I've had my head buried in writing and editing projects recently, but wanted to share some thoughts about plot that came from two manuscripts I worked on recently. Both writers are very talented, and much of their prose is great to read. However, something wasn't clicking with the whole effect of their stories; the books didn't achieve that exponential take-off feeling you get when the important elements are all working together. The problem common to both novels was, basically, lack of a plot.

I tried to figure out why the absence of a clear plot can render a story difficult to read--too sequential, no surprises, no dramatic changes, no lift--and at the moment am working with this model:

THEME (AUTHOR) - PLOT - CHARACTERS - THEME (READER)

I stress that this is not intended to be a universal model, and it's just my current thinking. These notes are very much initial outlines. But I'm interested in anyone's views on it, particularly if you have trouble with plotting.

First thing to say is that these elements don't necessarily turn up in this order in the author's head. Obviously, a strong character can be the first motivation to write, or a theme, or a storyline. However, once the book becomes a serious project then I believe theme has to be the first consideration. This is really the answer to the question, "What is this story about?" What is the author trying to say? It might be a theme as simple as divided loyalties, say a soldier falling in love with a woman who's one of the enemy. And there may well be more than one theme. But theme is what drives the author--to explore it through story; to see where it goes, and what it portends. Of course, if he writes it well, he'll never have to actually spell out to the reader what his theme is.

Once he knows his theme, he needs a theatre in which to display it. If he just writes a story about ordinary folk doing ordinary everyday things, it's unlikely he'll have much of a show. In real life, themes tend to be defused by the interference of jobs, families, other people's themes, etc. So, he needs a plot--a dynamic structure which will highlight his theme and give it shape. He may choose the large or small scale here. In the example above, he could choose an actual war, or he could go for something like a boy falling for a girl who's part of a family his own won't have anything to do with.

This juncture, between theme and choice of plot, is perhaps the most important for a writer, and there are lots of considerations informing his decision. An important one is the balance between what will stretch him and what will consolidate his strengths (build his 'voice' or, better still, what will do both.

It may be obvious to say it, but a plot needs characters through which to act. And again, the author's choice is crucial towards what he's trying to achieve long-term with his writing. For instance, choosing, say a British soldier in World War 2 and a German woman will highlight the conflict in his theme probably more strongly than two characters who live in a street where their families just don't like each other. However, it may also be true that in the large scale plot, the characters are more likely to be directed by forces larger than them and therefore, while the drama will be strong, they aren't in a position to influence the plot so much. The opposite can be true in the small scale scenario, however, where the characters have more freedom to affect and even change the situation they're initially governed by.

Finally, the reader receives the impact of the theme, and makes it his own. He may not be conscious of it, but if someone else asks him about the book, he'll probably talk animatedly in terms that aren't too far away from it, expressed through the plot. "You've got this really patriotic British army major, who hates the Germans; then he's put in charge of interrogating this female German spy who has knowledge that can make the difference in this big battle coming up, but he falls in love with her . . . "

So, in a broad sense, it could be said that what makes story satisfying is when it provides the medium for a writer to share a theme with strangers, and forms a bond thereby. The plot and characters are the 'show' which makes this possible. A very skilful writer may be able to transfer themes through strong characters and not much plot, but I believe that new writers cannot afford to be plot-less.

Terry

Hi Terry.

Interesting thoughts. Just wondered if you could clarify "plot".
Do you mean the sequence of external events? Can you not also have a "thematic plot" so to speak?

For example I think The Waste Land is fantastic - now obviously that is a poem. But it also has a "plot" in a way - though not an obvious story-based one. It is more of a thematic plot full of voices and characters and stories and settings. But it leads you through and leaves you with an overall sense as well of themes and stories echoing each other through the years. And there is the uniting symbolism of the Fisher King stuff for those that want also. In fact, I think I have read interpretations that see it as a plot with a main character who goes through the whole thing - though I don't see that myself, nor do I think that it needs it.

I am choosing that deliberately because it is a "hard" poem in a way but it is saying something. And it is structured - thematically, but not necessarily chronologically or narratively.
Much of the connection is done through juxtaposition.

Also, can you not have an "internal plot" to do with character changes, thoughts and development without that much happening in the external world?

Just some thoughts. Not sure if they fit in with what you are trying to get at though.


<Added>

PS just to add that I know a poem is not necessarily going to be a good example when looking at novels, but the thing about that poem is that so many people pour over the "plot" and "narrative" as it were. It endlessly fascinates due to this.

Hi Snowbell,

Thanks for commenting. I'm really just opening this up here, so am not trying to be definitive. All thoughts are welcome. On the selfish side, if I can clarify this area, then it helps me be a more effective editor for the writers I work with.

Actually, 'The Waste Land' is a useful lateral look at theme and plot. Maybe it raises the issue of prose--which I left out of this model mainly, I guess, because it wasn't so much of an issue with the particular writers I referred to. But if the prose is as specific and referenced as Elliot's, perhaps it provides the structure for theme that a plot does in a novel.

I mean, another way to look at the model I suggested is that it can produce 'magic'--that hard to define certain 'something' that makes a book really resonant in a reader, rather than just being a quick-fix sequence of expected events.

However, while I think a poet can succeed just with strong prose, I'm not so sure about a novelist. A poem can capture a specific mood or feeling or thought, but a novel plot has to provide for things like time and setting, scene-building, etc.

Obviously, I'm talking about writers who want to say something through their writing. I know there's a lot of fiction around that exists mainly to reflect the reader's life as it pretty much is. But I'm not interested in that.

As for clarifying 'plot', in this model I'd say it means an unusual external circumstance that drives the characters to display and develop qualities that would not have otherwise been apparent and, in doing so, they then affect the course of the plot by return.

Terry

On your point about 'internal' plots--I guess you can do this, and perhaps literary fiction explores this angle more than most. However, I think characters' actions are much more authentic when inspired by an outer challenge, or actual event. I read (some of) a literary novel recently, where every single thought a character had was described, and their thoughts about what they thought other people were thinking, and their thoughts about why they didn't speak out their thoughts because of what they thought the consequences would be . . . all reading rather like those columns in middle-class newspapers where the writers go on about what they would do if ever they were in a particular situation. But the fact is, everyone acts differently to how they think when faced with actual, external, challenges.

Hmmm. Interesting what you say. I don't know what I think of this because it seems to me that the external plot is often very unimportant in terms of how satisfying a book is. And often I can feel that the plot is almost "tacked on".

But perhaps this relates to what you are saying in another way? I think what can be satisfying is how the eternal plot affects the internal plot (if you like) and maybe the themes as well.

I'm not sure about the litfic/non litfic divide. But there are plots and endings that can seem so "right" in either sort of writing. And similarly there are plots that can seem to clever-clever or too reflective of themes without saying very much or too divorced from anything that was set-up in the beginning of the book.

I think it is perhaps the embeddedness - the rightness of it that makes the thing satisfying within the confines of what it is.

I am just thinking aloud here, Terry, by the way, might all be guff what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is not having enough plot I don't think is necessarily the problem in terms of a solution of throwing more plot at a thing. Because plot in and of itself is not any more interesting than descriptions in and of themselves or dialogue burbling on about nothing much in particular. It is in the effect - I think that is kindof what you might be saying now I come to think of it - of these things and how they embrace one another to make a satisfying whole.

The trouble is - I always think - is that I'm never sure how conscious a writer can be of this stuff.



<Added>

Perhaps we need examples - reading that over I realise I don't even understand what I'm trying to get at myself.

Embeddedness. That the thing needs to feel "right" in any form of writing. Just not sure what the rules would be to achieve this.

Embeddedness is a good word. It implies that the important stuff of the story is deeply routed in the characters, at least that's how it seems to me; rather than the whole vehicle--story, characters, setting, etc--runs out of control. I'm not sure how conscious a writer can be of this, either, and it's probably best to avoid the word 'rules'. But I do believe a writer has to basically know what he's doing, even if it's a first draft and the whole thing will look quite different by the time it's finished.

I agree that throwing more plot at a story isn't a solution. However, one of the books I was working on was a fantasy novel, and as such its readers will expect the plot to be a strong factor, probably as an actual journey. With fantasy, perhaps more than most genres (although crime would be another, I guess), plot is usually the main motivator for the characters. Without their journey to destroy the One Ring, for instance, it's difficult to see how Frodo and Sam could have enthralled an audience.

Because plot in and of itself is not any more interesting than descriptions in and of themselves or dialogue burbling on about nothing much in particular. It is in the effect - I think that is kindof what you might be saying now I come to think of it - of these things and how they embrace one another to make a satisfying whole.

Yes, that is what I'm trying to say. When theme, plot, character all work together, they generate an effect that is definitely more than the sum of the individual parts. If you remove, or undersell, one of them, the effect disappears, unless the author is highly skilled in one or two areas and so can effect the third through them. But that comes back to an author knowing what he's doing and knowing what his skills are.

With new writers especially, I'd say it's important that they first learn good technique, and how a story is usually structured. Then, they can, say, allow the plot to be a light touch motivator, thereby giving the characters scope to develop on their own, so to speak. But without conscious knowledge of technique, I'm not sure a writer can maintain magic over an entire novel.

I think I know what you mean when you say for you the external plot is often very unimportant. All the same, I'd say it still needs to be there. Otherwise, it's like when a meeting's called at work and no one knows what the agenda is; you just get a load of pointless waffle.

I know I've said this before, but it does worry me that so many people are trying to get published with novels when they don't know how to write one. I base this on the books I'm asked to write reports on, and very often the author has tremendous talent in a specific area but seems unaware of required technique in others.

As for examples . . . well, speaking generally, as I said earlier, a genre such as fantasy probably works more by the plot driving the characters. On the other hand, good young adult fiction can be very light on plot, because the characters' inner development is the main focus. All the same, plot is still needed because it makes something happen to the characters, introduces shock points and provides a resolution.


<Added>

That should be 'rooted', of course.

<Added>

Just realised, I sounded a bit harsh, talking about people writing novels when they don't know how to. Of course, we all start out not knowing how to; and it's part of the learning process to make mistakes. However, I also feel a lot of time-consuming re-writing could be avoided by we writers discussing technique more.

I think I know what you mean when you say for you the external plot is often very unimportant. All the same, I'd say it still needs to be there. Otherwise, it's like when a meeting's called at work and no one knows what the agenda is; you just get a load of pointless waffle.

I think I expressed myself very badly there. What I meant was not that the external plot is unimportant but that if it isn't embedded somehow it can seem just like a series of unimportant and insignificant actions or a boring chronology of events just happening. I like things happening externally myself - but it has to motivate and link in with the characters - with their wants and needs. You can often come across lots of stuff happening without characters who are remotely developed or individual, just like action figures - that's what I mean I think. I love crazy plots. But I also think they have to be linked in with the characters wants and needs to deliver.

I agree that there isn't enough discussion about this sort of thing particularly on this site. I think it is partly because it is something that is impossible when critting small chunks to analyse. But, also, I think it is just plain hard. But I love thinking about these things. I find it endlessly fascinating how structures, stories and plots work and what they say to us.

I sent you a WWmail related to all this by the way.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed your WWmail but have now replied.

Yes, I love talking about this stuff, too. Similarly, I love checking the writing while I'm watching a TV or film drama and talking about it after. Well, I would have thought any writer would do the same, but it does seem to happen here less often than maybe it should. Perhaps it's because, like you say, it's hard. Also, good writing technique tends to be invisible, so you have to make an effort to notice it.

<Added>

Of course, analysing the writing after a programme is not advisable with non-writers, which is one of the reasons I've been banned from watching Doctor Who in our house (it doesn't stand up to close inspection).

LOL! I bet you are a nightmare to watch telly with.

It's difficult because you also have to get into the mind of viewer/reader at some point and not view everything like a critic. I think that is one of the difficult aspects - to be able to read it like a fresh reader might. And near impossible too, I must say.

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn't watch TV with me either. But I do find it easy to enjoy a show for the story at the same time as working out how the writing's been done. In fact, I'd say it's more enjoyable (and also for anyone else in the room providing I keep my mouth shut).

And I totally agree that you also need to be able to think like the reader, too. But isn't that the real fun of writing--crafting a real page-turner?

Well, i've enjoyed reading this thread, but i'm afraid i don't feel qualified to comment. I too wish there were more constructive discussions on WW about writing, almost a daily tutorial by a site expert would be nice - how about a tutorial forum, where a site expert instructs/leads a discussion on different aspects of writing each week - now there's an idea, i'd pay extra to have access to a forum like that.

I think WW is great for answering the basic questions that new and old writers have but i for one feel i have reached some sort of plateau with my writing. My Cornerstones report taught me a lot, and my first year here certainly did, but i don't feel i'm learning quite as much in terms of my writing from this site now (although getting and giving crits is great).

I suppose i need to push myself to find some sort of creative writing course - but the spare time i have i pour into my current WIP.

Interesting thread anyway, so thanks. But a bit over my head. I plotted my last book quite extensively, once i'd decided on the theme, although i allowed my characters to take me in a different direction if they pulled hard enough. My first book i didn't plot at all, nor did i think about the theme - i still didn't know where it was going at 94,000 words.

Casey,

Thanks for contributing. My record is 114,000 words before realising I was totally lost!

Past a certain point, each of us probably has to find the help we need with our writing, rather than hoping it will somehow just turn up. Basic help is plentiful, but specific help is another matter. I don't think it makes it any easier, living in the UK, since--and I'll probably get shot down in flames for saying this--we don't really have much by way of decent training for writers here. There are degree courses, but the academic approach doesn't suit everyone; and outside of that, there's not a lot besides manuscript agencies and week-long courses in the country. In the US it's a different story, but that may be because they generally view writing as more of a collaborative activity than we do.

Having said that, if someone's determined enough, they'll find the help they need. One of the reasons I switched to writing science-fiction was because it has such great support structures for writers. So, I guess the genre you write in plays a part, too. Science fiction, fantasy and horror are all good in helping writers at all levels; and I've heard Romance and Crime are too.

Terry

Hi Terry,

yeh, i'm probably going to join the Romantic Novelists' Association in January (in Jan they renew their yearly scheme of assessing your current manuscript as part of a reasonable joining fee) and hope that way i'll learn more and be able to attend some of their events.

Well, if you can be lost at 114,000 words, i don't feel so bad

Casey

<Added>

Interesting what you say about the US, i wonder why that is.

Casey - you always contribute really interesting ideas so you really should stop the self-deprecating bit.

The plateau thing you mentioned I wanted to ask more about. Why do you think that happened - do you think it is to do with the limitation of uploads etc and the fact that bigger things like structure/plot aren't talked about or something else?

I think you must have a pretty strong idea of changing structure/plot around after the rewrite too. How did you tackle your plot? Did you have it or the characters first?


Off to bed now. See you later.

What a fascinating thread, I have read it all, it seems, in the blink of an eye and learnt a great deal.
To me the plot, and in my case this would be in a crime story, is almost like the first bud to bloom in a bouquet. It is the idea/thought/even sentence, that gets the whole thing moving. That is just for the author, the art is transferring that to paper and, hopefully, having other people feel the same way.
I think characters drive plot but also need to be driven by it. You cannot have an MC who ignores the plot, or who is unaffected by it.
I wrote eleven chapters once and then decided all I'd done was dig myself a hole that big and wide! I kept the characters and ditched the plot.
Does any of this make sense? I hope so, if nothing else it got me thinking and that has to be a good thing!!!
Take care
Tracy