Story is Everything?

Yes. I think some are great just because. Look at Gatsby. What he wasn't was all over that masterpiece...but what he was shone through at every crack. That was a 'who they are' book.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that all of those things that make up the great big 'Story' are interconnected. If you make your characters more interesting, that's going to have an impact on the plot. If you add a few twists to the plot, that will change the characters. So you can't necessarily point to any one of those things in a vacuum and say 'this is what needs to change'.
Or, to put it another way, 'story is everything'.

Which came first, story or character? It's hard to separate them. Take Harry Potter out of his story and his just another kids with angst. The story is what makes him special. It's what makes him interesting.

And the story wouldn't be anything with Harry and Ron and Hermione. It just wouldn't.

With that said, I can read a good adventure tale without loving the characters. If the story is good enough, it can carry me along with some stock players. But if I HATE the characters, then the story is a complete no go. I'll shut the book.

But the perfect storm is the marriage of story and character so that they are a part of one another.

let's not nickel and dime this.

I know a character cannot be a character on his/herself. But sometimes they are front stage...out in front of the story being all showy and lookatmeish.

But I don't think I would enjoy a book about someone if interesting things didn't happen. The character has to DO something. I might enjoy a short story that's nothing more than an interesting character sketch, but not a novel.

I'm gonna rack my brain for favorite books and see if there are some that fall under that criteria.

maestrowork said:

But to play devil's advocate here... what makes a good character? Some argues that great characters DO THINGS -- they don't just sit around pulling lint off their navels. And by doing interesting things and interacting with others, you have plot. I think that's when it gets muddled.

Or, are great characters simply great because of who they are and not necessarily what they do? That itself is rather a philosophical question in general -- WHO we are vs. WHAT we do as people.

Click to expand...

I think great characters don't have to necessarily be doing great things. Emotion, reactions to what's going on around them, strong dialogue... That makes a character in my opinion.

And they have to stick. You can't have character B's speech pattern/attitude jump into character A. That's what throws me out of a character. I've read so many books that start off with strong characters, and then it's like the author forgot who was who. Annoying and unrealistic. That's not to say they can't make an impression on one another (in fact, if they're in close contact they should be doing just that), but there's a difference between being impressionable and becoming a mimicry.

Soccer Mom said:

But I don't think I would enjoy a book about someone if interesting things didn't happen. The character has to DO something. I might enjoy a short story that's nothing more than an interesting character sketch, but not a novel.

I'm gonna rack my brain for favorite books and see if there are some that fall under that criteria.

Click to expand...

I agree the characters have to do something. I know the two are impossibly intertwined. I'm just suggesting that sometimes one has the limelight and other times the other does.

Sometimes I read a story and the story itself propels my reading. At other times, I get wrapped up in the characters...who, of course are carrying the story along for the ride. I'm just saying that I love character driven stories, I guess. Not arguing with anyone.

KTC said:

I agree the characters have to do something. I know the two are impossibly intertwined. I'm just suggesting that sometimes one has the limelight and other times the other does.

Sometimes I read a story and the story itself propels my reading. At other times, I get wrapped up in the characters...who, of course are carrying the story along for the ride. I'm just saying that I love character driven stories, I guess. Not arguing with anyone.

Click to expand...

But...but I want to argue!! I want a fight! I....


nevermind.


I do love a good character. I do read the Stephanie Plum books and I agree that I just want to hang with the characters. The don't do "big" things, but they are so funny that I just want to live in their world for a bit. But they have to keep doing goofy silly things. Therein lies their charm.

Here is my very primitive take.

The basic plot, from the beginning of time with Beowulf and Gilgamesh, to Shakespeare and Silence of the Lambs and Pride and Prejudice, is:

1. Get your main character up a tree.
2. Throw rocks at him/her.
3. Get your main character down the tree.

Plot is:

- how you get your character up a tree. This is where plot begins: the character is forced into a situation from which he/she cannot escape through walking away, hitting the bar, ordering for pizza, etc.

- what rocks are thrown at the tree. This can be anything from hating Mr. Darcy to Grendel snacking on your men in the dining hall.

- how you get your character down the tree. Resolution of the rocks tends to do it, along with providing a rope or some other way to get down.

Character is:

- what personality in your character made it so that they would get up into that tree and can't get down? This affects how you get them up the tree; if you have a bear running around, only characters that cannot kill a bear, and are not suicidal, and do not have something to protect from the bear, will get up the tree. If you take away all the food on the island (if this is an island), then you can only get them up the coconut tree if they won't eat lizards and bugs or don't know how to fish (and, I suppose, don't hate coconuts more than life). Who they are also dictates how you trap them in the tree.

- who they are also dictates what kind of rocks can be thrown. Are they really good at dodging rocks? Find some honking big ones to pitch. Are they allergic to certain kinds of rocks? Throw those. Do they get really bothered by lots of little rocks constantly pelting them and wearing down their spirit? You know what to do. Try to get them out of that tree before they are ready to deal with whatever lies below (or deal with not having whatever it is in the tree that allows them to survive).

- who they are dictates how they can get out of the tree (safely). Someone who is always going to be scared of bears is never going to get down as long as the bear remains unresolved. Maybe they grow and become knowledgeable enough (say that there's a wood elf palace up that tree where they can train) to kill the bear. Maybe they are resourceful enough to build an effective gun out of coconuts and the little rocks you keep throwing up to create an especially deadly pellet gun to kill the bear. Maybe they become suicidal (a la Hamlet) and just throw themselves down to the bear.

If you want to implement deux ex machina, the bear suddenly dies of a heart attack.

Because character dictates plot---or at least that's how I see it---to me you have character first, then you derive plot from your characters.

For some reason To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn came into my mind reading this thread. Those are to of my oldes favorites, and when I think back on them I'm thinking only of how amazing and interesting the characters were - I have to stop and think to remember what the plot actually was.

I write and prefer to read very strong character-driven stories. Yes, they have to DO something in order for there to be a story, or a reason to even read the book. But in all my favorites, when I think back on them it's the characters I remember first.

Just my half-cent

MidnightMuse said:

For some reason To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn came into my mind reading this thread. Those are to of my oldes favorites, and when I think back on them I'm thinking only of how amazing and interesting the characters were - I have to stop and think to remember what the plot actually was.

I write and prefer to read very strong character-driven stories. Yes, they have to DO something in order for there to be a story, or a reason to even read the book. But in all my favorites, when I think back on them it's the characters I remember first.

Just my half-cent

Click to expand...

Very good points...very good examples!

Jamesaritchie said:

For me, it's the opposite. Characters plus story=plot. Plot is a byproduct of good characters and good story.

Click to expand...

Now I'm really confused.

Catcher in the Rye is very much a story where the character is so fascinating that if I don't sit and think about it deliberately, I remember so little of what he did while I can remember so much detail of Holden Caulfield.

(just to provide another example to Midnight Muse's - and Kevin's).

I think Voice is every bit as important as Story or Character or Plot (however you personally define those). Voice drives and infuses every part of the book, and is the essence of why we like a particular writer. I'd throw out Stephen King as an example. Some of his books had weak plots or forgettable characters, but his Voice, his storytelling is just so engaging.

But I guess that's what makes a masterpiece - those rare times when Voice, Story, Character, and Plot all come together and make an explosion in your brain and in your heart. Isn't that what we're all trying to acheive as aspiring writers?

Well, I agree you also have to care about the characters, but if the story line is poor, the author is unlikely to succeed in engaging my sympathy for the characters.

maestrowork said:

True, but do these interesting "stuff" has to be part of a grander plot/story? Must there be a story arc, a beginning/middle/and a grand finale to tie up all loose ends? I think that's worth examining. Take a memoir or biography for example... there's a story somewhere, but maybe not in a traditional sense. We're really more interested in the character -- who he/she is and what he/she does in his life, and these can be episodic and a string of vignettes but they're still extremely fascinating to read if the character is fascinating. But there may not be a plot in the traditional sense (we could, of course, argue that the person's life is itself a "life story" -- but in that sense, the "story" still takes second stage to the character).

I've read memoirs with no overarching story, just episodes and snippets, and was completely mesmerized by them. And in those cases, I really do think it's the character(s) that are the most important.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting take. I wasn't thinking of memoirs. I'm not really big on reading memoirs. Maybe I do require more story to hold my attention. I think the plot of Mockingbird is very dramatic and it really held my attention. "Stand up. Your Daddy is passing." That gives me shivers. It's the context of the characters actions that makes it so fascinating to me.

Huck is more of a character study. I think the picaresque story lends itself to exploring character in a different way.

What an interesting thread. This one has made me think more than any in a long time. ats Ray on back: Good question!

Voice and style for me every time.

Kurt Vonnegut's characters were unengaging. Cardboard, even. His plots were basic. Sometimes, it's difficult to remember which book of his you're actually reading.

But what a voice. Uncle Kurt's humanity and pessimism slugging it out right between your ears.

As for style: Rushdie and Eco and Grass craft sentences that would set off harmonics if you could only tap them with a fingernail.


On the other hand, Dan Brown writes good plots. Or so I've been told...

Story without Character is pretty awful, but Character without Story isn't anything at all.

Priene said:

On the other hand, Dan Brown writes good plots. Or so I've been told...

Click to expand...

Dan Brown nailed the Thriller genre plot tropes hard and fast. It was a great read--if you liked that kind of book. If you don't, then there's nothing that would save it for you. LOL!

For me, characters must be interesting. But they also need to be doing something. It doesn't matter what it is. When they tell a joke or say something funny, they're doing something. Even when they're just thinkng of something, that's a kind of action in itself. Sometimes it is those little actions, what they say and what they think, rather than what they do, that makes us care about the characters.

Biographies are a whole new animal. We read biographies because we already care about the characters. We already know who they are. When we read a biography, we don't read it to know who they are, but rather what happened to them and why they are the way they are.

It really boils down to what type of story it is. In sagas, for example, in the later books we already know the characters, and we buy the books to be with the characters and know what else happened to them. We want the story. But for a book with totally unknown characters, we want the characters, because they're the ones creating the story for us.

Eh... I'm not sure I made sense.

Sage said:

But you couldn't read too many of his even if you do like that kind of book 'cuz by the third, you have it all figured out in the second chapter (& the action hasn't even started yet).

Click to expand...

Actually, I know people who have read all his books and say he's just getting better with each one.