Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23477
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23477
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 2