Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47982
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47982
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Yes, there is an objectively better place to start, and that is with character. This is not to say that it is the only place to start. As long as you put all the bits together in the end, it doesn't matter how you got there. However, you stand to save yourself a lot of bother if you start with character.

Why? Because the function of plot is to force your characters into the place where they have to stand and face the climactic decision or action that defines the story.

Well, you might say, isn't that climactic decision of action simply the climax of the plot?

And yes it is, in a sense. But in a sense it isn't. Rather it is the moment that reveals, that finally pulls back all the layers, that strips all the masks, from character. To create a character, therefore, it to create the necessity of that moment as the crisis that defines that character. Character and crisis are made for one another.

In fact, it would be better to say that you start with character and crisis as a combination, not with character alone. But make no mistake: the crisis belongs to and defines a character. The exact same even might be inconsequential for a different character, or a different character might never be persuaded to face that moment of crisis at all. The character is made for the crisis, and the crisis for the character.

What is the plot for? Well, the character does not want to face the crisis. No one wants to face a crisis if they can avoid it. Crises are painful. Logically, the character will twist and turn to avoid coming to the crisis. The function of plot is to guide or force them along the path that make it impossible for them to avoid the crisis. Plot exists, in other words, to bring character to crisis.

If you try to design a plot first, you will essentially be trying to force a character you have not thought of into a crisis that can only be conceived of in terms of the character you have not thought of yet. At best, you are going to describe a sequence of events, a history, and then you are going to try to frog march a character through that sequence to the crisis. But that chances that you have created the right plot to bring that character to that crisis are slim, so your character is probably going to turn out quite inconsistent as you try to force them through the course you designed in advance without considering them.

So, character comes first. More specifically, character and crisis comen first, and then plot is devised to bring the character to their crisis.

However, there is a big caveat to this. In genre fiction, you deal with stock characters and you lead them to stock crises. You don't need to create the character or the crisis because you take them off the shelf. The genre provide all the variations you need. All you have to do is take those ingredients and wrap a new plot round them.

In the genre case, therefore, plot does come first, in terms of your workload, because the characters are off the shelf. However, you still need to understand your off-the-shelf characters and guide them compellingly to their off-the-shelf crisis. That still requires considerable craft, and you won't get there by creating an imaginary history without selecting and understanding the off-the-shelf components of your story provided by your genre. So in the end, character comes first.

If you start with plot, you may still get there in the end, but you will have to bend your plot to suit your characters once you do figure them out. Starting with character should reduce the pain.

Then again, you are not in charge of where your muse decides to begin, so if plot is what comes to your first, you may just have to lump it.

Original score: 0