Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
Character-Driven Versus Plot-Driven?
message 1:
by
Danielle The Book Huntress
(new)
Mar 25, 2011 06:03PM
Do you have a preference between the two, and why?
reply
|
flag
For me it depends on my mood. But I love a well rounded book that has both.
I like a mix of both, but I don't like books that have no forward plot progression, and are mainly the characters musing/talking and never doing anything that furthers the story along. I like to read books that are active, in general. However, I like a book with compelling, unforgettable characters, and their emotional evolution through the story.I have my rules and likes, but a good author can usually get me to eat my words. So it can depend for me.
Well said, Lady D. I agree.
Can I vote for option three, theme-driven? Because I think that is what I like best. Given a choice between the two, though, I think I would say character. Most of the time, particularly in fantasy, you have to have a bit of both. But a bit of slice of life never hurt anyone, and in this genre, it would be a nice, refreshing change. But, for your typical swords and sorcery, you need to have a plot or else it'll fall apart. I could never read a book that was ONLY plot, though. Plot and setting - either of those two things driving a story will drive me mad.
I love character driven books better for example Drizzt is all character driven, its all about how the actions of others affect him in all of his books.
I'm sleepy and my eyes are starting to blur. I thought the title of this thread was "character driven versus food driven" for a minute there.
Maybe you were hungry, Chris.Alexandra Victoria, I admit I am very motivated by theme when I read books. I tend to try to read every book I can find with a certain theme, like say Faerie.
Sometimes when I've read theme driven books I end up rolling my eyes...it seems that authors will start to neglect the story to continue with the theme.
I'm more of a character oriented reader, but that doesn't mean that the plot can be neglected for nothing but character development.
I love this question Lady Danielle,I love character driven books, and a good plot is a bonus. But if I don't like the characters it's very difficult for me to like the book.
For example, Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, no doubt it was a good book for many ppl, but I couldn't get into it. I felt no connection with the main characters, the plot however interesting, couldn't get me through the novel.
Another example, is the Soldier Son trilogy by Robin Hobb. The plot had many people disappointed, the magic system was too strange to comprehend sometimes. But I really liked it cos I felt a connection with the characters.
Wow. I mentioned food and Dawn didn't comment. Amazing.
You know I think it depends on the book really.
Like everyone else the wish is to have both, however given the choice, I side with character driven. After a bit of thought last night on my fav series I realized that the books I loved most were those with the best drawn characters. Novels that many tend to feel bogged down in or too slow, The Dragonbone Chair for example, often appeal to me because I enjoy the character development. Fast paced plot driven novels have a place in my heart but I'll take a slower novel with a well rounded character any day of the week.
Food?!?!? Where? I was just distracted by this yummy seven layer dip in front of me...
MrsJoseph wrote: "Sometimes when I've read theme driven books I end up rolling my eyes...it seems that authors will start to neglect the story to continue with the theme."That's not a good thing, and I suppose I have read books where they had a good premise and did nothing with it. Very frustrating.
Grant, I have to agree with you on what you've said for the most part. Even with very exciting, active books, I have to feel a connection to the characters, or what's the point?
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: That's not a good thing, and I suppose I have read books where they had a good premise and did nothing with it. Very frustrating."Yah. I picked up this really interesting looking PNR once - the plot was about this woman locked in a mental instution who could actually see, hear, and manipulate spirits. She ends up with a vampire and that's when the plot goes "poof." It had perfect set up for a great bool and then everything got tied up in a perfect little bow tagged "vampire."
I can see what you mean. It sounded much more interesting at the beginning, MrsJ. I'm very bored with vampires. I still read them, but I'm excited when I read supernatural/paranormal series that have zero vampires or very strange/different types of vampires if at all. And I'm more selective about vampire-themed fiction now.
Yeah, me too. Ever since Rice vampires have been typecast. Speaking of vampires, you might like Mercedes Lackey's Children of the Night. It has a different vampire thing going on.
Cool. I'll look it up.
@Adrienne; I love character-driven stories, but I've never been a huge fan of the bi changes. I really love a beautifully developed static character who we get to learn more about instead of seeing one we sort of know grow into one we never get to learn more about.
Adrienne, what you said in message 25 is why I dislike most literary fiction that I have read. I usually end up wondering what was the point of wasting my time reading that book.
Adrienne wrote: "I really love a beautifully developed static character who we get to learn more about instead of seeing one we sort of know grow into one we never get to learn more about..."
I think it just depends on everything else. They definitely do not need to change in order for it to be worth while, though. It can be an exploration of the character as he is, instead of a vision of the character as he becomes someone new. There are, of course, many a great, dynamic character, but I think static ones get put down way too much.
I think it just depends on everything else. They definitely do not need to change in order for it to be worth while, though. It can be an exploration of the character as he is, instead of a vision of the character as he becomes someone new. There are, of course, many a great, dynamic character, but I think static ones get put down way too much.
I have no idea. I never thought of it. And after thinking of it I still don't know. A book got interest me as to why i think I prefer fantasy over others. Its a new world to walk into and learn the rules of how things are, and anything can happen. (I don't mean 50 pages of them simply telling you of course.)
I think that if a person does not like the main characters it destroys the whole book for them.
Kevin wrote: "I think that if a person does not like the main characters it destroys the whole book for them."
That's a tough one. There are certainly many books (particularly fantasy books) where I must prefer the supporting cast, but I think fantasy also has a tendency to build up the supporting cast a lot more than most books. Often multiple viewpoint characters, and no less than five of them on 'screen' in most scenes. I mean, I don't like Harry Potter, but I love Harry Potter - for the Malfoys, Voldemort, Snape, the Weasleys, Hermione, Luna... just about every character but Harry, really. At the same time, though, a book with just nothing but unlikable characters is hard to push through. Not a fantasy example, but Confederacy of Dunces was like this for me.
That's a tough one. There are certainly many books (particularly fantasy books) where I must prefer the supporting cast, but I think fantasy also has a tendency to build up the supporting cast a lot more than most books. Often multiple viewpoint characters, and no less than five of them on 'screen' in most scenes. I mean, I don't like Harry Potter, but I love Harry Potter - for the Malfoys, Voldemort, Snape, the Weasleys, Hermione, Luna... just about every character but Harry, really. At the same time, though, a book with just nothing but unlikable characters is hard to push through. Not a fantasy example, but Confederacy of Dunces was like this for me.
There's always a tendency to make the main character rather lacking in personality, because they have to be the hero, but supporting characters are given free rein to be interesting.
I really don't care for completely static characters - I expect some growth. Most fantasy story lines are based around some type of major action and ususally those types of things cause a change in a person. I always question how someone can stay totally the same while in the midst of world changing activities. I think the only character that sorta gets away with that is Belgarath - but he's 7000 y/o. Most old people are pretty set in their ways.
@MrsJoseph; I've read it done well. But, then again, I near exclusively read fiction with characters who are no younger than 40, and up to (ignoring the immortality thing) about 70, so perhaps it is part of the "set in their ways" deal.
Alexandra Victoria wrote: "@MrsJoseph; I've read it done well. But, then again, I near exclusively read fiction with characters who are no younger than 40, and up to (ignoring the immortality thing) about 70, so perhaps it i..."Maybe its the theatre geek in me - one of the kisses of death in theatre is a static character...we'd work for hours in order to show character growth (in speech, tone, body language, which wall to play to, etc).
Mm, I think it is because when I was a kid, my favorite book was Sherlock Holmes (this was before I found Harry Potter and fell in love with fantasy), and Sherlock is perhaps the greatest example of a static character.
I lean towards character rather than plot driven. Ultimately, for me what counts is the style of the writing. A certain quality of the books that I enjoy most that comes down to something almost impossible to define about the way the author writes captures my heart and head.
Very true, Stuart.
I like to have a good bit of both. Characters to make me care, make me weep even and a plot that twists and turns and keeps me thinking.
i really am not sure which i could say i prefer. they are both factors to me.as better writers than myself have said, pleasure in novels can often be taken from 4 places: (1) characterization, (2) plot/narrative, (3) style, (4) themes. i would add (5) world building. a novel can be excellent in only one of those things and i will like it. for example, i thought Gardens of the Moon was weak in all things except for world-building, and in the latter half, plot/narrative also became stronger. but i still enjoyed it overall and plan on reading more.
my favorite modern series, ASOIF, is in my opinion, strong in all 5 categories. a rare thing!
Wow, I generally rate those two series the opposite way, Mark. Don't get me wrong, I love them both but I think more highly of Erikson's writing abilities than I do of Martin's. I'd rate Erikson 5 in all categories except for characterization where I'd likely rate him a 3 by your standard and Martin 5 in all categories except for plot/narrative where I'd rate him a 2. His plots are generally excellent but his never ending cliffhangers grow tiresome not to mention his glacier-like writing pace. Erikson could definitely take a page from Martin in characterization but at least each of his novels works as a standalone for the most part with a mini-resolutions at the end of each novel that are satisfying. Martin just keeps throwing hooks at us, never leaving one satisfied but anxiously, almost painfully waiting a decade for a possible but unlikely resolution.
interesting! and surprising as well. here's my rambling & probably very boring perspective, point by point....although i am only basing my perspective on the first two books of ASOIF and the first book of Malazan.1. Characterization. this is obviously martin's forte, his characters are so well-developed that the reader gets to know them inside & out - to the point that they can probably successfully predict what a martin character will do in any given situation. otoh, i think this is erikson's huge weakness. his characterization is shallow, his characters are either cliches or cyphers, and his dialogue is often awful.
martin: 5 out of 5. erikson: 1 out of 5.
2. Narrative. its those cliffhangers you mention that actually make me appreciate martin so much - i enjoy them a lot! even more importantly, martin has such a grasp of narrative that the different chapters with their different perspectives can occur somewhat concurrently instead of following one another, and the reader is not confused. i also think that martin's ability to keep a huge narrative, one based on who will win control of Westeros while enemies from the north & across the sea gather, in the constant foreground, while still carefully describing a half dozen 'smaller' narratives that are based on individual adventures, is nothing short of brilliant. otoh, erikson's control of narrative is less impressive, and his plot is often confusing. however he also has strength in this area, particularly in the second half of Gardens - he knows how to make a page turn!
martin: 4 out of 5. erikson: 3 out of 5.
3. Themes. martin's themes are clear - what makes a man, what makes an adult, how context & character affect motivation & action, etc. otoh, i have actually seen no discernable themes within Gardens, other than "war is hell".
martin: 4 out of 5. erikson: 1 out of 5.
4. Style. well, i should probably backtrack on my comments in the prior post because when i think about it, neither are real stylists as far as artistry of language goes. neither one is a jack vance or cathrynne valente or samuel delaney. however i'd again give martin the edge simply because of his take on the multiple-perspective style, and adjusting point of view so that it truly reflects each individual character...and how that new-ish style has completely impacted the modern epic fantasy novel. however, that is not really how i even define "style", so it is a stretch. to me, style is about the artistry of your language, word choice, sentence structure, etc...and not necessarily about the perspectives depicted. i also haven't seen any discernable style from erikson.
martin: 3 out of 5. erikson: 1 out of 5.
5. World Building, yahoo! i think they are both great. erikson is perhaps a little muddy & confusing in his world-building but i'm sure clarification will occur as i read more of the series. martin is superb.
martin: 5 out of 5. erikson: 4 out of 5.
Hmm okay before I sit down and drum up a reply I'm curious to know if you've read all the novels in Malazan chronicles or simply the first one? It makes quite a difference
Incidentally, I didn't find your reply boring at all! Quite the opposite!
Grant wrote: "Hmm okay before I sit down and drum up a reply I'm curious to know if you've read all the novels in Malazan chronicles or simply the first one? It makes quite a difference"no, and that is a very good point! from what i have been told by my better-read GR peers, the series only gets better from this point on. so who knows, i may revise upwards as i go through the series.
just bought Deadhouse today. woo hoo! and Before They Are Hanged, Kushiel's Dart, Assassin's Apprentice, and a scifi story collection by david marusek.
and thanks! i often wonder if i am just being a big bore when i ramble on...in many situations.
Ah see that makes alot more sense. I think if and when you read the entire series, you'll definitely revamp your assessments.
Ah geez. Great purchases. The Farseer Trilogy is basically my fav reads ever so I kind of have to recommend you immediately quit work, grab energy bars, insert an IV and a catheter and read the series nonstop start to finish.
Hardcore, baby. Hardcore.
Ah geez. Great purchases. The Farseer Trilogy is basically my fav reads ever so I kind of have to recommend you immediately quit work, grab energy bars, insert an IV and a catheter and read the series nonstop start to finish.
Hardcore, baby. Hardcore.
i'm excited about it. i've been reading so much about robin hobb in GR groups.but there's no way i'm putting down Name of the Wind right now. no way, no how! i would say that "its getting good" but it was good from the very first page. today during a staff meeting i was able to carefully blot out the droning voice of one of my staff during one of his interminable monologues - just by contemplating various wonderful parts of Name of the Wind. it was like magic!
Grant wrote: "Ah see that makes alot more sense. I think if and when you read the entire series, you'll definitely revamp your assessments. Ah geez. Great purchases. The Farseer Trilogy is basically my fav..."
ROTFLMMFAO!!! OMG, hardcore...
*now my husband and dog are staring at me trying to figure out what my issues are*
Lol..oh well you see you didn't say you were reading The Name of the Wind..my Second favorite book. Dang, your taste is really good! lol
Lmao @ MrsJ. Always glad to confuse the hubby and dog!
Lmao @ MrsJ. Always glad to confuse the hubby and dog!
lol!Man, you guys are like emotional rocks, The Name of the Wind has me tied in knots or in tears on a regular basis.
Am I the only one crying?
Honestly, I didn't think it was that bad. But then I had a traumatic life *shrugs* More than feeling sorry for him I respected his strength
you are right mrs. joseph, i am like a rock. i am also like an island. i've heard a rock feels no pain. oh, and an island never cries!
I think there has to be a balance between the two especially in the fantasy genre typically due to the lengths of books involved.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Memories of Ice (other topics)Children of the Night (other topics)
The Dragonbone Chair (other topics)
