There's something implicit in all this that I've never quite got to grips with - what constitutes a plot? I'm serious. At what point do we say that a series of apparently unrelated happenings/musings/characters coheres into a plot? What makes it a plot?

We can easily see, for instance, that books like Emma, Treasure Island, Tom Jones, The Remains of the Day, 1984, The Great Gatsby have plots in the old-fashioned sense - there is a definable story arc by which the character's state is irrevocably altered.

But what about Ulysses, The Tropic of Cancer, Midnight's Children, Tristram Shandy, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Barbusse's Hell - plainly these books are not merely wittering on about nothing. They have themes. They have events. They have characters & points of view. But what about plots? What is it about a plot that makes it so important?

Guidance please...

Daisy,

The problem with asking for and giving writing advice is there is no one size fits all. All most people can do is say what works for them and leave the person asking to make their own mind up.

I understand why you would say this but disagree. First of all, a good teacher would never use one size to fit all. He or she will know what works for them but will realise that what works for someone else could be totally different. Which is why good teachers not only make sure they read widely but they do everything they can to get a whole range of writing experience so they can augment their in-the-field knowledge. It's a bad teacher who uses one size for all and only advises in terms of what he or she would do. And leaving the asker to make up their own mind is fine providing that person has all the tools, materials and experience to decide. But I see manuscripts all the time where it's clear to me that the reason a story does not for example have a plot is not that the writer thoroughly understands plot and has consciously decided to write something wtihout one but which has strong compensating features - it's simply that they do not know how to construct one, or in some cases are unaware that such a thing really exists.

It comes down to each writer and how hungry they are to learn so they can improve their writing. Hungry writers seek out people with experience and pester, even insist, they teach them what they know. Writers who are not so hungry, or who just don't want to do the work, will fall back on the argument that writing cannot be taught, that it's all subjective anyway, and quote examples of books that do not have a plot, or a fixed POV, that are full of passive writing, etc.

Rupert,

I don't really want to get into defining plot. There are plenty of good books out there which do that. But as I've just implied, I think there is a big difference between a writer who thoroughly understands plot and has chosen to work without one, to a writer who for whatever reason doesn't know what it is. I haven't read Hell but have read the other books you refer to as plot-less and didn't get on with any of them - mainly because for me their cleverness and inventiveness wasn't enough to outweigh the lack of journey in the story and/or the characters. Of course, this is probably personal taste as much as anything else. What's important is each writer's decision about how much they want to learn the craft, even if they intend to write nothing but plot-less novels for the rest of their life. My argument would be that the more skills you have under your belt, the more options you have for expressing what you feel in a manner which will carry emotional resonance in the reader.

Terry

The term "plot" is misleading because it suggests a big plan, something more akin to crime novels or whodunnits. "Plot" in novels and short stories usually means several simple elements fitting together to give a satisfying story; without which the story would fall short of the mark.

Cut down to its base elements, most plots follow:

ambition, conflict, resolution.

Okay, novels are more complicated than short stories, but they just use multiple layers of the same principles, so let's concentrate on the basics.

Examples:

If Bert wants to win a sausage eating competition, we have ambition. If he goes into the competition and wins, we have ambition and resolution, but no sense of plot because there is nothing for Bert to overcome. The conflict is essential for the reader to feel that Bert has accomplished something. So, we put something in his way. Enter Fatty Gibson, the undefeated champion. Bert will need to get him out of the competition and win that way, or find a novel way of beating him.

Hang on... what about a book where he doesn't actually win the competition?

Well, in a more literary novel, Bert's character will develop, so the resolution is internal, rather than action - he might realise that winning isn't everything, or gain an understanding of how hard winners need to work. His ambition here is personal development, the conflict is ignorance, the resolution, understanding, so you still have the three main elements.

Alternatively, Bert might come from a family of vegetarians, who frown on the idea of entering into a sausage eating competition. 1) The ambition is taking part, the conflict is his parents attitude, the resolution is the development of the parents' character. 2) another resolution is the development of Bert's character as he rebels and does his own thing, which might give way to a subplot (secondary resolution) of the parents finally understanding (ie Dirty Dancing).

So there ya gaan - Colin M's quick boiled down guide to plot.

Just a subnote before I stand back to be heckled, when people talk about books and films that don't have a plot - it usually means they don't understand the film/book. Withnail and I is often hailed as a film without a plot - bollocks is it. That film is plot-tastic, just too subtle for the student types convinced the film is just about getting pissed and going on holiday by mistake.

(Cross posted with Terry - just scanning back to read)

I don't really want to get into defining plot. There are plenty of good books out there which do that.

OK. Could you suggest one?

when people talk about books and films that don't have a plot - it usually means they don't understand the film/book. Withnail and I is often hailed as a film without a plot - bollocks is it. That film is plot-tastic, just too subtle for the student types convinced the film is just about getting pissed and going on holiday by mistake.

Yes. I haven't seen Withnail & I (though I want to do so sometime), but I think that's right - sometimes the best stuff is where the plot is so seamlessly put together that you don't even recognise it as a plot. Everything seems to happen randomly, but is in fact anything but. The Catcher in the Rye is like that too.

On the other hand, while I've probably read six or seven of Thomas Hardy's novels & enjoy his characterisation & evocation of the late Victorian rural scene, I find his plots extremely creaky - because they're so obvious as plots (i.e. artificial) & rely on carefully engineered situations & coincidence (generally aimed at manufacturing the most depressing outcomes possible.

Loved the idea of a sausage-eating competition...

Rupert,

Here's four:

Stein on Writing by Sol Stein
Creating Short Fiction by Damon Knight
The Hero's Journey Joseph Campbell
The Seven Basic Plots by Christopher Booker

Terry

Plot is always easier to spot in action based books because stuff has to happen; if the guy in the white hat wants to trick the guy in the black hat he's going to need to use a plot device (rope, banana skin, bucket of custard) probably put in place two chapters back. If he falls in love with the guy in the black hat, we hit a different kind of conflict.

Yes, I love the idea of the sausage eating competition too, Colin. Maybe a good plot for a childrens book?

I would just add that there are sometimes queries about one dimensional main characters, and how to make them more fully formed, complete individuals in their own right, and it often helps to have Colin's literary sub-plot in mind, so the character is not totally focused on the competition - there are deeper under-currants to his personality, it's not all about the plot - so when he interacts with other characters, they do a bit of 'Withnail & I', and go off on tangents so we learn more about what makes them tick, and the world around them, which all helps to develop their personalities.

- NaomiM

I love the sausage competition example too, Colin.

'The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative' has this in its glossary, which may or may not be helpful and which I've edited for the sake of brevity but is, imo, interesting. Put simply, plot seems to be what happens during the course of the story that the narrative is telling.

PLOT: A vexed term. Commonly in English plot is used to mean story. Another (generally European) tradition equates plot with the order in which the story-events are arranged in the narrative. Plot has also been used to mean the chain of causally connected events in a story.

STORY: Conveyed through the narrative, story is the sequence of events involving entities. Events in a story are acts and happenings. Entities are characters and settings. Story is bound by the laws of time; it goes in one direction, starting at the beginning, moving through the middle, and arriving at the end. Narrative, i.e. the way the story is told, does not have to follow that order.

Terry - I thought this thread was about advice, not teaching. In fact, I thought this forum was about writers asking advice from other writers and not a forum for teaching.

I do not wish to disparage anybody. My grammar is just ugly!
However, I write (creatively) at night. My fingers cannot keep up with the output from my brain. Mornings, I try to go back over my work and give it some sort of punctuation. If I try to write with the overhhead of grammatical exellence, the result is woeful.

I truly believe most can be taught grammar and technique. I cannot entertain the notion that imigination can be taught.

In these times of marketing and the sale packaging rather than product. I believe you are every bit as likely to be published, by naming a character with a ridiculous name like 'Spongebob Squarepants'. Is Google even a word? The whole thing is really sad.


Did Shane die? ... please, don't answer that.

Mr vicw, I think the answer is somewhere in 'the short and the long of it' but as it's gone way off topic - Outside!
http://www.writewords.org.uk/forum/65_236548.asp

Don't dis Spongebob, man - I love that cartoon. Totally out there! If you watch the show, or watch people who enjoy the show, you'll discover that market research isn't such a bad thing after all. Once upon a time this would never have been given airspace, but somewhere along the line, someone in a suit realised that kids (esp young and adolescent boys) love purile humour. So either that was the driving force that spurred the show, or more likely, the show had already been presented, and it was the market research that was gave it the green light.

To write without an audience in mind is a big mistake, mainly because the first question a prospective agent or publisher will ask is, "who is this aimed at?"

Therefore, it's equally important for a writer to do market research in order to keep up with the game and hold a chance of being published. Sounds obvious, but there are bags of children's writers who don't read current children's fiction, and rely on what they remember from their own childhood, or what they believe children will like.

Product is still king, but it's a high risk to invest in any product without knowing if it will sell. And even when you have that product, and the audience is ready and waiting, without promotion, it still won't sell because the audience won't know it's even there!

<Added>

a stray "was" crept in there - should have been: it was the market research that gave it the green light.

Terry - I thought this thread was about advice, not teaching. In fact, I thought this forum was about writers asking advice from other writers and not a forum for teaching.

Daisy - I don't think there are any rules as such about what this thread is for, other than to dicuss technique. In any case, I wasn't saying it was about teaching; I was commenting on your assertion that in effect it isn't possible to give advice beyod 'one size fits all'; you didn't say who should or shouldn't give advice. But, if it helps, just swap 'teacher' for 'adviser'; I think what I said still stands.

Terry

Don't dis Spongebob, man - I love that cartoon.

I tried to move this, albeit unsuccessfully. I didn't dis Bob, I think you've missed my point. Branding is branding, by author or title, Less so in lit. It doesn't matter if it's any good, it's if they can they sell it. I believe research shows, the number one influence for purchasing a fiction paperback, is the cover. I won't swear to it but I think title came second.

I think you're looking down the wrong end of the telescope on this one. The starting point is the product - the book. The publisher needs to know, first off, if the author can write. Next, will the book sell? If both are yes, then the next step is in both publisher and author's interest, to get the book to the people who will buy it. That usually means presenting it in a way that the audience will recognise as a book they will like. The Da Vinci Code didn't have a particularly brilliant cover, but the style was copied by several other publishers - a way of saying to those people who bought the Dan Brown book, hey, look, here's another you'll like. My argument falls down when those other books are simply shit, and the audience feels cheated, but I bet the authors don't complain.