Filler Vs Depth/Substance

I have scenes in my fantasy novel that i feel like adds depth/substance to this fantasy world the story takes place in or either adds depth/substance to my character life. But i'm afraid since the scenes has no connection to the main plot or subplot, it would be looked at as filler.

For example:
The main plot in my fantasy story follows a new detective solving his first case a local school boy murdered.
The subplot follows him struggling to find love.

Now, i wanted to add depth to my character life by having my character do things inside this fantasy world like: Compete in a sports game that he loves. Take his parents to a new restaurant that opened up in his childhood neighborhood. Attend his best-friend wedding etc

None of these things effect the story plots but to me they add some kind of substance to the character life in this fantasy world

I do plan to add conflict to those scenes so they can be interesting......

Maybe its just me but i appreciate when reading or even watching characters do things in they life that allows me to naturally get to know them that doesnt require some plot point to advance a storyline.

Like if a character has kids, i would want to see them spending time with them and see the relatinship/bond they have with their children.

Normally people probably would find that stuff boring lmao but i feel if you add some conflict in those scenes then they could work.

Let me know what you guys think about this and your opinion.

 

You can probably find ways to tie the "extra" bits into the main plot. Like, show him spending time with his kids, but he keeps being distracted by worrying about the gory details of his case. The victim was a young boy, the same colour hair as his son, and when he's at the crime scene he thinks of his son, when he's at home he thinks of the crime, and it's all blurring together and there's no escape for him and it adds to the urgency of the story.

Or with a romantic subplot, the character he's interested in has some insight or new perspective on the crime or is connected to it somehow or lost her own son under similar circumstances and even though that case has been solved she's still upset by it all, or... whatever. Something.

I think if there was no connection whatsoever I wouldn't find it that satisfying, as a reader. I want to read one story, not two. But if it's one story that has several layers, that's excellent!

 

One of the key things brought up in the thread Homer linked to, I think, was plot-driven vs character-driven stories. If your story is mostly focused on plot, then asides about the main character hanging out with his family and playing games might seem out of place and pointless (unless, as Bayview suggests, you tie them together - which IMO is usually the way to go anyway). If the story is more about his involvement in the case, how it affects him and changes him as a character and impacts his life, then you obviously need those scenes.

Do you want to tell the story of a murder case, or the story of the detective solving the case?

 

Ooh, I like that distinction in the final line... that's a good question!

 

Though in counterpoint, I'm now wondering if everybody should come here instead

Personally, I would always have to say that the answer is "Yes"

 

Cute answer, but I'm not convinced it's that helpful in this case. Realistically, dealing with both is going to be a case of plot/sub-plot, and which is which will depend how much focus the 'character depth' scenes should have in the story. I'm sure it's possible to run two equally-weighted plots involving the same character in parallel, but I can't think of any book I've read where it's been done well. Understanding which is the main one feels important to me.

 

This is a GREAT question! It makes me think about what my first book is - a book about a cooking competition, or the two men who fall in love during it. I hope it's the latter, as that was my intent. But maybe not?

 

How about this:

• My first-person narrator Alec and my main character Charlie are walking into a bank
• Alec, thinking that Charlie's the boss and that she deserves the most important role in the job if she wants it, asks Charlie if she wants to get in line to give the robbery demands to the teller while he waits in the back to surprise security in case the job turns into a shoot-out
• Charlie, thinking that Alec is a slicker improvisor and people-person than she is, tells him that she's waiting in the back while he handles the teller
• Alec, thinking that Charlie's the boss, does as he's told and gets in line with the list of demands

Did the characterization get in the way of action (or vice versa)? Or did I manage to get both?

 

It's not a matter of one getting in the way of the other - of course you can have both. That's how stories work.

The OP was talking about full scenes that were explicitly removed from the main storyline, being there for no other purpose than to show the character doing other stuff, having a life, making them seem like a more solid human being. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but nor is it necessarily the right choice for the story. You can build characterisation in other ways, notably the way you've just described. @izzybot's question about what story you're really trying to tell, IMO, is a really good one for deciding whether or not that material should be included in that manner. Answering it with 'yes' doesn't seem like much use.

 

Oh, I mean it's surely both, but the question still taunts me. If someone recommended my book to a friend, would they say "your should read this book about a cooking competition" or "you should read this book about two guys in a cooking competition who fall in love and bone."

 

It's trickier b/c it's m/m... ties in to the dreaded other thread, but I think it's true... as someone who's read your book, I think if it had been a m/f relationship I would have been tempted to frame it as a show about a cooking competition that happened to have a pretty significant romantic subplot. But because it's a gay subplot, I think I might elevate it to plot status.

Weird, and not totally justifiable, but I think it's what I'd be likely to do...

 

And I've loved stories that did what the OP described

 

Well... good. I'm not sure what that has to do with the usefulness or otherwise of 'yes' as an answer, but I'm glad you've read some books you like.

 

Everything you said was EXACTLY what i was going to do..... i just felt like since they didn't move the story forward it would be looked at as filler when actually it was me adding substance to the story.

 

Yes! its very much character -driven... I'm more so telling the story of the character and getting to know him and his life and him solving crimes is just another aspect to his life and it helps that the cases have reflections on his life or people around him life.

 

It seems to me what you really need is a more engaging plot.
When was the last time a coworker or friend stopped to show you some snapshots of their kids, or their stupid pet cat dressed up for Halloween, or whatever... and you became totally engaged with their life? When I'm reading fiction, I don't want reflections or endless introspection of a character... I want a vivid, engaging story.
There's no need to fluff up a great story.
I have a friend whose a Homicide Detective, it is not just "another aspect to his life".

 

The difference between my detective and your friend is your friend HAVE to solve murders cause that's his job...my detective is self employed who solves crimes as a hobby, so he don't have to solve a crime if he don't want to. He made solving crimes apart of his life. Just like he made competing against his ex girlfriend soccer team every saturday apart of his life...it became a hobby to him. He's not being forced to do anything, he do the things he do because he wants to.