I've always been happier with plot than character. Always start with a plot idea, and find a a character to go with it, not the other way round. I suppose I just feel more comfortable dealing with plot. Character is a bit of a mystical art to me...

Debbie, being aware of one's instincts and skill sets is important, not only to play to one's strengths, but also to develop in areas where we feel like we could be better. So the very fact you know you are "happier" starting with plot is a key insight. Re character and "mystical art": I like that description. Characters are and should be 'mystical' if we believe them to exist in their own story universe. That tenet in and of itself is mystical. We should want our characters to be free agents and act of their own accord, and that can be mystifying to try to understand who they are, why they are, and what their individual destiny is within the context of our stories. That said, speaking strictly about screenplays [as distinct from novels or short stories], this idea that Character = Function can be helpful for those writers who are more comfortable with plot and less so trafficking with character as it bring characters in from the ether and settles their feet into the foundation of the story's structure. In a screenplay, every character has a function. If they don't, they likely don't belong in the script. This is tied to the very nature of a screenplay which is at the end of the day a guide to produce a movie. Beyond that I believe that most movies have five character archetypes at work: Protagonist, Nemesis, Attractor, Mentor, Trickster. Using those as tools with which to dig into our story's primary characters not only reveals something of their Core Essence, keys to understanding why and who they are, they also help us to understand what their respective narrative function is. Now our goal is to craft our characters in such a way they are living, breathing free agents, but understanding which archetype function they fill can be key to getting a handle on and dealing with these 'mystical' entities.

My default setting is plot first, characters second. That may be due to my background. I trained and worked as a daily newspaper journalist, then moved into editing and writing comics. I spent years working in British comics where stories or their individual chapters are often only 5-6 pages long [unlike 22-page US comic books]. As a result of all that, I instinctively feel that brevity is king. So I face a constant battle to put character ahead of plot, to stop myself forcing the pace, to allow time and space for the characters to breathe, to express themselves, to be.

Sounds good to me!

I can't fully separate the two, as once I have a concept, who I create as my characters changes the necessary plot outcomes of my situations (also tone, of course.) So the same premise becomes a completely different story if the protagonist is a 60 year old ex-con trying to earn redemption, or if it's an idealistic college kid wanting to win over his crush. Both of them can stop the terrorists from blowing up the airport, (right?) but each will take a different path to so. I think that's how it works even as it breaks down past the "whole concept" into individual scenes. If someone says something lippy to a hardass, he'll punch them (which might have plot ramifications later), but if the protag's a wimp, maybe that'll lend itself to a resolution scene later when he's changed or something. I think I do the "work" of screenwriting mostly in plot, meaning that I spend the majority of my time actively working out ideas and structure and flow and all that. It's not bad work, at all (it's rather fun, actually!) but it's definitely the heavy lifting. That's opposed to writing the pages, where - as long as I can find something for them to be talking about - I can lose myself writing dialog between characters. I'll put on each character's voice and improv my way through, trying to maintain specific voice and perspective while staying interesting/funny/powerful/cool or whatever the tone of the script is. It's the fun part! Sometimes, I can see sometimes when I get a little to "off point" in a scene and, even if I've written solid character dialog, it's no longer moving the story forward. So it has to go. Then I guess my main focus is keeping the story going (plot.) I tend to see a character fairly vaguely - they're a sense of something that I understand, but I rarely write it down. I have a few choice sentences that describe them and then work to practice their voice as I write. Often I "cast" the movie and then certain actors' mannerisms and vocal pattern emerge. That's not to say I don't "know" my characters, I don't think. But I rarely do full page descriptions or histories or anything of my script characters - if I can't use it on screen, I don't really enjoy bothering with it.

I love characters. They are the ones who put life in the script. Through their actions, behaviours and their relationships with one another. And when you find the right dynamics between them, when they interact, the dialogues flow so much better and more easily. I also like to try and show them as real as I can, as human as I can because I want them to be interesting parts for actors to play. I'm also okay at concepts but I suck at plot.

David, one of the great things about writing is we bring what we have learned and who we are to the craft, which [hopefully] engenders our own unique voice. In some platforms such as TV, you almost have to begin with the givens, which if it's broadcast, means commercial breaks. Boom, right off the bat, you're into plot. So as you point out it is a unique challenge to find the characters and make them come alive amidst the strictures of the format.

DJ, in stark contrast to the approach you have described, Sinclair Lewis was asked when he knew he was ready to write a story he had been developing. His reply: "When I know the color of their socks." Somewhere along the line, I've read or heard character development described with an iceberg as a metaphor. What we see and hear of a character in a script or movie is the 10% that pokes out of the water. There is 90% below the surface which a reader or moviegoer can't see, but represents what we have learned about the character. I'm not saying that proportion is a rule [I don't believe in rules]. If your approach works for you, fantastic. Speaking personally, I just need to dig waaaaayyy into my characters, I need to have the heft of that iceberg-below-the-surface as background even if only 10% makes it into the script. To each his/her own!

Anne, I admire you brutal honesty! The funny thing is, I believe it is easier to learn how to work with plot in terms of a screenplay than to develop characters. Both can be taught, but characters, as noted elsewhere are in essence 'mystical' and thus require less logic and more belief to access. So the fact you "suck at plot" and but love working with characters, that can work to your favor. You can read any screenwriting book and pick up this or that paradigm related to plot, no problem. Developing characters and making them real, compelling and entertaining? A different and more challenging exercise.

In the spirit of the Quest, I'm interested in seeing if deliberate deeper development into my characters before I start writing will prove beneficial. Again, it's not like I don't have a strong sense of who they are, I just don't have much written down (the "what color socks" question is one I may not have answered before I start writing, but if it comes up in a scene, I'll know/figure out what color he/she wears...I'm hoping that makes sense.) But I'm working through this go on my own Quest thing, so I'm going to try to have specific writing exercises devoted to that kind of thing. Whatever makes my writing as good as it can be.

I work in IT so I tend to think very logically, making the plot the easiest part for me. First this happens, then this needs to happen, and now this happens, and finally that happens. The characters were just plugged in where they should be, like a hard drive or a motherboard. Prior to starting The Quest, I found an article related to character development where you answer 100 questions about each of your characters. I kept it as a template in Scrivener as I can see how it will really bring the characters to life, making them more "real". I have also tried to pay more attention to others around me when I am in public places. Maybe I will hear a unique accent or see someone with a particular mannerism and I think, "I really need to add that to character X".

"I suck at plot." I heard Jane Espenson say something similar on podcast recently, I think it was this one: http://www.nerdist.com/2012/05/nerdist-writers-panel-37-jane-espenson-and-douglas-petrie/ (And all the nerdist writer podcasts are fantastic: http://www.nerdist.com/podcast/nerdist-writers-panel/ ) Jane Espenson?! An awesome writer :-)

To me, there is a definitive relationship between character and plot that forms story. When you consider the way story works, you cannot separate them out, they are symbiotic. In response to those above who suggest that they think plot first, that 'this happens then this happens', it is not possible to think that something happens without involving the 'who' of it. In other words, it's happening because somebody (character) did something to somebody (character) else, which means they are not really thinking 'plot' first, they are thinking character and consequential actions. A story is driven by its characters ... it is a narrative of consequential events involving worthy human characters who change as a result of those events (James N Frey, How to Write a Damn Good Novel, St Martins Press, 1983). Is it a question of 'what comes first'? I don't believe you can sequence events without understanding the characters involved in those events and how they react to the circumstances surrounding them. I do, however, believe there is a relationship. Lajos Egri (The Art of Dramatic Writing, Touchstone, 2004) says on page 98, "The inference is unmistakable: character creates plot, not vice versa." In the following pages, Egri goes on to demonstrate how Aristotle was mistaken in his belief that "Character comes in as subsidiary to action." By examining Oedipus Rex, Egri shows that the character of the man is what created the plot; that were Oedipus any other type of man, tragedy would not have befallen him. In the ancient Greek plays, fate, as delivered and engineered by the Gods, was the central factor in the plot. In this case, such divine action was not considered the behaviour of a character. Today, we would think differently. In a story of man vs nature (e.g. Tom Hanks in Marooned) we consider the forces of antagonism that nature delivers to be a type character, we personify it and lend it human qualities. This gives us a sense of hope in the outcome. It is the narrative character who controls the plot. (In film the narrative character role can be assumed by the camera.) By this, I mean that it is the narrative character (the character telling the story) -- who may or may not be the central character -- who lets out the order of events to the audience, or withholds events from the audience, or is ignorant of events that have happened outside of their purview at a given time until they have hindsight. The narrative character may be following the events of the hero, or it may be the hero ploughing his/her way through the events. The camera acting as an omniscient narrative character may show us events before the central character becomes involved. These are all devices for controlling the 'narrative tension' of the story, a component of the plot. Creating character, understanding character function and following the trajectory of the main character through the events of the story provides the central bone structure to the plot. Without the character and the character's path, I don't believe plot exists. There's not a lot of interest in the plight of a rubber tree being pruned. Managing the narrative tension requires an understanding of the character's end point, and the point at which they become involved in the events, and what structures around them form the crucible of the story. Each character has his/her own world. It is when worlds collide that interesting things happen. Therefore the situations of the story that go to making up a plot emerge from the worlds the characters bring with them. In thinking about the overall story, I tend to begin my modelling with eight key character archetypes. Some of these archetypal functions (or masks) can be played by one character at different times, but by and large I find them to be present throughout the drama, even in a drama of a single character, these functions can be found within the character or the character's story world. The eight key archetypes I find useful are (modelled on those from Chris Huntley and Melanie Anne Griffiths' Dramatica):

> Protagonist (the character seeking the goal of the story) > Antagonist (the character directly opposing the protagonist's attempts to reach the goal, and seeking the same goal) > Guardian (the mentor character who is supporting the protagonist's efforts to reach the goal) > Contagonist (a character opposing the guardian's efforts who is attempting to divert the protagonist from the path, a trickster, a character with his/her own agenda, not necessarily in the employ of the antagonist, but may appear to be so) > Sidekick (absolutely loyal to the protagonist, the all important character who shows the audience what the hero is really like, the only character who can question the protagonist's motives) > Sceptic (playing opposite the sidekick, with absolutely no faith in the protagonist's ability to reach the goal) > Reason (the character of ethics and high moral conscience, providing the logic of the protagonist's journey) > Emotion (usually -- if there is one -- the love interest character, the character who holds the key to the protagonist completing the journey and reaching the goal)

Some of these character functions contain other archetypal functions within them (a shadow function, for example, may be played by an antagonist, contagonist or sceptic character). They are masks, they may not all be used, or have prominent roles, but I find them a useful way of mapping character functions that drive or create situations and cause further action. Every character has a relationship with the protagonist, and it this relationship that I like to put under the microscope, and examine what that character is bringing to the situation.

Scott, and indeed I am working on it, reading, watching, thinking, building, bouncing ideas off people around me. GITSfan, ha! So there is hope yet! ;) Thank you for the link, I shall be checking it out.

Character is my fascination and I tend to take a Jack the Ripper approach: a. Seek out my ideal lovely creature (male or female) b. Seduce them into a comfortable relationship c. Drug and immobilze them like insects pinned to a collectors board d. Dissect their every psychological, physical, and social fear When every ounce of their blood coats my creative tools, and their flesh is rendered on my puppet strings, then I'm satisfied. Well, until I find the next character willing, or unwilling to be my guinea pig. There are numerous times I have to fight like hell to string my puppets and achieve full control. If they are too similar to one I've already gained, I'll toss them into the dumpster. Those that refuse to be controlled usually drive my plots and I continue to chase them until they can no longer run.