The Grand Illusion
The other day, while reading a decent but not great SF novel written more than a decade ago, I got to thinking about plotting and plots.
While there are exceptions, I tend to write “straight-line” plots, in the sense that the protagonist is attempting to get from point A to point B. Sometimes, he or she gets there. Sometimes, they get to another end that they didn’t anticipate. There are obstacles, from nature, social and government structures, and from others with conflicting or hostile objectives. Some of those obstacles the protagonist doesn’t even think about until having to confront them, but the obstacles are part of the world or worlds the protagonist must negotiate. It’s not easy, sometimes almost impossible, and the cost is never negligible.
But that’s certainly not the only way to plot. There’s the daisy chain plot, where one thing leads to another, and the protagonist is led and/or misled until he or she figures the way out. Or “the universe is against me” plot, where the protagonist has to smash everything in order to merely survive. Or “the chosen one” plot, featuring generally a less obstacle-ridden version of the hero’s journey.
Whatever the basic plot structure, an accomplished writer can generally make it work out in a believable fashion, but the more elaborate the underlying plot structure, the greater the possibility that a less accomplished author will undermine the believability of the story and the world. But then, in certain types of books or movies, particularly those featuring “massive” superheroes, the plot isn’t the point at all – displaying the powers and skills of the hero is the primary goal of the movie/book.
One thing I have noticed in real life is that there’s almost always someone smarter, stronger, faster, and more capable – and when there’s not, people band together to keep powerful people in line… or become their slaves.
For every George Washington or Cincinnatus, who gave up power willingly, there are scores of would-be dictators who can’t or won’t – and that’s another plot.
In terms of your plots I usually don’t have any idea what the final destination is but I occasionally get the impression of a trajectory.
Which relates to a strange feeling of perhaps dissonance I got reading Scholar. It was the whole tangent of Quaeryt getting ship-wrecked en route to his destination – the name of which I can’t remember.
The whole segment of the story felt strange to me – particularly in retrospect – because it didn’t feel like it had any major impact on the trajectory of the story. Of course entire stories have been told about how one slight alteration of events can drastically change the outcome – the butterfly effect and so on.
Maybe I missed something and there were hints in the story that things could have turned out drastically different if Quaeryt hadn’t been shipwrecked. However the impression I was left with at the time was merely that he was sidetracked/delayed and nothing more. Which made the whole segment feel like an elaborate set-piece that could have been removed without fundamentally altering the story or the character.
It was the first time reading one of your novels I felt like that. I was accustomed to your protagonists facing obstacles and adversity as well as having the trajectory of their lives changed but this felt different somehow.
I don’t even think it was a bad story choice. I think of it as an example of “life happens”. Not everything goes according to plan. On that level it adds a level of authenticity to the story.
Regarding Washington and Cincinnatus in comparison with would-be dictators, I have a feeling we’re going to start seeing a lot of stories of paranoia and trying to evade governments. Even overthrow them.
“If This Goes On—”
More in the spirit of the entry, I suppose, there’s also the discovery/revelation plot (as in murder mysteries and a lot of horror), bildungsroman, redemption plot, The Man Who Learned Better, slice of life…
All of which are fine, but I like problem-solving, so LEM’s plots work great for me. 🙂