Okay, this was supposed to be finalized ages ago, but other things got in the way.

Not everyone will agree with me in the following, but that’s the point. We can only abuse Inheritance and Twilight so far, and so hopefully I can spark some good discussions from people.

Anyway, a quick thing on character-driven plots and story-driven plots (from here on, CD and SD). CD plots are where characters are well built, functioning people with motives and personalities. They react realistically to situations and feel like real people. SD plots are where characters become slaves to a plot, doing and feeling whatever the author thinks is appropriate. These characters are one dimensional exposition-spouting robots, who can only display emotion or reason at the author’s command.

Personally, I think CD plots are always better. This is a sweeping generalization, but that’s why this article exists. What we think of as the quintessential storyline is a by-product of what should be well-done CD actions.

Onto the meat of the topic. Don’t think of plots as a series of linear events, but rather a series of action and consequence from each of the characters. When a character does something (a product of his motive), all the other characters should react accordingly, in proportion to their motives and personalities.

Those reactions are then followed by more reactions from other well-defined characters, and thus, plot is formed. While you could break it down into a series of events, you get even further into the nuts and bolts of the story when considering the characters who influenced those events. With the possible exception of weather (and even that may have its own personality), everything is subject to this reactionary model. Even not reacting is a reaction, as long as it fits in with the character.

To me, that is how good stories are defined. People with varying amounts of power or control will react and those consequences will cause other reactions, until the climax is reached and the story told is finished. The character’s reactions become the ‘events’ that you would previously list as a story in a linear fashion.

Oh, hold on. This whole shenanigans started out as a discussion between SWQ and I. Her views are that you cannot completely discount story or important elements of a SD plot. Hopefully the above shows that most story elements are ultimately results of the characters actions, which I reduce to CD actions. However, you’re more than welcome to disagree, and please provide examples when you do.

Also, Steph has promised a counter article to the whole CD argument in general, and has mentioned that you can reduce any story down to character driven, by my reasoning of it. It’s true, but the difference is how the characters are written to make those decisions. It has to be clear to the reader that the characters make the decisions themselves, based on motives, personalities, and whatever else that affects their actions. Plots become SD when characters make decisions that don’t fit with what seems normal (for them), because the writer has a specific plot point to happen later.

In hindsight, it’s much easier just to read that last paragraph.

Tagged as:

Comment

  1. Diamonte on 31 August 2009, 09:20 said:

    Thanks for the article. This made me realize that I’ve been having the wrong thinking for too many years. I always was thinking “How do I get X to do this so it fits the plot?” My characters did grow and change, and I tried to accomplish that, but I have been too stunted by my line of thinking for them to become as developed as they could be. Something has always been irking me in the latter half of my novel, and it seems like this it it.

  2. Virgil on 31 August 2009, 10:34 said:

    Thanks.

    I always prefer a plot that ends abruptly or a character dies than a Deus Ex Machina or some miraculous escape that doesn’t make sense..

  3. Romantic Vampire Lover on 31 August 2009, 10:44 said:

    Short, and to the point. (as usual) Thanks for that Virgil; I agree for now, but I’ll wait and see what Steph has to say. ;)

  4. Puppet on 31 August 2009, 11:39 said:

    Ditto.^^

    Great article, I WANT MOAR. :D

  5. RandomX2 on 31 August 2009, 13:01 said:

    Most stories can probably be broken down into a chain reaction of reactions from characters. In my opinion, the accuracy/realism of the reactions demonstrates whether the author was aiming for a CD or SD story.

    But I say that only because I believe that a CD story is vastly superior to a SD story. When you have to try to understand the characters and their personalities(i.e. Ender series) as opposed to the author and what they would want in the storyline (i.e. Inheritance series), reading becomes a bit more engaging. I’m generalizing, so take that with a grain of salt.

    I’m agreeing with you all the way so far :)

  6. swenson on 31 August 2009, 14:21 said:

    Mehhhh…

    I can never agree with those articles that say “Character-driven stories are teh awesome, story-driven stories suck and are clearly written by people who are terrible at writing and can’t come up with characters to save their lives and railroad more than the DM from DM of the Rings.” Because first of all, I disagree with the interpretation that a character-driven plot is all about reactions, and a story-driven plot is all about THE PLOT instead. To me, a CD story is one that focuses on characters, whereas an SD story is one that focuses on results and events. So either one can be equally good- you don’t sacrifice story to write a CD story, for example, so you wouldn’t sacrifice characters to write an SD story.

    The second reason I can’t agree with articles like this is because what on Earth is the difference, anyway?! Is there seriously any story out there that we can point to and say “This is purely a character-driven story, it is not story-driven at all”? Or any story we can say is purely story-driven, and not character-driven at all? All stories have elements of both. You can’t talk about characters if you don’t have a plot for them to go through. And you can’t have a story if you don’t have characters to drive it. You have to have both- so the best you can hope for is really a CD/SD-focused story, not purely one or the other. All stories can be interpreted as either, IMO.

  7. RandomX2 on 31 August 2009, 15:24 said:

    Original Argument: CD and SD are not two totally distinct categories in which one must be chosen and the other ignored. A story can have both.

    Response: In this case, I think driven means “geared toward” rather than “based on.” A story is typically created with primarily characters or a story in mind. That’s not to say that the other is neglected, simply that one takes precedence in the author’s mind. When story is more important, it becomes SD. When character development is more important, it becomes CD.

  8. lawzard on 31 August 2009, 15:47 said:

    I was going to write a big, long comment, but swenson said pretty much everything I was planning on saying. Defining CD plots as ones where characters act realistically and SD plots as ones where characters are just the author’s pawns leaves little room for argument; I don’t know why anyone sensible would pick SD plots according to that definition. Instead, like swenson said, I think it should be defined in terms of whether the story focuses on character development or things that happen to people.

  9. swenson on 31 August 2009, 16:06 said:

    @RX2 – yeah, that’s what I meant, really. There’s no such thing as a story without characters, and there’s no such thing as characters without story. It’s just… when people say “CD IZ GUD, SD IZ BAD”, it annoys me, because they very, very rarely stop to clarify that story isn’t bad, just railroading your characters is. And I don’t think railroading characters is a story-driven plot, that’s a stupid-driven plot.

  10. Virgil on 31 August 2009, 16:29 said:

    Because first of all, I disagree with the interpretation that a character-driven plot is all about reactions, and a story-driven plot is all about THE PLOT instead. To me, a CD story is one that focuses on characters, whereas an SD story is one that focuses on results and events.

    You’re welcome to disagree with my interpretations of what CD and SD are. This is why I defined them in the article. However, what you just said contradicts itself. You say you don’t agree that SD focuses on the plot, but instead should focus on events and results.

    But this is exactly what I meant. What we think of as ‘plot’, events described in a linear fashion, are the results of the characters who make the decisions.

    Despite that, I think I do see what you mean. Whereas a CD focuses on the internal emotions and delicacies of a character, and an SD reaching out and showing the broad extent of the actions on a larger scale, and how it affects the world.

    As a small aside, by that definition (whether it was your intention or not), a CD becomes just a journal or diary, and an SD becomes a history lesson.

    However, it still comes down to my point that all the ‘events’ that you want to focus on in an SD plot are inherent to a CD plot – namely, they are reactions to the character’s actions. And that’s my entire point.

    Although I may have neglected to mention that I shouldn’t have used the over-used terms of CD and SD, by my definition SD would just be railroading as you put it, and CD the ideal mix of the quintessential CD and SD.

  11. Virgil on 31 August 2009, 16:38 said:

    I believe our differences lie in semantics, not necessarily whether CD or SD is superior.

  12. sansafro187 on 31 August 2009, 17:52 said:

    I prefer CD stories, but I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for SD here for a bit.

    SD stories don’t have to railroad characters, nor do the characters have to be the plot’s soulless puppet-slaves. If a story does that with its characters, it isn’t SD. It’s just bad.

    I’d consider well-done SD to be a plot in which the events are focused on over the characters’ inner lives and personal growth and such, with the plot events in question still being natural consequences of character actions. On the other hand, CD is focused on said personal growth and individual character arcs.

    By and large, I would expect an ensemble story to be more SD than CD, since the relationships and cause-and-effect between the characters takes up more of the page time than chronicling the inner workings of said characters.

    As an example of what is, IMO, an effective SD story, I would suggest Death Note(Yes, it’s not literature, and yes, it’s overrated, but I still think it holds up). Light is the same deranged megalomaniac at the end of the story that he is at the beginning. None of the characters change tremendously, but I still consider it an effective story because the escalation of the struggle between he and his enemies is interesting.

  13. Virgil on 31 August 2009, 18:22 said:

    I would think an ensemble would be more CD than SD, since each character interacts with the other.

    I suppose one could argue that a good SD story is where the characters don’t change much.. but the internal mechanisms are still caused by those characters.

    Now I’m all confused though.

  14. sansafro187 on 31 August 2009, 18:32 said:

    I define CD as being about individual character growth and the plot’s effects on the characters even as they move it along, and SD as being more about characters’ effect on the plot. That still doesn’t seem like a wholly satisfactory definition to me, but it’s all I’ve got at the moment. An ensemble piece can be CD, but it strikes me as less likely.

  15. swenson on 31 August 2009, 18:45 said:

    @Virgil – yeah, we probably are just arguing semantics. I guess what I mean by “character-driven” is that the point of the novel is the growth/change of characters and what I mean by “story-driven” is that the point of the novel is what the characters do.

    @Sansa – never thought of Deathnote as an SD story before… but now that you point it out, you’re right. The characters undergo remarkably little change (except Light gets vaguely more unhinged, I suppose), because the focus is more on the plot- how the characters’ personalities conflict, etc. to create the plot, even if those personalities don’t change.

  16. Virgil on 31 August 2009, 18:47 said:

    Well, how the characters move along the plot and their effect on the plot is the same thing.

  17. RandomX2 on 31 August 2009, 18:53 said:

    Yeah, we clearly all have differing opinions as to what CD and SD refer to. I use them as levels, with CD being superior. I don’t use them as two seperate categories in which one can be chosen. For me, CD is when the characters are so well developed that their reactions and ideas form the plot, as opposed to what the author wants to throw in.

    Upon retrospect, that is clearly not the proper use of the terms CD and SD. Ah well.

    As a result of my opinions on what they mean, I view Death Note as CD; the characters have been created and we understand their fundamental personalities. We can guess, to a reasonable degree, how the character will interact with other characters. Those interactions become the center of the plot, as opposed to uncontrollable events (like the Notebook itself falling in the first episode).

    I think we’re mostly of the same opinion. We just aren’t agreeing on our definitions here.

  18. Snow White Queen on 31 August 2009, 19:20 said:

    I use them as levels…not as two seperate categories in which one can be chosen.

    That was my original point. I don’t think I expressed it the way I should have. My point was that any story will have elements of both CD and SD. If a story is more CD, then obviously it will have more focus on characters, and vice versa. I do think that making characters a keystone of your writing is a good idea and definitely strengthens a story. However, I don’t want to discount the importance of a good plot either.

    Obviously, no one here wants to write a story which is, as Swenson so appropriately named it, ‘stupid-driven’. Characters should have realistic motives and personalities and interact with others accordingly. No one wants unrealistic contortions of authoristic control to fulfill THE PLOT.

    It’s just a matter of balancing your plot and your characters, because both ARE important, until you find a combination that makes you happy.

  19. RandomX2 on 31 August 2009, 19:32 said:

    Well said, ma chérie :)

    … Sorry, just played through Okami again.

  20. sansafro187 on 31 August 2009, 19:34 said:

    Obviously, no one here wants to write a story which is, as Swenson so appropriately named it, ‘stupid-driven’.

    This. It seems like people aren’t arguing the same thing.

    I’ll just say what I thought again, in that CD is more about how the plot affects the characters and SD is more about how the characters affect the plot. I prefer reading and writing CD stories as well, but you can’t say one approach is categorically superior.

    @RX2: If you think DN was CD, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the definition. For all intents and purposes, the characters are constant values in the story. Light is always a psycho, L is always a peculiar and detached genius, Chief Yagami is always a principled old cop. There’s very little in the way of character development for anybody, and I consider that a key to qualifying as a CD story.

  21. RandomX2 on 31 August 2009, 19:43 said:

    It’s been established that our definitions of CD and SD are different. I don’t see character development as necessary to a character-driven story.

    We can’t debate/discuss any further if we don’t know what we’re debating/discussing.

    On another note, I tend to make my own definitions and stick with them, so it’s probably my definition that’s incorrect (though I stand by its implications).

  22. swenson on 1 September 2009, 08:51 said:

    (like the Notebook itself falling in the first episode)

    Although, technically, you could argue that’s a result of Ryuk’s character… :)

    (hang on, he does drop the Notebook in the anime, right? I’ve only read the manga)

  23. Nimue on 1 September 2009, 17:22 said:

    When I write something, I have a general idea of what it’s going to be about, and then I create the characters and make up the rest of the plot based on what situations characters are likely to get themselves into, or what actions they are likely to take that would reasonably fit in the story. So it’s kind of SD in that I have the skeleton of a plot to follow, but it’s also CD because many of the plot points were created as a result of the presence and personalities of certain characters, and all but the major plot points are subject to change. Does that sound like an effective writing strategy? I think it has a good balance.

  24. Virgil on 1 September 2009, 17:51 said:

    Yeah, that’s fairly how I do it. Or have a general setting or event that I want to portray, then find characters from there.

    The most important thing is to let your characters make decisions from then on, not you.

  25. Snow White Queen on 1 September 2009, 19:14 said:

    Yeah, that’s similar to what I do. Basically, I decide ‘well, this is kind of what I want to happen here’ and then see how a character would end up there, based on their personality and motives.

    When I don’t have a plot, but I do have characters, obviously it’s going to be more CD.

  26. Rocky on 1 September 2009, 21:09 said:

    Personally, I find it futile to try and categorize the CD and the SD. In my experience, when you get down to the bones of your story, it’s an odd amalgam.

    If the author does his/her job, then you inevitably, and more often than not, have a CD plot. However, I find it extremely difficult to actually craft a plot purely from a CD standpoint.

    Here’s an example. Let’s say TE Lawrence never existed, and I wanted to write a book about an English lieutenant who becomes involved in the Arab revolt against the Turks throughout Arabia. That right there establishes story before character. We know absolutely nothing about the character (I might give him a different name, or change him to a her), but we have a concept of the story.

    For a true CD plot, one would have to start work with a character first, with no other impressions or concepts. But even then, it’s difficult to call it a pure CD plot, because you’re crafting a character as an experiment on how he/she would react to a set of circumstances. The story becomes an intrinsic part of the plot-building process.

    As I said, I really don’t try to define either CD or SD. Come up with an interesting story, sketch some interesting characters to experience it, and you’ll have a good book—CD and SD aside.

  27. Virgil on 1 September 2009, 21:26 said:

    For a true CD plot, one would have to start work with a character first, with no other impressions or concepts.

    Not necessarily. While I would generally agree with you, you can craft a story with a general temperament or motive of the character involved already in mind.

  28. Rocky on 1 September 2009, 23:03 said:

    That would still require a very, very strict set of character-based questions to divorce it from an otherwise intrinsic story-creation process.

    The only one such question I can think of is: “How would this sort of person live life?”

  29. Virgil on 1 September 2009, 23:14 said:

    Exactly what I meant. You define a general motive for the character when you’re coming up with the rough story, if that’s what you did first.

  30. Pi on 2 September 2009, 09:27 said:

    I see what defines CD against SD is a point of conflict where a situation arises where an intended plot point can only be achieved through betraying, to a degree, the established character of a…character. A CD driven story would alter the plot, so as to fit in with the character, where as an SD driven story would ignore the conflicting characteristic in order to accomplish the plot goal.

  31. Virgil on 2 September 2009, 10:36 said:

    That’s the point though. Author intended plot points at the expense of the characters are not a good way to develop the story, since the characters aren’t making the decision, the author is.

  32. WiseWillow on 11 September 2009, 14:59 said:

    But a good story can be both CD and SD. Look at Harry Potter. We know it’s eventually going to be a big show down, but it isn’t because of some deus ex machina prophecy. Dumbledore even flat out says so. It will end up being Harry vs. Voldemort because Voldemort will never stop hunting Harry (because Voldemort is obsessive, hates Harry, and believes that once he kills Harry he will be invincible). Not only that, but Harry wants to kill Voldemort if he can, because Harry loves the memory of his parents, whom Voldemort killed. There’s a definite planned story, yet it flows because of the characters. Perfect harmony. I think CD on it’s own is hard to manage- you can make up a group of characters, yes, but you still need to decide what event they will react to.

  33. anon1 on 12 September 2009, 22:30 said:

    “SD plots are where characters become slaves to a plot, doing and feeling whatever the author thinks is appropriate.”

    This is not a definition of story-driven plot. This is a bad story that will never or should never be published.

    Story-driven plots are good stories that do not neglect character development and do not force the characters to do things that they would never do.

    I found a much better definition of character driven and story driven plots from this website.

    http://overstreet-filmmaking.blogspot.com/2009/07/plot-driven-stories-vs-character-driven.html

    “In a plot driven story, events often happen completely out of a character’s control, and that character must then react to the situation (similar to the deus ex machina concept). In a character driven story, the character usually triggers an event by their own nature, and must then react.”

    There are a lot of good story-driven plots. The movie “Enemy of the State” is one of them. This was a great movie with good characterization, but the whole movie was driven by some guy passing a video to Will Smith which he was completely unaware of. A lot of natural disater movies and books have story-driven plots as well.

    A good example of a character-driven plot is “Gone with the Wind.” I know the civil war is going on, but Scarlett triggers the story by her obsession with
    Ashley.

    Neither CD or SD is superior, but are used to tell different types of stories.

  34. Virgil on 12 September 2009, 23:24 said:

    Again, I defined this in the article and the following comments. What I consider character driven plot contains both of your definitions of story and character driven, namely the character’s own actions and reactions.

    But feel free to define it however you like.

  35. anon1 on 13 September 2009, 00:35 said:

    Virgil,

    You do not get to define a character driven plot and a story driven plot. You did not coin the phrase. These are terms that have been used in studying novels long before you started writing.

    This is like saying this is how I define irony or this is how I define Occam’s razor. You don’t get to do that.

    If you don’t like or trust the definition I gave, then do a little research and find out what the terms really mean.

  36. Snow White Queen on 13 September 2009, 01:02 said:

    I thought it was more of an interpretation than a definition. If you’ll read the earlier comments, people couldn’t even agree on a definition of these terms in the first place.

  37. anon1 on 13 September 2009, 01:09 said:

    It is not, google it.

  38. Snow White Queen on 13 September 2009, 01:33 said:

    I’m sorry, I don’t understand what ‘it’ is not.

    Neither CD nor SD is superior.

    I’ve been trying to argue that the entire time, you know. (This whole debacle sprung up from a discussion between me, Virgil, and some others)

  39. anon1 on 13 September 2009, 01:54 said:

    Sorry I was abrupt. I meant that CD and SD have already been defined. If you google Character driven and story driven, you will find a wealth of info on the topic which will make the definition clear.

    In a character driven plot, a character instigates the plot. For example, the Little Mermaid (Disney version) falls in love with Eric, and it is her desire to be with him that drives the plot. Very character driven.

    In a story driven plot, an event outside of the characters control instigates the plot. For example, Armagedon, the asteroid starts the plot. There would be no story without the asteroid. The asteroid forces the characters to react. How they react is up to the specific characters, but the characters have to react somehow, and this starts the story.

    Which is Better?

    Character driven is not superior to story driven. They are devices to tell different stories. The common misconception is that SD have poor characterization, but that is not true. A SD story can have great characterization. The problem is that an SD story with poor characterization can work, but you cannot have an CD story with poor characterization because the character is driving the story.

  40. Virgil on 13 September 2009, 09:04 said:

    Of course you can have poor characterization with a character driven plot. Characters could make decisions that don’t make sense, or are just what the author wants them to do.

  41. Danielle on 13 September 2009, 11:26 said:

    Sorry; apparently I’m incapable of lurking.

    Anyways, anon1, who says that the definitions you found of CD and SD are the end-all, be-all? Why are people not allowed to define the two for themselves? The definitions you found of them are good; I’m not saying they’re crap. I just think that it’s a somewhat subjective matter.

  42. Snow White Queen on 13 September 2009, 13:02 said:

    In any case, while writing, I don’t really think ‘Hmm, I really want to write a story driven novel today!’

    Whatever comes out, comes out. No matter what type of story you’re writing, you want a good plot and characters regardless.

  43. anon1 on 13 September 2009, 13:35 said:

    How can the definitions of Character driven and story driven plots be subjective?

    Sometime in the history of story analysis someone coined these terms and defined them. Over the years people have misused the terms so that any story with good characterization is character driven, but that is wrong. You have to go back to the original definition.

    This is like ironic. Alanis Morissette butchered the definition of irony in her song “Isn’t that ironic.” Rain on a wedding day isn’t ironic it is bad luck. Alanis can’t say well that is my definition of irony. Irony has already been defined.

    The subjectivity in Character driven and story driven plots comes in analyzing stories. Many stories nicely fit in one catagory or the other, but many are less clear and could be interpreted either way. But the definition of CD and SD IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

    If you don’t believe me, then google it.

    @Virgil

    “Of course you can have poor characterization with a character driven plot. Characters could make decisions that don’t make sense, or are just what the author wants them to do.”

    Well anyone can write a bad character driven story, but I am taking about stories that work that deserve to be published.

    My point is that an author can have a good story driven plot with poor characterization. In my oppinion Micheal Crichtonn does this well. I am a fan of his, but his characters aren’t the best. But his story driven plots are so intriguing that I still like his books. Dan Brown does this as well.

    Poor characterization would never work in a character driven plot because the characters are key to the plot, and if they are not well defined the entire story falls flat. Their motivations are key to the story and so they have to well developed for the story to be believable.

  44. Danielle on 13 September 2009, 16:53 said:

    Well, some people may view character-driven and story-driven differently. Some view it the way you say everyone should view it; others see it more as story-driven being focused on the plot while characters are pushed off to the side (and vice-versa with character-driven); and still others might see it differently. Example: I think The Little Mermaid is story-driven. It’s about a mermaid who falls in love with a human; the story is the main focal point. In, say, The Dark Knight, on the other hand, the characters are the focus of the story. So that’s my definition of story-driven and character-driven. Disagree with me if you want.

    I would like to see who came up with the original definition and why we need to listen to that person. To me, writing is a very subjective trade; therefore, the few rules there are are highly subjective. I reacted the same way when I heard about Aristotle’s definition of tragedy. Who says it HAS to be about a noble/royal person’s fall from grace? Can’t it be about an ordinary man’s flaws that become his undoing (a la Death of a Salesman)?Who are you to come up with these rules, Mr. Dead Greek Man?

    Oh, and by the way, there’s a very big difference between defining words and defining things about writing. If a word is given a different definition, it changes our understanding of that word, and those changes can be profound. Just look at the word “gay.” Once upon a time it meant “happy”; now it means “homosexual.” But saying that the definition of story-driven is subjective? All that does is give us something new to debate about.

  45. anon1 on 13 September 2009, 17:46 said:

    Arrrrggg.

    You can believe whatever you want, but how is everyone having their own definition of character driven and story driven plots useful? If everyone thinks they mean something different, then the terms are meaningless. Everyone must agree on their meaning before they can be used for deep, intellectual conversations about literature.

    I am not asking you to accept my definition. I only gave you the current consensus of authors and screen writers and literary professors.

    But do whatever you want. Call an apple a bannana.

  46. Danielle on 13 September 2009, 17:55 said:

    Quick question: Why are you so adamant people accept one definition about story-driven vs. character driven? You say it’s because we need a universal definition to “understand anything deep and meaningful about literature,” but isn’t debate one of the natural effects of literature? Just look at Death of a Salesman. I read that book my junior year, and the main question for that unit was “Is it tragedy?” Willy Loman was not royal or nobility (which excluded the story from fitting into Aristotle’s definition) but the story itself was tragic. The story’s impact was not lessened because some of us refused to accept Aristotle’s definition, and I would argue that we got more out of it because we debated whether or not it should fit into a box designed by The Powers That Be.

    We’re not arguing about whether or not there’s a fire in the building. None of us are going to burn to death if we don’t accept a single definition of SD vs. CD. Maybe we just like to argue. Maybe we have our own ideas of what a CD or SD story looks like.

    Oh, and I caught your subtle jab at my intelligence in your “call an apple a banana comment.” I don’t like it. Knock it off, okay?

  47. anon1 on 13 September 2009, 18:16 said:

    You are confusing definition with interpretation.

    A definition of any word or terms is not subjective but the interpretation is.

    Is the Death of a Salesman are tragedy? Good question. How do we interpret the definition of a tragedy? One could argue that a noble person is someone who is admirable and does not have to be of royal blood. So the question is, is Willy Loman noble? That is subjective. But the definition of a Tragedy is not.

    Sorry about the apple jab. You seem like a nice person, so that was low on my part.

  48. Danielle on 13 September 2009, 20:30 said:

    Well, that begs the question: Is Aristotle’s definition definite? True, he did give us some of the greatest tragedies ever written, but does that make him an authority on Tragedy? Is a story about an ordinary man who loses his mind and commits suicide in a last-ditch attempt to save his family any less tragic than the story of a man who accidentally marries his mom and kills his dad (EW!)?

    The way I see it, it’s the same with CD vs. SD. True, it’s the agreed-upon consensus of authors and screenwriters and not the opinion of one man, but does that make them THE authority on CD vs. SD? And can’t some words have multiple meanings? I’d say the same is true of CD and SD stories.

    It’s ok, btw. :)

  49. Snow White Queen on 13 September 2009, 22:07 said:

    Can you interpret a definition?

    XD

  50. Danielle on 13 September 2009, 22:36 said:

    Uhhh….into Spanish, maybe. Only….my Spanish isn’t that good, so it might end up kind of weird….

    How about Pig Latin? :P

  51. anon1 on 13 September 2009, 23:40 said:

    “Can you interpret a definition?”

    Of course you can.

    Dictionary definition of interpret.

    “interpret – make sense of; assign a meaning to; “What message do you see in this letter?”; “How do you interpret his behavior?”

    A definition is words that you assign meaning to.

    @Danielle.

    There has to be a consensus in defining terms to study literature. The authority are the experts in the field, people with the credentials and degrees. It is definitely not me or you.

    To have a useful conversation of whether “Death of a Salesman” is a tragedy or whether character driven plots are better than story driven plots, everyone has to accept the same definitions of these terms. Otherwise, the whole discussion is meaningless.

    For example: I can say that a tragedy is when someone good is murdered and you can say that a tragedy is when someone dies a pointless death, and then we argue if “Death of a salesman” is a tragedy or not. I say it is not because Willy wasn’t murdered and you say it is because Willy died a pointless death. What is the point of the argument? We are both have our own definitions of a tragedy so we both believe that we are right. But the whole argument is meaningless.

    But if we both accept the definition of a tragedy that Aristotle gave, then we could have an intellegent argument about whether an every day man can be noble enough to be a tragic hero. With in depth character analysis and searching the author’s intent.

    Do you see my point?

    This whole article started with a discussion on which is better CD or SD plots which could be a really awesome discussion. But you spend all your time talking about your own personal definitions of CD and SD plots and you miss the opportunity to deeply delve into which types of stories resonates with you and why. This could be a very insightful discussion for writers to have. But instead it is pointless. Someone gives an example of a great SD plot and someone else says “well according to me that is a CD plot.” So the discussion really goes no where.

    Why don’t you adopt the current definitions of CD and SD plots by career writers and literary professors to have a real meaningful conversation?

    That is my point for commenting on this thread. I think you guys are a smart bunch who could get more out of this site if you seriously studied what makes a story great.

    Just my oppinion. I hope I didn’t offend anyone.

  52. Danielle on 13 September 2009, 23:57 said:

    Ah, so it’s back to the age-old argument: Who is best at defining things? Professors, or regular people?

    My opinion: Discussing the definitions of things (such as CD and SD) can be in and of itself a useful and fun endeavor. I don’t need some university professor telling me what my opinion should be, and I don’t need you telling me that I don’t have the smarts to come up with my own opinion on something.

    You can delve into which type of story resonates with you and why without accepting the Distinguished Professor from a Prestigious University’s opinion. I’m perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions, thank you very much—and I think I speak for the other people on this site when I say that.

  53. anon1 on 14 September 2009, 01:29 said:

    I am not telling you that you don’t have the smarts to come up with your own opinions.

    Terms such as character driven and story driven plots are tools to study literature.

    Why discuss your personal definitions of CD and SD stories when you can come to general consensus of their meanings and use these tools to discuss literature?

    Discussing books is what will help you become a better writer.

  54. Danielle on 14 September 2009, 11:51 said:

    And I say that discussing the definitions of things that are difficult to define can also make you a better writer.

    I can see we’re always going to have two different opinions on this, so I say we just agree to disagree.