Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
Character-Driven Versus Plot-Driven?
date
newest »
newest »
mark wrote: "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!"LOL! I can't see how I'm the only one crying.
I cried when I first read it, you're not alone :)
Nicki wrote: "The Name of the Wind definitely tugged at the heartstrings but I don't cry very easily when I'm reading books. Sort of a shame really, it would make the sad moments more cathartic, although probabl..."Haven't read Kay but I think I know what moment in the Dark Tower series you're talking about (but I may be wrong...I haven't read the last 2-3).
You should read some Kay, MrsJ. I think you'd really like it.
Grant wrote: "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"I am the same way-I deal with a lot of real life horror with my job (I work with abused and neglected children plus I do foster care) and so maybe I have seen too much but I didn't feel sadness for him I was waiting for the point! But I guess that's the problem with telling a story chronologically
mark wrote: "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 ..."Wow-I have to agree with Grant here. But if you only read the first Malazan book I guess that makes more sense...in my opinion Malazan is a much stronger entity.
Malazan has the only book that DID make me cry...Memories of Ice
What can I say, I'm a wussy. If I had a magic power that I couldn't choose, with my luck it'd be empathy (al la M. Lackey).
I also bawled like a baby during Fionavar Tapestry EVERY TIME I've read it! It's extremely powerful.
i teared up a little near the end of the second book. at a love scene for chrissakes! well it was a very emotional love scene and a long time coming.i have yet to read the third novel - but i will soon. very soon!
I sooo need to read Fionavar! Someday. I need more reading time :P
Dawn - it is probably my all time favorite. I re-read it every year. I think it defines me as a reader. There is amazing characterization, a phenomenal plot, weaving of myth and culture... I want to say more but the surprises are so amazing, i don't want to risk ruining anything for you. Please read it! I'm begging!
It's a bit fantasy-kitchen-sink, but that was the point.
I really want to! And soon! But I feel that way about around 100 books right now. I need more free time!! LOL
laurel, re The Fionavar Tapestry: comments from you and another lady, elizabeth, are what caused me to start reading (and continue reading, after my challenges with the beginning of the first novel) the series in the first place. i owe you one!i actually wrote the sentiments above in another thread altogether, accidentally deleted the post, and then promptly forgot all about it. it just came back to me!
Mark, I'm so glad you liked it!The same thing happened when I first started reading the Malazan series. I was 100 pages in and just couldn't see what the fuss was about. But, so many goodreads people loved it, I kept on reading and by page 150 I was hooked!
I need both a strong plot and great characters, too. I think that they go hand in hand.
I used to cry over some sad endings. Over the years, however, my heart has hardened and I'll admit I've become quite cynical. Sad endings don't really get me anymore.Maybe if I'm coming down with the flu and a story catches me off guard I'll get a lump in my throat and my eyes will water, but that's about it.
I read The Summer Tree for our group read, and had some trouble getting into it. Once I did, I loved it. I still must get to books three and four.
It takes a lot to make me cry. I wouldn't say I'm cynical, I'm just not a crier. Hobb gets me every time.. The Dark Tower got me... Harry Potter.. NoTW.. Other than that, I can't really think of any books that I straight out cried during. I mean I'm sure there where a lot where I felt a lump in my throat, almost cried.. But not full on tears. Well, not counting Nicholas Sparks.. I used to read him during my teeny-bopper romance days, he always got me :P
When I feel invested in a character and something horrible happens to them I cry like a baby. If I'm not invested? I could care less. I think that is the major difference between Plot vs character driven novels. TNoTW is very character driven and the only way to enjoy the book is to invest in Kvothe's character. The plot (whatever it is) is playing 5th fiddle to Kvothe - so when Kvothe is getting run over by life again and again I find myself all choked up.
The only books that made me teary eyed were The Tawny Man trilogy by Robin Hobb. I read my first Kay novel a couple of days ago, the Lions of Al Rassan, and i liked it, so i am glad i have the Fionavar Tapestry to look forward to, i guess since it's epic fantasy it has more magic?
I read Lions and just did not get it...lol. I couldn't figure out why these people were even friends...lol His writing was beautiful, but I still had a hard time finishing. It is the only Kay I have read though...maybe others are a better example.
I wasn't blown away by Lions of Al Rassan either but it was a good book though. The only negative thing about it was that it was so obvious who the different religions were based upon, i knew immediately who the Jews, Christians and Muslims were, i have no idea why he just didn't give them their real names. For example he could have called them spanish or arabs instead of making up names like jaddites and asharites. There is no magic so he could easily have made it into a pure historical novel and saved himself a lot of time by not having to make up names.
right-I think I had a thought while reading it that 'a second moon does not turn this into a fantasy'
Lions of al Rassan is one of my all time favorites and I sobbed my heart out. It's not a historical novel. It takes place in a mythical land.
It takes place in Spain during the time of Al Andalus somewhere between 700 and 1400 A.D. in which the entire continent that is now Spain and Portugal was under muslim rule except a small part of land in the north. The struggle for conquering of the continent by the christians is called the Reconquista. Kay has changed all the names but all the major events happened, that's why it's classified as Historical Fantasy. I study history.
The Fionavar books are regular fantasy with plenty of magic. Tigana, too, while obviously derived from Italy, has a fair amount of magic too.
Excellent article, Nicki. Thanks for sharing
Thanks for the article Nicki, i understand now why he wrote it the way he did.
Character driven. That means the character and their growth drives the plot. Not that there is no plot. Plot driven books are not only horrifically boring to me, but also entirely unrealistic. Life happens because we act on an environment, even if it is heavily acting on us.This was actually my unit question for Macbeth: "How do the choices we make reflect what happens to us?" Cause, dude. Did he continually make bad choices leading him deeper and deeper to his death.
So you have someone attacking a character. Seems like total plot, right? But with a character driven book, the character can lead to a myriad of results. She loves to fight and hacks through this asshole with speed and relish. She can fight, and ends up killing the asshole, but then pukes all over herself till she dry heaves her guts out all over this guy's bloody, stinking, oozing remains. She runs away. These are just three results off the top of my head. That result--relish, vomit, or fear--will then lead her to the next result. Every choice she makes changes what happens next.
A plot driven novel by necessity admits that it doesn't have characters, but puppets being manipulated by the author for affect--to highlight a theme, or world building skills, or that cool battle scene. Obviously we all manipulate writing some, but without the character's driven input on what they are doing with their lives, you frankly have a huge plot hole in your plot driven novel.
I find my themes tend to arise from my characters--talking like "evolving as a person," "coming of age." Not just Vampire or whatever. I usually don't know what my theme is when I start a book. It isn't till I'm writing the last line and need that summing up statement that I start to get it. But I hate overt theme, usually.
Interesting discussion. I don't really find it simple (as most of you don't I see). Actually my first reaction is "plot" driven as I've read some character driven books that drove me up the wall with a great and complete character who didn't seem to be going anywhere, doing anything or trying to accomplish anything specific. I burn out on them. But then, I find a book like The Deed of Paksenarrion or the Dresden Books (all of which are near the top of my favorites list)...and they are totally character driven. So, it sort of depends on the book itself doesn't it?
If it is character DRIVEN then they drive a plot that will be going somewhere. Otherwise, it isn't character driven. It's just character. There's a diff.
MrsJ I cry at *everything*!Regarding the original question... I need characters I care about enough, and then I need a plot that puts them through hell so I can't put the book down. And then I'm a happy reader :)
I don't really think a character driven story requires a character to grow, Ms. Cicada. It is the case in many stories, surely, but it isn't a necessity. It could merely be the exploration of a character, where we learn about him and what makes him tick without necessarily seeing any part of that change, at least not in any significant way. I would also argue that authors need to manipulate characters, plot, everything as puppets and tools regardless of their purpose in the overall project. That is just writing. Though you may spend more time detailing a character, every choice is nonetheless carefully crafted to reflect or serve a point.
Alexandra Victoria wrote: "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 felt the same way about Confederacy of Dunces. One character was more unlikeable than the next. It was only brilliant if brilliant equals highly developed meanspiritedness.
Rachel wrote: "MrsJ I cry at *everything*!Regarding the original question... I need characters I care about enough, and then I need a plot that puts them through hell so I can't put the book down. And then I'm ..."
I'm glad I'm not the only one! :)
MrsJoseph wrote: "I'm glad I'm not the only one! :) "*hugs Kleenex box* Nope. Not alone.
Alexandra Victoria wrote: "I don't really think a character driven story requires a character to grow, Ms. Cicada. It is the case in many stories, surely, but it isn't a necessity. It could merely be the exploration of a cha..."Interesting. . . .I won't deny that, as a writer, we manipulate every detail of our writing, but as a reader, I don't want to be able to feel that manipulation. It should be subtle enough so I feel like I'm going for a ride, not being taken for a ride.
As for characters, I see your point of view about just exploring a character, and maybe I've just been in therapy waaaay too long, but I don't believe people can not change. Everything that happens effects us, and we, in turn, effect it. Even the choice that your are not going to change due to events is, in fact, a choice you have made.
For me as a reader it's vital that the manipulation be subtle. You can do as many terrible things to as many dear sweet characters as you like, and if I see the strings you're pulling I won't feel a thing but annoyance. It's a fine line: a reader knows full well she is being manipulated to feel what the writer wishes, but it has to be done with skill and a light hand.
Obviously every element of the 'behind the scenes' bits of writing should be subtle; that's half of the writing process, really. I don't think I really implied that the reader should be able to tell, but I think it's important to keep at the forefront of your mind, as an author.
As for change, I don't think a couple of choices really constitutes great character growth in any way. It merely depends on the story, of course, but as an example of a character who spent several novels with no character growth, I suppose we can bring up Sherlock Holmes. In a couple of more Watson-heavy novels (in particular, where he was getting married), there were a few moments of dilemma with his character, but mostly, it was Holmes from beginning to end. He didn't need to change, and he was better off not changing. It didn't benefit the story. Many long running series, as well, don't have much character growth after a certain point. If you keep changing the character much, they just aren't going to be the characters we care about. The most 'change' they go through is deciding they like spinach or something equally inane.
There are many things that factor into it, though. A character's role in the story. If they are in a position of power - where at least part of the action is their will as opposed to some omnipotent evil, as it often is in this genre - then they aren't going to be affected as heavily by it. Older characters, in general, are more set in their ways, and can more easily adapt to change in the world around them, without changing much about themselves, than younger characters can. And, I mean, some protagonists just aren't there for that purpose. Frankly, I am sick of shoehorned in character arcs that leave me with a character I no longer, or don't let me grow to like them until the end - long after the point where I give a damn. If it doesn't really matter if the character has grown between point A and point B, I think authors should stop trying to make it happen, anyway.
As for change, I don't think a couple of choices really constitutes great character growth in any way. It merely depends on the story, of course, but as an example of a character who spent several novels with no character growth, I suppose we can bring up Sherlock Holmes. In a couple of more Watson-heavy novels (in particular, where he was getting married), there were a few moments of dilemma with his character, but mostly, it was Holmes from beginning to end. He didn't need to change, and he was better off not changing. It didn't benefit the story. Many long running series, as well, don't have much character growth after a certain point. If you keep changing the character much, they just aren't going to be the characters we care about. The most 'change' they go through is deciding they like spinach or something equally inane.
There are many things that factor into it, though. A character's role in the story. If they are in a position of power - where at least part of the action is their will as opposed to some omnipotent evil, as it often is in this genre - then they aren't going to be affected as heavily by it. Older characters, in general, are more set in their ways, and can more easily adapt to change in the world around them, without changing much about themselves, than younger characters can. And, I mean, some protagonists just aren't there for that purpose. Frankly, I am sick of shoehorned in character arcs that leave me with a character I no longer, or don't let me grow to like them until the end - long after the point where I give a damn. If it doesn't really matter if the character has grown between point A and point B, I think authors should stop trying to make it happen, anyway.
Alexandra Victoria wrote: "Obviously every element of the 'behind the scenes' bits of writing should be subtle; that's half of the writing process, really. I don't think I really implied that the reader should be able to tel..."? Didn't say you did.
Alexandra Victoria wrote: "Obviously every element of the 'behind the scenes' bits of writing should be subtle; that's half of the writing process, really. I don't think I really implied that the reader should be able to tel..."I really hate static characters. To me they mostly serve no purpose. Why am I following this character if they are going to show no growth? Everyone grows and changes based upon their experiences, even older people. I deal with characters like Belgarath & Polgara - but even they have to show some type of change. When looking at Holmes, it’s easy for him to show no change because the majority of the Holmes work is short stories - but how would Holmes fit into a tome as massive as TNotW? The flatness of the character would get to be overwhelming (in a bad way).
I don't think 'static' and 'flat' are synonymous by any means, and any character who is at the center of a plot is worth following, even if they do not grow through it. I personally prefer static characters, and that is what it is, a preference. I just don't care for how it is so often preached that you must have a dynamic character, as opposed to you may.
You are running against most writing adages and guidelines, but hey. It's your reading. Go for it.
I don't know, most writing guides are pretty anti-flat characters, but most of the good writing books I've read are neutral to static characters. Far from excited about them, sure, but most of them don't discourage them so heavily. After all, functionally, they can serve the same role as a dynamic one for the reader. It is far less important, overall, that the character changes than it is that our perception of the character changes.
YMMV - I'm not a fan of static characters. Unless there is so much action that the characters are secondary to the storyline, I typically end up DNFing a flat character book. Of course, short stories are a different story...
The fact that the publishing world sucks is no excuse for us to be lazy readers or writers.
CicadaGrrl wrote: "The fact that the publishing world sucks is no excuse for us to be lazy readers or writers."
What does that have to do with the discussion? I mean, there are a lot of bad books out there, but the presence or lack thereof of dynamic characters has no real impact on it. Most of the books I can think of that I really hate had dynamic characters, though some changed rather... badly, I guess... without much of a character arc, I suppose. They just sort of abruptly change their POV. Still dynamic, though.
I think we could discuss bad character arcs, though, leading to bad stories. If you are going to have one, you have to do it well.
What does that have to do with the discussion? I mean, there are a lot of bad books out there, but the presence or lack thereof of dynamic characters has no real impact on it. Most of the books I can think of that I really hate had dynamic characters, though some changed rather... badly, I guess... without much of a character arc, I suppose. They just sort of abruptly change their POV. Still dynamic, though.
I think we could discuss bad character arcs, though, leading to bad stories. If you are going to have one, you have to do it well.
Assuming that writing isn't terrible, I have more patience with a slow story with great characters than a fast paced story with poorly developed characters. However, if a story does not have both a dynamic plot and fascinating, complex characters, then that particular book won't stick with me after I've put it down.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Memories of Ice (other topics)Children of the Night (other topics)
The Dragonbone Chair (other topics)
Idon't feel sorry for him per se, I...feel sad. But I fully admit to my wussidom so...sue me, lol.