Character-driven vs. plot-driven

[Muphrid]

Spurred on by discussion on IRC this evening, what does it mean for a story to be character-driven vs. plot-driven?

On the one hand, the distinction seems obvious.  The former focuses on the characters: their relationships, feelings, and interactions are primary.  The latter focuses on actions, on schemes being put into motion and foiled.

Is that really the nature of the distinction, though?  For example, see this article. The author puts forward the notion that stories are really "action-driven vs. decision-driven," which appeals to me greatly.  I definitely feel that plot-heavy stories can put as much or more emphasis on the decisions that drive the story vs. the execution of those decisions.  But perhaps this is merely another axis on which to evaluate stories, separate from character vs. plot.

The two terms seem to split rather evenly in terms of genre and association with "art".  On the one hand, plot-driven is the home of the action-adventure.  On the other hand, genre romance is almost always character-driven in construction.  It seems the scriptwriting community considers plot-driven works "high-concept" and character-driven "low concept," which surprised me at first.  There seems to be an implicit association here between character-driven and a lack of need for new ideas or concepts in setting.

I admit that, in writing action-adventure, I've often felt compelled to try to balance that plot emphasis with strong character development: the realization of flaws, the choice of how to overcome those flaws, and so on and so forth.  I can't say I've felt the same effect the other way around--the need for more plot in a piece that otherwise focuses solely on character development.

But then, I could ask, "What is plot?"  Is a quest to topple an evil ruler plot?  Is a teacher helping a student with a troubled love life "plot"?  If both are plot (as the naive definition of the word seems to suggest--they are both events that help make up the narrative), then why should the latter be considered less plot-driven than the former?  Is it that the sources and targets of actions are almost always characters in the latter scenario?  If so, consider a tale of man vs. nature, a man stuck in the wilderness.  What happens in the environment constitutes acts of God and, unless God Himself is a character, those happenings come in from nowhere.  Nevertheless, if such a story focused on the toll that isolation takes on a person's psyche, it would almost certainly be character-driven, would it not?

If nothing else, I hope I've conveyed clearly my considerable confusion on these points.  What do these terms mean to you, either in what you've read or what you've written?

[Arakawa]

Well, the initial context for this discussion was Lost Twins and whether that concept is insufficiently plot-driven. In that case, the question is really whether the payoff for the reader consists in spending time with the characters and seeing how they came to make the decisions they make, regardless of whether these decisions fit into some plot, or whether the payoff has to be tied to the proper pacing of some set of external events (which seems to be a more typical requirement of this kind of fantasy, that I've blithely ignored).

i.e. the story is about how Simon and Powell meet and Powell comes to offer him an apprenticeship, and the decisions they both make that lead up to that point -- is that sufficient premise (so the plot is merely a structure that this happens in), or does it 'have' to be a focus on Simon and Powell defeating an old man's schemes? In that latter case the story structure is deficient, because that plot takes far too long to kick in, so it cannot be what carries the story; it appears explicitly, to some extent, only when it's necessary for the next step in developing the main characters.

The division in my story becomes all the more stark when the plot does kick in, because even though the old man wants to cause untold damage to New York -- but the primary purpose of all this to the story is to put Simon into a crisis situation where he finds out some unflattering things about what kind of person he is. That's -- really backwards if you judge it from a plot standpoint, but it makes sense because the character development is really what stays after the story -- the old man's plot is mostly foiled and forgotten, but the decisions and realizations that the characters make linger, and they'd provide the basis to build on in further stories.

Then the extremes of plot-driven vs character driven become a bit more obvious from where I'm standing.

In an extremely character-driven fic, the interest is in the characters to the extent that plot is subordinated to the needs of character development, and might indeed be absent entirely: if characterization is successful, we would be interested even in a fic where they sit around drinking tea, as long as we learn something new about them from that.

In an extremely plot-driven fic, the interest is more in having an interesting plot, which is a whole pile of elements I don't entirely understand; but I suppose it has to have a recognizable and interesting conflict, some kind of mechanism to provide entirely the right amount of foreshadowing, playing with the reader's expectations... the point is, the authors need to get those things right, and character development only occurs if it fits within that framework; you can't affort to mess with the pacing of a fast-paced story to give yourself time to unfold a character's thinking.

So it's not that both character- and plot- development cannot happen in a fic, the question is which you make a priority, and whether that works in a given story.

I think a good example of plot driven vs character driven distinction happens in something like the ending of Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Spoiler: ShowHide

There the focus on Aang for many of those four episodes is very much character driven; Aang is debating with himself over whether he can kill the Fire Lord, and the focus is very much on showing his decision why he refuses to do it even when all his prior incarnations tell him to torch the guy -- the focus is really not on the how he pulls that off. When the why is established, once he makes the decision the Lion Turtle shows up and just instantly gives him appropriate powers, without wasting time coming up with a more complex explanation -- then the action episodes at the end are like a visual statement of that, where the decision has been made and we see the consequences play out. Thus it's very deficient from a plot standpoint, but it still works because we're more interested in the character's internal struggle making his decision, and to that extent even a placeholder or deus ex machina in the plot realm is sufficient to move the events forward based on that.

Whereas something like the ending of Season 2 of the same series is more plot-driven, since it's very much driven by these factions in Ba Sing Se each having their own conspiracy and how they carry those out -- less so on why they're conspiring like that, which has either been established earlier on, or not really explored at all.

Haruhi novels also strike me as character-driven. There are a bunch of stories which use really spare and simple science fiction or suspense type of plots, which are really not what make the appeal. Something like Disappearance is successful and memorable because it ends up focusing on (a) Kyon's decision that the world he inhabits is worth keeping and (b) Yuki's development into a much more understandable character, and her feelings that led her misguided decision to try to rewrite the universe for Kyon's benefit; the 'someone wakes up and everything is mysteriously different' suspense plot, by comparison, is not that original or interesting. It's not bad, but here it very much applies that it does its job and goes away forever, while the character development remains with the characters, and serves to inform future stories. There are also a bunch of stories that really aren't much more sophisticated than 'everyone drinks tea and loafs around the clubroom' (e.g. the one where they all write short stories) -- but again, they're successful when they give an opportunity for certain kinds of character exploration, where the plot would even get in the way.

Moby Dick is ludicrously character- (and worldbuilding-) driven, in spite of all the action in it. It takes forever to get to the point, so first we spend chapters and chapters getting to know Ishmael and Queequeg, then chapters and chapters on the intricacies of whaling, and then gradually easing into the stuff with Ahab and his doomed rebellion against nature. At some point a plot happens, but it sure takes its sweet time waiting for the other stuff to be introduced. Again, putting literary pretensions aside, this is a very extreme case of the plot taking a backseat to the characters; so is this kind of thing an unsuccessful or an unsuccessful way to structure a story?

[Muphrid]

i.e. the story is about how Simon and Powell meet and Powell comes to offer him an apprenticeship, and the decisions they both make that lead up to that point -- is that sufficient premise (so the plot is merely a structure that this happens in), or does it 'have' to be a focus on Simon and Powell defeating an old man's schemes? In that latter case the story structure is deficient, because that plot takes far too long to kick in, so it cannot be what carries the story; it appears explicitly, to some extent, only when it's necessary for the next step in developing the main characters.

Phrased that way, at least (that the story is about Simon becoming Powell's apprentice), you definitely have a clear direction for the story to go, and that strikes me as more important than anything else.

The division in my story becomes all the more stark when the plot does kick in, because even though the old man wants to cause untold damage to New York -- but the primary purpose of all this to the story is to put Simon into a crisis situation where he finds out some unflattering things about what kind of person he is. That's -- really backwards if you judge it from a plot standpoint, but it makes sense because the character development is really what stays after the story -- the old man's plot is mostly foiled and forgotten, but the decisions and realizations that the characters make linger, and they'd provide the basis to build on in further stories.

Well, that does fit in with a good rule of storytelling--that the external events characters respond to should in turn stimulate, drive, or force resolution of internal conflict. Simon's realization of his flaws thanks to the old man's plot would fit in with the spirit of that rule.

I think a good example of plot driven vs character driven distinction happens in something like the ending of Avatar: The Last Airbender. [...]

Interesting example.  I think this shows just what shortcuts of plot we're willing to accept when the focus isn't on the sequence of actions but the sequence of decisions.

Haruhi novels also strike me as character-driven. There are a bunch of stories which use really spare and simple science fiction or suspense type of plots, which are really not what make the appeal. Something like Disappearance is successful and memorable because it ends up focusing on (a) Kyon's decision that the world he inhabits is worth keeping and (b) Yuki's development into a much more understandable character, and her feelings that led her misguided decision to try to rewrite the universe for Kyon's benefit; the 'someone wakes up and everything is mysteriously different' suspense plot, by comparison, is not that original or interesting. It's not bad, but here it very much applies that it does its job and goes away forever, while the character development remains with the characters, and serves to inform future stories. There are also a bunch of stories that really aren't much more sophisticated than 'everyone drinks tea and loafs around the clubroom' (e.g. the one where they all write short stories) -- but again, they're successful when they give an opportunity for certain kinds of character exploration, where the plot would even get in the way.

Yeah, I agree with this. Disappearance was quite good about this in giving Kyon a meaningful choice that ultimately reflected upon his desires and his wishes in making it. I started thinking what Haruhi would be like as a plot-driven story, and I realized it would go either in the direction of constantly trying to undo the damage Haruhi does to the fabric of the universe with her whims.  When Haruhi herself becomes an object or force to be defused, one that cannot develop and overcome flaws, the story takes a decidedly different tack.

Moby Dick is ludicrously character- (and worldbuilding-) driven, in spite of all the action in it. It takes forever to get to the point, so first we spend chapters and chapters getting to know Ishmael and Queequeg, then chapters and chapters on the intricacies of whaling, and then gradually easing into the stuff with Ahab and his doomed rebellion against nature. At some point a plot happens, but it sure takes its sweet time waiting for the other stuff to be introduced. Again, putting literary pretensions aside, this is a very extreme case of the plot taking a backseat to the characters; so is this kind of thing an unsuccessful or an unsuccessful way to structure a story?

More and more I think anything can be done provided that it largely matches the audience's expectations about it.  If you're looking for a quick and entertaining read, Moby Dick is not it.  If you're looking for more contemplation and ambiance, perhaps it is.  In the end, I think that's a question more of how a story is marketed, how it is presented to others.  It's clear enough to me that both kinds of stories have appeal, and it's probably better to worry whether one's executing one's intentions (character focus or plot focus) correctly.

[Jason_Miao]

But then, I could ask, "What is plot?"  Is a quest to topple an evil ruler plot?  Is a teacher helping a student with a troubled love life "plot"? 

Sure.

If both are plot (as the naive definition of the word seems to suggest--they are both events that help make up the narrative), then why should the latter be considered less plot-driven than the former? 

Because the primary focus for the former is usually the events that happen, and the later on the people themselves?  That's not to say that one can't address both in the same story, and a good story will address both. 

I say usually, because one could certainly (e.g) write a character-driven story of a heroic swordsman and tsundere witch who meet on a quest to kill the evil ruler, or a teacher who is a former gang member who has a unique perspective and goes through wacky hijinks to help out his students. 

In the former, the quest, while there, is just background and an excuse for the two characters to meet and work out their problems and realize how special they are to another.  That would be character-driven, even if the scenario is usually used for plot driven stories.  In the later, the troubled student is just a vehicle to introduce wacky hijinks.  That would be plot-driven, even if the characters are particularly colorful.

Is it that the sources and targets of actions are almost always characters in the latter scenario?  If so, consider a tale of man vs. nature, a man stuck in the wilderness.  What happens in the environment constitutes acts of God and, unless God Himself is a character, those happenings come in from nowhere.  Nevertheless, if such a story focused on the toll that isolation takes on a person's psyche, it would almost certainly be character-driven, would it not?

That sounds about right to me.

If nothing else, I hope I've conveyed clearly my considerable confusion on these points.  What do these terms mean to you, either in what you've read or what you've written?

[Muphrid]

Because the primary focus for the former is usually the events that happen, and the later on the people themselves?  That's not to say that one can't address both in the same story, and a good story will address both.

I find myself treating this concept (that the best stories do both) as something akin to a golden rule of writing, but I realize I understand this a lot better working one way than the other.  It seems easier, to me, to take a plot-driven story and add characterization and character development, than it does to take a character-driven story and add plot on top of that.  I can't help but wonder if this is merely an illusory asymmetry, that the process of "adding characterization and development" to a plot-driven story is no less artificial than American cheese:  it looks cheese-like, but it's really heavily processed and not at all like real cheese.

One explanation I could come up with was that one can't really add development on top of a story without allowing for the characters' decisions and choices to interact with and even change the plot in a substantial manner.  Can this work the other way around?  Can adding plot to a character-driven story change the character relationships and dynamics?  Assuredly; events and happenings that come out of nowhere give an opportunity to probe at aspects of character that would otherwise be inaccessible.

Still, even this idea seems unsatisfactory to me.  On some level, I suspect that plot-driven stories demand more attention to setting and world-building (and hence, a great deal of creativity), while characters tend to have more common traits, and writing their interactions demands only more social intelligence and attention to how people behave.

With all that rambling in mind, is there an inherent difference in how easy it is to improve one aspect of a story over another--character development vs. plot development?  How should writers go about trying to find a balance between these two elements, if balance is what they seek at all?

[Jason_Miao]

I find myself treating this concept (that the best stories do both) as something akin to a golden rule of writing, but I realize I understand this a lot better working one way than the other.  It seems easier, to me, to take a plot-driven story and add characterization and character development, than it does to take a character-driven story and add plot on top of that.  I can't help but wonder if this is merely an illusory asymmetry, that the process of "adding characterization and development" to a plot-driven story is no less artificial than American cheese:  it looks cheese-like, but it's really heavily processed and not at all like real cheese.

Perhaps an analogy with photos would help in perspective?

When tourists take photos of the scenic plains, towering mountains, or ancient ruins, they'll usually put a person in the shot for a variety of reasons "To make it more interesting" or "To put some perspective of the scale of the story".  When a studio photographer is taking a picture of a person or family, unless it's for a passport, they'll usually use a background since having just a person alone is considered boring.  In both types of photos, either driven by the world or driven by the people, the photographer adds some of the other element.  In both cases, it's often plainly artificial, but is still considered to make the picture better.

One explanation I could come up with was that one can't really add development on top of a story without allowing for the characters' decisions and choices to interact with and even change the plot in a substantial manner.

You're assuming that in a plot-driven story, it's improper to allow the character's decisions and choices to interact with and change the plot in a substantial manner.  If a writer does that, then it will certainly seem like an artificial addition, because that's precisely what it is. 

I believe that having the plot react in a meaningful way to the character's actions makes for a better plot-driven work.  Beowulf is the prototypical western hero.  If you decide to retell Beowulf but replace Beowulf with Miku, a stereotypical Japanese schoolgirl, and have everything end up just the same, you didn't really do much to the original story except replace the name.  What was the point of introducing such a character?  Instead, you could write it as a comedy (something like this ), satire ("I wish I'd taken practical skills at school, like kendo or archery instead of finance and physics"), promoting the value of knowledge ("I'm very that glad my knowledge in physics has allowed me to construct this FN-FAL, and my knowledge of finance has allowed me to organize the land's economics to permit funding its construction"), alternative dispute resolution (Miku uses diplomacy to make the troll an ally), modern sexuality ("Uhhh, I know the reward was to marry the princess, but I really don't swing that way...") or more?  The nature of the characters involved should, ideally, interact with the plot.  So long as the plot, slaying a troll, drives the story, then the story is still plot-driven.

By contrast, having characters interact but being unable to change the course of events is really better suited for character-driven works than plot-driven works.  It doesn't matter how often DeCaprio kisses Winslet; the Titanic is still going to sink.  That's okay though...the movie (presumptively, since I haven't actually seen it) isn't really about the Titanic per se but about the romance between two characters.  The Titanic and its events is just a backdrop.

[sarsaparilla]

This concept confuses me greatly, and the distinction seems anything but obvious. Overall, it looks like a fallacy to me; though, I cannot cite a widely known name for the particular form of fallacy. It isn't quite a false dichotomy, nor false equivalence ... maybe some combination of false bivalence and false analogy? Oversimplification?

Um.

It is like, as if one talked about human body types in terms of 'height-driven' versus 'weight-driven'. The least problem is that the quantities are not comparable, as one of them is measured in units of length and the other in units of mass. A larger problem is that those two are juxtaposed as endpoints of a sliding scale, ignoring that there can be both people who are tall and obese, or short and skinny. The largest problem is in assuming that the characteristic measures of a complex concept like 'body type' can be reduced into a linear scale in the first place, regardless of the chosen unit of measurement.

Is "Lord of the Rings" character-driven? To me, the characters appear extremely flat and uninteresting, even by fantasy standards. We know of Gimli that he has a beard. And an axe. That's about it. Those familiar with Discworld might even question the 'he' part. Is it plot-driven? It would be hard to argue in favor when the plot can be summarized in one sentence without losing any relevant details -- one must not conflate scale with intricacy. However, the thing that LotR has, to a rather obsessive degree, is world building. Should one then say that LotR is 'worldbuilding-driven'?

At least some science fiction is arguably 'ideas-driven'. The characters, if even present, may be shallow, the plot non-existent, the world building too sketchy to warrant a mention, but the essence of the work is that it takes a novel idea and examines it.

Some works take a historical epoch and concentrate on describing it in great detail. Poor characterization, no plot, no new ideas worth mentioning, no world building as much as there is piling of historical facts. 'Fact-driven' literature?

I am certain that these are not the only dimensions into which a piece of fiction can grow. However, what seems obvious to me is that each dimension should be examined separately, comparing, e.g., the richness of characterization in a story to the richness of characterization in average to see where the piece of work stands relative to the corpus of all literature.

So, instead of saying that a story is character-driven or plot-driven, or alternatively action-driven or decision-driven, a more reasonable approach would be to enumerate all major components that contribute to the whole, and estimate the amount of detail and consideration given to each component, school report style. That way, if characterization gets a B+ but plot a D-, it is probably justified to say that the plot is secondary to characterization.

Then, the issue of 'balance' between the components -- I believe that it depends completely on the intent of the author. The 'ideal' ratio between height and weight is different for a human and a cat, so any attempt to define just one fixed number will inevitably lead to grossly out of proportions results in some cases.

Thus, there must always be a subjective assessment of the importance of each component, and how they work together. Throwing in more of everything is not a valid answer, either. In this sense writing is not at all unlike cooking, where the correct proportion of ingredients depends completely on what one is supposed to make. Assessing food primarily in terms of it being 'sugar-driven' or 'salt-driven' would be rather ... odd, as would be to suggest that "add more salt" is solid advice regardless of recipe.

I hope that my rambling makes some sense. This is just how I see the issue. >_>

Personally, I am much more interested in characters and ideas than plot and action, and my stories probably reflect this preference. So, it would be rather unlikely of me to comment on a piece of work that it might benefit from 1 tsp more plot, just for flavor.

[Muphrid]

Perhaps an analogy with photos would help in perspective?

When tourists take photos of the scenic plains, towering mountains, or ancient ruins, they'll usually put a person in the shot for a variety of reasons "To make it more interesting" or "To put some perspective of the scale of the story".  When a studio photographer is taking a picture of a person or family, unless it's for a passport, they'll usually use a background since having just a person alone is considered boring.  In both types of photos, either driven by the world or driven by the people, the photographer adds some of the other element.  In both cases, it's often plainly artificial, but is still considered to make the picture better.

That does address the concern over how artificial such elements are, yes.  In this metaphor, it's almost as easy to put a person in a photo of a background as it is to put a background in a photo of a person. Is that the case for writing as well?

One explanation I could come up with was that one can't really add development on top of a story without allowing for the characters' decisions and choices to interact with and even change the plot in a substantial manner.

You're assuming that in a plot-driven story, it's improper to allow the character's decisions and choices to interact with and change the plot in a substantial manner.  If a writer does that, then it will certainly seem like an artificial addition, because that's precisely what it is. 

I believe that having the plot react in a meaningful way to the character's actions makes for a better plot-driven work.  Beowulf is the prototypical western hero.  If you decide to retell Beowulf but replace Beowulf with Miku, a stereotypical Japanese schoolgirl, and have everything end up just the same, you didn't really do much to the original story except replace the name.  What was the point of introducing such a character?  Instead, you could write it as a comedy (something like this ), satire ("I wish I'd taken practical skills at school, like kendo or archery instead of finance and physics"), promoting the value of knowledge ("I'm very that glad my knowledge in physics has allowed me to construct this FN-FAL, and my knowledge of finance has allowed me to organize the land's economics to permit funding its construction"), alternative dispute resolution (Miku uses diplomacy to make the troll an ally), modern sexuality ("Uhhh, I know the reward was to marry the princess, but I really don't swing that way...") or more?  The nature of the characters involved should, ideally, interact with the plot.  So long as the plot, slaying a troll, drives the story, then the story is still plot-driven.

By contrast, having characters interact but being unable to change the course of events is really better suited for character-driven works than plot-driven works.  It doesn't matter how often DeCaprio kisses Winslet; the Titanic is still going to sink.  That's okay though...the movie (presumptively, since I haven't actually seen it) isn't really about the Titanic per se but about the romance between two characters.  The Titanic and its events is just a backdrop.

Indeed, you've pointed out that there are a lot of ways a story can unfold even with the emphasis placed on the same basic elements.

And I really want to see Beowulf retold with a Japanese schoolgirl as the hero(ine) now.

This concept confuses me greatly, and the distinction seems anything but obvious. Overall, it looks like a fallacy to me; though, I cannot cite a widely known name for the particular form of fallacy. It isn't quite a false dichotomy, nor false equivalence ... maybe some combination of false bivalence and false analogy? Oversimplification?

Um.

It is like, as if one talked about human body types in terms of 'height-driven' versus 'weight-driven'. The least problem is that the quantities are not comparable, as one of them is measured in units of length and the other in units of mass. A larger problem is that those two are juxtaposed as endpoints of a sliding scale, ignoring that there can be both people who are tall and obese, or short and skinny. The largest problem is in assuming that the characteristic measures of a complex concept like 'body type' can be reduced into a linear scale in the first place, regardless of the chosen unit of measurement.

I think it likely that all such sweeping categorizations are themselves oversimplified, yes.  And I think you just happened upon a one-paragraph criticism of body-mass index.

But taking that idea further, then you're suggesting that plot-emphasis and character-emphasis can be considered separate axes, and a work could focus very much on both, very little on both, or much more on one than the other, and so on.  On the other hand, it would make sense to say that focus or attention is finite, and so in theory, one can't focus on both aspects of storytelling to an equal and arbitrarily large extent.  I suspect that's the way the thinking goes, but I am intrigued by the consequences if it's not the case.  What would a story that focuses very little on both character and plot look like?

Perhaps this ties into what you're getting at below.

Is "Lord of the Rings" character-driven? To me, the characters appear extremely flat and uninteresting, even by fantasy standards. We know of Gimli that he has a beard. And an axe. That's about it. Those familiar with Discworld might even question the 'he' part. Is it plot-driven? It would be hard to argue in favor when the plot can be summarized in one sentence without losing any relevant details -- one must not conflate scale with intricacy. However, the thing that LotR has, to a rather obsessive degree, is world building. Should one then say that LotR is 'worldbuilding-driven'?

At least some science fiction is arguably 'ideas-driven'. The characters, if even present, may be shallow, the plot non-existent, the world building too sketchy to warrant a mention, but the essence of the work is that it takes a novel idea and examines it.

Some works take a historical epoch and concentrate on describing it in great detail. Poor characterization, no plot, no new ideas worth mentioning, no world building as much as there is piling of historical facts. 'Fact-driven' literature?

I am certain that these are not the only dimensions into which a piece of fiction can grow. However, what seems obvious to me is that each dimension should be examined separately, comparing, e.g., the richness of characterization in a story to the richness of characterization in average to see where the piece of work stands relative to the corpus of all literature.

So, instead of saying that a story is character-driven or plot-driven, or alternatively action-driven or decision-driven, a more reasonable approach would be to enumerate all major components that contribute to the whole, and estimate the amount of detail and consideration given to each component, school report style. That way, if characterization gets a B+ but plot a D-, it is probably justified to say that the plot is secondary to characterization.

Then, the issue of 'balance' between the components -- I believe that it depends completely on the intent of the author. The 'ideal' ratio between height and weight is different for a human and a cat, so any attempt to define just one fixed number will inevitably lead to grossly out of proportions results in some cases.

Thus, there must always be a subjective assessment of the importance of each component, and how they work together. Throwing in more of everything is not a valid answer, either. In this sense writing is not at all unlike cooking, where the correct proportion of ingredients depends completely on what one is supposed to make. Assessing food primarily in terms of it being 'sugar-driven' or 'salt-driven' would be rather ... odd, as would be to suggest that "add more salt" is solid advice regardless of recipe.

I hope that my rambling makes some sense. This is just how I see the issue. >_>

Personally, I am much more interested in characters and ideas than plot and action, and my stories probably reflect this preference. So, it would be rather unlikely of me to comment on a piece of work that it might benefit from 1 tsp more plot, just for flavor.

I certainly see no issue in breaking down fiction across all these various elements or categories.  I suspect people avoid doing things this way because it's not nearly as simple or catchy as a short phrase ("character-driven or plot-driven"), but I would gladly sacrifice succinctness for correctness here.

Ah, Lord of the Rings.  I dare say LotR is linguistics-driven, but that's more of a jab at Tolkien than the text itself might suggest.  I agree that LotR is very dry reading.  The plot ambles along in no hurry, and a lot of the characters are vaguely defined.

I definitely agree that more of everything is no solution.  There are constraints based on genre.  A romance is not expected to have a substantial plot, and in some cases adding plot would be considered distracting and unwelcome.  Another example that comes to mind is a police procedural (even though this is more of a television genre).  I've heard complaints about such shows when the episodes spend more time on the main characters than they do the murder mystery, for instance.  There is an expectation that certain types of stories will conform to certain balances in different storytelling elements.

To be honest, I might just steal some of your dimensions (particularly "worldbuilding" but possibly "ideas" also, when I can figure out if/how that's different from theme, but that's an entire conversation in itself) for criticism in the future.

[Jason_Miao]

Perhaps an analogy with photos would help in perspective?

When tourists take photos of the scenic plains, towering mountains, or ancient ruins, they'll usually put a person in the shot for a variety of reasons "To make it more interesting" or "To put some perspective of the scale of the story".  When a studio photographer is taking a picture of a person or family, unless it's for a passport, they'll usually use a background since having just a person alone is considered boring.  In both types of photos, either driven by the world or driven by the people, the photographer adds some of the other element.  In both cases, it's often plainly artificial, but is still considered to make the picture better.

That does address the concern over how artificial such elements are, yes.  In this metaphor, it's almost as easy to put a person in a photo of a background as it is to put a background in a photo of a person. Is that the case for writing as well?

In terms of ease yes.  In terms of getting the most out of ones writing (or even having a decent quality work as opposed to the cliche "vacation slides" quality of writing), there is a bit more effort and artistry required.  Tourist Trevor waiving at the camera on African safari will never have quite the same depth of impact on its viewers as the vulture/starving child picture.

One explanation I could come up with was that one can't really add development on top of a story without allowing for the characters' decisions and choices to interact with and even change the plot in a substantial manner.

You're assuming that in a plot-driven story, it's improper to allow the character's decisions and choices to interact with and change the plot in a substantial manner.  If a writer does that, then it will certainly seem like an artificial addition, because that's precisely what it is. 

I believe that having the plot react in a meaningful way to the character's actions makes for a better plot-driven work.  Beowulf is the prototypical western hero.  If you decide to retell Beowulf but replace Beowulf with Miku, a stereotypical Japanese schoolgirl, and have everything end up just the same, you didn't really do much to the original story except replace the name.  What was the point of introducing such a character?  Instead, you could write it as a comedy (something like this ), satire ("I wish I'd taken practical skills at school, like kendo or archery instead of finance and physics"), promoting the value of knowledge ("I'm very that glad my knowledge in physics has allowed me to construct this FN-FAL, and my knowledge of finance has allowed me to organize the land's economics to permit funding its construction"), alternative dispute resolution (Miku uses diplomacy to make the troll an ally), modern sexuality ("Uhhh, I know the reward was to marry the princess, but I really don't swing that way...") or more?  The nature of the characters involved should, ideally, interact with the plot.  So long as the plot, slaying a troll, drives the story, then the story is still plot-driven.

By contrast, having characters interact but being unable to change the course of events is really better suited for character-driven works than plot-driven works.  It doesn't matter how often DeCaprio kisses Winslet; the Titanic is still going to sink.  That's okay though...the movie (presumptively, since I haven't actually seen it) isn't really about the Titanic per se but about the romance between two characters.  The Titanic and its events is just a backdrop.

Indeed, you've pointed out that there are a lot of ways a story can unfold even with the emphasis placed on the same basic elements.

And I really want to see Beowulf retold with a Japanese schoolgirl as the hero(ine) now.

Heh.  I'd actually thought about it a bit after the post and realized that if you take out the "Bambi v Godzilla" link, the examples could be thrown together to form an oddball plot outline.  The writing style could be modeled after one of those "Engineer in a foreign land" sci-fi stories in the early to mid 1900s.  The ingredients of black powder are known, so a musket type weapon is feasible (although the image of a meek Japanese school girl with assault rifle lighting up a dragon, saying "Ara, ara"  *BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM* while running away from an aggressive fiancee refuses to leave my mind).

Is "Lord of the Rings" character-driven? To me, the characters appear extremely flat and uninteresting, even by fantasy standards. We know of Gimli that he has a beard. And an axe. That's about it. Those familiar with Discworld might even question the 'he' part. Is it plot-driven? It would be hard to argue in favor when the plot can be summarized in one sentence without losing any relevant details -- one must not conflate scale with intricacy. However, the thing that LotR has, to a rather obsessive degree, is world building. Should one then say that LotR is 'worldbuilding-driven'?

I'd consider LotR to be plot-driven.  Advancement of the story in LotR is determined by worldly events, not by character development.  Most sci-fi stories, even if based on scientific ideas (although considering what passes for sci-fi these days...) or speculation of the impact of technology, are still considered to have moved forward based on advancement of events.  So they could be considered plot driven.

Regarding the appropriate amount of plot and character, I think that in some way, the are also audience-driven contributions.  For example, 80s action movies include the Rambo series, Predator, and much more, where the protagonist is a big badass meathead that has minimal characterization and is all about shooting/exploding a path to the next scene.  Those movies were wildly successful back in the day.  Occasionally, someone tries to make a similar movie these days, but they tend to be unsuccessful.  Today, movie-going audiences expect more from their characters.  They want flaws, human weaknesses, etc.

A type of story that balances classic character development with extensive plot is the bildungsroman.  It's primarily character driven, since the lessens are how the boy grows to a man, but at least in fantasy or sci-fi, it's usually done in the context of an epic-scale adventure.

[sarsaparilla]

I might just steal some of your dimensions (particularly "worldbuilding" but possibly "ideas" also, when I can figure out if/how that's different from theme

To me, 'theme' inherently suggests recurrence of an idea, with its presence justified by the context it provides for a proper interpretation of described events. As such, themes can be seen as background elements. In contrast, a work exploring an idea might not contain any recurrence, and the idea itself is the primary focus of attention, with all the other elements providing the necessary context. For an idea to warrant such a treatment, it should be new or unfamiliar, whereas most themes are chosen precisely because the related ideas are well-known and appreciated, and thus facilitate interpretation.

As an example of an 'idea-driven' story, please consider "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury, a science fiction short story illustrating the butterfly effect that was a radical idea at the time the piece was written. The idea is the focus of the story and the sole rationale for its existence; a variant of the story without the idea would not make any sense.

As a side note, that story was mandatory reading at school when I was about thirteen, and when it was discussed in the class afterwards I was astonished to discover that our teacher totally missed the whole point of the story. Instead of mentioning the butterfly effect and how it was related to the resolution, she talked about psychology and how people in an agitated state of mind can make incorrect observations. In her interpretation, the change in history as described by the protagonist was just a hallucination!

I did not care to point out her mistake, but it certainly made a dent in my appreciation of teachers, or adults in general, as authority figures.

On the other hand, a theme is not unlike the code of law in a law procedural series. It will come up repeatedly and provide 'local flavor' for the series. However, it only exists as a context in which to explore other avenues, most likely those related to characters. An idea-driven (or fact-driven) law series would look quite different, primarily because the focus would be in exploring the law itself, not the humans involved with it. And curiously enough, something like that actually exists, at least in comic book format: The Illustrated Guide to Law. While there are characters and recognizable plot elements, both are completely subservient to the purpose of illustrating relevant concepts. Comparing that to something like "Boston Legal" highlights the difference between treated-as-an-idea and treated-as-a-theme.

I'd consider LotR to be plot-driven.  Advancement of the story in LotR is determined by worldly events, not by character development.

"Halfling walks into Mordor to destroy the One Ring." This, in essence, is LotR in one sentence. As I said, length doesn't equal depth. The premise is laid out early on in the work, and then carried out as such. In between the two plot-critical points -- the decision to destroy the ring and the actual destruction -- there are whole books of ... stuff that just happens, without affecting the end result. The premise never evolves, new revelations or circumstances that would require changing the objective never arise, reader's interpretation of the setting is never challenged, there is no plotting and counter-plotting whatsoever taking place between the protagonists and the antagonist, who broods endlessly on top of his tower sipping tea, completely ignorant of the whole endeavor. The plot is just as static as it is simplistic.

As an exercise that showcases the underlying hollowness, please consider a version of LotR written from Sauron's PoV. It would take a thesaurus and epic wordsmithing skills to get past page one without repeating the word 'glower' hundreds of times.

In contrast, there exist works like Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle with a plot so complex and intricately woven that even the authors admit being somewhat uncertain about how it all fits together.

This consideration also highlights the problem with the "character-driven versus plot-driven" approach. LotR can only be said to be plot-driven because it is very obvious that it isn't character-driven. However, since the plot in LotR is also extremely basic, 'plot-driven' becomes just another way of saying 'not-character-driven' instead of indicating the presence of a substantial plot.

[alethiophile]

I think that, in-universe, Sauron's time during the events of LotR was largely occupied with various, uh, I guess you'd call it 'diplomatic' efforts, aimed at building the coalition designed to destroy Gondor (Men of Harad, Corsairs, and so forth). That and babysitting Ringwraiths. However, since none of this had a significant effect on the plot as we see it (the quest to destroy the Ring), I suppose you could call it more evidence of LotR's focus around worldbuilding (in that establishing that these nations existed and had X relationship with Sauron or the Men of Numenor is more important than either tying their actions into an existing plot, or exploring the psychology of any of their members).

[Jason_Miao]

I'd consider LotR to be plot-driven.  Advancement of the story in LotR is determined by worldly events, not by character development.

"Halfling walks into Mordor to destroy the One Ring." This, in essence, is LotR in one sentence. As I said, length doesn't equal depth. The premise is laid out early on in the work, and then carried out as such. In between the two plot-critical points -- the decision to destroy the ring and the actual destruction -- there are whole books of ... stuff that just happens, without affecting the end result. The premise never evolves, new revelations or circumstances that would require changing the objective never arise, reader's interpretation of the setting is never challenged, there is no plotting and counter-plotting whatsoever taking place between the protagonists and the antagonist, who broods endlessly on top of his tower sipping tea, completely ignorant of the whole endeavor. The plot is just as static as it is simplistic.

Everything you've said shows that the plot may not be a quality plot, by our modern standards.  I agree with that.

But to my understanding, plot-driven or character-driven isn't about how well the story covers those particular aspects, but about what is the metric by which a story is said to advance.   The plot advances by forming the Fellowship, moving striking through Mordor, the breaking of the Fellowship, Gandalf's resurrection, etc...

Was it told well?  Was it interesting?  Perhaps not, but the plot events measure the advancement of the story.   So, the plot drives the story, even if not the story is not driven as well as it could be.

As an exercise that showcases the underlying hollowness, please consider a version of LotR written from Sauron's PoV. It would take a thesaurus and epic wordsmithing skills to get past page one without repeating the word 'glower' hundreds of times.

Sauron is essentially an evil god (and yes, after years of playing the Angband roguelike, I know that he's not actually The Evil God of the Tolkien universe, but that's his literary role in LotR).  He serves as the objective antagonist force, so I'd agree that anything told from his perspective would be about as interesting as a story of Man vs. Nature told from the perspective of a forest fire. 

So let me alter your experiment slightly.  What about the story told from Saruman's perspective?  There was a story posted in the fic thread that purported to be a crossover of LotR and David Drake's Generals series, from the perspective of Saruman.  I was pretty eager to read that one because the premise had promise (and unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, I felt it didn't quite live up to its promise).  Saruman plots and schemes to build his own powerbase.  He runs a game of deception on the Valar, and later Sauron.   He sends out armies of orcs to accomplish strategic objectives.  He innovates and industrializes in a world which looks towards old magic and old powers.  So, an altverse from Saruman's perspective, where Saurman applies modern capitalist theory and combat doctrine, and to see how the events of LotR are altered as a result?  I'd think that could be fantastic (no pun intended).

As an aside, the LotR plot is much deeper than its roots.  The concept of the Ring, the curse, etc, is partially derived from Wagner's Ring Cycle, which was itself highly based on, and considered an advancement, over Norse Mythology.  And...well, opera plots are usually just one to three line descriptions.   Wagner's Ring Cycle is more complex than anything that can be summarized in three lines, but then again, it's also four operas.  And while mythology as a whole may be very deep, individual stories tend not to be.

[Muphrid]

I'd consider LotR to be plot-driven.  Advancement of the story in LotR is determined by worldly events, not by character development.  Most sci-fi stories, even if based on scientific ideas (although considering what passes for sci-fi these days...) or speculation of the impact of technology, are still considered to have moved forward based on advancement of events.  So they could be considered plot driven.

Regarding the appropriate amount of plot and character, I think that in some way, the are also audience-driven contributions.  For example, 80s action movies include the Rambo series, Predator, and much more, where the protagonist is a big badass meathead that has minimal characterization and is all about shooting/exploding a path to the next scene.  Those movies were wildly successful back in the day.  Occasionally, someone tries to make a similar movie these days, but they tend to be unsuccessful.  Today, movie-going audiences expect more from their characters.  They want flaws, human weaknesses, etc.

A type of story that balances classic character development with extensive plot is the bildungsroman.  It's primarily character driven, since the lessens are how the boy grows to a man, but at least in fantasy or sci-fi, it's usually done in the context of an epic-scale adventure.

I think this viewpoint is getting back to what may have originally been meant by "driven".  In that sense, I want to distinguish between focus or attention and what actually moves the story along.  I think for LotR, what moves the story forward?  The outcomes of battles, the strategies and tactics from the players involved, or the revelations that change the assessment of the situation at hand.  I think these are all qualities associated with plot being the main element of forward progress.

That said, I won't deny that there is a great deal of focus on the world, on the fictional history of the world, on making the various nations and peoples as tangible as possible in a collective sense.

So I propose, then, that LotR is plot-driven but worldbuilding-focused.

What could be the focus of a piece?  I can think of a few possibilities:  worldbuilding, actions, decisions, and ideas.  For instance, I can imagine a plot-driven yet decision-focused piece having more emphasis on character development even while the larger story moves ahead largely to follow plot-related events.  The story would then be about how the plot affects a character and forces him or her to grow and change.

It's a thought, at least.  It definitely feels to me that there are a couple disparate qualities being considered here, and perhaps the best solution is to clearly delineate how those qualities should be kept separate.  And I think as a way of looking at things goes, it probably would need to answer the question, "Can a story be only plot- or character-driven under this scheme?"  This is something you touched on, sars, that often enough we say a story is plot-driven as an analysis of exclusion, only really saying that the story isn't character-driven.  The existence of a third avenue would really change that thinking, but having tried to split off focus from driving force, I realize I'm not sure if there's anyting else left.

To me, 'theme' inherently suggests recurrence of an idea, with its presence justified by the context it provides for a proper interpretation of described events. As such, themes can be seen as background elements. In contrast, a work exploring an idea might not contain any recurrence, and the idea itself is the primary focus of attention, with all the other elements providing the necessary context. For an idea to warrant such a treatment, it should be new or unfamiliar, whereas most themes are chosen precisely because the related ideas are well-known and appreciated, and thus facilitate interpretation.

As an example of an 'idea-driven' story, please consider "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury, a science fiction short story illustrating the butterfly effect that was a radical idea at the time the piece was written. The idea is the focus of the story and the sole rationale for its existence; a variant of the story without the idea would not make any sense.

As a side note, that story was mandatory reading at school when I was about thirteen, and when it was discussed in the class afterwards I was astonished to discover that our teacher totally missed the whole point of the story. Instead of mentioning the butterfly effect and how it was related to the resolution, she talked about psychology and how people in an agitated state of mind can make incorrect observations. In her interpretation, the change in history as described by the protagonist was just a hallucination!

I did not care to point out her mistake, but it certainly made a dent in my appreciation of teachers, or adults in general, as authority figures.

On the other hand, a theme is not unlike the code of law in a law procedural series. It will come up repeatedly and provide 'local flavor' for the series. However, it only exists as a context in which to explore other avenues, most likely those related to characters. An idea-driven (or fact-driven) law series would look quite different, primarily because the focus would be in exploring the law itself, not the humans involved with it. And curiously enough, something like that actually exists, at least in comic book format: The Illustrated Guide to Law. While there are characters and recognizable plot elements, both are completely subservient to the purpose of illustrating relevant concepts. Comparing that to something like "Boston Legal" highlights the difference between treated-as-an-idea and treated-as-a-theme.

Indeed, I think you're right on how theme is different from a single idea.  It strikes me that short stories may be better suited to such targeted, focused delivery of an idea.

I had not read "A Sound of Thunder," but I realize now it was cannibalized into an atrocious move that tends to be aired no earlier than 2 AM, for obvious reasons, that I've had the misfortune of sitting through a few times.  Well, misfortune may be putting it strongly.  It's awful enough that it wraps around into absurdity, so at least there's that.

Alas, I'm not surprised to hear that literature teachers can be so misinformed.  I think back on grade-school mathematics and realize just how ill-equipped many of the teachers were for that subject, too.

I'm still interested in trying to understand some of these differences between an idea and a theme.  Could a longer work be based around a single idea?  Would it be considered inherent to the premise?  If a longer work must have multiple distinct ideas to sustain it, would the relationships between those ideas necessarily expose some theme?

I'm quite fascinated by this precisely because it seems like a concept not typically discussed in broad treatments of the elements of literature.  It may well be that the concept does exist and merely has some other name, but I haven't yet found it, so trying to figure out how this fits in with established thinking is something that's sticking with me.

[Arakawa]

Wow, a lot of stuff to catch up with....

I'm quite fascinated by this precisely because it seems like a concept not typically discussed in broad treatments of the elements of literature.  It may well be that the concept does exist and merely has some other name, but I haven't yet found it, so trying to figure out how this fits in with established thinking is something that's sticking with me.

Well, the reason I originally found this useful to talk about for the purpose of writing (as opposed to reading and analyzing) was to be able to pinpoint whether or not I was betraying genre expectations in terms of how quickly the plot advances, how much detail is lavished on the characters, how much digression is tolerated... and then, if I was bending or betraying these genre expectations, I'd need to figure out if that was the right thing to do and how to signal it ahead of time so that the reader doesn't feel like they've been subjected to a bait-and-switch.

People inevitably compare any new work they look at to stuff they've seen before, and assume that if it resembles a popular story in some respects, there are other conventions that carry over. Some of these conventions really are common to all literature and storytelling (so that breaking them is likely to end up in some disjointed rambling such as Finnegan's Wake). Many more of them -- in particular, the whole issue of how the story is structured -- are genre-specific.

So, if a story starts out resembling Harry Potter, people are inevitably going to expect, at least on some level, a 'police procedural' type of structure, where most of the story is structured along the lines of: strange things happen at Hogwarts, our intrepid heroes get in all kinds of exciting trouble investigating it, then at the end there is a reveal-slash-confrontation scene that hopefully presents a clever twist and ties together all the Chekhov's guns from earlier. In that framework, a solid chapter or several chapters where the characters interact with one another, while the procedural makes zero progress, is at best a tolerable digression.

(I recall now how Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell -- probably the most notable out-of-genre work I can remember off the top of my head -- handled this: although it was a novel about magic and magicians, it starts out with a long, imitation Jane Austen sequence detailing the petty intellectual feuds of a bunch of Yorkshire gentlemen who study the history of magic, and no actual magic. There is thus no possibility of confusing it with something like Harry Potter.

Lord of the Rings, to be honest, played a similar trick. If you pick it up as a fantasy adventure, and successfully last through both Concerning Hobbits and then the opening devoted mostly to Bilbo's birthday celebrations, your mind will have adjusted to the fact that the author is firmly committed to telling this story whichever way he wants.)

With Lost Twins I tried to do something similar with the Prologue, which is about twice as detailed as it needs to be; but on some level that might have backfired, since I still got comments that seemed to consider the story as being paced around Old Frost's scheme with the notebooks, as opposed to being paced around Simon's attempt to get oriented in an unfamiliar setting. (e.g. a comment that it was odd to dwell so much on the genie; well, this is a concrete example of plot-driven versus something else. Here the something else is that it would make sense for Simon to question how a being that existed mostly to grant other people's wishes would think, and how much of his assumptions about something that looks and acts human are actually valid in this case. So, in that sense, it would be both character- and worldbuilding- driven, since on the one hand it makes perfect sense for Simon to stop and focus on this detail even if a plot-driven book wouldn't, and it serves to establish how he interacts with Powell as she tries to explain everything to him; on the other hand, the bulk of the interaction then boils down to questions and exposition.)

Oddly, the comparison that comes to mind that would set a more adequate set of expectations, is something like Alice in Wonderland, only in New York; a lot of strange things pop up that don't bear on the main plot progression, but they aren't complete random nonsense either, since they tie back to the real world in odd ways (e.g. genies and modern architecture or bureaucracy). I'm not sure how to build that angle of it up, particularly since the comparison isn't even close to accurate, but it's a lot less jarring to pick up something you expect to be like Alice in Wonderland and discover as you read that a large portion of the randomness does come together to form coherent plot, worldbuilding, and character development (though on its own time), as opposed to picking up something you expect to be a Harry Potter or Dresden Files type story and then proceed to trip over all kinds of digressions that expand details of the world that aren't given focus in those kinds books. (At least, Rowling is terribly lax about details; I haven't read Dresden Files.)

Sorry that my contribution to this discussion mostly involves coming back to my own story, it's what I'm thinking about much more than the abstract issue of what it means for a story to be plot-driven in general....

[Ergoemos]

I'm still interested in trying to understand some of these differences between an idea and a theme.  Could a longer work be based around a single idea?  Would it be considered inherent to the premise?  If a longer work must have multiple distinct ideas to sustain it, would the relationships between those ideas necessarily expose some theme?

I'm quite fascinated by this precisely because it seems like a concept not typically discussed in broad treatments of the elements of literature.  It may well be that the concept does exist and merely has some other name, but I haven't yet found it, so trying to figure out how this fits in with established thinking is something that's sticking with me.

If I may jump in with a smaller tidbit here, I think that it is quite possible to make a longer story about a single idea without it being the theme. Of course, there must be other ideas rotating in the periphery or else there wouldn't be a setting or characters.

I think that the best novel I can think of that follows this through is Saturn's Children. The idea: "In a sufficiently advanced future, what happens to the A.I. when all the humans die out?"

This is the core idea behind the story. There are some other ideas, like no faster than light travel, and A.I. developed colonization of the solar system, but those are just supporting ideas. They could be replaced, and the story would remain (largely) the same.

Idea based novels or stories, I think, ask a question. They don't cast judgement on the question directly, they just explore the question. Speculative fiction is the greatest source of "idea driven" stories. Other examples include Flowers for Algernon or Lest Darkness Fall.

Themes are trying to tell the audience something. They aren't a question. If we took the same premise above, and made it into a "Theme" it would be as follows, "We as human beings should take care to treat our future artificial intelligence with respect."

Now, was that theme part of Saturn's Children? Maybe. Its up to the reader to decide that. It is certainly not a *recurring* theme of the book, as far as I recall.

At least, that's how I think of it. I am not as good at providing examples of "Theme Driven" books. Maybe books with recurring lessons, or tones, like Great Expectations or Invisible Man? (Not The Invisible Man, mind you.) I was never very attentive to books that tried to force me to see their perspective.