How to not let subplots run amok in fantasy fiction

When writing a fantasy story much focus is given to world building and character development. This focus can greatly enrich the story world… though there is also a pitfall in it for those of us who write the story.

Characters come to life, landscapes take form, cultures are developed, costumes and customs are established. As you create a fantasy book or series you do not want to miss an opportunity to enhance the reader’s experience. This is a work of art. You want it to shine. All of this leads to an endless supply of subplots within the main story. It may be as simple as a secondary character who needs more personality in order to interact more realistically with the main characters in the story.

The wise writer files away an array of subplots. Histories of lands and biographical data on secondary and background characters, for example. But sometimes we get carried away by the ideas the subplots deliver and we let the story follow rabbit trails as we flesh out minor characters. Certainly there is validity in doing this when drafting fantasy novels, but it is imperative that we remember to focus the story on the main characters.

I was reminded of this recently while watching The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies for the first time. Peter Jackson allowed the story to follow so many minor characters that, even though the movie had great moments, it lost its punch. Characters wept over fallen comrades, and I could not weep with them because I did not feel an affinity for their loss. I did not “know” their comrades well enough to miss them. If the movie had stuck to following a couple characters a more coherent story would have resulted and greater emotional attachment could have been achieved. Instead it followed a slew of characters and tried to make all of them equally important.

A subplot is fantastic for enriching a fantasy tale. If we are following our main character and they encounter a minor character, it benefits the story if that minor character is given a history. But where we must be careful is in not immersing ourselves in that minor character. The story must pull back to the main character so that the conflicts continue to be resolved in a coherent manner. A great example of this is in Harry Potter because J.K. Rowling always kept the story on Harry and varied from him only rarely to enhance certain plot elements.

Stay true to the main character. File away the majority of your subplots. Who knows? Maybe someday you will dig into those files and write an altogether separate novel to cover the subplot.

Question: What examples of good or bad use of subplots in fiction stand out to you?

Character Arc: Lessons Learned or Change Achieved? (Guest Post by Gillian Bronte Adams)

“To me, characters lie at the heart of any story. Characters drive what happens when and where, and the way they grow and change over the course of a story is what makes a book either memorable or easily forgotten in the already-read pile.

But it seems to me that in Christian fiction, we too often think of a character’s arc as the path they take to learn a lesson by the end of the book, rather than the change and growth achieved along the journey. We put the cart before the horse, and often fall into the trap of preaching a Sunday School lesson rather than telling a whopping good tale.

The problem with this is that it doesn’t feel real.

I don’t know about you, but in my life, I’ve made my share of mistakes, been through tough times, and learned from them. But those lessons were rarely tied up in a neat little bow. More often, they were like Eustace’s change in Lewis’s Voyage of the Dawn Treader, who “began to be a different boy” after he was un-dragonized.

We tend to muddle our way through life, changing, growing, and hopefully being shaped more into Christ’s image each step of the way.

Change rarely happens overnight in the big lessons learned. It is far better seen in the little moments, in the gradual slipping from one decision to the next.

I would venture to say that the purpose of Bilbo’s journey in The Hobbit was not to show how he could come home a different hobbit than the one who had set out. That was just a byproduct of the quest. Don’t get me wrong—change in a novel is important. It is a sign of growth and life, and if the character who walks offstage at the end of the novel is the same as the one who stepped onstage at the beginning, you probably have a problem.

But I believe the true heart of a story is less about teaching your character (and thus the audience) that A is wrong and they should become B instead, and more about showing your character wandering from A to B, changing and being affected by their decisions along the way.

Otherwise, you risk winding up with a story that feels like a collection of scenes and pithy statements contrived to teach your character, and by extension the reader, a lesson. Like old fairy tales where every story had a moral. “Be polite to strangers … or bad things could happen to you.”

In the end, character growth comes down to the old “show your story, don’t tell it” adage. Often when characters “learn a lesson,” what you’re really seeing is the author intruding into the novel to impose a sermon on the story. I’m not saying it can’t be done, or that there isn’t a time or place for it, but that’s when readers are more likely to complain that Christian fiction is preachy rather than impactful.

On the other hand, character change that naturally follows the course of events and is seen through actions rather than told through what has been “learned,” results in a much more vibrant story. A story that feels true rather than contrived. A story that may stick with the reader long after the last page has been turned.

What are some elements of character growth that you think encourage a story to be impactful without being preachy?

GILLIAN BRONTE ADAMS is a sword-wielding, horse-riding, coffee-loving speculative fiction author from the great state of Texas. During the day, she manages the equestrian program at a youth camp. But at night, she kicks off her boots and spurs, pulls out her trusty laptop, and transforms into a novelist. She is the author of Orphan’s Song, book one of the Songkeeper Chronicles, and Out of Darkness Rising. Visit Gillian online at her blog or Facebook page.

Movie Critic: A Plastic Legolas?

Fantasy characters grow. They evolve or change in any well-conceived story world. But in Peter Jackson’s movies I felt a disconnect with Legolas’s introduction to The Hobbit movies. Did you notice the change?

In The Lord of the Rings movies we met an exciting Legolas, one unafraid to battle but also willing to revel in a jolly good time with his comrades. The rivalistic relationship of Legolas with Gimli the dwarf provided the movies with their strongest humor moments. (Remember how they kept track of their kills during battle in order to score who was the best?) And Legolas was intuitive and borderline wise as he assisted Aragorn in his quest.

Personally I feel that Peter Jackson’s last film in this series, namely The Desolation of Smaug, was superb. The characters were put forth with superb creativity and intrigue. But I make exception for the introduction of Legolas into the film.

The CGI work on his face made him stand out like a sore thumb (or an odd Elf in this case, LOL!) It reminded me of the way that CGI work brought back the young Flynn in Tron: Legacy and how they put Arnold Swartzenegger into Terminator Salvation. It was fun to see Legolas again, but his stiff doll face kept demanding my focus. Worse than that, he lacked expression. True, he’s an Elf, but the expression of his eyes empowered his character in TLOR movies and that was missing here.

Devoid of humor and lacking his roguish side, the new Legolas leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately, it was Smaug the dragon that ruled the screen in this film.

Question: Did you like or dislike Legolas’s portrayal in Desolation of Smaug? How do you think it compared to the Legolas we knew in The Lord of the Rings movies?