High-plot or low-plot (or somewhere in between)

[EmilyMiller]

But this is a hobby, not an income for me.

Why do you assume some hobbyists aren’t interested in these things? I don’t write for money. Several of the people replying don’t either. People write for different reasons and in different ways, and that’s fine.

 

[EdwardsOtherSide]

Why do you assume some hobbyists aren’t interested in these things? I don’t write for money. Several of the people replying don’t either. People write for different reasons and in different ways, and that’s fine.

I would feel a lot more pressure to commit to plot development if I was writing for money.
Maybe not the case for everyone, but approaching this as a complete hobbyist/amateur let's me feel free to experiment with a lot less pressure.

I have a dear friend who is a professional artist. Her paying work is all commission. Her personal, "fine art" paintings are not constrained by pressure to meet a client's expectations, and are a lot more interesting than her commission work, because of that absence of pressure to meet someone's expectations.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I would feel a lot more pressure to commit to plot development if I was writing for money.
Maybe not the case for everyone, but approaching this as a complete hobbyist/amateur let's me feel free to experiment with a lot less pressure.

I have a dear friend who is a professional artist. Her paying work is all commission. Her personal, "fine art" paintings are not constrained by pressure to meet a client's expectations, and are a lot more interesting than her commission work, because of that absence of pressure to meet someone's expectations.

I put effort into plot as I want to. It’s OK to approach hobbies with different levels of seriousness.

My SO is a hobbyist photographer, but he takes it very seriously. He’s won competitions where professional photographers have submitted work too. He’s spends a lot of time and effort on it.

That’s me with writing.

 

[NasoNocturne]

At the same time, right? In synchronicity.

Exactly, who doesn't love it when the narrative thrust penetrates welcoming anatomy in some unplanned but deep and meaningful way.

 

[crookedletter]

In general I think I tend toward what you call "low-plot": my characters are in their own heads a lot; they tend to think about things more than do them. Things happen, of course, but in general I think I'm less interested in what happens than who it happens to, why it's happening, what it means, etc.

I'm interested in both sides of the spectrum though, and everywhere in between. I like to try different approaches, write different kinds of things. It can be a challenge to switch, get out of my characters' heads a bit, have them get out there and do some shit*.

* Something I'm generally disinclined to do in real life, too.

 

[PennyThompson]

For some people, thinking and talking about writing is as much a part of their hobby as the writing itself

There are many ways to tickle the dopamine receptors!

 

[Blood_for_Bathory]

I enjoy having any receptors tickled, honestly.

Haha, sorry, no for the topic at hand, I often think of my writing style as being a small window to a specific place. Not sure if this is high or low? Perhaps, it's twixt?

Imagine looking out into a backyard through a nice picture window. You see a flower bed directly in the center, clearly placed to be enjoyed from where you are standing. It's pretty, with all of its colors, shapes, and textures. You might also imagine the smells and sensations associated with it. Widening that view, you can also see the nearby black walnut tree as well as a bird feeder. Ah! A nice, well built toolshed off to the left. If you stay and look a while, you'll start to see the entire picture. Your gaze naturally scans from left to right, up and down as you seek out the boundaries of what's possible to see.

Writing, then, becomes learning what features would organically stand out to anyone looking through your window. Sometimes, the flower bed in my analogy is enough for a particular story. There is no need to look elsewhere.

 

[EmilyMiller]

For some people, thinking and talking about writing is as much a part of their hobby as the writing itself

I know some for whom the actual writing seems to be an annoying distraction from the real fun to be had opining on writing.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I enjoy having any receptors tickled, honestly.

 

[StillStunned]

I know some for whom the actual writing seems to be an annoying distraction from the real fun to be had opining on writing.

 

[8letters]

I was thinking about this general area in relation to another author’s work, one I sometimes beta for. I’ll keep them out of this as my point is more general. They write beautiful stories with rich characters. What happens in them is the characters learn about themselves, or find comfort / healing in others, or enact / embrace changes, or all three. If you were to write a synopsis, it would be short. The richness comes from the interaction of the characters, their internal changes, and changes in relationships.

I write this way on occasion, but a lot of my stuff has many things going on. I still focus on characters (or so people tell me) but their psyches tend to be melded by external events. I’ve also been told that my average novella would be a decent-length novel if written by another writer.

There are various terms that impinge on this dichotomy. Character-driven vs event driven. Action-driven vs literary. But I don’t think those really capture what I see as two different types of character-driven work.

I think the ‘high-plot (e.g. me) vs low-plot (e.g. them)’ framework works better. Does this distinction resonate? And what type of stories do you typically write?

I don't understand what you are saying here. Some examples would help.

The distinction I find useful is "Straight Line" vs. "Convoluted". By "Straight Line", I mean a story where the endpoint and how you are going to get there are obvious from the beginning. By "Convoluted", I mean a story where most of the story, it's not clear how you're going to get to the endpoint. Let me give two Jane Austen novels as examples.

My "Straight Line" example is "Northanger Abbey" where, once Catherine Moreland meets Henry Tilney, it's obvious that the story is going to end with the two of them getting engaged. There's no character arc. The story, for the most part, is about how Catherine and Henry are such great fits for each other and how they gradually fall madly in love. The challenges to their relationship are either minor (How are they going to keep seeing each other once they leave Bath?) or stupid (As Henry is about to propose, his father, out of nowhere, suddenly totally disapproves of the relationship). There are several subplots about minor characters, but they don't have any impact on Catherine and Henry's relationship.

My "Convoluted" example is "Pride and Prejudice", where, for most of the novel, it seems highly unlikely that Jane will marry Mr. Bingley or Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy will fall in love. There are many major challenges to their relationships, and Mr. Darcy has a major character arc. The subplots of minor characters have major impacts on the Elizabeth-Darcy relationship.

In my experience, almost all Literotica stories are Straight-Line stories. After I've read the setup of most Literotica stories, I can skip to the penultimate page and feel that I've not missed anything.

I would consider most of my stories Convoluted.