# Most important part of a story?



## Violanthe

What, in your opinion, is the most important part of any story? What keeps you reading or watching? Keeps you interested, engaged and coming back for more? Why?


----------



## Corvis

The middle parts have to be able to keep me going. I can start any book but not finish it if it doesn't enthrall me. However, I think the most important part of a story is the end. The ending always has to be very good otherwise it could mess the whole the story's look. A story cold be really really bad but it could still have a good ending and come out looking great.


----------



## Violanthe

What do you find the most common stumbling block is for writers who lose your interest at the middle or disappoint you at the end?


----------



## Majimaune

the best parts in fiction are when the books have a good plot interseting characters and a battle of some sort if they dont have that somewhere in them then i personaly think that they are not worth much reading
i find it hard to read non-fiction cause it doesnt keep me there


----------



## HLGStrider

I tossed it around between character and plot, but what is a story without a plot? They are nearly simulataneous. The plot is the bones of a story. Without it there is nothing to hold the rest up. In fact, plot and story are nearly synonymous for me, and being a story is what is essential.

I can fill in details with my imagination. Give me a good story and I can paint the setting. Give me sparse details and I can flesh out the characters. Give me a good story and it is bound to have ideas in it, if it is truly a _good_ story. What happens next. . .that's what keeps you reading.


----------



## Noldor_returned

The author.
Otherwise I'd have to say the plot and ideas. Without them, you have no story, just an improvisational set of well constructed sentences that have no relevance to each other at all.
One of the definitions I found for story was a "plot based on or around a diary, event(s) or theme". So therefore the plot is the most important.


----------



## Hammersmith

Characters are the most important. You have to learn to love and hate them, to share their pain and joy. If you don't care about the characters, the plot is meaningless to you. It's just a collection of disconnected things that happen to random strangers. That said, the plot is a critical element, and it's important to keep a stock storyline that gives the reader comfort and familiarity while keeping them guessing all the while.


----------



## e.Blackstar

While plot and characters are probably the most _important_, I'd have to say that for me, it's the author's writing style that can easily make or break a book.


----------



## Rhiannon

For me personally, characters are the most important. I _have_ to care about at least one of the characters to really enjoy a book. Characters I like can make me enjoy a less-than-fantastic book, and a lack thereof can make an otherwise really good book lackluster. And the writing style is important for me as well--I couldn't get beyond the first 60 pages in the much-lauded _Eregon_ because I thought the writing was just terrible. But I'll read anything by Robin McKinley, or Patricia McKillip, or Neil Gaiman. I would read their grocery lists and enjoy it. 

As a general thing, I would say plot is the most important, but I've heard it said that there is really a limited number of story archtypes that we tell. I also heard a paraphrased quote (I never have been able to find the original) to the effect of 'all storytellers have essentially one story to tell, it's how they retell it that matters'. So I would say that the ideas are what give the story it's real shape and structure, which is the important part of plot.


----------



## HLGStrider

There is one famous writing quote by someone or other that goes (somewhat) _There are only two stories, someone leaves and a stranger comes to town and if you think about it they can be the same thing from different perspectives. _
I don't think I agree, but whatever. . .


----------



## Majimaune

Rhiannon said:


> I couldn't get beyond the first 60 pages in the much-lauded _Eregon_ because I thought the writing was just terrible.


yeah eregon isnt writen in the right way for the story

and if you guys are looking for a storey that you can pick to bits go into the ivy bush i think it is and theres something called _Auther _writen by me and you can do anything to it you like

enjoy


----------



## e.Blackstar

> And the writing style is important for me as well--I couldn't get beyond the first 60 pages in the much-lauded Eregon because I thought the writing was just terrible.



THANK YOU.


----------



## Violanthe

I definitely vote for character. In my experience, a great character will bring a good plot along, but a pager-turner of a plot can often have hollow characters.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

All are needed for a successful story, in my opinion.
But if I have to choose one I choose characters.

Many great stories are ruined by bad dialogue and wooden characters. Then again, there have been characters with a lot of promise that have never been allowed to show their worth due to a bad plot.

Each bit of the story should work together for the story to work. All facets should be strong.

However, I think the most important thing is that even if the characters are not "good" characters that the reader still feels a connection with them. Take Gone With the Wind for instance. We start out feeling sorry for Scarlett O'Hara and the tragedy of her unrequited love. But we soon learn that Scarlett is no lady, is cruel and unforgiving, and mean spirited, and conceited, and only thinking of herself. She only seeks to get what she desires at all costs. She is, almost, a sociopath. And yet, because we made that first connection with her, that feeling of shared pain (who can say they haven't felt unrequited love or affection?) we feel connected to her throughout the rest of the book. If the book had been written from boring but kind Melanie's perspective Scarlett would have been seen as evil, the villian. But we start with Scarlett, and as such, we want her to triumph in the end, despite her wicked ways.

Good characters...that's what keeps people coming back. And it is, I think, one of the many reasons why people think of books as friends. Because in them are people we love and hate, and people we are curious about, and people that we are afraid of. And no matter how many times we go back to them they will always be that way. Good characters are often the reason why I want to read a book again. I want dynamic people that I can relate to, or pity, or love. That's what keeps me interested and makes me come back for more.


----------



## ingolmo

Definately not the setting (although Barad-Dur couldn't have been put in the middle of the Shire))

It's really between the plot, characters, and concept.

The characters are important because they are how the book becomes alive. A lot of people don't like Tolkien because they think his characters are boring and wooden. After all, what would the Artemis Fowl books be without Artemis? Or the Bartemious Trilogy without Bartemious?

The plot is very important too, because it _is_ the story, by and large. JK Rowling is so popular because of her plot. I've read she has a huge table, in which she matches each plot to a chapter. If a chapter doesn't get a subplot and if it's not in harmony with the plots of the other chapters, she cancels it. One reason I like the Inheritance Trilogy (Yes, Blackstar), though it may have been poorly written in the beginning, is because it has a good plot. That's why I voted for plot.

The concept is very important, because if the author has no thought to give, any messages to share through the book, the reader, at the end, thinks, 'Why did I waste so much time reading this meaningless piece of rubbish?'.
One of the reasons I like LotR, and The Alchemist so much, is that it has a good message to give.


----------



## Majimaune

> One of the reasons I like LotR, and The Alchemist so much, is that it has a good message to give.


You liked The Alchemist! I had to do it for a play and it was horrible and i hated the book


----------



## Rhiannon

ingolmo said:


> One reason I like the Inheritance Trilogy (Yes, Blackstar), though it may have been poorly written in the beginning, is because it has a good plot.


 
I never did finish the first book, but other than the writing being very poor, the plot was extremely derivative--and I'd _already read all of the source material_. I felt like I could have made up a check list and gone through marking things off--"Yep, copied _Jeremy Thatcher, Dragon Hatcher_. Yep, copied Tolkien. Yep, copied _Dragonriders of Pern_. Yep, copied Wheel of Time...." I was bored to tears within sixty pages. The plot may have been good, but it wasn't original. 

This annoys me to no end, because an unoriginal, poorly written book does not deserve to be published, especially when it's primarily published as a novelty ("Look what our trained sixteen year old can do! Not only can he string a whole lot of words together, but he can fit three bananas in his mouth at once!") and not on any real merit, and it definitely does not deserve to make the bestseller list. Not when long stories of similar quality are being posted on countless fanfiction website, and not when much, much better novels and short stories are being rejected, including things written by Mr. Paolini's (and my) peers. I know lots of really wonderful writers who haven't found a market for their writing, not because it isn't excellent, but because they can't afford to self-publish (which Mr. Paolini did, before his was picked up by a publishing house), and because they submit their writing without their age even being mentioned.


----------



## Violanthe

It's interesting you say not the setting, because LOTR is such a setting-oriented book. Is it that setting is always important for fantasy, but never the most important?


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Violanthe said:


> It's interesting you say not the setting, because LOTR is such a setting-oriented book. Is it that setting is always important for fantasy, but never the most important?



I think that, though setting is very important for sci-fi and fantasy, it's not crucial.

Look at Heinlein, he wrote many sci-fi books based on an earth that's not too different from today's earth.
And many worlds in fantasy stories, though they go by a different name or have different places and regions and rules, are similar to the world we're familiar with.

It's important, but I'd say not THE most important.


----------



## Violanthe

Would you say that the settings of SF&F are most like wrapping paper on the core product?


----------



## HLGStrider

More like a stage. Gives the actor something to stand upon, but depending on the type of theater production you are going for, it is all right to leave a lot up to imagination. 

In fantasy this is more important because I consider fantasy "escapist." You need to give them a world they can escape to and in order to do that the fantasy must be believably and intricately described. However, when I read I concentrate more on what is happening than where.


----------



## Niirewen

For me, the most important part of a story is the characters. Usually, the reason I keep reading a book is because I care about the characters and I want to know what happens to them.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

HLGStrider said:


> In fantasy this is more important because I consider fantasy "escapist." You need to give them a world they can escape to and in order to do that the fantasy must be believably and intricately described. However, when I read I concentrate more on what is happening than where.



But you can have escapism if the book is set on Earth and in the not too distant future if it's well written and there are enough new/unfamiliar elements to keep your familiarity levels low.


----------



## Violanthe

You can also have escapism if a story is set in modern-day earth. Look, for example, at soap opera sorts of tv shows. They are mostly about escapism.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly while I like fantasy settings so much. Haven't been able to come up with a good answer.


----------



## Finny

Violanthe said:


> What, in your opinion, is the most important part of any story? What keeps you reading or watching? Keeps you interested, engaged and coming back for more? Why?


 
There's a great YouTube video defining story on the site:
http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html


----------



## Confusticated

Characters, then setting. If those are good I'd read something with seemingly no plot.


----------



## Elfarmari

I voted for setting, but that's not really the word I'm looking for. Most of the books I own I read because they have characters I care about or interesting plots, but the few (including Tolkien) that I read repeatedly have more than just those. I love casual mentions of people, events, or stories that obviously mean something to the characters and give the invented world a reality and depth that most authors don't bother to create. I think in this respect authors writing about fictional characters in the real world have it easier (it's easier to insert a poem in Arabic than to, say, invent a complete language and mythology from scratch and then write a poem). I prefer being given glimpse of a larger world to being told precisely what happened to a few people.


----------



## Finny

There isn't really one answer. Interesting plot, characters, worlds etc etc etc. If you're looking for the one secret, then I think it has to do with the monomyth.


----------

