Robin Hood needed the Sheriff of Nottingham. Batman needed the Joker. Yin needs Yang, and shadows fall because there is light.
When it comes to writing fiction, we all know conflict is crucial. As John Le Carre so succinctly captured it: “‘The dog sat on the mat’ is not a story. ‘The dog sat on the cat’s mat’ . . . ah, now there’s a story!” This battle between man and nature, man and himself, man and others, is evident in all storytelling–and, in fact, it’s a reflection of that which we all experience day to day.
But there’s another tension that percolates beneath the surface of all great novels. Some point to it as the difference between plot-driven stories and character-driven. Can a book be propelled solely by plot? (Think The DaVinci Code.) Or can a character hold up a story all by his or her lonesome? (Insert your own example.) Do we need both, or can they be mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to genre fiction such as horror?
It’s a tension I find myself struggling with when I write, but I’ve never identified it as pointedly as does Michael Chabon in his new nonfiction work, Maps and Legends: “That’s the trouble with Plot, and its gloomy consigliere, Theme. They are, in many ways, the enemies of Character . . . Plot is fate, and fate is always, by definition, inhuman.” The moment I read those words, I felt like Chabon had captured something I’ve known intuitively, but questioned because I did not know how to verbalize it.
When I sit at my laptop, I am in constant need of connecting with my characters. If I don’t care, why should the reader? And if the reader doesn’t care, then the plot is a ticking timebomb that threatens nothing of consequence. Sure, there are some books that appeal for other reasons (The DaVinci Code again being a good example), but ultimately they are popcorn thrills that go not much further than the turning of the last page.
As I sit down this week to start the second in my Jerusalem’s Undead Trilogy, I am faced again with this tension between unlikely enemies: Plot and Character. They must work hand in hand, and yet one can seem forced or manipulated, while the other can seem too wishy-washy to be worth anyone’s time. The tension is there. I feel it as I write. And I believe that I need to feel it. Just as Skywalker needed Vader, every story needs conflict. And the best stories, I think, grow out of that root conflict between Plot and Character. When balanced correctly in the story, we keep turning the pages to see what happens precisely because we care.
The best horror grows from the same conflict. Many critics fail to understand this very thing. Horror is only scary because it deals with people, with human nature, and that’s what makes it a viable genre–if we must resort to such labels. In the struggle of mankind between darkness and light, horror stories boldly march into the middle of the fray and tell it just like it is.
9 Comments, Comment or Ping
John B Rosenman
Plot and character, unlikely enemies. True. If you have too much plot, too much HIGH CONCEPT, won’t the characters be mere ciphers? A balance is needed, as you point out well.
I keep thinking of Aristotle when I read pieces like this. In his Poetics, discussing drama of his day, he put plot first and character second. I think the order should be reversed. Sometimes, character IS or generates plot, if you know what I mean.
While reading your comments, I kept thinking of Asimov’s “Nightfall.” Obviously plot or high concept is important here. Yet there was some characterization. However, I bet almost no one who hasn’t read the story in a while can remember the characters’ names or much of what they were specifically like. I know I can’t. If memory serves, they were basically character types or stereotypes with different views concerning the grand event that was about to occur.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Thomas Sullivan
It’s as easy to under-think this as it is to over-think it. And everyone’s personal semantics will weigh into that all elusive balance. For me, it’s fatal to say plot vs. character. They require each other. Plot happens, but if it doesn’t happen to the reader in some vicarious sense, it’s like the tree falling in the forest whose sound may not have happened for lack of a listener. The plot happens to a character (and the reader indirectly), and moreover its impact has a lot to do with the nature of that character — i.e., a coward facing a conflict that requires him/her to conquer that very flaw. If I find myself separating plot and character as I write, it usually means I haven’t thought through all the delicious possibilities of interplay between the two. Good luck on the new book, Eric.
– Sully
Jun 2nd, 2008
Eric Wilson
I agree that we need both, Thomas. As I mentioned, I think that I need to feel this tension, just as Skywalker needed Vader. They are enemies, yet without them we have no story.
Jun 2nd, 2008
Brian Hodge
Thoughtful piece, Eric. And while I like that quote from Chabon, the more I dwell on it, the less binding it seems. Plot, really, is just a framework on which to hang something. You can hang tinsel and fluff, or you can hang something of substance.
And John:
>Sometimes, character IS or generates plot, if you know what I mean.
Flannery O’Connor certainly did. “Character is destiny,” she said. That’s about as succinct as it gets.
Jun 3rd, 2008
Janet Berliner
During a weeklong interview with Dr. J. Michael Crichton, I asked him why his characters–with the exception of “Sphere”–were like paper dolls. He told me he thought characterization was a bore, as were the books by authors who thought it important.
He has sold a b’zillion books, but I must disagree now, as I did then.
–Janet
Jun 3rd, 2008
Eric Wilson
Sadly, Janet, it seems that many readers have little interest in character. I don’t understand that. The paper doll thing seems rampant to me, especially with some of the NY Times bestsellers. I guess if you make characters generic, they appeal to a broader audience.
Brian, I know what you mean about Chabon’s statement. On the other hand, when “enemies” are seen as necessary, I think the statement stands. If I reconcile that dichotomy as I write, I think the tension is helpful.
Jun 4th, 2008
Dave Wilson
Wow…now THIS is a good ‘un.
I submit that you can write a wonderful character, or a wonderful plot, or both, and still not find the tension. Tension is not a function of plot except, as Brian points out, that you can hang tension on the plot…
The style of the writing is the key. If you say:
‘The snake began to turn, and, lifting it’s fanged jaws, struck out at Jasper with surprising speed.’
That’s not so great.
If you say…
‘Jasper froze. The snake’s head lifted slowly from the ground, and though it only swayed from side to side, he felt it’s focus. He wanted to move, or to scream, or to strike out at it. Something in the glitter of its eyes told him the folly of each action in its turn. When it struck, silvered lightning in the glittering sunlight, he only stood and felt its sting.’
I like it better.
If you think in other ways, you might say.
“Jasper stood still, and the snake struck,”
which cuts to the chase…
But it’s the style (to my thinking) that creates the emotion behind the words, and the decision on which style to use that makes the difference.
DNW
Macabre Ink
Jun 4th, 2008
Scott Nicholson
Well, I suspect the work with characters that show us what humans are like will outlast all of the plot-driven, timely bestsellers. Seems history has proven that much, at least. Anyone read any Sidney Sheldon or Harold Robbins lately?
Jun 10th, 2008
Reply to “Unlikely Enemies”