Can a story be "too ordinary"? - Writers Forum

darkviolet · 01-29-2006, 11:18 PM

Lately, I've been asking for critisisms on a historical fantasy story I'm working on. The main critisism I seem to get is that the plot was "too ordinary."

Basically, it goes like this: A group of warriors are fighting to protect their village from marauding barbarian hordes, and an evil spirit rumored to be killing and corrupting the locals.

I'm not sure if by ordinary, they mean derivitive, clichéd, or just too normal. But since I'm always open to suggestions, I want some of your opinions: should I spice it up, or leave it as is?

Ilan Bouchard · 01-29-2006, 11:36 PM

I think plot is one of the less important aspects of writing. If you have solid characters and a fluid writing style, anything that happens is interesting. Look to Herman Hesse as an example; his plots are sometimes as simple as "A man tramps around Europe having sex with women," yet his work is some of the most beautiful I've read.

Hodge · 01-29-2006, 11:42 PM

It depends if you're writing literary or genre fiction... In literary fiction the plot can be as mundane as some man telling a child about a banana fish in the ocean. Oh, that banana fish!

But in, lets say, a mystery novel, your plot is nearly everything. If the culprit is the butler, then no one's going to think very highly of you.

Basically, if the plot is central to your story then it better be damn good. If your characters are central, then plot isn't that important.

Writing well is the most important aspect, though. You can take a cliché idea and still make it a good read if you do it well.

No one can pass a judgement on your story until they've read it, though, so unless you post it up here I can't tell you if it needs to be "spiced up" or not.

darthwader · 01-30-2006, 07:32 AM

The fact of the matter is that what you posted is not a plot, it's an outline; and while yes the outline seems a little "ordinary" a plot can not be judged by a brief description. Personally I would not worry about how uninspired other people think your story is until they have actually read it.

I was worried about my story being a bit dull, so I gave a copy of the first draft to one of my friends, and despite the major flaws of structure and punctuation, the feedback I got was positive, which gave me the confidence I needed to continue.

You may want to consider the same thing, but just make sure the person who reads it will give you an honest opinion, instead of just saying "it's great!" no matter what they really think.

Mike C · 01-30-2006, 12:46 PM

Oh, the Bananafish! I'd forgotten how beautiful that story was.

Ordinary in the case of the outline above could be read as hackneyed or clichéd - we've all read many variations on the theme. All you have to do is write it better than anyone else has done.

mammamaia · 01-30-2006, 04:50 PM

to simplify what folks are saying above:

if your plot is ordinary, your writing must be extraordinary!

white-wolf · 01-30-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

But in, lets say, a mystery novel, your plot is nearly everything. If the culprit is the butler, then no one's going to think very highly of you.

Damn, I'd love to read a 'the butler did it' mystery. Honestly, if the butler really did do it then it would be an unexpected surprise, I think. After all, no reader would be expecting such a cliched ending and, if the book also contains memorable, if not likeable, characters, a little humour, and a strong storyline then, voila, it could just work.

Mike C · 01-31-2006, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by white-wolf

Damn, I'd love to read a 'the butler did it' mystery.

You should read more victorian and edwardian novels. Why do you think it's a cliché? It didn't happen because it was a rarity.

Hodge · 01-31-2006, 01:54 AM

If I were a butler I'd so do it.

awford · 02-01-2006, 07:37 PM

I've always heard many opinions about plot vs. character. My personal opinion is that if you as a writer decide to favor one over the other your story will not reach the same potential as if you give proper attention to both.

Like Hodge said though, I dont think you posted enough to truly pass any judgement. But since you asked I will say that if you add the word "viking" in there somewhere what you posted could easily be taken as the basic description of the movie "13th Warrior" - also a historical fantasy.

patthager · 02-01-2006, 10:26 PM

Shakespear (does it make me look stupid using him as an example?) has little or no storyline, but he has incredible characters and the way he toys with them is over the top. Most of the good writers toy with their characters in situations that are easy to relate to. When I say 'toy' with I mean hang stuff in front of and helplessly torture, though in Shakespear it always works out in the end because of toying guilt or fate.
You see the end coming in Shakespear but it's good literature because the characters have such an experience, and that experience is well depicted. Good characters can create tension where there is none, like when Macebeth has the evil king praying. You know he's not going to kill him because it's only the middle of the book, but it's a really long and really tense scene.
I really think thats what a lot of good literature is all about. It helps have to have good structure and use of perspectives, but I think it's almost completely about the characters in every situation.

bob rulz · 02-02-2006, 12:47 AM

There are differences in playwriting and novelwriting.

Mike C · 02-02-2006, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob rulz

There are differences in playwriting and novelwriting.

Duh. The difference is in format. You can learn a lot from Shakespeare, because all his work is character driven - it's about people, and how they act and interact under different stimuli. He knew what many new writers don't realise; whatever your setting, it's about people. If he wrote about a fantastical, magical island (The Tempest) it wasn't about the island, it was about human relationships. If he wrote about gang warfare (Romeo and Juliet) it was about human relationships. If he wrote farce (Comedy of errors) it was about the way people related to eachother.

In other words if you write fantasy, your story shouldn't revolve around your magical world, but the people that inhabit it. If you write SF it should be people that drive the story, not technology.

Although I disagree with pathagar that 'Sheakespeare has little or no storyline' - love stories, tragedies, comedies, fantasies (try watching or reading Midsummer night's dream without following the story) - he covered it all with remarkable aplomb.

Hodge · 02-02-2006, 02:16 AM

I think he may have meant that Shakespeare wasn't known for his intricate or innovative plots (although I'd disagree somewhat), not that his plays didn't have storylines of note.

Shakespeare was so popular during his time and after because he did something truly extraordinary: he created plays that appealed to every person regardless of their station in life. The poor man could watch one of his plays and see the satire of the upper class and the worth of the lower, while the aristocrat could watch it and become engrossed in the cool rich characters and at the same time see all the commoners as fools. Anyone could watch one of his plays and get something out of it. Shakespeare was one sexy man--I'd totally do him (and he'd let me!).

That said, you don't have to be Shakespeare to pull off a good read.

Mike C · 02-02-2006, 05:35 AM

I'd also disagree on plotting. Shakespeare plotted. King Lear, Comedy of Errors, Macbeth... sometimes intricate, often innovative. We sometimes forget how groundbreaking he was because we've all been brought up on stuff that was inspired by him, or by people who were inspired by him. Also it's easy to forget about plotting when it's done so effortlessly, and serves as a backdrop to the characters rather than sitting in the foreground waving a flag.

While we're extending the written word beyond the novel and onto the stage, see or read 'Look Back in Anger' by John Osbourne. It's as 'ordinary' as you can get - so ordinary it inspired and informed a whole new theatrical genre, called the 'Kitchen Sink Drama'.

It was totally ordinary, lacked an intricate plot, had only 3 characters and was possibly the most powerful piece of British theatre of it's decade. The movie is probably available on DVD, and stars Richard Burton.

Another example is Henry Miller's 'Death of a Salesman'. No great plot, but solid characterisation and brilliant, insightful writing elevated it from the whinings of a middle aged failure to something both beautiful and tragic. The movie, starring Dustin Hoffman, is excellent not only for Hoffman's performance, but because it's filmed in a way that retains the theatrical feel of the play.

Anyone who wants to write stong characters should watch/read these, and doubly so if you want to write scripts.