In the writing community, stories are often broken down into two major categories: character-driven and plot-driven.
What is a Character-driven Story?
Character-driven stories focus more on the character(s). They focus more on the character's internal journey, how he is impacted by the events of the plot, and how he arcs through the narrative (because of his choices). The stakes are deep and personal, and are often related to the character's identity--who he will or won't become. A Man Called Otto, Legally Blonde, and Hamilton are character-driven stories.
What is a Plot-driven Story?
Plot-driven stories focus more on the plot (obviously). They focus more on the external journey. Rather than emphasizing personal stakes, they emphasize broad, far-reaching stakes. They are less about how the protagonist is impacted by the events, and more about how other people or the world are impacted by them. 007, Stranger Things, and Indiana Jones are plot-driven stories.
In reality, though, this is more of a spectrum than an either-or situation. Most successful stories are, to some extent, both "character-driven" and "plot-driven."
Character-driven & Plot-driven: A Spectrum
While you can find stories that are strictly character-driven or strictly plot-driven, the truth is, most stories are, to a large extent, both.
Usually the main difference is which plotline gets the most emphasis: the internal or the external.
Plotlines: Internal and External
Most successful stories will feature both internal and external plotlines that interweave. The character impacts the world. And the world impacts the character.
And pretty much any powerful plotline will have these four things: an objective, antagonist, conflict, and consequences.
These tend to be most obvious when looking at the external plotline.
In Moana, the protagonist aims to restore the heart of Te Fiti (objective), but Te Ka (and other antagonists) attack her (conflict). If she doesn't restore the heart, blight will overtake her home (consequences).
In the external plotline, the objective is a concrete, measurable goal. Moana aims to return the heart. We know that success is doing that.
The antagonists exist outside the character. Te Ka, Tamatoa, and the coconut people are forces that get in the way of her goal.
The conflicts are also external. Moana (and Maui) have to fight off and/or escape these entities.
The consequences are external as well. They are broad and far-reaching, meaning they affect a good-sized group of people and their "world"--in this case, everyone on the island and even beyond.
But there is also an internal plotline with these four things.
In her heart, Moana wants to be true to herself (objective), but she is battling her own psyche (antagonist); she is facing doubt that she is the right person for this quest (conflict). If she doesn't overcome that doubt, she'll never become who she yearns to be (specifically a voyager) (consequences).
In the internal plotline, the objective is more abstract--such as "freedom," "love," or, like Moana, being "true to yourself." It's often the main motivator behind what the character does.
The antagonist exists inside the character. The antagonist is the character's self. It's Moana's own doubt that is getting in her way.
This means the conflicts are also internal. She must find it within herself to overcome this doubt.
The consequences are likewise internal. What Moana chooses to do in the face of that crippling doubt, will determine who she becomes--it will determine her character arc, her identity. Will she give up and never become who she wants to be? Or will she press on and realize her dreams?
The internal plotline can often be trickier to discern, because it is internal, and therefore more abstract. It usually exists within the psyche.
And while it's technically possible to write a successful story that has an external plotline but no internal plotline, it's extremely difficult to write one that has an internal plotline and no external plotline.
This is because what's happening internally will often be expressed externally.
It's Moana's desire to be true to herself--and help her people be true to themselves--that motivates her to return the heart. Sure, it's not the only motivator (the consequences of the blight are another big one), but it's a key motivator.
If the character truly wants something, she'll pursue a concrete goal to make it a reality. If she doesn't, she really didn't want it that badly.
Likewise, what happens externally will often affect the character internally--this creates the weave of the plotlines.
While technically that doubt exists in Moana's self, it's being brought on and exacerbated by other forces. Maui voices doubt that she was the right person for this journey, and the formidable (external) antagonists are testing Moana, bringing that doubt to the forefront, so she has to eventually confront it.
What she chooses to do in one plotline also affects the other. If she gives in to the doubt, then the heart won't be restored, and her island will be doomed. And if she successfully restores the heart, then she and her people can become who they truly are: voyagers.
Most stories have both an external and internal plotline--the difference is the emphasis. Are we largely focused on the external plot? Or the internal character?
Or does it fit somewhere in between, like Moana?
Plot-driven Stories (External Plotline Emphasized)
So, in a plot-driven story, the main difference is that the focus is on the external plotline, not the internal.
In Indiana Jones, there is no internal plotline. It's almost all about the external--getting the Ark (objective), the Nazis (antagonist), the physical confrontations and chases (conflict), saving society from supernatural forces falling into the wrong hands (consequence). . . . Indy doesn't struggle much psychologically. This isn't to say he never does--he might have moments of internal conflict about what to do in a given (plot) situation (how will he overcome his fear of snakes?), but a moment of internal conflict here and there, isn't the same as having an internal plotline.
A plotline is longer than a moment, longer than a scene or two. An internal plotline is a struggle with the self that has the potential to change who the character is (identity). It's the internal journey.
Indy has little to no internal journey.
That doesn't make Indiana Jones inferior. It just makes it different.
And if Indy did have an internal plotline, that means less time and attention spent on those epic fights and chases.
It's likewise possible to write a plot-driven story that still has an internal plotline--it's just de-emphasized, less important, and maybe even less developed.
Christopher Nolan's film Interstellar is plot-driven, but this doesn't mean it has no internal journey.
In the external plotline, Cooper aims to find a habitable planet (objective), but in outer space, Mother Nature is a beast (antagonist); this creates life-threatening encounters (conflict), that can potentially kill his team, and by extension, the whole human race (consequences).
These are very broad, external stakes, and they get most of our attention. But this doesn't mean there's no internal journey.
Cooper's abstract want is for him and his family to live--literally and figuratively (objective). This comes from his core and motivates essentially everything he does. He wants his family to live, so he goes on this space journey. But he also experiences doubt (like Moana) and regret on the journey. He also debates what's worth the costs (antagonist and conflicts). But in his efforts to complete the external goal, he changes internally. He learns that ultimately love is the most powerful force in the universe--more powerful than space, time, and gravity. It's so powerful, it helps him "defeat" Mother Nature, so he "wins" the main conflict, and gets his goal.
Earlier in the story, it's shown that Cooper is dismissive of love when in the clutches of nature. But by the end, he knows it is a force greater. His worldview of love has been altered.
This internal journey gets less attention, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
It may be less obvious, but it's still present.
And still impactful.
Character-driven Stories (Internal Plotline Emphasized)
In a character-driven story, the internal plotline gets the focus.
It's rare you'll find character-driven stories that have no clear external plotlines--it's extremely difficult to the point of being nigh impossible to pull off. This is because the abstract pieces almost always need to show up in concrete ways to be effective.
If we only dwell on what the character wants and thinks of doing, but she takes no action to do it, then the story isn't very interesting because it's not evolving or progressing.
It's not enough for the character just to want something--she needs to try to make it real, which usually means taking concrete action.
So, if Moana only ever yearned to be true to herself, but took no concrete action to get that, it's not much of a story. The internal "world" must show up in the external "world."
Yet in a character-driven story, the focus will still be largely on the character's internal desires, experiences, and consequences ("consequences" meaning character growth/the character arc).
The film, A Man Called Otto is a character-driven story. In it, Otto wants to stop living (objective), so he takes concrete action by making suicide attempts . . . which keep getting disrupted by other people. The disruptions and people eventually lead him to confront his loneliness and unwillingness to accept help (antagonist and conflict). The stakes are not broad and far-reaching, but are deep and personal. Frankly, if he successfully takes his own life, not much of the "world" will be impacted. It's really mainly Otto's life and well-being that are at risk. If he doesn't learn to see beyond his own loneliness and learn to receive help, then he'll never move forward from his wife's death.
The plot isn't "thrilling" or action-packed. Yet it's deep and meaningful. It's not a story about the external; it's about the internal. It's about who Otto is and who he grows into.
Character-driven stories also tend to put more focus on (character) relationships and relationship plotlines, especially if the external plotline is modest. Because Otto doesn't have a major external plotline, the "relationship journeys" are highlighted instead. They are used to make the internal more "external"--more concrete. Otto feeling like he doesn't want help is one thing. Otto shutting the door on Marisol, who offers help, is much more effective. It's the internal world showing up in the external one.
With that all said, it's of course possible to write a character-driven story that has a solid external plotline. In fact, this is most common.
Hamilton is also a character-driven story, and it has plenty happening externally--like the whole founding of the United States of America. But the story is about Hamilton--who he was and who he became--and all the historical events are linked back to him.
It's about Hamilton's quest to build his legacy (objective), how he gets in his own way (antagonist) and causes problems (conflict), which eventually lead him to learn that, despite his best efforts, no one has full control over their legacies (consequences). This all changes who he is, by changing his beliefs.
The historical events are there, but they are framed around Hamilton's personal journey.
The Spectrum: A Matter of Emphasis
Interestingly, because most stories are somewhere between the two extremes, it's entirely possible to take a story idea and push it one way or another.
For example, if Lin-Manuel Miranda wanted to write a "plot-driven" play about the U.S., he could have totally done that. The Revolution and founding of America are ripe with thrilling turns, twists, and action. He could have written it with a broader scope and covered more of the founding fathers, and he could have leaned harder on the societal (external) conflicts.
But he didn't.
He chose to write a character-driven story because, to him, Alexander Hamilton was the most interesting part. (Not to mention that an "external" view of America's beginnings has been done countless times before already.)
Likewise, Disney could technically take Moana and push it more one way or another. They could have cut down the internal journey and built up the external one. Or, they could have cut down the external journey and built up the internal one.
Recently I watched an adaptation of Trigun. It's the second adaptation of the source material. What's interesting is that in the first adaptation of it (from the 90s), the writers made the story character-driven. They focused more on the characters, relationships, and their internal journeys. But in the latest adaptation, the writers made the story plot-driven. They focused on the overarching external goals, the big action scenes, and the world-leveling stakes.
What was surprising to me is that even though they were so different from each other, they both still felt like the source material--which falls more in the middle. One production team tilted the story one way, and the other tilted it the opposite way.
However, this is easier done with some stories than others. If you made a character-driven Indiana Jones, it frankly wouldn't feel like Indiana Jones anymore. The epic chase scenes would be cut back, and we'd be focusing more on Indy's internal struggles. That's not what fans came for.
Likewise, turning A Man Called Otto into a plot-driven story would be a nightmare. It's so character-driven, that in order to place it at the other end, you'd have to essentially write a completely different story. It wouldn't be recognizable anymore.
So while most stories can be pushed one way or another, some can't, and to try would be a disservice.
Furthermore, some genres lean heavily toward one over the other. Women's fiction is going to be character-driven. Thrillers are going to be plot-driven. Literary fiction is going to be character-driven. Investigative mysteries are going to be plot-driven.
While we may have our personal preferences, neither is technically "better." They're just different.
Critics of plot-driven fiction feel that the stories lack substance and meaning, that they lack takeaway value. To them, it's like eating candy--dumb fun without nutrients.
Critics of character-driven fiction feel that the story lacks plot, that "nothing happens." To them, it's like eating liver--maybe it's "good," but who cares if you can't get beyond the first bite?
Personal preference isn't a sin. However, if you desire, you can minimize these criticisms by strengthening what each is apparently "lacking" . . .
. . . and I'll have some upcoming posts on how to do that. (I was originally putting the info in here, but it got too long.)
Misconceptions & Myths
A Misconception: Which "Drives" the Story and Makes it "Happen"?
So far in this article, I've been using "character-driven" and "plot-driven" to mean "character-focused" and "plot-focused," but there is another, less common way these terms get used that I want to address.
See, one of the problems with the writing community . . . is no one polices our writing terms. And so sometimes one term gets used to mean two or more different things. Or, we end up with multiple terms for the same concept.
While most people use the terms in the way I have, some use them to reference what makes the plot "happen."
They argue that in a "character-driven" story, the character "makes the plot happen." For example, at first glance, in Legally Blonde, the protagonist, Elle, is the full "driver" of the plot. She's the one who goes to Harvard, applies for the internship, and wins the case. She is "driving" the plot forward.
They likewise argue that in a "plot-driven" story, the external world "makes the plot happen." Meaning, the events are happening to the character. In Interstellar, the Earth is dying, forcing humanity (and by extension Cooper) to do something. Limited resources, time, and Mother Nature are pushing the characters forward through the story.
While I think there is something to this, this line of thinking is really misleading.
In a well-written story, both the character and the "world" are making the plot "happen." It's a weave. If only the character is making it happen, then the external world is too weak. If only the external world is making it happen, then the character is too weak.
This is true regardless of whether the story is character-focused or plot-focused.
In A Man Called Otto, the external world makes the plot "happen," just as Otto does. At the midpoint, when Otto goes to the train station to end his life, another man falls onto the train tracks instead (external event--"plot"). Otto responds by saving him (internal choice--"character"). Similarly, when Marisol finds a cat nearly frozen to death ("plot"), Otto reluctantly takes him in ("character").
In Indiana Jones, the protagonist makes the plot "happen" just as the external world does. Indy uses the medallion to successfully locate where the Ark is ("character"), but the Nazis discover him, seize it, and seal Indy in the Well ("plot"), yet Indy finds a way to escape and capture the truck hauling the Ark ("character"). He finds a way to transport the Ark to London, but the Nazis intercept them ("plot").
We see the same weave in Legally Blonde and Interstellar.
It doesn't matter if the character is proactively chasing the "carrot" (reward/positive consequences) more than avoiding the "stick" (punishment/negative consequences), like Elle, or avoiding the "stick" more than chasing the "carrot," like Cooper. It's still a weave.
It also doesn't matter if the character is a go-getter or reluctant. Indy is a go-getter in a plot-focused story. But Otto is reluctant in a character-focused story.
It also doesn't matter which force initiates the journey. Elle is in a character-focused story, but external forces initiate her journey: Warner breaks up with her. While The X-Files is a plot-focused story, Mulder initiates his own journey by jumping headlong into cases.
So suffice it to say, this outlook likely does more harm than good.
Myth: In a Plot-driven Story, You can Swap out the Characters
I've seen the argument that in a plot-driven story, you can swap out the characters without it changing the story.
Regardless of what type of story you are writing, if you can do this, it's a bad sign.
Most commonly, this is a sign that your characters don't exercise enough meaningful agency. Meaning, as I just mentioned in the previous section, they aren't impacting the plot and are therefore too weak.
And even if your characters are (unfortunately) bland at the surface level, different characters should be making different choices. Our choices show who we are.
There is a big difference between someone who chooses to help someone only when he gets something out of it, someone choosing to help someone only when he has the time, and someone choosing to bend over backward to help someone at the drop of a hat. These are three very different people (even if they look "identical" on the surface).
If the first character is in a situation where there is nothing to be gained, his choice not to help should send the story in a different direction than if the third character were in that situation.
And if the third character harms himself bending over backward to help someone (he's probably a people-pleaser), then that should change the story's direction as well.
If you can just swap out a character for any other character, you have a problem.
There are maybe some rare exceptions to this, like when working with "everyman" characters, or, possibly, when working with stories that are offering more of a bird's eye view of a societal conflict. But even then, probably not. Doing this sort of thing would be more of a rule break . . . which proves my point.
Myth: In a Character-driven Story, the Character Transforms
Quite a few people say that in a character-driven story, the character must transform or change, but this isn't true either. Not all protagonists have to go through a big change arc. Some stories are about the character remaining steadfast in who he was in the beginning, growing in resolve, and becoming an even better version of who he already is.
In the beginning of Legally Blonde, Elle already believes she can be herself and do serious things--that she can be taken seriously. But when Warner dumps her, doubt creeps in. The rest of the story tests Elle's resolve. In the end, she succeeds by holding fast to her initial beliefs and proving them true to others. You can be true to yourself (ultra-feminine) and still accomplish serious things. This doesn't mean she doesn't grow at all--she becomes a better version of who she was initially. But it's not a big transformation or change.
Likewise, in Finding Neverland, Barrie doesn't go through a big transformation either. Yet this is a very character-driven story. Instead of changing himself, Barrie helps those around him, specifically Peter, to change.
Technically, your protagonist does not need to undergo a big change arc to create a great character-driven story.
COMING SOON: I'll be sharing tips on creating stronger characters in plot-driven fiction, and creating stronger plots in character-driven fiction.
If you don't want to miss them and would like them delivered straight to your email, you may want to join my mailing list (if you haven't already). When you do, you can get a free copy of my booklet Core Principles of Crafting Protagonists.
P. S. I still have a spot left for my live online writing course. If you liked this article, you'll like the course. Learn more. (Get $250 off with code LETSWRITE26 (or code LETSWRITE21 if you choose a payment plan).)
Happy Writing!
0 comments:
Post a Comment
I love comments :)