Characters or World - what is the key to engagement for you?

[Vance]

The wrap-up for Ringworld was interesting because almost all of the analysis was about the characters. I read the book 20 years ago and I can't remember a single thing about the characters and don't recall finding anything about them, or the plot, all that interesting. But the concepts, the world, the ideas were so fascinating that I loved the book thoroughly.

Then I realized, thinking back over my favorite books, that the setting almost always has more impact on me that the characters, whether it be the world-building, the scientific concepts, the cool technology or magic. Ringworld, Rendezvous with Rama, the Riverworld books, Dune, any Heinlein or Asimov, even Lord of the Rings (I spent as much time in the Atlas of Middle Earth companion book as the books themselves, it seems), all captured me with the "world" more than any people. The corollary is that it is rare that a great story or wonderful characters will keep me interested in a setting I don't find fascinating.

If it is not a world I would want to travel to (Bridge of Birds alternate China or STNG's Enterprise), or a concept that I find myself obsessing over (Riverworld, eg), then I lose interest. Others, it seems, find the characters, relationships and their development the key to engagement regardless of whether it is set next door or in an alien world. I assume for some, it is a fairly even blend. What do you guys think?

[Rik]

Characters.

Right now I'm struggling through the third Malazan book. It sounds like a fascinating world but most of the characters lack much of a personality which makes it hard to keep them straight and hard to care about them.

[David(LA,CA)]

I think I'm a character over setting person for the most part. You can put me on a shuttle to space Disneyland, but if the only people I have to talk to are the cast of the Jersey Shore, I'm going to be looking for an airlock.

I don't know if that's been influenced by my personal reading choices of late (mostly Urban Fantasy, so you may need good characters to do the heavy lifting when your setting is "like the real world, but slightly different"). But lets take a look at our book pick for the month. The elements that make it truly different from a historical dramatic story didn't become a major part of the story until after maybe six hours of listening. If I didn't care about Cazaril and his life story before we first meet him, I'm not sure I'd have lasted that long.

[Mpauli]

Of course, ideally it's both, but if I'm put on the spot, I would say World.

There is a reason, why I'm reading SF/F. I think other genres, set in an author's version of our world (I don't believe in the concept that contemporary writing is actual about the "real" world) have great characters.
But when I was in school or university all the classics and must reads weren't able to catch my attention with their great characters.

But I was always fascinated by great plots and settings. So, I don't mind mediocre characters in a fascinating world with new concepts.
But I'm totally bored by great characters in a setting that doesn't interest me.
I tried to read books set in "our" world and never got something out of it. Even near future sf or urban fantasy is usually not able to grip my attention.
I'm always like "If I would really be interested in experiences someone made in country X, I could go there myself, if I really wanted to."

[Katy]

I don't think you can really put one over the other, as the characters have to fit well in the world that is created, and the world has to make sense for the character. However, that being said, I think I would have to go with character. Firefly would have been a lot different without Malcolm Reynolds and the rest of his crew. If the characters are boring, there's no way I'm sticking around, I don't care how fascinating the world is.

[Vance]

Mpauli, that mention of stories set in "our" world made me think. The only stories set in our world that appeal to me are either historical fiction set in a place/time I find fascinating, or (more rarely) an adventure in which there is a lot of "globe-trotting" to exotic places I would want to visit.

[Vance]

Katy, an interesting analogy for me would be STNG. While Picard and Data were interesting, I actually found the other characters actively annoying or just blah. But the idea of the ship and the universe they were in was what kept me coming back. I had a poster of a 3D cutaway of the entire ship! :0)

[Michele]

I'm much more about the characters. For example, I don't remember much at all about Abercrombie's setting, other than "brutal medieval fantasy setting" but I definitely remember Glokta and co. At least one character needs to grab me in some way - I have to like, love, empathize with, feel sympathy for, want to be buddies with, need to understand why...etc. If I don't care about the characters, the rest is just a pretty postcard picture.

[Joe Informatico]

Vance wrote: "Ringworld, Rendezvous with Rama, the Riverworld books, Dune, any Heinlein or Asimov, even Lord of the Rings (I spent as much time in the Atlas of Middle Earth companion book as the books itself, it seems), all captured me with the "world" more than any people."

I notice almost all your examples are more than 30 years old. I feel like back then, clever world-building could compensate for deficiencies in character or narrative, but nowadays--aided in no small part by big budget genre films post-Star Wars--everyone's familiar with the common genre world-building tropes and aren't as impressed by them. Consequently, characters and plot have become more important, especially since really original world-building doesn't seem very common these days. More like a few really original and clever ideas grafted onto otherwise pretty rote settings.

But I could be wrong. Have you read anything written in the past 20 years or so that really impressed you with its world-building?

[Mpauli]

If I think about four students from Los Angeles being approached by a professor, who gives them the plans for a dangerous weapon and aks them to bring the plans to Washington and destroy them and the weapon there, I wouldn't be that interested.
And although the bickering between the Greenpeace activist and the drunken miner they meet at the journey might be nice, the whole setting bores me.
Even the mysterious veteran, who protects them can't get my attention. Where did you fight again? Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't care!

But call this story the Lord of the Rings and set it into Middle Earth and suddenly I'm very interested. I'm weird like that.^^

[Vance]

Joe, that is an astute observation, I hadn't thought of that. Concepts like that in Riverworld (won't spoil), Asimov's Future History, Herbert's desert world, even Heinlein's Lazarus Long (more concept than character), just grabbed me. More recently I have been intrigued by the rich alternate history-esque settings of Tigana and Lies of Locke Lamora, but you are right, I have not come across that "wow" factor in ideas or concepts (maybe there, but haven't found them).

Mpauli: exactly. :0)

[Vance]

Michele, you are right, I would almost have to make an exception for Abercrombie, those characters definitely WERE the driving force. Without a world setting I found also appealing maybe that would not have been enough, but it is true that there was nothing particularly unique.

[Dara]

Michele wrote: "I'm much more about the characters. For example, I don't remember much at all about Abercrombie's setting, other than "brutal medieval fantasy setting" but I definitely remember Glokta and co. At least one character needs to grab me in some way - I have to like, love, empathize with, feel sympathy for, want to be buddies with, need to understand why...etc. If I don't care about the characters, the rest is just a pretty postcard picture. "

This. Characters. If I can't relate to, empathize with, love, or hate a character, I don't care if it's the greatest setting ever created, I'll have trouble enjoying it.

[Katy]

Obviously, setting is important for this discussion, because we all read this particular genre for the settings they are in. The question for me, is world building vs. character development. Obviously, you can have a few boring characters just like you can have a boring world. But where does it go? That's the important thing. If there is something new or interesting to explore, whether it is in the character or in the world, that is what ultimately keeps me engaged. I prefer fleshed out, realistic characters. That doesn't mean that I would read a book about boring students with a dangerous weapon, because I prefer certain settings from the get go. That's ultimately why I don't think you can choose one or the other. Your setting informs the characters and vice versa.

[Vance]

The more I think about it, I would bet that with a cool enough concept or setting, I could read a book describing just those, sort of a travelogue of the world, or a "science/philosophy" book about the concepts without any characters at all. It is as if, for my enjoyment, the characters and plot are just the vehicle for exploring the place or ideas.

Similarly, for others I am guessing you could take solid characters and a compelling story and transplant them into any setting without much diminution of enjoyment.

[Vance]

Katy, you are right, this is a self-selected group with a disposition toward particular settings to start off with. So, everyone here will have a bit of an "interesting world" requirement. :0)

[[deleted user]]

Michele wrote: "I'm much more about the characters. For example, I don't remember much at all about Abercrombie's setting, other than "brutal medieval fantasy setting" but I definitely remember Glokta and co. At ..."

I was going to immediately talk about Abercrombie when I saw the title of this thread - you beat me to it. Every time I comment anywhere about Abercrombie I point out that the characters are great and he has a certain flair as a writer, but the world-building is a bit underdeveloped. The positive elements definitely outweigh that drawback for me in the case of The First Law Trilogy, and I'd say that character is probably more important to me generally than an interesting world, although I do enjoy the latter.

I'm struggling a bit with a book I'm reading now, The Dragon's Path, because the characters aren't really drawing me in. The world is pretty typical of similar fantasy novels also, but I could do without that if I were feeling some investment in the characters. I don't want to be too hard on the author though; I'm a bit burnt out on fantasy and would probably have a hard time enjoying anything in that genre right now.

[Sandi]

It's all about character for me. Settings are important and worldbuilding is cool, but it should just be background for human (or alien) interaction and development.

[terpkristin]

Sandi wrote: "It's all about character for me. Settings are important and worldbuilding is cool, but it should just be background for human (or alien) interaction and development."

This is mostly how I feel. I like characters and I like them to do things. But it's more fun if they have a cool world that they interact with. :)

[A.L.]

If I had to chose I would prefer character over world but I do prefer both being strong. If the characters are weak I find myself not giving a damn.

[Mpauli]

Katy wrote: " That doesn't mean that I would read a book about boring students with a dangerous weapon, because I prefer certain settings from the get go. That's ultimately why I don't think you can choose one or the other. Your setting informs the characters and vice versa."

I think this is the ideal, of course. And on top of that, you need to have a plot that comes straight out of the conflicts created by the different desires and motivations of the characters and the political, social or cultural inequities of the setting.

If one of the components isn't executed well, than the book usually lacks.
I'm always a bit biased against the overwhelming "characters are more important than anything else" theories. This is actually an opinion that is taught a lot in school and university and for me this literature trope is boarding on pop music.
I always ask the question, how you would react to a five-hour movie with Johnny Depp, where he does absolutely nothing! In a white room with a chair. Cause many books I read, that were advertised as being great character driven novels actually felt a lot like that.
Therefore I would prefer those mediocre characters, who actually had something happened to them in an exciting world to all those beloved great characters, who just sit around doing nothing and reveling in their own glory. Yes Kvothe, I'm looking at you right now.^^

[Michele]

I love give Johnny Depp a shot, as long as he wasn't covered in horrible white makeup :)

I'd rather read about Master Li and Number Ten Ox going to the grocery store than pages and pages of descriptions of blue trees and weird alien fruits. Now I do want there to be world building of course, but even Name of the Wind has basic "medieval with magic" and I'm very much enjoying the journey of Kvothe's coming of age.

It all depends on the story and the plot in the long run. Paul Atredies is a great character, but the Dune universe is an amazing world for his story to take place in and one without the other wouldn't work as well. Tolkien' Middle Earth is detailed down to the last ant crawling on a leaf but without the quest to destroy the ring and those who take part in the quest it would just be "alternate history medieval earth with elves and stuff." If you didn't care about the hobbits and everyone else then why care about Sauron winning? Bad or paper thin characters would leave you thinking "Meh, who cares if it all goes boom?"

So, it all needs to work together - plot, characters, and setting. But for me personally, the characters are what make the other things matter.

[AndrewP]

Vance wrote: "Then I realized, thinking back over my favorite books, that the setting almost always has more impact on me that the characters, whether it be the world-building, the scientific concepts, the cool technology or magic. ..."

Over the long term I think I agree with you 100%. I may remember the characters in a book I read 6 months ago, but books I read 20 years ago I remember exactly what you mentioned. LOTR and the Thomas Covenant books being the only notable exceptions I can think of.

A good mix is of course the best solution but for me books that are only character driven are like soap operas. Stick a bunch conflicting personalities in 'x' situation and see what happens.

In terms of characters, I think I enjoyed Voyager more than STNG. The most interesting characters were Seven of Nine and the Doctor because they did not always react like 'normal' people would.

That's my 2c :)

P.S. Looking for creative world building, literally, try Matter

[Rick]

Characters/plot > world for me. That is, I need a good story and engaging characters. I'd LIKE an interesting world but that's secondary.

Of course, this varies with the kind of story a bit. For example, Stross' Accelerando is populated by fairly standard characters but the world is fascinating... then again, it's a novel about humanity as it hits the singularity - when the main theme is 'reality is changing' the worldbuilding becomes critical.

However, plot is a must and I'm surprised to see it missing thus far in the discussion. After all, the story is how the characters and the world reveal themselves to the reader.

[Joseph]

Character/Plot way over world, as many pointed out I know very little about Abercrombie's world, and although Lynch created a wonderful setting it's the characters that drive my interest and pleasure.

An interesting world is a bonus, though naturally these elements, if correctly and skilfully handled, can all become entwined together which is the perfect combination.

I'd struggle read a book with boring, unlikable characters that aren't interesting yet a fantastic world. It seems an odd stance to take for a genre, we must be the only one that does think that way.

[David Sven]

Rick wrote: "However, plot is a must and I'm surprised to see it missing thus far in the discussion. After all, the story is how the characters and the world reveal themselves to the reader. "

This. A Good plot can overcome either sparse characterisation or world building - but I think it's a lot harder to do without good characters.
If the plot and characters are good enough I can throw the world building out the window - to a degree. Good plot plus good world building can also compensate for poor characterisation but it's a lot harder to stomach for me.

[Tadhg]

plot > character > world building
But just barely. If we rated each of these out of ten, I don't think you could have a good book where one was 0/10. But I do think 10/10 for one could carry lower ratings in the others.
I think this may be genre dependant to an extent: I struggle more with a world building heavy book if it's SF. Regarding Ring. world, I couldn't finish it, but I seem to be going through a reading slump atm. The characters were a bit 'meh' for me

[Rick]

Plot is What.
Character is Who.
World is Where.
Story is Character + Plot + World.

You need all three and no, character and plot aren't the same.

[Dylan]

For me, the thing that first drew me to spec fiction was the otherworldly setting. It stirred my imagination and took me other places. As I got older and became more drawn to science fiction in particular it was the scientific concepts that grabbed me. But over the years I have found that characters/plot (in my mind you cannot really have a strong story without both--this has been pointed out in the comments above as well) really make a story for me.

I read primarily in the SF genre because the fictional world is what interests me, but what makes it actually interesting and more than a cool textbook diagram is the possibilities that open up when certain events and characters equipped (or unequipped) to handle it are placed in it. It's the human element. Otherwise, speculative science or fantastical history textbooks would be my primary choice of reading material (though I think they'd be kind of cool anyways...).

[France]

A cool world building is what will make me pick a book in the first place. There are some many books out there, the ones I choose need to have something special, and it's often the world that's advertise best in the blurb. If the world don't interest me, I'm not likely to read the book, I'll just pick an other one. So one point for the world.

I also realised that the stories I love are the one with great characters. If I pick up a book that doesn't have an interesting world, because I was told it's pretty good, or because of school, I can end up liking it more than a story I would have chosen myself, simply because there are some characters I found amazing, and they got me deeply engaged in the story. So one point for the characters.

So well, I can't choose.

[Dazerla]

I think world, plot and characters are all important. Also, if two of the three are really good it can make up for the third being average is subpar. Of course this can only go so far if your world is completely ridiculous or I actively hate all of your characters I'm not going to like your book.

[Serendi]

I have to like enough of the world, the plot, the characters to keep going. It's not so much - if this element is strong, I will engage - as - I like this setting, I like this/these character(s), I like what's happening.

I much prefer genre, particularly SFF or mystery, to "mainstream." Within that, I much prefer a character solving a problem(s) over a character finding him/her/itself. That can be an element, but don't make me plow through a whole book of it. Growing up, coming of age, can be wonderful when the book is about figuring out by *doing*, not by endless reflection. (As a sidebar, I hate it when what appears to be a genre book turns out to be about a mentally ill person imagining it all. If that's one possible take, it *can* work (forex (view spoiler)[The Iron Dragon's Daughter imo was NOT about that, it was two genuinely linked worlds (hide spoiler)]) but really, know which genre you're in. (Also, don't write pure fluff in book/story 1 and go all Serious in the sequel.)

And politics bores me, as I'm becoming increasingly aware. It fascinates others; this is one of the reasons I think being engaged is less about whether the world is well-developed and more about whether the world is one that engages *you* in particular. Another example: A lot of people find all the ship talk in David Weber's Honor Harrington series to be a total turnoff, but there's a hugely active conference on Baen's Bar (at least when I was reading it a few years back) that is about nothing else. It's about whether it hits your particular buttons as much as anything.

At least this is my current take. I'm still working on it, as witness the fact this is like my sixth edit.

[Vance]

So, it seems like there is a slight edge toward characters if forced to choose and, of course, all prefer a book to have all of the elements in full force! :0)

I guess for me it is not just a matter of an interesting world or concept that, but one that grabs my imagination entirely. A scientific concept that I just keep thinking about, a setting I yearn to visit. It is a sliding scale, but when those things are compelling *enough*, I will soak it up whether the characters or plot live up to equal billing. And it ends up being those books that stick with me 20+ years later.

[AndrewP]

Yeah even if the plot and characters are important now, in 20 years, what will you remember about Ringworld? I would guess that nobody would remember anything except the actual description of what the Ringworld is. That sticks in your mind, characters and story.. not much. At least, not for me.

[Vance]

Exactly, Andrew, that is what sparked this question for me. I loved Ringworld when I read it, and still find the entire concept of the "ring" fascinating, but I couldn't tell you ANYTHING about the story or the characters.

[Katherine]

Whenever I've persevered with a book because of the world and in spite of its characters I've regretted it. I'm thinking Brandon Sanderson's "Mist Born" series. On the other hand, I can absolutely think of books I've adored that were set in a place and/or era I was utterly indifferent to - "The Book Thief", for example. Having said that, even general fiction books that I've adored have an element of "world building" in that the time or place is foreign to me. It's just occurred to me that the only book set in my home country of Australia that I've really enjoyed (I usually avoid Australian books like the plague) is actually a dystopian novel and thus, the setting is immensely important - "Tomorrow When the War Began".

So like most people here, world is important to me but not so important that it can ever make up for characters I don't care about or a flimsy plot.

I'm curious Vance, if in real life you're more interested in concepts and ideas or facts and less so in people or situations, unless of necessity?

[Robert]

Even in a series of books where where the world creation is the main star (such as Discworld) I still need compelling characters. I like to see characters grow and evolve with the story line.

[Vance]

Katherine, that is absolutely true. I am an academic by nature and find ideas, information and places much more interesting than people and interaction. I think you may be on to something there.

My wife is very social and needs the personal interaction and engagement while I am perfectly content at home soaking up information in one form or another. When on vacation, I am in study and data collection mode and she is chatting up everyone she meets. Actually works well for us, in an odd way. So, that could explain a lot about my reading preferences as well.

[AndrewP]

Vance, your home sounds exactly like mine :) My wife and I are exactly the same as you and yours. Perhaps that's why I am the only one who seems to get your point in this thread :)

[Vance]

Andrew: great minds . . . :0)