As a writer, as a reader, and frankly, as a human being - because let's face it, we humans love to tell stories - there are some stories I just cannot stand. It's not that the writing is horrible, or that it's too unbelievable, or anything like that, really. For that matter, it's not even just books that bother me, but film as well, on the rare occasions a filmmaker chooses to do this - it's the lack of plot. For my money, you can have all the engaging characters you want - anything from true-to-life people or caricatures and stereotypes of just about every variety - but if you don't have them do anything, what is the point? I don't get it.
I was taught - and here's where folks will most likely criticize me as being old-fashioned and "programmed" in my thinking (and hey, they might have a point) - that a story began with the exposition, explaining the setting, introducing the characters, and especially introducing the plot/problem/etc, and probably started to show how the characters were going to solve said problem - well, at least a little bit.
You moved on to the body of the story, in which we see the characters take action fully - which may involve a set-back or two, a murder or two, some difficulties here and there - but always, they are making some steady progress towards the goal, even if they are unaware of the progress being made. Yes, they are fully in their character arc - their unique pathway to growth from this experience, as they move toward the culmination of the action, commonly called the climax of the story.
Lastly, the epilogue, resolution, denouement - whatever you wish to call it. Yes, where the cowboy rides off into the sunset, or the happy couple lives happily ever after, etc...right before you can imagine the director saying,"..and roll credits." Otherwise known as, "the End." Maybe there's a lead-in for a sequel, maybe not. Nobody cares if it's really there or not. And this is not to say that it has to even be a happy ending - it can be down right miserable and have you hating the characters and the author, for all I care. BUT - this standard formula should probably be followed, because here's how we figured out it was a standard formula: We read books and found a theme, and then discovered that this theme was the formula, AND IT WORKS, because we are linear thinkers.
But there's a new school of thought out there ("new" meaning within the last 70-80 years or so - we're talking literature, remember) where this is not necessarily the case. It seems there are a bunch of authors out there who believe it is perfectly ok to do nothing but create beautifully vibrant characters whose sole purpose is to do nothing but be beautifully vibrant in the hopes that their beautiful vibrancy will sustain us readers through a monolithic tome in which nothing really happens. Also, I just wrote variances on the phrase "beautifully vibrant" three times in one sentence, and I liked it!! But I digress.
What is the point of spending all this time creating wonderful characters, only to have them do nothing, mean nothing, and generally not matter at all? I don't want to read about someone who does nothing, unless the problem is, of course, that the person does nothing, and everyone else is trying to get the person to change that....THAT is a plot. Granted, it's probably not a very good plot, but it's a plot, suitable for at least a one-act play...or a sitcom. But in a book, I should know in the first few pages what's going on and what should happen, even if I don't care about the characters yet.
I won't call it bad writing, and I will not say the people doing this are bad authors - they are, after all, published, whereas I am not (yet.) Often times, I have no beef with the style, the vocabulary, etc. It's good writing - but it is lazy plot development. Much like you should not have all action and very little character development (see just about every 80s action film ever made for examples) likewise, you cannot have all character and no action. It would be like biting into a piece of candy that, according to the little chart in the box says it's caramel, but ends up being coconut creme, and you're allergic to coconut. VERY. BAD. THINGS.
Why do I bring this up? I was referred to a novel - a best-seller, I might add - as a truly great and wonderful book to read. I'll be honest, I gave up about 40 pages into the 981-page behemoth, because that far into a book, and nothing worthwhile happened, other than the invention of two characters who did nothing - and they weren't even very interesting characters. Yet, the person said this book was life-changing. OK, maybe in 40 pages, I shouldn't expect life-changing. Fair enough argument there - but there should at least be something to do for the characters, something they are trying to achieve or accomplish? Otherwise, I'm reading a 981-page Seinfeld script, and...no. Just no. Besides, this didn't have the Puffy Shirt.
Then, it occurred to me how many people are constantly saying things like, "that's a great character", or they defend a writer by saying, "but his/her characters are so full!" While it may be true, if the writer only has great characters and nothing for them to do, then said writer has only done half the job. Great characters alone aren't interesting, it's the plot - the things they must endure and experience that makes them great characters in the first place.
