Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
>And I disagree with the notion that magic's spiritual quality and scientific analysis of it (or attempts at it, anyway) can't coexist. If anything, a plot point could be that scientists look at magic too objectively, or something.
This is a good point. However, the problem comes not from a scientific view of magic, but people making an alternate science system and calling it magic.
Mage: The Ascension, for example, has magic being a matter of perspective and as such you have shamans, wizards, ecstatics, and a group who treat their magic like SCIENCE!
A story should focus on both; I just prioritize the plot over the characters, in the end. If the story is good and the characters suck, then I can still take a lot from that, for influence and for something to talk about (and I'm perfectly capable of enjoying a story without liking any of the characters), but if the story sucks and the characters are cool, I'd wish I could just watch a slice of life with the characters, or something, and stop reading/watching unless the characters are just that cool. The characters themselves are obviously still important to that, but I don't think they have to be handled with as much care as the plot. Or to put it a better way, poorly-written characters aren't quite as damaging as poorly-constructed plot, in my opinion.
I think that priority should depend on the work, really. Depends on what the author is trying to accomplish.
I can't really think of magic as being "new science" even if rigorous rules are applied to it and many laws are discovered, since it still runs counter to every other scientific convention and is thus still "supernatural", and possibly even "mysterious". Goes back to what I said earlier about magic being neat as the "science" of phenomena that defy science; still magic, but also looked at with scientific objectivity and constantly explored, to whatever degree of success the author chooses.
Of course it should, that's out of the question, even. But my problem is the idea that plot matters more than the characters.
When you say this, you say it while referring to unlikeable characters or badly written characters? Because there's a whole world of difference between dislike Raskolnikov and disliking Tommy Wiseay in the Room.
But characters on their own can be quite influential, and sometimes even more so than the stories in which they appear. Look at Holden Caufield, for example.
I think that poorly-written characters can ruin a plot in no time, mostly because, to use a shitty metaphor, even if your characters are dancing to a beautiful tune, there's no point in watching them dance if they aren't dancing well.
To me, a poorly-written character is more damaging than a badly-written plot.
A plot is an element of a story, yeah, but it's also only one aspect of it. With the characters, though, you not only have the sequence of events, but you have their personal growth and development (of which whole books have been written about anyway, and can actually be a plot if written well enough), character interactions between the casts, and how the character can react to everything.
While a well-written plot is welcome, I find a cliche character, or worse, a boring character, to be a far bigger drag on the story.
A story with both a well-written plot and well-written characters is obviously superior, though.
>Or to put it a better way, poorly-written characters aren't quite as damaging as poorly-constructed plot, in my opinion.
Oh wow. There is no limit to how much I disagree with this. Characters carry the story. Even if the plot is really bad like in, say, Batman: Arkham City good characters can carry it and still make it compelling. It doesn't matter how many intrigues a plot has, if there's no reason to care about the characters there's no reason to care about what happens to them.
Not to mention that a character is more relatable than a plot by default. Plots are just movements, and actions. Characters are people, even if they're not biologically human. People whose plight you espectate, hoping that they pull through and whose victory you await readily. If that's what the story/author wants, anyway.
Hell, take My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who says they watch it for the plot, instead of the characters.
Sherlock Holmes is another example. The plots widely vary and Holmes 'death' is pretty artificial since it was a way for Doyle to get rid of him.
And it's one of the most lasting, popular stories of all time. Definitely the most in serial fiction.
We'll just have to disagree, then; I can look at the reasoning you've given and still disagree, for the reason I gave before.
Both, really. I quite enjoy Shinji Iraki, the little shithead that he is. And as for poorly-written ones, here's how I see it: if you have a couple of poorly-written characters, and some decent ones, then there might still be something of value in there; if every character is poorly-written, you've got a shit writer and the plot is almost certainly terrible as well. But without a decent story for the characters to carry, I'm not compelled to keep watching like I might be if a story has one or two (or hopefully more) likable characters.
You say that as if plot isn't equally as multifaceted. It is for somewhat different reasons, but it still is.
I agree, but I feel that it's just much easier for a work to be ruined by bad plot than it is for it to be ruined by bad characters. And I mean easier as in the amount of work that goes in; you (generally) have to ruin a lot of characters to ruin the work, but if the plot is ruined, I lose interest in finding things to salvage from it.
That's also an aspect of plot, if not a plot in itself. It all links together.
Okay, then. For the purposes of this debate, let's assume we're discussing works that actually have a central plot to begin with.
True. But do you mean relatable as in something that evokes familiarity, or as in likable? Because if it's the former, then I don't watch things for that reason.
-Persona 3
-Batman: Arkham City
-Hellboy 2
-The Dollars trilogy, the second of which makes no sense at all and is still regarded as one of the greatest westerns of all time
-Any Raymond Chandler novel
All of these are well-regarded with lackluster (if not outright dull plots) that are still widely acclaimed because of compelling characters.
I would argue that the struggle itself, while being part of the plot (If not the plot, as plot is basically conflict), is not validated or even important if you don't have someone who you like seeing struggle and in conflict, whether with oneself or with an external source.
What? The debate is about whether characters > plot or plot > characters. In ignoring works that are character-based rather than plot-based, you would be missing out on a very valid point in favour of character-based works.
Another difference in opinion, it seems. I mean, this whole thing, for me at least, is a debate based on opinions anyway; if we watch things for different reasons, we watch things for different reasons. I probably can't convince you of my view on this any more than I could get you to like death metal, and I'm fine with that.
And who knows? Maybe I wouldn't like those things as much as the critics who've acclaimed them already.
I think they're different things, really; you can have a character-based show without plot, but you can't have a plot-based show without characters, or at least driving forces. It's a point in favor of character-based plots, but if we're discussing plot vs. character, I find it tangential.
I'm not arguing from an opinion stand point. I'm arguing that characters matter more to a story or narrative endeavor than the plot itself and that this is a fact. I won't speak up for the others, of course, but I believe this to be true.
Surely you can differentiate between liking something and understanding why is it good?
And I don't believe this to be an objective truth. Opinions.
I can, but it doesn't mean that I, personally, will regard those works well.
Really, as long as I've made you guys think, I'm happy.
Surely you can see that- gah
whatever
my brain hurts
im out
Fair enough.
>Surely you can see that
This phrase is beginning to bug me. Just saying.
Hey, sentences starting with "Eh" bug me but you don't see me complaining. We all gotta deal with our friends saying things that are not intended to be smug, but sound smug and dismissive
Maybe I'm reading more into this than I should, but I'm beginning to see some frustration leak out. Maybe we should all get a cup of tea or something, especially since we seem to be talking into walls right now?
It kind of bugs me when people say that they think that a well-written plot is better than well-written characters, but proceed to dismiss shows that rely entirely on the premise of having well-written characters and are a phenomenal success because of this despite having very poorly written plots.
^ But I already have a cup of tea
How is "Eh" smug and dismissive? I just feel like I'm being patronized; I feel that I've made it evident that I can argue a point out to where both sides eventually concede that opinions are at work, and yet that phrase indicates, to me, that I'm missing something when, really, I just happen to disagree with the opinion being derived from that something.
Cygan's evidently frustrated, but I'm fine. Not sure about Juan.
Whoa, there. I wasn't dismissing them; those works can be good. They're just very different from the ones with plot focus. Doesn't mean I can't like them. Keep in mind that I like K-On!, and that can basically be summed up as "cute girls drink tea and get what they want".
not particularly. All I'm saying is that while I'm sorry if my wording particularly bothers you, I don't intend anything more than communicating what I want to communicate with it.
Fair enough. This is going in circles by now.
Fair enough. The more you know, I guess.
Also true. Once a debate has reached the point where both sides have acknowledged their opinions, it probably means the debate's over.
what
no im not
in fact i tried to leave the thread just before to stop myself getting frustrated
But just because they are very different does not mean that they are not comparable. You claim that a well-written plot is better than well-written characters.
So, I have presented MLP as my case against this. Can you show me a work in which a work is a success because of its' well-written plot despite having very poorly written characters?
--raises hand--
can i answer plz
yes
Death Note
can i get a cookie now
You attempted to patronize me and then snarked at me a post later. I don't really associate that with someone who's in a good mood.
I still claim that, but if a work has little to no plot to speak of, then plot is kind of a moot point, and it's self-evident that the characters drive the work.
Off the top of my head, I can't, but that's because there are too many to think of; I also can't think of many plotless works that I enjoy, and I've almost certainly enjoyed more works (successful works, too) that had some number of poorly-written characters than stories with good characters but no plot.
Or Juan could jump in with a reference to Death Note. Thanks.
d'ohohoho
-gives Juan a cookie-
You make a compelling case, good sir.
I would argue that a large portion of the work's appeal lies not within the story either, but rather the bizarre overcomplexity and the memetic value of the work, but I don't feel like interacting with the fandom for long enough to test this hypothesis.