Young Writers Society

Well, the lack of action isn't what turned me off to the hunger games (in fact, almost the opposite). It was the stupid characters that they spent way too much time tracking into their unrealistic PTSD. Suzanne Collins could have done a lot more, I mean A LOT more with the political implications and drama and class war and intrigue of her dystopian creation, but instead she donated all her efforts to trying to create flashy action scenes with unconventional weaponry and contrived love triangles in order to titillate her preteen audiences.

I mean the first Hunger Games was more of a pioneer into the story, so you can respect it for that, but it's not a good scene-builder. It's like "show, don't tell," until you realize that there is nothing to "tell," and all it's "showing" you is pointlessly cryptic surface area. The second Hunger Games probably did the most with showing the corruption of Panem and what the rest of the country was like, but again it fell short because the vibes were much to focused on the facade that the main characters had to put on and their trivially blank mental breakdowns and not on the innate ominous aura of the world around them.

SPOILERS of Mockingjay: Some may say that the third book was very political, but in fact it was merely revolutionary in order to provide a quick and violent closing to the series, full of deus ex machinas and tying up loose ends with character deaths. The one thing I admired about it was the message at the end: that too often corruption is merely replaced by corruption, and that any authority corrupts/can be abused. But again, this is touched on in such a way that it's full impact goes right over the heads of the kids reading it, since the main character is essentially justified in her condemning of the Capitol citizens to "their own Hunger Games."

I'm sorry everyone, I'm with Loge on this. I really didn't like the Hunger Games because too much emphasis was put on the characters. I spent way too much time trying to work out what was actually going on beyond Katniss' rather flimsy emotions. Half the time I wanted to grab her out of the book and give her a good slap. (My two cents)

Nice work, Auxiiratron

I think it's like yin and yang. Two amazing things that need each other to exits.

I couldn't agree more, @HighTop!

They do very much correlate with each other, but I think it also involves the writer's style of writing.

For example, there is always that one story everyone loathes because it's just soooo boring. Why is it boring? It's because there is a lack of plot, and the story is one giant big ramble about, say, the whale in Moby Dick, and it just gets boring after a while focusing on just the characters. Then there are other stories where there is so much plot and very little characters that you just can't connect to anything. You can't connect to the characters and the experience, and then naturally the reader will lose interest.

Take TV shows, for instance.

Ever started watching some shows that you get really hooked into, but then it starts to bore you, and then eventually you stop watching it? (I dunno about you, but ABC family does this to me all the time!)

This is mainly because of one of two things:

1) There is a lack of credible plot.
and/or 2) There is a lack of credible character development.

(Or, you know, the show might have sucky CGI and animation and actors and whatnot, but that's totally beside the point.)

Let's use some real extreme cases.

There may be a perfect intricate plot that is just genius, but with very poor character development, what's the plot for? It has no depth, no real meaning to it; it is just a mere concept that is weakly applied.

The same concept could be applied on just the characters. Plot is basically story, so this could be fantasy, sci-fi, romance, etc. Romance stories, for example, has a plot dealing with at least two characters (unless, like, they're narcissistic). Now what's the point of a romance if two very detailed and drawn out profiles of two very contrasting characters are weakly applied into the plot? The plot/romance between the two would be vague, and I dunno about you, but it's not much of a story.

It's the same for plot, though. If a romance, for example, has so much "love" and all that mushy stuff that makes girls squeal in glee, the characters have to fit. I mean, if people think the characters suck, they're going to think the relationship sucks too. At the same time, it has to be reasonable. Characters have to go through a lot of development so the reader could get attached to them, and when you apply the plot with it, there's going to be major success.

BUT! This also depends on the writer.

Since The Hunger Games was brought up, I'll use that. The story is mainly in a sci-fi setting, and yes, Katniss did get pretty emotional, dramatic, and romancey. I agree that it was bit of a groan, but this is, after all, a sci-fi story; the author just didn't do an absolutely amazing job tying the two genres together.

So as I said before, it depends on the author and maybe even the story. Perhaps plot and characters can be split down to 50-50, but there are some successful cases where story is 40% and characters are 60%, vice-versa.

Either way, however, they all tie with each other...like yin and yang.

Now that's what I call a response!

I think it depends on how the writer works. Personally I develop the characters first and start with a plot idea or outline but develop it further as I write. And usually the characters change the plot, because once they become their own people in my mind I can't stop them from taking the story where they want to. Its like this: You can't have a plot and stick any characters into it because their personalities wouldn't fit or they wouldn't make those particular decisions. You can't mold someone into something they're not, and if you try to put a character into a plot they don't fit in then you're stuck with something that doesn't catch anyone's interest because it's not real, it doesn't feel like it could or did happen. So characters drive the plot is my opinion.

Alright, I figured that most of you would be in the characters camp.

Personally, I create a plot outline first, then create characters to fit that plot, who then shape it as it goes.

I do have a hypothesis that characters are vastly more important in young adult literature rather than adult, which is why I may be less interested in them. The thing is, writing through a young person's eyes is very different, since they have different concerns, the way they think is still under major development, and they have less- I don't want to say control- stability in certain aspects. In this way, more complex, feely-hearty characters are necessary for younger literature and things dull a little as they mature.

It may also be because I use writing as a window to political/social thought, and thus allegory and symbolism and plot are more important than independent and distracting characters. When you focus more on the plot, the story becomes more academically focused and thought-provoking, in my opinion.

When you focus more on the plot, the story becomes more academically focused and thought-provoking, in my opinion.

I'd disagree with you there, @CowLogic
I mean, I see your point. I've read books that prove it, but I would say that if you apply the opposite: focusing more on characters, you have a similar outcome.
The book that comes to mind first is East of Eden by John Steinbeck. I feel like that book focused much more on how the characters developed and less on plot, but I feel like it was just as thought-provoking as... say... The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov which came off more plot based to me.
They were both phenomenal.

I personally focus more on character development in my own writing. I don't think I believe, however, that you need a balance of these two. Good writing is good writing.

Both are important, but I'm going to say characters are more important. Yes, you might remember a plot better than a character's name. But if your characters don't want anything, what drives your plot? Stuff just sort of happens to your characters instead of your characters doing anything to drive the plot forward?

1. Literary fiction often has vague or meandering plots without clear climaxes, yet it has strong characters who want things and do things. I realize lit fic isn't everyone's favorite, but personally I love it--well written lit fic, that is, which is definitely lit fic with good characters.

2. Personally, if I'm reading genre fiction and I can't stand the characters, out the window it goes. I don't care how awesome or original the plot is: If I don't like your characters, I'm not going to keep reading.

Unless I have to.

Perfect example: Frankenstein. Super original plot--Mary Shelley basically invented the sci-fi genre. And while there have been many Frankenstein-esque plots since she first wrote the novel, her idea was original at the time. I read the book for AP literature because I had to, but I did not enjoy it because Doctor Victor Frankenstein is a sniveling douchebag who doesn't take responsibility for his actions. I get so angry about this book, it's ridiculous.

3. While plenty of people like action movies purely because of the explosions, think about the Avengers. Would you like it just as much if the plot was exactly the same but the superheroes didn't have their distinctive personalities? The plot is cool, and everything, but the thing I love about it is the interactions between the very different characters.

4. Character drives plot! While certain events in the plot may drive the character (especially the inciting incident), it can't be that way throughout the book. Most things I've ever read about or by editors and agents say they want proactive characters, not reactive. In other words, if your plot is driving your character but not vice-versa, you have a reactive character who doesn't actually do much through choice but only circumstance.

5. This is really specific, but case in point: Sleepy Hollow. There could be no demons, no apocalypse, no witnesses or anything else remotely resembling plot. Give me Ichabod Crane annoyed Abbie and trying to figure out modern-day technology and I'll watch it for hours. That's my favorite part of the whole show.

whenever someone describes to me a book i haven't read, or a show i haven't seen, they invariably emphasize characters and only briefly touch on the plot. that tells me that characters have more staying power than plot.

in my own experience with reading, it can go back and forth. there are stories that emphasize plot and succeed and stories that emphasize characters and succeed, as well as those that have an equal balance. it's up to the writer which is more important to the story.

Characters, because if you don't have anyone in the story

A) there is no one for the reader to relate to
B) there is no focal point
C) there is no one to carry out the actions of the plot

Neither (though both are important!) The most important component for a story is theme, for me. Both narrative and character are fairly meaningless without theme, though they can still be entertaining or enjoyable. But I'd say that a good story has four major elements, without one of which the story loses considerable impact: thought-provoking themes, a well-crafted narrative, strong characters, and a distinctive style.

Ahhh, the age old debate between literary fiction and genre fiction.

As BlueAfrica pointed out, literary fiction is all about the characters (sometimes you won't even be able to find a plot if you try) and genre fiction is all about the plot. And, of course, literary writers tend to think they're doing the only writing worth anything and are so superior to genre despite the fact that literary is a genre blah blah blah.

I think both are equally relevant to every story, though one might take precedence over another depending on the kind of story you're trying to tell. The best writers know how to make both work for them in whatever they're writing!

Personally, I've always felt that while of course plot is important, characters are more important. The character is what the story revolves around, what it is central to. I've read stories where there was a really good plot and it showed so much promise but I was spending way too much time hating on or being really annoyed at the protagonist.

The plot is a situation but the character is the one who reacts to the situation, the one tries to deal with or comprehend the situation. We witness the plot through the character's eyes. Sometimes you can have stories with really stupid plots but because the protagonist or characters are so endearing it actually becomes a fun read.

Think about A Song of Ice and Fire (A Game of Thrones), one of the best things about it is the characters. Yes, it has an amazing plot but notice that the plot is amazingly character driven. If Ned Stark hadn't been too curious then we would never have found out Cersei's secrets.

Look at the story, most of the events occur due to the character's decisions.

So many of the most popular works are ones with great characters. Often it's the characters that are remembered long after the book is put down.