The Tale of a Life and the Tale of an Event are the roots of all tales
A Quarrel in Bards’ Halls
It is an ongoing debate in the circles of talesmanship: Which shall take precedence, Character or Plot?
Character seems to have won the day in more-refined ‘literary’ circles since the late 1900s. Plot held the upper hand before then, but since then, at least in the West, tales that are built mainly on Plot are looked down upon as ‘mere genre’ and though they may be popular, are not considered high art.
Some theorists try to escape the dilemma altogether by insisting that both are important, equally so.
Those who vote for Character argue that most actions are made by the actors and spring from their characters. But in a curious way this is to deny the way most talesmen build their tales (at least in my experience). In determining what will happen, the talesman in his mind orchestrates a delicate dance in which sometimes character determines the outcome, and sometimes the outcome arises as a sort of need, and character must be ‘adjusted’ in some way so as to justify, retroactively, the action.
What I have come to conclude is this, that the tale built on Character and the tale built on Plot are two separate and different beasts.
The Path Retraced
Let’s go back to the beginning of talesmanship, before all theorists, before writing even.
We can trace the development of these two beasts of tales in tales that told mainly of events, and tales that told mainly of a man.
The tales that told of events might be accounts of wanderings, explorations, warfare, hunting, fishing, quarrels, migrations, weather events, and so on. With such tales what the talesman wants his audience to know and understand is what happened.
The tales that told of a man might be memoirs of the talesman’s dead kinsmen, past chiefs and leaders of the tribe, personal recollections of past follies or education, recollections of lost loves, and so on. With such tales what the talesman wants his audience to see and appreciate is the person at the tale’s heart.
‘Let me tell you about the great storm of ten winters ago, and how we almost starved.’
‘Let me tell you about the hero, who led us into the rich green vales.’
The Way Forward
What this theory of mine means in practical terms for today’s talesmen, is that they may have to do with a tale that descends from the tales that told of a man, or from the tales that told of events. If he can see this clearly, then he can build his tale accordingly.
It is not true, then, that one kind or the other is ‘better’ or ‘truer.’ Decide what sort of tale you are telling, and you will know which determines the tale, Character or Plot.
And when we read a tale, we will come to enjoy it better if we understand which kind of tale it is. Some of us like one kind better than the other, and some of us go back and forth between the two depending on our mood.
(Composed on keyboard Tuesday, April 1, 2008)
1 comment:
Interesting, but I think I may reject this overall. I think you begin with what may be a faulty premise: that "Character" and "Plot" are somehow separable, and we can emphasize one so much without the other. Most so-called "character" pieces in the cinema simply are not, relying heavily on the 1980's -90's screenwriting paradigms that plague the American Screen. Literature, at leas in America, seems concerned with neither particularly.
The common adage that stories must be "character-driven" is clearly so much rot spewed from know-nothings and dilettantes. And the "plot" aspect of many of today's stories (once again, my best point of reference is the cinema - and that may be far too limiting for your argument) is developed, but rather poorly so.
I suspect your ancient men around the campfire were interested in tales of men AND tales of events. After all, when we want to know of the great hunter or powerful king, did we then sit around and enumerate his personal qualities? "He was a sharp dresser and loved hazelnuts?" That may set us up, but what we will ultimately come to is this: If he is the Great Hunter, (or Powerful King) then why is he called that? What did he DO that makes us revere him so?
The answer will never be a point of personality, it will be from his deeds. And to tell us about deeds means cause-and-effect relationships; the essence of plot.
As you can see, I'm toying with a theory like this myself.
Post a Comment