Yesterday's post on writing struck a chord (as I actually received comments on a blog post, for a change!) so, I thought I'd continue.
My friend and I have talked about doing collaborative writing for a while -- we definitely complement each other. The issue has been finding an idea.
But, while we were talking yesterday, an interesting point was raised. Which is more important, characters or plot? Yes, they're both important; but, if you had to pick one -- one to start with; one to make more important; which would it be?
Going back to one of my earlier posts about creativity, I compared the TV show Lost with the movie Cloverfield - both were done by JJ Abrams; but, whereas Lost succeeded on two levels (appealing to both the diehard fans and those who want to just be entertained for an hour), Cloverfield wasn't nearly as successful. Take away the innovative filming structure (camcorder-like) and the copious marketing, and Cloverfield is basically just a retread of old monster movies.
And, I think, perhaps, that's due to the lack of character development done in the movie, whereas on Lost, characters were far more fleshed out.
When you think of popular TV shows, most of them have memorable characters. Perhaps the most famous one that bucks that trend is Law and Order (Dick Wolf, the creator, has long said that no actor is irreplaceable on his show -- the plot is the most important part). So, in that respect, Law and Order succeeds against the odds.
In terms of writing, I hold that a good character is the starting point; my friend is more convinced that plot is the glue (which is ironic, as I suspect, in our writings, I would be doing more to push the plot along; and he would be responsible for developing the characters).
So, which do you think is *more* important -- is Law and Order the exception, or should more shows follow its lead (for example)?
Friday, November 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I tend to believe that great characters can save a flawed plot, but the best plot can't overcome bland characters. So put me on the side of characters.
It depends on the genre, of course. Mysteries require a good plot--which I think ties in to your thoughts on Law & Order--and possibly horror. I, personally, think that there are a limited number of genuine plots out there, and characters set them apart.
As they say in "Love & Marriage", you can't have one without the other...! Both are necessary, in novels, tv shows and movies. A great plot with uninteresting characters will not sustain an audience; neither will interesting characters with a weak plot. For instance, St. Elsewhere, one of the best, in my opinion, of the medical shows. The storylines were compelling and the characters were humorous and intriguing - a rarity.
As you know, I'm a character driven person. Even using the example of Law and Order. We don't know much about the main characters. But, every week we are introduced to one or two messed up intriguing characters that we either care about or are baffled by.
I personally don't like novels that are highly narrative. I enjoy the dialogues and interactions of the characters. I enjoy hearing their voices in my head and coming to my own conclusions about them and their motivations and not being told necessarily.
Although, having said that, one of the most compelling novels I've read in recent years was "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" by Mark Haddon....and it was almost completely narrative. Good read, you should pick it up.
@Steve - I agree with you the most. I think I've come around more to that way of thinking.
@Lily - Certainly, you need both; but still, I said you had to pick one! :)
@Anna Maria - I would say the 'messed up' characters are more of a plot device than character development. Obviously, the difference between novels and film are many; one of which is that film can't do a fully narrative approach. Dialogue is slightly more impactful on film, I think.
Post a Comment