Hello, everyone, and welcome to this group. This, I suppose, will be the main thread for presenting theories relevant to the group, and affirming them once widespread acceptance has been reached.

Anyway, the question I want to ask you all, first of all, the question you've come here to help me answer and understand, is the following:

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.

Upon the group's founding I also asked The Writer's Group this same question, and the thread that sparked has a good number of wise words in it. TWG Discussion thread

964232
I like the way you put this.
I just wish it was easier for me to actually understand characters and why they do things.