March 7, 2018
Plot Is Overrated, so Write what Matters
I often go to Amazon’s Best-Sellers List to find free Kindle eBooks. The problem is, as I explained in my article on the supply and demand of writing fiction, that there is simply too much noise out there. That is, too many mediocre works.
“Hang on!” someone might say. “How on earth can you tell a book is mediocre simply by reading its description?” Well, you can if you’re experienced enough. A long, divulging description usually tells me that the author is preoccupied with the plot. But plot is overrated, grossly so.
Furthermore, bear in mind that long descriptions usually reveal something else, too. A long description is usually a sign of an author who has concocted a plot so convoluted, that it requires a long description to make sense to the prospective reader. Too complex a plot is hard to write and harder to read. Here’s what most inexperienced authors don’t realize:
All plots have been devised already. There is nothing new under the sun. There is no original story by virtue of its plot.
So, if a writer shouldn’t place too much emphasis on the plot, where then? If plot is overrated, what are good novels based on?
Why Plot Is Overrated
First things first. Before we talk about the elements that make a good book, we should talk a bit about the perhaps controversial issue I raised; namely, why plot is overrated. I hinted at this already, but I can make it more explicit. Believe it or not, there aren’t any stories left unsaid.
Through the many centuries of human culture, all the great works of literature are – in terms of plot – little more than simple regurgitation of older (perhaps timeless) ideas. Even William Shakespeare, arguably one of the greatest story-tellers of all time, simply adapted older, well-known stories to create his dramas.
“But this can’t be right!” I hear another objection marching my way. “I just read [insert your favorite book here] and it’s incredibly original”. Perhaps it was original, I don’t doubt that. But ask yourself: was it the plot that felt original or something else? We’ll get to that in just a moment, further below.
As a result of this misunderstanding, inexperienced authors believe that they must devise an incredibly imaginative, far-out plot in order to be original. This almost always ends up badly. Take another look at my article on narrative journeys, to see how a good plot has to ultimately be inevitable.
The reason far-out plots don’t work well is because they don’t feel inevitable. An author overestimating the importance of plot is at fault, but s/he commits an even graver mistake by attempting to overcome the (only perceived) problem of a “too simple plot” by introducing larger-than-life storylines that go nowhere.
There is no Shame in Being Inexperienced or Making Mistakes
At this point I want to make a short digression and stress something: There is no shame in being an inexperienced author. In this blog I often write about mistakes an author might make, or about the traps threatening the work of inexperienced writers.
This doesn’t mean I was born knowing these things myself. We must all begin from somewhere and, as I once said in an interview, twenty years ago my writing was like an explosion of paint: it created vivid pictures, but the paint would stick onto things that didn’t need any. Having said that, it is important to learn from one’s mistakes and evolve as an author (as well).
If Plot is Overrated, what Makes a Good Novel?
In other words, where does originality come from? Simple (and, again, infinitely complex). A novel is original not because of its plot, but because of the way the author presents it. It’s not the storyline, but the storytelling that matters. Does the name Giovanni Battista Giraldi (or Cinthio, his pen name) tell you anything? Unless you really are a literature or history buff, I don’t expect you to know that he is the author of Un Capitano Moro (“A Moorish Captain”), which is the story Shakespeare’s Othello is based on.
Shakespeare’s enduring legacy has nothing to do with the originality of “his” plots (which weren’t his at all). Rather, it is a product of his matchless skill at presenting these plots, effectively bringing together modern storytelling and ancient Athenian theater.
Stop being preoccupied with concocting original stories, because there are no original stories. Every story worth telling eventually boils down to the human experience. Take a look at my post on story dice, and what I have to say about plot vs creativity.
Dracula is not a story about blood-sucking monsters, but about (among other things) the struggle to reconcile our personal desires with our sense of duty. Stoker’s originality comes precisely from the way he chose (to an extent subconsciously!) to portray these age-old anxieties.
Some Quick Tips on what to Favor as an author
Check again my article on developing your own narrative style, and see how the elements of a good novel are (arguably in this order):
- Feeling an overwhelming need to express affect (which I define as an emotion, a thought, or a state of mind).
- Find a method to express this affect in a way no other person has ever done (an idealistic goal, but one worth aiming for).
- Be ready to break each and every rule of writing (provided you understand them) if it helps you expressing this affect.
- Write for nobody but yourself.
These are the elements of an original novel. From the reader’s perspective, its plot could be a woman staring at her reflection in the mirror and that’s it.
4 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
*The passion according to G.H.* is a magnificent novel by Clarice Lispector. I heard there’s an English translation, don’t know how good it is. It involves a woman staring at her plate, at a room on the back of her apartment and a cockroach half-smashed by a wardrobe’s door. While it involves such events, it surely is about much more than just that.
That sounds like a book I’d be interested in. There is a long tradition that begins with Kafka (there might be earlier examples, but he’s the first coming to mind) and reaches all the way to modern authors such as Auster or Murakami, and involves plots that are there as a necessary evil; as little more than blank canvases for the dyes of symbolism and meaning to be placed. Indeed, since I mentioned them, both Kafka and Murakami seem to be well aware of the fact, with their skillful use of pastiche, parody, and faux-important plot devices.
I would insist you’d be surprised by Lispector. She is not as dry and harsh as Kafka, not as long-winded as Auster, and not as… ok, I dislike Murakami, so I won’t pray a word to avoid offense (I like short books, what can I do!). I can’t stand Kafka’s novels, but his short stories are a blast for me. Lispector was such a masterful writer, her prose is both poetry and philosophy all at once and both at large (filled to the brim with what you dubbed symbolism, to the point where it is simultaneously psychological speculation and sociopolitical exploration).
As I said, it sounds just like my cup of tea! I’ll have to look for it – thanks for the tip!