Does anyone NOT write very character driven fiction anymore?

[Devor]

But I will rise to your challenge. The famous six word story has at least two characters, the baby and the person who obtained and is not selling the shoes. There is also change. There was a perceived need for shoes, and now that perceived need is no more. That is enormous change. This is all due to the fact that the entire story is not contained in the six words.

It is an outstanding execution of minimalist story telling. But it supports the argument in favour of the need for character. The story is not really about the buying and selling of shoes. It is about the desire of the character who bought and sold the shoes and what change has occurred for that person.

Yeah, but all of that is implied, not actually featured. And now above FifthView and Heliotrope are discussing the narrator, and the reader, as characters in the story? And that's after topics like the "setting" as the character, and now the backstory is the character?

It's getting to be a little much.

Doesn't the character have to have some kind of role in the story to qualify as a character?

 

[FifthView]

Ah, as for the reader and narrator: not a character in the story, but a human element present with the story.*

Part of the original concern in the OP is the emphasis on needing all those deep character desires shape a tale. This has been related to reader engagement during the course of the discussion in this thread. So I think reader and narrator fit in the discussion. Somewhere. Helio and I have certainly gone there, heh.

*Edit: But, when writing I do sometimes think of the narrator as a type of character. Maybe a character in our world, heh, if not in that world...

 

[Heliotrope]

This is a problem with conversations like this.

Nope. This is the problem with me and FifthView constantly going on existential targets We do this a lot.

 

[Chessie2]

Sorry if this is off topic, but would someone kindly explain to me what on-the-nose is? I've seen it a couple of times on this site and I'm not too sure what it is.

 

[Russ]

Yeah, but all of that is implied, not actually featured. And now above FifthView and Heliotrope are discussing the narrator, and the reader, as characters in the story? And that's after topics like the "setting" as the character, and now the backstory is the character?

It's getting to be a little much.

Doesn't the character have to have some kind of role in the story to qualify as a character?

I didn't take them to say that reader and narrator are characters in the story, but necessary elements. But that is a different question. I would not like Fifth say they are present in the story in this case, (in other stories they can be) but not in this one.

But in this case the implied backstory contains reference to at least two characters, and ongoing participant in the story (someone is selling the shoes) are all characters in the story. They are more akin to subtext or implied participants. Like gravity in a fall. When you write about falling off a rock to the ground you don't have to write that gravity is the acting force, it is simply understood as a participating force. In this case it is understood that for the purchase and sale of baby shoes to be necessary there is a need for a baby (or anticipated baby) and someone with the agency to chose to buy and sell the shoes. It is the height of minimalist writing and implication.

The words themselves through the careful crafting and power, do tell a story about characters, actions and loss through implication, understood meaning and subtext. All the evoke all of the necessary elements in the reader without explicitly explaining them. Thus its brilliance.

 

[Heliotrope]

Exactly. And this is exactly where I was going to go with the word "running" as a sentence. Sure,in the right context it could be used as a stand alone sentence. But within that context it is understood what is doing the running. Something has to be doing the running. That something is the subject (or character) in this case. It is impossible for there to be a predicate without there being a subject, even an invisible one as described above.

 

[Heliotrope]

I see what you mean about 7 pillars, but I disagree. Conflict is not a necessary ingredient to story. It might be something that should be used for the vast majority of stories to various extents (the way most recipes call for at least some salt, even if you are making something sweet) but not necessary. I realize most people disagree with me here. But most people are not able to see beyond what they personally enjoy or what the current mainstream idea of story to what the most basic nature of story really is. Depending on how you define character, I think it could even be argued that character isn't even technically necessary (though obviously any storyteller but a real genius would be a fool to not use character). Plot is, I believe, ultimately more fundamental than any other aspect of story. Something has to happen, or it's not a story. (But AGAIN that doesn't mean I don't personally consider characterization EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because I DO.)

And for the record, I am attempting to look at story from a timeless point of view. What defines story as it has been experienced by humanity since we first evolved to today and until the day the last of us perishes. Trends are temporary. People in the 19th century had very different ideas of what was an entertaining story from what we do today and it will change again in another hundred years. Most of what we love as stories today will be totally forgotten. But not all. What are the stories that will survive? Those are the stories we should look at when considering the true nature of story.

My views on how conflict and character are fundamental elements of plot (in fact, plot could not exist without them) is related to the above post by Mytho. She argues that neither are necessary to plot and I wonder:

How? How is that even possible?

She says something has to happen... but character and conflict are not necessary.

How can something 'happen' without there being something for it to happen to?

Something merely happening is not a story.

Explosion.

Not a story.

So even if there isn't a character (as in, a person actually there, experiencing the explosion) the reader could attach to the narrator's voice to gain understanding and perspective on that explosion.

The explosion blew through the city, knocking buildings over as if they were wet cardboard.

But even narrators have opinions and subjective thoughts, because a different narrator may say:

The explosion levelled the deserved town, which would never dominate with evil again.

In that way, the narrator replaces a "character" by still offering thoughts and opinions. But there are still people in the town. There are still "subjects" that were affected by the explosion.

 

[Heliotrope]

CHessie, On the nose is the term used when something (usually dialogue) is too obvious.

Simply put, on-the-nose dialogue is dialogue that says exactly what it means–nothing more and nothing less:

“You’re a terrible boyfriend,” Melissa sniffed.

I shrugged. “I know, and I’m sorry. But just think about the horrible example my father set me. He was gone all the time when I was a kid.”

“That doesn’t matter to me. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m breaking up with you.”

My heart fractured. “I understand where you’re coming from. But I still love you.”

And why is that a bad thing? Because it’s two-dimensional, because it’s obvious, because it’s boring, because it’s unrealistic.

Usually we know it when we see it and it gives us the queazies. lol.

Fifthview and I have debated about on the nose narrative, which does a similar thing.

You could say:

Sophie closed her eyes and thought of her father. He had died ten years earlier and she missed him a lot. I wish you weren't dead, she thought, tears running from her eyes. She wiped them and her hand felt wet.

 

[FifthView]

She wiped them and her hand felt wet.

OMG you made my day.

 

[Penpilot]

CHessie, On the nose is the term used when something (usually dialogue) is too obvious.

Simply put, on-the-nose dialogue is dialogue that says exactly what it means–nothing more and nothing less:

“You’re a terrible boyfriend,” Melissa sniffed.

I shrugged. “I know, and I’m sorry. But just think about the horrible example my father set me. He was gone all the time when I was a kid.”
....

OMG. Reading that, I threw up a lot in my mouth. It's a good thing it's Halloween because The horror. The horror.

 

[Chessie2]

Hm. It seems more a stylistic choice for me. This is one of the things that troubles me about these sorts of conversations: when does telling a story just get to be telling a story? What's obvious to one reader may not be obvious to the next. I find these sorts of terms restricting. All I want to do is tell a story.

Same with Mythopoet's concern here. If she prefers to write a story where characterization is less important then so be it. I'm reminded of many a fairy or folk tale where other story elements are honed in on more than characters (like plot, for instance).

 

[pmmg]

I think I should get a prize for reading through all of this.

Perhaps it's me. I really just don't relate to characters based on their desires. It's not that I want a lack of characterization in the books I read and the stories I write. It's just that.... I want so much more than that. I want a fascinating world and interesting events and thought provoking ideas. I don't want those things to be short changed for characters. But I'm beginning to feel like I'm one of only a few who feel this way.

I want all of these things too. And, I want it with characters I like to enjoy the story with. I suppose I don’t care if its character driven, or plot driven or what have you, but I would like all of it to keep me engaged, and wanting to have more.

I suppose, when considering the elements that make up a story, they all have their pluses and minuses, and any story could take one above the others and come out great, so I see no reason to short change any story because it does not follow the current view that characters matter more. The proof is in the pudding? Is it not? Great stories do not need further justification to remain great. And if some do it with plot, or with character, or some other element (setting perhaps?), either way they've done it.

Mytho, it seems, is responding to a current trend to say characters first. Truth is, I am not sure if this is a trend or not. I'm still going along the lines that I see plenty of a whole mix of things. I will say I do see the advice given out often. So...is it good advice? Well, I think it is. But it would also be good advice to say figure out the conflict and map out how the story might go.

(And Sorry Mytho, while I am open to the idea of a story with no conflict, I think I lean, and perhaps a little more than lean, that a story is not a story without a conflict.)

Personally, I like writing characters, and so I like my stories to feature them heavily. I used to call my story character driven, but after this thread, I am not sure that is true. I think they just feature heavily, and the story is still about things outside of their control, thereby plot driven. I think maybe my characters need to get some ice cream, so they can enjoy success at some personal goals.

Any rate, what’s all this talk about characters being great and plotting taking a back seat? I don’t think plotting will sit still for that for very long. But as I try to write the best story I can, I look to bring all the pieces together, so it all does the job. I saw a post earlier about intersecting of these ideas. I think that would be a worthy goal for telling a great tale.

I advise people to find what they're good at, maximize that, and minimize what they are not good at. I wanted for myself to write great engaging characters, and I think I do that fairly well. But if that is not what interests you most in the stories you want to tell, there is no harm. Its a big pool. We can all fit in.

If the current trend is to beat on a drum of character driven stories first, then I would see that as an opportunity to buck the crowd and write something that none of them are doing and see if I can chart a course that brings the pendulum back towards some of the other story elements for change.

 

[Rkcapps]

I totally agree Heliotrope. I can see both sides of that argument. I wonder if your husband, not having read the book, only sees the Hollywood version? I must admit I have tried reading LotR a few times but only last until they set out on their journey. I think i fall in that category of modern reader who needs a stronger hook. Therefore, I've only seen the movies. And I like the first two movies of LotR but not the third. I can totally see your husband's point of view.

However, now I'm writing, I see the necessity of reading LotR, so I've just started (Bilbo has just left the Shire) so I'll particularly watch out for your comments on it. From the last time I read, what you say rings true.

Could that debate be a Hollywood v book debate? I don't envy a script writers task condensing a book to film. They must lose some parts of the book in the translation, it's only natural.

I hear Russ too, I know personally I want, as a reader, a proactive character not a reactive character. There needs to be a personal connection for the protagonist to the goal, or any Jo Blow could step into the role.

 

[pmmg]

I am happy that I read Lotr rings many years ago, but I am also happy I that I don't have to read it again. An awesome creation, but Tolkien is not a writer I enjoy.

In fairness, I do think the Tolkien followers have good reasons why some of the stuff the story is criticized for happened the way it did. Course, it is just a story, and its really hard to nail down all the things people might nitpick at.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Can you write a story without characterization and conflict? I suspect you probably could. But I would guess that to misquote Jurassic Park - Your writers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

The point being it probably isn't a good idea in my humble opinion.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

I know there's lots of non-character driven fiction out there. But does anyone actually think it's a good thing to write anymore? It seems not. Everywhere I look when people talk about writing fiction they talk almost exclusively about it from a character driven standpoint. Setting- it's all about your character. Plot- it's all about your character. Every single guide I have seen lately for plotting a story revolves around the main character and what they want.

Consider the target audience for these guides. Authors who know what they want to do and how to do it are not in the target audience. For aspiring authors, the advice to focus on characterization is sound. IMO.

Call my old fashioned. I'm sick and tired of hearing about character's desires. Screw their desires. I don't care about their desires. Certainly not toward the beginning of a story, anyway. (Later on I'll consider them.) So it seems to me that figuring out your entire plot based on your character's wants is... problematic.

There are desires, and there are story-elevating motivations. "I want blue hair because it's cool" is a desire. "I want to get my foot out of this bear trap or the water level will rise over my head and I'll drown" is story-elevating motivation, brought about by the circumstance of stepping in a bear trap in a pit during a tropical storm. Why was the person in the pit? Maybe someone said they would dye his hair blue for free if he fetched something they dropped in the pit. What did the author plot first, the falling in the pit, or the desire for blue hair? Does it matter? Either way could lead to the same result. Whatever process works for you is the way to go.

Perhaps it's me. I really just don't relate to characters based on their desires. It's not that I want a lack of characterization in the books I read and the stories I write. It's just that.... I want so much more than that. I want a fascinating world and interesting events and thought provoking ideas. I don't want those things to be short changed for characters. But I'm beginning to feel like I'm one of only a few who feel this way.

You're not alone. I want all that too. That's why I did a ton of world building before writing the first sentence of an outline for my WIP. People have told me I'm doing it all wrong. It's not the way they would do it, but it's my choice, not theirs. Perhaps my way of doing things has caused me more work in the long run, but again, that's my choice. I'm enjoying my process, and I'm damn proud of how the novel is turning out.

I'll mention here about proactive characters. An MC won't necessarily start out being proactive, and even when she decides to be proactive, things will still happen she has to react to. They're called obstacles. Imo, good stories can be written in which the MC is reacting most of the time, and squeezing in a few moments of being proactive, so she can inch her way to success over what appear to be insurmountable odds. If you have a giant constantly trying to stomp you, you might have difficulty even thinking how you can be proactive.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well here. I just felt the urge to put this out there after seeing yet another guide to plotting a story that was basically all about the character's wants. SIGH.

Anyone else feel something similar?

I understand the feeling. You read one person's blog about writing, and everyone else who can't think of their own topics jumps on the bandwagon and regurgitates what they liked about the first person's blog. Or they think they have a new perspective on it. Whatever. You have to take from these guides what you can, and not let the rest bring you down. Every writer is unique, with a different approach to writing, and you have to find your own unique approach. That's my perspective. Some may agree, some may not, but no one on this forum is the god of writing. We're here to discuss our opinions, maybe take something from it or give something to someone else.

 

[Peat]

Hm. It seems more a stylistic choice for me. This is one of the things that troubles me about these sorts of conversations: when does telling a story just get to be telling a story? What's obvious to one reader may not be obvious to the next. I find these sorts of terms restricting. All I want to do is tell a story.

Same with Mythopoet's concern here. If she prefers to write a story where characterization is less important then so be it. I'm reminded of many a fairy or folk tale where other story elements are honed in on more than characters (like plot, for instance).

If Mythopoet - or anyone - wants to write a story using X that goes against the tide (or perceived tide), then they should. But they don't need a long debate on the necessity of X for that. Just go and write it.

If someone wants to write a story using X and wants to hear why people reckon doing the opposite of X is the right way, maybe in order to try and avoid pitfalls, then there's something to be said for that. But there's no point taking part in that debate if you're not going to give your honest informed opinion and no point asking for it if you're not going to listen.


Personally, I think most of what the character focused advice these days is getting at isn't that the plot should be driven solely by what the characters want, but that their reactions to the plot should be driven heavily by what the characters want. The former - well, I don't really recognise the former as something that is the lodestone of modern fiction. Most of what I read, I feel like the protagonist is put into something they'd rather not do within the opening chapters. The latter... the latter is a storm wind and good luck sailing against it in terms of being commercially viable. Or maybe even just in terms of good story telling. Its certainly very difficult to get away with a plot where characters are manifestly acting against their own desires, and I think if its impossible to divine what the characters desire, there's a solid chance they're not interesting enough.

Tbh, I don't see any necessary conflict between character-driven and plot-heavy.

 

[Alora pendrak]

personally i love characters and character driven fiction. i also think its damaging for a story to only focus on characters. Its like bakeing a cake entirely out of sugar. You need the eggs, butter, flower ect.....i've seen stories that were so focused on character they didn't have much of a plot and while i enjoyed some of them, i still found myself wanting the characters to have an end goal and the bad guy an overall plan that didn't get forgotten about so quickly. So i think plot, characters, and setting need to be equally cherished and not have one promoted over the other, style and prose are also not to be ignored. All the elements blend together to create something.