/lit/ - Literature

We don't.

You just do.

>>2340298
>>2340297
Conflict! The source of all great plot?

>>2340296

It is all about the planning and your mindset going into the project.
Never start writing or thinking about writing unless you are in the proper mood to.
Two techniques i frequently use are: making a web of characters and also framing the story.

For a web you must write down every character on pieces of paper and arrange them in a circle. You can then tie all of them together and write in a basic theme of how they tie in.

To frame the story you just have to write out the summary of the chapter/section in extremely simple sentences and then fill out descriptive details in order of whatever you find to be more important.

So go from:

John enters the room
Johns sees the gun and Frank
John grabs the gun
John shoots Frank

Here is your frame. Just fill it out from there.

So you've got characters? What do they want? How are they working towards it? How does A getting what they want would interfere with B, C and D, etc What are they gonna do to prevent it? Go nuts.

>>2340308

By the way, I use yarn to tie the characters together in the literal web but that might be a bit old fashioned.

I number the yarn and then write a basic plot and order of how they tie together.

It seems ridiculous relating this to others

You don't. You worry about the prose. Only plebs care about disgusting narrative characteristics.

Depends on what you want to write. Inspiration will be a key element. Think about a topic and do some research. More is better than less, but too much can result into too much jargon and loss of interest. It's a fine line you'll have to judge.

Have a point. At the end of everything, you need to tie enough things together to have made it worth the reader's time.

Check for plot holes. If somewhere at the tail end of your detective novel the butler reveals there was a secret bag-o-evidence hanging on the coat but never once alluded to, you're fucking up. Things need to make sense on some level.

Show me. Never tell me. Example: The house had just caught fire. Knowing that his three year old son was trapped inside, Peter ran with all deliberate speed to rescue the young boy from the tinderbox that was once his house. VERSUS: Peter and his son were close 'cause of that fire a few years back.

Good dialogue is key. Every line doesn't have to advance the story, but that helps. If you want to make your characters seem more human, you can have them BS a little. Just remember you are telling your story, not writing fanfiction about your story: "WHAT IF CAPTAIN ALAN WENT TO THE GROCERY STORE?! HURR DURR!"

That should be enough constructive things other than the "You just do" answer.

>>2340314
Seconded.

With that in mind, you should write whatever it is you want to read. Trust me.

>>2340319

That is very important too.

>>2340320
Sup, strad. Thought you'd left for good.

This might be totally retarded and a bad way to do things, but something I've always found helpful is to let the characters build the plot as much as possible. To try to explain that a little better ... I start out knowing the world and the characters as they are, and with a good idea of how I ultimately want the story to end - with maybe very few key midpoints fixed - and try to let the characters' natural tendencies proceed from Point A from Point B. When you start writing, you usually know how you'd like it to end before you're certain about the whole middle, right? Rather than sweat about contriving something to get the characters there, and then worrying about what fits in with their personalities and what doesn't, I lay down the bare skeleton of the story and then spend the bulk of my time developing personalities, backstories, world (if that's applicable), and the like. Once that's done, I can basically throw the characters into the beginning of the scenario and daydream out how their normal behaviors might tilt them toward the desired climax, with as little contrivance as possible nudging them there.

I might have made that sound muddier than it needs to, or not distinguished it very well from what you're probably doing anyway. But if you get my drift, you should really try it - whole rich scenes and subplots and characterization bits will jump up where you never thought to put them, in ways you never could have imagined.

tl;dr Go easy on the plot at first, design the SHIT out of your characters and setting until you can think about them like they're real people. Once that's done, toss them in your framework and let /them/ show /you/ what happens. Organic as fuck.

pic thematically related.

Have autism. Have no discernible talent. Have daddy issues. Have a huge, fat, disgusting body and a beard on the neck. Have a fart fetish.

>>2340314

Why do I keep seeing people say this on lit? The more I stay here the more you people try to hammer it into me that plot is meaningless, that it's just a delivery system for prose. "All plots are excuse plots," says /lit/, "for showing off how well you can compose a sentence."

Well you know what I say? Fuck your shit. If what you want is to de-emphasize narrative in favor of composition, why aren't you writing god damn poetry? Do you deny that creating a narrative is an art distinct from composition? If not, then where is the place for it?

I don't want any part of this attitude. Nine times of ten (I'm not arrogant enough to call it 100%), the plot is more important than the prose! A brilliant story told in ham-fisted language is still engaging. The most beautiful prose in the world, though, is only stillborn poetry if it's got nothing to actually say!

/lit/, you can just stick it right up your own ass with this one. I'm not budging.

>>2340336
>where is the place for it?
Oral tradition.

>>2340336
Too true


Additionally, as a writer, I find this interesting to read; usually, I write by the seat of my pants, plotting day-by-day, once I've got a basic idea for what I'm going to write. It might not be the best way to do it to some, but it usually keeps the ideas fresh and adaptable to what I'm writing.

>>2340336
I'm new here but I'm with you on this one.

>>2340336

This is very true. When I start writing I do it very hectically and care little for prose.

Unless you can consider a "lack of concern for prose" as a style of prose

>>2340336
>Why do I keep seeing people say this on lit?

Because people agree with it.

>If what you want is to de-emphasize narrative in favor of composition, why aren't you writing god damn poetry?

Just to appease you? No. When did story-tellers ever claim prose as their own exclusive medium, anyway? Just because a given medium has the capacity to carry narrative does not mean it becomes its central feature. In fact, the very fact that story-telling is optional in most mediums gives credence to the aesthetes in the discussion, why would an extraneous use of the medium be more important than it's own particularities?

>A brilliant story told in ham-fisted language is still engaging.

So? A work's ability to engage is just your metric for success, it doesn't mean it's everyone else's.

>The most beautiful prose in the world, though, is only stillborn poetry if it's got nothing to actually say!

How vulgarly pragmatic. Does beauty mean nothing to you, people?

No one wants you to budge, by the way.

inb4 underaged b& who thinks he's clever for knowing the word subjective.

>>2340356
>In fact, the very fact that
The minute I see prose like this, your opinions become irrelevant.

>>2340356
Seeing the moon rise is beautiful. Seeing it rise for the first time is more beautiful. Seeing it on the deck your Dad and you built as a kid for the first time since you were a teen and your parents divorced is even more beautiful.

Images without context are pretty, but mean nothing.

>>2340363
>can't think of refutation
>he made a stylistic error
>i win

"Pragmatic" is calling plot extraneous to telling a story, for the sake of writing pretty sentences. You're putting gold shingles on a greenhouse; slaughtering the function for the flash, and dismissing the idea that there's a separate beauty in both (and the beauty of the two working together). I don't know if you're the first guy, but "Only plebs care about disgusting narrative characteristics" is a stunningly ignorant thing to say. You think I'm rejecting beauty for form, but you'd have me do the opposite?

With that said,

>>2340356
>underaged b& who thinks he's clever for knowing the word
>How vulgarly pragmatic

refer to picture

>>2340367
>Images without context are pretty, but mean nothing.

Is this supposed to be an objection? The entire school of thought is based on aesthetics not whatever kind of meaning you're hinting at here.

>>2340356

"Pragmatic" is calling plot extraneous to telling a story, for the sake of writing pretty sentences. You're putting gold shingles on a greenhouse; slaughtering the function for the flash, and dismissing the idea that there's a separate beauty in both (and the beauty of the two working together). I don't know if you're the first guy, but "Only plebs care about disgusting narrative characteristics" is a stunningly ignorant thing to say. You think I'm rejecting beauty for form, but you'd have me do the opposite?

With that said,


>underaged b& who thinks he's clever for knowing the word
>How vulgarly pragmatic

refer to picture

>>2340367
The moon is a social construct, anon.
We make its beauty.

>>2340376
>The moon is a social construct, anon.

1000/10

This post is the soul of lit and a perfect parody of guys like >>2340356

Not even sure if this might be a serious post

I'm dying

>>2340375
I'm not the pleb guy.

>"Pragmatic" is calling plot extraneous to telling a story, for the sake of writing pretty sentences.

How is it pragmatic? It's just a true statement.

>slaughtering the function for the flash

Whoever said plot was the function?

>dismissing the idea that there's a separate beauty in both

I didn't dismiss it, I support it.

>You think I'm rejecting beauty for form

Not really. Never said 'form'. But I do think people neglect beauty.

>refer to picture

What do you object to? Neither of those words mean "subjective", which is a common (and misconstrued) reply to any arguments that have anything to do with beauty. If you mean the wording of the sentence, then I apologize, English is not my native language and many that sentences sound correct to me sound silly and awkward to natives.

>>2340382
>How is it pragmatic? It's just a true statement.

I think calling plot extraneous to telling a story is a pretty difficult statement to justify. Extraneous to prose, sure, in the sense that it doesn't have to express plot to be prose (duh), but to telling a story?

>Whoever said plot was the function?

Risking making this into a D&E style "define 'define' " shitfest, I guess the best way to explain it would be to say I take a teleological view on it. To call plot, storytelling, unimportant is to totally discard one of the unique strengths of the medium. I admit I don't know much about poetry, but a heightened emphasis on composition over narrative seems more characteristic of it. Again, that's not to say that you can't write prose that way, suggesting that would be stupid. But the inverse assertion, that narrative is invariably nothing next to quality of prose, is equally ignorant, especially because that attitude tosses out what makes the form distinct from the other! It's trying to shape it into something different, and arguably less, than what its potential dictates.

>dismissing the idea that there's a separate beauty in both

And if you're not that first guy, what exactly are we disagreeing on anyway?

Your sentence wasn't really awkward, but a retort in the form "How (short florid disparagement)." is pretty typical of 'Underage kid trying to hard to sound sophisticated while speaking down to someone': think some little twat saying "How droll!" and you'll get the voice I read it in. I mistook you, then.

>>2340425

I mean to greentext
>I didn't dismiss it, I support it.

For that third greentext line, instead of mine.

>>2340425
>Extraneous to prose, sure, in the sense that it doesn't have to express plot to be prose (duh), but to telling a story?

My point is that telling a story is secondary to the aesthetics of the prose because it is optional, as it were. Of course, I'm assuming prose is its own goal.

>To call plot, storytelling, unimportant is to totally discard one of the unique strengths of the medium.

But it's not unique. Plot and storytelling are vague, they hover over many media without really being exclusive or unique to any of them

>It's trying to shape it into something different, and arguably less, than what its potential dictates.

Point. I guess it's not a zero-sum game.

>And if you're not that first guy, what exactly are we disagreeing on anyway?

I was arguing against bob barker's claim that

>Nine times of ten (I'm not arrogant enough to call it 100%), the plot is more important than the prose!

oh my god shut the fuck up, this is the stupidest recurrent debate in the history of /lit/ in so many ways

>>2340450

I think our messages got lost somewhere in here, or at least mine did. OP's post asked about how to come up with a good plot, meaning he was interested specifically in telling a story. 'Pleb-guy' said that the plot was unimportant, and that he should only worry about the prose. My reaction to that (bob barker) assumed his statement to be in the specific context of "for the purpose of storytelling" that OP established. I wasn't meaning to argue anything about prose itself outside of that context, only that plot is important to telling a story, and that >>2340314 's statement suggesting only the quality of prose mattered was therefore ignorant.

Based on what you've said, I don't think you'd disagree with that, would you? (If not the 'nine times out of ten' part).

>>2340499
Well, it seemed to me as if bob barker was speaking in generals and not specifically within the context of the thread. The original purpose of the thread is often disregarded, so it didn't even occur to me that anyone would be posting on-topic.

And, no, I wouldn't disagree. You should be called reasonable anon.

OP here. The problems I have with my stories is that they're all character and style and theme and my plots are aimless morasses. I fucking hate stories like that, but I can't write a coherent plot for the life of me, they all seem trite as fuck. I just want to slay a fucking dragon (metaphor), how do I fucking do it?

>>2340519
if you have all character and style and theme then "trite" plots will seem fresh and never-before-tried when you use them

>>2340522
Fresh compared to my other work, but not otherwise.

Plenty of plot lines in newspapers.

I've never claimed to come up with a good plot, but I tend to think it's worthwhile perusing it if it's a plot I'd be interested in reading. Sometimes they just come to me; sometimes I'll be reading something and it gives me ideas. For example, I read a German legend from the Middle Ages and thought it might make an interesting novel. Not sure if I want to do a literal novelization of the legend or do a modern retelling somehow. All I know is, I'd probably read it if I hadn't written it.