minim_calibre: In which I think too much and accomplish little.

Minim Calibre (

minim_calibre) wrote,
@ 2003-05-02 11:04:00

Current mood:

confused

In which I think too much and accomplish little.
I'm obsessing. I know this. It's something I have a habit of doing.

Someone PLEASE explain plotty to me? WRT: fic? This Holy Grail of Writerly Things?

See, I've been thinking a lot about Plotty Writing, and what the devil defines it. Because it doesn't seem to be as clear cut as one would think. If you are me, that is, and I may be an odd duck of a case, though I think I've hit on why: in a discussion about it this morning, I found myself starting to wonder how much of my confusion about the distinctions (and yes, I'm v. confused about those freaking things) comes from my background as a reader.

Lifted from my "I'm on the short bus today if I can't even figure out plot" musings:

I'm starting to think part of my problem is that it's been years since I read any pulp sci-fi/fantasy.

My notion of writing is overly influenced by freaking Tolstoy.

Wesley or Angel's going to probably end up blithering about the connectivity of religion and the joys of collective farming and the beauty of the fucking peasants at the rate I'm going.

Because as a reader, yeah. Pretty much everything I've read for the last decade or so? All about the internal journey.

So I can't quite wrap my brain around the definitions of Plotty such as I have seen. Because most of them are all about the external journey, which I have very little experience with over the last 15 years, and would seem to mean that things such as Anna K., were they say, fan novels from the show "Levin", would fall into the category of non-plotty, and that seems wrong. But I can't explain why.

Help?

(Post a new comment)

musesfool
2003-05-02 10:32 am UTC (link)

To me, 'plotty' definitely has the connotation of outside action. Not that the characters can't take journeys - the outside stuff really should shed light on the characters, but ... stuff happens. More than X thinks about Y, Y thinks about X, X and Y have some sort of emotional confrontation, X and Y fuck.

Hmm...

Plotty means that there's stuff outside the relationship that drives the action - casefile type stuff, MotW stuff - and that that action is what forces the characters into revealing themselves.

Plotty can also mean murder mystery or well-written romantic comedy (though the latter does focus more on the relationships and working them out).

That's my own personal definition. I have various stories in half-finished forms that deal with things like serial killers, the struggle for mutant rights, Logan being handed back to the goverment and having to be rescued - stuff like that is what I consider plotty - I have a hard time writng that kind of stuff, because I'm rather focused on the relationships.

They need not be mutually exclusive, but I find I've set them up as a dichotomy in my head.

Hmmm...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	minim_calibre 2003-05-02 11:48 am UTC (link)
	Smash the walls! Seriously. The dichotomy is I think what's bugging me. The richness of human experience is lost when it's not all explored, and I think part of my problems with some of the really "plotty" stuff that I see out there is that there's a certain coldness to it. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

musesfool
2003-05-09 07:52 am UTC (link)

The dichotomy is I think what's bugging me.

Sadly and unconsciously, I find I'm a very dichotic thinker, even though I know intellectually that most things are not either/or, I still find myself automatically setting them up that way and then having to work to get to an 'if/then' or an 'and' kind of place.

The richness of human experience is lost when it's not all explored, and I think part of my problems with some of the really "plotty" stuff that I see out there is that there's a certain coldness to it.

I think that coldness comes from a writer being 'plot-driven' rather than 'character-driven.'

Even the 'plotty' stuff I write is character-driven - I start out by thinking, for example, "How would the AI crew react to having to reenact Tamlane?" And it becomes a question of who would be stolen by the Faerie Queen, who would be the one who loved Angel the most, who would figure out that that's the plot they were replaying, etc., rather than, "Ooh, Tamlane. I want to rewrite that, what can I rejigger to fit it?"

Some writers begin with a plot - "outsiders with superhuman powers band together to fight evil of such and such a nature" - and then have to find characters they can manipulate to fit that plot. *That*, imo, is where the coldness comes from.

Plot, action, praxis, whatever term we're using today, *ought* to grow out of the characters.

[didactic]
To use a classic example of something that seems like nothing but plot, but isn't:

Agamemnon and Achilles' behavior drives the action of The Iliad - had Agamemnon not felt like his troops were losing respect for him after ten fruitless years of war, he wouldn't have stolen Briseis. Had he not stolen Briseis, Achilles would not have gotten all pissed off and decided to sit out the next few battles, thus giving the Trojans a respite from losing and some momentum. Had Patroclus not been the kind of man/warrior he was, he wouldn't have felt it necessary to go out and try to rally his side by dressing up like Achilles. And had he not dressed up like Achilles, it's entirely probably Hector wouldn't have killed him. His death drives Achilles into mad despair, and thus, to killing Hector.

All of that plot is really driven by those character interactions, going all the way back to the Judgement of Paris and Menelaus' repsonse to his wife's infidelity, Agamemnon's willingness to sacrifice his own daughter in order to go to war, etc. etc.

It's not like Homer sat around like some studio or network executive and said, "Hey! Wouldn't it be great if we had a story about a big long siege and they could all be killing each other, and then we'd have a really clever trick that brought the city down, like a Trojan Horse or something, and you know, I think this Achilles guy would be good for the starring role. I don't care about his motivations! This is how the story goes, and he better fit into it."

Which is what I think some plotty writers do - bend the characters to shape the action, rather than allowing the action to flow from the characters' behavior. [/didactic]

Huh. That got really wordy and didactic. Sorry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	serenada 2003-05-02 10:37 am UTC (link)
	Why do you think it's supposed to be a holy grail? From what I can tell from the discussion, a lot of it involves deciding what the writer meant (okay, I never got litcrit), and if you're the writer, you can just decide that you meant the sequence of events as more important than the emotional arcs. If you have to ... I don't see why one would always need to. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Holy Grail minim_calibre 2003-05-02 10:46 am UTC (link)
	I often see "plotty" held up as What Fic Should Be, but isn't. As a probably not-plotty-writer, I wonder why that is, what is plotty, and how is that better than not especially plotty. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Holy Grail serenada 2003-05-02 10:49 am UTC (link)
	Feh. It's litcrit. Tastes will change in a heartbeat. Or seven hundred. The best story is one that makes your readers want to read it again and again. That's as sophisticated as I get. (Reply to this) (Parent)

stakebait
2003-05-02 11:25 am UTC (link)

Plot is Stuff Happening. The stuff can be internal. The stuff can be external. It's still plot.

I tend to like it best when the external stuff either mirrors the internal (King Lear) or 'causes the internal (Orson Scott Card) or both (Angel and Buffy), because if its all external its hard to care what happens when you don't know why or why it matters. And if its all internal its, um, often hard to care about the state of the psyche of a bunch of people who don't do anything in the world except sit around and worry about the state of their psyches. But possibly that's just me. I have Issues with much mainstream fiction.

Anyway, I'd say Jane Austen is brilliantly plotted, and lord knows thats not full of Big Events. Which book is it where the *major*, bordering on melodramatic, turning point of the entire thing is getting a cold?

To me, when people say fanfic isn't plotted, they mean that we often tend towards snippets, vignettes, monologues, and other forms in which Not Much Happens internally *or* externally.

I don't mind those, personally. I think they're intersticial, and I'm always into things that fit into the cracks -- especially wrt to Angel, which like most film noir is itself devoted to intersticial spaces. Sewers, anyone? I also think they're more akin to visual art or poetry than most traditional fiction, since they don't so much tell a story as comment on a story that we already know. And you know, fanfic. It makes sense.

I'm somewhat less into stories that purport to be a narrative of their own, but IMO give short shrift to *either* external events or internal tension, development, change and growth, instead offering a sort of changeless fantasy that seems intent on removing or fixing all the on-going difficulties of canon and not replacing them.

The longer a story is, the more I tend to want from it in terms of something happening over the course of it, as opposed to merely capturing a mood or moment. In that regard, I'd say TBQ's Epiphany series is tremendously well-plotted, and it rarely if ever touches on a monster of the week. The plot is interpersonal.

OTOH, I tend to use the word "plotty" somewhat differently, to mean a story where the events are foregrounded, rather than the reactions to them.

In my most recent story-that-got-away, I essentially went into it thinking the big events had happened offstage (in canon) and that the plot of the story was really just that the two characters would react to it and, in the process, change how they viewed each other. Instead, I suddenly found myself throwing around Big Stuff Going Down, and focusing on showing how they feel through what happens, rather than what happens through how they feel.

I think of that as "plotty" because the plot is front and center, where in another story, while still having a plot, "theme" or "mood" or "tone" might be more what you notice first.

Did any of that make sense?

Mer

(Reply to this) (Thread)

minim_calibre
2003-05-02 01:28 pm UTC (link)

Oh, it makes total sense.

I don't mind those, personally. I think they're intersticial, and I'm always into things that fit into the cracks -- especially wrt to Angel, which like most film noir is itself devoted to intersticial spaces. Sewers, anyone? I also think they're more akin to visual art or poetry than most traditional fiction, since they don't so much tell a story as comment on a story that we already know.

I really love the short things, but they are a lot more like poetry, especially the things like Sunday 100, where you have the constraints of that week's "form". It's a snapshot, a word picture, rather than an actual story. And they're great sometimes.

In my most recent story-that-got-away, I essentially went into it thinking the big events had happened offstage (in canon) and that the plot of the story was really just that the two characters would react to it and, in the process, change how they viewed each other. Instead, I suddenly found myself throwing around Big Stuff Going Down, and focusing on showing how they feel through what happens, rather than what happens through how they feel.

Hey, this whole entry sponsered by my latest story-that-got-away. It was going to be a shortish, bleakish 3rd person present limited POV thing. Now it's 13,000 words, and I'm trying to decided if it's plotty or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

fearlessdiva
2003-05-02 11:26 am UTC (link)

I think "plotty" gets used as a compliment because stuff-happens sort of plots have a kind of built-in narrative tension, and that's what makes stories interesting and compelling. It's much easier to build a car-chase sort of plot that has conflict and unanswered questions and a driving through-line than it is to build an internal-journey sort of plot with all those things. There are so many writers in fandom who are all about characterization (which is a good thing in my estimation) but who don't understand that characterization means character arc - that is, by the end of the story things are different than they were at the beginning. They write these snippets where it's all wish fulfillment and the characters are together and happy and having great sex and it's bloody boring. People say that stories are "plotty" as a shorthand way of saying that something happens, things change, there's conflict and interest and narrative tension. But I don't think you need to be writing car chases to achieve any of that, nor do I think that a lot of the stories which earn the title of "plotty" are actually what I would consider "plot heavy" in the world of original novels.

In other words, while I have to admit that plot is not personally my best thing (as a fan or original writer) and it's something that I'm working on improving, I think what matters most to whether a story works is how dynamic the story is, not whether the story is focused externally or internally. If you have tension and conflict, and character changes and growth, and obstacles and motivations and desires, all those things are going to draw the reader through the story, and they'll call it "plotty" even if you don't have car chases and quests and murders in back alleys.

It's kind of interesting because I posted a story a few weeks ago that I labeled "Porn Without Plot" but several people commented that it wasn't Without Plot because there was so much character development in it and reading the sex was so necessary to understanding what was going on with the characters. To which I responded that it was "Porn Without Plot" not "Porn Without Character Development". I think people confuse these things in their minds all the time, but all they really want to see is some tension and some movement.

Which I think you deliver consistently, by the way.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

minim_calibre
2003-05-02 01:12 pm UTC (link)

Sometimes, not writing can be as interesting to me as writing. Which is to say, sure, I have a goal that involves me hitting 15,000 words by midnight, but I'm now engrossed in seeing people's opinions on this.

If you have tension and conflict, and character changes and growth, and obstacles and motivations and desires, all those things are going to draw the reader through the story, and they'll call it "plotty" even if you don't have car chases and quests and murders in back alleys.

Makes sense to me. And I think for anything not short-short, that's what needs to happen. There has to be a reaction, not just something static.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

naomichana
2003-05-02 11:33 am UTC (link)

I think "plotty" is being used as shorthand for the desired outcome in which Something Happens In The Story. As Victoria said, "plotty" usually means "external" in this context, but it doesn't have to; every bit of the rising action and denouement -- all those things we dimly remember from high-school English -- can be internal. There are wonderful stories out there which are as simple as character X coming to some sort of decision about Issue Y, but they take a deceptive amount of talent to write. Also, one can write incredibly bad fics with either internal or external plot foci. However, I think what you're picking up on is a mini-backlash of sorts against fic in which all action is purely internalized.

Part of this is due to the multifandom trend. If I click on a story where I don't know the fandom, I won't care about deft characterization and I may not be aware of internal shifts; I'll care about a cracking, preferably external, plot where characters fit into semi-recognizable roles. Part of it is also due to a turn toward the psychological in modern fiction (mainstream as well as fanfic), which means that a lot of ambitious authors and their followers are focusing their attention on internal shifts rather than external plot. Newbies may get the impression that the so-called "Plotless Character Ramble" (and think about the assumptions embedded in that new genre term) is standard for a given fandom. Statistically, then, if there are more internally-focused stories, there will be more bad internally-focused stories, and people will make much of stories where there's at least a bit of external action because they're such a nice change.

And... oh, dear, I'm imagining the Angel cast in a remake of Anna Karenina. Shoot me now.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:

minim_calibre
2003-05-02 11:46 am UTC (link)

That makes sense. I'm really only multifandom in terms of reading, and I only read things where I know the source material, because I've never cared for ripping good plots. I'm firmly the bitch of characterization and character growth.

I haven't read much modern fiction (by which I mean, very little on my bookshelves is post-1950, unless it's Atwood or Weldon), and almost none of what I like to read is very much about the events so much as about how those events change people. I suspect it's why I write almost entirely in Buffy and Angel. They have a nice sort of 19th century feel to them. (Which I'm not certain I could explain.)

(Over the summer, I was so very tempted to re-write S6 Buffy in a Tolstoy fashion. Thankfully, I was distracted. All happy scoobies are alike...)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

seankozma
2003-05-02 12:11 pm UTC (link)

Oooh, I really want to chime in here, because I think I can help quite a bit here, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. I have much work to do today, and going to see X2 tonight.

Will comment heavily soon, though. Because I am sort of the opposite of you. I need for stuff to happen, or I get immensly bored.

I don't want to exclude character growth, in fact, if the plotty stuff doesn't include characters thinkig, growing and reacting to the stuff in consistent ways, I get very irritated, and I want to know quite a bit about the internal life of the characters, but without any plot, it all strikes me as so much boring navel-gazing. Not that interested in the internal lives of characters that I want to sit around and listen to them ponder "do I like chocolate, or vanilla?" for 1000 pages.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

riani1
2003-05-02 02:42 pm UTC (link)

Sean is me. I like Things to Happen. I prefer Things to Happen to Interesting People, Who are Changed by the Things.

Honestly, endless rumination on the internal psychological condition strikes me as narcissistic (sp???), and such self-involved people--unless I know and love them personally--bore me. I've got my own internal turmoil, I don't want to wallow in someone else's as well.

I'm an escapist reader, I admit this. I like to read about adventures I'll never have, about triumphs over horrible odds with a well-earned reward at the end. The characters are not the people they were at the beginning of the story. I like creating characters and putting them in situations that will test them to their limits--and sometimes break them. But they're coping--or not coping--is only a step along the way to the next thing they do, the coping (or not) is not the story in and of itself.

For me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

djinanna
2003-05-02 12:02 pm UTC (link)

Great discussion here. I particularly liked

stakebait's succinct: Plot is Stuff Happening. The stuff can be internal. The stuff can be external. It's still plot."

Stuff Happening. Yep, like that.

Anyway, I wrote an essay quite a while ago on a related topic, the distinction between what I called "character-driven" and "idea-driven" (or "plot-driven") writing. Much too long to quote here, of course. Still, just to add to the knowledge base, the link is here.

My premise is, I think, using a different meaning for "plot" than

stakebait's from her comment above. However, there's certainly some analogies to be found between "character-driven" and "internal journey", and likewise between "idea/plot-driven" and "external journey".

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	minim_calibre 2003-05-02 01:32 pm UTC (link)
	Great essay! Thanks, I'll probably have more comments later, but I should go do that weird writing thing now. (Reply to this) (Parent)

roseveare
2003-05-03 10:59 am UTC (link)

I find it very hard to separate plot from story, actually. For me, it's all linked. The internal action and the external are all dependant on each other, because the events shape the people and the reactions. I honestly don't know which I look at first and foremost - the events I need to get that reaction from character A, or the reaction that those events would spark in character A. Which I suppose is not very helpful.

That's when I'm writing for myself, anyway, when I stir everything around in my own head. With collaborations I can tell because it has to be hammered out with everyone else. Doyle Investigations is usually plot-first: how do we get from start to finish of the episode and come out with this characterisation result? And sometimes it still happens organically anyway, and we have to modify what comes after.

But I've been called a plotty writer, and it's been meant in a negative sense as often as a positive one. So far as I'm aware, there is a definite sense of Plot Is Bad and Plot Is Not Intellectual. I've not really come across much that's said plot is good, except in individual feedbacks.

How I tend to work is to link the plot with the emotional landscape of the story in some fashion. Some stories it's more so than others. But, well, it's just how I write. It's how I've always written. I don't know that it's a bad thing for people to write stories that are more/less overtly plotty, it's all individual preference really.

I realise how not helpful this is but, well. Hmm. Maybe I can prod my brain into working for more comment later.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs