As a bit of an inauguration advertisement for my newly founded group The School of Thought Pertaining to Logical Plot and Character, I figure I may well ask the biggest unified body of writers on this site how they feel about the matters in question.

So: How much do you think about the logic behind your characters' actions, and the way your plot adheres to it?

As a writer and reader favoring longer works myself, I naturally see the need of a guiding light in form of the basic outline of the plot to be written beforehand and worked through, for a story of any notable length to become decently coherent and enjoyable. But while writing - and reading - I also quite often come to a point where I realize that the action a character just took (or I want him to take) in order to advance the plot in the direction needed, completely goes against the logic of the character. Sure, in most cases the reader will never notice, simply because he doesn't have all the information needed to get the hint; but if works stretch out enough, and the characters get enough flesh on their bones that's visible the readers' eyes, you will eventually run into many a snag if you try to force your plot through the disagreement of your characters.

By and large, illogical actions are the ones left unexplained, leaving the reader wondering "why did he do that?" throughout the entire story without answer. As Brandon Sanderson cleverly states, comprehension breeds enjoyment; when your reader can understand the reasoning behind an action that a character takes or the way something happens in the world, he will think it far more interesting, clever and generally good than if he's simply left to scratch his head.

So recently I have let myself leave the plotline as more of a river, with the story itself being a canoe steered downstream by the characters. If you have characters that act logically and according to their natures, then you, as a writer, will spend far less time stuck in ditches you never realized you dug for yourself by forcing the story canoe in a direction where the water's too shallow, instead of letting the characters navigate the churning waters themselves. Focus instead on directing the flow of the river itself where you want it, meandering the way you think works best; by letting the characters do their part by themselves you also reduce the amount of pushing you need to do on your own to keep the canoe going forward.

Of course, this necessitates a meticulous care in creating and getting to know your characters (and the world they live in), but my opinion is that any self-respecting author should have that part down pat before even thinking of writing a good story. For indeed it is not the eyes of the world that we see the events of the story through, but the eyes of the characters in it. That is what we as writers must focus our talents on: like a strategy gamer we must learn that excessive micromanagement pales in efficiency compared to "macromanaging" well-built automated systems. A general with good lieutenants does not need to focus on every single front of a battle, but keep his eyes on the big picture - the strategy, rather than the tactics. An author with good characters does not need to spend time coming up with a solution to every situation they encounter, and keep his focus on the greater plot rather than the lesser - the river, rather than the canoe.

Yes, this got a little long. But what do you think? Also, if you agree with these ideas or simply find yourself interested in more discussion of this practice and its principles, join me and help spreading the word, the logic of the word, and the word of the logic.

The thing with people is that we don't always make logical decisions and some of us tend to act more impulsively than others.

I honestly don't think this deep while writing. I find it better to let happen what may, then clean up the mess.

Hmm... It might take a bit of writing to get to know your characters well though, but I agree with the idea overall. Knowing your characters well enough to reactively write them is, to me, sanctioning off a part of yourself and letting it grow as its own personality through experience. It probably depends on the person, but that part might take time in general.

Of course, depending on the character, you may not need to know them this well and just instead act on logic and some sort of boundaries you set for that character.

On a side note, I love your metaphor.

964213
The key issue with this reasoning is, as a lot of people will likely say (and one already has), that people aren't logical. There's a massive difference between having characters that act logically, and having characters who act as they would given the situation.

I try to think deep about my writing but it doesn't seem come out that way yet, I'm rewriting most of my story instead of moving forward with it then editing it when I have time because I was stuck on how Sweetie belle and Spike would interact together and how to write Spike and when would both of them will openly admit that there scared, and concerned... If I think too deep into that ill end up in a chasm of thought for a while since I cant think of Spike in emotional level, in front of someone would look like... I wouldn't be able to make up my mind.

964213
Agree, pretty much. I tell people all the time that, as writers of fiction, characters are vital.

People can still enjoy a terrible story if the characters are great (read: most every B-movie and cult classic that's ever existed), but no matter how much thought and care you put into a story, if the characters come off boring or hateful, no one will like it.

Letting the characters be themselves--be true to their own character--is not really that difficult a challenge, I feel, but still so necessary. Well made characters are naturally living, breathing entities on their own. They have thoughts and feelings that tie them together, that define them, push them, hold them back. And you don't have to know what all those are. To at least some small degree, the character itself will know and will naturally want to follow by those rules.

It's also the number one bit of advice I give to people who say they're suffering from writer's block. To just let the characters go, they know what they want and how they're going to go about it.

Because, really, as much as we are all Creators, we are at the same time Recorders, Witnesses of life. That's what it is to write. To take what we've seen, learned, loved, and hated about this world and put it down--even if most of that is only on the subconscious level.

So yes, as someone who doesn't put too much thought into his plots, but rather lets his characters do most of the talking, I agree.

It's funny, actually, because when I saw Sanderson at a book signing a few months ago, this was something that was sort of talked about, in regards to his completion of the Wheel of Time. It was a small difficulty he felt he had, because he actually plans his plots pretty heavily, he likes a nice, dense outline. Whereas someone like Jordon was a 'discovery' writer (which was so cool to hear, because that's how I always described my own writing style), who didn't plan too heavily, who kind of let things take their own course.

So really, you can go both ways, on caring about a plot. As long as your characters are well done, it really doesn't matter.

964252
But that's the thing, if it is logical for the character to act illogically, then their action is logical within the context of the story. That's what he's getting at.

Know your characters and your world enough that you don't get stuck trying to force the plot, you can just let your characters react as they really would in the situation. Like you said.

964237
That I do indeed. Sad to see him go. Also sad to see a glaring lack of WoT (or Mistborn/Way of Kings/etc for that part) crossovers on site - something I tried to help with for a bit but ultimately lost steam on when other projects took precedence.

964226
But that's the thing. If someone IS impulsive, it's in his nature to do seemingly unexpected things. The reader, if he knows this, will expect the unexpected. I mean, if Pinkie suddenly started acting NORMAL, what would you do? Complain, that's what - because it's not in character for her to follow the "logic" that the rest of the world adheres to.

Most of the time, at least.

964240
While it does seem like a possibly grand endeavor at first sight, you'd be surprised how fast it pays off. If you spend that extra bit of time on the characters, like you would with any basic worldbuilding and whatnot, you will swiftly regain those hours by sheer virtue of not having to sit down and spend idle hours wrecking your brain on what to do next. Instead, simply ask yourself: "What would this character do in this situation? Of the possible reactions, which one leads to the quickest/easiest/coolest route to my destination? Which of these streams do I tell him to follow?"

Saving time is being efficient, and writing faster - and when you get things done, you get motivated to keep going. After all, nothing is quite like the fervor you get when finishing a story's last chapter.

It all makes sense what you said, but the problem is that no matter how many times I re-read something I wrote, I always seem to miss the dead trees, ie. famous quote "Can't see the forest fo the trees."
To make the story more dynamic, writers have to find objective proof readers not focused on grammar puncutation, are able to analyze a writer's style and synthize it, as as able to ask the question "why?" when needed.

964263
That's actually pretty interesting to hear, about Jordan and Sanderson's conflicting writing styles. I can very well imagine it, though - the characters and their depth were always what drew me into WoT and its grand branching of storylines. On the other hand, Sanderson has a really good knack for both characters and plot himself, and I can easily find myself engrossed in the mechanics of his stories.

Other things aside, I'll probably copypasta this thread one way or another into the School's forum - there's sure to be a good deal of things gained here.

964297
Yup. Work smarter, not harder. And I probably already do it without even noticing.

964339
I started rereading the entire series a month before MoL came out, and I just finished book 12. Just Towers of Midnight left now before I dive into the final call. It's been a long, lovely ride, it has. :)
964316
As a proofreader myself, that is indeed what I spend most of my time doing, when I feel I've got the author's skills and self-checking levels up to a sufficiently good level that I can give him free reign over that, and keep my own focus on the river, rather than the canoe.

Sun Tzu really applies in every field of the world, doesn't he :)

964263

Well, not really. There's quite a few exceptions in sci-fi. No one ever reads Stephen Baxter for his characters, and I doubt anyone here remembers the name of any of Arthur C. Clarke's or Isaac Asimov's characters either. Mystery and world-building are the draws of those stories, while the characters tend to be very flat and unmemorable. That seems to be a quirk specific to the sci-fi genre though.

964339>>964358

I love me some Robert Jordan. The Wheel of Time has got to be one the best fantasy stories ever.

OT: It depends. Like others said, characters don't always need to act in a logical manner. I tend to like descriptive authors who really try and immerse you in the scenes they write about. Robert Jordan is a perfect example of this, in fact. He describes characters from the graying of their hair to the silver lacing on their boots. Naturally, this adds length to the stories which some people don't like. Doing all this often takes away from characterization but that doesn't bother me since I love the setting and world building.

TLDR: in many stories I'm not concerned with characters acting the way logic dictates or acting deliberately against it. I'm not concerned because characterization is not the #1 thing I look for in a story. This is why I think H.P Lovecraft > J.K. Rowling and I know I'm in the minority on that oh well

964402
That's actually quite true, now that I think about it. Good observation, though I seldom read much Sci-fi myself (which might be the reason I haven't made it).

964449

Now that I think about it, Asimov/Clarke/Baxter-type sci-fi stories really aren't much like typical fiction at all. They aren't read in order to enjoy a good story, they're read to expand the imagination, to open one's mind to new worlds. They're really more like philosophical treatises in story form than mere stories. I suppose that's how they get by with some of the flattest characters in published fiction.

964358 Sun Tzu is a god just like Maya Angelo, Robert Frost, and Edgar Allen Poe.

I just wish the proof reading groups would produce results, but no one seems willing to proof read a story that blends the Flutter Ponies from the Original MLP of the 80's, sometimes called G1. So unless I send snip-its of it to people I can't get timely help.
And I know my chapters are flawed...

964472
That's probably the issue right there. Elitist as it may seem, many proofreaders know better than to try to "save a sinking burning ship" as it were. Yes, you can plug the holes if it's just sinking, and you can try to put the fire out if it's just burning - but if it's both, you're usually better off jumping and building a new boat instead. Add to that a controversial topic - everyone has their own can-do's and can't-do's, like how I don't touch clop, gore or second person fics with a long stick - and you have a recipe for a story that few people will be willing to try their hand at "fixing". The same goes for the author, too - if your canoe is bloody leaking, you're better off swimming to the beach and fixing it/making a new one before trying to paddle any further down the river - except that we tend to be a sentimental lot...

964462 The characters in those types of stories tend to be vehicles for the readers to explore the worlds and issues. Cyberpunk is a really interesting premise/genre in that regard. It could go with characterization dealing with how characters cope with a cyberpunk world, or it could be about the world itself and the philosophical implications of subjects like trans-humanism. Similar things could be done with magic in fantasy. MLP actually touches on it in the most base sense, but still I think thats pretty neat.

Still characters tend to be the big draw in most genres, I'd say Game of Thrones recent success is evidence of this.

964498 Thanks! Yea... I think Robert Jordan made the most interesting villain I've ever read in a fantasy book. Ba'alzamon/Ishamael is sooooo awesome

964564 I know!

He also has one of the best descriptors ever... "More than half insane, less than half human"

I really empathize with him, why he chose to follow Shai'tan. Having a villain that is more aware of the world than the hero is something that is pretty cool. He wants to be on the winning side, and he knows the shadow only has to win once for the whole thing to be over forever.

I'm biased here -- I like stories where clever characters come up with clever solutions, which probably makes me more of a plot-focused reader / author than character-focused. Having logic holes in a story I write bother me a lot more than not getting a character right. Maybe it's because I'm a professional writer -- of software. The computer is less forgiving of logic holes.

But I think characters will often act logically to some extent, though their goals may make it seem otherwise. In a recent story I did, Celestia tries to kill herself more or less because of guilt; it's a move of desperation, certainly, but it would have moved the situation nearer her goals and so, strictly speaking, wouldn't be illogical. Spike similarly hates Celestia for a long time because she must do ill to Twilight for the greater good, but Spike's a baby dragon and his big sister is more important to him than the world, so it made sense, to me, anyway.

964213

I... well... don't.

What I do is I just give myself a starting point, then try and progress in a logical manner until shit stops making sense. Then I backpedal, and see if I messed up somewhere, or to see if I could describe a section either differently, or better. Then, I just carry right along.

I try to make characters drive the plot though. Just an idea, and then I write it out through my characters. Dunno if I've hit paydirt when it comes to that concept, but I'm still trying.

964316

964213
Now, I like to think of myself as an intellectual, but my eyes glazed over somewhere in the middle or reading the name of that group. Yikes.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I really would have used 'logic' to describe what you're talking about. It has certain connotations that are going to cloud every discussion.

Honestly, what you spend ages so verbosely talking about is literally just good characterization.

And yes, staying in character is vitally important. End post.

965331
It may be "just" what some of us know to be good characterization, to some extent. But so what? Far from most writers and readers actually understand this, and explaining it in terms of logic is in my opinion a quite viable option. After all, it IS logical to have characters following their natures, and acting upon them - and if that's what good characterization is about, then good characterization IS logic.

It may be "just" good characterization to you, but evidently there's a lot of people who think it's a lot more than that.

964316
Oh! Missed this before.
Find pre-readers or editors. Not proofers.

A proofreader, insofar as the term is used around these parts, is there to check the structure of your work. Your grammar, spelling and punctuation. So, don't look for what you're craving from them. It's the wrong type.

A pre-reader is the type that looks at the intangibles. Your characterization, your pacing, the feel and emotion, and so on. They act as... well... a reader would. Albeit one who leaves you really long and detailed comments.

Editors, in theory, do both.

965485
Meh, s'what I get for being curt.

One of the key things in characterization is that a character's actions should flow from their established traits, personality, quirks and so on. And yes, that makes sense. It's logical.

I don't have problems with your sentiment. I agree with it. I just thing you're being a bit... overly complicated, in your delivery. And that by using the word 'logic', some people are going to take on meaning you didn't intend.

964263

It's also the number one bit of advice I give to people who say they're suffering from writer's block. To just let the characters go, they know what they want and how they're going to go about it

I call bollocks on this.
How can you truly separate yourself from the character?
I find that almost ludicrous. Wouldn't those actions be what you would do in that situation?

966089
Separating your WILL from the character's own, I think is a better way of putting it. Step away from directing every step of the story by your own wishes, and let the characters' own wills pull you down the right way.

It is definitely not bollocks - this is the way I've used to become productive, at least.

964402
Sci-fi is the genre of exception...wanna know why?

A good sci-fi is driven by its world, so much so that the world itself becomes a character. I wish I could remember the link to the author who described it best... But yes, it's an exception I forget to mention. I'm a fantasy writer, primarily, and don't do much in sci-fi.

966089
Yes it's true that there will always be a little bit of yourself in any character you make. After all, they are a recording of life as you, the writer, know it. So it's inevitable.

But Nejin said it best. Your will as the author, as the Creator of the story, is inherently different and separated from the characters. The characters' knowledge is limited, their options restricted based upon their knowledge. You, the writer, have no such restrictions.

If your characters are well designed, they will naturally speak to you, telling you what they want, what they fear, what they need, where they want to go.... Now yes, this is technically still just your own self. But it's yourself put through the filters of your character.

I dunno, maybe it's easier for someone like me since I have extensive knowledge in history and psychology, ith a talent for people and their feelings and behaviors. I've been taught and observed how to separate and recognize what can make a unique personality, even within the same being,

This is the exact philosophy I'm striving to achieve with the stories I'm in the middle of writing. I have some 10000+ words dedicated just to establishing a timeline of equestria's history, just so that I have an idea of what events can be used to push characters in certain directions.