Hyperplot - An exercise in plotting on the go

[Libby Drew]

Over at Meta Writer on LiveJournal, Vashtan is leading a workshop on plot. I thought the first post particularly interesting and have asked permission to reproduce it here. I would love to hear how the writers on this site would rank the four "disciplines."

 

The post:

 

A clever writer (I think it was Orson Scott Card) once said there are three kinds of writers: plotters, character writers and world-builders. The names are really self-explanatory. The plotter comes up with great plots (let's say, Michael Crichton, Isaac Asimov), the world-builder creates rich, detailed background worlds (I'm looking at you, JRR Tolkien). The character author really shines when it comes to characters (last unforgettable characters I read were the protagonists in Manna Francis' "The Administration"). To this basic spread of three I would add the "stylist" - the one that cares most about and is best with language (Ondaatje?).

 

The categories are really the four main disciplines in writing, and like any athlete having to compete in multiple disciplines at the same time, we have our strengths and weaknesses - there are some writers that are brilliant at one thing, so-so in another two, and crap in the fourth discipline (nobody in their sane mind reads Dan Brown for his characters or style).

 

I find the categories helpful in two ways: one, I worked out why I don't like Tolkien, Dan Brown/Michael Crichton/Isaac Asimov and why I would rant and rave about Manna Francis and sometimes a few stylists. I'm a character writer, and I read for characters. If the world is generic, I don't care (much). If the plot is generic, I really don't care much, either. If the characters pull me in and if the style is agreeable to me, I'll read it and I'll love it.

 

I spent a lot of time in my "writing youth" to try and impress one particular reader, my then best friend. I really wanted her to love what I was writing, and I was disappointed at anything she said about my writing. She's a plot-driven reader, and my plots just didn't satisfy her. Too generic, been there a few hundred times already.

 

So, opening the discussion: What type of writer are *you*? How would you rank the four disciplines? What's your best/worst discipline? How do you deal with your weaknesses? How do you make your strengths shine?

 

I'll add in a comment here my response from the workshop post. Please chime in. I think I know a few of you well enough to guess your rankings , but time will tell.

 

Thanks for your attention.

[Libby Drew]

My reply from the workshop:

 

I rank them: plot, characterization, style, world-building. I write what I enjoy reading. I'm sure the same could be said for all writers. That said, plot is my definite strength, and it's what I look for in a good read.

 

If nothing is happening, I bore quickly. Every so often, the world-building by itself is dynamic enough to keep my interest, but that doesn't happen often. Occasionally the word-smithing is so engaging, the prose so well put together, that a fresh style will satisfy me for a time, but if it's not bolstered by plot then I tire of that eventually as well. Strong characters anchor a plot, and to me, they are second only to the conflict/climax/resolution that I believe makes a successful story. The best plotted story is nothing without strong, memorable, developed characters.

 

For me, writing begins with a plot. Or I should say, I never begin a story without one. Once I have what I hope is a unique, engaging plot, that's when I craft characters who will enhance it. I never try to fit pre-made characters into a new story, although I know many people, fellow writers, who do this quite successfully. It's not my strength.

 

I suppose the most challenging for me would be world-building, simply because I'm such a sparse writer. I tend to err on the side of too little description, too little detail -- as, pretentiously, that's the type of story I prefer to read: one where I'm not fed every single piece of information like a ten-course meal. I'd much rather fill in the blanks myself.

 

How do I deal with this weakness? A team of great betas. *g* They let me know when there's just too little there and assure me that some scenes, pivotal ones, can be safely fleshed out without sacrificing word economy.

[corvus]

I have a very irritating answer to this prompt -- I don't think these elements can really be separated. My stories usually begin with a terribly clear vision of a person undergoing an emotional happening. This sounds character-centric, but the whole idea of "fully developed" character is quite meaningless -- you can have all the facts about a character without him/her coming alive. And a vivid character, no matter how interesting, rapidly dulls if he or she doesn't undergo some change. Should this emotional happening be grouped under plot of character? -- and how can an emotional happening have any impact if it's not grounded in a convincing world? Setting is actually a highly underrated element in stories -- I've found that it can be used to convey a million emotions without, literally, anything happening. If character A remembers seeing a murder in a room that's wallpapered with rocking horses and teddy bears, it's completely different from if character A remembers tat happening in a room with the walls and ceilings white.

 

My weakness is -- I'm not quite sure what to call it -- a petulant fatalism? I don't have faith in stories, and I haven't had in a while.

[Dolores Esteban]

It also depends on the genre, I think. Plot, for instance, is essential for an adventure story. Long descriptions of characters would be boring and destracting from the plot. A crime thriller needs a good plot and character development. I want to know why the killer committed the crime. I'm not particularly interested in the color of his hair. I admire world-builders. However, a rich and detailed world without developed characters and without a plot might get boring soon.

 

I love to develop my characters. I want a good plot. I do thorough research on the background of the story. I work on the language as best I can.

 

So, my rank: characterization, plot, world-building, style.

[Mark Arbour]

I'll be difficult. I think it varies for me. For example, my current story is more of a soap opera, which means the plot is paramount, followed by character. When I wrote "Sink the Bismarck" and "1968", both more historically driven, world building was front and center, because I had to try and focus on the "world" more, in this case 1941 England and 1968 America and France.

[Graeme]

I have a very irritating answer to this prompt -- I don't think these elements can really be separated.

I agree, but one of the points being made was that different people have different strengths/weaknesses as well as different preferences. All of the elements are important to a story, but for most stories different elements are more dominant than others. I would have to think hard for a story where all four elements are very strongly presented. The closest I can think of would be JRR Tolkien's Lord of The Rings where you have great world building as well as strong style, plot and characters.

 

Personally, my strongest element is character writing. I'm weak on world building and style (I don't use a wide range of language), and reasonable in plot.

 

However, I really like reading stories that are strong on world building and plot, so my writing and reading preferences are not the same. Stories that are strong on style don't interest me very much unless they also very strong in at least one of the other areas. Stephen Donaldson is someone who is strong on style, but that's a turn off for me because I have to wade through the flowery descriptions to get to the meat of the story, but he's also very strong in world building and characters and that's why I enjoyed his stories.

[C James]

Interesting topic!!

 

Graeme's mention of JRR Tolkien brought a smile to my face. While I have no doubt that it's true that he's strong in all aspects, I found (no doubt due to my own tastes and no reflection upon the author) "Lord of the Rings" unreadable. I found the movie based upon it, if anything, worse. I made it about 2/3 through the book, but clicked off the movie about a third of the way through.

 

My take on this is that readers have individual preferences, and any attempt to please them all will most likely result in pleasing none, the writer themselves least of all.

 

My own literary tastes run more to good technothrillers (though there have been exceptions) They need to be technically accurate, though. Tom Clancy is my favorite author. I'm not sure how I'd describe his style. Plot driven, certainly. World-builder? I'd say so, though it is reality-based.

 

When it comes to eloquence, I really have no meter by which to judge his work. I can't often tell eloquence when I see it, and thus often can't see it's lack.

 

Some consider Clancy's characters to be thin. I've never felt that way; I feel they have the depth needed to do their jobs. For a published novel, space is finite, so every word of character development is a word not serving the plot. I firmly believe that characters exist to serve the plot, so personally I'd eschew the deep development of a secondary character and instead attend to the plot. My most common work-around is to attempt a scene that develops the character while also serving the plot, but I freely admit, I don't do it well. Clancy, on the other hand, does seem to do that well in my opinion. However, for me, it is his plots that are what I find engaging.

 

I suppose I'd characterize myself as a plot-driven author, which unsurprisingly matches my reading tastes.

[Krista]

Well I agree with Corvus that they can't really be separated into four strict categories, but there are definitely authors stronger in some and weaker in the other categories listed.

 

I cannot read JRR Tolkein, I don't like his style and his worlds are just too "built" for me, where as the characters are good yes, but not really my overall taste. For one there were only like three well known women in the plot? The Witch, the Elf, and the human woman warrior... hmm? (going by the movies so don't murder me)

 

Anyway, I am definitely a character writer, I do like plots, so that will be the second ranking one, but I'm not a master at it by any stretch of the imagination. I write for the realness of the place and characters and stories that can and do happen in real life - so I'm weakest in World building, I just don't want to do that sort of writing really, its difficult to build a world in 1st person perspective compared to third when the narrator can explain the world w/out depending on what the character sees, feels, and etc. I also have a mediocre style.. lol, although its pretty plain I struggle with that at times. I have a lot to work on when it comes to writing, but if it wasn't for my characterization skills I'd probably be a pretty sorry author to read.

 

And yes, I realize I am my own worst critic.

[Lugh]

Unlike some other people, I do see how these topics can be seperated -- just as voice and tone can be seperated in a literary discussion. Personally, I think I'm best at style followed with a tie in world building and characters with plot happening as a weak fourth. That might be why I do not often finish things... lack of plot... however the stories (although unfinished) do manage to get decent reviews (if people "get" them!).

 

I deal with my weaknesses by writing things down, especially when it comes to plot, and trying hard to stay a step or three ahead of my characters, although that sometimes is a trick within itself. I don't think I really have to make my strengths "shine" as they are already memorable (ok raise your hand if you recall Jove!) but I would really love to FINISH a story one day.

[Mark Arbour]

Interesting topic!!

 

Graeme's mention of JRR Tolkien brought a smile to my face. While I have no doubt that it's true that he's strong in all aspects, I found (no doubt due to my own tastes and no reflection upon the author) "Lord of the Rings" unreadable. I found the movie based upon it, if anything, worse. I made it about 2/3 through the book, but clicked off the movie about a third of the way through.

 

My take on this is that readers have individual preferences, and any attempt to please them all will most likely result in pleasing none, the writer themselves least of all.

 

My own literary tastes run more to good technothrillers (though there have been exceptions) They need to be technically accurate, though. Tom Clancy is my favorite author. I'm not sure how I'd describe his style. Plot driven, certainly. World-builder? I'd say so, though it is reality-based.

 

When it comes to eloquence, I really have no meter by which to judge his work. I can't often tell eloquence when I see it, and thus often can't see it's lack.

 

Some consider Clancy's characters to be thin. I've never felt that way; I feel they have the depth needed to do their jobs. For a published novel, space is finite, so every word of character development is a word not serving the plot. I firmly believe that characters exist to serve the plot, so personally I'd eschew the deep development of a secondary character and instead attend to the plot. My most common work-around is to attempt a scene that develops the character while also serving the plot, but I freely admit, I don't do it well. Clancy, on the other hand, does seem to do that well in my opinion. However, for me, it is his plots that are what I find engaging.

 

I suppose I'd characterize myself as a plot-driven author, which unsurprisingly matches my reading tastes.

 

I too am a big Tom Clancy fan. "Red Storm Rising" was my favorite. I think that for a pure "character" reader, his people will seem undeveloped. But they certainly aren't underdeveloped. Clancy has found that balance, in that his characters are built up and expanded just enough to enhance his plot-driven stories. Any more character building and they'd be annoying. Any less and they'd be too weak.

 

I've been reading a book on the Korean War. The author who wrote it has a "character" fix that is driving me f**king insane. He'll be describing events (in a plot-driven format) and then go off on a two or three page ramble on some character's background. That's something Clancy knows not to do. He feeds you the character in doses, just as you need it, and doesn't try to shove the whole character down your throat. So to speak.

[C James]

I too am a big Tom Clancy fan. "Red Storm Rising" was my favorite. I think that for a pure "character" reader, his people will seem undeveloped. But they certainly aren't underdeveloped. Clancy has found that balance, in that his characters are built up and expanded just enough to enhance his plot-driven stories. Any more character building and they'd be annoying. Any less and they'd be too weak.

 

I've been reading a book on the Korean War. The author who wrote it has a "character" fix that is driving me f**king insane. He'll be describing events (in a plot-driven format) and then go off on a two or three page ramble on some character's background. That's something Clancy knows not to do. He feeds you the character in doses, just as you need it, and doesn't try to shove the whole character down your throat. So to speak.

 

Red Storm Rising is probably my favorite book, ever.

 

Totally agreed on his characters; your description is perfect; he feeds you what you need, when you need it, and no more. For example, a fighter pilot in an engagement: two or three lines, making the character unique, is all you'll have, but if there was more it would get in the way of the plot. In a fighter engagement I want to read about air combat tactics, not who the pilot took to the prom or what kind of cereal he prefers. LoL.

 

Clancy is, for my tastes, the best. He's not perfect; I've stumbled upon several factual errors in his books, but he's far better than anyone else in that regard. The only literary qualm I have about his works (excepting "Teeth of the Tiger", which I don't like) is the Mountain Man subplot in Executive Orders. They never affected the main plot in any way. It just struck me as extraneous.

 

Clancy did do some very in-depth characther development in "Without Remorse", which is about his character "Mr. Clark". Very well done IMHO, but not amongst my favorites of his books, probably because it is character-centric. Come to think of it, "Rainbow-six" is similar, and that's a book I'm not fond of at all.

 

Incidentally, in case anyone is looking to read some of Clancy's books, please don't pick up anything that says "Tom Clancy's".. Those (such at the Opp center series) are not written by him, it's just a franchise. They are also, OMHO, very poorly written and not worth the time or money.

 

CJ

[Bondwriter]

Clancy is, for my tastes, the best. He's not perfect; I've stumbled upon several factual errors in his books, but he's far better than anyone else in that regard.

Well, everybody cannot accurately, and in two stories in a row, make a lengthy description of a nuclear bomb's triggering.

 

This reminds me of Jean-Patricj Manchette, whose novels I reread a few months ago. The wikipedia page is short, and not very helpful (the 'existentialist', political BS is the work of some American scholar, no doubt...) But by being plot-driven, and mainly showing action, he managed to get quite a lot about the characters. Action doesn't prevent giving info about the characters.

[Libby Drew]

Action doesn't prevent giving info about the characters.

 

That is an excellent point.

[J_Ross]

Agreed. A character's reaction to 'action', I think, gives a lot of information about the character without taking away from what's going on.

 

Above, Dolores said that long character descriptions can take away from what's going on in an action adventure story, but I think that's true of any story. You should never give too much information about anything at once, imo. I can't stand to read too much exposition at once in any genre. But, I think it's possible, in an action/adventure story to give plenty information about a character. The only difference I've seen is the 'how' the information is delivered.

 

Extraneous physical description, bores me no matter where it is.

 

In order, for me it'd have to be Characterization, Plot, World-building, Style. The characters are what keep me interested, most of the time. The characters are what I care about. They're who I read on for. To see how they turn out, and how they cope with everything that's happening around them. The plot comes second. I read to see the characters move through it. World-building, for me, is tied in with Plot. I love rich, intriguing world's with intricate plots, but I'd pass over a book with both, for a book with a poor plot/world, and developed characters any day.

 

That's all for reading. My strength, I think, is Characterization, because like most everyone else, I write what I like to read. I write characters without thinking about it. I'd say I'm okay with plot, and world-building is my weakness, while style falls somewhere between those two. I deal with my weaker points...well, I don't actually. I keep trying to write them, hoping in vain that I'll stumble on the 'right' way to do it. *shrug* Uhm...practice?

 

I find the categories helpful in two ways: one, I worked out why I don't like Tolkien, Dan Brown/Michael Crichton/Isaac Asimov and why I would rant and rave about Manna Francis and sometimes a few stylists. I'm a character writer, and I read for characters.

I would have said Manna Francis is excellent with world-building and plot as well. I read for the characters and how complex and intriguing they were, but... Leaving aside the short stories in that series, the novels and novellas were jam packed with plot. There have been better (or more intricate) plots/worlds but Manna's weren't lacking by a long shot.

[Mark Arbour]

Agreed. A character's reaction to 'action', I think, gives a lot of information about the character without taking away from what's going on.

 

Above, Dolores said that long character descriptions can take away from what's going on in an action adventure story, but I think that's true of any story. You should never give too much information about anything at once, imo. I can't stand to read too much exposition at once in any genre. But, I think it's possible, in an action/adventure story to give plenty information about a character. The only difference I've seen is the 'how' the information is delivered.

 

Extraneous physical description, bores me no matter where it is.

 

In order, for me it'd have to be Characterization, Plot, World-building, Style. The characters are what keep me interested, most of the time. The characters are what I care about. They're who I read on for. To see how they turn out, and how they cope with everything that's happening around them. The plot comes second. I read to see the characters move through it. World-building, for me, is tied in with Plot. I love rich, intriguing world's with intricate plots, but I'd pass over a book with both, for a book with a poor plot/world, and developed characters any day.

 

That's all for reading. My strength, I think, is Characterization, because like most everyone else, I write what I like to read. I write characters without thinking about it. I'd say I'm okay with plot, and world-building is my weakness, while style falls somewhere between those two. I deal with my weaker points...well, I don't actually. I keep trying to write them, hoping in vain that I'll stumble on the 'right' way to do it. *shrug* Uhm...practice?

 

 

I would have said Manna Francis is excellent with world-building and plot as well. I read for the characters and how complex and intriguing they were, but... Leaving aside the short stories in that series, the novels and novellas were jam packed with plot. There have been better (or more intricate) plots/worlds but Manna's weren't lacking by a long shot.

 

I agree with you. You are great at building characters!

[B1ue]

For my taste, its style, world-building, characters, and Plot. I can handle a weak plot. I can handle droll or shallow characters, a pretty face wrapped on a stereotype. I can even forgive not exploring a world in depth, though as I am an avid sci-fi fan, that's often what draws me in. All of these together will turn me off, but not to the degree that poor style can. It drives me to distraction, and I find myself unable to continue.

 

On the flip side, if an author writes in a deliberately unconventional style for emotional or dramatic impact, I will not want to put the book down. Neil Gaiman, David Levithan, Kazuo Ishiguro, William Faulkner, Frank Miller.

 

As a writer, I think I've a defter hand characters, followed by style, plot, and world-building.

[PlugInMatty]

Wow, thought-provoking thread.

 

I must say, it's really difficult for me to comment on this sort of stuff, because I simply don't read commercial literature. Name almost any of the classics, and I haven't read it. Name any recent best-seller, and I haven't read it. In fact, the last time I even attempted to read something in hard copy was almost six years ago (in my year eleven literature class), and I couldn't even make it to the end.

 

(Note: It was Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain, and I f**king hated it).

 

Anyway, keeping in mind that I know shit all about commercial literature, and that I have (very) limited experience in writing fiction, I'd rank my strengths/weaknesses as follows:

 

Style > Character-Building > Plotting > World-Building.

 

In my mind, the style is the very first thing that the reader notices, so it has to be my top priority when beginning a story. As a story settles down and begins to plateau (the oft-dreaded 'middle part'), the style becomes less noticeable, but it has to be the top priority at the beginning. Chances are, I've made my mind up about your story before I've even read the first 100 words and, unless you're an extraordinary writer, there's no way you'll be able to wow me with your plot/characters/world-building in that sort of a timeframe. That's why I rank style at my highest priority.

 

As things move forward though, style is overtaken by advancing the plot and developing the characters. You hook the reader in with your style, you keep them reading with your plot, and their ultimate level of enjoyment is determined by how much they relate to your characters and how well they can immerse themselves in your 'world'.

 

That's just my thoughts, anyway. My preferences as a reader don't necessarily match my strengths as a writer, though. As a reader, I'd rank them in the following order of importance:

 

Character-Building > Plotting > Style > World-Building.

 

As I said, after the first 100 words, style becomes less important. Obviously, the reader has to be able to tolerate your style of writing, but if they care about your characters and have a genuine interest in your plot, they'll almost always keep reading through your 'boring bits'. If 'boring bits' become the norm, though, you're probably in trouble.

 

As for world-building, I don't really have a lot to say about it. I write about the world we live in, so I leave a lot of things up to the reader's imagination. I like for writers to let me use my imagination as well, because I don't really want to know about the three decorative plates that hang on your character's lounge room wall. Don't bother spending 500 words to describe the 360 degree view from your story's current location, either.

 

I can see how it's really important for fantasy and sci-fi writers to build a world, though. But guess what? I don't read fantasy or sci-fi haha.

 

Anyway, point is, if you're writing about a world that's different to the one I live in, I'd love for you to tell me all about it. But if you think you can describe my world better than I can picture it, you've got an ego problem, and you're wasting everyone's time.

 

That's enough for now, anyway.

 

As you can see, I love talking about myself.