Do you begin with character or plot?

[polynices]

Do you begin a story with character, or with the plot?

I'm reading Frank Kermode's The Genesis of Secrecy* (subtitled On the interpretation of narrative) at the moment. Kermode reports Henry James as saying that he always began his novels from a character, and that devising a plot to go round that character was a secondary affair. Here are a few quotes:

The relation between what is now called character and what is now called plot has been a subject of interest since Aristotle ... . James ... reports with approval the views of Turgenev on 'the usual origin of the fictive picture. It began for him almost always,' says James, 'with the vision of some person or persons ... He ... saw them subject to the chances, the complications of existence, and saw them vividly, but then had to find for them the right relations, those that would most bring them out; to imagine, to invent and select and piece together the situations most useful and favourable to the sense of the creatures themselves, the complications they would be most likely to produce and feel.' Turgenev added that people sometimes complained of his not having enough story; but all he needed, he said, was enough to exhibit the relations of his characters. ...

James [also] knew 'the intensity of suggestion that may reside in the stray figure, the unattached character ... In the beginning, so he tells us, of Portrait of a Lady, there was a 'single small corner-stone, the conception of a certain young woman confronting her destiny' ... Such were the origins of his novels - mere germs he calls them, not plots,'nefarious word' ...

So James and Turgenev seem to have started from character, not plot. However, it seems to me that a lot of modern commercial fiction starts from the other direction, with plot first, setting second, and then character sketches concocted as a kind of ornament, almost as an afterthought. (Of course, I'm over-simplifying.) I'm not sure how this relates to erotic writing - obviously specific sex acts are often central, and setting plays a large part. But I think I probably do start from character in a way - or, at least, from 'people' who have certain proclivities and intensities - which is, I suppose, something close to what is meant by 'character'.

So where do you start? Any thoughts?

[*Kermode: The Genesis of Secrecy; Harvard Univ. Press, 1979; these quotes from pages 75 to 76]

- polynices

 

[TxRad]

I usually start with a picture in my mind, which becomes a title.

 

[Weird Harold]

So where do you start? Any thoughts?

[*Kermode: The Genesis of Secrecy; Harvard Univ. Press, 1979; these quotes from pages 75 to 76]

- polynices

Stories I've been able to complete to my satisfaction have all started with the punchline One also stringly implied the nature of the central character as part of the punchline, but the successful ones started with the ending and everything else was working toward that ending.

ETA: I have several stories I'd love to finish that started with a title, opening line, or gimmick -- all of which imply central characters as well as plot, but without that predermined ending, they all get bogged down.

 

[mythtrav16]

I go both ways.

Never thought I'd be saying those words on the literotica forum . And yes, I am referring to my story development styles and nothing else!

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

My reading of your full quote is that James thinks of characters first, and then either devises a plot to match them or has a plot mysteriously unfold in his mind. He isn't talking about the actual flow of his text; for example, and if I remember correctly (it's been a while), Portrait of a Lady begins with several pages of description, but The Bostonians begins with some sort of salon or meeting that sets up the rest of the book.

This part of your quote:

However, it seems to me that a lot of modern commercial fiction starts from the other direction, with plot first, setting second, and then character sketches concocted as a kind of ornament, almost as an afterthought.

is hard to know. Maybe modern commercial writers do start with characters and then move on to the plot. How do we know unless they tell us? We might think their characters are flimsy, but that doesn't mean they didn't start with them. It just means they aren't the best at building characters before jumping ahead to the plot. This might be why it seems to us that their characters often don't fit well with their plot.

Besides, it is a bit of a stretch to compare James (or Turgenev, even though I've never really been a fan of his) to modern commercial fiction writers (I'm assuming we are talking about mass market paperbacks, not authors like Chabon who have had commercial success). Danielle Steele and Henry James? They aren't even in the same ballpark. Perhaps a Horatio Alger expert can comment? He was a commercial author in the nineteenth century, and had fairly similar characters in his books. I'm guessing he started with characters first, and then moved onto his plot, even though his character sketches were flimsy and repetitive.

As for me, I start with characters and then devise the plot, but the two have a cyclical relationship after that. If I get to a part of my plot and I don't know how a character will respond, I have to refine a character.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you think about it character creates plot because character determines what happens.

Heres an example of what I mean: Two guys meet a hot girl, and both of them wanna date her. One of the guys is shy and kinda timorous, and wants to get up the nerve to phone her; the other guy stops the car at the first pay phone they come to and gives her a call to make a date.

Here's a sample of George Higgins' description thats excellent: She had rouged her cheeks to a color otherwise seen only on specially ordered Pontiac Firebirds, and in her ears she wore two feathered appliances resembling surfcasting jigs especially appetizing to striped bass

 

[polynices]

My reading of your full quote is that James thinks of characters first, and then either devises a plot to match them or has a plot mysteriously unfold in his mind. He isn't talking about the actual flow of his text; ...

Yes, James - as Kermode describes it, at least - was writing about the very early stages of producing a story - the initial gestation. In fact, a little later than the part I quoted, Kermode says:

... this [i.e. character taking precedence over story] is an oversimplified account of James's own practice as we may study it in the Notebooks ... [and] one could quote other pronouncements of James to qualify its tendentiousness ...

Incidentally, Kermode isn't making an argument for some kind of primacy of character here, and nor am I. I've seen it suggested, in fact, that character doesn't really exist in novels at all, though I'm not sure I'd go that far myself. But there are certainly ways of analyzing fiction that subordinate character very firmly to plot, and Kermode spends most of the chapter exploring one of them.

The reason for my question, though, is to do with where stories actually come from - where they start. There's obviously a lot of work to be done after that initial germ takes hold, whatever it is. TxRad says the germ is a picture and a title for him; mythtrav16 goes both ways; Weird Harold likes to start at the end and work backwards. For me, it's actually voice, I think, or even a given style - since I don't think I write in a single style all the time. It may even be prose rhythm that's the determining factor. But those things seem to feed into character more immediately that into plot, and, given that action presupposes motivation, it's individual psychology that drives plot for me. However, if I were trying to write detective fiction - some kind of whodunnit, maybe - then I suspect I'd start with the plot and, as Harold says, begin with the ending. So it's horses for courses, really.

- polynices

 

[polynices]

If you think about it character creates plot because character determines what happens.

We posted more or less simultaneously, so I didn't see that before my last went up - but yes, I tend to agree. (In fact I think I've said something similar in my previous post.) However, I'd argue that the question of where stories come from - where they first spring from - isn't entirely a matter of logic. Perhaps the logic is applied after that initial impetus?

- polynices

 

[sr71plt]

I usually start with the hook. The could be plot, character, setting, physical action, etc.

 

[Passing]

So much more than you asked for, but here it is...

I usually start with a concept (hypnosis is the art of a devious mind, in the right hands it could even be terrifying) or a setting (The swamp was moist and hot and the darkness oppressive enough to take form with the right bidding) that expands into a plot.

Or I start with a gesture (She dug into the earth with the fervor of a woman on the edge) or an emotion (when she looked upon the statue she was filled with such longing tears spilled onto her cheeks) that builds into a character. The story builds from there.

The sad truth is my writing is squat until that intimate moment when I connect with the character. Once that happens the story comes to life and I usually have to rewrite.

I guess that makes me character driven.

I worry less about character/plot (since the story's existence is the same no matter its origins) and more about style. I worry a lot about style (was it too wordy, too drafty, too emotional, too descriptive?). Each piece takes a form of its own and when I am done I hate them all, not for what they are but what they could be in the hands of a 'real' writer (whatever that means).

Later, much later, I read them and marvel that I had written them. I love them and each one speaks to me. As it should. I'm the writer.

My punctuation is subjective only to my whims. My spelling is tentative at best. Worse, if I get excited while writing I forget some of the letters altogether (which wouldn't be so bad if spell check could read my mind and spell the word breathe for me when I wrote breath.) I consistently harangue my grammar/spell checker for misunderstanding my intentions. And I have a love / hate relationship with my editor. I feel as if he is speaking to me in an unknown language. (Lord, bless him for his patience, and please don't let us kill each other.)

That is me, as a writer, in one horrible little nutshell

 

[richfun]

Hi,

Very interested in this thread, also in Passing's comments. I find it hard to pace a story, to take time to set a scene, build an atmosphere.

How often do writers on here go back, change, extend stories ?

 

[sr71plt]

Hi,

Very interested in this thread, also in Passing's comments. I find it hard to pace a story, to take time to set a scene, build an atmosphere.

How often do writers on here go back, change, extend stories ?

I often extend the story in the review phase. Most writers, I think, trim when they review. I tend to expand.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Beethoven and Tchaikovsky generally began with crashing chords, while Debussy preferred an oboe solo. You get to use whatever Crayolas you want but red usually works better for meat than green, unless its Wal-Mart meat.

 

[PennLady]

I find I get the nugget of an idea and then it goes from there, most times, at least.

For my first posted story, Make a Wish, I thought: what if someone had a genie and didn't want to wish?

For my first long story, Exiled, the nugget was: what if a weres/shapeshifter couldn't shift?

For another, The Hunted Key, I had read a story about this woman who sort of fell immediately for the alpha wolf and I thought: what if the woman didn't?

Once in a while an idea will strike me in a different way and so I'll go from there, but mostly I just some core idea, with no real character or direction, and go from there.

 

[3113]

Funny, but everyone seems to be saying the same thing. They don't start with plot or characters....they start with an idea (concept, hook, picture....)

And you've left off another option. How about starting with a setting? Some writers start that way. No character, no plot, but a place they want to write about. Like Nepal or or Victorian London.

 

[polynices]

How often do writers on here go back, change, extend stories ?

Personally, I hate rewriting - but I know that's a major failing. I should do much more.

On the other hand, I'm constantly editing. I write a couple of paragraphs, then reread - which always leads to minor adjustments at least. And that process goes on repeatedly until the story is completed - and then, if I have the patience, for a day or two afterwards as well. So I give myself high marks for attention to fine tuning - making adjustments to single words or phrases. What I resist though, is making major changes. I don't cut much (though I probably should) and I rarely rewrite a whole paragraph, let alone a chapter.

I have read of a prolific and successful author (I think it was M M Kaye, who wrote The Far Pavillions - a book I haven't actually read) who claimed never to have edited a single word he wrote. But I'd say he was unrepresentative, at the very least.

- polynices

 

[polynices]

And you've left off another option. How about starting with a setting? Some writers start that way. No character, no plot, but a place they want to write about. Like Nepal or or Victorian London.

Yes, or maybe atmosphere, which presupposes some kind of setting, of course. I once began a story with a London fog, which then 'gave' me a hansom cab clip-clopping through it. And that led to an entire story which, incidentally, was much more plot- than character-driven.

- polynices

 

[sr71plt]

Funny, but everyone seems to be saying the same thing. They don't start with plot or characters....they start with an idea (concept, hook, picture....)

And you've left off another option. How about starting with a setting? Some writers start that way. No character, no plot, but a place they want to write about. Like Nepal or or Victorian London.

I did say setting.

Usually the first thing that comes to my mind is "different." Different from what I've written before (which gets hard after your works have gone into the hundreds). Thus, my stories are set all over the world, throughout time, and under as many different conditions and situations as I can come up with.

Sometimes too, though, my mind is set to something specific--either the book series I'm writing to or the theme of the anthology I'm building. I'm currently near the end of putting together a "sports" themed anthology, so my stories there originate from my mind trolling sports I want represented and what different hook could be applied there.

 

[3113]

I did say setting.

I was responding to the OP, not you. The choice the OP offered was character or plot. Hence, the OP has left out setting.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Hey, what am I, chopped liver?

As for me, I start with characters and then devise the plot, but the two have a cyclical relationship after that. If I get to a part of my plot and I don't know how a character will respond, I have to refine a character.

Funny, but everyone seems to be saying the same thing. They don't start with
plot or characters....they start with an idea (concept, hook, picture....)

Kidding, kidding. If I could figure out how to put an emoticon the middle of my post, I would put a smile here.

But yes, I do seem to be the only one posting here who starts with characters. I have to come up with a full background and personality before I even start on a plot. Maybe this explains why I am so slow?

 

[Carl East]

Characters seem to be a minor issue for me, as it's always the storyline that hits me first. If I have an epiphany, then the characters usually just fall into line as I'm writing it down.

I can't remember a single time where I had to think up the characters first.

Carl

 

[andy_charles]

The vast majority of the time, I start writing my stories with a basic plot in my head. I bulletpoint them on the blank document below my writing to help me cover everything that has spawned out of that idea, whether it be what I like to call a set-piece scene or the introduction of a character.

I don't think though that eitehr needs to take precedence. Though from the answers you have had already here the plot seems to be the main gem that sparks our interest into writing, it could just as easily be a character - think of Kinglsey Amis' Lucky Jim. Think of (arguably) Harry Potter.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I haver several characters I frequently write about, including George Boxlicker, Busty Jessica, Angel Jones, Pauletta, David and others. Sometimes I think of something for one or more of them to do, and write that story. In these cases, I already have the characters and I devise a plot to fit them.

Sometimes I get a plot bunny, from a suggestion by a reader or from a video clip or other source. From that, I generate a plot and install characters to do the things called for. I use the term "plot" rather loosely because they are very minimal. "Two people meet in a bar and fuck." would be an example of one of my plots. Another example: My latest story, Gail Gets it good, was inspired by a videoclip. Gail is a white cheerleader at a state U. and, after her basketball team has wone an important home game, she picks up three black members of the team and they have some great sex, with everybody enjoying themselves. This is an interracial sex story, rather than group sex, because the emphasis is on the races of the characters and how that determines their attitudes toward each other and what they are doing.

I have gotten some complimentary feedback, but it is otherwise being bombed unmercifully.

 

[lettersaroundmidnight]

Do you begin with character or plot

Plot... throw in characters and see how they react to the conflict: which develops their character further; which then gives me more ideas to throw conflicts at the characters in... the Plot

lettersaroundmidnight

 

[SamScribble]

Many of my short stories begin with neither plot nor character, but with a snippet of something I see or hear.

Artist’s Model, for example, really did begin with an ad I saw in a local newspaper. Artist’s model required.

Having taken a couple of life drawing classes myself, I had a pretty good idea how the life drawing relationship works on a many-to-one, one-to-many basis.

The tutor (or someone) organises the model who has probably done it all many times before. The model arrives in the midst of maybe 12 or 15 students, and is introduced as Louise (or whoever). We exchange the briefest of greetings. The model gets her kit off. We try – with varying degrees of success – to draw her. The session comes to an end. The model gets dressed. We bid her goodnight. The model goes home. And we would-be Leonardos drift off to the pub, pondering why, in our drawings, she appears to have too many fingers and a left knee that bends in more than one direction.

But then I saw an ad in a local paper which seemed to be saying that one artist was looking for one model. And I thought: that’s going to have to be totally different. They’re going to have to talk to each other. They’re going to have to exchange views – even if it’s only views on the weather. Like it or not, they’re probably going to end up establishing some sort of one-on-one relationship. Maybe it will be a good relationship. Maybe it will be a disastrous relationship.

I thought about this for a few days. And then I wrote the first three sentences:

It was an ad in the local newspaper. Artist’s model required. She called the number.

And from there it was just a matter of asking what might happen next? And what might happen after that? And after that? And after that? And … The End.