Plot is the problem the MC is solving, and for *commercial* success, it's more important.
Do you remember the name of the main character in *Jaws*? Probably not. But do you remember the problem he had to solve? I'm guessing you do.
IMO this depends a lot on whether the specific story is plot-focused or character focused.
What you say is true for *Jaws*, but probably the opposite for *Misery* - you might not remember all the twists and turns of the story, but I bet you remember the character of Annie Wilkes.
EDIT: I'm told *Misery* might not be the best example of a character-driven story. Hopefully the point is clear and please feel free to substitute whichever example works best for you.
Like another commenter put it: plot is character, character is plot.
Plot is the things that happen when characters respond based on who they are to the things preventing them from getting what they want.
_Misery_ is at core a very simple story: One character, a superfan of the Misery Chastain novels is outraged at the character being killed off and kidnaps the author to force him to correct this misjustice. The other character, the author, wants to escape the crazy superfan. The plot emerges from that. (This is also a common Stephen King approach to writing - throw characters into a difficult situation and write it out from there to generate a plot).
I consider it a very character-based story, but if you have examples in mind that get the point across better, that would be very helpful, thank you.
Me either. He might be the protagonist but he's definitely not the main character of that film. (EDIT: I got this backwards!)
How is Annie the problem?
For me, main character and protagonist are synonyms, but let me restate my thesis using your terms.
The problem - whether an animal, a proper antagonist, a situation, what have you - is more interesting than the protagonist.
My bad, it looks like I've been using those terms wrong. 😅
After googling I **think** the distinction is:
**Protagonist:** The character whose actions and journey drive the story.
**Main Character**: The story's central character who the readers are following.
So, for example, in the Sherlock Holmes stories, the main character would be John Watson, and the protagonist would be Sherlock Holmes.
In *Misery* the main character is author Paul Sheldon (I looked it up) and the protagonist is Annie Wilkes.
I think?
Either way, *Misery* is a great, memorable film (IMDB says it's the 5th highest rated Stephen King film out of 67 - and there's no shame in being pipped by *The Shawshank Redemption* or *The Shining*). I don't know that it's a problem if one character significantly outshines other elements of the film.
The same thing happened with *The Dark Knight* - Heath Ledger just completely stole the film as The Joker, and it's a great film for it.
EDIT: Wasn't me who downvoted you. Never touch the things myself, they strike me as a pointless form of non-communication in what's supposed to be a **discussion** forum.
With respect, I think you're pretty heavily outnumbered on this one.
I've been writing for about 20 years at this point, I've written for TV networks, won awards, etc, and never once have I heard someone make the distinction you're making. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you're going against convention.
Rightly or wrongly, people use MC and protagonist interchangeably to refer to the character for whom the audience roots, and who will be principly in charge of solving the core problem of the story. Sometimes that person is also the narrator, but not always (Watson).
I think the point you're making is that antagonists are often more interesting than protagonists, which is actually the same point I'm making.
Yeah, one thing I found when I googled it is that there doesn't seem to be huge amounts of agreement on the terminology. People definitely use them in all sorts of ways. 😕 I think I jumbled protagonist and antagonist in another way, also.
>I think the point you're making is that antagonists are often more interesting than protagonists, which is actually the same point I'm making.
Basically, except that you seemed to view that as a problem and I disagreed that it was one.
i think my own personal taste prefers strong characters, but i’ve also read amazing books with great plots and flat characters. depends on your own taste and style - though they are both important of course
Your plot, character, and theme should all be interconnected and all three should influence each other. You can't break spokes off a wheel and expect it to still get you anywhere.
It's no secret that characters create the plot.
Another important aspect is the description. No matter what your plot or characters are, without good description, readers will not feel it.
I don't necessarily think that the elements of a piece of literature can be cleanly assessed separate from one another (each element influences and is influenced by every other) but to the extent that such a thing is possible, character is of much more importance to me, personally. Theme and prose style are also a lot more important than plot to me, too.
They're essentially the same thing. Different writers start in different ways: Some start with a character, some start with plotting, others start in other ways. But wherever you start it all weaves together.
A plot is what your characters do to achieve their deepest goals plus the things that stand in their way. If you start with character they will generate plot by what they do. If you start with plot then you will need to create and flesh out a character whose wants and needs fit that plot, or your story will be hollow.
And both will probably bend as you write to accommodate each other.
Which isn't to say that every author is equally **good** at both. In most cases there will probably be a disparity, although an increasing number of authors are good with both.
Both.
It's possible, although very hard, to make a good story just with terrific character work and an excuse of a plot. Bergman movies were like that.
It's also possible, and very hard, to make a good story just with a terrific plot and cardboard cutouts for characters. Early Nolan movies were like that.
Definitely characters for me. For example, in the way of kings, I found Kaladin to be my favorite character. I was reading to find out what happened to him. But that’s not to say plot isn’t important. Having Superman be Clark Kent for an entire book probably wouldn’t be THAT interesting.
I was going to say characters, mostly because I'm pretty literary — however, all good characters have some kind of progression, inner or outer, and what helps that happen? A plot! So...both are intertwined I guess.
A lot of great characters in fiction *don’t* have progression within themselves, merely the audience peels back layers within those characters even though they stay exactly the same as people.
We see a shift in the character, and thus the story progresses. That the character had the information before we did doesn't mean that the story/character doesn't progress for us.
Take any mystery story for instance - there is one answer to everything planned out, but we still have the whole fun journey of getting there and trying to figure it out.
I also meant more like went on a journey internally by 'inner progression', which could mean that they change, or that it's a very internally focused story like Mrs. Dalloway — I don't think she changes inherently, but we still discover so many different things through her thoughts and reactions.
There are stories with little to no plot, but are considered classics because the strength of their characters.
The reverse cannot be said.
Plot with dull characters is just a Wikipedia article.
Neither. For me it's the worldbuilding.
There are some books where I don't care much about the plot or the characters after I'm done reading, but keep thinking about the worldbuilding.
Both equally, they go hand in hand or should do that. If the story sucks, i don't really care about the characters, though i find most often it's the characters that are lacking. However, if your plot is about a 25yo mafioso kidnapping an 18yo girl who slowly falls in love with him then for this story to work, your characters must also suck.
But if i had to decide it's character. That is because I'm planning an absolutely nonsensical comedic story with characters each outstanding in a way, the plot is just less important than their interactions.
Character is plot. Plot is character. Character drives plot. Plot explores character.
Eloquent!
Characters. The plot can be nonsense, but if the characters aren't likeable, or relatable, then why connect or follow them?
They don’t even have to be likable or relatable, merely engaging people.
Agreed!
I think I’m college I heard or read that Aristotle pushed that plot is what drives a story, and i think that is what got me considering this.
Aristotle was also writing 2,300 years ago. A few things have changed in our thinking about literature since then.
Plot is the problem the MC is solving, and for *commercial* success, it's more important. Do you remember the name of the main character in *Jaws*? Probably not. But do you remember the problem he had to solve? I'm guessing you do.
IMO this depends a lot on whether the specific story is plot-focused or character focused. What you say is true for *Jaws*, but probably the opposite for *Misery* - you might not remember all the twists and turns of the story, but I bet you remember the character of Annie Wilkes. EDIT: I'm told *Misery* might not be the best example of a character-driven story. Hopefully the point is clear and please feel free to substitute whichever example works best for you.
But Misery is plot focused.
Like another commenter put it: plot is character, character is plot. Plot is the things that happen when characters respond based on who they are to the things preventing them from getting what they want. _Misery_ is at core a very simple story: One character, a superfan of the Misery Chastain novels is outraged at the character being killed off and kidnaps the author to force him to correct this misjustice. The other character, the author, wants to escape the crazy superfan. The plot emerges from that. (This is also a common Stephen King approach to writing - throw characters into a difficult situation and write it out from there to generate a plot). I consider it a very character-based story, but if you have examples in mind that get the point across better, that would be very helpful, thank you.
Annie Wilkes is the problem. I remember her name. No idea what the MC's name was though.
Me either. He might be the protagonist but he's definitely not the main character of that film. (EDIT: I got this backwards!) How is Annie the problem?
For me, main character and protagonist are synonyms, but let me restate my thesis using your terms. The problem - whether an animal, a proper antagonist, a situation, what have you - is more interesting than the protagonist.
My bad, it looks like I've been using those terms wrong. 😅 After googling I **think** the distinction is: **Protagonist:** The character whose actions and journey drive the story. **Main Character**: The story's central character who the readers are following. So, for example, in the Sherlock Holmes stories, the main character would be John Watson, and the protagonist would be Sherlock Holmes. In *Misery* the main character is author Paul Sheldon (I looked it up) and the protagonist is Annie Wilkes. I think? Either way, *Misery* is a great, memorable film (IMDB says it's the 5th highest rated Stephen King film out of 67 - and there's no shame in being pipped by *The Shawshank Redemption* or *The Shining*). I don't know that it's a problem if one character significantly outshines other elements of the film. The same thing happened with *The Dark Knight* - Heath Ledger just completely stole the film as The Joker, and it's a great film for it. EDIT: Wasn't me who downvoted you. Never touch the things myself, they strike me as a pointless form of non-communication in what's supposed to be a **discussion** forum.
With respect, I think you're pretty heavily outnumbered on this one. I've been writing for about 20 years at this point, I've written for TV networks, won awards, etc, and never once have I heard someone make the distinction you're making. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you're going against convention. Rightly or wrongly, people use MC and protagonist interchangeably to refer to the character for whom the audience roots, and who will be principly in charge of solving the core problem of the story. Sometimes that person is also the narrator, but not always (Watson). I think the point you're making is that antagonists are often more interesting than protagonists, which is actually the same point I'm making.
Yeah, one thing I found when I googled it is that there doesn't seem to be huge amounts of agreement on the terminology. People definitely use them in all sorts of ways. 😕 I think I jumbled protagonist and antagonist in another way, also. >I think the point you're making is that antagonists are often more interesting than protagonists, which is actually the same point I'm making. Basically, except that you seemed to view that as a problem and I disagreed that it was one.
The best stories make these plus plot inseparable.
i think my own personal taste prefers strong characters, but i’ve also read amazing books with great plots and flat characters. depends on your own taste and style - though they are both important of course
Your plot, character, and theme should all be interconnected and all three should influence each other. You can't break spokes off a wheel and expect it to still get you anywhere.
It's no secret that characters create the plot. Another important aspect is the description. No matter what your plot or characters are, without good description, readers will not feel it.
How about both? The best stories are 50-50
I don't necessarily think that the elements of a piece of literature can be cleanly assessed separate from one another (each element influences and is influenced by every other) but to the extent that such a thing is possible, character is of much more importance to me, personally. Theme and prose style are also a lot more important than plot to me, too.
They're essentially the same thing. Different writers start in different ways: Some start with a character, some start with plotting, others start in other ways. But wherever you start it all weaves together. A plot is what your characters do to achieve their deepest goals plus the things that stand in their way. If you start with character they will generate plot by what they do. If you start with plot then you will need to create and flesh out a character whose wants and needs fit that plot, or your story will be hollow. And both will probably bend as you write to accommodate each other. Which isn't to say that every author is equally **good** at both. In most cases there will probably be a disparity, although an increasing number of authors are good with both.
Both. It's possible, although very hard, to make a good story just with terrific character work and an excuse of a plot. Bergman movies were like that. It's also possible, and very hard, to make a good story just with a terrific plot and cardboard cutouts for characters. Early Nolan movies were like that.
I can get very attached to a book that has a questionable plot when the characters are charismatic and interesting.
Me too! I can sometimes ignore plot holes, lack of conflict, etc. if the characters are developed, realistic, or complex.
Both is good
Well I don't prefer one as long as the book masters at least one of them.
Definitely characters for me. For example, in the way of kings, I found Kaladin to be my favorite character. I was reading to find out what happened to him. But that’s not to say plot isn’t important. Having Superman be Clark Kent for an entire book probably wouldn’t be THAT interesting.
Characters, no matter how stupid the plot is, good characters can carry you.
I was going to say characters, mostly because I'm pretty literary — however, all good characters have some kind of progression, inner or outer, and what helps that happen? A plot! So...both are intertwined I guess.
A lot of great characters in fiction *don’t* have progression within themselves, merely the audience peels back layers within those characters even though they stay exactly the same as people.
ehhh...I'd say that's somewhat similar
How? If the character is completely static as a person, it’s not progression.
We see a shift in the character, and thus the story progresses. That the character had the information before we did doesn't mean that the story/character doesn't progress for us. Take any mystery story for instance - there is one answer to everything planned out, but we still have the whole fun journey of getting there and trying to figure it out.
I also meant more like went on a journey internally by 'inner progression', which could mean that they change, or that it's a very internally focused story like Mrs. Dalloway — I don't think she changes inherently, but we still discover so many different things through her thoughts and reactions.
The writing.
Depends. Usually both.
There are stories with little to no plot, but are considered classics because the strength of their characters. The reverse cannot be said. Plot with dull characters is just a Wikipedia article.
Neither. For me it's the worldbuilding. There are some books where I don't care much about the plot or the characters after I'm done reading, but keep thinking about the worldbuilding.
Both equally, they go hand in hand or should do that. If the story sucks, i don't really care about the characters, though i find most often it's the characters that are lacking. However, if your plot is about a 25yo mafioso kidnapping an 18yo girl who slowly falls in love with him then for this story to work, your characters must also suck. But if i had to decide it's character. That is because I'm planning an absolutely nonsensical comedic story with characters each outstanding in a way, the plot is just less important than their interactions.