/lit/ - Literature

>>3184018
Is that supposed to be a graph of a well-plotted story? It's wildly inaccurate.

I don't hate plot, just the other day I was walking on a plot-toh! and it was quite nice. I looked out upon the lands of creation and their lords, who beckoned to me. I could not join them. But the plot-toh! was in its own way a consolation, a small but indefatigable solace as the lords laughed and waved their testicles in disdain.
And that's how plot helps people to quit in the face of adversity.

>>3184031

No, it's the first google image result for plot.

>>3184029

Name one plot-centric book that lit approves of.

>>3184032
/lit/ disapproves of plot-centric books because the characters are almost always ambulatory cardboard. If all you've got is a neat premise, your story isn't worth shit.

>>3184032
You would do well to list all the plotless books /lit/ loves. Don't worry, I'm not hanging out for your non answer.

BTW /lit/ is not a collective thing. In case you hadn't noticed, for every book that's praised here, there's always some party pooper happily being a dickhead, usually without having read it.

It's not the story arc, it's how the characters react and cope with the events that unfold in the story. This is why the most popular book series of the 21st century have done so well. (50 shades of Grey, Twilight, Harry Potter are character driven) same goes for cinema - you know the names of the characters in Star Wars but not in Avatar; one was character driven and one was story driven.

>>3184036

Supposing that's true, a story doesn't need complex, deep characters to make it meaningful. If a character exists for the sole purpose of moving the plot forward, so what? It may be contrived but it's entertaining. It can still have depth and meaning, characters are not the only part of fiction.

>>3184046

Star Wars is plot driven.

>>3184044

>/lit/ is not collective
>if someone dislikes a book /lit/ praises, didn't read it.

Okay.

>>3184046
Star Trek: TNG was the most successful in the franchise, and also had the least character development

Check and mate

>>3184052
It's a retelling of Arthurian legend with dark knights, long lost princes wielding sacred swords and a castle to storm at the end. Lucas's genius was in taking this tired old story and giving the characters life beyond mythical cliche.
It is a classic story, no question. But it is the characters that make it endure as a classic.

>>3184047
Entertainment is entertainment. Art is entertainment+. /lit/ tries to suss out the art from the entertainment. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, but that's not what this board is about.

If all of your characters are there merely to move the plot along, then there is no reason to read the book: it has nothing at all to do with the human condition.

>>3184052
That's still okay because it's based on human myth and it uses archetypes as representations of society and its beliefs. These archetypes give the story weight despite the plot-centricity. (It should go without saying that this applies only to the first three movies, not the prequels.)

>>3184055
Star Trek. Really?
Why don't you set your fanboy phaser to GTFO and energise yourself into out of your mothers basement.

>>3184071
We agreed never to discuss the prequels and their bastard offspring- the jive-talking Jar Jar Binks, the hipster Jedi and the complete lack of Lando Carlissian

>>3184052
If Star Wars is so plot driven how come to this day I still have no idea what was going on and remember only a colourful collage of action scenes?

>>3184085
I don't know, perhaps you are retarded?

>>3184031
>basic plot structure used effectively for many stories
>"it's wildly inaccurate"

what the fuck are you even

Will someone name me a plot driven book with deep characters?

This is what my novel looks like

>>3184666
Someone doesn't know how stories work, I see. Or perhaps how graphs work? The rising action should take up the largest part of the graph, and even the exposition isn't a flat line. Denouement should be shorter than exposition or rising action.

>>3184756

V.
Infinite Jest

>>3184771
That's also wrong. If that is an accurate graph, I assure you people will hate your book.

>>3184666
It is wildly inaccurate - this isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better.

I wonder how it'd look for Infinite Jest

>>3184775
This is much better, yes.

>>3184779
No.

>>3184774
>>3184774

Here's Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis'

>>3184774

>wrong
>sure

>>3184781

Yes. Have you read it?

>>3184771
>>3184779
>thinks he's trolling me

Pictured: trolling. Try harder.

>>3184791

>troll

Which part of 4chan did you flock from?

>>3184791
You can't be serious.

>>3184055

TNG was (perhaps) the most successful because it had no competition. Things had changed a lot by the late 90s.

The characters in that show were paper-thin, mostly. Plus, it was like watching the get-along gang.

>>3184772
>>3184775
>>3184777

jesus christ. it's called Freytag's pyramid, it's literally EngLit 101. if you google it you'll see before rising action and after falling action there's an inciting incident and a resolution, respectively - it's just a three-act structure. which is exactly how Star Wars is plotted

go read a short story

>>3184806
What the fuck are you talking about? Sulu and uhura are really three dimensional, dynamic characters, right?

>>3184815
>implying EngLit is worth a single shit.

Oh boy, oh man, you are going to hate them when you start writing and you realize they taught you fuck-all. Did you also learn about the hero's journey? And the three-act structure? Excuse me while I try to contain myself.

>>3184835

Your idea of what makes for proper storytelling is exactly that - your idea

>>3184815
You never explained what was on the y-axis or x-axis but if it's action on the y then you're a fucking idiot because despite what you may have been taught in the exposition and denoument things do indeed happen

>>3184835
>2012
>dismissing the monomyth
>thinks he's a writer

we don't, we just recognize plot isn't the end-all be-all of art. a good analogy is that plot is like the canvas of a painting. it's bland by itself, it's the rest of the medium that elevates it.

>>3184815
>thinks Star Wars has a three-act structure

>>3184835
>is aware that there's multiple approaches to storytelling
>calls a structure "inaccurate"

>>3184844
>they're called 'exposition', 'denouement'
>therefore they're literally just information feeds, conflicts dying down

oy vey
trolls or babbys?

>>3184895
Dying down, not just fucking flatlining

>>3184899
Freytag's analysis was intended to apply not to modern drama, but rather to ancient Greek and Shakespearean drama.

Modernism killed the author, plot, and character star

>>3184908
Then why is my picture of star wars' plot being quoted as stupid because of this pyramid?

>Shakespearean

All his tragedies climax at the very end though

>>3184895
The three-act structure is appropriate in very few instances. It and the hero's journey completely explain the tripe that rolls out of Hollywood nowadays.

It's possible to craft a story that fits perfectly into those structures, but what happens 99% of the time-- because this is all anybody ever teaches media students nowadays-- is that the writer tries to cram his story into those molds, resulting in pure slop.

>>3184825

Lulz. I'm pretty sure they weren't in TNG. Plus, they WERE shallow.

>>3184919
that was the point. jesus christ, why can't this board into reading comprehension? the guy was saying TNG had 2 dimensional, shallow characters, while the original series was totally goofy and the characters are really just racial stereotypes and macho men. Not that that's a bad thing, just saying TNG had more fleshed out characters

>>3184926
>why can't this board into reading comprehension?
First, look at the guy you're talking to.

>>3184937
Ha! I didn't even see that. Nevermind, fuck off sunhawk

>>3184914

Also

>>3184895
>calls a structure inaccurate

Are you fucking kidding me? Those straight lines and those hard angles? You think that's a good structure for anything? It's an absolutely atrocious structure.

>>3184946

What about straight lines and hard angles is inherently 'bad'?

>>3184949
the idea that the rate of increase in action is at all linear is incredibly restrictive

>>3184954

What if restriction is the aim?

>>3184949
That's not how a story flows. Ever. Even the worst story has more variance and softer slopes than that.

>>3184958

What about it is wrong as a vague model?

>>3184954
No, it's not even that. Imagine a story in which all there ever is is an increase in friction/drama/action. That's terrible. You tire out your audience within 15 minutes. You can't constantly ratchet the tension. It just doesn't work. Even the most harrowing story has lulls.

>>3184963

You seriously think there are rules for this sort of thing? Worrying about your tiring your audience out should always be second to nixing bullshit and compromise

>>3184960
Well what characteristics of that graph are we supposed to think about, in vague terms

>For like a fifth of it nothing happens as things are explained
>steadily and for a long time the story picks up, reaching a critical point in exactly the middle of the play/story
>for just as long as the story was picking up, it then slows down to nothing
>then for just as long as shit was getting explained nothing really happens as things are resolved

That's nothing like any story I've seen, the climax is nearly always closer to the end than the middle, the denoument is much shorter than that and the exposition is not only longer than that, but shit at least happens.

I can't see this graph as useful even if it's rough

>>3184960
Even as a vague model it's useless. The ending doesn't end like that. The story doesn't just drop off at the climax.

>inb4 cliffhangers

That's different.

>>3184970
Also it's missing fucking axis labels what exactly are we talking about here and where's the y=0 line?

>>3184970
Oh, was he talking about the pyramid? Yeah, that's just as shit.

>>3184969
Cool. Write your stories and enjoy no one ever reading them.

>>3184983

Enjoy your vacant tripe shaped by markets

>>3184985
You are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the (decent) graph. Educate yourself.

>>3184987

I'm telling you that you worrying about graphs speaks volumes

>>3184031
>>3184777
>>3184914
>>3184946
>>3184958

it's all coming together

>Those straight lines and those hard angles? You think that's a good structure for anything?
>Those straight lines and those hard angles?
>Structure
>Lines and angles
>Inaccurate
>Structure
>Slopes
>Accurate
>Plot points of specific story graphed = slopes
>Accurate
>Basic plot structure = lines and angles
>Inaccurate

dear god almighty

Because /lit/ is full of older teenagers and 20somethings, and for some reason this generation's older teenagers and 20somethings have an obsession with Modernism, and Modernist texts generally have next to no plot.

>>3184990
You don't even understand the topic. Your opinion is irrelevant.

>>3184997

Newtrips are always worth a chuckle or two until they realize how they sound and start to become pathetic

>>3185000

Modernism is still being talked about in academia and theory/crit at large, we're still in the midst of it. Why wouldn't a modern generation of readers be interested in their immediate forbears?

>>3184997
>>3184990
>>3185003

Oh god stop it with all the samefagging.

>>3185003
I don't really disagree with him that much in conclusion but in method he's retarded. Tripfags coming in and dismissing an entire course with no real understanding will quickly generate hatred.

Soon2be filtered even though /lit/ is already so small ;_;

>>3185008
>samefagging
>implying that he was attempting to decieve you into thinking he was multiple anons

Retire your trip

>>3185008

At least one of those is different than the others.

>>3184018
This thread. Fine. Write shit for the rest of your lives. IDGAF.

>>3185021
Then get the fuck out thank you.

>>3185025
No, I'm sticking around to see what other gems people have to offer up. I need some more comedy.

>>3185027
It's not a surprise you'll continue to be obnoxious.

Tension is not constantly rising throughout a book. There should be mini peaks in there as well or else there would never be any rewards to the reader. They need that rise and then slight release throughout the story. The story with constant rising action and building tension is boring, but one with ups and downs keeps the reader engaged because those little peaks and falls are like little chocolate snacks to keep readers reading.

>>3184091
^This guy said it.

>>3184779
I lol'd.

>>3185027
What do you do with your life? Like, did you study anything in uni?

>>3185611
I'm a freelance editor and writer, and I'm studying law.

>inb4 you don't know anything

Anything useful you could learn about art in uni can be learnt out of it. You learn more out of it, actually, I'd argue.

How do I know if a character is 3 dimensional?

>>3186888
just ask yourself, if he posts shit, does he troll you?

You guys like my bookez?

>>3187478

It needs to be smoother.

>>3187481
It would have been but I have shaky hands so I just used the line-shape.

>>3184036
>Tripfag tells anons on /lit/ that characters are ambulatory cardboard.

I thought I'd seen it all.

On another note, plot isn't inherently bad. A great plot bring forth momentum and excitement in a story, but it can't be the only or main focus on what makes constitutes good literature.

>>3184775

>>3187478
That might be an interesting one. But I could see myself getting bored at the end.

>>3187500
So we agree.