I don't see why not. But I've never seen it done.
I've certainly seen one character's emotional journey be used as a story framework - indeed, as the actual plot. It's what The Hero's Journey is. But a duo? Or more? I'm guessing if I read more romance, I'd have seen it as a framework of it too, as that is entirely based off two characters' relationship changing, right?
But in a non-romance, not romantic relationship way? Some crime stories are built around a dance between detective and criminal but how much evolution is there? I could cite Line of Duty as an example, the way Arnott and Gates manoeuvre around each other, but it is clearly not the main driver. It is a byproduct. And 99% of the time, that's how it works. The plot drives action by demanding the characters act. Their actions change their mindset and create changes in character dynamics, frequently leading to some of the story's most memorable scenes. Does that count as something that can be used as a framework?
I think a better way of thinking is that it's something that could be built into a framework. That you could have a story framework that doesn't just list the plot events, but also the emotional events - such as changing character dynamics - that result from it. Have multiple versions covering multiple relationship dynamics. Indeed, once you've done that, you can plug and play to a certain extent.
Or, freestyle it on the plot but use the character framework. Or, hell, reverse engineer from the character framework. If you've decided that halfway through the story you have something that splinters the group and forces them to get back together before they can bring down the enemy, you know you need an event that forces them to question each other. The big momentum changing fight or revelation has to be of a certain type. Is this prescriptive? It can be. Could it work, both as prescriptive framework and as an idea to riff off? I don't see why not. The big crack against genre fiction is its plot driven, not character driven. It's not a bad thing, but it can be limiting, and I think the advice in genre fiction can be very much plot focused. Having ideas on how to alter it can be liberating. And a bottom up approach, where we focus on the characters and how they'll change, and then start constructing the plot around that? Feasible. Just there's no set advice. And I reckon if I was talking to romance and YA fans, they'd be rolling their eyes right around five lines ago.
And why limit it to character? Another friend, DT, pointed out most of my ideas seem to be centred around characters, while he centres on worldbuilding and Big Ideas. Is that wrong? Of course not. I've been looking through a friend's draft on worldbuilding theory recently, which has given me some great ideas and taught me a lot about how people do this. As is pointed out in the draft, it's a more Sci-Fi way of doing things (and DT defends the SF genre with terminal intensity) but there's no reason it can't be done in Fantasy, or Horror, or anything really. Of course a writer can sit down and say "I need the audience to learn this, and feel this way, about the Big Idea here, here and here, so I'll need something here, here and here in the plot, and I get to those spots by doing this" ad infinitum.
The more I look at story theory, the more I believe in the idea that Character/Plot/Worldbuilding basically make a circle, and that when we have ideas around one, the wheel starts to turn and ideas form in all of the other segments. And the wheel continues to turn and soon we're back to whatever part of it was the original idea, with more ideas about it. The dominant stories out there, the 800lb gorillas in the room, are there because they are strong in all areas. The only way that works is if Character/Plot/Worldbuilding are as interwoven as possible, so that every detail feeds as much of those three areas as possible, and enthralling levels of depth are created in the limited space. If that's not happening, then something will end up going by the wayside.
And if that's how people are crafting their stories, does it matter which of CPW you start with first? Obviously not - the starting point is not the ending point, and the idea will go round and round the circle before reaching that ending point. I would go further and say that spending a little time thinking about the idea as if you had started with the character - or the world - or the plot has a good chance of collecting dividends. Maybe you'll realise there's nothing compelling or crucial about their place in the plot (or the plot's place in the world) and start thinking about what you can add. Maybe you'll come up with new ideas. I went through an exercise as part of reviewing the Worldbuilding draft where I sat down with a logline and elevator pitch, started identifying the Big Ideas that were mentioned there and ergo had to be done right, started writing down the base bones of how they worked and how things could extrapolate, then started to write about the extrapolations, and ended up with an obvious setting element that I think could really add meat to Character and Plot. Would I have got it without imagining the story as if I was building it from Worldbuilding first? I don't think so. It's not a natural angle for me but that's the point.
As such, that is my new method for getting stories that match the ideas of what they should look like in my head. It's getting some results. And that is my truth, tell me yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment