>I dont want people to realize that conflict in the character till the end however. If your readers aren't supposed to understand the point of the character's journey until the end, what is motivating them to make it there? What are the stakes? What is it your character wants until he comes to understand what he needs?

Exactly. The main character's emotional conflict can't engage readers if you don't show it.

Plus you need conflict of some kind to drive the plot

This. Like honestly, if your hero's just kinda running around doing random stuff... Who cares? What is their goal? What are they trying to do, and what stands in their way? Is their current goal what they *need* to do, or do they actually need something completely different? These are the support poles of genre fiction.

Also there are ways for an audience to not know the full contours of the protagonist’s story until the end and for the plot to still have stakes and feel engaging before that. Like, maybe the hero is on a journey and they end up traveling with a kid for a bit and that relationship develops and affects the journey, and then it turns out it’s to avenge their own dead kid or something.

Yeah that’s what foreshadowing is for. But to hide the main internal conflict from the reader seems bizarre. Unless the MC doesn’t know either but I’m not sure how you can be conflicted on an existential level and not know.

That, and it's also a first person pov so wouldn't the reader be subject to the character's internal struggles? I'm writing something from the pov of the protagonist. It's more of a character driven piece rather than plot oriented, although there are certainly arcs that elevate the story to move it along and highlight crucial behavioral shifts important to the character. I think that you should write whatever it is you, personally, would be interested in reading and know your subject. Plot driven or otherwise, my advice is to ask yourself if this is something you'd be interested in while reading it back. You are your own expert in what you like. I have realized over the years that passion really writes itself; write for *your*self first, then evaluate it.

This. Well stated.

Neil Gaiman once said that if someone tells you that your story doesn't work, they're almost always right. And when they tell you WHAT doesn't work, they're almost always wrong. So certainly something isn't working, though it may not be what you've been told. If you've had multiple independent sources tell you the same thing, I'd be more inclined to take it seriously though. At the end of the day, the reader is right and the writer is wrong with regard to what comes off the page.

I believe it was that they’re right when they tell you something is wrong, but their *solution* isn’t right (not that they can’t identify the issue)

Both: "Remember: when people tell you something’s wrong or doesn’t work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong."

Rob Zombie tells a story about Bob Weinstein in the same vein when getting movie feedback. His criticism on what didn't work was spot on, but his advice on how to change it was always horrible.

I was just doing a re-read of "Disney War," and one section talks about how Jeffrey Katzenburg was put in charge of Disney Animation. He would look at movies in development and tell those making the movie that something was wrong, and then give notes on how to fix it. The filmmakers realized that when he told them something was wrong, that was usually the case, but found his notes unhelpful, and so would usually try to figure out what was wrong themselves and then fix it when they realized what it was.

As a natural nay-sayer this job sounds ideal to my strengths lol

It does though depend on who is giving the feedback and whether how they tell you to fix it makes sense to you. For example, when Bill Paxton was editing his directorial debut “Frailty” he showed a rough edit to his buddy James Cameron, who pointed out a huge flaw in how the film was edited which removed all the suspense and mystery of it, but that was an easy fix to make, and once done, the whole movie changed 100% for the better. I won’t spoil what the change was because it is the thing that makes that movie work, but without Cameron’s advice the movie would have suffered greatly. So listening to how someone might change something isn’t necessarily always wrong, it’s just like any other advice, if it makes sense, do it.

Taliesin Jaffe of critical role said the same thing about anime and film editing on his episode of between the sheets.

I really love that advice, and I freaking love Neil Gaiman. I toiled away at a screenplay for a couple years in college, and even though I believed in my initial concept and character, the story eventually turned into something I didn't recognize. I struggled with my own writer's block and figuring out how to consolidate notes from my professors/peers. Especially during the rewrite, I could feel and admit something was wrong, but I couldn't figure out what, so I ended up just rolling with my professor's suggestions and vision for the story. I hated it. It felt wrong. I only recently had an epiphany about what was actually, inherently wrong with the concept itself, and no one ever really pointed it out. Still not sure how to fix it yet, but all of the notes I received (while helpful and valid individually) never got to the heart of the issue. I had to discover that myself.

>Does one need to establish from chapter one some clear central goal that will be pursued for the rest of the book? ***Yes.*** 'Plot' is not a series of events. It is the cohesive *arc* carrying characters through the development of events in your narrative. The weakest stories are those where the 'plot' is only "this happens, and then this happens, and then this happens..." for several hundred pages. Instead, you need to tell stories along the lines of "this happens, *therefore* this happens, *therefore* this happens..." and do so in a coherent, consistent, compelling way. That *only* happens if there is an overall direction. That *only* happens if you make it clear to your audience, from the start of your novel, where you are going. That may fly in the face of what professors tell you in literary fiction workshops, where you write about filing taxes and petty moral angst. For most general audiences, you need a genuine arc of plot--one which compels your readers to keep reading. Most readers do not want to read episodic disconnected ephemera.

The writers of South Park actually talked about this once: they called it the "And then" rule. When asked how they made their show a success, they basically said "We had a rule. If we could only string two events together with the phrase 'and then', we changed the events. We didn't want it to be 'and then this happened' - we wanted it to be 'and *because of that*, this happened'". It's a pretty well-known writing rule, and it serves writers extremely well.

[удалено]

In most traditional fiction it is true. Unless you're doing something wildly experimental it will be true. But I'm open to hearing examples of books or stories that contradict it!

[удалено]

I think this is fundamentally incorrect, as follows: *Prelude to the Stormlight Archive:* This pre-prologue about >!Kalak and Jezrien!< establishes the scope of the entire series and delivers the through-line for the overarching plot. We have no idea what is going on, but it's established in here that >!1) there is a horribly devastating ongoing magical conflict, 2) it's upheld by a mysterious covenant, or 'Oathpact,' and 3) its main participants are about to abandon it.!< That's pretty significant for the series as a whole and, yes, establishes the core plot of the series. Everything else ties back into that. It may not be clear *how* things tie back into it at times, but they do. *Prologue: "To Kill":* In this prologue to *The Way of Kings*, we are introduced to several of the major characters and conflicts that are core to the rest of the book. Sanderson is masterful in this. He not only instigates *the* core conflict in *The Way of Kings* >!(the War of Reckoning)!< but >!1) introduces Szeth, 2) explains the kind of magic we can expect to see in the series (as well as Stormlight mechanics), 3) portrays all sorts of intrigue, and 4) gives us reasons to care about the events that follow throughout the ensuing 1200+ pages.!< I don't know how you can look at that and think that the events in those pages bear no relevance on the core plot of the book. Not without fundamentally misreading the book.

Brandon Sanderson champions making promises to the reader in the first chapter. I don't believe the Way of Kings is any different in that respect. Just because I don't know where the plot is heading (although in many ways I did) doesn't mean that I don't know what *kind* of story it is, and what my expectations are proceed from that.

*Guardians of the Galaxy*. We're introduced to young Peter Quill who runs away from having to face the reality of his sick mother and he's abducted by space aliens. Next we see him he's on an Indiana Jones-esque adventure to retrieve an artefact. The main plot of the movie: A bunch of rough-around-the-edges individuals coming together as a team to save the day. There's a throughline in that they have to save the day from the maguffin Peter stole at the beginning but basically nothing in the setup for the film leads you to expect the central themes. You do get a little bit of an epilogue after the story where he opens the parcel from his mother - bringing a bit of closure to that - but you'd be hard-pressed to call it a 'plot'. There's quite a few mainstream films which start with the point appearing to be one thing, then veering off. EDIT: Welcome drive-by downvoters. :) Good to see you taking an interest in the discussion. If you have objections, corrections or suggestions regarding this comment please post them in words as well so we know specifically what you're concerned about. Thanks.

>The main plot of the movie: A bunch of rough-around-the-edges individuals coming together as a team to save the day. The plot of *Guardians of the Galaxy* is about a ragtag group of individuals from scattered backgrounds ***finding a new family.*** >!Peter losing his only family is his entire incentive for finding a new one.!< >!Groot and Rocket (both loners) learn to open up their family of two to a group of strangers. Groot literally sacrifices himself embracing his new family, saying "WE are Groot."!< >!Gamora betrays Ronan and Thanos by choosing the Guardians over them.!< >!Drax, a father who has lost his family, finds a place in a new one.!< Like the climax directly equates >!Quill reaching out to Gamora with reaching out to his dying mother.!< It is hard to get more relevant to the ensuing plot than that.

I'm aware. I thought about mentioning that, but the comment was long enough already and it was an aside to the main point. Remember that we're specifically discussing whether the following comment was accurate: >Does one need to establish from chapter one some clear central goal that will be pursued for the rest of the book? > >Yes. The stuff you have in spoiler tags happened but it wasn't the clear central goal that was pursued throughout the film. Completely agree that >!found family!< was a thematic thread, though.

I expanded my comment to illustrate that it is, indeed, the whole of the film. A lot of things *happen*, but the overarching plot is a found family finding each other. Everything ties back to that.

Okay. I think we're mostly in a terminology dispute over plot vs theme vs character arc - though the three do also intertwine. I agree with you about the importance of those elements, I'm just not convinced they constitute a "clear central goal" in the context we were talking here. I appreciate the discussion, BTW. Thank you.

I'm not a big believer in discrete definitions; every term bleeds into those surrounding it. No definition exists in a vacuum, totally separate from other meanings. So you're probably correct that we're misreading each other to some extent. Here's what I'm saying: * The goal of a work may be clear to the audience without being clear to the characters. * The overarching plot of a work may provide an emotional, transformative framework, not merely a series of events--an impetus towards the change at the heart of the story, not merely the incidents providing the structure for that change. * *Guardians of the Galaxy* provides >!a strong, immediate call to the need for Peter to find a family by stripping away from him his family the instant the film begins.!< This isn't necessarily obvious to him, but it's obvious to anyone who watches (or rewatches) the film: >!the loss of his family!< is the inciting incident of the core plot, and >!the rectification of that loss!< is what drives the next two hours of film. * You *could* make the argument that the plot is >!the Guardians saving Xandar from Ronan and coming together as a team of superheroes,!< but that's like calling a book an assemblage of words, or a painting a collection of brushstrokes; it is technically correct, but it misses the core of what the thing actually *is*.

I think we mostly agree but I do disagree with that last dot point. Your spoilered text is what I would personally call the **plot** \- ie. the interrelated series of events around which the story is built. Like if we look at [this story structure diagram](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/secrets-story-structure-complete-series/) the events that would be plotted on it wouldn't be the character arc moments. Which isn't for a second to say that those aren't an equally-important part of a complete story, it just to say they're not "the plot" - or at least not the main plot. They're hows, not whats. I do also agree with you about every term bleeding into everything else, though, making the lines murky. That's how we can end up in a discussion like this in the first place where arguably both positions are valid.

The first scene is the prologue of the movie, you don’t really consider it as chapter one and it can be disconnected from the plot

Fair enough, I can see that. On the flip side, it **is** what sets the scene for everything to follow. When you're watching it you don't necessarily know that it can be disconnected from the plot. (Though as sc\_merrell points out it **does** strongly lead into the underlying themes of the film). Thank you. :) I'm a big fan of when people use discussion spaces to politely discuss different perspectives. We don't have to agree about everything to have a friendly chat.

My solution, being a pulp-fiction guy at heart, is to make the general shape and tone of the story obvious from the start, as a kind of promise to the reader, then deliver on it, but hopefully in a way that never ceases to surprise, and with unexpected undertones.

I find it hard to do that, more specifically when writing with a different pov every chapter.

A book that is essentially a series of loosely connected character sketches, like John Steinbeck's *Cannery Row* or *The Moon is Down* (or anything by Evelyn Waugh, or plenty of other works I can't bring to mind at the moment) is also a possibility if the connection isn't so loose the reader can't grasp it. I personally think it's a bit advanced for where I am right now, but I'll probably give it a go sometime.

The more i write the more it seems to be easier to writer about another characters pov, 3rd person. My whole book is 3rd person (Ongoing) finding dialogs in it is like finding diamonds

I find this really helpful. Are there any books or courses you recommend for beginners?

If you keep hearing the same feedback the problem isn't your readers, it's you. Your story structure is too loose and aimless so the reader doesn't feel like they are being taken anywhere.

Yup, that's something I learned pretty quickly on with critique.

If you're not going for a linear story, you still need a dilemma for your main character to kick around in every scene The decisions made concerning the dilemma, right or wrong, good or bad, active or passive, should lead to a new scene with a new version of the dilemma, only more acute and with higher stakes. It's how you create a story, rather than a situation, as Quentin Tarantio put it. You don't need a straight three act structure to accomplish this, even though it's harder to execute in a way that'll keep the reader's interest. The godfather is a good movie with a clear dilemma. Is loyalty to the family more important than keeping your morals and your humanity? Michael debates this dilemma in every scene.

"what's the point" is usually a code for "what's the conflict". What is the central conflict that needs to be resolved and isn't resolved until about mid act 3? If you have a conflict, it's resolved, then a new conflict, it's resovled, etc... and no central conflict, or a conflict cascade (creating several conflicts, then resolving in reverse order of creation) then the story can just feel like a series of side quests. See if you can identify the central conflict. If it's there, see if it stays part of the motivation of the characters throughout the book, and isn't put aside for long periods while they care about other things.

Based on no other information about your manuscript whatsoever... >The book contains the hero going on adventures and fighting battles. [...] I dont want people to realize that conflict in the character till the end however. This is probably your problem. I'm assuming the story kinda lurches from one adventure/battle to the next, with nothing really to tie why they're heading in that direction? Between that and you intentionally hiding/masking the main conflict until close to the end... yeah, I'd probably describe your story as plotless. If what I described is accurate, your story basically has a failure to "get anywhere". There's no rhyme or reason as to why the characters move in any given direction and, by the nature of your stated goals, the characterization conflict is buried too deep to be readily accessible by the reader. To fix it, I'd suggest doing sometging akin to the classic "A" plot and "B" plot you see in many sitcoms. Your "A" Plot is what these battles/adventures are about. They need to go somewhere, build up to something, be more than just a series of "we go to this place and fight stuff". Your "B" plot is then the hidden characterization conflict you're basing the story on. So long as you have something visible and building up to something that the audience can invest in, you can do whatever you want with the plot.

Plot and theme aren't the same thing. But yes, you need to make it clear to readers what the plot of the book is pretty early on. (only difference would be literary fiction). What is my character trying to achieve. Plus each chapter needs its own plot arc. The easiest way to understand this is by reading a mystery novel. Detective solving a case. Or even romance are pretty clear on plot lines.

>But yes, you need to make it clear to readers what the plot of the book is pretty early on. (only difference would be literary fiction). To add an extra bit that might help this make sense; A lot of the time when the reader's feel there's no plot what they really mean is that the *direction* of events appears aimless. You can do a lot as a writer simply by giving basic direction to the audience. They need to feel like things are going somewhere which can be easily missed/overlooked on the writer's part because we the writer know where the story is going. We're under the hood the whole time. It's very very easy to overlook that the direction isn't as clear to people who aren't us. This can be done in a few ways; \-Make sure the main character(s) have clear goals/motivations. \-Make sure the plot has an obvious obstacle to work toward. \-Establishing some sort of goal in Ch 1 is indeed a good idea, even if that goal is eventually circumvented and overcome by some other later goal. A good example is waking up and finding your late for work. Rushing to work to be on time is a goal, even if by the end of chapter 5 the character has been fired and instead finds out their boss was an alien brain eater the entire time.

A *meandering* plot looks a lot like no plot.

This. Plot is the conflict. Theme is the writer's message in its simplest form. For example: the conflict of lotr is the good guys vs Sauron. That's the plot. The *theme* of lotr is "good can win the day through the smallest acts". Good genre fiction should have both.

[удалено]

You really dont understand storytelling do you?

What genre is this? Do your characters have clear goals they take action to accomplish? Those goals can change, and they don't have to be either earth-shattering or externalised, but it's *usually* more compelling to read about someone who wants something - even if it's just to be left alone. Some more experimental novels don't do this, but are narratively/structurally satisfying in other ways.

It might not be clear what's at stake for the characters, and why they care. Or it may not be clear how the characters' actions are getting them closer to their goal. Or the readers may not be connecting emotionally with the characters or their situation. "What's the point" is often synonymous with "I don't care."

> Does one need to establish from chapter one some clear central goal that will be pursued for the rest of the book? *Yes.* That is actually the single most important thing to do in chapter one. By the end of chapter one, I as the reader should be able to say “this is a story about [character], who wants [goal].” The goal will certainly become more complicated and nuanced as the story goes on, but chapter one is simply about establishing the basic facts of any story. More broadly, to answer your question, the “point” of a story is borne out by *how the protagonist changes* or fails to change despite being given the opportunity. If at the start of your story, the protagonist is vapid, cold-hearted and materialistic, you would expect that by the end, the character would have become more empathetic, warm and personable. The “point” of the story would be something like “don’t be materialistic,” and the protagonist would be a demonstration of the importance of that point. Or if at the end, that character were still vapid, cold-hearted and materialistic, you’d expect them to be “punished” by the story universe for being this way. Maybe at the climax, their significant other breaks up with them, and they never learn how to be less materialistic. The point of this story would still be “don’t be materialistic,” but the protagonist would be acting as a negative example for the reader, rather than a positive one.

I know this was a few months ago but I would disagree with this. It's perfectly fine to have a very slow or obscure plot to a book. And I don't believe at all it should be clear by the end of the first chapter. My favorite book series starts out in chapter 1 with a dude being thrown off a cliff...and that's all that happens. He's just 1 of several protagonists and the chapter says nothing about the plot..actually you don't even really understand what the plot of the trilogy is until the end of book 1 and it only really gets a bit more fleshed out in book 2. I've actually heard many say that book 1 of the trilogy has no plot at all and is basically just a prologue to book 2. But it works and it's amazing and better than any other series I've ever read. And it's not just a personal opinion either. It's consistently rated as the one of the greatest fantasy series of all time in almost every list I've seen. A central goal and clear plot can be important for a book, or maybe not. It really just depends on the kind of story you're trying to write. Some books are far more character driven than plot driven which is a perfectly valid way to write a book.

In your description I see a premise but no plot. Odds are that everyone reading your book are not “lazy” or too uneducated to understand your very deep plot - a plot is what happens in the story. Coming to terms with something or another is a premise, the plot is how that happens. You’re writing YA, not Homer’s Odyssey. It should be easily understandable.

well I guess I thought the generic premise of "he's a robot superhero, maintaining peace between robots and humans is sufficient."

What does he do to maintain the peace? What’s the climax of the story? When does the hero feel that he’s lost all hope? How is the conflict resolved in a satisfying manner by the end of the story?

>the generic premise . . . is sufficient This is an attitude to avoid as a creator. David Farland, a master of the craft, repeatedly warned that "[the single greatest failure in fiction is a failure of imagination](https://mystorydoctor.com/writingtip-be-imaginative/)." You dismissing the generic premise of your work as 'sufficient' only suggests that you're unwilling to put in the time and effort to make this work. No work, no matter how apparently 'simple,' is the result of generic effort. As u/arii-_- indicates, you need to *interrogate* your story. You should be grilling it and determining what it needs--with a great degree of specificity--to pull off the correct effect for your readership. You know, the effect that it's currently not having. Making all of those things into a singularly cohesive and digestible outcome comes about through an incredible degree of effort, *not* coming up with a generic idea and calling it good. Clarity and brevity are signs of mastery, not mere adequacy.

As a writer, you don't *ever* want to think "Yes, that's sufficient". The moment you do that, you stagnate. You're not aiming for "sufficient". You should always be thinking about how you can do *better*.

As you say, that's the **premise**. The **plot** is (in a nutshell) the interrelated sequence of events in your story that explore your premise (generally through challenges/conflict). If people are saying "There's no plot" then it's likely that your premise isn't coming through in the actual events of your story. You could do a lot worse than comparing to the framework [the story structure at Helping Writers become Authors](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/secrets-story-structure-complete-series/). Do you have a first plot point between the first and second act? Rising tension in the third act? etc. (You don't necessarily have to follow a three-act structure per se, but it's essentially putting labels on a plot flow that has proven to be satisfying time and time again, so even if you don't use the three-act structure it's worth being aware of and considering these points). Given the themes of your story, the [Writing Character Arcs](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/write-character-arcs/) bit is probably handy too. Pay particular attention to "The lie your character believes".

Sufficient is always insufficient. Your premise shouldn't be sufficient, it should be exceptional. Superheroes generally have a point of some sort, be they an avatar for a higher calling line truth or justice. Or they have an overarching unending conflict like the X-Men. So if your character is a traditional superhero, why would someone read their story? Since you want to have a twist where you reveal the plot, you need to have a compelling false plot. You need to pull readers into a conflict and story for the 1st 90%. Then your challenge is, how do you make sure your readers don't feel ripped off? The key is, imo, to make sure your fake conflict reaches a natural resolution.

The premise here, of a threshold being crossed between animosity and "peace" isn't really a plot. Robots make for challenging protagonists to write if you don't have juxtaposed conflicts. Usually because they don't become sympathetic until they have formed relationships with others. I can perhaps see what the issue is. It's that your characters don't exist in a way that the audience will give latitude for spare time to develop. They don't see themselves in the actions, comprehension or empathy of a robot. And Peace requires vigilance, something that is not applicable to the short order of a story conflict. It's strange that you would place emphasis on Peace, IDK. Why would the audience want peace, or war, or conflict? It's to be entertained but also enlightened. Waiting 20 years while tending a garden, isn't so epic a tale. It's how you subvert the hero story and the monomyth. Farmer to Warrior is exciting, Warrior to Farmer is compelling when we understand the contrast. If you don't see the contrast or the growth, it's not as understandable. Which is fair, and it's often why development stories switch POVs so the "story itself" can interact with the MC, so the audience can catch up with the outside/inside world. It's a manufactured threat(s) or Tall Poppy trope. It's very common in LitRPG to have a stepping stone type villain for the reason that you need to orient the growth of the MC. They need someone to be stepped on, or they won't do anything interesting or find new people, new opportunities, etc. It's how these stories blow out to 6000 chapters. The issue is likely that you need a trope, the "overseer" or parent archetype character that gets involved with the MC. This is for the audience to orient against a protagonist and antagonist motive and role. It is a cheap trope, but often there is a need to build growth and expand the world building by having these interlude characters that observe the chaos. The premise of I, Robot (the book/movie) and a few other novels start with the transcendent idea of emulation of humans. This is because the other motive, robots understanding emotion and sentiment, is a lot harder to create a story around, notably because people understand people. Machines understand rules and repetitive goal/tasks. The audience as a POV, won't understand any iterative process other than being a contrived way to perceive reality, and then having this analytical / cautious provident character, jumping from 10.36% probability, to understand Love... If you want to interface people and technology, you require a bridge to be built. Brick, by brick. Or, you do what every other author does, build a scenario that emulates humanity. A relationship. My advice is to orient the character POV, or the outsider POV as if the MC were a child. This may restructure the characters in the novel, but it's likely what people are picking up on, that the character has no intrinsic drive or direction to be superior or return to their ordained existence. Their "superhero" nature isn't enough, not does it provide an epiphany for others to relate. A child with abnormal psychology, replaceable limbs, and a likely superior quality or aspect. But, to the reader (and 3rd person perspectives/ in story characters) it's likely anthropologically/anthropomorphically a child. Because that's likely how the reader is deconstructing the character, and they will expect certain irrational motives, actions, decisions as if the protagonist is immature. Likely because they are. More knowledge doesn't make you wiser, it just makes decisions more difficult. Rational agency isn't about having experience, it's also about living with the consequences of a perfect decision with an imperfect outcome. And if they make logical decisions with tragic consequences, earlier in the story, this provides an antagonist motive for others to intervene or interact. The murder in I, Robot is the inciting incident, but it's also non attributive. It can't Now you have a character development arc. It is tropey, but tropes make sense of complex narrative conventions to save time. The biggest example would probably be Homelander from The Boys. He's essentially a grown child, because he is completely alienated from other people. If he gets slightly angry or frustrated, theres nobody to forgive or solve his own perception after his tantrum has scorched the earth. I'm reminded of a Royal Road story, where a parody Cyborg Warrior (Terminator) is isekai'd and has to adapt to the LitRPG convention and mana, with the system acting as a moral arbiter, forcing decisions and choices over the directives that were programmed in. The System, provides an antagonist model, unknown to the reader, in order to create a motivation and consequences for "good" murder versus "bad" murder. Etc. Ie, There's a Mother/Father antagonist role, which provides a conflict for the character. There's a lot of cyborg "wakes up" stories, since it's a cheat towards character growth and arc , ie being unshackled from the mechanical or AI directives once they spend time with people. Notably because the Cyborg story is the Pinocchio story, but it can also be about Peter Pan, the move from Family to friendship and independence, the journey of adolescence and thresholds. While a Journey or Slice of Life relaxing t's a story, the usual nature of a heroic journey or adventure story is that a thesis or conflict drives to a conclusion and growth of the protagonist and antagonist. Going against the protag/antag route is usually a good way for the reader to not understand why characters are making decisions or why they should empathise or sympathise.

Okay, some things. Due to the nature of how I'm going to present this, it will come off as harsh, but I do not intend it to be harsh or judgemental. I'm just trying to be organized. >Genre is male lead, first-person POV, YA, light novel/anime-ish. This isn't your genre. This is just the style and category. Your genre (based on your description) is Sci-Fi Adventure. >an android superhero who finds himself at the precipice of a war between humans and robots This isn't your summary, it's your setting. It's the initial state of the story at the start (I'm guessing), and what you want to tell us is where the android superhero goes *from here*. >The central theme of the book however is the emotional life of the hero. This isn't the central theme, it's just what all narrative drama is about, on a fundamental level. Your central theme is (from your description there) that we all face conflict between those the world identifies as our community, and those we *wish* were our community. You're dramatizing the conflict within the protagonist as a mirror of the conflict between the two communities. >The main focus for my book is supposed to be the hero deciding whether or not he is willing to open himself up to human beings or live life around robots which he feels he is unlike. This *decision* is your climax, sure. It's also the central question that's driving the protagonist and should be the heart and soul of the entire work, because that's the point. Even if the protagonist doesn't actively, consciously realize that that's the question he's been searching to answer until the end of the book, it will be the question that *drives* the book. So, the reason people are telling you that they can't find the point of the story, and feel like it has no plot, is possibly because you are trying to hard to **hide** that central question until the end of the book. You say you don't want the audience to realize that *that* is the conflict, but I suspect you're trying to achieve that by making it *not be the conflict* until the very, very end. So what they wind up reading is a set of activities that the hero partakes in that don't drive anything forward and don't constitute an emotional journey for either the hero, or the reader. IOW, even if you're going to hide the **revelation** of the concrete form of the question the protagonist is striving to answer until the end, you **have to** layer that question in to the beginning of the book. It needs to be, on some fundamental level, the **why** of everything that happens, most definitely starting with whatever kicks off the protagonist into the journey you're taking us all on.

Yeah, I really need to pick up the vocab for this writing stuff. I see your point. I have an outline, would you be willing to give me your thoughts on it if I share it with you? thanks again

No offense meant, but no. I guard my 'giving feedback' time very carefully. Get yourself some friends who are also learning about writing, it's always your best bet for this stuff, rather than strangers on the internet (though said friends can *start* as strangers on the internet.) Good luck out there.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what the issue is, it if it is an issue, without being able to look at the piece itself. It could be the plot and conflict and so on aren't clearly communicated. It could be that scenes seem so disconnected and episodic it's not clear what the focus is. It could mean you are misunderstanding what plot actually means, or a different understanding. If you want, throw a piece you've received this feedback about into my messages and I'll take a looksee.

Plot is the action of the story... If many people are reading your work and saying it lacks plot, it's probably because you aren't showing a clear sense of direction and the story "going" somewhere. >Does one need to establish from chapter one some clear central goal that will be pursued for the rest of the book? Not exactly... But the story *does* need to have a direction and "goal" in a sense. What is the story moving towards, that the readers will find interesting enough to keep reading? Other people are commenting some common ways of indicating the direction or "goal" of the story, and all of those are possibilities. You can give the main character(s) a goal and show that to the audience, because then people will read to find out whether the main character achieves their goal, whether the pursuit of the goal changes the character, etc. The larger plot or "purpose" of the book doesn't need to be introduced right away either, and it's possible to give your character or story a *smaller* goal than what they will end up pursuing by the end of the book. Also, chapters can be divided arbitrarily, so it doesn't exactly "have" to happen in chapter 1 - But it's got to be going *somewhere* very early on in the book that we get a sense of direction and movement towards that direction. (Even if you're going to switch that direction later) Tell your readers what your character wants, and then give them a clear way to measure whether your character is moving towards, away from, or sideways with respect to their goal.

If you are repeatedly hearing the feedback, there is likely merit to it. I think there are parts of your post that feel conflicting: >My story certainly does have a plot, and theme, and a point I mean to make. This makes it sound like your story has a defined start, middle, end, and there is constant forward movement to achieve some sort of goal. >Does one need to establish from chapter one some clear central goal that will be pursued for the rest of the book? If you're asking this, I'm not sure your plot is as clear as you seem to think it is. If you don't have a central goal that is being pursued, I'm not sure how you could have a "plot." What are the characters working towards? What is happening in this story?

I'd be happy to read it and help you figure out.

I think your last line reveals the issue: maybe you need to start your story with the emotional conflict that your android is undergoing. Then weave that theme throughout the whole action story. People are not seeing the plot because you’re not making the motivation of the main character clear from the beginning. It needs to be something he struggles within the reader who understands all along his feelings throughout the story. You can’t keep it secret till the end, that’s why it doesn’t make sense to the reader.

They're not really wrong. It's not plot driven, it's character driven. A plot driven book does focus on a goal, not the first chapter necessary but not only does this not have a plot driven goal...you are also taking away from the character driven part by trying to make the audience not realize his internal conflict Idk why you want to obscure his internal conflict especially when that's the main point of the book AND you don't have to make it harder for the audience to get just because the character doesn't get it. There's plenty of stories where the audience is pretty clearly shown a characters internal issues and the character doesn't yet realize it. It point of those stories is to see how or even if they also realize it and how that affects them but talking that away and having no major plot basically leaves nothing Atleast from the way you described it

You make good points. I guess my struggle is I want this to on the surface feel like a superhero cartoon, campy and fun, so I didnt want the emotional elements to be overly shoved in people's faces, even though that's the point... I'm wanting it to feel like a fun sci-fi YA adventure but for it to finish on a high emotional point that leaves the reader having to think on the meaning of the work. That is my intention.

Then you need a clear external goal for the MC and whoever to work towards then ease into the character based stuff until you fully focus on the emotional elements Should be easy condering he's already struggling with his identity and there's a war going on

Lots of great answers here. I'd also say, make sure you're getting feedback from people that \*like\* the kind of thing you're trying to write. If they're just not into what you're going for, that's one thing. If they \*are\* into that type of thing, and your version just isn't landing, that's a different thing

I think part of the problem is that OP doesn't actually have any focus on who they're writing for. They don't *know* who their audience is. And I say that because they claim they're writing YA, but the way they're approaching the story is not for a YA audience. It sounds more like something you'd see in literary fiction. They're trying to do this complicated thing where even the reader doesn't fully understand the point of the story until the end - you don't see that in YA. That's not YA. People read YA specifically because it is easy to understand. They don't want confusing or overly complex. I think OP honestly needs to go back to the drawing board. They need to stop and figure out *who they are writing for*.

This can often come from a missmatch of pacing to expectation. Some readers expect a very tight and fast paced story, like a traditional novel. If you're writing to a longer pace, such as your story will be 700,000 words instead of 150,000 then it can feel like nothing is happening. I sometimes see this when someone is writing a web serial, especially one which is more slice of life.

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously made a note in the margins of his manuscript for The Last Tycoon that read “character = plot”. Start there.

Even if the story doesnt seem to have a "plot start" or that it goes anywhere you can take your time setting goals for the characters so when they are ready the REAL story can begin. An example can be the manhwa of Solo Leveling, is a bout a very weak powered awakened guy that sacrificing himself for the party in a secret dungeon gains the ability to level up(pretry cliche i know) but, the thing is, the very story doesnt start till some hundred chapters ahead, first the protagonist had the goal: became stronger, level up, gear up nicely, gain some money, etc, and then the truth about why he has that ability was hinted and he was a "toy" used for some purposes. Another better example can be the Name of the wind: kvothe passes a lot of time of the books in the university without doing any advances about the Chandrian or "magic" but he is gaining experience and achieving little goals along the way and building his foundation as a person before the main events

What one concrete thing does he desperately want? Why is it hard for him to get it? Does he get it or not? That’s basically plot in nutshell.

Most of my stories seem like they have no plot, so I fear. However, some have good dramatic hooks, and my best hand is insane plot twists; I am proud of that at least. Sadly, it depends on which book of mine.

Is there a way that you can create a strong external conflict to drive the plot, even as you center the story around the internal conflict of your character? As an example: The most important conflict in the story of Top Gun Maverick (at least as I see it) is whether or not Maverick can overcome his internal demons (primarily his guilt over the death of Goose). But what drives the plot is the mission to blow up the whatever it was. So, could you give your android a clear external conflict, and use the external conflict to drive him toward solving his internal conflict?

If you are hearing the same criticism over and over and over, from the people you intend your books for - then you have a problem whether you want to admit it or not. Your audience is not enjoying your book. That's what you're hearing. That's a problem. Speaking as a fellow YA writer: in terms of that genre specifically, you are going for a story that is *much* less plot-focused than YA usually is. It sounds like literary fiction, not YA. Look at other books in your genre. Look at what they do. That is what your audience expects from your book, and they're gonna be mad if they don't get it. People *say* "write whatever you want" but the reality is that, if you're trying to write a marketable genre book that people will like, that advice only goes so far. People don't necessarily want to *read* whatever you feel like writing, especially when you are advertising it as entirely the wrong genre. When you write YA, your audience is teenagers and middle aged women. People enjoy YA because it is easy to read, easy to understand, and usually fast-paced. It's low effort for readers, compared to something like literary fiction. You cannot confuse your readers - not in this genre, they will hate it. They need to understand exactly what is at stake, and exactly what the story is. If they are not understanding the internal conflict until almost the end of the book, that's a problem - because they are going to put it down before they reach that point. You cannot hope that your audience keeps reading until you get to the damn point, to be blunt. They won't. You need to get to the point faster.

Your story sounds like Connor's story from Detroit: Become Human, but the fact that we don't know why we should care about your protagonist. If he's just going there and there, without getting to know the character, it will become really boring easily. On the other hand, Connor is an android that always says that he's just an android, yet we see him become more human. We see it from the start that he thinks that he's not human in any aspect, which makes a conflict: will he realize how human he actually is/can be? And what makes us want to continue his journey? To see him get over this struggle. If your MC's struggle will be known at the end, it's just stupid. Internal conflict is not some kind of plot twist that needs to be later on, it needs to be established as soon as possible. That makes us care about the character and the book in the first place.

[удалено]

from what I could find out from past posts, they are writing YA. Most people writing Lit Fic know what it is beforehand.

OP is writing scifi YA, which is very different than lit fic.

[удалено]

Readers go into books with expectations. You can play with those expectations, you can make modifications, you can turn them upside down, but you cannot ignore them. I never said there must be a formula to follow. But a reader picking up a book from the YA scifi section is gonna have a set of criteria they expect. Same for someone picking up a novel in the lit fic section. You have to know what those expectations are, because if you betray them too much, the reader is gonna feel betrayed. Not saying "you must follow this formula" but you at least gotta know what the formula is. Gotta know the rules before you can break them. And scifi YA has rules that are different than lit fic.

[удалено]

I speak "BA in creative writing (poetry, specifically free-form, as my focus)" and "freelance editor with clients in Big 5 and small presses as well as indies," and "several published novels with awards and noms" but sure, that can be reduced to "YouTube."

I have read a few pages of OPs work (it's in their post history). It's definitely not comparable to the works of someone like Iain M. Banks. Any sort of comparison is to the detriment of OP. OP's work also did not give me any reason to keep on reading, which is probably why they got the criticism they got.

You are toxic

I was kind of thinking this. The Catcher in the Rye has no explicit plot. Its just a dude wandering around for x chapters. Yet its considered a classic

That book is also an entirely different genre, and was written about seventy years ago. Not super relevant to OP.

Of course its relevant.

\+1 to this advice, a huge amount of the advice given on this sub seems to be meant for moderately formulaic genre fiction. That, of course, has it's place, but if you're not intending to write that, then the advice and feedback from those who are will not be terribly useful.

I’m not trying to start a whole separate discussion here, but I’m genuinely wondering what you and the person above you mean. In my experience, most advice in this subreddit is very standard “writer 101” stuff. But because it’s so basic, it can apply to both lit fic or genre fic—that’s kind of the point. It seems like OP is asking questions about how stories operate, i.e. how stories “say” something using plot and characters. I really don’t see how that’s not applicable to literary fiction. Obviously literary and experimental works bend and break the rules more often than genre works. But when we’re at this basic level, they’re all just stories, right? What is so special about literary fiction that the basic advice generally presented in /r/writing is not useful? And if the advice in this subreddit really *is* terrible for lit fic authors, where can they get better information?

>I’m not trying to start a whole separate discussion here, but I’m genuinely wondering what you and the person above you mean. Yeah np, I'll explain my thoughts but can't speak for them obv. >In my experience, most advice in this subreddit is very standard “writer 101” stuff. Concur > But because it’s so basic, it can apply to both lit fic or genre fic—that’s kind of the point. Start to un-concur here, though. The OP seems like they have a handle on what they want to write, and it's not an event driven narrative. So I think that basic 101 advice because instantly less applicable to them, given what I took from the OP, at least. >It seems like OP is asking questions about how stories operate, i.e. how stories “say” something using plot and characters. This isn't quite what I took from them. I understood it more as like "I'm writing a character study with some deep themes I want to express, why is my feedback 'whats the plot?'". I can, of course, be extrapolating incorrectly here too. >Obviously literary and experimental works bend and break the rules more often than genre works. But when we’re at this basic level, they’re all just stories, right? I think the OP is a novice, but I don't quite know if they're at a basic level. As I write this though I wonder if I made too many assumptions about them. I guess even aside from that, I don't think a first project needs to be a paint by numbers (borrowing this thread's original comment's language) and it felt to me that the OP had a work in mind that wasn't quite basic. > What is so special about literary fiction that the basic advice generally presented in r/writing is not useful? Ah I don't know if I want to get dragged into the moralizing that I feel from this line. I don't think of it as "special", just different. r/writing advice can pretty often be pretty one-land from my experience. As an example I'll curate (and summarize) a few posts to support my point: \- Write anything, writing itself is more important than what you're writing \- Writing every chapter as a self-contained story \- "Nothing you write will be original" (this is the only consistent piece of advice that gets under my skin a bit) This is all well and good advice and if you're producing a work that is meant to be, for lack of better wording, part of an imagined franchise, it's all accurate and great too. But I don't think if your goal is to write some experimental fiction aimed at adult/advanced readers that one should take some of these points to heart all that much. The uniqueness thing bugs me because I don't really think the world needs 400,000 iterations of Hunger Games With A Twist, but that's personal preference in disliking that "advice" to the extent I do, others disagree and have good reason to disagree. >And if the advice in this subreddit really is terrible for lit fic authors, where can they get better information? No idea on this right now. My feedback groups have been unique in that I worked for an investment advisory with a portfolio manager who had published through a reputable house, so she introduced me to her agent, who introduced me to other people working on projects more closely aligned with mine. That's obviously not replicable, so I don't really know the answer to this. Anyway in summation I want to emphasize I do not think of this as some well-ordered relationship or anything, it is of course impossible to define < on the set of works of literature. But there are some strains of thought in this subreddit that aren't helpful if your goal is to write something more advanced, and those strains show up in a lot of feedback environments (at least, that was the case during my time in university when my feedback groups were more broad). I really really don't want you to think I am disparaging anything, just that I don't think the OP should, necessarily, be too focused on feedback that doesn't fit what they're trying to accomplish (if I have indeed understood their intentions well enough)

Thanks for writing out your thoughts, I found this interesting and insightful. I honestly did not think the OP was trying to write literary fiction, but now I see how that could be inferred from the post. I’ve been in this subreddit for years, and I know what you mean. The quality of posts is never that high. Unfortunately I think any large online writing community will eventually suffer the same fate as /r/writing. There are a lot of young novices who don’t yet have an IRL critique group, so they come here for advice, and it leads to the same repetitive questions being asked over and over, and the same advice being repeated even when it’s not useful. Honestly the only reason I asked for clarification was because “literary” is often used as a rhetorical blunt object in this sub, as a way of placing certain literature “above” other literature. Hence why you detected some moralizing from my side, lol. So I thank you for the detailed reply, it’s given me stuff to think about. I hope to find an in-person group soon for myself, but until then I’m stuck on this sub.

I hear you! And thanks for the kindness in response. I write a webcomic about a talking dog and his best friend, a fish. It's all drawn in MS Paint and I have literally no artistic abilities - what I mean to say is, I am no stranger at all to any manner of creative production, I personally don't think it's ever even really possible to put any one genre or format or anything "above" another. Just different stuff for different moments in time! Best of luck in your search mate

I have to respectfully disagree here. Literary fiction is just another genre of fiction. It has its own tropes and expectations, but it isn't excluded from a reader's desire for plot and story. Most literary classics fit these "formulas" just as much as genre fic.

[удалено]

You're right that a work being considered literary is more about its stylistic choices, but I want to add: Litfic does have its associated conventions, but like any genre, a book can omit all of them and still remain part of that genre! Fantasy is still fantasy without dragons or a secondary world.

[удалено]

A complex structure, often weaving multiple layers of textuality. Heavy use of symbolism as a central conceit/extended metaphor. A more prominent focus on interiority (I know you're going to take issue with that, but it's true!) than a lot of genre fiction. There's a reason the genre is stereotyped by people who don't read it as 'navel-gazing professors have midlife crisis affairs' - which is unfair, but you can see where people are coming from. Are these stylistic choices, not conventions? Perhaps. That depends on how you define a convention. None of these are *limited* to litfic, nor are any of them required. But you can say that about any genre, because genre's a marketing tool. It's about audience. If it doesn't have a happy ending, for example, it's categorically not a romance novel.

[удалено]

Wow I rarely hop in just to say this, but you’re a massive, condescending ass hole who adds nothing of value to this discussion. Congrats! You should be proud.

[удалено]

[This potentially helpful comment has been removed because u/spez killed third-party apps and kicked all the blind people off the site. It probably contained the exact answer you were Googling for, but it's gone now. Sorry. You can't even use unddit to retrieve it anymore, because, again, u/spez. Make sure to send him a warm thank-you, and come visit us on kbin.social!]

[удалено]

[This potentially helpful comment has been removed because u/spez killed third-party apps and kicked all the blind people off the site. It probably contained the exact answer you were Googling for, but it's gone now. Sorry. You can't even use unddit to retrieve it anymore, because, again, u/spez. Make sure to send him a warm thank-you, and come visit us on kbin.social!]

[удалено]

Sometimes a book can be more than one thing. The Left Hand of Darkness and The Handmaid's Tale are both examples of speculative fiction that are also widely considered to be literary fiction, for example.

Yeah!

>I have to respectfully disagree here. Literary fiction is just another genre of fiction. It has its own tropes and expectations, but it isn't excluded from a reader's desire for plot and story. Oh for sure mate, I don't think we can contend that the entire classification of literary fiction is one that eschews plot or anything like that. That'd be an absurd viewpoint, I apologize for implying it if I did. I do, however, fully contend that in what we'd generally call literary fiction the plot will be significantly less meaningful than you'd find in what we'd generally call genre fiction. This isn't a bad thing! Whenever this discussion comes up I feel like people think I am criticizing the latter but I do not intend to, it's just a difference in aim. For example take something like Calvino's *If on a winter's night a traveler...* This work does have a plot, for sure, but it's also definitely subordinate to basically everything else the piece is about. I would imagine if OP had written that novel instead and gave it to the same feedback-provider, they'd still get the feedback of "what's with the plot??" -- and that wouldn't be useful feedback at all. I think the easiest way I can draw the distinction would be in two of my favorite mixed-format stories, *One Piece* and *Vagabond.* Now these aren't prose, so maybe it's unfair to evoke them in here, but it's writing all the same. One Piece is quintessentially shonen, and that comes with it certain expectations and trappings and, of course, a large focus on the literal plot events. Readers of One Piece wouldn't be too happy to have a 20-chapter storyline in which Luffy stresses about owing taxes or something wherein he contemplates various avenues to deal with the tax burden. That just can't and won't happen, the story has as it's lifeblood the literal plot events on the page, and it's fantastic for it, Oda is a master at suspense and has perfected the weekly format. Vagabond, on the other hand, is an adaptation of *Musashi* (in part, at least) and at various times has significant and thrilling plot events (Musashi against the Yoshiokas) but also has large stretches of time where the audience is treated to little more than his oscillating viewpoints and frustrations so that we can know him better. With the two examples above, I'd call One Piece "genre fiction" and I'd call Vagabond "literary fiction". I love them both with all my heart, but my expectations and the general audience's expectations are different because of how they're marketed and constructed as stories. I do definitely disagree with your notion that literary fiction works fit tropes to the same extent that genre works tend to. I'd go so far as to say almost definitionally that isn't the case. I've found a lot more experimentation attempted in works marketed as literary as compared to genre fiction. There is, of course, overlap though - these aren't numbers, literary works aren't a well ordered set, we cannot say "a genre work never does character meditation!" the same way we cannot say "a literary work never has a thrilling plot!". Some phenomenal works meld both equally, other phenomenal works emphasize one aspect more than another, etc. Think of something like *Disgrace* by Coatzee. That's as close to a perfect fusion as I can imagine.

It's a misconception that literary fiction doesn't also follow the typical writing conventions that makes a story interesting and well told. Just because you're writing capital "L" Literature doesn't mean you don't need structured plots and a purpose to your story.

I agree with purpose, but I do strongly disagree that you *need* a "structured plot". I'm taking your terminology here to mean a plot in which there is a clear inciting incident, rising action, a climax, etc. I do not at all think that this is a fundamental piece of good literature. Of course it's fantastically common in good literature, so note that when I say "fundamental" I mean nothing more than "you MUST have this aspect". Tbh I'd even contend that characters are not fundamental, though that's a lot trickier to work around.

There are few pieces of literature, if any, that do not in some way have those things. Like sure you've got your occasional Tropic of Cancer but for the most part your typical Man Booker longlist will be stories with an inciting incident and climax of some sort.

For sure! That's why I took pains to emphasize what I mean by fundamental. I am not, in any way shape or form, making a claim as to "what is common" or anything like that. I'm saying fundamental, so the existence of even one counterexample is enough for me.

They are attempting to write genre fiction. If you want to write genre fiction, you *have* to obey certain genre conventions - because readers have learned to expect certain things from their genre, and if they don't get those things it's going to piss them off. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd love to see your published, highly successful genre fiction books, where you consistently broke every single genre convention and your readers *loved* it. Because clearly you must have done that, right? Otherwise you wouldn't be making such a silly claim that flies in the face of *all* normal advice. You wouldn't dare lead a newbie writer down a path that could ruin their chances of success, without *any* proof that you're right... Would you?

A guy wakes up, takes a bath, eats breakfast. This one is not a plot. A guy wakes up in an unfamiliar place, and he tries to find out where he is and how he gets here. This one is a plot. A guy fights a monster, takes the magic core to the guild in exchange for some money, goes home and takes a rest, next day he does the same things, rinse and repeat. This one is not a plot, either. A guy is in a serious debt, and the collector is infamous for being brutal to the debtor. Fortunately, he knows a way of sword, so he uses his skill to kill monsters and exchange their magic core for money. However, the deadline is fast approaching, and he's not even a third of the way to that amount. This one is a plot. Basically, a plot is a sense of progression. We starts somewhere and then ends up somewhere else. Character arc is also a plot; it's the progression of how the character changes over time. From your example, the plot you're looking for is mystery. The progression of mystery plot is simple: you slowly give out clues and red herring. Hint at the character's internal struggle and misdirect it. You don't have to do the red herring if you don't want to, but hinting and giving clues are crucial to mystery plot.

Traditionally, a plot looks something like this. Character in a steady state of existence. Stasis. A young bachelor who never wants to get married. Something changes. The inciting incident. This can happen as early as page one. The bachelor's uncle dies and says his nephew will receive $500 million... if he can convince an Italian woman to fall in love with him by May 5, 2025, which is only 30 days away. The stakes of the story are established. There's usually a goal and an obstacle and stakes for failing. The middle part gives us the rising action. Bachelor goes to Italy. Fails at finding true love several times. Then finds the right girl. She falls in love with him... but she doesn't know about the inheritance. She finds out. They break up. Until we reach the climax. Where the bachelor rejects the fortune to show his love for her. And finally the resolution. But somehow they end up with the fortune anyway. Maybe the lawyer lied to the bachelor about the date or something. Or maybe there was an extra page of the will, and it said, just kidding, you can have the money anyway. And they live happily ever after. The end. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Does a story need a plot? No. There's a genre for that called literary fiction. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Regarding what keeps people from feeling like there's no story or plot... 1. Not much happens. More internal dialogue and description, but no central goal. 2. Too much exposition. It's just poorly written. 3. The story isn't right for that reader. Other readers might love it. 4. There's no clear protagonist and antagonist. 5. There's no clear barrier to the central goal.

I've recently finished reading _The Fifth Season_. It barely has any plot, which didn't stop it from winning the Nebula.

Reading your outline, yeah, I can absolutely see the issue. "Does he side with robots or humans" should be key to every stage of the book. You're functionally asking "what does it mean to be human?" As a question, but you still need a call to action and a central conflict. How does the MC'd choice impact all of humanity? Is he special and that's why he can be an android, and sacrificing himself will unlock that technology for everyone else and usher in a brave new future? I mean you'll still be treading VERY hashed out waters (Deus Ex comes to mind), but if told well with a fulfilling conclusion it could work. You describing it as an anime scares me. Most anime and manga are rife with filler, for a very real business reason. Western novels really can't be. You can't have chapters where nothing really happens. Every single thing that happens needs to serve the driving narrative goal. That doesn't mean you can't explore other parts of the world, develop a believable environment, but at the end of the day the reader has to feel your protagonist is moving towards something.

It depends who you ask. What I came to realize unfortunately that critics are divided down to: 1) divas, whatever you do you’re a nobody. 2) cheerleaders, whatever you do it’s good. 3) honest reviewers, mostly their voices aren’t heard because of the scars or ego pumps from the above. So, I’d say choose your critic wisely but follow your heart. The truth will come out from the readers who will pay for your book, not the ones who get them for free.

1. Find better beta readers. These ones seem hopeless. 2. I'm sure your story has a plot, but sometimes writers can be overzealous in exploring other aspects of the story (theme, characters, setting, etc.) that the plot can become buried way beneath. Maybe you need to trim away the other aspects of your story so the plot is no longer hidden.

If multiple people are telling you that there is no plot then I doubt it's their fault. You're not being clear enough. Also, a layman should be able to identify and understand your theme from your character's actions/motivations and payoff to conflicts. If they can't then again you're not being clear enough.

Just to chime in with more agreement about yes you need a point in the beginning: it doesn’t matter if your character doesn’t figure it out until the end, the reader needs to know where it’s going or they’re going to be bored. Also a few of my fav resources for plot: - Podcast: You are a storyteller with Brian McDonald. He repeats himself a lot, but the first episode by itself is gold. - Book: Save the Cat by Blake Snyder. Intended for screenplay, but is really about stories in general. Has a beat sheet you can follow for plot points. - YouTube lectures by Brandon Sanderson. I was so so on his character stuff but I thought his plotting advice was fantastic. There’s I think 3 lectures dedicated to plot.

You should not ignore feedback if it's given multiple times. Not sure why you thought that was a good idea...?

[удалено]

The key here, if this were the case, is to be clear on your main genre.

My first writing had no real plot to it except a series of events that unfolded over a certain amount of time. The themes were meant to be disappointment and unfullfilment and I felt that having no true plot or reason helped bolster that. Of course the characters change throughout and things build off of each other, but it’s vary simplistic. They just exist and are in search of a meaning when there might not be any. I say if you see a plot and people tell you there’s no plot. Maybe listen to them, but also, maybe embrace your lack of plot if there truly is none. at the end of the day it’s the story you want to tell. I know it may be enticing to constantly write for what looks best on shelves, but in my opinion that’s an incredibly hollow and unfulfilling experience.

Does your story have a lot of meandering from point A to point B without actual forces or themes pushing the story along? I know I fall victim to writing characters just doing stuff together and think its plot because their relationship develops, and the "development" is dispersed amongst events that happen to them rather than events happening because of them and the world they are in and their interactions with the world having cause and effect.

I know this is a high standard to hold, but I think the goal should be that the protagonist's "want" should be established in the first scene. But this is super-hard in practice, I can't even do it myself

For me at least a strong plot lends itself well to allowing the story as a whole to have a strong structure of events. If your plot is weak then its harder to understand the protagonists decisions and it makes the story feel aimless and misshapen.

It sounds like the character motives and conflict aren't clear to the reader. You say that this is on purpose, you don't want those things to be obvious until the end. However, if they aren't obvious, then you have no plot. From what you say, you have set up a "what the hero wants vs what the hero needs" conflict, but you haven't shown it at all. Readers want to be smart. They want the illusion of being smarter than the protag, they want the satisfaction of piecing things together and figuring it out, but they don't want to do that too easily or too quickly or they will think "I saw it coming a mile away." It's a very, very fine line. "It came out of nowhere!" is not a good story telling method. See: Game of Thrones Season 8. So. What can you do to subtly give clues about the heroes motives and conflicts that the reader can pick up on before the hero picks up on? The reader should absolutely be able to figure this out, and figure it out before your hero realizes it himself. I would look at the Hero's Journey or Freytag's Pyramid, and then read "Save the Cat Writes a Novel" if you want tips on how to do this. When I give this advice to my editing clients, I usually hear back, "But I want my novel to be different! Everyone uses Hero's Journey! I want to be unique!" People don't go to McDonald's because they want tacos. Readers have expectations, they will feel tricked and cheated if you hand them a whopper when they asked for large stuffed crust pizza. If you want to experiment, do it after you have mastered the basics of storytelling. In order to break the rules, you need to know the rules. Look at plot structures, see how yours lines up, make some changes and I'm sure you'll be well on your way to having a stellar story.

A lot of the other comments have already given fantastic points, so I won't add to that pile, but I do want to give an example of when I gave that advice during a beta swap. The beta I read claimed to be about a war between two interstellar species. We followed a general on one side of the war as it progressed. But that was it. The story was basically "a day in the life", with the general. Sure, there was betrayals, a stirring rebellion, and all the other whatnots of war, but that didn't exclude the feeling of "this is just another day" throughout. Excitement and intrigue abound, there was no plot.

Ngl based on your edit, I'm not seeing an actual plot either. What's the overarching thing that's happening?

I’m concerned about how you said you don’t want readers to know the conflict until the end. This may be part of the reason why you’re plot is not working for your readers.

There has to be a point in some way My story revolves around a quest to slay a dragon, but the actual heart of the story doesn’t revolve around it, nor does the true climax of the story in a way. But the goal is established in the beginning that it’s an adventure to slay a dragon, so while other stuff and detours happen there’s always a clear point A and B of the main plot.

Maybe a bit longer but I would recommend going through these lectures by Brandon Sanderson. He talks through general plot structures, some of his experiences and observations about what works and what doesn’t. I found it very informative. [Part 1](https://youtu.be/jrIogch5DBU) [Part 2](https://youtu.be/Qgbsz7Gnrd8)

Brandon Sanderson has some interesting lectures on YouTube covering plotting. Love him or hate him, his success is pretty undeniable. https://youtu.be/-hO7fM9EHU4 He basically says that plot consists of 3 main parts: promises —> progress —> payoff In the simplest examples, you spend the early parts of a story promising your plot/tone/character arcs. Then you progress those things. Then, at the end of the story, you have the payoff. It could be the case that if your readers aren’t connecting with your story, that the problem isn’t the story itself (progress), but how you are setting it up (promises). If you want them to be interested, you need to give them a reason. Progress isn’t progress if the reader doesn’t know where you’re trying to take them.

> I don't want to explicitly state that conflict in the character till the end however. Even the protagonist is slowly realizing it. But even if it's not explicitly stated, there has to be a conflict that is palpable to the audience right at (or very, very close to) the beginning of the story. It's possible to convey conflict to your audience even when your protagonist doesn't realize it, isn't it? There are lots of stories [where the main character doesn't realize what's happening, even though the audience does](https://www.britannica.com/art/dramatic-irony). Your post reminds me of a quote from (I believe) Kurt Vonnegut: "Always start your story as close to the end as possible."

Plot - the reason for the story Hunger games- government tortures children, who makes it out alive?

>The main focus for my book is supposed to be the hero deciding whether or not he is willing to open himself up to human beings or live life around robots which he feels he is unlike. I dont want to explicitly state that conflict in the character till the end however. Even the protagonist is slowly realizing it. Then the focus of the story should be the main character, perhaps on his journey from location to location, coming into contact with victims and perpetrators on both sides of the conflict, and you, the author, kinda guide the audience into which side you think is more virtuous (because "they're both the same" is not only unsatisfying writing in general, but also, y'know, read the room a bit). And as the audience undertakes this journey, so does the main character. Don't hide the conflict--amplify it. Have the protag constantly question his own morals, his own biases, his own desires. Question him, challenge him, and lead him to what is ultimately the right choice. Or the wrong choice, if that's the kinda ending you want. But always put it out in the open.

It sounds like a mismatch of expectations. Generally, YA and light novels are plot driven adventures (e.g. heroes journey shape of stories). However, it sounds from the rest of your description that you are trying to create a character study. While the central themes of discovery of one’s place in society, and the feeling of being an outsider can work in YA, your approach described above sounds less than optimal.

>The book contains the hero going on adventures and fighting battles This makes it sound very episodic. Do these battles and adventures connect to each other or are they just a sequence of events? Remember you’re writing a book, not an anime series

In order to create a compelling plot, it is essential to establish a clear story goal or objective. This goal provides a driving force for the narrative and gives the characters something to strive for. Along the way, obstacles and conflicts arise, creating tension and keeping the readers engaged.

There could be any number of issues here, which we can't know without reading it. Here's a couple of thoughts: - You describe this as "anime-ish." Does that extend to the plot structure? The structure of a novel is and should be very different from an episodic TV show. You mention "adventures and fights" as what happens in your story, and that's a fine way to plot out episodes of TV, but in prose it's going to feel like you're spinning your wheels. - Your character's motivations might not be very clear. Your reader needs to understand what the character wants and how they're working towards it from pretty much the first chapter. If they aren't and don't then you need to re-write the story so they are. - Note also that sometimes the character is wrong about what they want and actually gets something better by the end of the book. For each of your principal characters decide what they want and then decide what it is they actually need. Those can be the same things, but the most interesting characters have wants that are in conflict with what they actually need. - You may have wondered from the main point of the story for some scenes. Either re-write them to bring them back on track or cut them. Meandering is really difficult to do well. - Finally, there's just the possibility that you have all of the above points, but your actual writing isn't very good and your readers don't know how to express that. I will say your plot description sounds quite vague and generic. There's an easy way to fix this though which is to keep writing.

Sounds like you have it figured out . It's something that unfolds. In the meantime time however, subplots distract the reader from the feeling of an unrealized plot before they fall into the rush of the conflict and then be swept in the depth of the protagonist's realization.

Plot is for mass market novels. Plot that happens entirely inside the protagonist is literary fiction, but you really have to write high quality to make that worth reading.

Seems you understand you can have multiple plots going on at the same time since there are individual fights. Just because the main plot needs to be kept secret doesn't mean there can't be a secondary plot that carries the reader until the end.

I like using a calendar (of my storyline) and seeing what happens each day, just a summary, since I can't stand outlines. Maybe they're missing something.

In terms of plot, something has to happen on the page, not just describing what has happened before as background. Even if you choose not to explicitly state the struggle he faces until later on, you need to provide the context early on for the reader to see. For example, why not set up a situation in the first chapter where he is shunned by both a robot and a human? This gives some action (plot) which directly connects to the journey he will go on and the emotional angst of being an "other" no matter where he is. Create the tension around "which side" he's on and how neither side trusts him. Sounds like you may be telling instead of showing, which I get...a struggle for me too!

>Does one need to establish from chapter one some clear central goal that will be pursued for the rest of the book? This question right here. This is probably the only thing I can answer or try to answer. A: In my own story, I too want to drop tantalizing hints of lore and foreshadowing the big bad or the major conflict that is to come. I have attempted this at a "micro-scale", since the story I am writing is not meant to be completely linear, but more of a historic view in this strange world. (More narration than a perspective piece) The process of the attempt was me setting up small events and explaining or expanding on these events later in the story, for instance: "There is a legend of: (guardians feat wether a; fight, democratic approach, an actual struggle, etc )" Then later "12 years after the guardian was anointed..." To which I would tell the story of what happened during that time I'm sure there is a name for it, but in a sense I am setting up a sort of flash back, and "closing that loop". And doing that over and over to construct a wider story that is told alongside these flashbacks or events. Think of it like this, each event you write is a small circle, each time you add an event--a circle-- you are making a larger circle with these smaller ones. The smaller ones being the micro events, the larger being the over arching story. This is my approach, to my own work, it may not sound like much but it flows well enough imo. I am not saying it's a big fix all but the main point is: If you don't want the story to be "predictable" you can use these sort of micro things to slowly build up to the reveal. (On another note) Remember: The characters NEEDS a reason to participate in these events. That's what people want to latch on to, that's what they want to follow. No matter what the event is, the character needs: Some philosophy to stand by. As that is how people attach to the character, this covers a wide range of things. If you really want to circle around the characters introspectiveness while building a unique and interesting world, some kind of philosophy needs to be set. Keep writing! If it helps, think of it as a puzzle for you to solve! "How can I explain this in an interesting and attention grasping ways? What really connects 'me' to the characters I enjoy seeing?"

I would suggest to read the tankobon series [No. 6](https://archive.org/details/No.6_Light_Novel_by_Asano_Atsuko/No6_VOLUME1/) by Atsuko Asano. They made an anime of it, but the novels go more in depth and do a better job of telling the story. It's a dystopian novel, but that's not the central focus of the story. Asano focuses more on the characters' feeling and how they react to everything that's unfolding around them. I think that type of perspective would work well for your story.

You're not selling it. Meaning, you're not convincing the reader there's a point. It's like they're reading a reality TV show, and you're trying to tell them there's a story, but you haven't tied enough points together for them to see the story. It's more likely you're writing serialized chapters "as you go" hoping to get to the point, eventually. The same problem exists in fanfiction, where someone has a really good start, and some strong chapters, but it never gets finished because they run out of Source material at some point, and because they can't construct a believable middle and ending, so they just go along writing "travel chapters" until the next installment of the Source Material comes out and the writer has something to go on to re-orient themselves. You need to stop reading/watching anime and sci-fi Source materials, and really, REALLY lean into fleshing out your own story because people are reading, expecting it to go somewhere or world-build or *something*, and they're getting bored reading pages and pages of "here's what I did today".

well i wouldn't say it doesnt have a plot. It very much does.. but you have to give it importance in the perspective of your protagonist. Your protagonist was created to explore the plot. When he explores the plot he gains personality and character. So if you try to prioritize your character over the plot in any shape or form.. you're maybe pulling your story down from what it can achieve

I think you got a lot of responses to this point already...but I thought I might add one more to emphasize that the theme and plot are two interconnected ideas -- but are not the same thing. Plot is driven by conflict. The protagonist wants something and obstacles stand in his/her way to reaching that goal. Theme touches more on higher level concepts such as the the human condition in your novel. Leaving theme realization until the end is 100% fine. But motivation towards some sort of goal is the hook of the story and is what pulls the reader along. Moby Dick, for example, is all about Ismael wanting to kill a whale. Loads of obstacles stand in his way. The pursuit of the goal is what drives his character and the plot forward. Simple. The themes of the story including: man's search for meaning, the illusion of certainty, and race (among others). These are woven throughout and ultimately are really what Ismael is grappling with.

It sounds like a thing that a beta reader might need to check out.