Plot structures are tools. All else being equal it's a good idea to pick a plot that's as simple as possible and hang the interesting stuff off that. The classic mistake of beginning writers is to go for complexity in plot and then spend their entire time serving that plot to the detriment of their characters.
That said, of course not every story fits into some basic set of plot outlines without some serious mental acrobatics. Plot isn't even necessary, what's necessary is getting inside people's heads. The classic plots (however they're formulated) are all good ways to do that but you can also do that with meandering unstructured prose, if you're good enough, though few people are and the further you get from universal tricks the more likely you are to run into serious disagreements over who writes really good nonconformist stories.
Maybe a good example is dialog. The beginner's mistake is to write as if people are listening and responding to what the other has said. e.g.
"Hey Joe, what's up?"
"Just whippin' up some breakfast."
versus
"Hey Joe, what's up?"
"Jesus, you look like shit. Want some breakfast?"
In the second example the reader fills in the blanks mentally. It creates engagement. Do that in the small throughout your book and few people will complain that you lack a plot. Easier said than done.
Plots are good. Use them. But they're not the whole, uh, story.
Can you give reference(s) for that beginner’s mistake? I’ve never heard it before and it’s definitely something I do. Would love to learn more about this!
I can't think of a specific ref off the top of my head but there are great books out there. Also, I used dialog as an example but what makes a story addictive is the act of filling in the blanks. You can do that with emotional transitions or imagery and that's what I meant by "do that throughout your book and few people will complain about a lack of plot"
Plots are a great tool in that they have that part built in.
I'm several champagnes in at this point on a transatlantic flight and we're landing but I'll go through my list of fave writing books when I get settled
In journalism/media school, we're taught "show, don't tell" in both our news and creative writing courses. You want to use detail to set the atmosphere/tone without flat out saying it.
I have heard that this advice is given for news, and I think that this is unfortunate.
"Show, don't tell" is not necessarily appropriate in news. News and writing for entertainment serve such radically different goals that it's worth carefully considering to what extent the same methods and models fit both.
When someone reads creative writing, they derive enjoyment from the mental reconstruction of the scene, the characters' intentions, etc. The writer may want the story to afford multiple interpretations and reward multiple readings.
But with news, the reader often just wants information. They may not be able to devote their full attention to the story, and they may lack the necessary contextual information to connect the dots you have laid out before them. The reliable transmission of information is more important than stimulating or entertaining the reader.
It depends on how obvious the lie is. If someone says "The earth is both flat and made of cheese", they are so obviously wrong that you could afford to just rely on the reader's common sense. But if they say "the economy grew by Y percent for the first time in Z years", it's unlikely the reader has the facts necessary to recognize this as a lie immediately on hand.
For less obvious lies, it would be helpful to lead with the truth (see the primacy effect on memory). After stating the truth, then you can say "but politican X said Y".
This is lampshaded in the Futurama episode "The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings", when Robot Devil complains about Fry's opera, saying that "you cannot make your characters just say how they feel. That sloppy writing makes me so angry!" (Quoting from memory.)
It's just a general clear communication principle that can take many forms. If you have filler content for the sake of padding out the work, it isn't communicating anything, and the audience will know it.
Take that thought in the other direction - how to communicate more efficiently - and you end up with snappy movie dialogue and non-verbal interaction that can push a plot forward really quickly.
With any kind of communication the challenges involve a mix of both knowing what techniques are possible, and having messages worth focusing those techniques on.
That said, of course not every story fits into some basic set of plot outlines without some serious mental acrobatics. Plot isn't even necessary, what's necessary is getting inside people's heads. The classic plots (however they're formulated) are all good ways to do that but you can also do that with meandering unstructured prose, if you're good enough, though few people are and the further you get from universal tricks the more likely you are to run into serious disagreements over who writes really good nonconformist stories.
Maybe a good example is dialog. The beginner's mistake is to write as if people are listening and responding to what the other has said. e.g.
"Hey Joe, what's up?"
"Just whippin' up some breakfast."
versus
"Hey Joe, what's up?"
"Jesus, you look like shit. Want some breakfast?"
In the second example the reader fills in the blanks mentally. It creates engagement. Do that in the small throughout your book and few people will complain that you lack a plot. Easier said than done.
Plots are good. Use them. But they're not the whole, uh, story.