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

[EmilyMiller]

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?

Penis-driven is an acceptable answer here, I guess .

—

The penultimate paragraph has been edited because some people weren’t clear about my meaning.

 

[Voboy]

When my characters have "arcs" or make "progress," it's usually by accident. Or rather, it's probably fairer to say it's subconscious. I set out to entertain by making interesting characters do interesting things. If they learn anything about themselves, it's ancillary.

So I suppose I'm higher-plot? When reading here, I'm not usually looking for a beautiful arc. So. When writing here, I seldom think I'm aiming to provide one.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I've done both, I guess. The Pranked stories are very plotty. "Heels Over Head" has no plot, nor does "Coffee With Blushes".

 

[Rob_Royale]

Umm. Wow. Lady, I just don't think that deeply about what I'm doing here. My stories are about people meeting and enjoying each other. My settings and circumstances vary widely though and the stories are much more event driven, I suppose. My characters may change throughout but it's not the focus of the story.

 

[anthrodisiac]

It depends on how you define plot, I suppose. To me, plot is just the storyline, and that's not always so easy to separate out from character development. The character development is, after all, part of the story. I think "character-focus" and "event-focus" is a better axis, rather than the "high-plot" and "low-plot" terminology that feels kinda disparaging toward character-focused stories, as if they don't have much plot to them, when, in reality, a story can be something as simple as someone growing and learning about themselves without really needing much in the way of fancy, crazy external events. It's still a story, after all.

So, changing it to the focus, rather than more of an implicit value judgement that high/low has associated with it (which, to be clear, not saying that was your intent, but it kinda comes off that way to me at least), provides a more neutral lens with which we can evaluate the differences between the two ends of this particular axis. You could also do internal/external focus, internal being the feelings and character aspect, external being the events that happen outside the character, or actions done by the character to the outside.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think "character-focus" and "event-focus" is a better axis, rather than the "high-plot" and "low-plot" terminology that feels kinda disparaging toward character-focused stories, as if they don't have much plot to them, when, in reality

I disagree for symmetrical reasons. Character-focus vs event-focus feels kinda disparaging toward stories in which a lot happens, as if that is mutually exclusive to having strong characters. I’d argue that Jayne Eyre is event-focused, but it’s also character-focused - it pretty much is the canonical bildungsroman, and a study in the interior life of a woman.

You can have high-plot and a major focus on character as well.

 

[anthrodisiac]

It depends on how you define plot, I suppose. To me, plot is just the storyline, and that's not always so easy to separate out from character development. The character development is, after all, part of the story. I think "character-focus" and "event-focus" is a better axis, rather than the "high-plot" and "low-plot" terminology that feels kinda disparaging toward character-focused stories, as if they don't have much plot to them, when, in reality, a story can be something as simple as someone growing and learning about themselves without really needing much in the way of fancy, crazy external events. It's still a story, after all.

So, changing it to the focus, rather than more of an implicit value judgement that high/low has associated with it (which, to be clear, not saying that was your intent, but it kinda comes off that way to me at least), provides a more neutral lens with which we can evaluate the differences between the two ends of this particular axis. You could also do internal/external focus, internal being the feelings and character aspect, external being the events that happen outside the character, or actions done by the character to the outside.

Thinking on it more, I'm not sure character-focus and event-focus is actually that good of a metric, either, because you can have the craziest, most action-packed external plot, but still focus primarily on the characters as that happens. What you're talking about in your OP is more interpersonal vs. external action, interiority and exteriority. A story about the exploration of interpersonal dynamics and self-discovery where you don't need big, sweeping events to drive the plot, but the interplay between the actors, their reactions to one another. Character-driven and action-driven isn't a good metric, either, because a character can drive big, sweeping events. So internal exploration and external exploration, perhaps, is the best I can think of in these terms. It hits on the point of the story, which is what I think you're getting out, without having to say what is driving the events, but instead focusing on whether the story is exploring the internal, interpersonal aspects of a person or persons or if it's exploring more of the events outside the characters.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I disagree for symmetrical reasons. Character-focus vs event-focus feels kinda disparaging toward stories in which a lot happens, as if that is mutually exclusive to having strong characters. I’d argue that Jayne Eyre is event-focused, but it’s also character-focused - it pretty much is the canonical bildungsroman, and a study in the interior life of a woman.

You can have high-plot and a major focus on character as well.

LMAO, good timing

But in either event, what we're talking about is an spectrum, not a binary thing. It's not as though the things are mutually exclusive, it's more about how much it skews one way or the other. This is, of course, a simplification because of all the nuance of each individual story, and obviously it's possible to have both.

 

[EmilyMiller]

But in either event, what we're talking about is an spectrum, not a binary thing.

To be pendantic, it’s a continuum, not binary

 

[EmilyMiller]

Umm. Wow. Lady, I just don't think that deeply about what I'm doing here. My stories are about people meeting and enjoying each other.

By way of contrast, Cressie Craves Creampies is one woman’s journey toward self-actualization, appreciation of inherent worth, and resolution of tension between her id and superego within a radically feminist framwork.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Well, to get to the other part of the OP:

For me, personally, I tend to write more character-focused stories, especially for my erotica. I still have external events driving the story, but my favorite part about writing has always been the characters, seeing how they react to things, bringing them to life, exploring who they are. Part of that involves throwing them into situations that push them outside their comfort zones and force them to confront things that show who they are at their core, when times are dire and the social niceties drop away in favor of their real face. I haven't done any grand, sweeping adventures to date, though I do have a couple sitting in my ideas bag, it's primarily been focusing on my niche and telling interpersonal stories within the worlds I've constructed.

My non-erotic work is a bit more of a mixed-bag than my erotic work. I tend to favor more out-there concepts, high-concept stuff, which are fun spaces for satire. The plots have more external action than being more of a study of interpersonal dynamics, which is kinda what most of my erotica is: light on external forces, heavy on interpersonal ones. But I still make sure to focus the characters heavily, get up close with them. Down in the trenches vs. high above watching the action from a blimp or satellite or whatever analogy feels most apt. Even in my wackiest stuff, I never forget the people. In my mind, any story is more interesting when you have characters that feel real, that have depth, that change and react to the events, are shaped by them, grow and change, evolve, thrive or die, succeed or fail.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Well, to get to the other part of the OP:

For me, personally, I tend to write more character-focused stories, especially for my erotica. I still have external events driving the story, but my favorite part about writing has always been the characters, seeing how they react to things, bringing them to life, exploring who they are. Part of that involves throwing them into situations that push them outside their comfort zones and force them to confront things that show who they are at their core, when times are dire and the social niceties drop away in favor of their real face. I haven't done any grand, sweeping adventures to date, though I do have a couple sitting in my ideas bag, it's primarily been focusing on my niche and telling interpersonal stories within the worlds I've constructed.

My non-erotic work is a bit more of a mixed-bag than my erotic work. I tend to favor more out-there concepts, high-concept stuff, which are fun spaces for satire. The plots have more external action than being more of a study of interpersonal dynamics, which is kinda what most of my erotica is: light on external forces, heavy on interpersonal ones. But I still make sure to focus the characters heavily, get up close with them. Down in the trenches vs. high above watching the action from a blimp or satellite or whatever analogy feels most apt. Even in my wackiest stuff, I never forget the people. In my mind, any story is more interesting when you have characters that feel real, that have depth, that change and react to the events, are shaped by them, grow and change, evolve, thrive or die, succeed or fail.

So - just to be awkward () - you are having your characters respond to external events, as opposed to interior changes being the actual events (you said something relating to this above - but I only skimmed it ). I think that was more the distinction I was trying to highlight.

 

[anthrodisiac]

So - just to be awkward () - you are having your characters respond to external events, as opposed to interior changes being the actual events (you said something relating to this above - but I only skimmed it ). I think that was more the distinction I was trying to highlight.

It's basically impossible not to have some kind of external events, because the people are still acting upon each other in some way, unless you mean external to their interpersonal dynamics, some force outside of the two (or more) people involved. If that latter is the case, then I do both types of stories. Some of my stories are as simple as two people meet, interact with each other, and one or both learn and grow from it. I also have stories where there are forces outside their interpersonal relationship that act upon one or both characters, causing them to react to things. My erotica tends to be more of the former, and my non-erotic stories tends to be more of the latter, but obviously it's not exclusively one or the other in most cases.

 

[SkyBubble]

Plot, yes, but more character.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It's basically impossible not to have some kind of external events, because the people are still acting upon each other in some way, unless you mean external to their interpersonal dynamics, some force outside of the two (or more) people involved. If that latter is the case, then I do both types of stories. Some of my stories are as simple as two people meet, interact with each other, and one or both learn and grow from it. I also have stories where there are forces outside their interpersonal relationship that act upon one or both characters, causing them to react to things. My erotica tends to be more of the former, and my non-erotic stories tends to be more of the latter, but obviously it's not exclusively one or the other in most cases.

Consider a spherical character in a vacuum, an infinite distance from any other character. Use the de Broglie equation to derive the plot. Show all your workings.

 

[ElectricBlue]

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

No, it doesn't resonate, simply because I generally write "low plot" by this definition, and you don't get to dismiss my writing as inferior. Get rid of the notion of "better" (because "better" also implies "worse"), and high plot low plot is fine.

My stories are far more about mood than they are about plot, but to say plot = superior, nope, not buying that.

Penis-driven is an acceptable answer here, I guess .

Pussy driven works best for me .

 

[EmilyMiller]

Get rid of the notion of "better"

Where on Earth did I say better?

say plot = superior, nope, not buying that

[citation needed]

I sing the praises of a low plot author. Then I said I sometimes write that way, but that I often write high-plot. Did I not praise my own work enough to create balance? Or was my praise of the other author not fulsome enough?

Please point out my use of “better” or “superior” in any of my text on this thread.

I thought it was meant to be AI who hallucinates, not regular people, least of all Australians .

 

[liliput1]

I disagree for symmetrical reasons. Character-focus vs event-focus feels kinda disparaging toward stories in which a lot happens, as if that is mutually exclusive to having strong characters. I’d argue that Jayne Eyre is event-focused, but it’s also character-focused - it pretty much is the canonical bildungsroman, and a study in the interior life of a woman.

You can have high-plot and a major focus on character as well.

People think they know who they are until 1) something happens or 2) they have a proper argument about it with someone and they either really internalize their position or realize they're some % wrong and change.

It's hard to have character development, in the self-improvement sense rather than the literary sense, without events.

At a bare minimum, in order to have a sex scene the characters have to happen to each other, even if nothing else happens. But you get a lot more story arc and a sense of movement if more than that happens.

 

[ElectricBlue]

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

Where on Earth did I say better?

In your first post.

 

[EmilyMiller]

In your first post.

Jesus wept.

I think “high-plot (me) vs low-plot (them)” works better AS AN AID TO LITERARY ANALYSIS.

But the praise I heap on the low-plot author should make this obvious, no?

 

[EmilyMiller]

I talk about different - yes binary - ways to discuss differences between how people write. I provide examples of other binary frameworks using “vs.” Then I conclude by saying that I think the high-plot vs low-plot framework is more helpful.

Given how positive I was about a low-plot author, I fail to see how anything I wrote was likely to be pejorative toward such an approach.

If you look at one sentence in isolation, and squint a bit, you might think I was saying what I do is better. But in context? Really?

 

[ElectricBlue]

Jesus wept.

I think “high-plot (me) vs low-plot (them)” works better AS AN AID TO LITERARY ANALYSIS.

But the praise I heap on the low-plot author should make this obvious, no?

Careless use of language then. I responded to plain English, because I'm the contracts guy and look for the meaning written, not inferred.

In any event, it's a false binary. Like just about everything to do with writing, there's a continuum, not a binary. Rainbows, or shades of grey, not black and white.

All good.

 

[EmilyMiller]

there's a continuum,

Which is precisely the word I used above!

 

[EmilyMiller]

Careless use of language then. I responded to plain English, because I'm the contracts guy and look for the meaning written, not inferred.

Do contracts guys interpret only one sentence at a time, and not the whole text? I thought that was LLMs

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Bold of you to assume I write following a plan.

I wanted to write a simple stroker yesterday, and it was going well. Thing is it had so much libertine philosophy in it it became a Dark Romance written by Kindred Dick after reading Bataille's L'erotism under the influence of whatever mushroom he found on the woods because his drug dealer didn't have one on stock. Yes, I wrote that out of spite after reading comments on AH that made my veins buzz, feeling like bright azure light went through them like the neon lights lighting up the city after dusk.

I obviously shelved it out of sheer disappointment and rebooted. That story might work for a novella, but it wasn't my goal just yet.

In any case, it seems that whether I do high plot or low plot now depends on a coin flip my brain decides to do now because I have absolutely no idea of what I'm doing anymore, but whatever. I honestly feel much better writing without caring for such things because what works for me isn't high or low plot, but how far could I keep going until I try to break Newton's first law, and then I get slapped with a fine in the form of a hard place that shatters all momentum to a halt.