Review: Part 2 of Plot Versus Character
Jun. 10th, 2014 12:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljwritesPlot Versus Character by Jeff Gerke is a how-to book for both plot-centric and character-centric fiction writers to integrate these these two aspects of the craft. I have aired my decidedly mixed feelings about Part 1 of the book dealing with character. However, as expected, Part 2 on plot was much more satisfying. Plot is the author's own admitted strong suit, after all. I'll discuss where I found Part 2 helpful and where frustrations and questions still linger for me.
Prologue and Three-Act Structure
What I enjoyed most about Part 2 was how down-to-earth it is. Gerke breaks plot down into the classical three-act structure and proceeds with a discussion of each part, ticking off the elements necessary for each. It pleased me that the author actually admitted that this structure is not universal and gave reasons for his choice. For those who are following a three-act structure I think these lists will be invaluable, not as ironbound rules to follow but as guidelines for planning story, what you might have missed and what you might think of including. In contrast to Part 1, where the kitchen-sink approach to character bored and overwhelmed me, the checklists for plot in Part 2 are tightly curated and ruthlessly practical. I got a sense I was in the skilled hands of someone who had put a lot of thought and time into this aspect of his craft.
Just how practical is Part 2? Let me put it this way: My favorite part of the entire book is the chapter on prologues. Yes, Jeff Gerke put so much thought into book structure, he has a chapter on whether or not to prologue (Chapter 13: Of Prologues and Introductions). Even better, he has a very precise and clear discussion of the role of introduction and what a prologue--if you use one--should and should not do. I really appreciated this level of attention to detail, and the section got me actively thinking about what the opening of a book should do. I know Gerke's name is mud to some of you thanks to my review of Part 1, but I think this chapter is well worth reading in addition to the checklists for the three acts. Even if you don't follow the advice exactly, you'll still get some concepts to chew on.
Another aspect I like about Part 2 in comparison to Part 1 is that Gerke admits and explains his major choices, most notably his focus on the three-act structure. He makes it clear that this is not the only possible structure, but that it is a classical and serviceable one that will serve well for many different kinds of stories. That's a caveat I can live with, and Part 1 would have worked much better for me if his choice of character narrative were similarly explained there.
A Fatally Flawed Foundation
Despite its strengths, however, Part 2 does not entirely cure the book's flaws. Parts 1 and 2 are not co-equal and parallel, after all--Part 1 laid much of the groundwork for the entire book, which was why the author warned readers like me not to skip to Part 2. It's also why Part 1 is twice the length of Part 2; it had so much more ground to cover. Part 2 builds directly on the character arc laid out in Part 1, meaning the flaws in Part 1 transport directly to Part 2.
This becomes particularly acute in the chapter discussing escalation in the second act (Chapter 15: Act 2: The Heart of the Matter). True to the salvationist character arc built in Part 1, Act 2 is supposed to be a series of escalations as the protagonist takes increasingly desperate measures to cling to his old way and resist the light of the new and better way. This is how the character arc is integrated with the progression of the plot in Act 2, though that integration will take place in Acts 1 and 3 as well.
I'm not about to deny a lot of great stories can be told with this structure, but here's my beef: It doesn't work the way Jeff Gerke says it does. To be more specific, it doesn't work for some of the very stories that he held up as examples.
The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope were two of the stories Gerke used as examples of his structure. According to him, Frodo's knot is that he is tempted to use the Ring. (I've discussed how wrong he is about this in my review of Part 1.) Luke's is supposed to be that he is a scienctist who rejects the mystical. Their respective stories, under Gerke's model, should be all about the events of the fictional universe battering them to show them a better way, and Act 2 in particular should be about their resisting this better way at every turn.
Do you see the problem? According to this model, then, Act 2 of Lord of the Rings (The Two Towers?) should be about Frodo's increasingly desperate attempts to use the Ring against all wisdom. Similarly, Act 2 of A New Hope should depict Luke's attempts to cling to rationality and reject the Force. Is my memory of these works completely unreliable, or does neither story happen this way at all?
Frodo throughout the books actively fights against the temptation to use the Ring, not the other way around. And sure, Luke declines, once, to be Obi-wan's apprentice, but I got the impression this was more because he didn't feel like abandoning his home and family for a weirdo hermit and not because he was derisive of the Force or worshipful of science. Attachment to the familiar and beloved doesn't seem to be a deep-seated character issue, unless being an average Joe with people and a life you care for is a "sin." And no matter what one's theological stance on this matter, Luke's resistance to the Force certainly does not form the spine of A New Hope.
This, to me, is the fundamental problem with Plot Versus Character. It takes a particular type of character arc and makes it out to be universal, or at least expands its application widely enough to make it seem like a universal winning formula. The problem is, in an attempt to hitch the salvationist model to well-known and well-loved stories, the author distorts those stories beyond recognition and so ends up weakening his own case. He also misrepresented The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars in the process, raising his error to the level of geek treason.
As though aware of the discrepancy, the author did give the warning that the character-plot model he presents does not map exactly to the stories he gives as examples. To which my answer is: Then what's the point? If the model does not apply precisely to any recognizable story except maybe the author's own, then he should have been up front that this was his own personal way of integrating plot and character for his novels instead of giving the impression that one could write The Lord of the Rings with this method. Or he could have pointed out which parts of the structure are non-essential, which parts can be modified and how, and what that does to the overall structure. This way the readers get a better idea of how the parts fit together and how they can adapt the model to their own stories. Without such qualification, the lack of a story example that illustrates the use of the model is just confusing and helps no one.
In Sum: Caveat Lector
Plot Versus Character is a work with potent insights and great advice. Likeinkdust said, the observation that people do not change until the pain becomes too great is a highly useful principle of storytelling. I thought the strengths of the book came through even more clearly in Part 2, where the author clearly knew his stuff about plot and structure.
However, the strengths of the book could not compensate for a weak theoretical foundation, rather like a house can't stand on sand. The book would have been so much stronger if more thought had been given to the choice of character arc and the ins and outs of its integration with plot. It's a shame, too, because there's a lot of potential there. Maybe it's indicative of nothing so much as the limits of specific instructions when it comes to a craft as complex as fiction-writing.
Despite the book's problems, I think Part 2 is still worth a read especially if you keep the book's overall limitations in mind, or have a good internal filter like recommender inkdust does. If you can winnow the chaff from the wheat, discarding the incomplete or flawed parts while internalizing the good, I think this book can serve as a good guide for story structure and how it can integrate with character development.
Prologue and Three-Act Structure
What I enjoyed most about Part 2 was how down-to-earth it is. Gerke breaks plot down into the classical three-act structure and proceeds with a discussion of each part, ticking off the elements necessary for each. It pleased me that the author actually admitted that this structure is not universal and gave reasons for his choice. For those who are following a three-act structure I think these lists will be invaluable, not as ironbound rules to follow but as guidelines for planning story, what you might have missed and what you might think of including. In contrast to Part 1, where the kitchen-sink approach to character bored and overwhelmed me, the checklists for plot in Part 2 are tightly curated and ruthlessly practical. I got a sense I was in the skilled hands of someone who had put a lot of thought and time into this aspect of his craft.
Just how practical is Part 2? Let me put it this way: My favorite part of the entire book is the chapter on prologues. Yes, Jeff Gerke put so much thought into book structure, he has a chapter on whether or not to prologue (Chapter 13: Of Prologues and Introductions). Even better, he has a very precise and clear discussion of the role of introduction and what a prologue--if you use one--should and should not do. I really appreciated this level of attention to detail, and the section got me actively thinking about what the opening of a book should do. I know Gerke's name is mud to some of you thanks to my review of Part 1, but I think this chapter is well worth reading in addition to the checklists for the three acts. Even if you don't follow the advice exactly, you'll still get some concepts to chew on.
Another aspect I like about Part 2 in comparison to Part 1 is that Gerke admits and explains his major choices, most notably his focus on the three-act structure. He makes it clear that this is not the only possible structure, but that it is a classical and serviceable one that will serve well for many different kinds of stories. That's a caveat I can live with, and Part 1 would have worked much better for me if his choice of character narrative were similarly explained there.
A Fatally Flawed Foundation
Despite its strengths, however, Part 2 does not entirely cure the book's flaws. Parts 1 and 2 are not co-equal and parallel, after all--Part 1 laid much of the groundwork for the entire book, which was why the author warned readers like me not to skip to Part 2. It's also why Part 1 is twice the length of Part 2; it had so much more ground to cover. Part 2 builds directly on the character arc laid out in Part 1, meaning the flaws in Part 1 transport directly to Part 2.
This becomes particularly acute in the chapter discussing escalation in the second act (Chapter 15: Act 2: The Heart of the Matter). True to the salvationist character arc built in Part 1, Act 2 is supposed to be a series of escalations as the protagonist takes increasingly desperate measures to cling to his old way and resist the light of the new and better way. This is how the character arc is integrated with the progression of the plot in Act 2, though that integration will take place in Acts 1 and 3 as well.
I'm not about to deny a lot of great stories can be told with this structure, but here's my beef: It doesn't work the way Jeff Gerke says it does. To be more specific, it doesn't work for some of the very stories that he held up as examples.
The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope were two of the stories Gerke used as examples of his structure. According to him, Frodo's knot is that he is tempted to use the Ring. (I've discussed how wrong he is about this in my review of Part 1.) Luke's is supposed to be that he is a scienctist who rejects the mystical. Their respective stories, under Gerke's model, should be all about the events of the fictional universe battering them to show them a better way, and Act 2 in particular should be about their resisting this better way at every turn.
Do you see the problem? According to this model, then, Act 2 of Lord of the Rings (The Two Towers?) should be about Frodo's increasingly desperate attempts to use the Ring against all wisdom. Similarly, Act 2 of A New Hope should depict Luke's attempts to cling to rationality and reject the Force. Is my memory of these works completely unreliable, or does neither story happen this way at all?
Frodo throughout the books actively fights against the temptation to use the Ring, not the other way around. And sure, Luke declines, once, to be Obi-wan's apprentice, but I got the impression this was more because he didn't feel like abandoning his home and family for a weirdo hermit and not because he was derisive of the Force or worshipful of science. Attachment to the familiar and beloved doesn't seem to be a deep-seated character issue, unless being an average Joe with people and a life you care for is a "sin." And no matter what one's theological stance on this matter, Luke's resistance to the Force certainly does not form the spine of A New Hope.
This, to me, is the fundamental problem with Plot Versus Character. It takes a particular type of character arc and makes it out to be universal, or at least expands its application widely enough to make it seem like a universal winning formula. The problem is, in an attempt to hitch the salvationist model to well-known and well-loved stories, the author distorts those stories beyond recognition and so ends up weakening his own case. He also misrepresented The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars in the process, raising his error to the level of geek treason.
As though aware of the discrepancy, the author did give the warning that the character-plot model he presents does not map exactly to the stories he gives as examples. To which my answer is: Then what's the point? If the model does not apply precisely to any recognizable story except maybe the author's own, then he should have been up front that this was his own personal way of integrating plot and character for his novels instead of giving the impression that one could write The Lord of the Rings with this method. Or he could have pointed out which parts of the structure are non-essential, which parts can be modified and how, and what that does to the overall structure. This way the readers get a better idea of how the parts fit together and how they can adapt the model to their own stories. Without such qualification, the lack of a story example that illustrates the use of the model is just confusing and helps no one.
In Sum: Caveat Lector
Plot Versus Character is a work with potent insights and great advice. Like
inkdust said, the observation that people do not change until the pain becomes too great is a highly useful principle of storytelling. I thought the strengths of the book came through even more clearly in Part 2, where the author clearly knew his stuff about plot and structure.However, the strengths of the book could not compensate for a weak theoretical foundation, rather like a house can't stand on sand. The book would have been so much stronger if more thought had been given to the choice of character arc and the ins and outs of its integration with plot. It's a shame, too, because there's a lot of potential there. Maybe it's indicative of nothing so much as the limits of specific instructions when it comes to a craft as complex as fiction-writing.
Despite the book's problems, I think Part 2 is still worth a read especially if you keep the book's overall limitations in mind, or have a good internal filter like recommender inkdust does. If you can winnow the chaff from the wheat, discarding the incomplete or flawed parts while internalizing the good, I think this book can serve as a good guide for story structure and how it can integrate with character development.
