·        My name is Cheryl Klein

·        Editor at Arthur A. Levine Books, an imprint of Scholastic

·        And this talk is called “The Essentials of Plot”

·        Often when I go to writers’ conferences, writers will tell me they have no problems creating characters, but they’re scared of plot

o       Do any of you feel like this?

·        I can understand that

o       After all, one definition of plot is “a small piece of land in a cemetery”

o       And I think it casts a lot of people back to high school and testing and outlines and all that pressure

·        But the truth is, if you can create a believable character that comes to life in the reader’s mind, you can create a plot

·        So we’re going to try to demystify that process today, break it down to the essentials, and make it a little less scary

·        To start with, how many of you are scared of story? Did you know there’s a difference between the two?

·        The difference between Story and Plot is that the story is what happens; plot is the structure of what happens.

·        And you should never worry about plot until your second draft

·        Your job in the first draft is to write the STORY, get the events down, find out who these people are and what they do.

·        Your job in the second draft is to craft the plot:  to make who they are and what they do structured right, balanced right, to make it mean something

·        So everything I’m about to say is for your second draft.

·        If you’re writing your book, thinking “Oh boy, here’s the big Recognition scene!” or “Reversal! I need Reversal!”, you’re likely going to knock yourself out of your characters’ heads, and your story is going to feel stiff and programmatic

·        So while you can certainly keep a few plot principles in the back of your mind as you’re writing that first draft, you should follow your characters, not these points.

·        My favorite example of the difference between story and plot lies in the work of one of my favorite writers:  Jane Austen

o       Any Austen fans here?

·        What most people know about Austen is that her stories are about women who want to find husbands. They dance pretty dances. They wear pretty dresses. They talk a lot and drink tea. And then they get married.

·        And this is all true.

·        But her plots are about something else:  They’re about women who make mistakes and take action based on those mistakes. Then they realize those mistakes, and they must come to terms with the consequences.

o       They get married in the end, but it’s more as a reward for the knowledge they gain through the mistakes than the reward in and of itself.

·        And this plot structure, it turns out, is straight out of Aristotle.

·        In the fourth century B.C., Aristotle created a treatise called the Poetics, or On Poetry. about the structure and practice of Greek drama

o       One of the first major works of literary criticism in world history that we know of

·        Aristotle focuses on stage tragedy in the Poetics, but the principles can be applied to almost any form of narrative art

o       Including middle-grade and YA novels and picture books

·        And he offers a definition of tragedy that I’m going to use here to discuss the qualities of good narrative art in general:

·        “Tragedy is a representation of a serious, complete action which has magnitude; . . . represented by people acting and not by narration; accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions.”

·        I will come back to this definition throughout the talk; I’m also going to skip around in it for my own purposes.

·        Right now I want to think about what Aristotle says is the purpose of tragedy, at the very end of the definition:

o       “Accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions”

·        “Catharsis” is a Greek term that means “purgation or purification of the emotions through art”

·        And according to Aristotle, it was meant to lead to renewal and restoration

o       You’d identify so closely with the main character, all the terror she was experiencing in her situation, all the pity you had for him

o       That when the drama was over, those feelings were purged right out of you

o       Leading to a renewed sense of appreciation for living and for the possibilities of the world

·        But catharsis can be achieved through emotions other than pity and terror

o       Wonder, admiration, a good hard laugh

·        The catharsis is what I call the emotional point of your book—the emotion you’re hoping to create in the reader

o       Stephen King’s emotional point is terror

o       Danielle Steel’s emotional point is the vicarious pleasure we get through her characters’ glamorous lives and sweeping emotions

o       Most Newbery winners are going to make you cry

o       And in most great literature, the emotional point is the richness and complexity of many emotions

§        Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Michael Chabon, J. K. Rowling—all of them are so expert at combining humor and grief and pain and joy that their books reflect the real complexity of human life

§        And indeed lift you (or at least me) to a new appreciation of the world we live in and a new understanding of its possibilities

§        (And I include Rowling in that list with absolute sincerity, by the way)

·        So where does catharsis begin? With character.

·        You can’t achieve an emotional effect through your fiction unless the reader is involved with the characters

·        Aristotle laid forth four qualities of a dramatic protagonist that I think hold true for children’s books:

o       Good

§        By this he meant morally good:  Given a choice between, say, feeding themselves and feeding their families, they will always feed their families, because that’s the right moral choice

§        What this does is establish sympathy:  You want to be on the right side with him, so you take an interest in him—and that’s the really important thing here, capturing the reader’s interest in this person

§        But I think a good protagonist in modern fiction is one who’s interesting, likeable, even if they do morally evil things. Think Humbert Humbert, or Artemis Fowl.

§        In fact, then, the conflict between their likeability and their repugnant deeds makes them more interesting to read about

§        So your main character doesn’t have to be morally good, but s/he does have to be interest-worthy

o       Aristotle said a main character should be “Appropriate”

§        By this he meant realistic:  Believable according to the bounds of the psychology and world the author has established.

§        Suppose you’ve created a character who’s a financial genius:  Nine years old, but she’s already amassed $500,000 playing the stock market.

§        Is this realistic? Not on the surface. But I will believe it if you give me the right background:

·        Her parents or guardians taught her mathematical and financial principles at an early age

·        They’re a family that values money and achievement more than, say, the arts or nature or athletics, and would thus allow a young girl to spend her time on NASDAQ and sponsor her pursuits

·        She was raised to be confident and unafraid to take risks, or she’s preternaturally lucky and everything she touches turns to gold.

·        If any one of those traits were missing, she would be a much harder character to believe.

o       Aristotle’s third trait:  Life-like

§        Imperfect; flawed. Aristotle says “Fear is aroused by the misfortune of a man like ourselves . . . a man who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty.”

§        Again, the sympathy:  Because he’s not a superhero, you can be on his side

§        We will come back to this principle later.

o       Consistent

§        The character will not change in the middle of the novel from a shrinking violet to a know-it-all queen bee

·        Unless, of course, that change is your plot.

·        Once you have characters who are interesting, appropriate, lifelike, and consistent, you must make them do things—your story.

·        Aristotle says “Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses or avoids”

·        So the most obvious way you show us your character’s moral purpose is through their actions or behavior

o       How many of you have read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone?

o       The first two chapters of that book are a little master class in sucking a reader into a story

o       And part of the way it does that is through showing us its characters’ actions through their behavior

§        In Chapter Two, when they go to the zoo, Dudley Dursley pounds on the glass of the boa constrictor cage

§        He whines at his father, who

§        And then he gets bored and wanders away

§        You have just seen Dudley act directly

§        And J. K. Rowling doesn’t have to tell you he’s a spoiled brat because his actions make that obvious

§        Contrast that to Harry, who sympathizes with the snake, listens to it, and eventually sets it free

·        But Character can also be shown through voice

I have been accused of being anal retentive, an overachiever, and a compulsive perfectionist, like those are bad things. My disposition probably has a lot to do with the fact that I am technically a genius. Unfortunately, this label seems to precede me wherever I go.

·        This is from Millicent Min, Girl Genius, by Lisa Yee—one of my favorite voices ever. Millicent uses these long, complex sentences and an excessively formal tone, but she isn’t being pretentious; she genuinely means every word she says. You get her whole character, her moral purpose, from those few short lines, and even though Millicent tells us she’s a genius, the way she tells us actually shows us it’s true.

·        So coming back to the definition of tragedy, we’ve covered “represented by people acting.” There’s another clause to that phrase: “and not by narration”

o       This would be that same “show not tell” principle writ 2400 years ago

o       Aristotle believed firmly that the characters’ actions should not only show us who they are, but move the plot forward

§        Not the writer telling us what the characters were thinking and feeling, and not the writer inventing incidents or disasters to spur the action

§        But rather an unbroken chain of the characters’ actions and reactions following to their logical emotional conclusions

§        In Millicent Min, at the beginning of the novel, Millicent has never had a real friend

·        Either people have tried to be friends with her so they could use her for her brains

·        Or they just can’t understand her high intelligence—at least that’s what she thinks

·        So when she meets a new girl in town named Emily who wants to be her friend, Millicent lies to her and says she’s just a regular kid

·        Until Emily finds out . . .

o       We will come back to this moment too

·        So you have your characters established, and they’re doing all the acting—you’re not contriving any of it.

·        Now you have a story, and with that, a plot.

·        You remember the definition of tragedy we used earlier:  “A representation of a serious, complete action”

·        Aristotle defines dramatic action, in the absolute broadest terms possible, as the “Change from good fortune to bad, or bad fortune to good”

o       And that means simply that things are different at the end than they are at the beginning

·        If you’re on your second draft and moving beyond story to plot, this is a good basic question to start with:  “How are things different for my characters at the end of the story?”

o       The change can be big and external

§        They’ve moved to a new home, they’ve gained a new group of friends, they’ve defeated the evil Dark Lord and saved the world forever

o       The change can be subtle and internal

§        They’ve come to understand why their father left the family, they’ve developed the courage to talk to their crush

o       But there must be some change.

§        If your character isn’t going anywhere, if all the circumstances are the same at the end of the book, you’ve just wasted the reader’s time.

§        Now, there are adult books where nothing really changes—in fact, that can be the author’s point

§        But narrative children’s books, I’m going to say, have to show change, have to show growth, to be at all worthwhile.

§        Our audience is experiencing nothing but change and growth, and our books provide models—both good and bad—for how those changes happen

·        There is a lovely quote from Richard Peck:  “A young adult novel ends not with happily ever after, but at a new beginning, with the sense of a lot of life left to be lived.”

·        At the end of your book, your main character should be better equipped to live the rest of that life, because of the change and journey they’ve gone through in the course of the book.

·        And that’s what you set out to achieve with your plot

·        So the changes could be big and external, or subtle and internal

·        And these types of changes form the two main kinds of plot in your book

o       Action plot:  The external action or conflict; what physically changes for your characters in the course of the book

o       Emotional plot:  The internal action; or, the moral and emotional development of your characters as a result of the external action

·        We’re going to consider each of these in turn.

·        Action plots usually follow one of three formulae:

o       Conflict—one character versus another character, or one character versus herself

§        Aristotle says that the best kind of conflicts are within friendly relations—brother against brother, son against father, mother against son

§        After all, he points out, “if one enemy commits an evil action against another, there is nothing pitiable, except in the suffering itself.”

§        Now there are many more conflicts than family conflicts in the world

§        But I think Aristotle was right that the most interesting conflicts involve personal relationships—because they directly engage the emotions we feel most deeply and have the most moral complexity

§        John Gardner says, “Real suspense comes from moral dilemma and the courage to make and act upon choices. False suspense comes from the accidental and meaningless occurrence of one damn thing after another.”

·        I love this quote, and this concept. Moral dilemma:  Where a character has to choose between two people he loves; or between two values (honesty vs. loyalty); or between what is right and what is easy, to quote Harry Potter; or between who s/he is and fitting in with the group

·        Then the character takes action based upon those choices, and that’s how the plot moves forward.

o       The moral dilemma in Millicent Min, Girl Genius, is Millicent’s choice between the truth and her desire to have friends

§        (She chooses wrongly, for the record.)

§        So, whatever your conflict is—in a Conflict action plot, the action is complete only when the conflict comes to some kind of resolution.

·        The characters become friends. Or kill each other. Or get married. Or grow up. Or, if you’re in a Greek tragedy, everyone dies.

o       It’s often useful when you’re revising to sit back and think “Okay, what’s my conflict, and how is that being resolved?”

o       But not every book has an easily defined conflict like “man versus nature,” or “man versus himself,” or all the other stock conflicts we learned in ninth-grade English

o       So there’s another action-plot formula that I call Lack—a story where a character needs something to be complete and live a full life

§        It could be friends, as with Millicent above.

§        It could be money or a home:  Think Homecoming by Cynthia Voigt or Bud, Not Buddy by Christopher Paul Curtis

§        In Jane Austen, the heroines need husbands.

·        Partly for their financial protection, yes:  If they don’t marry, they’ll be poor and stuck with their awful relatives for the rest of their lives

·        But more for their emotional completion:  They will never become the women they are capable of being if they don’t marry the right man

§        Whatever it is, in a Lack story, the character’s quest to fulfill that need forms the overall action