The search for plot

[StillStunned]

Plots are ideas. You can't explain how imagination works, just as you can't explain how dreams appear, fade, or why only a few resonate with us. Offering a hard but helpful truth to someone clearly in the wrong place can save them valuable time and, in that sense, be constructive. Sometimes, a sneer is well-grounded.

For a start, no-one was asking how imagination works. The OP asked for suggestions on how to conceive a plot. Other posters replied, because we all have our ways and are willing to share what works for us. If any of those suggestions works for the OP, or even helps them get a step closer to finding what works for them, then we've been helpful and the OP is in a better place.

Second, you didn't offer "a hard but helpful truth": you made an assumption about the OP's ideas without knowing any details, and mocked them based on that assumption.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Plots are ideas the series of events that form the story of a novel, play, film, etc.

Fixed that for ya

 

[Plathfan]

Fixed that for ya

Engaging in every nonsensical thread is purely out of boredom---I get that. But responding with a straight face to "I have characters and a setting; now I need a plot" takes self-denial to a new level.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

But responding with a straight face to "I have characters and a setting; now I need a plot" takes self-denial to a new level.

Incorrect.

 

[StillStunned]

Engaging in every nonsensical thread is purely out of boredom---I get that. But responding with a straight face to "I have characters and a setting; now I need a plot" takes self-denial to a new level.

If that's the OP's writing process, who are you to say it's wrong?

 

[Plathfan]

If that's the OP's writing process, who are you to say it's wrong?

Fuck off.

 

[StillStunned]

Fuck off.

Thanks, I don't mind if I do.

 

[TheArsonist]

Three other approaches you might try:

1. Try to come up with even just a bad, bland, boring story for your characters within the genre you want to tell. So if it's a rom-com, you start with a totally generic outline, one that relies on all the clichés and offers nothing new.

The idea here is that just as with any aspect of writing, the first draft doesn't need to be good (or the first outline in this case), it just needs to be a starting point. As you work on it, you will hopefully have ideas that put a twist on the concept to make it more interesting and unique. Even if those ideas don't come spontaneously, you can make a conscious effort to rework the parts that are dull; at least you'll have something concrete to work on.

2. Think of your characters as real people, and imagine things that would happen in their life, without initially forcing it into the shape of a story. Take inspiration from your own life or people you know. Advice columns can also be good sources of inspiration (Slate has a bunch). Think about anecdotes your characters might tell, major decisions they have to make, challenges they face, things they find stressful or are afraid of, rites of passage and crises, holidays/rituals (keeping the sabbath, annual physical, Superbowl, buying birthday presents, Thanksgiving…), and ways in which life changes them. How might their interactions and relationship affect and be affected by all these things?

Eventually you should be able to zero in on some interesting situations and events that matter to your characters, and that can be your story. For example, you might – if it fits – try imagining that you're the best man or maid of honor at their wedding: what would your speech be about? The idea here is that everyone has a story to tell, so by imagining a life for your characters you are generating the raw material for a story.

3. Come up with some curious detail and try to work backwards to make up an explanation for it. Why does your heroine have her boyfriend listed in her phone as "Dentist"? Why does your hero get turned on by the smell of cut grass? Why is your heroine's boss convinced she grew up Amish? Why do the neighbors on each side of the street, who can't stand each other, share custody of a dog? Clearly there's a story there, that you can tell.

And if you still cannot come up with your own plot ideas, there is also the Story Ideas forum. It's full of plot ideas for stories that, in most cases, will never be written, and many of the posters pitching ideas would be only too happy if someone else would write a story based on theirs. (If they don't explicitly say so you should ask first.)

 

[Katie_Mae]

I mentioned earlier that there are broad plot structures you can use (eg save the cat, the hero's journey).

Now I have time I will expand on how you can turn the ideas you have into a plot. Lets start with the idea I had below.

Oh! This reminds me of something.

The other day I saw a young man complaining that men have to do national service, but women don't. How is this fair? he asked. His government's answer "woman are the ones who have to have the babies, so they suffer for the nation too." But women, the man complained, don't always have babies. And when they do they have some choice about when. And they don't get sent to jail for three years or fined for not having babies...

That could be a plot bunny right there.

The answer, always listen to complaining

So you have characters. Lets choose Chloe Tan, 24 years old. We could flesh out a whole character profile about how she's independent and smart or whatever but I won't bother, you already know your characters.

The setting: she lives in an alternate reality where women are forced to have babies. If she isn't pregnant by 25, she has to go into a reproductive facility and get inseminated until she falls pregnant. If she doesn't fall pregnant, she has to spend three years in there after which she's released from her national duty. But Chloe is a career woman, She doesn't want to spend up to three years trapped in a reproductive facility. She doesn't want to be a single mum. She wants to have a baby and get back to work, so wants to go the old fashioned route with an actual father who can be a stay at home dad.

A few ideas: So she tries to find someone to be her future husband and father of her child, and she's got one year to do it.
She doesn't expect to actually fall in love (but she does)
After trying and failing to find a husband, she falls in love with a famous movie star, Max Famousperson, who she met through work. Eventually they do fall in love and get married. Oh! Idea! Chloe has a friend who is jealous of her relationship and spoils things. What else can you do to delay the inevitable marriage. Oh, how about they can't contact each other for some reason?

Is this a plot yet? No, these are just ideas.

A plot is the sequence of these ideas. Let's take a look at how to sequence them
We could use the W Plot structure

• Inciting Incident: The first challenge or conflict.
• First Turning Point: A setback or failure.
• Midpoint: A high point of success or hope.
• Second Turning Point: Another setback, often the darkest moment.
• Resolution: Final success or resolution.

Inciting incident: Chloe receives a government letter reminding her she has one year left to get pregnant. This will help introduce the broader setting of this world. Chloe will decide her path (try to find a husband). She'd tell her friend about her plans.

First turning point: Chloe begins her search, attending social events, reaching out to friends, and even using dating apps with the clear purpose of finding a co-parent. She tries to approach this logically, but struggles
Just as her frustration peaks, she meets Max Famousperson, a charming movie star, during a work event. Sparks fly, but he has to leave suddenly and she doesn't get his number, and he doesn't give her his. There's no hope to reconnect.

Midpoint: Here is where they would reconnect and Max would be interested. Chloe realises she's falling in love with him, genuinely, and wants a relationship with him. This isn't about her 'plan' any longer.

Second turning point: Chloe's friend is jealous, tells Max about Chloe's plan, Max thinks she's just using him... argue, break up etc etc

You get the picture. Now you'd go through and flesh each aspect out.
Eg in the first turning point you might have a few scenes for failed dates before meeting mr right.

Of course, this is just one plot structure, there are many. I could chose a different plot structure and end up with a different plot, from the same overall idea.

There's books and courses and videos and all sorts out there on how to plot. It's a hugely discussed (and taught) subject.

There's many ways to plot.

And, not every novelist plots. You mentioned in your post if you should just start writing prose and see where it leads. You can do that too! It's called pantsing-- flying by the seat of your pants. It's also called discovery writing. Sometimes people who come to a story by starting with characters prefer discovery writing, they just take their characters, put them in a situation and see where they take things.

Get ten famous novelists in a room, they'll all have different ways of what works for them.

 

[VallesMarineris]

How do you generate a plot or conflict from these things?

Tolstoy said in Anna Karenina: "In a happy family there are no plots."

Are your characters in happy families? Or a happy situation? If so, that's why you can't think of a plot.

But don't despair. The same novel begins with: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." If you can find some unhappiness in your characters, or dissatisfaction, frustration, etc., there's your plot! Go for it.

 

[intim8]

I have characters and a setting; now I need a plot.

How do you generate a plot or conflict from these things?

"Generate" sounds like the wrong word here. It makes it sound mechanical, rote. This is art. You don't 'generate' it, you create it.

Aside from that, have you tried pantsing? Put your characters in the setting, in some bare-bones situation like having lunch at a cafe, or driving cross-country, or in a boring/hostile business meeting. Have at least one of them trying to do or get something, and just start writing.

Describe the character. Describe something they want or something they worry about. Show some inner thoughts, have them talk.

See what emerges. Figure out from them (from your subconscious image of them as you flesh it out) what they want, what they're hoping won't happen. Just write as if you were brainstorming thiings they could do or things that could happen. Don't worry if it goes nowhere at first, you're exploring the space of their world to see what it holds.

If/when you get stuck or it starts meandering too much, have something bad happen to them. Make a threat appear. If you know them well enough by now, you'll know what worries them and what will make them have a bad day. Invent another character that opposes them, or is in their way, or whatever.

Don't edit, don't rewrite. Just let it flow, let yourself learn what the story of these characters wants to be. Edit and rewrite after.

 

[intim8]

Erotic stories don't always require antagonists

They do, but it is often more low-key and subtle. Someone a character is trying to seduce is the antagonist. In any story, the environment or circumstances can take the part of the antagonist. A young couple having trouble finding privacy, or a couple bucking the norms of their social world. The world around them is the antagonist. Pretty often the antagonist is in your own head. A person having a sexual awakening, getting over their hangups or their apprehensions, they're their own antagonist.

If by antagonist, you mean a personified thing with agency and deliberate malice toward the protagonist, then, no, no story has to have one, and erotic stories very often do not. But basically every story has someone or something that fills the role.

 

[SimonDoom]

They do, but it is often more low-key and subtle. Someone a character is trying to seduce is the antagonist. In any story, the environment or circumstances can take the part of the antagonist. A young couple having trouble finding privacy, or a couple bucking the norms of their social world. The world around them is the antagonist. Pretty often the antagonist is in your own head. A person having a sexual awakening, getting over their hangups or their apprehensions, they're their own antagonist.

If by antagonist, you mean a personified thing with agency and deliberate malice toward the protagonist, then, no, no story has to have one, and erotic stories very often do not. But basically every story has someone or something that fills the role.

I think some people misunderstand what is meant by "conflict" and "antagonist" in the context of a short erotic story. The conflict need not be violent, and the antagonist need not be a villain.

In my mom-son stories, the father often is a form of antagonist. He is not doing his duty for his wife, or perhaps he is rude to her, which creates a need, and the son steps in to fill the need. But the husband is still sometimes around, which creates a conflict with the fulfillment of the mom-son relationship. In this context, that's all those terms mean. I've found that readers respond very positively to this dynamic in these stories.

 

[NotWise]

They do, but it is often more low-key and subtle. Someone a character is trying to seduce is the antagonist. In any story, the environment or circumstances can take the part of the antagonist. A young couple having trouble finding privacy, or a couple bucking the norms of their social world. The world around them is the antagonist. Pretty often the antagonist is in your own head. A person having a sexual awakening, getting over their hangups or their apprehensions, they're their own antagonist.

If by antagonist, you mean a personified thing with agency and deliberate malice toward the protagonist, then, no, no story has to have one, and erotic stories very often do not. But basically every story has someone or something that fills the role.

I used "antagonist" in the sense of noun definitions 1, 2, 5, and 8 below. I each case, an antagonist is a character who opposes the protagonist. Erotic stories don't necessarily need an antagonist, but having one can really gel a plot -- especially a longer or more complex plot.

The environment or circumstances are not antagonists, since they aren't characters. They are sources of tension or conflict. @SimonDoom's example of the inadequate husband in a Mom/Son story could be an antagonist if he tries to thwart the relationship, but otherwise he's a plot device: a motivation, a source of tension.

antagonist /ăn-tăg′ə-nĭst/

noun​

1. One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary.
2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama.
3. A muscle that counteracts the action of another muscle, the agonist.
4. A drug or chemical substance that interferes with the physiological action of another, especially by combining with and blocking its nerve receptor.
5. One who contends with another, especially in combat; an adversary; an opponent.
   Similar: adversary opponent
6. A muscle which acts in opposition to another.
   "as a flexor, which bends a part, is the antagonist of an extensor, which extends it"
7. A medicine which opposes the action of another medicine or of a poison when absorbed into the blood or tissues.
8. An opponent or enemy.

adjective​

1. Antagonistic; opposing; counteracting.
   "antagonist schools of philosophy"
   Similar: antagonistic opposing counteracting

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

 

[intim8]

The environment or circumstances are not antagonists, since they aren't characters.

It is useful, for a writer and in terms of both creating a story and discussing writing, to abstract the notion of 'antagonist' to whatever the protagonist is fighting against that defines the main conflict, and thus the story. Even when there are multiple obstacles and opposing characters that are sources of tension, there's only one that is the other side of the main conflict in the story. When writing a story, it is a good idea to have it identified, at least in your head.

There are many stories that personify an inanimate object that is filling the role of antagonist. When you write something like: "the storm pushed relentlessly on, paying no heed to the lives it destroyed", you're personifying a storm. I've seen societies, corporations, empires, robots, fires, time bombs, locked rooms, ideas, traditions, and all kinds of things personified in a similar way. But whether personified or not, it is still playing the role of antagonist, even if it is not by strict definition.

In my Aces series, the 'antagonist' is the MC's beliefs about what he wants a sexual relationship to be, and his first time to be. There's a character at the start of the story that triggers the tension of it, but she is not the antagonist, and she is entirely out of the story after that except as a bad memory he refers to repeatedly. She's just a catalyst for the conflict in MC's head. Later, there are other characters that are catalysts for events in that conflict.

 

[TheArsonist]

Would you also argue that a protagonist of a LitErotica story doesn't need to be a character? That it can just as well be, for example, a society, corporation, empire, device, tradition, zeitgeist, or impulse? Does it make sense to say that the protagonist of a story is "lust," for example, or is that diluting the term beyond all usefulness?

 

[intim8]

Would you also argue that a protagonist of a LitErotica story doesn't need to be a character? That it can just as well be, for example, a society, corporation, empire, device, tradition, zeitgeist, or impulse? Does it make sense to say that the protagonist of a story is "lust," for example, or is that diluting the term beyond all usefulness?

Theoretically, but it would be hard to make it make sense since the protagonist is the one the reader is supposed to empathize with and the one that goes through some change. You don't have to empathize with the antagonist, you only have to be afraid of it on the protagonist's behalf, so there isn't a complete parallel there.

If you can make an inanimate or abstract thing something you can empathize with and have hopes for, then sure, but you'd be turning it into a character.

 

[SimonDoom]

Would you also argue that a protagonist of a LitErotica story doesn't need to be a character? That it can just as well be, for example, a society, corporation, empire, device, tradition, zeitgeist, or impulse? Does it make sense to say that the protagonist of a story is "lust," for example, or is that diluting the term beyond all usefulness?

I'm trying to picture this, and I can't. I don't know what it would mean for the protagonist to be any of those things. Can you think of an example?

 

[TheArsonist]

I'm trying to picture this, and I can't. I don't know what it would mean for the protagonist to be any of those things. Can you think of an example?

Well, it's easier to imagine for a history book, let's say, where you often find people arguing that something like "The Roman Empire" or "Democracy" is the protagonist of the tale.

For a more LitErotica-relevant example, let's say you have a series of stories about a magical artifact that turns the people it comes into contact with horny, passing to a new person in each chapter. You could imagine someone arguing that the artifact itself, although completely without intelligence, motivation, or any point of view, is the protagonist of the series.

But the question was an implied objection. I would not agree with those arguments (in the imaginary LE series example, I'd say that the artifact is a plot device and the protagonists are the main characters of each chapter), and I think it points to a flaw in the @intim8's position, because of the parallelism between "protagonist" and "antagonist."

I tend to think that just as with "protagonist," the term "antagonist" inherently denotes a person – someone portrayed as having personality, motivations and agency, though not necessarily a human – and that mere impersonal or abstract obstacles do not qualify. But of course, humans are inclined to anthropomorphize, and there will always be edge-cases. (For example, in The Lord of the Rings, the magical artifact at the center of the book is ascribed sufficient agency that it probably counts as an antagonist in its own right.)

 

[SimonDoom]

I tend to think that just as with "protagonist," the term "antagonist" inherently denotes a person – someone portrayed as having personality, motivations and agency, though not necessarily a human – and that mere impersonal or abstract obstacles do not qualify. But of course, humans are inclined to anthropomorphize, and there will always be edge-cases. (For example, in The Lord of the Rings, the magical artifact at the center of the book is ascribed sufficient agency that it probably counts as an antagonist in its own right.)

I usually think this way, too, but I try to avoid getting limited by inflexible rules and definitions. I think it's fair to see the ring as a kind of antagonist in LOTR. On several occasions, it's described as having agency and evil intent. In general, though, I think of the antagonist as being, or at least being somewhat like, a person, like the protagonist.

 

[intim8]

I think it points to a flaw in the @intim8's position, because of the parallelism between "protagonist" and "antagonist."

I did point out where that parallel breaks down.

You don't have to empathize with the antagonist, you only have to be afraid of it on the protagonist's behalf, so there isn't a complete parallel there.

But as Simon says, we're not trying to find a dictionary definition that will stand up in court, we're talking about the art of writing, and a definition that is useful to creating and analyzing that art is more appropriate. Whether it is a person, a thing, an idea, whatever, it performs the function of an antagonist when it is the thing that defines the central conflict of the story. (And yes, in LOTR, the corrupting power represented by the ring is what the central conflict is about. Everything else, including Gollum, are just obstacles to destroying it.) And thinking of it that way, I think for most people, helps them write better stories.

 

[Britva415]

The environment or circumstances are not antagonists, since they aren't characters.

There's another school of thought which says "anything can be a character."

Even if one doesn't buy that, non-human or non-living or abstract elements of the story can be antagonists. An antagonist doesn't have to be personified.

 

[NotWise]

There's another school of thought which says "anything can be a character."

Even if one doesn't buy that, non-human or non-living or abstract elements of the story can be antagonists. An antagonist doesn't have to be personified.

You and @intim8 seem to be making up your own definition for "antagonist." Really, that does a service to no-one.

 

[alohadave]

You and @intim8 seem to be making up your own definition for "antagonist." Really, that does a service to no-one.

They aren't making it up, and other people agree with them.

https://lithub.com/why-nature-always-makes-for-the-best-antagonist/

https://fantasy-faction.com/2011/non-human-antagonists

 

[TheArsonist]

But as Simon says, we're not trying to find a dictionary definition that will stand up in court, we're talking about the art of writing, and a definition that is useful to creating and analyzing that art is more appropriate.

Personally I think that making the terms so vague is not actually helpful, because if you can make it fit anything then it doesn't really tell you anything. Advice about antagonists can't offer guidance if there's no way to distinguish writing that follows it from writing that doesn't, or if it amounts to nothing more than a tautology.

My feeling is that it comes from writing teachers making over-broad claims, and then when people find counter-examples, loosening the definitions to make them still fit, somehow. (I similarly see some people defending the claim that your main characters should always be likeable by redefining "likeable" into "someone we want to read about.")