One Dimensional Characters and Plots

AllyWoof said:

What I mean by this is I come up with wonderful ideas. Then, I get all excited about them and try to work with them. The problem is I don't get past the bear bones of anything. Am I alone here?

Click to expand...

Characters are my strong point, according to my betas. I'm struggling right now with a very one dimensional plot.

After flailing around a bit, I decided I would just write the simple plot I have and as my mom says, let the rough end drag. Funny thing happened though. As if by magic, some little threads started poking up, little threads that didn't tie directly to the main plot but really had a place in the overall story. I realized they are subplots and suddenly I have a plot that's a little more fleshed out.

So yeah, it happens. You're not alone. Keep at it! I bet little things will start peeking through for you too.

it's happening to me right now. I don't know how to do anything the right way or flawlessly like other authors do.

Flawlessly? Writing is hard work, as many people here will tell you. There are the ideas, the planning and/ outlining, the first draft, the shaping, the editing, the research, several re-typing, re-shapings depending on how you do it. Nothing comes out in the end exactly how it goes in. It's like getting a big box of disassociated material, spending days sorting through it, coming up with a linear story and then going through the whole messy writing experience.

The difference between a one-dimensional character and a three-dimensional character comes down to surprises, contradictions and internal conflicts.

Surprises: the character isn't quite like what the reader expects. E.g. a Wild-West gunfighter who's actually a reanimated corpse.

Contradictions: bits of the character go against its own general nature. E.g. a wrestler who raises orchids. (these are a special kind of surprise, but worth mentioning in their own right).

Internal conflicts: times when a character must sacrifice something it wants -- e.g. solve the murder, or keep your boyfriend out of the drunk-tank.

So... if you have a good idea for a one-dimensional character, you can make it three dimensional by (for example) listing five things that make the character stereotyped, and turn one of them on its head; giving it two things it wants, and making sure that it can't have both of them; making the character an extreme of type (e.g. the strongest wrestler, the best orchid-grower, the fastest gun, or the ugliest undead).

When you put three-dimensional characters into conflict (i.e. A and B both want incompatible things) then three-dimensional plots ensue.

For example, if the widow of my undead gunfighter starts dating my orchid-raising wrestler and making the gunfighter jealous, then he could try to:

• Shoot the wrestler
• Terrify him
• Trash his greenhouse in spite
• Menace his widow
• Try and pretend he's not dead, and win her back

Meanwhile, the wrestler could try to:

• stay alive
• work out who's threatening him and why
• woo the widow with orchids
• impress her with feats of strength and athleticism
• try and get her former husband properly buried

Then of course the widow can complicate things by:

• Being secretly allergic to orchids
• Being chased by the gunfighter's old enemies
• Trying to find her dead husband's hidden gold-stash
• Wanting the wrestler to turn vegan

I think it's like Bearilou said: if your characters are rich, plot opportunities just poke their heads up.

Characters are my greatest strength, but I feel your pain with plots. You mean it's not enough that I have cool characters and an interesting setting? Something actually has to happen in my books?? *cries* I find it helpful to discuss my ideas outloud with others (not necessarily other writers, friends and family make fine sounding boards if they're willing to listen). Sometimes when I'm talking about it neat plot twists and subplots will occur to me.

... have always enjoyed works with 2-dimensional characters in them. A lot easier to follow and I'm never left wondering why the author stuck in this and that detail. One-dimensional characters would be a bit harder to appreciate, lol. But if you could get yours up to two dimensions you'd have at least one reader who'd appreciate your novels

Creating three-dimensional characters IS best done through conflict, surprise, and contradiction (as Ruv said), but it's possible to do all of that and still have two-dimensional characters. Imagine you are sitting in some public place and someone you don't know gets your attention. You watch that person for some time, noting his/her mannerisms, behaviors, even reactions to things that happen to, or around him/her. You can describe that person, but unless you have a crystal ball or you like to extrapolate, your description of that person will be relatively limited and two-dimensional. Now, fast forward one full year after you went up and introduced yourself to that person and subsequently developed a warm friendship. You now know some of that person's motivations for his/her behaviors, you understand some of the personal history behind some of his/her mannerisms and reactions. Now you can fully describe that person in a totally different way, and you can better predict or describe how that person will react to various stimuli, including conflicts and surprises, and you will better appreciate contradictions in that character's actions. Now you can SHOW that character to a reader, but not by describing his/her behaviors as in that first meeting. You can do it through the character's actions, which can build up a necessary backlog of expected and unexpected reactions that reveal to the reader or help the reader see the motivations and history behind the character's actions and reactions. Now you are building the character depth that makes up that third dimension.

I agree that I think it's important to understand the character's background and motivation as a way to flesh him/her out. I'm really good at this, but that's just my specialty. I have to work way harder to get the plots. But yeah, when I create characters, I ask myself not only who they are, but who they were. What has he experienced in his life that makes him respond the way he does now? And a lot of times you never really need to say these things. They sort of sneak their way into the story on their own if it's important, but if you know, they're able to do that. Also, when you really know the character, he'll start to do things on his own without your even trying. Sometimes he'll even take you by surprise.

AllyWoof said:

The problem is I don't get past the bear bones of anything. Am I alone here?

Click to expand...

I think you mean 'bare bones'

I get this problem too. What you need to do is make sure that your characters have sufficient motivation- they have to be going somewhere. That is what makes them 3D characters.

Their spine (overarching goal) is born from their past. Even if you don't include the past in detail, they still have to have come from somewhere. You will lose a lot of readers if your characters don't have strong enough motivations for doing what they do, especially if it's something significant like revenge or murder.

But if they had the opportunity for doing that early on and they took it, the story's over. Even if you wanted to look at the aftermath, if his spine was 'to kill Mary', you haven't got a story after that because the character doesn't have any drive anymore. You would have to flesh out his spine: 'to get true revenge on Mary', which would leave you with more options.

So there needs to be something preventing him from doing it. It could be physical obstacles (he wants to do it but never gets the chance because of extenuating circumstances) or internal obstacles (he believes that murder is wrong or he needs her to change her will before she dies). The character can't control physical obstacles but he can try and control his internal obstacles. The attempt to control them gives you a strong conflict.

Three important things: action, reaction, and interaction.
Your character doesn't live inside a vacuum. Things happen;people happen.

Action is a movement which furthers the story. Yes, getting a cup of tea is technically an action but it is only a real action when it is done for a reason- maybe to poison Mary, or to coax her into revealing something.

Reaction is the character's response to others' actions or events. If Mary refuses to drink the tea, the character could react in all sorts of ways: he might switch tact, he might lose his temper, he might get paranoid that she knows. Test out all the possible reactions- he might be offended. Perhaps him and Mary always drank tea together ever since they were about 8. By choosing an unusual yet convincing reaction, your reader will become more attached to the character and the character will become more 3D.

Interaction is the character's response to other people. How does he behave with the different characters? He needs to have some sort of relationship to other characters; if he has no feelings towards Mary whatsoever, his motivation becomes unbelievable. The character wouldn't talk to Mary in the same way that he did to his mate Barry, would he? If he does, that is significant- that he views the woman he wants to kill in the same way that he does his male best friend.

I'm a seat of the pants writer so I start with characters and see what trouble they can get into. The plot flows from the characters and I find out about who they are at the same time as the reader (if I ever managed to get published:~). Most of the time the story starts off going one way and then takes a massive turn in another direction, which connects to the first because the characters created the plot swerve by their actions. So my advice let the characters do what they do, interact, make mistakes, screw up the dynamics of the group -- and/or your story -- and see what happens.

I am attempting the snowflake method for the first time and find the whole character motivation/goal stuff a little constricting and simplistic. Constricting because it kinda limits the character to only one or two motivations (or you start destroying your character with too much thought) and simplistic because people are complex. Why do *I* do what I do? Nature, nurture, and need.

"Flawless" work comes only after many, many revisions. Nobody poops out a brilliant work of art.

The best way I know to build your muscles as a writer is to write. Every day. No excuses. It's fine for you to screw up a whole bunch. It's fine for you to write stuff you won't ever end up using in a finished work. Just write. Taking a break won't get you there. Writing will.

Libbie said:

"Flawless" work comes only after many, many revisions. Nobody poops out a brilliant work of art.

The best way I know to build your muscles as a writer is to write. Every day. No excuses. It's fine for you to screw up a whole bunch. It's fine for you to write stuff you won't ever end up using in a finished work. Just write. Taking a break won't get you there. Writing will.

Click to expand...

This is so very true.
I can actually see myself improving from draft to draft, from WIP to WIP. Notice all sorts of things I didn't used to notice. It's hard, but it's great.
And it can't happen if you don't write.

AllyWoof said:

What the heck is that? Heard people referred to it, but never used it, or knew what the heck they were talking about.

Click to expand...

http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/art/snowflake.php

here you go, heard about it during nano, looked it up, realised I kinda used a reverse version of it and thought I'd give it a shot. Mainly because I have been seat of the pants writing since the beginning of november and I've pretty much worn through to bare bone :~)

Stephen Donaldson wrote an essay saying his novel ideas are usually the result of two smaller ideas crashing into each other.

Bare bones are the beginning. You stick the substance on, and fix any anatomical issues, after you've got them down. Revision and beta-readers are your friends.

painkillers said:

I am attempting the snowflake method for the first time and find the whole character motivation/goal stuff a little constricting and simplistic. Constricting because it kinda limits the character to only one or two motivations (or you start destroying your character with too much thought) and simplistic because people are complex. Why do *I* do what I do? Nature, nurture, and need.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Yes, there's a danger of over-analysing your character and turning them into an intellectual problem as opposed to a person; but giving a character a motivation means that your story has a focus and a momentum. It is driven by the character's ultimate goal- what would they kill to get? If the character doesn't want anything, they have no reason to do anything.

Throughout the story, the character has smaller motivations: to seduce Betty, to learn a piano concerto, to obtain a gun...whatever. Naturally things are going to prevent those: Betty's loyalty to her husband, his lousy piano playing, his naievity about weaponry, etc.
Your characters differ in their actions and personalities because they want different things. Betty's ultimate motivation might be 'to keep her family together'; her husband's might be 'to reawaken my old passions'; the character's might be 'to become more of a 'man'. Yes, their motivations are shaped by nature and nurture...need is different. We don't necessarily want what we need.

Think of it as sculpting in clay.
First: you create the wire frame work. The bare bones, the shape of the story. That's your first draft.
Second: you put a lot of clay on the framework. Lots and lots of words, describe everything, make sure every character works, leave no stone unturned. That's your second draft.
Third: you pare away the clay until the shape is once more revealed. Hack, salsh, ruthless pruning of anything that doesn't push the story along. That's your third draft.

Then you're into polishing the style and making it sparkle.

Hope that helps.

Lady Ice said:

You're missing the point. Yes, there's a danger of over-analysing your character and turning them into an intellectual problem as opposed to a person; but giving a character a motivation means that your story has a focus and a momentum. It is driven by the character's ultimate goal- what would they kill to get? If the character doesn't want anything, they have no reason to do anything.

Throughout the story, the character has smaller motivations: to seduce Betty, to learn a piano concerto, to obtain a gun...whatever. Naturally things are going to prevent those: Betty's loyalty to her husband, his lousy piano playing, his naievity about weaponry, etc.
Your characters differ in their actions and personalities because they want different things. Betty's ultimate motivation might be 'to keep her family together'; her husband's might be 'to reawaken my old passions'; the character's might be 'to become more of a 'man'. Yes, their motivations are shaped by nature and nurture...need is different. We don't necessarily want what we need.

Click to expand...

I was using Need more as the contemporaneous environment, rather than the environment of childhood referenced by nurture. (I know, but it does start with an N :~). Needs as in Food, Shelter, etc.

Also, i think you misunderstood me, I don't normally have problems with characters or story-telling. The motivations that you mention above in reference to Betty, I do that anyway as part of the writing process. It is setting them out prior to the writing that i am finding a little awkward. So, I am pretty much working on the basis that my character studies for the snowflake are just Bios. Once the story starts, all bets are off.

This dalliance with the snowflake method is just an experiment. I'm not going towards the light anytime soon. The dark-side of word throwing suits me just fine :~)

But it's nice to try something different.

painkillers said:

But it's nice to try something different.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And there's nothing wrong with dropping what isn't working for you, either!

I found with the snowflake method, there were things that were a really good fit for me, some that fit a little bit and some that just didn't work for me at all. So, buffet-style, I picked up those things that worked and let the rest fall by the wayside.

bearilou said:

Indeed. And there's nothing wrong with dropping what isn't working for you, either!

I found with the snowflake method, there were things that were a really good fit for me, some that fit a little bit and some that just didn't work for me at all. So, buffet-style, I picked up those things that worked and let the rest fall by the wayside.

Click to expand...

ah, but see I'm an ex-professional cook, so I follow the recipe once, just to see what it is supposed to be like. Then I start playing with it :~)

I also am happiest with a modified version of the snowflake method. I don't like the word 'disasters'; transformations or realignments fits my writing better. I develop the characters' motivations within the context of the scene-by-scene outline, which is step 3 (step 2 is a 3-5 paragraph outline, and step one is about 2 sentences describing the basic concept).