Disequilibrium

I'm responding to a comment on In Defense of Plot. It is perhaps a bit unfair for me to post my response as a blog instead of as a comment for a few reasons:

1. Because of the format of blogs the comments tend to be presented below the post which gives the post an implied position of false authority over comments.
2. Because I have a free forum to write whatever I want without limit.

There are more, I'm sure, but I want to throw it out there. This is unfair of me, but I'm doing it anyway...I'm that kind of person. But there's one other reason. This comment deserves discussion. If you want to see the comment then click the link and read away or just scroll down to it....then come back here.

Part 1

First thing I should address is primal reaction. To help explain I'd like to use an example. I will define plot simply as the events in a story that introduce and resolve a conflict.

A child walks into the kitchen and sees a pot on top of the stove. The mother sees the child and tells them, "Don't touch that. Hot." As soon as the mother turns around the child heads toward the pot and reaches out toward it. The mother again catches the child and says, "Hot! Don't touch!" The mother puts the child in the next room and continues cooking. The doorbell rings and the mother goes to answer the door. The child sees their mother leaving the kitchen heads back toward the pot. The child looks at the pot and then toward the front door. The front door is out of view. The child looks back at the pot and takes a step forward. The child checks again, no mom. The steam from the boiling water rises. The child reaches up to the handle.

In this story the plot is straighforward. There is a simple conflict. What happens? That's where we fill in the blank. We can't help it. The stronger the plot the more we are compelled to fill in the blank. It's what prompts a child to ask, "What happens next?"

In an educational psycology course I had a professor use this term: Disequilibrium. The plot of a story begins when disequilibrium is introduced. Something in the world is set off balance. When we recognize this our brains start ticking. In education we can use this heightened mental state to engage our students. Our primal reaction is to resolve this disequilibrium. Our connection to the story is what determines the level of our reaction.

When a competent writer leaves out a part of the plot, then we subconsciously try to fill in the blank. A strong plot will keep us until the conflict is resolved, despite poor characterization or language.

But like a bad joke, once we hear it we don't need or want to hear it again.

Character without plot & setting is a journal entry or a profile. This can be interesting, but it's not a story.

Setting without character & plot is description.

Now bear with me for Part 2

alyssajlewis's comment hits on the weakness of my original post and the first part of this post. Plot alone is never enough to suffice. Alyssa says, "It's the difference between a synopsis and the actual story."

 

So to follow my earlier pattern: Plot without character and setting is synopses or outline.

 

This is where wording gets tricky. Plot, story, narrative, etc. Each one of these could mean the same thing or something different. So, for the sake of discussion let's make the division thus: plot is the events and story is the sum of plot, character, and setting.

 

Alyssa is absolutely correct. A plot without character is weak. And this is the flaw in my original post, there is no real way to disconnect character, setting, and plot in a story.

 

Even in my example above I have two characters (and possibly a third at the door). I have a setting. And you may even say that the only reason the story is at all interesting (if it is) is because of the characterization of the child. We have set a precedence. The pot is on the stove and the child wants to touch it. There is a pattern in the child's behavior. The child wants to touch the pot and will keep trying to despite the mother's instruction. And the stronger connection we feel to the child or the mother(character development), or the more we know about outside pressures (setting), the more intense our reaction.

 

The kitchen with a pot of boiling water itself is not a story (though you could write it so). The characters, a mother and child, are not a story. But the events could not happen without the setting or the characters**. There is no conflict to be resolved. You could even argue that there is no "man vs. nature" without the characters of man and nature (in those stories nature is often treated as a character).

 

More than claiming that plot is the only essential part of story, I should be saying that it is important to learn how to use plot, character, setting, and language together to create a powerful story. In studying it is easier to critique and practice character, descriptions, and language in short form. But story is harder because it can't be propterly critiqued until it is finished.

 

My point here is reactionary. Perhaps in the same way that our study of charcter is reactionary to the classical emphasis on plot or the abundance of plot heavy stories in popular culture. I don't want to detract from the importance of character or setting. I mostly wanted to point out that plot is another important part of writing a story (especially if we want to sell it) that I feel is neglected in some writers. I think that is a detriment for those writers who want to sell their work.

 

Now, plot driven vs. character driven stories. That is a different and important discussion. (both have a plot, but they are different in how they use it)

 

I'd like to end with a quote from Alyssa that sums this all up.

I think plot has its strengths. It allows the reader to get excited for and anticipate events to come. But unless there's a good character to care about, there's not going to be any anticipation because the reader isn't going to care what happens.

 

**I imagine that there are a number of people that could describe water boiling or a pot falling with as much power as any interpersonal conflict. This is usually done by imbuing inanimate objects, such as atoms or pots with human characteristics. If you want to write this I'd love to read it.