How is character development a major role in the plot of a story
People mostly say that the characters of a story have to be developed first, but I don't really understand why characters play such an active role. Can't the characters simply be classified as objects?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/45458. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
The main distinction to be made here is between character-driven stories and plot-driven stories.
Character-driven stories, as you can imagine, focus mainly on the characters, their struggles, their growth and their relationships. The central questions of these stories could be, What will Bob do in this situation? Will his relationship with Alice survive? How can Charlie react to such an event? and so on. In this case, there must be at least a subset of characters (e.g. the main cast) that have to be well fleshed out, so they can't be classified as objects.
Plot-driven stories, on the other hand, tend to put more emphasis on the plot. The main question could be Will the great evil be defeated? Can this nation win the war? Can the police stop this killer? etc. Characters are less central in these kind of stories.
For example, a lot of detective stories revolve around getting the guilty in jail. Those stories do have interesting characters (a troubled detective, his steadfast colleague, a shady informer, the witty morgue doctor, and so on) but developing this character is not the point. The point is the current case (in other words: the plot). The main character in those kind of stories usually gets some development, but its often diluted in a series of books rather than a single one.
So, in a way, characters are instrumental in pushing the plot forward.
Yet I wouldn't say that characters may be considered objects.
Even when you're writing a plot-driven story, whether it is a thriller, an action packed adventure, a war novel or a daring science fiction, treating your characters like disposable objects is a risky operation at best.
The audience won't feel engaged towards characters who are as shallow as cardboard. Shallow characters are bad for a story since they can dim a good plot.
Another risk is that if you don't define your characters, you risk making them inconsistent. Good stories are made up by conflict, but it has to be meaningful conflict. Characterization is a tool that helps you determine what choices a character should or should not make; and which character should move the plot forward.
If your cast is just a bunch of faceless puppets ready to do anything that's needed to advance the story, the audience will notice.
0 comment threads
No, characters aren't interchangeable. If they are, nobody wants to read it.
The plot happens to the characters, and people read to identify with the characters, as people, and they develop feelings for them (good and bad). Even in a plot-heavy story line, like those used in the current series Elementary (last season airing now; a Sherlock spin), the crime and how it was done is the "plot", but almost unimportant: Fans like that the plot is usually very clever, but what they remember about episodes is how the relationships develop: Joan (Dr. Watson) is unhappy living in London, Sherlock is concerned, Marcus stages a private intervention with Captain Gregson over his treatment of Sherlock, Sherlock tries to address some of Joan's complaints about the DI, and the cliffhanger: Captain Gregson gets shot, and might not make it. Next mystery: Who shot Captain Gregson?
Let's see, what was the crime in this episode? I forget, Sherlock solved it somehow. What we are watching is a man with an extraordinary skill that struggles with personal relationships but as a consequence of that values the few he does have all the more.
I'll say it again: Plots happen to characters, and that is why people are reading the story. In Harry Potter, the magic setting is very clever, the plots are basic mystery, but we are really reading to see how those things affect Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley (and a handful of others).
If you treat your characters like objects or chess pieces, nobody will care about them. When they stop caring what happens next to your character they will put the book down. Because it doesn't matter what happens next in the plot, if they aren't rooting for anybody, and aren't frightened for them, or frightened of the villain, then it isn't going to change anything for anybody they care about.
On the other hand, the more characters they DO care about, the less likely they are to put the book down.
I often say here, what keeps readers turning pages is wondering what happens next. How the scene will work out, how the chapter will work out, and eventually how the Act or whole book will work out. But the biggest reason they want to know what happens next is because it will have an effect on the characters.
You do have to have a plot, so something happens to the characters and readers can anticipate things happening to the characters. Complex and clever plots are entertaining; they keep the uncertainty of what happens next to the characters at a high level. Elaborate imaginative settings can be entertaining, they keep the reader wondering what they will see next, and often present fun problems for the characters to deal with.
Without characters to care about, those elements are worthless.
0 comment threads
Orson Scott Card described 4 types of story he called M.I.C.E. The goal is not to exclusively write 1 type of story, but to be aware which type your story is, and then work to include some of the other types as support. The technique is called M.I.C.E. Quotient.
M.I.C.E:
- Milieau ("big genre" setting, journey, time/place)
- Idea (transformative inventions, What if…?, alternate history)
- Character (internal conflict, want/need, protagonist/antagonist)
- Event (catastrophe, political change, external conflict)
Mary Robinette Kowal has adapted this idea into a nested structure called M.A.C.E., and she breaks down how each of these story-types are expected to open and close. She goes further by explaining that each element needs to close (in her words: "be answered") in the reverse order that they opened (each is nested within another). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAJT_-gpG4U
What both authors emphasize about these structures is that it's extremely rare to find a story that ignores 1 or more of these narrative elements – when they do exist, they aren't very good. Card and Kowal are considered experts at analyzing and writing fiction, so I offer this answer so you can do more research and decide if and how to add these techniques to your writing.
My personal advice is if you honestly have no interest in developing empathy for your characters, and prefer to move them around as objects like chessmen, you might feel more at home writing for a videogame or RPG where the "characters" are blank slates.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45464. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads