Does anyone NOT write very character driven fiction anymore?

[psychotick]

Hi Helio,

I agree with your husband about the eagles - but there is an explanation put in the books about how the eagles couldn't have flown to Mount Doom before because the ring wraiths would have torn them apart. It feels a bit contrived to me.

But the more pertinent bit I think is about the plot. LOTR is highly plot driven and theme driven as opposed to character driven - at least the characters do not drive the main plot. That's purely get the ring into the volcano and as your husband said anyone could have done it save for the restrictions placed on them by the author. The characters do however drive the sub plots - Frodo's desperate effort to save his home, Samwise's unflinching loyalty to his friend, Aragorn and Arwen's nearly doomed love etc etc.

The key thing though is that while the characters do not drive the central plot, the plot drives the characters. LOTR is not a story about trying to hurl a ring into a volcano. It's a story about how that desperate quest impacts upon the characters. That's what makes it so compelling - at least in my view.

And Russ, you may well be right about the detectives. I don't read a lot of the genre and what I do read is likely older.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mythopoet]

Oddly enough that is a debate that comes up a lot in my house lol. My husband hates LOTR (he only saw the movies) and one of his biggest criticisms is that Frodo could have died and anyone else could have taken the ring. "Why didn't Gandalf do it?" He always asks. "It's so stupid." He also hates how the eagles came to save Sam and Frodo at the end. "Why didn't they just fly to Mordor in the first place?" He asks. He thinks it's a pretty lame Deux ex machina ending.

I do think that Tolkien really tried to make Frodo appear to be the only one who could do it. He goes into great depths explaining his lineage and how the Took family (or is it the Baggins family? I can't remember) was a bit outcasted from the shire, not just because of Bilbo but because they always did have a taste for adventure. He also makes it clear that neither man, elf, or dwarf could do it because they would be too easily corrupted. Istari, like Gandolf are the same. We know that the eye of Sauron is watching, so using a little tiny non-descript messenger is the best bet. Better than an obvious warrior...

At any rate, I do think Tolkien tries. I also do think that Frodo does have a deep inner goal that often gets over looked. That goal, in my opinion, is not to change. He wants things to stay the same as they always were. He wants to be who he always was. He promises Sam that he won't change. But in the end that is obviously impossible and he can't possibly go back to live in the shire, so he goes with the elves on the ship. It is a deep, personal journey for Frodo, not simply a "Get the Macguffin, save the world, go home" sort of plot driven story.

But it's so simple. Gandalf couldn't carry the Ring at all without turning into the Dark Lord himself. This is explicit in the books. Same for Galadriel or any powerful Elf or Man. And the whole point of the quest was that it had to be secret. They had to get the Ring to Mount Doom without being seen by Sauron. How exactly do you secretly fly a giant eagle through Mordor? The Eagles could only fly there with Gandalf at the end because Sauron's power had just been destroyed. Sauron isn't a helpless giant eye stuck on the top of Barad Dur, the way the movie makes it seem. He doesn't have the use of all of his power, but he's still a very powerful sorcerer and one that, for instance, neither Gandalf or Saruman would have dared face. Secrecy was their only hope. It's all spelled out in the books.

 

[Russ]

I totally agree with Heliotrope's analysis of Frodo not wanting change. And I should take this moment to point out that Moorcock's controversial essay about Tolkien (Epic Pooh) adopts the same thesis.

I love LOTR, it entertained and amazed me as a child, inspired me as a teenager and young man, and still calls me back as an adult. But now as an adult I read it differently. I read it now as not only a great exercise in world building and cultural creation, but also a social commentary. I read the work as glorifying the common man, represented by the hobbits, and traditional British virtues of work and stoicism. The hobbits to me are what many called called the "nation of shopkeepers", the quiet enduring men and women who just kept doing their callings under the most horrific circumstances including WWII. They are to be contrasted with the Imperial adventurers who lived totally different lives with a different worldview. To me, through the hobbits, Tolkien is sending a social message about the British common man of his era, and a rather positive one.

I think Frodo and Sam and others certainly had some motivations and depth as characters, but not what is expected in works today.

 

[Mythopoet]

But the more pertinent bit I think is about the plot. LOTR is highly plot driven and theme driven as opposed to character driven - at least the characters do not drive the main plot.

I strongly disagree that LOTR is highly plot and theme driven. I think LOTR is one of the finest examples of a work where all 4 pillars of storytelling are well balanced. There is an abundance of brilliant characterization for those who are willing to see it, as well as the most wonderful fantasy setting ever conceived, a plot full of drama and heroics and themes that will resonate with humanity for all of eternity. But perhaps you could say that of the 4 story elements, it is the plot and the setting that comes most easily to the reader no matter how they approach it. The characterization and themes you have to work your brain a bit for. Which, in my opinion, is no bad thing.

 

[Mythopoet]

To be honest, it's getting very annoying that people keep coming into this thread and think that I am advocating for a LACK of characterization in favor of more plot-driven stories.

For the last time, I DO NOT WANT A LACK OF CHARACTERIZATION AND NOR AM I INTERESTING IN WRITING PLOT DRIVEN STORIES. WHAT I DESIRE IS MORE BALANCE BETWEEN THE 4 PILLARS OF STORYTELLING. STORIES WHERE CHARACTERS, PLOT, SETTING, AND IDEAS/THEMES ARE ROUGHLY EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE. THAT MEANS GREAT CHARACTERS, GREAT PLOT, GREAT SETTING AND GREAT THEMES. NONE SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER.

Is it clear now?

 

[FifthView]

There does seem to be different interpretations of what "character-driven" means. I'm not sure an actual, definitive definition exists, heh, but maybe there is a common use definition. Or two.

On the one hand, great characterization serves as a kind a draw for the reader. Let's call the character a keyhole through which the plot, world, and story in general are experienced; and, the significance of those is experienced by the reader through that character's experience of those things. That might make a given book seem "character-driven."

I have a related example, already used, of Poirot. When I first started watching the series, I just didn't like Poirot. I watched two or three episodes, trying to give the show a chance on the basis of the reputation of that series of mysteries. But then I stopped. I'd been watching other series with detectives I liked, and Poirot seemed ridiculously arrogant in comparison. Couldn't stand him. Then, I came back to the show about a year later to give it another try. This time, for whatever reason, his character didn't irritate me as much. As I watched episode after episode, I began to like his character. Heh. I grew to enjoy watching his style of solving crimes, and I began to see more hints of his inner nature—something deeper about his questing than merely reaffirming his intelligence and bragging about his "little grey cells." (Brain cells.)

Perhaps the first time around he was just weird in comparison to other lead characters in murder mysteries, and I couldn't see that other stuff because I only saw the arrogance.

This experience exemplifies what I mean by this first interpretation of "character-driven." The mysteries in the Poirot series are not greatly different than the mysteries of other murder mystery shows. If I, FifthView, were drawn by plot much more than by character, then the first time around I would have stuck with the show instead of shelving it for a year or more.

The second definition of "character-driven" is the one I use. In this definition, the plot forms, develops, and resolves as a result of the character's very personal inner drives, desires, goals. That might not be the perfect description of what I mean. But for me, in this type of story, all that other stuff is almost like a keyhole through which we view the character, explore the character, rather than the other way around.

I think that obviously some stories can be far more balanced, so that the question of what is driving what becomes almost moot. The character is the keyhole through which we view the larger events, and the larger events are a keyhole for viewing the character. Personal, intimate themes and meaningful character arcs exist side-by-side with the larger, world-relevant and/or society-relevant themes and arcs.

However, I think the second definition of "character-driven" is more useful than the first, because for me the question isn't what "drives" the reader but what "drives" the plotting and story. Poirot might be the vehicle through which I, the viewer, experience the events of the plot, but that doesn't mean he's driving the plot for me, his passenger heh; or, even if he is, according to that first definition—that could be said of almost all main characters in every book, rendering the issue of "character-driven or not?" moot. Plus, it seems to me that a straw man argument is being set up in which we devolve to arguing whether only two choices exist, empty shells called characters or vibrant, interesting characterization.

 

[Devor]

For what it's worth, I definitely agree that people ignore plotting and theme way too much. A plot can be character-driven without being spontaneous "wherever the character leads me" without concern for a coherent plot.* And being character-driven without some kind of focus on theme? That's an oxymoron, in my view.

However, I disagree with the traditional 4 pillars. I think storytelling has more like seven pillars:

Character - Conflict - Setting - Theme - Creativity - Structure - Voice

If you ask me, writers who ignore any of these elements do so at their own peril.

*The quote is for the sake of the point, not to imply that those of you who say that necessarily ignore plot, although it's a risk you need to look out for.

 

[Russ]

For what it's worth, I definitely agree that people ignore plotting and theme way too much. A plot can be character-driven without being spontaneous "wherever the character leads me" without concern for a coherent plot.* And being character-driven without some kind of focus on theme? That's an oxymoron, in my view.

.

The bolded part is an interesting point.

I would think though that a well developed character following their desires should lead to a coherent plot, unless the character is undeveloped or irrational in some way. That strikes me as being at the core of organic character based writing.

 

[Devor]

The bolded part is an interesting point.

I would think though that a well developed character following their desires should lead to a coherent plot, unless the character is undeveloped or irrational in some way. That strikes me as being at the core of organic character based writing.

No . . . . a good plot involves the careful intertwining of many different characters. Having them follow their own organic path could very well lead them to walk away from each other. You've got to keep your plot in mind, and that often means finding ways to use the conflict to push your characters back to where you need them in the story.

 

[Mythopoet]

For what it's worth, I definitely agree that people ignore plotting and theme way too much. A plot can be character-driven without being spontaneous "wherever the character leads me" without concern for a coherent plot.* And being character-driven without some kind of focus on theme? That's an oxymoron, in my view.

However, I disagree with the traditional 4 pillars. I think storytelling has more like seven pillars:

Character - Conflict - Setting - Theme - Creativity - Structure - Voice

If you ask me, writers who ignore any of these elements do so at their own peril.

*The quote is for the sake of the point, not to imply that those of you who say that necessarily ignore plot, although it's a risk you need to look out for.

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.

 

[Russ]

No . . . . a good plot involves the careful intertwining of many different characters. Having them follow their own organic path could very well lead them to walk away from each other. You've got to keep your plot in mind, and that often means finding ways to use the conflict to push your characters back to where you need them in the story.

I think that theory works as long as the pushing of the characters does not drive them to act in a way that is inconsistent with their personalities and motivations. I think what it speaks to the need to make sure that the plot and the characters are compatible with each other, further demonstrating a tight entanglement between the two concepts. Which is decided first is really a matter of personal taste, but the two must work together to produce a harmonious and effective whole.

And the conflict should arise from the desires of the characters being aligned, opposed or at cross purpose should it not?

The other great thing about being a writer is that you can write in any order you want. So if the character goes off on a tangent that you think better suits their motivations and enhances the story, you can simply go back and change your plot to accommodate what you think is new or better. Or if you don't think the tangent serves the story better you can change their motivation to make sure it doesn't happen. I am definitely not in the "characters are living things with a mind of their own school" but I do think sometimes as you get to know the characters better their personalities can feed your imagination and help you write better plot that you did not originally envision.

As an aside, I was at a writers conference listening to a friend of mine on a panel last year and an audience member asked him what he did when characters do things that don't fit into his story the way he would like. His response was:

"They get one digression. On the second one I kill them because I write to a deadline."

 

[Devor]

I think that theory works as long as the pushing of the characters does not drive them to act in a way that is inconsistent with their personalities and motivations. I think what it speaks to the need to make sure that the plot and the characters are compatible with each other, further demonstrating a tight entanglement between the two concepts. Which is decided first is really a matter of personal taste, but the two must work together to produce a harmonious and effective whole.

Sure, that's the risk you take with plotting, just like a bad plot is the risk you run with character-driven stories.

I just binge-watched Stranger things, so I'm going to use that as an example, and hopefully you've seen it already and can make sense of this, and if not, hopefully I still make enough sense.

But in Stranger Things 2, Dustin finds a polliwog and makes a decision about what to do with it that drives the plot.

If one of the other characters had been in Dustin's place, they would've made a different choice that may not have had the same impact - they even say so. So in this situation, the conflict (i.e., the discovery of the polliwog) pushes the character into the plot, even though it's the character's unique choices driving things forward. It's all about the interplay of the two.

 

[Russ]

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.

I think you are starting to talk circles around yourself here.

There is no doubt something has to happen for a story to take place. But it also has to happen to someone to have any meaning or importance. And sure, in the driest technical sense conflict is not necessary for a story. But it is a necessary element for any half decent story worth talking about.

Sure, technically, a rock rolling down a hill without anyone there to see it is a story, but it is a damned boring story. Now throw in a pregnant woman at the bottom of the hill who we can care about coming and it might be interesting.

Stories without conflict or a focus on character really belong in the realm of science or maybe history, but in the field of storytelling to entertain, educate or inspire an audience.

It is the human aspect of story that moves tories towards that "timeless" point of view that you seem to think many of us "are not able to see", when in fact we are perfectly capable of doing so, perhaps even better than you are. I would argue that it is the essential humanity of the characters or themes that can transcend their era to make a story relevant to later eras. The Odyssey is not a classic about a guy on a boat who kills people hitting on his wife and has some cool adventures, it is a classic because of what it says about humanity, and themes like revenge and love and overcoming. I would ague that plot is the least important aspect of the transcendent story that apparently you think worthy of discussion.

While trends may pass, story and our ability to tell it evolves. It improves and progresses. Some forms become completely extinct, and often for good reason.

 

[Mythopoet]

I think you are starting to talk circles around yourself here.

There is no doubt something has to happen for a story to take place. But it also has to happen to someone to have any meaning or importance. And sure, in the driest technical sense conflict is not necessary for a story. But it is a necessary element for any half decent story worth talking about.

I don't think so. And you might notice that I said "depending on how you define character" and I also said that only a real genius would be able to make a story that doesn't utilize character. As conflict goes, it also depends on how you define conflict. If you get really general you might say it's any entity in opposition to another entity. But I think there has to be some type of opposition to count as conflict. Forces pushing or pulling against each other. And yes, I do think you can write a story without that. It might not be a story that entertains many people these days but it would be a story. Yes, I AM being technical. No, I'm not advocating this stuff for the average writer or book. I'm NOT EVEN SAYING I WANT TO WRITE WITHOUT CHARACTER OR CONFLICT. (My stories have a heck of a lot of character and conflict.) I was thinking about the very foundation of story itself which I believe can be very educational for understanding how people relate to story today.

 

[Russ]

I don't think so. And you might notice that I said "depending on how you define character" and I also said that only a real genius would be able to make a story that doesn't utilize character. As conflict goes, it also depends on how you define conflict. If you get really general you might say it's any entity in opposition to another entity. But I think there has to be some type of opposition to count as conflict. Forces pushing or pulling against each other. And yes, I do think you can write a story without that. It might not be a story that entertains many people these days but it would be a story. Yes, I AM being technical. No, I'm not advocating this stuff for the average writer or book. I'm NOT EVEN SAYING I WANT TO WRITE WITHOUT CHARACTER OR CONFLICT. (My stories have a heck of a lot of character and conflict.) I was thinking about the very foundation of story itself which I believe can be very educational for understanding how people relate to story today.

I never thought what you wanted to write was part of this discussion at all.

But just so I am clear, I don't think a story that lacked conflict has ever been part of the great story telling tradition, not "these days"or any days.

By the by, in many corners, the use of caps is considered shouting or rude.

 

[Mythopoet]

I never thought what you wanted to write was part of this discussion at all.

But just so I am clear, I don't think a story that lacked conflict has ever been part of the great story telling tradition, not "these days"or any days.

By the by, in many corners, the use of caps is considered shouting or rude.

Oh dear. I certainly wouldn't want you to think me rude.

My apologies for thinking that a post in a thread I made about what I think about writing might have something to do with me.

I'll go back to my personal policy of never addressing you on this website, because it's always, at best, a waste of my time.

 

[Russ]

My apologies for thinking that a post in a thread I made about what I think about writing might have something to do with me.

I'll go back to my personal policy of never addressing you on this website, because it's always, at best, a waste of my time.

No apology required. The reason I wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that we were discussing your writing in particular was to avoid you taking my disagreement with your position on transcendent writing for the ages personally.

 

[FifthView]

Sure, that's the risk you take with plotting, just like a bad plot is the risk you run with character-driven stories.

I just binge-watched Stranger things, so I'm going to use that as an example, and hopefully you've seen it already and can make sense of this, and if not, hopefully I still make enough sense.

But in Stranger Things 2, Dustin finds a polliwog and makes a decision about what to do with it that drives the plot.

If one of the other characters had been in Dustin's place, they would've made a different choice that may not have had the same impact - they even say so. So in this situation, the conflict (i.e., the discovery of the polliwog) pushes the character into the plot, even though it's the character's unique choices driving things forward. It's all about the interplay of the two.

I love this example.

I'm not sure how much his decision drives the plot as a whole, although it does have an effect on

Spoiler: Just-in-case-spoiler

assembling the party later and, as a further consequence, in giving said party an idea that will prove very useful later. Plus, something very near the end of the season is possible because of Dustin's choice.

So it does affect the unfolding of the plot. I'll not quibble on what is meant by "drive," because I think the example is great regardless.

I'd say that it's the rare story in which character actions have no downstream effect, however, heh. A character just sits in a chair the whole story, doing nothing; or, a character does things and this has some effect, at least. And in all stories, characters are moving about. Horror might be a great example, because in some types of horror the characters are rather reactive; a part of what makes horror horror is this inability of the characters to alter what's coming, heh. Nonetheless, choosing to go search the basement alone with nothing but a flashlight is likely to have some effect on what happens in the story.

Your example brings to mind another way that disregarding plot, having everything character-driven, can introduce problems for the story. The polliwog was relevant to the plot. It was the plot forcing Dustin back into the plot; his decision was forced by the plot. But for a negative example of the character-driven impulse, we might look at the sort of Mary Sue stories in which obstacle after obstacle is introduced for no other reason than to show how the Mary Sue is strong, clever, or whatever. Or, in other stories perhaps, how loyalty between two characters is rock-solid; or, the reverse, i.e. how they hate each other.

Those random encounters, random obstacles, can work occasionally, briefly, if something else is achieved, like building theme, the world, or even for developing a reader's understanding and sympathy with a character. But too much of that can grow very tedious.

 

[Heliotrope]

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.)
.

Ummmmmm. how do you have plot without character or conflict? Plot is a collision of conflict and character.

"Guy buys ice cream." is not a story. "Guy goes to buy ice cream but they are out of his favourite flavour" is a story.

That is, and always has been, in every possible culture and every possible language the most basic nature of what story really is.

 

[Mythopoet]

Ummmmmm. how do you have plot without character or conflict? Plot is a collision of conflict and character.

"Guy buys ice cream." is not a story. "Guy goes to buy ice cream but they are out of his favourite flavour" is a story.

That is, and always has been, in every possible culture and every possible language the most basic nature of what story really is.

No. Neither of those are a story. And no. At it's most basic, plot is merely a series of events. Who or what are involved in the series of events and whether or not there is a conflict is another matter. You're letting your personal feelings about story get in the way again.

Honestly, I keep say that I'm talking about story at it's MOST BASIC but people aren't paying attention. I'm looking at the subject of story from its foundations and working my way up from there, adding the things that I personally think make a story enjoyable. You are working from what you personally consider to be an enjoyable story and assuming that is what is necessary. Sorry, it isn't. Just because you can't imagine an enjoyable story without certain things that you like doesn't make it impossible.