As far as \u201cplot\u201d goes, as I get older I more and more suspect that \u201cplot\u201d is really being used, in the many incarnations of this argument, as a placeholder for a whole cloud of qualities found (or not found) in certain narratives, some of which actually constitute \u201cplot\u201d and many of which do not. What first led me to suspect this is the fact that many of the sternest exponents of \u201cI want novels to have plots, dammit\u201d are also demonstrably fans of, for instance, quite a few Robert A. Heinlein novels whose plots can barely be detected even by advanced scientific equipment. (Not just later Heinlein, either; go back and look at Beyond This Horizon). As it happens, I like some of those books, too, and what I learn from them, and from thousands of other books, is that what matters isn\u2019t the presence of a carefully-engineered, structurally sound \u201cplot.\u201d What matters is whether a book entrances us into reading it or forces us to decode it \u2014 and \u201cplot\u201d is just one of several methods of getting us into the reading trance. It\u2019s a good method. It\u2019s not the only one.<\/p>\n
–Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Making Light<\/a><\/em>, 2009<\/p>\n As far as \u201cplot\u201d goes, as I get older I more and more suspect that \u201cplot\u201d is really being used, in the many incarnations of this argument, as a placeholder for a whole cloud of qualities found (or not found) … Continue reading ![](\"https:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-content\/plugins\/send-to-kindle\/media\/white-15.png\")
Send to Kindle<\/span><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"