/lit/ - Literature

Only the first one. I'm not interested in "characters," and most "character driven" books end up boring as hell. I like a good complex story.

>>7280710
>I'm a pleb

How does it feel to be a pleb?

>>7280710
>I like a complex story
>where all the characters are defined for their role in limited possible interactions

>>7280771

Yes but the actual story can be complex and the setting be very fleshed out, which is much more interesting to me than people's "emotional prioblems".

>>7280803
>>7280767

>>7280803
That kind of thinking is what makes you sound like a pleb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty-Six_Dramatic_Situations
Character interaction is actually extremely limited, the differences from one story to the next are just context. The things that make a story different from another are the things that scape the basic interaction between the elements acting.

>>7280710
>I only like books that a functionally the same but set in different contexts.
>creativity and the human condition are boring.

>>7280848
>human condition
spooks are boring tbh

>>7280678
> the OP pic
The justification for blowing up Iraq followed literally that same line of reasoning.

Poe's law, I guess.

>>7280891
and now you know how the intellectual sphere acts as a justification apparatus of capitalism

>>7280678
I tend to do the latter when I'm writing, which I think is somewhat lazy of me. Plotting is a real art and I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as being "for plebs."

Plot is just a mask the characters wear. The latter are what is interesting.

>think "that would be cool for a story"
>get a vague idea of a main character
>"now, what is the point of this story?"
>develop a theme
>devise a goal for the main character that will allow for a plot that fits the theme and proves the point of the story
>rework the main character
>outline the plot
>begin writing

>>7280678
STEMtriesintoethics.jpg

>>7280830
36 of them and not one talks about social awkwardness

>>7280896
>an economic system that demands respect for private property and free trade is somehow responsible for war

>>7281566
>Iraq isn't trading its oil "freely"
>We need to "free" them, BUT HOW?

>>7281559
~dramatic~ situations

Retard incoming: how would there only be 1% of victims if 99 people killed someone? 99 murderers with 99 victims; that's 50% is it not? Or did I fall for the ruse?

>>7281576
>"Iraq" as in, the State of Iran
>"We" as in, the American government
>capitalism

>>7281648
21st century

>>7281676
99 people killing the same guy.

>>7281724
Ah ok. That makes a lot of sense. I took "someone" to to have a less restricted scope.

Plot, setting and characters should all be interwoven aspects that support each other. It doesn't even make sense to try and pick which aspect you like the most. It's all part of the same picture in the end.

>>7281534
Sounds like you're doing some homework or something rather than expressing yourself artistically

>>7280710
>>7280803

All elements of narrative become tired and predictable once one has consumed enough.

>>7281759
It's the reader that is tired, not the particular element of writing

>>7281750
Why do you not use the Oxford comma?

>>7280891
utilitarianism in a nutshell

>>7280678
I like to work with scenes, let's say:
>"A does/wants X and B helps/hinders/helps and hinders A + where"
>"A does X because he/she wants Y"
>"setting 1, X happens because of A"

Building on their interaction and asking the usual WH questions helps to define the characters, drive the plot and develop the setting at the same time. Once I got the feel for the characters, setting and rough plot from few "that would be fucking cool to read" - events, I tend to write the key scenes and interactions down.

I don't see why people like to separate character building and plotting so much either way, since you can rewrite ad infinitum, the way you started shouldn't matter, make sure that both are organic and in synergy to the story you want to tell. It's that simple.

>>7281708
>American government
>not extension of their corporate interest
Statism got the same endgame as Capitalism, oligarchy.

>>7281868
So? The state is not a capitalist entity or instrument. If you argue that capitalism ought to be protected from the goverment favoring specific interests then I'm with you.

>>7281815
Utilitarianism is the only objective morality, cry harder deontologists!

>>7281920
>The state is not a capitalist entity or instrument.
In theory it shouldn't be, just like Communism is supposed be a stateless and classless society but we all know how it turned in reality.

>>7281947
>believing in objective morality
What's next free will or bearded sky wizard dude?

>>7281952
Edgy moral anti-realists get on my nerves.

>>7281962
Anon, please, I am a constructivist, that's like … only half as edgy.

>>7280830
>>7280771
my nigga I just found out about hibarikun as well

usually try to think of a cool chacter first, what makes him cool is his story and relationships and those eventually turn into the plot

>>7284889

This is how you create Gary Stus.

I feel it's kind of a false dichotomy. Where does what a character end and what happens to them start? Isn't plot the just doings of people? Character simply explores what took people to do what they are doing and it's only done through more happenings, and in all of it the people are inseparable from the processes.

>>7280896


The intellectual sphere acts as a justification apparatus for diversity quotas.