This isn't really a book that is aimed at writers, but I think, nevertheless it will be extremely useful for me as a writer, which is why I've put it in this section.

The Seven Basic Plots was recommended to me by one of the tutors on the Arvon Foundation course I attended just before Christmas. I've now finished it, and felt it was worth a lengthy review.

It's an immense work. With over 700 pages of teeny tiny type, we would expect it to be virtually unreadable, but it’s not. It’s interesting, revealing, and thought provoking. A work that has taken over forty years to write and involved the reading of a huge amount of literature, Booker does his subject justice.

Many of us, especially those of us who are writers, find the idea that there are very few plots intriguing. Without thinking about it too hard, we can all trace similarities between stories we have read, heard or seen as movies, for example most of us are aware of a quest type plot, where the hero or group of heroes must go through many adventures in order to achieve their goal. LOTR is only one of the more recent examples.

In the first section of the book, Booker describes the seven plots he has identified, while noting that many stories take elements from more than one. He concentrates largely on Western examples, using stories that are likely to be familiar to the book’s intended audience. Later on, in other sections he does note examples from other cultures, to highlight the universality of the strands that he has identified.

The plots are, Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The Quest, Voyage and Return, Comedy, Tragedy, and lastly, Rebirth. Of these, he identifies comedy as the only one that has evolved during the historical period, from the Greek comedies of Aristophanes et al. It is worth noting that of these, only tragedy does not have a happy ending.

As an example, this is the outline of the Rebirth plot.

1. A young hero or heroine falls under the shadow of the dark power (whatever that is).
2. For a while, all may seem to go reasonably well, the threat may even seem to have receded;
3.eventually, it approaches again in full force, until the hero or heroine is seen imprisoned in the state of living death; (this may be internal or external)
4. this continues for a long time, when it seems that the dark power has completely triumphed;
5. but finally comes the miraculous redemption: either, where the imprisoned figure is a heroine, by the hero; or, where it is the hero, by a Young Woman or a Child.

This is the plot of my last novel, and probably the current one as well.

But we can all think of stories that do not fit into these patterns – stories like Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge, or any Sherlock Holmes story. The second section of the book is devoted to what Booker calls stories that ‘miss the mark’. He asserts that this type of story has developed in Western literature over the last 200 years, as a result of the rise of Romanticism. I found this section very revealing, as it explained the dissatisfaction I have often felt with certain authors.

The final section is devoted to an examination of why we tell stories, and produces an explanation that is rooted in psychology. I found it interesting, but felt that Booker's conclusions were a bit suspect. I liked his examination of the Trickster archetype though..

On the downside, the book is often repetitive, with the same examples being gone over several times. It is also very badly edited with numerous typos, and Booker’s editor really should have tried to stop him using the word ‘little’ quite so frequently.

This will certainly be a book to dip into many times, and I recommend it to everyone with a desire to explore further the structure of stories and the archetypes behind them.

It does make me wonder if an author can stick to one particular plot line for book after book. I'm thinking particularly of detective and crime novels. If this is so, then is it a good thing? We often hear of readers asking for sequels even if the author hasn't planned them. Is there comfort in the familiarity of a structured plot where only the details change?

Colin M

I've been thinking about this for a day or two. Perhaps Booker's use of the word 'plots' is misleading. What he is talking about are very deep structures within stories. Otherwise it would hardly be possible to say that both Cinderella and the James Bond stories follow Rags to Riches plots, which Booker asserts they do. At first glance two things could hardly be more different. I don't think the sort of repetitive storylines you mention are quite the same thing.

One of the things I liked about this book was the idea that there are a lot of stories that don't work, that attempt to follow the pattern but don't quite get there in some way. Crime/Mystery fiction tends to fall into that category.

There, the protagonist/detective is a very different type of character from the normal hero of a story. What I have noticed in recent years though, is that, particularly in historical crime fiction, the detective has become much more of a player in the story than in say, an early Sherlock Holmes. What I mean is, Holmes sits in Baker street, admired by Watson, enter supplicating client, Holmes and Watson go off to look into the matter, Holmes amazes Watson with his powers of deduction, end of story, any story. Holmes himself is pretty much a cardboard character - he never changes. Lindsey Davis's Falco is a very different proposition. The books form part of a serial that isn't finished yet, and it's much harder to jump in at the middle.

I wonder if this is because we like the idea of the whodunnit, but they have been unsatisfactory in terms of story - hence the endless repetition. The development I describe above, brings them back towards more conventional plots, just told over a much longer period.

I hope this makes sense - I'm thinking about it as I type. I find this whole subject fascinating.

Cas

This is straying a little, but I think it would be almost impossible to get away with the cardboard detective these days. In that, I'm really referring to all long-running characters. I think the days of having a James T Kirk or a Sherlock Holmes, act and react in similar ways through a series of stories is past and gone. I think it comes from our obsession with the characters themselves, to such a degree that in a long series the plots become secondary to what is happening to the main character.

This isn't confined to literature, we see it in every long running drama series. Casualty, The Bill, London's Burning; they all told great action stories in their first couple of series, but bit by bit they wandered into the realms of the soap opera. The emergencies weren't so important as the relationships and it all turned rubbish.

At least Casualty managed to pull itself back together.

Colin, from a reader’s point of view I tend to like sequels. By the time I get to the end of a book I have formed a relationship with the characters and don’t like the abrupt finality of that relationship ending. So it’s good to anticipate meeting them again in the next novel.

From a writer’s point of view – I know two published writers, each writing a series of novels around a central character. The benefits are that they don’t have to reinvent their MC with every new novel and they can develop the character over a long period. The downside is that they don’t get to create new main characters.

As I write, I find myself instinctively thinking towards a sequel because, having created the characters, I don’t want to let go of them. I have two finished novels and have already done a substantial amount of work on a sequel to each of them. I more or less accept now that they will never be published. I can handle that. I’m used to rejection. What really sticks in my craw is that my characters have been rejected. The idea that they will never be seen in public really grieves me. It’s personal, dammit! So, at some point in the future, they’ll be back.

Dee


<Added>

Posted this before I saw you last comment. One of the aspects I like about Casualty etc, is the development of the relationships between the characters. There’s a limit to the variations on someone being rushed in on a trolley but the central characters can change and develop.

The difference between Casualty and a series of novels is the time span. We expect to see a new Casualty every week whereas, with novels, we’re prepared to wait a year or so for the next instalment.

x

I totally understand, and agree. I haven't read The Winter House, (read the synopsis!) but I'd take a guess that despite the tight plot, that it's character driven. It's only natural to wonder what your characters will be doing next. My gripe with Casualty is that it was originally a plot driven drama and changed to being character driven. Then everyone complained and finally, they found a balance.

The novel that I have out there at the moment is character driven and the desire to do a sequel is very strong; I've even planned out most of what will happen, but for now I'm resisting and trying to work on something new. I can always come back to the sequel at a later date.

Colin M

The other unsavoury facts which I’m trying to swallow is that the first novel was a practice run and that the sequel is really the first.

I think I’ll have to treat myself to The Seven Basic Plots by way of compensation.

Incidentally, I wasn’t referring to TWH earlier, I haven’t finished that yet – and I should be working on it now

Dee

after reading all your comments i am away out to buy this book!

jewelsx

Dee - everyone needs practice and you will love the first novel all the more for all the precious experience and knowledge it will provide you with, even if it is only ever for you!