must all novels have a plot

Depends on what you mean by plot. The most basic definition of plot is the sequence of events in a story. I think most stories have a sequence of events, though there are some short works that are very scene or mood driven and are more about capturing a moment in time, perhaps.

The way plot is usually used when writers give feedback to one another, though, is a sequence of events that happen for a reason, either because of events external to the main character or characters, or through their actions. The events cause the characters to act, changes occur as a result of this action, and the characters respond to those changes (and so on) until the story is resolved. The characters usually want things and come into conflict with one another (man against man), themselves (man against self), or against external plot elements (man against nature, society, or the machine). Usually, there's some change that occurs as a result of said story, whether it's to the character's internal state or to the story world/situation as a whole (and very often, to both).

But there are always exceptions. Static characters exist, and some characters end up back where they started, and some stories end in failure, or the "point" may be that really nothing changed in spite of everything. Whether such stories are satisfying depends on the reader.

I think as a rule, most readers expect stories to have a plot that's not just an apparently random series of events, or events that seem to have no connection to the actions of the character, and they want some kind of resolution. But if a story is told well and skillfully enough, maybe one can pull off one of those exceptions. I think some kinds of literary fiction can do this--tell a story so beautifully or wittily that readers don't mind that it seems to meander for random reasons and nothing much happens or changes.

The one inviolate rule is that you mustn't bore your reader, right?

Well, if by "novel" you mean "novel I want to sell in the current market to a goodly quantity of people," I would say yes, you have to have a plotty-looking thing of some sort, or at least a pseudoplot, or a nematode dressed as one, OR, failing that, a leopard seal of impressive wit who explodes with such vivacious literalness that no one notices the lack of a plot.

If by "novel" you mean "a fiction book thing with no need to consider salability" then do whatever you want

Even seemingly plotless novels like The Sun Also Rises still have some sort of progression. These type of novels may look like random ramblings but there is much more craft behind them than you think. Even if it isn't consciously done when writing, it will be done in the edit.

I don't think you could write a novel without any plot at all. But a plot doesn't have to involve world-changing stakes or heart-pounding action or any of that.

Is something happening? Yes. Then you have a plot. Plots take so many different forms.

AW Admin said:

"Episodic and random" and "no arcs" kinda describes a number of 18th century novels, ranging from Tom Jones to Tristram Shandy and pretty much everything Smollet ever wrote, including Roderick Random.

Click to expand...

Tom Jones most certainly has arcs and themes. I can't recall reading Smollet.

Maybe the issue has to do with conflict? You can have microconflicts, but there has to be something that holds things together, even with stream of consciousness like Mrs. Dalloway. I do think people write...something (stories?) that really have no conflict - a nice scene maybe, having tea with my best friend, then going shopping, going home to cook dinner. Then a chapter about haying, and what a lovely day it was in the sun, and then a chapter about how nice it is to read a child a story at night, and so on. No conflict at all, not much plot?

I read, write, and eat bamboo. Those are my only bona fides.

A plot is a sequence of events. I've never read a novel that didn't have a sequence of events. Some were boring to me, but they still had a plot.

Katharine Tree said:

Being the irritating variety of English literature major, I would say that if there isn't a coherent story arc then it isn't a novel, it's an extended narrative.

By this criteria, GRRM's ASOIAF aren't novels.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure it's coherent; we just need to see another nine novels of it to see the ends of that arc...

Seriously, while I gave up on the books after #4 because I thought we was getting lost in the weeds, I'm pretty sure he does have plot, albeit a rather weedy / fuzzy one after this many pages.

I really liked reading this thread. My work in progress I've been concerned about being 'plotless', but it has an internal plot instead of an external plot, and it does have enough conflict. But this thread helped me to recognise this.

Jamesaritchie said:

I'm an English lit major, too, but I don't agree with anything you say. Have you even read those books? It sure doesn't sound like it. Not that I think your definition makes any sense. I don't think it does. But each of those tales has a solid, substantial story are and plot. So does every classic and bestseller I can think of. They're all novels in every sense of the word.

Click to expand...

Yes I'm another English major, and I've read some of the novels mentioned and they definitely have plot. There have been some literary novels that don't have a lot of plot that have been successful, but these days I always see agents say they interested in literary fiction "as long as it has a plot".

PandaMan said:

I read, write, and eat bamboo. Those are my only bona fides.

A plot is a sequence of events. I've never read a novel that didn't have a sequence of events. Some were boring to me, but they still had a plot.

Click to expand...

A plot is more than a "sequence of events".

Yes I think they do but they don't all need a massive plot. I have read books that have been written so beautifully that the plot was actually secondary. Plots can be thin or enormous depending on the genre and how well the book is written. That's what I think anyway!

BethS said:

Novels are stories, and stories have plots.

Click to expand...

^yep. Basically.

CathleenT said:

Perhaps there are books out there without a plot. But I've never finished reading any of them.

Click to expand...

Wss^ I've read a few where the plot is either missing or meandering around the world and I've rarely finished them. The way I see it is if I can't determine the plot, the author may not know what it is either and I'm not going to waste what little free time I have on it.

gingerwoman said:

A plot is more than a "sequence of events". I take plot very seriously. I don't like to start writing anything without a firm grasp of a plot.

Click to expand...

I agree! Now I can start a short story if I only have the beginning, end, or both in mind. But a novella or a novel is too unwieldy like that for me. At least I like to know what the core conflict of a chapter is, sometimes I like knowing what the core conflict of a scene is depending on the story. Both give me what I feel is a firm grasp on the plot.

Well, people have always told stories, and I think all of those stories have had something to say. If the characters are interesting and they are doing things that are followable and hold the interest of the reader I think you've done enough. Usually this means that the story has a somewhat coherent direction. Without direction, stories tend to go nowhere and have nothing to say. Direction doesn't necessarily mean that something plot-like must happen.

I like to think of writing as storytelling. If there's something interesting in the story, someone else might find it interesting too. Personally, I do like direction more than plot because I'm a character-driven reader. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else. Or if anyone else even separates these two in any way (not an English major here).

Chanda said:

Wss^ I've read a few where the plot is either missing or meandering around the world and I've rarely finished them. The way I see it is if I can't determine the plot, the author may not know what it is either and I'm not going to waste what little free time I have on it.

Click to expand...

You and a couple others have mentioned this, and it sort of makes me wonder what you're reading. Are you reading Lit, Lit-Genre hybrids, Genre? And, how are you defining plot?

Genre without plot is just bad. The original Star Trek was highly episodic in nature, but each episode had its own plot. The plot of the Hobbit is about a hobbit trying to help the dwarves of a lost kingdom reclaim their homeland. If something is pure genre it pretty much has to be good with plot though, because it wouldn't be published.

Lit-Genre hybrids can suffer from the writer feeling like the story doesn't need a plot. But Handmaids Tale, Lord of the Rings, anything by Sarah Waters, and a lot of work by Octavia Bulter all have plots. They even have internal and external plots like Genre, but with the emphasis more on the internal plot.

Even good Lit has a plot. Granted the plot may be that someone is starting from a starting point emotionally, slowly starts to make internal changes, then something happens and they're almost entirely back to where they were to start with. But I would call that a plot because there's a progression, the person tries to change but isn't ready yet and fails.

Katharine Tree said:

Being the irritating variety of English literature major, I would say that if there isn't a coherent story arc then it isn't a novel, it's an extended narrative.

By this criteria, GRRM's ASOIAF aren't novels.

Click to expand...

Arrgggggghhhh this is one of the Top 10 Comments People Say A Lot That Drives Me Crazy. I know it's not necessarily how you meant it, but some days it feels like every week I read some aspiring fantasy writer say "Well, it's okay that my novel doesn't have a clear arc because Game of Thrones doesn't!"

This is just so patently wrong. AsoIaF book 1, Game of Thrones, has not but two very distinct, classically structured story arcs: there's the tragic story of Ned Stark coming to King's Landing, investigating a mystery, finding the truth, struggling to do the honorable thing, and paying the consequences for his central character flaw. And there's Danaerys who begins powerless, endures various struggles, gains allies, suffers loss, and comes out the other end more powerful and determined than ever. These are both very conventionally structured, paced, and balanced narratives, and (I would argue) are precisely why the franchise is as popular as it is. You could make the case that the later books lose this coherence (I'd agree) but they are also significantly less popular and acclaimed.

I'm currently reading a book by an award-winning author, and I must say, I can't find much of a plot. It's mostly musings and worldviews and some hacking and cyberharassment on the side, but a plot? I'm not saying I hate the book, but I definitely cannot find much of a plot or a hook in it.

Story is the way human brains construct meaning from a set of events.

Plot is a mechanism that writers use to manage and package story for consumption, e.g. in prose fiction or drama.

If there's no story, there won't be a plot. It's possible to convey story without the trappings of plot, but it's difficult.

Novels are conventionally a prose fiction format used for storytelling. Novels, therefore, normally have plots. A thing that looks like a novel but doesn't contain any story will not have a plot, and is probably not a novel.

Jamesaritchie said:

I'm an English lit major, too, but I don't agree with anything you say. Have you even read those books? It sure doesn't sound like it. Not that I think your definition makes any sense. I don't think it does. But each of those tales has a solid, substantial story are and plot. So does every classic and bestseller I can think of. They're all novels in every sense of the word.

Click to expand...

Yeah and I agree.

Old Hack said:

I once got drunk with the only man to ever knock Hemingway down in a fight. Morley Callaghan. Brilliant short-story writer. Does that count as bona fides?

Click to expand...

First off, this is a helluva lead to a story that I would want to read. You had me at "drunk" and "Hemmingway."

jaus tail said:

my first novel didn't have any plot. it was more like a guy's biography that went on and on. like a tv sitcom that has arcs that extend over each episode.

Click to expand...

Such a TV sitcom with arcs over extended episodes would be called serial. But even each episode has its beginning, middle, end. And I don't know of any sitcoms that are strictly serialized. Maybe you mean one-hour dramas, of which there are many that are serialized? Regardless, if it's for TV it more than likely has plot. Even "Seinfeld," a show "about nothing" had subtle plots to each episode. To make a blanket statement about TV, especially sitcoms, is weak without naming a particular show or two. I can't think of one on TV now lacking plot, and even if you could name one, it hardly means that it's the standard for the medium.

jaus tail said:

must novels have a plot like: the world is coming to an end and the mc must do it and stop it, or the girl becomes a lawyer and the book is how she fights a case and wins it with the odds stacked against her.

Click to expand...

You named one generic plot--dystopian/apocalyptic--and a subset of a thriller in a lawyer story. That's two of dozens. The hacks conjure up what we've read before. The real writers find new ways of telling these familiar tales. That's what most of us crave for. And they happen to have plots.

jaus tail said:

what if a novel is like day 1 this happened, day 2 this happened...with no guess of how the ending would be? no definite plot as such?

Click to expand...

That's a personal journal, a diary. Unless your personal writing skills are off the charts and can keep a reader interested, without a plot to keep the entries joined in some form of plot, ie story, then good luck. And the more you have to depend on your "writerliness" instead of conflict in the form of plot, the more you'll likely end up with purple prose.

jaus tail said:

even fountainhead has no theme, i didnt get any in the first read. it's just going on and on until towards you realize some theme

Click to expand...

So there is no theme, but then you arrive at one at the end? Which is it? And why are you mentioning theme if your original post was regarding plot? Boy, you picked the wrong book for your argument in either case as "Fountainhead" is stock full of theme and plot. Ayn Rand was all about theme, message, and plot.

To be honest, you sound like your ideas are for stream-of-consciousness blog posts, or unrelated short stories. If that's your thing--random thoughts or random stories that have no connection, then go for it. There's an audience for it. But to sell it as a novel? Look at "Sex and the City." I believe it started as random blog posts about being a single woman in NYC. But they had a through-line, and each episode definitely had a plot.

First, define "plot".
Second, if you can write a novel without a "plot", (by your definition), but still keep the reader interested, then good for you! Go ahead and write that.
Third? There is no third. Just don't bore your readers, that's all there is to it, really.