Is plot important, or do you believe a great writer can take any small subject and make it something great?

Question

i don't mean that there is no plot in the story, i just mean that it isn't necessarily the most important aspect

Answer 1

anything can be made great by a great writer just look at jack kerouck he describes absolutly nothing really happening in the way of a plot but what he paints with his words are amazing
read either america "a poem" or on the road "a book" by the author

UUM I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THE WHOLE BEAT GENERATION THEY WHERE SO STONED OUT OF THIER MINDS THEY COULDNT GET TO A PLOT BUT THE WRITING IS ENTERTAINING GRAPHIC AND DEPICTIVE
also to write a good book you dont nessaserily have to have a plot to start you can allow it to develop through small subject to small subject and a plot will emerge

Answer 2

Any writer can tell you that plot is not the most important element to a story. Indeed, something must happen. Even in the most inane story, something happens. There must be a plot. There must be an obstacle to a goal...a departure from a character's normal world so the character can return to the norm.
Charles Dickens wrote "Great Expectations" after people criticized his work for not having a strong plot. But he was already popular. There are other elements that can make a story work, so long as the writer is talented enough. Characterization is another popular choice. Read John Cheever to see characters that operate in average plots. Most of his stories appear to be about nothing happening, but the characters are enough to keep small plots (i.e. a superintendent of an apartment complex lives through a moving day) moving.
Some people answered your question by saying that fancy language means nothing. Indeed, flowery, poetic sentences mean nothing if they don't push the story along or emphasize some important point. Any writer with a spot of knowledge will tell you "if it doesn't help the plot, cut it." The flowery crap slows down the story, and nobody will read it. But by no means does the plot have to be the greatest of all things.
Many people mention Jack Kerouac. "On the Road" was nothing but Dean and friend travelling the nation and partying. No plot, really. Moved an entire generation of writers.
Disregard those that say "if there is no plot, there is no story." It is a true statement, but answers a different question than the one you asked.
I enclose a link to Cynthia Kim's flash fiction story, "Called on Account of Darkness," which has little plot but one amazing character portrayal:
http://www.storybytes.com/view-stories/2002/called-on-darkness.html

Answer 3

A great writer can take something like boiling a tea kettle and make it seem important, dramatic and worth reading. Subjects great and small are the stuff of great writers.

"Plot" doesn't necessarily mean solving a murder or catching a spy. Plot is the structure that gets your characters from point A to point Z.

If you're asking if big blockbuster subjects are important, I actually think the better the writer, the more they stay away from the subject matter that you find in your typical bestseller.

To each his own, though.

Answer 4

I am very plot oriented (in my reading tastes) but I believe a great writer can make another aspect be much more important. Is the important aspect of "Catcher in the Rye" what happens, or the growth of the character? I think the growth. The same can be said with the relationship between characters in some instances.

Answer 5

I'm sure some readers without much imagination will suggest that they need plot to keep them "interested" and that's fine. The shelves are filled with plot-driven narratives from the mundane (Grisham, etc.) to the sublime (Dickens). But there are so many great books and writers who either are not driven primarily by plot, or who seemingly ignore it altogether because they wish to explore ideas or character or existence or something other than a "cliff-hanger." Examples: Jack Kerouac, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Tom Stoppard ("Rosencrantz & Guildenstern is Dead" is hilarious -- AND NOTHING HAPPENS!!!), and William Faulkner. Modern masters might include David Foster Wallace and Colson Whitehead.
Look, like everyone else, I like a good narrative with suspense and scope, but there is so much more (as a reader) if you have an imagination and a writer who can shed light on something in life worth exploring.

Answer 6

i dont really read books but i do knwo that plots are important to the story for people to actually read,. Without plots the story would have no climax. I do think that a good writer can take nothing out of something so i do think its possible but the story would probably be boring withought any conflict or anytihgn. I dont think the story would be interesting to sell withough a good plot. the only writing with no plot can be poems, so yes a great writer can take any small subject and make it soemthing great.

Answer 7

Plot? Oh heck no, nothing more boring and unnecessary than a plot! Are you crazy, kid? If there is NO PLOT then there is NO STORY, be the writer great or not. A great writer doesn't write without a plot. This is about the dumbest thing I have seen here to date, unless it's the absolutely inane posting by izzard that tells you Jack Kerouac had no plots to his work. The answers here get lamer and more asinine every time I look at them! And Amanda down below just babbles on without engaging her brain (of course she might not have one to engage)! BTW: Mr. Num Num got it right!

Answer 8

A great writer can take a small subject and make it the central theme of the plot without the reader ever knowing that was his goal. (That way they aren't bored by description, it's applied to a situation, and in context.)

Answer 9

The stock English teacher's answer might be "Yes, a great writer can take any small subject and make it something great."

Personally, I need a plot to keep me entertained. "Dazzling writing skills" mean very little to me if I'm bored witless.

Answer 10

Plot.

James Joyce tried to do that ("small object etc.") in Ulysses and it sucked. It SUCKED, and DON'T tell lme I'm wrong because you KNOW it sucked!


And if James Joyce couldn't do it, then it can't be done.

Without plot, the book drones on and on aimlessly, kind of like that Britney Spears video ("Do you think there's time travel? buuuuurp. Because Ah do...").

Plot. Definitely plot.