I’ve recently been thinking a lot about story and plot and the work I’ve been doing with one of the upcoming novels.
While I was thinking about this, I realized that for me, plot and story were not always synonymous.
For those playing the home game – my working definition of plot is this: A causal sequence of events leading to the highest point of tension, followed by a resolution.
I consider myself a story teller. I generally start with a character, and what happens to that person/being (as not all my characters are human.) People fascinate me, even if I don’t want them up close and personal all the time. I’ve always been a story teller–I remember being a kid and telling stories about all my stuffed animals, what they did, where they worked, how they played, and so on.
Aside: I do mean story teller, not vignette teller. My loose definition of story (stolen shamelessly from Lewis Shiner) is: Something happens to someone and they either change or don’t change as a result. (As I’ve already admitted, many times, to being a writing snob, this definition shouldn’t surprise anyone.) A vignette, to me, is just the first part of that definition – “Something happens to someone.” There has to be that movement in a piece for it to be a story to me, that changing or not changing. I’m not saying that vignettes don’t have their place, that they can’t be well-crafted, that they’re less than a story. They are different, however.
Back on topic, more or less: With the Japanese novel (which is either the next novel, or the novel after that – I’ll figure that out sometime this week after I talk with my editor) I came up with the story first. I knew the characters and what happened to them and how their individual arcs played out.
Then, while at World Con, I sat down with one of my Clarion classmates and we worked at the plot. It isn’t an artificial thing, laid on top of the story. But I do feel as though I added a plot. Or molded the story so that it now has a plot.
The plot, for me, for this novel, involved taking the different character arcs and tweaking them, making the highs higher and the low lower. The plotting of this novel meant adding more tension to the story, making the stakes higher, the consequences farther reaching, beyond the individuals. It also involved taking the individual character arcs and connecting them more, braiding them together, adding more of the causal links.
The differences to me, then, I suppose, is that the story telling is what occurs naturally for me. The plotting of a story is more craft. The causal links may be there in the original story, as well as the arcs and character changes, but the plot strengthens those bones. The work I did with my friend built up the infrastructure that will carry the story.
When I first thought up the idea for the Japanese novel, I believe that story did have a plot. But now, it has more plot. It actually has more plot than any of the other novels I’ve ever written, because for me the causal links between what happens and what happens next are very clear and explicit.
The themes and metaphor suites are also very clear, now, for the Japanese novel as well, but I don’t believe that’s part of the plot. That’s story telling, or the art/craft of story telling, emphasizing the arcs and setting and mood and characters with specific similes and metaphors.
Tomorrow, (Saturday) I plan on doing this same exercise, crafting the plot, onto the other possible novel that I’m looking at writing – the sequel to the first novel. I don’t know how well it will go on my own, without someone to bounce ideas off of. My friend is *really* good at plot, at looking at a story and finding its weak points. Me – not my strong point. But, because I already know story telling, I think I can learn plot, teach myself plot.
If any of you are around and feel like chatting plot, feel free to ping me on AIM – writrtravlr (that’s writertraveler with no “e’s”. . .
/ramble
I think of plot as the thing I need to hang the story onto, but of the story as more central and crucial–as the whole point of writing in the first place.
See – thinking about this more – I think this is actually part of the process for me. Developing the story, what happens to whom, happens first, and is central and crucial. Then comes the plotting, the tightening and making more tense and crafting – which is really a separate part of the process. But it’s still critical, at least for making a saleable story. . .
Huh. If you — well, I — look at it in way, what I’m doing with the novel revisions is keeping the story but stiffening the spine with character whalebone and the articulation of another subplot, so that it has a plot.
Must think about this terminology and process.
—L.
For me, the process of writing is really important. That’s why I keep posting these rambling thoughts, to help me better define my process, so as to make my writing better. I’m pretty good at stringing words together, but there’s a bigger picture too, and poking at that makes the words go together better in the end.
I think of plot as the thing I need to hang the story onto, but of the story as more central and crucial–as the whole point of writing in the first place.
See – thinking about this more – I think this is actually part of the process for me. Developing the story, what happens to whom, happens first, and is central and crucial. Then comes the plotting, the tightening and making more tense and crafting – which is really a separate part of the process. But it’s still critical, at least for making a saleable story. . .
Huh. If you — well, I — look at it in way, what I’m doing with the novel revisions is keeping the story but stiffening the spine with character whalebone and the articulation of another subplot, so that it has a plot.
Must think about this terminology and process.
—L.
For me, the process of writing is really important. That’s why I keep posting these rambling thoughts, to help me better define my process, so as to make my writing better. I’m pretty good at stringing words together, but there’s a bigger picture too, and poking at that makes the words go together better in the end.
I like that your definition of story allows for the fact that someone can “not change” as a result of what happens. It used to annoy me to death in MFA fiction writing workshops when people would insist that the characters all had to change. In my opinion, they don’t. Because, often, that’s what’s amazing about people–their stubborn resistance to change, even when everything is pointing to the necessity of it. But I’m wondering if story can allow people not to change, does that mean that a plot could also not have a resolution?
As to plot, the most prominent word that sticks in my mind is evolution. Many times, I’ve found that the story gets stuck in the mud if I’m not willing to let the plot evolve. I wish very much that I could write an outline and stick to it, but it never works for me. As soon as I start typing, something will happen that I didn’t expect. I’m sure it’s poor vision on my part, but I’ve accepted that I see through a glass darkly. 😉 The story goes where it wants to go, and the vehicle keeps evolving to take it there.
As for the “not change” part, I believe that it’s possible for it to be a story about someone who doesn’t change. But, for me, for it to be a story, a choice to not change has to be made. I don’t think it has to be consciously made. But it does have to be made. Or they can try to change and fail. But the option has to be there, at least, for me.
Could a plot not have a resolution?
Could there be two warring factions, and at the end, could the conflict between them still not be resolved? The characters older, wiser, maybe more bitter, but nothing has essentially changed? Yes, I think that you could write a book like that, I believe, actually, that people have written books like that (they might be the second book in a trilogy, actually 😉 However, I think it would take a lot of skill to successfully pull off a book like that and not frustrate your readers.
From your descriptions, I would say that the story isn’t evolving, not the plot. Because the plot is more craft, for me, while the story is more character, and what happens next. The plot doesn’t go wrong, for me, it’s the story that changes, a character here or there decides that the path I’ve chosen for them isn’t the path that they’re going to take. It doesn’t happen often with me though – I know the story and the character arcs *really* well before I start writing a word. . .
Best of luck in your writing –
I think the point about having options, conscious or no, is important, and perhaps would be an excellent new direction for writing programs that emphasize absolute character change.
Can definitely see what you mean re: no resolution. Obviously, lack of resolution is what I’m worried about most these days (since I’m nearing the end), and it’s good to hear it’s possible, despite the fact that I’m quite sure I can’t pull it off yet.
Story. Plot. I’ve always been fascinated by what these mean, esp. because I primarily write nonfiction. In nonfiction, we do tell a story, but there’s really no such thing as a “plot” (or what most would recognize as plot), which is why I’m so curious about how fiction writers, esp. SF/F writers, visualize it. I asked a fiction writer I teach with today what her def. of plot and story were. She answered this way.
The king died. And then the queen died. = Story
The king died. And then the queen died of grief. = Plot
I can see that your way of seeing is much more efficient than mine–probably why you manage to turn out so many books in rapid succession! I always know what the beginning and usually the ending will be, but it’s the middle–the how we get from A to B–that swamps me. If only my process weren’t so quixotic, maybe it would only take me two years instead of five to finish just this one book!! 🙂
The king died. And then the queen died. = Story
The king died. And then the queen died of grief. = Plot
I’ve always heard that the other way around.
—L.
No wonder I’m so confused then. 😉 These darned fiction writers keep telling me lies. *lol*
The king died. And then the queen died. = Story
The king died. And then the queen died of grief. = Plot
It’s from E. M. Forster’s ASPECTS OF THE NOVEL, which I don’t have handy, but Google hits suggest this is right.
Iirc in Forster’s meaning of ‘story’ they might have died quite independently, without the causation ‘of grief’.
I like that your definition of story allows for the fact that someone can “not change” as a result of what happens. It used to annoy me to death in MFA fiction writing workshops when people would insist that the characters all had to change. In my opinion, they don’t. Because, often, that’s what’s amazing about people–their stubborn resistance to change, even when everything is pointing to the necessity of it. But I’m wondering if story can allow people not to change, does that mean that a plot could also not have a resolution?
As to plot, the most prominent word that sticks in my mind is evolution. Many times, I’ve found that the story gets stuck in the mud if I’m not willing to let the plot evolve. I wish very much that I could write an outline and stick to it, but it never works for me. As soon as I start typing, something will happen that I didn’t expect. I’m sure it’s poor vision on my part, but I’ve accepted that I see through a glass darkly. 😉 The story goes where it wants to go, and the vehicle keeps evolving to take it there.
As for the “not change” part, I believe that it’s possible for it to be a story about someone who doesn’t change. But, for me, for it to be a story, a choice to not change has to be made. I don’t think it has to be consciously made. But it does have to be made. Or they can try to change and fail. But the option has to be there, at least, for me.
Could a plot not have a resolution?
Could there be two warring factions, and at the end, could the conflict between them still not be resolved? The characters older, wiser, maybe more bitter, but nothing has essentially changed? Yes, I think that you could write a book like that, I believe, actually, that people have written books like that (they might be the second book in a trilogy, actually 😉 However, I think it would take a lot of skill to successfully pull off a book like that and not frustrate your readers.
From your descriptions, I would say that the story isn’t evolving, not the plot. Because the plot is more craft, for me, while the story is more character, and what happens next. The plot doesn’t go wrong, for me, it’s the story that changes, a character here or there decides that the path I’ve chosen for them isn’t the path that they’re going to take. It doesn’t happen often with me though – I know the story and the character arcs *really* well before I start writing a word. . .
Best of luck in your writing –
I think the point about having options, conscious or no, is important, and perhaps would be an excellent new direction for writing programs that emphasize absolute character change.
Can definitely see what you mean re: no resolution. Obviously, lack of resolution is what I’m worried about most these days (since I’m nearing the end), and it’s good to hear it’s possible, despite the fact that I’m quite sure I can’t pull it off yet.
Story. Plot. I’ve always been fascinated by what these mean, esp. because I primarily write nonfiction. In nonfiction, we do tell a story, but there’s really no such thing as a “plot” (or what most would recognize as plot), which is why I’m so curious about how fiction writers, esp. SF/F writers, visualize it. I asked a fiction writer I teach with today what her def. of plot and story were. She answered this way.
The king died. And then the queen died. = Story
The king died. And then the queen died of grief. = Plot
I can see that your way of seeing is much more efficient than mine–probably why you manage to turn out so many books in rapid succession! I always know what the beginning and usually the ending will be, but it’s the middle–the how we get from A to B–that swamps me. If only my process weren’t so quixotic, maybe it would only take me two years instead of five to finish just this one book!! 🙂
The king died. And then the queen died. = Story
The king died. And then the queen died of grief. = Plot
I’ve always heard that the other way around.
—L.
No wonder I’m so confused then. 😉 These darned fiction writers keep telling me lies. *lol*
The king died. And then the queen died. = Story
The king died. And then the queen died of grief. = Plot
It’s from E. M. Forster’s ASPECTS OF THE NOVEL, which I don’t have handy, but Google hits suggest this is right.
Iirc in Forster’s meaning of ‘story’ they might have died quite independently, without the causation ‘of grief’.