fail to meet it isn't likely to be much use either.
Some definitions I've seen require the plot to be a causally linked structure of (perhaps imaginary) incidents within the story. That certainly makes it possible for a story to be told without one (or with one so vestigial that it can be ignored.) For instance, by this definition, Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" has more or less no plot. A lottery is held, somebody wins, and [spoiler omitted
]. The real structure is outside the plot, in how the conclusion is foreshadowed and revealed. (The omni POV, by the way, is an important part of this. No character in the story could have told it satisfactorily.)
Using the same definition, Joyce's Ulysses has almost no plot. (Uncoincidentally Homer's Odyssey hasn't got a lot, either - many of the chapters can be read out of order with no loss, and I've seen it conjectured that it was originally structured more as a collection of Jack tales, with a beginning and an ending.) Very little happens because of something else within the story: the structure is symbolic and thematic. Which is fine, it's a great book that I've read with pleasure more than once.
If you want to define "plot" to include all these things, I can't stop you - and undoubtedly you'll find allies. But that definition may not help you read, or write, as much as a less-inclusive one.
First, a definition so broad that no book but the telephone directory can fail to meet it is unlikely to be as useful as one that makes a distinction.
Second, a definition so rigorous that most books fail to meet it isn't likely to be much use either.
Some definitions I've seen require the plot to be a causally linked structure of (perhaps imaginary) incidents within the story. That certainly makes it possible for a story to be told without one (or with one so vestigial that it can be ignored.) For instance, by this definition, Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" has more or less no plot. A lottery is held, somebody wins, and [spoiler omitted
]. The real structure is outside the plot, in how the conclusion is foreshadowed and revealed. (The omni POV, by the way, is an important part of this. No character in the story could have told it satisfactorily.)Using the same definition, Joyce's Ulysses has almost no plot. (Uncoincidentally Homer's Odyssey hasn't got a lot, either - many of the chapters can be read out of order with no loss, and I've seen it conjectured that it was originally structured more as a collection of Jack tales, with a beginning and an ending.) Very little happens because of something else within the story: the structure is symbolic and thematic. Which is fine, it's a great book that I've read with pleasure more than once.
If you want to define "plot" to include all these things, I can't stop you - and undoubtedly you'll find allies. But that definition may not help you read, or write, as much as a less-inclusive one.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2015
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 30
It really depends. Some books need plots. Others didn't originally, but as time passed the stories became uninteresting and bland (ASOIAF, for example. Another series is the Kane Chronicles, by Rick Riordan, which is his most childish series, and his weakest, getting stale before the end of the second book, and getting more and more stale as the third one went on until the third book, and thus the series, ended). It really depends on your story. Is it something like a diary? Then it can go on for a very long time. Is it more like the day-to-day life of characters, like Friends? Then it can go on for a long time. Does it have a long list of complex stories and characters, all of which either never get resolved, end unsatisfyingly, or grow too poor to even continue being invested in? Then it is a bad thing. Does it involve a lot of normal day-to-day things? Then it will become boring. Even if there is no plot, interesting things need to happen. I like to use sitcoms as an example (I have thought of this question before, and come up with an answer I personally find satisfying): Use Friends as an example. It follows a group of six friends, three male, three female, living in apartments in New York, and hanging out almost every day. This is not uncommon. Most people have a few very close friends they hang out with almost if not every day, especially while they are young and do not have families or big responsibilities to occupy them. But what Friends did right was this: It skipped time. It only tells the interesting tales. When Ross gets his sandwich eaten, when Joey finds a porno with Phoebe's sister (using Phoebe's name rather than her own) in it, when Chandler and Monica first sleep together, when Rachel finds out Ross loves her, etc. This is what, in my opinion, all stories should do, especially if there is no tightly-knit plot. We all live lives. Some long, some short, some in the middle. We all have stories. But we do not bore people with our mishaps of every day. I would not bore my friends with the tale of the time I read a little, or the time I pet my dog, or went to the store. Why? Because these things happen all the time. We tell our friends, and oftentimes experience them with our friends, tales which are extraordinary. When we saw our ex and saw how they were doing, when we went camping and something crazy happened, when we went on an incredibly good or bad date, when we decided to do something that will affect our lives forever, etc. Write your stories like you are telling them to a friend, just with a bit more detail; it is important to never let things get boring, but to allow for development of characters as well. Perhaps this is a daunting task, but I have never found it so. It can be something as fantastical as the time a character went to into space, or as mundane as the time a character went to dinner. So long as interesting things happen (events, dialogue, anything), your story will hold merit.
dondomat
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 225
...Someday the anal-retentive fashion that a POV marry-go-round within scenes is 'wrong' will pass, and we will heave a collective sign of relief; even the people who are now forced to either make up reasons due to which Dune and Anna Karenina and Cujo are written 'wrong', or to make up 'it's not actually head-hopping when these people do it' justifications. Derail over
dondomat
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 225
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
...Someday the anal-retentive fashion that a POV marry-go-round within scenes is 'wrong' will pass, and we will heave a collective sign of relief; even the people who are now forced to either make up reasons due to which Dune and Anna Karenina and Cujo are written 'wrong', or to make up 'it's not actually head-hopping when these people do it' justifications. Derail over
Are you just naming books you think incorperate head-hopping? Frank Herbert separates all his POV into their own scenes/chapters. Dune doesn't include any head-hopping.
That's pretty much how I define plot - where events are connected by causality, and usually escalate to the climax that brings about some kind of resolution. The absence of causality often leads to something being called a 'string of pearls' plot, where incidents are complete in and of themselves within the wider story, and one is not dependent on the other so the sequence is arbitrary. I think this would describe a significant amount of the Odyssey - many events are self contained and, as you say, could be narrated out of sequence with little impact to the overall story. But there *is* an overall story that marks the beginning and end of Odysseus' tale - Odysseus wants to get home and reclaim his kingdom/wife. That's the 'string' that the pearls are hung from, and without that there really is no narrative arc.
So, you can have a story without a 'plot', but can you have one without a narrative arc? Possibly, but I think it would be less satisfying if there was no overall goal, and no change in state from the start to the end of the novel. I would come to the end of it wondering what the point was of what I'd just read.
I'm with JAR on this one.
I never once consider PLOT. I believe that, as I write it...PLOT HAPPENS. It's not mine to consider or craft or maintain. I tell the story. I'm guessing you have PLOT.
I never once consider PLOT. I believe that, as I write it...PLOT HAPPENS. It's not mine to consider or craft or maintain. I tell the story. I'm guessing you have PLOT.
dondomat
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 225
I was, in fact, just naming books I think incorporate head-hopping. What would be the alternative to "just naming", by the way? Slaughter a goat for each novel? Anyway; perhaps we mean different things when we use terms like "POV", "scenes/chapters", "Dune", "Frank Herbert", "separates", and "doesn't include any".
Anyone, is, of course, welcome to begin an aria along the lines that far from being 'head-hopping', this is 'objective omniscient ben gesserit weirding way', but that's an entirely different matter, in my opinion. A matter of naming the writing approach, after admitting that the eyes do indeed see what they see.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,330
- Reaction score
- 61
As one who writes a majority of historical fiction, it's difficult to define a "plot" when the outline of the story has already been laid out.
Saying that, I think character plays the most important part. The reader should be able to empathize with and be interested in the main character or the story simply doesn't work.
One thing about the "fiction" part is the ability to throw in things not included in the scholarly outlines established in non-fiction books. If one develops the character above and beyond the dry recital, I think readers will enjoy and continue to read.
Saying that, I think character plays the most important part. The reader should be able to empathize with and be interested in the main character or the story simply doesn't work.
One thing about the "fiction" part is the ability to throw in things not included in the scholarly outlines established in non-fiction books. If one develops the character above and beyond the dry recital, I think readers will enjoy and continue to read.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
Omni is not head-hopping. And I take a very dim view of anyone who claims that it is.
dondomat
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 225
Hopefully this subplot to the thread is not too disruptive; I'm not being sarcastic right now, when I say I'd love to see a coherent explanation separating 'head-hopping' from 'omni', not in generalities as is usual, but as applicable specifically to the mentioned books--say Dune--and better yet--concerning the exact quoted bit, or at least the whole chapter. Once someone explains this to me in simple words that I can understand--I'll have another area of life that is now logical instead of a muddled sarcasm generating territory. I'm sure lots of other writer--begginers and veterans--would love to know this too.
P.S. personal communication issue: taking a dim view of anyone having an opinion on writing matters--in the sense of having the dim view of such an event taking place--is OK. Taking a dim view of the someone who is articulating this opinion--is awfully personal. Suddenly puts this whole conversation into a structure of 'judge'>'judged'. "I am judge and jury of people who have such opinions on POV, and this means you". Maybe a matter of wording choice.
Like "claims". There I was thinking I'm ribbing people too hung up on POV shifts within one scene being a crime against the craft, suddenly I'm supposed to be 'claiming', no less, that omni and headhopping are the same. Must work on my wording choices too, I suppose.
Last edited:
Head hopping is changing the point of view character, while third person omniscient point of view has no POV character; the POV is outside of the characters and can show something or anything that any character is aware of.
"Third person omniscient is a method of storytelling in which the narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of all of the characters in the story." http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/omniscient.htm
dondomat
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 225
Thank you. Is the quoted bit of Dune, in your opinion, omni or head-hopping, and how can you tell?
Sub-question: how about this:
Would you say this is true or false, and if false, what's with the quoted bit? I clearly see internal dialogues of different people within paragraphs of each other. Or is that not two different POVs but elements of one mega-POV--the omni one? Then why would we say that Herbert separates the POVs, if it's just one mega-POV in the first place?
Afterthought 1: Perhaps people mean limited POV shifts are head-hopping, while if the narrator knows, implicitly, at all times everything about everything, it's omni, hence OK. But even if that's it, still can't say it makes much sense. I think Dune is made up of precicely shifting limited POVs; I'm reasonably sure there's no external narrator suddenly swooping in and saying "but little did Paul know", or "at this exact moment, on the other side of the planet...".
Sub-question: how about this:
Would you say this is true or false, and if false, what's with the quoted bit? I clearly see internal dialogues of different people within paragraphs of each other. Or is that not two different POVs but elements of one mega-POV--the omni one? Then why would we say that Herbert separates the POVs, if it's just one mega-POV in the first place?
Afterthought 1: Perhaps people mean limited POV shifts are head-hopping, while if the narrator knows, implicitly, at all times everything about everything, it's omni, hence OK. But even if that's it, still can't say it makes much sense. I think Dune is made up of precicely shifting limited POVs; I'm reasonably sure there's no external narrator suddenly swooping in and saying "but little did Paul know", or "at this exact moment, on the other side of the planet...".
Last edited: