How often do writers develop characters before plot, and why?
As someone who writes a little as a hobby, this is something that I haven't really thought about until just recently, but...
Is it common for a writer to develop characters before actually coming up with a plot for those characters to be a part of? That is, do most writers start by coming up with a story first, then creating and developing the characters to be used in the story, or is it more common that a writer will get an idea for a character or characters and will then develop a story to use them in?
I'm asking this because I noticed that, in almost all cases, I've had the idea for a character or characters first before I started actually writing anything about them, and I was wondering if there's a trend among writers about which tends to be done first. Could this simply be a side-effect of having a taste for world-building? I've dabbled in aspects of world-building in the past, even going as far as working on a constructed language for use in a story, but I'm not sure if the two are specifically related.
Also, I tend to be more detail-oriented in things as opposed to looking at the big picture; could that be part of it as well? I've noticed that once I have the characters and a (rough) setting, I often spend time on coming up with specific scenes of interaction rather than an overall plot.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/3274. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
I think there's too much focus on characters and plot - the story is what matters and the characters and plot provide the skeleton that holds the story together and gives it shape. A book like "The Wasted Vigil" features at least one inanimate character (a statue), and probably more depending on the reader's opinion. The statue plays a major role in the book even though it does not move, feel, speak, or do anything in particular beyond simply existing. The house in the book actually plays a major role too - it could also be thought of as a character since it shapes major parts of the story.
The more important aspect of a work is its architecture - its use of time, relationships, perspective and style that create a substrate for your characters. A novel that uses an interesting architecture is "Paradise" by Toni Morrison: the author uses association to weave seemingly disparate parts of the book together. You'll probably have to be patient since it takes a while to connect the dots, but it works very well in this book. Several of the characters in the book are 'shallow' yet it's not necessary to know much more about them than is revealed in the book; 'well rounded' characters would have actually been a distraction.
To answer your question directly, the story and its architecture drive the characters and what your reader might need to know about them.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/3278. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Story arises out of a challenge to character. The same event may challenge some characters and not others. A given character will be challenged by some events and not others.
So, to create a story, you need a character and an event that challenges that character. Which comes first?
In some cases, I am sure, the character comes first and the author must then come up with events to challenge them.
In other cases, the event comes first and the author must then come up with a character who will be challenged by those events.
In some cases, perhaps, it is the combination of event and character that occurs to the writer as a single piece.
I suspect that the event-first approach is most likely to produce dull books, as the author may be so engrossed in the event that they never really develop a character who is genuinely challenged by it, except in a generic or technical way. Much of fantasy and sci fi seems to fall into this trap, with the author so absorbed in world building that real character development never happens.
This might lead to a recommendation to always start with character, but this far to much writing advice takes the form of "this is often done badly, so don't do it at all," which is actually pretty bad advice.
Then again, I suppose you could argue that dull literary fiction is the result of all character and no challenge.
I'm inclined to doubt that an author really has much choice about which story element occurs to them first. I think they simply need to remember that they need all the elements to succeed.
0 comment threads
This can really change very drastically from author to author and from story to story.
There's no doubt that developing characters and then building a plot around them is a great way to come up with a story. Characters are compelling; interactions between them are interesting; put the characters as the center of your plot, and they may drive the whole thing themselves.
But there's plenty of other great ways to construct stories.
- Author comes up with a brilliant setting, then figures out what characters are necessary to explore the setting and get the most out of it.
- Author comes up with a great plot arc, then figures out what kind of characters are necessary to play out the arc believably.
- Author is interested in examining a theme, an issue, a real-life culture, a historical period; he comes up with characters to fit and to portray different aspects of the focus.
...and many more.
The truth of the matter is, building up the elements of your story is most likely an iterative process. Location A might give you ideas for Character X, Plot Twist Y, and Set Piece Z, but Set Piece Z might require you to go back and make some changes to Character X. You're developing everything together; everything needs to fit well with each other. That doesn't happen because you originally create everything in a perfect cohesive whole. It happens because as you go along, you keep tweaking your old ideas, keeping them current with your new elements, keeping everything together and compatible.
You don't need to create any one thing first. They lead to one another, and back to themselves again.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads