# "Simple plots about complex characters." Do you agree?



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Sometimes I agree with this writing advice, sometimes not. Your thoughts?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

For the most part, I agree.

It does depend on genre.

If you're writing epic fantasy, you'll more likely have a more complex plot with (many) simpler characters, and that is OK for that genre. If you write literary fiction, you can get away with very complex characters and "What plot? Who needs plot, anyway?"

Not all genres require (or even want) deep characters.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

I agree. It does depend on genre, come to think of it. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Disagree. I hate simple plots both as a reader and a writer.

Give me compound or better.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Disagree. I hate simple plots both as a reader and a writer.
> 
> Give me compound or better.


In commercial fiction, right?

I do like a complex plot sometimes, something that literary fiction has always staked a claim on.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I don't really do litfic in any form, so yeah. I'm not a fan of simple and straightforward. If there's not some English on the pitch, I'm not going to be interested in it.

Not to say I'm in favor of hyper-complex stuff, but 'simple' doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

I don't know - I'm trying to figure out whether I agree or not, but there are just too many varieties of plot out there for me to be able to figure out what counts as simple and what counts as complex. Okay, a long fantasy epic is generally complex, and a straightforward love story is generally simple. But what about a long fantasy epic that has many plot threads, but all the plot threads are archetypical in the extreme and very easy to figure out? What about a complex love story that is made so by the complexity of its characters - is that a simple plot with complex characters, or a complex plot with complex characters? What about a mystery that doesn't have multiple plot threads but is very twisty? What about a plot that doesn't have many twists but goes in a direction that hasn't been done before? What about a straightforward story that becomes multilayered once you start looking at the themes? What about a meandering literary novel that looks like it doesn't have a plot at all?

Can we just say, "All books are different, all writers are different, all readers are different and want different things," and leave it at that?

(I do agree, though, that you should be able to describe your book in a couple of sentences at most. But that's less about the book being simple, and more about the author being able to articulate what the central aspect of the story is for him/her. If the author doesn't know what the focus of the book is, the reader won't either.)


----------



## draconian (Jun 7, 2013)

JanThompson said:


> Sometimes I agree with this writing advice, sometimes not. Your thoughts?


Although some people have already mentioned the issue of genre, its also worth noting that the quote talks about both movies and books.
Movies absolutely truly need simple plots. Books dont.

Thats why books like the Bible, Lord of the Rings, and the Game of Thrones can work as books, but for a 90 minute (or even 2 hour) movie there is simply way too much and most of it has to be chopped out.


----------



## bhazelgrove (Jul 16, 2013)

F Scott Fitzgerald said character is action. I think that sort of goes with your writing teacher


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

Some of the most successful movies have had neither deep plots nor complex characters, just lots of marketing.

I usually don't like those.


----------



## Saffron (May 22, 2013)

I don't think I could agree or not with the statement. I agree with what has been said above. I should like to say though, I am a great fan of James Scott Bell's books on how to write fiction and I have several of them.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Well, I have to argue the successful part. I write simple plots with complex characyers- cause that's what I like. But I wouldn't call it successful.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Well, among my fav books are “Under the Volcano” - simple plot with complex characters, and “Shogun” - complex plot with complex characters. 

I can’t think of a book with simple characters that I like. Maybe The Hungry Caterpillar?


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

You might be able to argue that The Avengers has simple characters and a complex plot, and it still worked. However, much of the simple characterization built upon previous movies (especially Iron Man), and the audience's preconceptions of those characters, making them seem more complex.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JanThompson said:


> "Simple plots about complex characters." Do you agree?


Yes, I agree.

Just like I agree that steak and potatoes makes a great meal. But that doesn't mean I want to eat that every day for dinner. There are other great meals too.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't much care for simple plots or characters. I guess that's why I like Indie movies.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

James Cameron movies tend to be simple plots and simple characters. They are often successful.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

I think that formula is a little misleading because the plot’s level of complexity is a function of the level of detail used to describe it. Any plot can be described in a line or two and any plot can be described more expansively. The real test is whether you can describe the plot in a line or two; and if you can’t, you may have a problem. A more useful distinction would be complex versus convoluted plots and simple versus pedestrian plots. 

The same goes for the connection between the complexity and the quality of characters. Sherlock Holmes and Iago are both relatively simple characters when it comes down to it. But they’re still fascinating. A better distinction would be stereotypical versus archetypal characters and under-developed versus well-developed characters.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

I've had a reviewer say that about my book:



> "I have always liked stories that are more character driven then plot driven, so this book fits my reading style. *The plot is simple, we have an assassin for hire, that does a job for some screwed up people that try to set her up to be caught*. It has a romance and a pet parrot (I could just read about him; he was so cute!)."


Well, sure, if you go down to the bare bones, that is pretty much the plot. However, there are four intersecting storylines that make the story less simple than the bare bones plot might suggest. I do believe that interesting characters could survive a story about making tea, while a complex plot will fall flat with unbelievable cardboard characters. So in that sense, I'd prefer a decent plot with great characters to an excellent plot with mediocre characters.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

I don't find that kind of writing advice very useful. I think that a character is in a given story for a reason and should be as complex or simple as the purpose for being there requires. Same with the plot, really. Just mho, of course.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> James Cameron movies tend to be simple plots and simple characters. They are often successful.


I was just thinking about the first Terminator movie. I re-watched it recently and was amazed by how little happened. A couple of chase and fight scenes, nothing really elaborate. Totally works, though.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

I absolutely agree. My writing tutors hammered this into me as well, though, so I may be biased. 

I've always felt that complex characters can carry the simplest of plots and still tell an amazing story, but even the most intricate and dazzling plots will never be anything more than "interesting" without a strong cast of characters to make you care about them.
Characters are where the emotion comes from, and that's the juicy bit of storytelling. Not that a good plot isn't important, but it's a tier below character in my mind.

History books often have really good plots, but they're not liable to make you laugh or cry in the middle of a chapter.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

You can't completely disentangle plot from character or vice versa.

"What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the illustration of character?" -- Henry James.


----------



## jvin248 (Jan 31, 2012)

Mimi said:


> I was just thinking about the first Terminator movie. I re-watched it recently and was amazed by how little happened. A couple of chase and fight scenes, nothing really elaborate. Totally works, though.


.
There's my excuse to watch that movie again!
.
.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Mimi said:


> I was just thinking about the first Terminator movie. I re-watched it recently and was amazed by how little happened. A couple of chase and fight scenes, nothing really elaborate. Totally works, though.


Another one that comes to mind in another genre is "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham. Young lawyer fights big corporation. Simple plot. But the characters are pretty complex.

Lee Child's "One Shot" has a simple plot too. Jack Reacher finds true killer in order to free accused.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Wouldn't a complex character make for a more complicated plot?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Mimi said:


> I was just thinking about the first Terminator movie. I re-watched it recently and was amazed by how little happened. A couple of chase and fight scenes, nothing really elaborate. Totally works, though.


On the other hand, Terminator 2: Judgement Day is a much better film and makes Terminator more complex by existing.

Then Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines comes along and is awful while making the previous two movies much less complex because Terminator 2 was completely pointless if you follow the RotM timeline instead of the Sara Conner Chronicles one.


----------

