I've always thought the absence of plot instruction in creative writing departments and the literary fiction world was a disservice to writers, and a kind of self-handicap. Structural elements of storytelling are probably the easiest to learn/teach, but people ignore the low-hanging fruit, and their work suffers unnecessarily.
More tragic to me than the "I don't like plot" people are the "I'm bad at plot" or "plot is hard" people. Talented writers with incredible voices will build a compelling character in a vivid setting and then say "I don't know what should happen in my story! I'm so bad at coming up with things for my character to do..." I'm like, what?! You already did the hard part. You have the soul, plot is far more mechanical, and thus more tractable. Just glance at any of the one trillion plot frameworks. You don't have to follow any given framework to the letter; just map it onto your character's journey and see if it shakes loose a few possible events that ring true. Then write those and you're off to the races.
In my one published novel and my current WIP, I've been a "pantser": someone who writes/plots by the seat of their pants. I take no perverse pride in that, nor do I recommend it: it's labor-intensive and, in my case, entails throwing a lot of early writing out (though I never REALLY throw anything away: you never know when it may come in handy).
One advantage to pantsing, however, is that developments in my own plot sometimes sneak up and surprise me. I see connections between incidents that I hadn't planned. Characters do unexpected things.
One tool I've stumbled on only recently is to plot chapter by chapter. I brainstorm a list of possible incidents from beginning to end. Then I write, referring to my outline, highlighting the parts of it I use and striking through the parts I don't.
I'm still teaching myself how to do this, and I'm grateful for that. This is a fine, practical post, Lincoln.
Thank you! Honestly, I am more of a “pantser” overall, but I find myself thinking a lot about plotting when revising a story. A lot of revision, for me, comes down to reordering, trimming, or expanding things until the story is in the right shape.
I plotted chapter-by-chapter for my self-pubbed book Faire Exchange, using the Story Wheel, and I found it a pleasant experience. It rotated through a set of viewpoint characters, and I wanted to make sure each one got equal time, and I found it helped to think of each one as its own short story that would be complete and necessary.
Generally I've come to favor Dean Wesley Smith's system of "cycling" - a form of pantsing that involves writing in short bursts of about 400-600 words, then going back and editing before proceeding with the next 400-600-words, even going further back through the manuscript if needed. I just finished a manuscript that I wrote this way (even cycled by hand). I also wrote a synopsis and cast list as I was working on it so I could keep everything straight.
Part of my mindset this last time was to treat everything as exploration--of characters, their setting, the conflict they're in--and give myself the freedom to pick at every thread I could and see what unraveled. Maybe it's because I'd just reread LotR a few months before I started it; I feel like it's similar to what Tolkien was going for.
Your description of the Dean Wesley Smith "cycling" system is just what I do (by instinct, I guess, because this is the first I've heard of it). I agree with your writing philosophy and wish you the best with your endeavors!
Great discussion. I write literary fiction (and I edit it too). At school and at college I was fed the idea that plot was not for 'proper' literature, though for some reason, almost all the other story elements (characters, dialogue, stylish and sensitive prose, themes) were. But every novel is taking the reader SOMEWHERE. It's starting in a particular place for a reason, it's ending in another and does not go on any further. Between those points it is trying to make something that has a purpose, that creates a shift in the reader's mind and emotions. It is a journey, and it's led by the reader's curiosity. And that curiosity arises because things are changing - sometimes for the characters, sometimes just for the reader. That's a plot - or a story, whatever you want to call it. (There are differences between the two but I think that's not what's being discussed here.)
If you are looking for alternatives to standard plots, I would suggest Jane Alison's fantastic book Meander, Spiral, Explode: Design & Pattern in Narrative.
Yes I like that book, and have often thought about plot in the same way (e.g. different shapes for different stories.) Solares’s How to Draw a Novel is another good book on that subject.
Thanks for sharing this. Thinking about these concepts in terms of flexible principles rather than pre-packaged models feels like the perfect way to strike a balance— a balance between taking the best of best practices (there’s a reason Hero’s Journey has stuck around with us for so long) without descending into the predictable/formulaic. Looking forward to the rest of the series!
I like this focus on the "principles" of plotting. I think I've benefited from studying the hero's cycle and Freytag and all those other structures, but mostly because studying them has (I hope) trained my story/plotting instincts. I try not to think about the full structure too much when doing the plotting, but I do keep in mind several principles, the most important probably being something like the escalation you've described here and a connective tissue (ie does one event link well to the next?). Anyways -- looking forward to this series!
Love this and also I've been on a whole exploration of how I actually DON'T think plot is "what happens" but I think it's a problem that no one really knows what they're arguing against ?
Interesting read, but I feel like what the term plot now means remained unanswered. Which is weir after the beginning making such a strong case that plot is somehow needed, relevant, and/or important. Personally, see the Kihotenketsu more as a pacing method. And the escalation is something I would call tension. Those things sure are neat to have, but forme it has not really clicked how this relates to plot. I hope I will find out, for now you get a subscriber.
Yes I’ll try to clarify that with the next entry. But I was using plot in what I would consider the usual way: the cause-and-effect sequence of events that make up the central narrative. “Plotless” stories normally refer to ones in which there are minimal events and/or the events are disconnected (a young writer wanders around Brooklyn, thinking thoughts while “not much happens”). Kishotenktsu, the three-act structure, Freytag’s Pyramid and similar models as normally thought of as plot structures or narrative structures. I think you could use them for other purposes, such as pacing, but these things are interconnected.
Excellent post. I always remember the notion from one Pixar screenwriter seminar: the plot is not "this happens, and this happens, and this happens", but rather "this happens, BUT this happens, BUT then..."
What an informative read! Thank you. I write from character, in what I call, "controlled schizophrenia," because a character lives in my head, creating the story as I write it. I know the importance of plot, but I've struggled with it the way I do when I try to clean up a messy house. Where does this go? Wait, do I need this? Agents and editors have helped me find the threads in a story and connect them. I also study plot theory as explored in posts like this one. At first, I became OCD with overly detailed outlines that I incorporated into Scrivener, but I'm learning to let it come more naturally. I love the way you keep referring to "the story." I tell my students to consider the stories people tell when they talk to each other. Thanks again for your insight -- I've subscribes.
Dismissing plot seems like a kind of thing someone does to make themselves look sophisticated. “You superficially only consider the plot. I know that actually plot isn’t important at all and it’s really about other things”. Why would you want to write something if you didn’t have a story you wanted to tell? I just can’t imagine seeing it as anything but central.
Thanks Lincoln. People really like plots. It's an ease of reading thing. Wondering what is going to happen next is a whole lot easier than wondering why.
Lincoln, I think a lot of people are talking past each other, both in the outside world and in this comment section, because they don't have a shared definition of plot. What is the definition you're using?
Yeah that's a fair question! I should probably define it in my next post. I think I'm using it in the usual way. Basically "what happens?" or more specifically the cause and effect sequence of events that make up the narrative. A plotless book is one in which few events happen or else the events aren't interconnected. I'd call Baker's The Mezzanine (which I love) a largely plotless book. The present action plot is a man going up an elevator. The book consists of various digressions. The pleasures of the book are the voice, the form, and the musings. You don't read to find out "what happens next?" though.
Thanks, Lincoln. If we define a plot as "a causally related sequence of events that make up the narrative", then what is the definition of a "strong plot"? For example, is it (1) a plot that makes the reader want to find out what happens next? (2) A plot that supports character development? (3) A plot that explores theme deeply and broadly? (4) Something else entirely? (5) Some combination of the above?
I ask because I want to understand specifically how (and if) each principle of plot might cause a plot to be strong in different ways.
These are great questions. I should mull them more. But, I suppose I meant that a strong plot is one that makes the reader want to keep reading to find out what happens. In the context of the article, I was thinking for example how a murder mystery noir plot where a detective figure is finding clues to solve the mystery can be a strong guideline for readers to hold onto while you do weirder, experimental stuff in other dimensions of the narrative. Pynchon and Garza and so on will have a mystery plot to guide reader's through the story that has dense lyrical prose and other "difficult" aspects.
The specifics of how a plot works depends on the genre, style, and project though. In a murder mystery, the plot will involve finding clues that build up to solving the mystery. In a character-driven literary story, it might be more events that help us develop the character and force them toward a decision. In a SFF story, it might be a quest narrative where the character's are advancing over increasing obstacles to save the world (Frodo progressing to Mt. Doom to toss the ring in.) I think the specifics of what works in a plot is very genre/style/work specific. At least that is how it seems to me.
I'll try to articulate this more clearly in a future post!
You could argue that the walking around and the wondering in the stereotypical autofiction novel are events or that the musings and digressions are events. Perhaps they could be said to be interconnected as well? One's thoughts are connected to one's previous thoughts and where one walks is connected to where one has previously walked.
Plot is a dead system, kids no longer care about plot. Look at Skibidi or Rose Horowitch's piece about kids - film students - being unable to sit through movies. The future is plotless, chaos.
I've always thought the absence of plot instruction in creative writing departments and the literary fiction world was a disservice to writers, and a kind of self-handicap. Structural elements of storytelling are probably the easiest to learn/teach, but people ignore the low-hanging fruit, and their work suffers unnecessarily.
More tragic to me than the "I don't like plot" people are the "I'm bad at plot" or "plot is hard" people. Talented writers with incredible voices will build a compelling character in a vivid setting and then say "I don't know what should happen in my story! I'm so bad at coming up with things for my character to do..." I'm like, what?! You already did the hard part. You have the soul, plot is far more mechanical, and thus more tractable. Just glance at any of the one trillion plot frameworks. You don't have to follow any given framework to the letter; just map it onto your character's journey and see if it shakes loose a few possible events that ring true. Then write those and you're off to the races.
In my one published novel and my current WIP, I've been a "pantser": someone who writes/plots by the seat of their pants. I take no perverse pride in that, nor do I recommend it: it's labor-intensive and, in my case, entails throwing a lot of early writing out (though I never REALLY throw anything away: you never know when it may come in handy).
One advantage to pantsing, however, is that developments in my own plot sometimes sneak up and surprise me. I see connections between incidents that I hadn't planned. Characters do unexpected things.
One tool I've stumbled on only recently is to plot chapter by chapter. I brainstorm a list of possible incidents from beginning to end. Then I write, referring to my outline, highlighting the parts of it I use and striking through the parts I don't.
I'm still teaching myself how to do this, and I'm grateful for that. This is a fine, practical post, Lincoln.
Thank you! Honestly, I am more of a “pantser” overall, but I find myself thinking a lot about plotting when revising a story. A lot of revision, for me, comes down to reordering, trimming, or expanding things until the story is in the right shape.
Agree 100%
I plotted chapter-by-chapter for my self-pubbed book Faire Exchange, using the Story Wheel, and I found it a pleasant experience. It rotated through a set of viewpoint characters, and I wanted to make sure each one got equal time, and I found it helped to think of each one as its own short story that would be complete and necessary.
Generally I've come to favor Dean Wesley Smith's system of "cycling" - a form of pantsing that involves writing in short bursts of about 400-600 words, then going back and editing before proceeding with the next 400-600-words, even going further back through the manuscript if needed. I just finished a manuscript that I wrote this way (even cycled by hand). I also wrote a synopsis and cast list as I was working on it so I could keep everything straight.
Part of my mindset this last time was to treat everything as exploration--of characters, their setting, the conflict they're in--and give myself the freedom to pick at every thread I could and see what unraveled. Maybe it's because I'd just reread LotR a few months before I started it; I feel like it's similar to what Tolkien was going for.
Your description of the Dean Wesley Smith "cycling" system is just what I do (by instinct, I guess, because this is the first I've heard of it). I agree with your writing philosophy and wish you the best with your endeavors!
Great discussion. I write literary fiction (and I edit it too). At school and at college I was fed the idea that plot was not for 'proper' literature, though for some reason, almost all the other story elements (characters, dialogue, stylish and sensitive prose, themes) were. But every novel is taking the reader SOMEWHERE. It's starting in a particular place for a reason, it's ending in another and does not go on any further. Between those points it is trying to make something that has a purpose, that creates a shift in the reader's mind and emotions. It is a journey, and it's led by the reader's curiosity. And that curiosity arises because things are changing - sometimes for the characters, sometimes just for the reader. That's a plot - or a story, whatever you want to call it. (There are differences between the two but I think that's not what's being discussed here.)
If you are looking for alternatives to standard plots, I would suggest Jane Alison's fantastic book Meander, Spiral, Explode: Design & Pattern in Narrative.
Yes I like that book, and have often thought about plot in the same way (e.g. different shapes for different stories.) Solares’s How to Draw a Novel is another good book on that subject.
Excellent. I’ll check that out.
Thanks for sharing this. Thinking about these concepts in terms of flexible principles rather than pre-packaged models feels like the perfect way to strike a balance— a balance between taking the best of best practices (there’s a reason Hero’s Journey has stuck around with us for so long) without descending into the predictable/formulaic. Looking forward to the rest of the series!
"flexible principles rather than pre-packaged models"
Well put. This is what I try to draw from craft guidance.
I like this focus on the "principles" of plotting. I think I've benefited from studying the hero's cycle and Freytag and all those other structures, but mostly because studying them has (I hope) trained my story/plotting instincts. I try not to think about the full structure too much when doing the plotting, but I do keep in mind several principles, the most important probably being something like the escalation you've described here and a connective tissue (ie does one event link well to the next?). Anyways -- looking forward to this series!
Thank you!
Love this and also I've been on a whole exploration of how I actually DON'T think plot is "what happens" but I think it's a problem that no one really knows what they're arguing against ?
So good!
Thank you!
Interesting read, but I feel like what the term plot now means remained unanswered. Which is weir after the beginning making such a strong case that plot is somehow needed, relevant, and/or important. Personally, see the Kihotenketsu more as a pacing method. And the escalation is something I would call tension. Those things sure are neat to have, but forme it has not really clicked how this relates to plot. I hope I will find out, for now you get a subscriber.
Yes I’ll try to clarify that with the next entry. But I was using plot in what I would consider the usual way: the cause-and-effect sequence of events that make up the central narrative. “Plotless” stories normally refer to ones in which there are minimal events and/or the events are disconnected (a young writer wanders around Brooklyn, thinking thoughts while “not much happens”). Kishotenktsu, the three-act structure, Freytag’s Pyramid and similar models as normally thought of as plot structures or narrative structures. I think you could use them for other purposes, such as pacing, but these things are interconnected.
Excellent post. I always remember the notion from one Pixar screenwriter seminar: the plot is not "this happens, and this happens, and this happens", but rather "this happens, BUT this happens, BUT then..."
What an informative read! Thank you. I write from character, in what I call, "controlled schizophrenia," because a character lives in my head, creating the story as I write it. I know the importance of plot, but I've struggled with it the way I do when I try to clean up a messy house. Where does this go? Wait, do I need this? Agents and editors have helped me find the threads in a story and connect them. I also study plot theory as explored in posts like this one. At first, I became OCD with overly detailed outlines that I incorporated into Scrivener, but I'm learning to let it come more naturally. I love the way you keep referring to "the story." I tell my students to consider the stories people tell when they talk to each other. Thanks again for your insight -- I've subscribes.
This is great, looking forward to future installments!
Thank you!
Dismissing plot seems like a kind of thing someone does to make themselves look sophisticated. “You superficially only consider the plot. I know that actually plot isn’t important at all and it’s really about other things”. Why would you want to write something if you didn’t have a story you wanted to tell? I just can’t imagine seeing it as anything but central.
Thanks Lincoln. People really like plots. It's an ease of reading thing. Wondering what is going to happen next is a whole lot easier than wondering why.
Lincoln, I think a lot of people are talking past each other, both in the outside world and in this comment section, because they don't have a shared definition of plot. What is the definition you're using?
Yeah that's a fair question! I should probably define it in my next post. I think I'm using it in the usual way. Basically "what happens?" or more specifically the cause and effect sequence of events that make up the narrative. A plotless book is one in which few events happen or else the events aren't interconnected. I'd call Baker's The Mezzanine (which I love) a largely plotless book. The present action plot is a man going up an elevator. The book consists of various digressions. The pleasures of the book are the voice, the form, and the musings. You don't read to find out "what happens next?" though.
Thanks, Lincoln. If we define a plot as "a causally related sequence of events that make up the narrative", then what is the definition of a "strong plot"? For example, is it (1) a plot that makes the reader want to find out what happens next? (2) A plot that supports character development? (3) A plot that explores theme deeply and broadly? (4) Something else entirely? (5) Some combination of the above?
I ask because I want to understand specifically how (and if) each principle of plot might cause a plot to be strong in different ways.
These are great questions. I should mull them more. But, I suppose I meant that a strong plot is one that makes the reader want to keep reading to find out what happens. In the context of the article, I was thinking for example how a murder mystery noir plot where a detective figure is finding clues to solve the mystery can be a strong guideline for readers to hold onto while you do weirder, experimental stuff in other dimensions of the narrative. Pynchon and Garza and so on will have a mystery plot to guide reader's through the story that has dense lyrical prose and other "difficult" aspects.
The specifics of how a plot works depends on the genre, style, and project though. In a murder mystery, the plot will involve finding clues that build up to solving the mystery. In a character-driven literary story, it might be more events that help us develop the character and force them toward a decision. In a SFF story, it might be a quest narrative where the character's are advancing over increasing obstacles to save the world (Frodo progressing to Mt. Doom to toss the ring in.) I think the specifics of what works in a plot is very genre/style/work specific. At least that is how it seems to me.
I'll try to articulate this more clearly in a future post!
You could argue that the walking around and the wondering in the stereotypical autofiction novel are events or that the musings and digressions are events. Perhaps they could be said to be interconnected as well? One's thoughts are connected to one's previous thoughts and where one walks is connected to where one has previously walked.
Plot is a dead system, kids no longer care about plot. Look at Skibidi or Rose Horowitch's piece about kids - film students - being unable to sit through movies. The future is plotless, chaos.
Skibidi has escalation, though.
It's still fractal, scale invariant. And you pick any side.