writerjenn

So I've been thinking a lot about plot this week, and I decided to revisit an earlier post in which I named five books that I found exceptional in terms of plotting:

TWILIGHT, Stephenie Meyer
HOW TO EAT FRIED WORMS, Thomas Rockwell
HOLES, Louis Sachar
SUMMER OF FEAR, Lois Duncan
INEXCUSABLE, Chris Lynch

All are page-turners, though they have very different styles.  TWILIGHT and SUMMER OF FEAR have supernatural/thriller aspects.  INEXCUSABLE is a gradual uncovering of a dark truth.  HOW TO EAT FRIED WORMS and HOLES have humorous elements (the former more than the latter).  When I try to analyze what makes the plotting memorable in these very different cases, here's what I come up with:

MYSTERY
Most of the time, I didn't know what was going to happen next.  I kept turning the pages to answer a question.  The books have big and small questions.  The small questions keep a reader going from one chapter to the next.  The "cliffhangers" that often end chapters serve this purpose.  But the big questions keep the reader going to the end of the book.  In HOW TO EAT FRIED WORMS, the big question is: Who will win the bet?  In SUMMER OF FEAR, the big question is: What is with the mysterious cousin, what sinister plan does she have, and will she succeed in carrying it out?  In INEXCUSABLE, the big question is: Has the main character really done the awful thing he is accused of doing?

GOALS
Characters want things.  They work toward them.  In TWILIGHT, Bella and Edward want to be together.  In HOLES, Stanley wants his innocence acknowledged.  In HOW TO EAT FRIED WORMS, the characters compete to win a bet.  We may suspect that these characters will or won't get what they want, but we aren't sure.  We root for or against them.

OBSTACLES
Plot points usually involve the obstacles, big and small, that come between the characters and their goals.  In TWILIGHT, the big obstacle is the fact that Edward is a vampire.  But there are always little obstacles, little interruptions that threaten to separate him from Bella.  In HOLES, Stanley has to fight both authority figures and his peers on issues big (innocence or guilt, identity, hidden treasure) and small (water, maintaining a tough facade).  SUMMER OF FEAR is a chess match between Rachel and Julia, as the upper hand swings back and forth between them.  Every time it looks as if Rachel has found a way to expose Julia, Julia counters with a more powerful move, until the climactic showdown.

CHARACTER
Plot should not just be an unfolding of events; it should reveal character too.  In HOW TO EAT FRIED WORMS, the four boys reveal themselves to be very different throughout the book, as competition brings out the best and worst in them.  The character of Edward, in TWILIGHT, is revealed in successive layers as he must fight his own instincts to hold to a higher ideal.  In INEXCUSABLE,  our view of the main character changes dramatically as he reveals--unwittingly, which is an extra payoff for the reader--the truth about himself and the book's central event.  We don't care much about "what happens" unless we care about to whom it happens.

EVERY THREAD COUNTS
Critics have long acknowledged some flaws in Charles Dickens's plotting of OLIVER TWIST, which was first published in serial form.  Dickens set out hooks in early chapters that disappeared, were not resolved, or were contradicted in later chapters.  This is the sort of thing today's writer can fix in a rewrite, making sure that no threads are dropped, cut, or knotted.
HOLES is an excellent example of how all sorts of seemingly unrelated factors intertwine: a song, a pair of shoes, onions, peaches, lizards, and so on.  Each of these has a special significance in the end.  Nothing in this book happens without a reason, even if we don't understand all the reasons until the end.  Similary, in SUMMER OF FEAR, the true significance of a pink dress, a jar of powder, a wax statue, and a recurring dream are revealed.
Seeds planted in early chapters should bloom at the end of the book. 

In my own writing, I can ask myself:
What's the big question of this book?
What does each character want?
Why would people like or hate these characters?  What is revealed about these characters over the course of the book?  Who changes and why?
If a section seems slow, do I need an obstacle here, or a "little question"?
Are there any loose threads?  Have all my seeds sprouted?  Are there any seeds that need to be sown earlier?

 

Writers need to "read like writers," which means studying the work of others to see "how they did it."

In that spirit, I want to visit the issue of Characters. On an earlier post, I listed 4 characters that I've found especially well-drawn:

Curt in FAT KID RULES THE WORLD, K. L Going
The Colonel in LOOKING FOR ALASKA, John Green
Russel in GEOGRAPHY CLUB, Brent Hartinger
Jason in RULES, Cynthia Lord

Now for a little more analysis on what I think works about these characters.

THEY WANT SOMETHING
Writers are told that main characters must want something--so that's a given, the motivation that drives the story. But most of the characters I've listed above (Russel excepted) are not the main characters in their books. One way these writers make their supporting characters round is by acknowledging that they have their own desires and ambitions. The Colonel wants to make good in the world and do his mother proud. Jason's desire to experience the sensation of running (which he physically can't do) drives a key scene in RULES. Curt's conflicting desires for music and drugs set up a conflict for his friend Troy.

THEY HAVE PROBLEMS
Nobody wants to read about perfect people who lack for nothing and never deal with adversity. Curt is homeless, ill half the time, and seems to have a drug problem. The Colonel loses his girlfriend to a breakup and one of his best friends to death. Russel is coming to terms with his homosexuality in an intolerant environment. Jason is physically challenged and also has to deal with Catherine's ambivalence about their friendship.
If there are no problems, there's no conflict, and no engine to the book.

WE CAN JUDGE FOR OURSELVES (SHOW, DON'T TELL)
These authors don't tell us what to think about these characters. They show them acting, thinking, doing. I especially admire the way Cynthia Lord manages to show us the rich and full personality of Jason, whose movement and vocabulary are physically limited.
Russel is a first-person narrator. This can draw us in and make us feel close to the character, but it's also fun when we can step back and see more about the character than he meant to tell.
For an exaggerated example of an unreliable narrator, I could add Keir in Chris Lynch's INEXCUSABLE to this list of memorable characters.

UNIQUE NEVER HURTS
These characters aren't "types" who show up in every other book I've read. The Colonel: Short, hard-drinking, pragmatic, prank-loving. Curt: Exasperatingly unreliable, charismatic, passionate about his music, seeing something in "fat kid" Troy that nobody else has seen.

FUNNY NEVER HURTS
Even the darkest of these books, LOOKING FOR ALASKA, has humor. As many problems as these characters have, they don't mope or cry all the time. Real people experience the full range of emotions, and so should our characters. Sometimes you just gotta laugh.