I’ve talked more than once about the Big Three – plot, characterization, and setting. They started off as the earliest writing advice I recall getting (and I wish I could remember the name of the writer who told me that, so I could credit him properly), as the three things one can do in a scene. The longer I am in this business, though, the more I realize that the Big Three are a lot more than just elements in a scene.
Specifically, as the basic building blocks of story, the Big Three are the source of a whole lot of problems, flaws, and frustrations for writers. Nearly every writer I know has had problems with one or more of them, at one time or another. Most writers don’t seem to have any problem picking out which one of the three they’re best (or worst) at. Most readers, if you get them thinking even for a short while, will unhesitatingly point to one of the three as being the strong suit of each favorite writer on their bookshelf.
I’d say that for me, my strongest suit is plot. Yes, I put a lot of work into the twists and turns, but it’s fun work; it’s easy; it’s nothing I break my brains over. I don’t find myself avoiding writing a scene because there’s a plot twist coming up that I’m uncertain about, and I have no hesitation at all about letting something come up unexpectedly during the writing process that I know will alter all my plot plans, because I’m confident that I can make it work out, one way or another.
Setting comes second for me. I think I’m good at settings, but they don’t come quite as naturally to me as plots. I put a lot of work in here, too, but I always seem to miss something crucial, and I’m always fighting the low-level fear that I’ve missed something that ought to be obvious, or that I’ve contradicted myself by saying in one spot that dragons are vegetarians and then showing a dragon happily chowing down a cow in another. (Note to self: Cows are not vegetables.) I’m always much too aware of all the research I haven’t done.
Characters are the area I’ve always felt were my weakest point. Yes, really. Some of that is a process thing. With plot and setting, I can make lists of the things that I need to put in (see Fantasy Worldbuilding Questions), and charts of the way things have to go to get to the end. I can draw maps. I can write reams of “history” that will never actually get into the story. Plot and setting, I understand, and if I don’t, I can usually analyze them and figure them out.
But characters are people. I don’t understand real-life people very well, not even the ones I’ve known for fifty-odd years. I feel that I have a better understanding of fictional characters, but it’s all on a gut-level. Making lists doesn’t help. Well, maybe with a character’s personal appearance (brown eyes, black hair, medium height, scar on elbow…). But when it comes to a character’s personality, I’m always working on instinct, and it’s taken me years to get to the point where I have some of the same kind of trust in my character-instinct that I have in my plot- and setting-instincts.
This is not a bad thing, nor a good one; it’s just how my process works. The point here is that I’ve known for a very long time that characterization was my weakest point … and that means that I always have something to work on when I’m up for working at improving my writing. This is not to say that I always put “work on characters” front and center – I found it much easier, especially at the beginning of my career, to start by working at techniques I didn’t know how to use. Like dialog tags and point of view and flashbacks.
But ever since I recognized characters as my main weakness, “work on characterization” has always been at least in the number two working-on-this position. The Seven Towers – work on alternating viewpoints; work on characters. The Harp of Imach Thyssel – work on multiple viewpoints; work on characters. Like that.
I have learned a lot this way, and I am still learning. I recommend it to your attention.
I’ve just discovered that I can only get into a story through setting. I don’t know if this means that I’m any good at setting, but if I’m not interested in the place, and the atmosphere, and the culture, I’m not interested in the story. This worries me. But it does explain why I wrote at least three chapters in the last book that were heavily centered around food.
Characterization – so-so. But I hit the plot and I fall down, repeatedly. Well, at least now I know my weak point. I will fight to overcome it!
Characterization is my strongest point, but I find setting really difficult -I come at setting by looking at my character and trying to figure out where someone like this would live. It took me a long time to stop slapping people into a generic background so I could get on with the more interesting bits like interactions.
As for plot… once I get past the stage where I feel like I’m banging my head against an unyielding wall I’m okay. (Until I reach the end, and ram right into said wall. Again.)
It just hit me – I’m awful at plot! My plots always have little wiggly bits that refuse to be tied down, and either go all over the place or nowhere at all, and I have to remind myself that I can’t squeeze everything the main characters do into one story. I’m great at thinking about plots and coming up with different directions a story could go in, but writing down one cohesive, non-rambly story is…a different story. Or something.
Chicory – I’m like you in terms of setting. I have to work hard against talking floating heads. I’m also big on characterization so I spend a lot of the time inside people’s heads.
I’m good with plot though – I love the twists and turns stories take on their way to the end.
The other area that I’m not so good at other than setting is movement. My people turn, walk and look/stare/glance/etc… as I move them around the scene. I don’t know, however, if it’s noticeable to the readers so much (like wanting to not use “said” because if feels repetitive when the readers don’t even see it).
I am not a writer but I laughed when I read this because I as a reader I have preferences about which of the big three the author must nail. I care most about the plot, then characters, then setting. Obviously, all three are intertwined and severely botching up any of those will turn me away. However, I find that I am much more forgiving of the setting being vague or utilitarian than in the plot slowing down or the auther failing to wrap up a minor plot thread. (I hate it when I read a book and at the end I’m wondering what happened about some stupid questioned raised in chapter 3) That being said I have a friend who loves books where the settings are emersive and epic. Losing herself in the “world” is more important to her than a minor loose end.
Anyway, it was facinating to read about these issues from the authors point of view.
I never realized it until now, but I think that setting is really my weakest point. I’m so involved with my characters, what they’re feeling, what they’re thinking, how they’re reacting (and how to get all this into the scene without sounding too hum-drum) that I usually forget about setting. (Plot: so-so.) I mention where they are, but then I read back and realize that I hardly put in any descriptive details at all, so that it’s rather hard to get a mental pictue of the setting (if you’re not the author 🙂 ). As a reader, I also love the characters. Several of my favorite authors have *really* strong characters and are very good at characterization. Thanks so much for this– now I have something specific to work on!