Thursday, September 8, 2011
Don't Spoil It For Me!
Perhaps you’ve heard the kerfluffle turned debate created by reported research results about the effect of spoilers on the enjoyment of a story. This article came out in the middle of August, explaining what Nicholas Christenfeld and Jonathan Leavitt of UC San Diego's psychology department concluded from their study in which individuals were asked to read short stories by such masters of writing as Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, John Updike and more.To sum up (read the article for more details), no less than 30 subjects read each story, some given non-spoiler summaries and others with spoilers subtly slipped in. In the majority of cases, subjects claimed to enjoy the spoiled stories more than the unspoiled.
Based on these responses, those conducting the experiment concluded, in the words of Christenfeld, “Plots are just excuses for great writing. What the plot is is (almost) irrelevant. The pleasure is in the writing.”
Did you catch that? Read it again. That’s right. They’re saying plot doesn’t matter. I mean, seriously? Am I the only writer having an issue with this conclusion? (Consequently, I’m not, but I’ll get to that in a few paragraphs.)
First off, “enjoyment” is a subjective term. An individual’s enjoyment of anything is determined by experience, education, environment and about a million other factors. Saying no less than 30 subjects read each story doesn’t say “widely varied test group” to me.But let’s look at this from the Romance perspective. We know every Romance novel is going to have a happy ending. We know this, and yet we devour these books with fervor, enthusiasm, and might I add, enjoyment. Does this mean knowing there will be a happy ending and a few pretty turns of phrase is all we need to enjoy a book?
I say that’s a resounding NO.
Maybe Romance is too obvious. How about Mystery readers. They know the protagonist is going to solve the mystery in the end. Miss Marple will get her man (or woman) and yet they keep reading. Are they only turning the pages to get the brilliant sentence structure or do they care about the plot holding those pages together?Again I think the answer is clear. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s turn to a higher power, shall we?
Billy Mernit points out in his response to these same findings, “Whatever the human psychology that motivates it, there's an extra-special frisson of deep pleasure, not to be under-valued, in experiencing - unspoiled - the "how it happens" in a cleverly constructed plot twist, even when the resolution is a bygone conclusion.”
Yes! Did you get THAT? Read it again. I’ll wait. [taps toe while filing nails]
Good, isn’t it? And he’s right. It’s the HOW for which we readers read. In Romance it’s about HOW do they meet? HOW do they get together? HOW does the author keep them apart? And after the dreaded, heart-ripping black moment, HOW WILL SHE EVER FIX THIS?!
I venture to say the HOW is the plot. I have read books with beautiful prose. Lyrical writing like music to the eyes. But if the plot is full of holes or the characters dancing about with no purpose or conflict or action, I don’t care how superlative the writing is, I’m putting the book down.I’ve read books by authors who don’t dilly dally around with a lot of description and evocative language but the plot was so good, I lose sleep to get to the end to see HOW the story unfolds.
Obviously, I’m no psychologist and don’t claim to be. I’m also not an expert writer. But by golly, more than thirty years experience makes me an expert reader (says me) and I’m waving the flag now that plot is EVERYTHING.
What do you think? Do you think plot is irrelevant? Do you believe good writing is something separate from plot or rather a well-constructed, air-tight, engrossing plot is the very definition of good writing? How do you feel about spoilers? Different for movies and books or the same for both?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Books by the Crew
80 comments:
Plot is so important. The best writing in the world, w/o plot is just prose... I can recognize good writing but if it isn't held together by a plot...
I mean, it's like pretty colored thread...needs to be woven together to create fabric for full appreciation. And fabric needs to be made into something that can be worn for full appreciation.
I'm with you, that isn't a large enough somple to count for shit.
And thanks for taking today for me. Picture me sitting in panels talking about how to write erotica...in Las Vegas... And Sin? There is a Sin City Brewing Company here...I'll look for something for ya!
Well said Bo'sun.
I knew there must be a reason why I like you!
And a picture of my favourite sleuth from St Mary Mead as well.
Change 'like' to 'love'!
“Plots are just excuses for great writing. What the plot is is (almost) irrelevant. The pleasure is in the writing.”
Great writing is very important of course, together with the characterisation and development of scenes and situations. But without the plot it all becomes academic and a bit of a bore for me. Rather like the chatter in a Regency salon without the hints at scandal or the juicy observations of potential romantic attachments, to be found later in the plot.
For mysteries though, I don't want to know who the villain is in advance and much prefer to follow Jane Marple as she muses over her village analogies and annoys the local cops.
Though on occasion, like Janga, I have peeped at the last page before reading everything, but only near bedtime and after a lot of scotch ... I swear!
Great Blog Terri! *smile*
If the question is whether spoilers ruin it for me, the answer is usually no. I'm not one who cares about knowing what "happens" at the end. Most of the time anyway. It doesn't ruin the suspense for me because I'm going to read for the HOW, anyway. Sometimes, if I don't know what's going to happen, I'm so distracted by trying to figure out "whodunit" that I can't enjoy the how.
I don't think you can separate good writing from plot, either. I think it comes back to the author's intent vs their execution. Only if the story is written well will we see what the author intended for the plot.
the hubs and I heard about this article on The Colbert Report last night and had the same reaction. We're both researchers, so we looked at each other and said, "Enjoyment is subjective, and they're comparing one person's self-reported "enjoyment" to another person's self-reported "enjoyment." With only 30 people. Uh-uh. Maybe if I read the whole thing, their methodology is more sound than I'm giving them credit for, but the whole thing smells like bullshit to me.
I will say, though, that at some level, it's true for me. It's why I read romance. I hate the added stress of not knowing how it will end. Mostly because if I put in all those hours reading, and all that emotional investment into the characters, and then the protagonist dies on the last page, I get PISSED. So I stick to romance, where I know my investment will be rewarded.
And I'm with you, Ter. I read for HOW they get together. HOW they become people capable of giving and receiving true love. And for that, plot is huge.
This all comes down to defining the terms. You're right, Chance. Without plot it's just prose, but what are these researchers calling plot? The most basic definition of plot is the "storyline" and if they mean a well written book can be a mystery, a romance, a thriller, or an urban fantasy (i.e. WHAT the storyline is doesn't matter) and can still be enjoyed then I get it.
But this sounds more like they're saying a story doesn't need a plot. Or that's how I took it from the article and based on Billy Mernit's response, I believe he interpreted it the same way.
Thank you, Q! *blushes* I should have known you'd be a Marple fan. Intelligent, insightful woman that she is. The analogy to a Regency salon is spot on. It's the juicy bits for which we read. No plot means no juicy bits! And don't tell me you peak at the endings. Janga gives me palpatations everytime she mentions it. LOL!
That's my problem with this, Marn. I can see the connection between the results of this study and concluding the surprise/suspense element is not crucial to all readers if the book is well-written. But then it depends on the story. Knowing how Moulin Rouge ends does not stop me from watching it over and over. But knowing how The Sixth Sense ends makes me not want to watch it at all.
One story needs that surprise at the end to give the viewer the pay off. The other doesn't. At least for me anyway. The results of this study as explained in this article just feels like they made an invisible connection that I don't see between spoilers and plot importance.
Great post, Terri. I hadn't heard of the original *research* -- which sounds more like a parlor game, really -- but I find it more entertaining than scholarly.
I think plot is very important, even when there aren't that many different plots. It's part of the character's journey, and if they aren't going anywhere, then they're just blathering in an empty room.
However, there are a few exceptions for me. LOL I am a big fan of Nalini Singh's Archangel series, and I'm reading book 3 right now -- the other day I thought how I didn't care WHAT the hero and heroine did, because I was so intrigued by their interactions and conversations with each other. In this instance, the plot doesn't matter to me all that much, because I just love the characters and the way they connect. But that is not typical for me.
I'm glad you had the same reaction, Hal. We all know I do not have a scientific mind, but even I recognized that wasn't a big enough test group. And "enjoyment" is SO subjective.
I did see a note that one conclusion was similar to your experience. Knowing how the story ends takes away some of the tension, especially in a mystery where instead of just enjoying the story, the reader is searching for clues on every page. In fact, I'd say knowing a Romance will have the HEA helps the black moment create even more tension in the reader. If it's really black (as all the best ones are) we're even more tense than a viewer watching the end of Silence of the Lambs for the first time.
And I was REALLY tense when I saw that movie for the first time. LOL! In fact, I got physically ill! (I now know that was motion sickness from the movement of the camera, but still.)
Interesting observation, Donna. In that instance it sounds like characterization trumps all. Is there any kind of tension or conflict between the characters? (I'm assuming that's a yes. LOL!) Would that be the plot of the love story?
Hellie and I had this debate in email yesterday even though I kept telling her to save it for today and she presented all kinds of questions I didn't think of when I read this. Mostly on WHAT plot is. She and I seemed to be defining it very differently.
Ter - Armageddon made me physically ill the first time I saw it - I was SOOOOO tense that they wouldn't succeed in time and the world would end right then. Silly, I know. But I can't watch any sort of doomsday or apocalyptic movie. The tension is just too much for me :)
I think the definition of plot is important. I mean, are they defining plot as the "what happens next" or the "how does it end"?
I don't have enough coffee this morning for a "what is plot, really?" conversation, I don't think :)
She and I seemed to be defining it very differently.
Hey, if you're gonna give shocking news like that, you need to add "spoiler alert". LOL
There is tension/conflict between the characters, but slightly different, since this is the third book the characters have been in, so I guess it's showing the progression of their love. I'm not sure if I can explain my fascination for it -- well, besides what a hunk the hero is. LOL (I'm shallow. What can I say. LOL)
Hunkyness is always a weighted factor, Donna. No need to explain. I did read a book once because I adored the hero. Hated the heroine and the storyline, but I finished the book for the hero. Never read that author again, though I tried and within a chapter or two I again despised the heroine. So I did read a book in which I was not a fan of the plot, but does it count if it's a one-off?
That is a conversation that requires coffee, Hal. And even if we debated what we think plot is, we still wouldn't know how the researchers defined it for their study. Though I'm guessing that might be found somewhere. LOL!
^^^^^^^
NOTE: This is loaded with sarcasm. Just to be clear.
Oh yeah, I'm sure EVERYONE is shocked to find Hellie and I disagreed about something. LOL! That never happens!!!
We could probably find out their exact definition of plot, Ter, but (spoiler alert!!!) the amount of digging through dry, academic crap paperwork that would take is totally not worth the pay off (and I say that as someone who spends my day-job writing that dry, academic crap). lol
Then that makes you an expert and I will take your word for it!
Armageddon made me physically ill the first time I saw it – I was SOOOOO tense that they wouldn’t succeed in time and the world would end right then. Silly, I know. But I can’t watch any sort of doomsday or apocalyptic movie. The tension is just too much for me
I'm with you, Hal! *LOL* I sobbed when Bruce died. Couldn't handle it! *LOL*
I still believe the terms need to be defined. What constitutes plot to these guys. Do they even know what plot is? (After all, they're psychologists and not writers or literary professors.)
And yes, I do define plot differently. What you were calling plot, I was calling "dramatic situations"--which are a part of the plot, but are not the plot itself. You could remove it from the plot and the plot would still exist. But as you say, we just define it differently. However your mojo works. Whatever.
I also noted they say ALMOST irrelevant. ALMOST. Not actually irrelevant. That's like the difference between I published a novel and I ALMOST published a novel. See the difference?
And when they're talking about the "HOW" the plot was done, you are talking about the writing. So the writing CAN BE PRETTY. Take Memoirs of a Geisha. You know the ending to the book because the beginning starts out with the ending, where the protagonist is a geisha or used to be and she's going to tell you her life. You know she lives, you know she's well off, but you know she's going to tell a story of struggle--horrible, horrible struggle. So you know. YOU KNOW. But you still read it; and it's the PRETTIEST writing I've ever, ever read. When people talk about pretty writing, I think of this book, I honestly do. And I am amazed at how it does come about that she ends up with her Chairman because it does seem impossible. But the plot is not one we haven't seen before. A little orphan overcoming adversity to live a full and happy life? That plot is everywhere. If we only read one book of each plot that exist, we'd have a bookshelf of about thirty books. Hope you like them. That's why the writing matters more. It's the writing that makes plot or the story different.
I agree in part with the psychologists. I would rate writing above plot, but like them I know you can't remove it entirely. It's also necessary. You can't just focus on one thing and think it'll make your story worth reading. You have to do ALL the things and you should do them all as well as possible.
But is the story the Geisha tells compelling? Are the things she endures what keeps you reading? Would you read that pretty prose if nothing compelling happened in her life?
The plot is compelling but it's not something I haven't heard about a hundred times. Humans all suffer the same problems--the same plot of life--it's the characters that make plot interesting not the other way around.
And you haven't read the book--and it IS gorgeous prose. I probably would have read it anyway to figure out how to sound that pretty. I think it's why the movie didn't work as well as the book. The book was beautiful--but the movie showed that the plot itself wasn't great on its own. It was the writing that made that book great.
I will grant you that this is one book out of millions. Only one book in a million could be written to be beautiful alone. But I still maintain characters matter more than plot.
Hellie, it's been a million years since I've read Geisha, but I found it compelling, and I think it's because it was from being immersed in a world I'd never know about otherwise. I wanted to enjoy the movie but fell asleep and never finished it, so I'm guessing the writing makes a BIG difference here.
So I'm either agreeing or disagreeing. LOL I'm not sure which. #offtowork
Again. I'm not judging the plot or arguing if it's new. I'm simply saying there has to be one. Whatever it is, it needs to be there.
I found it compelling, and I think it’s because it was from being immersed in a world I’d never know about otherwise
Exactly. But that's the difference of setting. Setting is NOT plot. Setting is almost another character.
And you don't have to agree or disagree. It'd be wise to keep yourself from taking a side.
It’d be wise to keep yourself from taking a side.
LOL. Duly noted.
This is not about taking sides. LOL! They're trying to divide us. Don't let the researchers win.
And in that case it sounds like the plot did matter, but only in that its flaws were revealed in the film version. I have heard good things about that book but never read it. Even my little brother adored the movie. I haven't seen that either.
I like the how part of this debate... Yeah, some plots are known plots but how it all works out is why we read. But lord love a duck, the most fascinating plot in the world won't hold my interest without good writing or characterization.
Like a trip...you have a beginning and an ending and knowing where you are going when you start that car may lessen the tension...but! The trip is all about what you see and experience along the way. And that is perception. I drove through some pretty stark areas of Ca yesterday, the lower Mojave Desert...brown, rugged, dry...stunning scenary. But to others? Just rocks and dirt. Really, to come out of that drive into the electric lights of Vegas is so...odd.
A pretty movie, with nothing particularly holding it together is a pretty movie, but will we talk about it afterward?
And Terrio? See, I'd watch The Sixth Sense even knowing the ending, looking for how they fooled everyone and where the clues are that I missed (and my husband didn't!)
HA! I'm going to a panel tomorrow..."When Setting is Plot" Now, considering this is the Erotic Authors Association Conference...boggles the mind!
Okay, 2nd, you'll have to tell me what you learn at this panel and tell me HOW setting is plot. *LOL*
The researchers have won; I am divided.
Why don't you reverse this? What if the researchers had said it was plot that matters most and not writing? How would you feel then? Would you still take issue?
I can think of books where the plot was compelling at least in theory, but the voice was so damned bad that I would rather be set on fire than have to finish it. Well, don't let me be over dramatic. I'd rather set the BOOK on fire than finish it.
I'd honestly be happy to hear plot is everything only because I know my prose is not up to "pretty" so I'd be relieved. LOL! But that's a totally selfish reaction.
What about Twilight? I haven't read them but I've heard more than once that the writing isn't stellar. Still, those books became the biggest thing since HP for a while. I know several of you have read them. Is the writing that bad and the plot that good? What kept you reading?
I'd say both plot and writing are important and damned the whole idea of weighing one over the other. I mean, another metaphor...it's like ballroom dancing. Watching a good waltz is about both people. One follows, one leads...one does some fancy stuff, then the other...they are both dressed incredibly... Would it be the same if one is a lead foot and the other is grace itself?
You might enjoy the graceful one, but for the overall scoring of the waltz...you need both to be wonderful. It's academic to consider the importance of one over the other. It's a dance, they are partners...you need both!
I'll keep ya updated on the classes!
Had a Mucho Mojita chocolate truffle last night that was to die for!
Is that a drink or a dessert?! LOL!
Good point. It all matters. If it didn't, this writing gig would be a hell of a lot easier!
So you're saying you wrote this blog out of fear to reassure yourself that your writing was going to be okay, even though there are a number of fellow pirates who have better Voice or characters than plot--so you shoot them down so you can feel better? *smiles* Is that what you're suggesting?
I assure you I didn't read Twilight for the plot either. I would say voice. Voice doesn't equate pretty writing. It's just voice.
2nd, your waltz metaphor didn't cut it for me because I watch a lot of DWTS, but metaphor aside, I agree with you. They're equally important.
No, it isn't.
Chance, I've done the CA to LV trip several times and am always dazzled by those gawdy lights rising out of the desert. It's a magical sight.
Okay, have to quit prolonging going to work. . .
And I must go find the registration desk for the conference... I'm a little scared... Nothing but erotic authors...what will I see? ;-)
BTW, if you watch DWTS, don't you think it matters that when the two dancers are in harmony, that is the best performance? All the grace in the world won't save a poor dancer...
Terri, I am so with you! Anyone who says the plot doesn't matter, that it's just an excuse for "great" writing, is probably an aficionado of literary fiction. Plot is the same as story, without which I see no point in reading the book. I read widely across genres, and I read a lot of nonfiction. I do NOT read literary fiction because it has no story, nothing that makes me care.
To Kill A Mockingbird has been in print more than half a century. The writing is clean and simple, yet beautiful, and the story is so evocative that it still holds me from start to finish even though I've read it more than half a dozen times. The book won the Pulitzer. I'd bet I wouldn't make those comments about very many of the florid "great writing" books on that list today.
Writing that has no story, that's just a bunch of elaborately constructed similes, metaphors, and visual images, just seems self-indulgent to me. It's a "look what great phrases I can create" kind of thing. Well, good for them. I'd rather have a great story any day.
Of course, poor writing keeps a potentially great story from quite getting there, but that's a rant for another day. . . .
Good luck, Chance! I'm not sure what you'll see but maybe have a camera ready so you can share when you get back.
;)
Exactly, Nancy! You said it much better than I did. (Which is a vote for "good writing" but whatever. *g*) Considering the writers they used in the experiment, this could be more of a case of "These masters can write anything and still do it well." But I just don't see the connection the researchers made between spoilers not being a problem to plot not being important.
Again, reading more of the study results might clear this up, but the brief snippets I've seen don't clear up anything.
Can't wait to see you in a few weeks!
Nothing but erotic authors…what will I see?
I don't know, but I can't wait to find out!
I assure you I didn’t read Twilight for the plot either. I would say voice. Voice doesn’t equate pretty writing. It’s just voice.
This is a good distinction too. Neither the writing nor the plot in Twilight was stellar, IMO. But from the first sentence in the first book (and I still remember it vividly, after reading it once years ago), I was hooked. The voice drew me in, and held me.
I think I'm going to go with the "it's all important" crowd. cause really, plot, characterization, voice, setting, ending -- it's all interconnected. You can't take one away without losing something, so to rank them is difficult. I'd put voice at the top likely, but alone, it's not enough to cover really bad characterization or motivation or anything else.
Take the book/movie Hostage for example. Great plot, very meticulously plotted, good twists and ending -- but almost no characterization. I was bored out of my mind (and only watching the movie to see if it was as bad as the book. Spoiler alert - it was) lol.
I have never thought of separating voice from prose. That is so interesting. I need to think deeper about these things.
To me, plot is an integral part of the reading (or viewing experience). As a reader, I have certain innate expectations with regard to how a story should turn out. Some of those are certainly cultural, btw. I mean, Americans, for instance, usually like some kind of happy ending or a sense of justice. Other cultures--Chinese--often go for what we'd see as unhappy (and unsatisfying) endings. But I imagine most readers (with the exception of fans of literary fiction), expect the prose to tell a story and follow an expect narrative path. In lieu of that, it's just a bunch of pretty words strung together.
But...I'm all about characterization. A movie or book becomes a keeper, it really resonates with me, if I liked or strongly identified with one or more of the characters. If the characters instantly grab me, I tend to breeze over minor plot holes. If the characters don't engage me, I'm likely to be slightly bored, even if the "plot" is tight.
Good point about the expectations, Pat. Another example of how this is subjective. Knowing nothing about the test subjects in this case makes the blanket conclusion given in the article even more ambiguous. WHO were the readers? Their expectations and perceptions (as Chance mentioned already) play into their "enjoyment" a great deal.
"I’d honestly be happy to hear plot is everything only because I know my prose is not up to “pretty” so I’d be relieved. LOL! But that’s a totally selfish reaction."
Bo'sun You write CONTEMPORARY! You have a very real, unaffected, comfortable voice. You sound like someone your reader might know in RealLife.
In other words … you sound Authentic.
But will Authentic keep them reading? LOL! That is the question!
Thanks..Demi. *G*
Wow, what a great debate, I'm not sure where to start or even if I can wrap my uncaffeinated brain around a lot of it.
First off as to...
But will Authentic keep them reading?
A resounding YES! It is funny you mention this cause I usually equate this with "user friendly" and "not". I just read 2 books that came highly recommended. One had very lyrical, for lack of a better word, writing - a lot of imagery (I'm assuming hoping to build emotion). The other was very straight forward and what I like to term - not a lot of $10 words. And I enjoyed the second book better. I don't consider myself stupid or uneducated but sometimes when I can't grasp what the writer is trying to convey and have to re-read the passages over and over to get the point I get very frustrated. I think your writing, Ter, is authentic and "user friendly". *Sorry - kinda off topic*
I'm trying to understand the debate and if I use Hellie's example and just say that there are only so many plots and it is the writing that makes the differences I think I would agree that plot isn't as important as the writing.
As for the spoiler thing, I'm with everyone else in that I read romances so I get my guaranteed HEA. I want to know for a fact that this will end well so I'm not pissed (like Hal). I made the mistake of reading a non romance book thinking all the while it would end up okay and it didn't - had me in a bad mood for days and ready to do bodily harm to the author! Same with movies - The Break-up - Need I say more!
Yes. IMO. Authentic will win. Because it is relatable to the reader. The reader who relates to your characters will IMO place themselves in your story. And when a character goes through a relateble event & find a HEA ...
Well chances are good that your reader will consciously or a subconsciously think 'That characters is a lot like me. i wonder ... could those same possitive things happen to me in the real world? If ..."
Want to know what people really think when you get prosy in today’s world?
Exhibit A: A note to my self which I posted on FB to remind myself of something.
“Note to self: It was always my intention to lead a quiet life. A quiet, albeit a purposeful one. That my two life quests have not always been in harmonious sync is no fault of mine. Quiet & purpose are by nature opposing forces. At least they are … in my nature. Still. I like to think that I have succeeded in my quiet purposefulness. Though even I have to admit that I’ve had “my moments”. In my defense I would like to point out, as Incongruous as it may sound, that for the most part I was minding my own business. I was. I swear. Right before The Weirdness came sauntering up TO me.
Everything after that is a blurrrrrrr …”
A friend wrote: “You know, as I read this, I felt as if I were hearing the voice of a woman of the 19th century. England, I think.”
My final analysis (in which I blame the British & my father, a rather old-fashioned man. Think old… like before the fall of the Knights Templar. ) :
“The odd effects of Genetics & Environment upon ones pattern of behavioral characteristics can be hard to overcome. Usually? When I actually start talking like this in public … my DH looks at me and says
“Julie, What the Hell are you talking about?”
That brings me back into the 21st century pretty quickly let me tell yah.
So yes Terri, authentic & relatable wins. IMO
I do NOT read literary fiction because it has no story, nothing that makes me care.
This cracks me up cause I never thought this way before. Then last week my daughter who has to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for her English class said almost this same exact thing. She had to choose a side on an article someone had written that TAOHF was politically incorrect and schools shouldn't make children read it cause it makes African Americans uncomfortable. As she was writing she said she'd wrather debate the fact that she shouldn't have to read it because it was boring and had no plot or purpose, as most classic literature (according to her)!
That would be "rather" not "wrather". Maybe I am uneducated! LOL
Hal said : I think the definition of plot is important. I mean, are they defining plot as the “what happens next” or the “how does it end”?
Where as I think of plot as the support structure upon which the sentence structure , voice, characterization, setting are built I also see plot as the definable linier progression of the story. By that I mean linear with discernable, abet sometimes subtle points. Point A is the beginning. Then the story has “a plot event” that veers off to point B, which leads to point C and so on …
First, generalizing about millions of readers based on a sampling of thirty is absurd. I ranted about such overgeneralizations last week. Even if the group were randomly chosen, the results seem meaningless as applied to all readers. A follow-up study with a different group might yield exactly opposite results.
To say plot doesn’t matter is ridiculous, but (sorry, Ter) saying plot is everything seems equally ridiculous to me. We’ve all bought books based on a story premise that sounded fascinating only to throw the book against the wall because the characters failed to engage us or the prose lacked clarity and grace. I also disagree with Nancy about literary fiction lacking plot and making language the be-all. Dickens is literary fiction; so are William Faulkner, Ernest Hemmingway, Flannery O’Connor, Alice Walker, Marilynne Robinson, etc. They all write fiction with plots. I do think some literary fiction is more invested in navel gazing and language experimentation and elitist audiences, but I don’t believe that’s true of all literary fiction.
I’m borrowing a generally accepted definition of plot from Bedford/St. Martin’s, a biggie in English literature and composition textbooks: “Plot refers to the series of events that give a story its meaning and effect. In most stories, these events arise out of conflict experienced by the main character. The conflict may come from something external, like a dragon or an overbearing mother, or it may stem from an internal issue, such as jealousy, loss of identity, or overconfidence. As the character makes choices and tries to resolve the problem, the story's action is shaped and plot is generated.” Some readers prefer stories with lots of external conflict; others prefer quieter stories where conflict is mostly internal. But both kinds of stories have plot. My sister complains that “nothing happens” in the books I love best, and I feel as dizzy as if I’d ridden a roller coaster when I read some of the stuff she loves.
Spoilers don’t bother me, but I don’t think my reading the end first means that I consider plot unimportant. Characterization, voice, and prose style are immensely important to me, more important than plot, but I believe wholeheartedly in the power of story. And, as the definition I quoted makes clear, no plot means no story.
2nd Chance said:
"But lord love a duck, the most fascinating plot in the world won’t hold my interest without good writing or characterization."
So true.
Thank you, Irish & D! This wasn't about my voice but I'll take all the reassurance I can get. Authentic, relatable, and user-friendly are all terms I can live with. Happily.
I haven't read Literary Fiction in years and never thought of is as having no plot. Though I always think of it was depressing. LOL! I had to read Huck Finn my Jr. yr of HS and at the time, my mom was having my little brother. Never did finish that book, though I did take it to the hospital with good intentions.
The whole "politically incorrect" debate amazes me. Life and history are not politically correct!
Hellion said:
“I still believe the terms need to be defined. What constitutes plot to these guys. Do they even know what plot is? (After all, they’re psychologists and not writers or literary professors.)”
Absolutely. I cannot tell you writers how many times I have had to email hellion & beg her for a clarification or explanation of terminology.
Case in point Me asking “GMC? What does General Motors Corp have to do with writing ? …”
I believe you and I see plot as the same thing, D.
Janga - I'll totally take the ding on swinging to the other extreme. This blog was written as a reaction, mostly from a reader perspective. I'm guessing no matter how long I write, I'll always be a reader first.
I can very much embrace that definition. And I also thought To Kill A Mockingbird qualified as Literary Fiction, but I also knew where Nancy was coming from. With all the distinctions and lines crossing these days, I'm not sure I know what qualifies as what anymore.
Could To Kill A Mockingbird be considered genre fiction in today's publishing world?
As she was writing she said she’d wrather debate the fact that she shouldn’t have to read it because it was boring and had no plot or purpose, as most classic literature
*snorts soda out her nose* OMG, I love this girl! Exactly what I would have said! *LOL* In college!
I haven’t read Literary Fiction in years and never thought of is as having no plot. Though I always think of it was depressing.
Agree with this too.
And totally applauding Janga! You go girl!!!
Life and history are not politically correct!
Exactly! That is the angle my daughter took, anyway. She said very loudly, I might add, that you can't change history just to make yourself feel better. It is what it is (or was what it was) and if you keep trying to clean it up and make it look prettier you're destined to repeat your mistakes! She also stated that by ignoring history you make everyone's lives that lived through it and changed it for the better superfluous and meaningless! I can't wait to see what kind of grade she got on her paper!
Though I always think of it was depressing. Perfect example of the necessity of editing. *sigh*
You must let us know what she gets, Irish. I hope the teacher leaves a comment. LOL!
I still believe the researchers are defining plot as something "original"--that's why they're baffled that revealing spoilers doesn't have a negative effect on readers. Whereas I believe basic plot is well, basically the same from story to story. The hero has a problem, the hero rises above the problem and grows as a person, and has a HEA. If the hero doesn't rise above the problem and grow, you have a tragic ending--and usually a literary hero. The problems that vary from story to story are dramatic situations, but not what I would term technical plot, because situations can vary without effecting what the base plot is (heroic growth).
That was a kick ass response, Irish. I hope she gets an A+++!!!
I don't equate the Hero's Journey as being the same as plot. The Hero's Journey is one approach to writing a story. Because it includes universal actions/themes that are relatable, it often results in an interesting read. But to say all plot boils down to "The main characters faces some stuff and overcomes it" makes no sense to me.
That may describe the very basis of a story, but it is not the definition of plot. Especially not if you use the definition Janga posted. The plot is shaped by the action which is shaped by the choices the character makes. Those choices can be infinitely different.
Thanks, guys! She's a bright one alright. She's a sophmore and taking college level classes already. I already told her there's no more help from mom forthcoming. She surpassed me a couple of years ago. She's a lot like her father - loves a good argument... er... debate. :)
Would Mr. Irish be a Capricorn by chance?
;)
Pisces!
I also forgot to comment on the HOW aspect. I think that is a huge aspect of any story. Whether we know the ending or not - it is the "how did they reach that ending" that fascinates most readers. And an excellent author makes the HOW a really fun and interesting ride.
I know I'm dating myself, but I can't help thinking about the '70s series Columbo. You always knew right off who did it, but the fun was watching how Columbo would figure it out.
I agree the HOW is more interesting, but to me the HOW is the "writing" part and not necessarily the "plot" part. How did this author make the wallflower/rake marriage of convenience work? I've read that "plot" a hundred times at least, but it's how each author writes it that makes the difference to me.
Irish, I'd give her an A. The best student papers IMO were those that showed the writer had thought about ideas.
I must say that I loved teaching Huck Finn, and since it provoked some of the best class discussions, I have to think some of my students enjoyed it. I can remember classes when discussions about racism, sexism, and censorship related to HF kept going after I dismissed class, a sure sign of student engagement.
Speaking of Huck Fin, is it this week or next week that's Banned Books Week?
I get bored with stories that have beautiful prose but not much happening. It's like looking at a handsome hunk who can only say "the weather is nice" all day.
Every Savage Can Reproduce
Hey, Enid. I'm surprised we didn't get to that comparison today. LOL! That is spot on! I'm all for admiring a pretty man, but I don't usually fall for a hot actor/singer until I see an interview and find out if he's more than a pretty face. *g*
I liked Huck Finn...
And sad to say, erotic authors dress like everyone else. Granted, the visit to the Erotic Sex Museum tonight probably brought out the fancy duds...but I was touring Vegas with an old friend and got a ton of history about Vegas of the last 20 years. Fascinating!
Great blog today!
Ooooh to be job shadowing 2nd Chance!
Post a Comment