Does anyone NOT write very character driven fiction anymore?

[Mythopoet]

Also, I don't know, it seems like everyone here considers "necessary" to be equal to "desirable". Which I think is pretty problematic. (Or perhaps I just approach everything from too much of a philosophical stand point?)

Everyone here seems pretty gung ho on the "characters with desires are what drive good stories" bandwagon. I guess I'll just go back to silently disagreeing and writing the way I want to anyway. Personally, I'm sick of books focused on characters achieving their personal desires.

It's no secret that I'm a huge Tolkien fanatic. One of the best things about his stories, imo, is that neither Bilbo or Frodo really have personal desires and that's what makes them so heroic. They are worthy and able to carry the Ring because there's nothing the Ring can really tempt them with. They both just love their home so much. They don't do what they do for themselves and they never ask anything for themselves. Frodo in particular knows that even if he saves the Shire, it isn't really for him anymore. That's why they get as far as they do. It's why they are the instruments that are meant to carry the Ring to destruction. That's why they deserve admiration.

Nowadays, most "heroes" in fantasy fiction are people who say "screw the world, I do what I want". Even if they save the world and other people, they usually do it not by sacrifice but by doing their own thing, elevating themselves above others as the ones who get to decide the future. I can't admire that. I can't admire heroes who drive the story to achieve their own personal goals. I guess that's what it all comes down to.

People give advice to think about what your character's personal desires are and I just hate that. I hate it all being about a character's personal desires. It's not that they don't have anything to do with the story, but to me they certainly don't decide where the story goes. I do that. It's MY story.

And it just seems like I'm the only one who wants to own their own story anymore instead of giving it over into the hands of my characters and what they selfishly want.

 

[Heliotrope]

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.

No. I'm not. I'm drawing from six years studying literature in a variety of languages from a variety of time frames, then another ten years teaching it.

We are paying attention. You are the one who isn't listening because you want to "add things you personally think makes a story enjoyable." Your words. Not mine.

At its very basic core a story is a character and a conflict. Either a choice, or an obstacle. The "but". If you submitted a "story" of a guy walking to a store to buy ice cream, buying the ice cream, and eating it.... so a series of events (again, your words, not mine) 100% of the time the manuscript will be returned to you with the words "NO STORY." Or "NO PLOT".

In order for it to be a story there has to be conflict. You rewrite the story. The guy goes to the store, he is going to buy mint chocolate chip. Oh no! They don't have it! What is he going to do? Is he going to get strawberry? He hates strawberry. Is he going to get chocolate? No he had chocolate yesterday. He calls the manufacturer. They give him the number of the distributor. They give him the number of the delivery guy, who tells him he delivered an order of mint chocolate chip to a store across town. Success! He buys the ice cream.

It is maybe not a very good story, but it is still as story.

Now... why isn't it a very good story?

This is where it get's interesting.

Because there is no deep inner character goal or stakes. It is not "character driven."

So we will change it again.

Boy goes to get ice cream. He wants mint chocolate chip because his girlfriend just dumped him and he wants to wallow in self pity for a while and mint chocolate was her favourite type. He goes to the store. They are out of mint chocolate chip. There is a girl there. She wanted Strawberry, but they are out of that too. She looks sad. He hates that she looks as shitty as he does and he wants to help her. He thinks if he helps her it would be a bit like helping himself. He has a purpose now. A goal. Something he hasn't felt in some time.

He calls the manufacturer, who gives him the name of the distributer, who gives them the name of the delivery service. An order of mint chocolate chip was delivered to a store across town. A delivery of strawberry was sent to a different store in another direction.

What does he choose? Hmmmmmmm. Tough one.

He chooses to help the girl.

Together they sit in the sunshine and share the strawberry ice cream. He finds he really likes strawberry....

Better.

At its very basic level a story MUST have character and conflict. To make a great story it must have deep, personal inner and outer stakes.

 

[Mythopoet]

Ok thanks. We'll just disagree. As usual, it was a mistake to start a thread about my personal views of story.

 

[skip.knox]

Ok thanks. We'll just disagree. As usual, it was a mistake to start a thread about my personal views of story.

It's fine to talk about one's personal views of story. Just don't be surprised when others disagree. Adamantly. People have strong ideas about what constitutes good story. That's why there are genres--because there are always people who think *this* is wonderful but *that* is rubbish.

For myself, I am fascinated by what fascinates others. I find it both instructive and salutary for me to try to understand the other points of view, even if I conclude that, at the end of the day, it's still rubbish.

 

[FifthView]

Now... why isn't it a very good story?

This is where it get's interesting.

Because there is no deep inner character goal or stakes. It is not "character driven."

So we will change it again.

Boy goes to get ice cream. He wants mint chocolate chip because his girlfriend just dumped him and he wants to wallow in self pity for a while and mint chocolate was her favourite type. He goes to the store. They are out of mint chocolate chip. There is a girl there. She wanted Strawberry, but they are out of that too. She looks sad. He hates that she looks as shitty as he does and he wants to help her. He thinks if he helps her it would be a bit like helping himself. He has a purpose now. A goal. Something he hasn't felt in some time.

He calls the manufacturer, who gives him the name of the distributer, who gives them the name of the delivery service. An order of mint chocolate chip was delivered to a store across town. A delivery of strawberry was sent to a different store in another direction.

What does he choose? Hmmmmmmm. Tough one.

He chooses to help the girl.

Together they sit in the sunshine and share the strawberry ice cream. He finds he really likes strawberry....

Better.

At its very basic level a story MUST have character and conflict. To make a great story it must have deep, personal inner and outer stakes.

At the risk of spiraling back to the beginning and reinaugurating all that has gone before, I don't think that final sentence is true on the "inner" aspect.

The trip to the ice cream parlor and the events that ensue can be used to spotlight something other than this character's deeply personal journey. During the conversation in this thread, I've been thinking about how all this ties into the MICE quotient. Some stories are primarily about a milieu or idea, and these can be explored in interesting ways without also making sure the character is on an end-all, be-all personal quest with powerful personal stakes.

How that would be done in an engaging way...I only have some vague ideas, because I've not tried doing it.

Let's say this character goes to the parlor, they are out of the flavor of ice cream he wants, but as the character is feeling downcast and looking downcast, some other customer says, "Hey bub, I know a place where you can get some mint chocolate, but it's like no other mint chocolate you've ever had. It's better than any mint chocolate you've ever had, believe you me." That customer hands the kid a card with his name and number and an address and tells the kid to come over in about an hour. The kid does, the location is an odd looking place, and—well, to make a long story short, that customer was an alien, takes him on a wild journey around the universe, and the story is about these odd and interesting things that happen to the kid. Maybe the story could even be about some weird idea or theme also: The whole universe is "a tub of mint chocolate," metaphorically. Or whatever. But even though the kid complains throughout, asking when he's going to get the mint chocolate, he's also often distracted by the crazy things that he sees and all that happens, and we can call these interesting events little "side plots" in this exploration of the milieu and/or idea. The kid doesn't even need to change much, throughout (although I think he might, a little, as his mind is slowly blown; but the story doesn't need to be about blowing his mind.)

I think something like that could make a great story.

My only problem is that I doubt I could write it, heh. I don't know if this is simply because it's not the sort of thing I normally would want to write, or if I don't have the chops to do it well.

Basically, I think that a reader's interest could be highly engaged through the environment and ideas and events. True, an interesting character, or at least a non-irritating character, would be necessary also. I suspect that the story outlined above would also be helped by a lot of humor. But I have a kind of natural reaction against the idea that the only way to make a reader care about a story is to put the main character through a deeply psychological wringer—or, that the reader will only care about the milieu, ideas and events if the character has a very deep stake in what is happening.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, so a bit like Hitchhiker's Guide, which was basically a string of subplots all tied up under one theme, with no real deep or personal inner goal or conflict.

I think yes, which is why my original post was "Yes, this can be done, and has been done many times and is still being done today (Jack Reacher etc)."

My reaction was to the "A story doesn't have to have character or conflict to be a story," which is, IMPO, a bit of a strange statement to say the least.

 

[skip.knox]

A story doesn't have to have character or conflict to be a story.
The race is not always to the swift, nor victory to the strong.
But that's the way to bet.

 

[Chessie2]

Mythopoet,

I think it's perfectly fine to prefer less character driven stories. You don't need anyone's permission to write or read as you wish. Far as writing advice goes, I think the reason for that is quite simple: readers connect better with characters than any other part of a story. This has been something I've learned more and more over the course of time in talking to readers and other writers. Not all--but many--readers place themselves in the hero's shoes. They are that character throughout the duration of the book and this is perhaps why most writing advice is skewed in this direction.

However, if you prefer to write something that's not character driven that's fine, too. I happen to think there's an audience for every story type for the most part. But what it really comes down to is the story YOU want to write. Who cares what anyone else thinks? Write what YOU want. Simple.

Now, if you want to market that story then it's helpful knowing where that story will fit in. But you didn't make a mention of that in your OP post so I won't go there. A story can be well written and balanced depending on what your point with it is...if you get my drift. I prefer character driven stories because it's what I love to read. This is one of the reasons why I don't plot--because my characters often lead the show within parameters.

But character driven, I believe, has more to do with today's market than anything else.

 

[Chessie2]

Interesting character does not mean character driven. Either way, I think character driven and plot driven are overblown, The main thing in genre fiction is that the story must be driven, it doesn’t matter what’s behind the wheel so long as the motor’s started and the gas pedal is down... and take off the parking break... well, you get the idea, heh heh.

I agree with this.

Mystery: totally plot driven.
Romance: totally character driven.
Fantasy: EITHER

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

What about Agatha Christie? Aren't her books sort of a balance of plot and character?

 

[skip.knox]

>readers connect better with characters than any other part of a story.

Yes and no. I can remember vividly Childhood's End, for example, but I cannot recollect any of the characters. The same goes for a great many SF short stories, where the concept was more important than the players. I think that is peculiar to SF. Even with mysteries, characters matter, though they don't run very deep. Once I got Miss Marple or Poirot, that's all there was to them, and the other characters were hardly more than walk-ons. At the same time, Easy Rawlins is vivid in my memory, and Walter Moseley absolutely did develop the character, along with Mouse and others. If anything, the characters and the setting stand out even above the story. Bosch is another one that qualifies there.

I think I'll just say there are different kinds of stories and different kinds of readers. I really don't think it's any more profound than that.

 

[Chessie2]

Agatha wrote some seriously deep characters. Even the ones from book to book were deep with varying degrees of motivation being where they were from time to time. Just my 2 cents (and I've read every single book she's ever written except for Murder on the Orient Express and her plays...so I've read her a ton).

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

Generalizing is surprisingly hard and easy to do.

 

[Russ]

>readers connect better with characters than any other part of a story.

Yes and no. I can remember vividly Childhood's End, for example, but I cannot recollect any of the characters. The same goes for a great many SF short stories, where the concept was more important than the players. I think that is peculiar to SF. Even with mysteries, characters matter, though they don't run very deep. Once I got Miss Marple or Poirot, that's all there was to them, and the other characters were hardly more than walk-ons. At the same time, Easy Rawlins is vivid in my memory, and Walter Moseley absolutely did develop the character, along with Mouse and others. If anything, the characters and the setting stand out even above the story. Bosch is another one that qualifies there.

I think I'll just say there are different kinds of stories and different kinds of readers. I really don't think it's any more profound than that.

Bonus points for talking about Moseley. That guy is simply awesome.

And while it is true there are different stories and different types of readers, the argument leads to a tad of intellectual nihilism or "exception" syndrome.

Childhood's End, a magnificent work, was written in the early 50's. Very early in the development of modern SF, and well before even the start of the New Wave. A modern author even in SF would have very different expectations put on them even with that same premise or theme.

 

[Ban]

Personally I believe all good plots need a character, but I am very lenient with that term. A setting can be presented in such a way that it can serve as the main character. You can even give it goals and aspirations, either through the omniscient perspective or through the perspectives of the minor characters inhabiting the greater setting. I believe it all comes down to good writing. A central character(s) should be present, but it is up to you to decide what that character actually is. With effort and a bit of skill you could make a character out of an overarching theme or concept.

 

[FifthView]

Yeah, so a bit like Hitchhiker's Guide, which was basically a string of subplots all tied up under one theme, with no real deep or personal inner goal or conflict.

I think yes, which is why my original post was "Yes, this can be done, and has been done many times and is still being done today (Jack Reacher etc)."

My reaction was to the "A story doesn't have to have character or conflict to be a story," which is, IMPO, a bit of a strange statement to say the least.

I realized at the time I was veering into Hitchhiker's Guide, heh. I originally had something like Gulliver's Travels in mind—but I've never read it! And other things, maybe Baron Munchausen, another I've not read although I vaguely remember the movie.

I agree: I have difficulty conceiving of a story with no character and conflict. Even if there's no humanoid/animal type of character, I think inanimate objects, perhaps even the world itself, would begin to take on some aspects of character. I also think that conflict can take many forms; a rock rolling downhill could gather moss, and at the very least the friction of the hill if not the gathering moss could be considered conflict if handled right. Or a tree could appear in front of it, a crash, then a new direction rolling down hill....

In another thread you'd mentioned our different tendencies. From the examples of your writing I've seen, I think you do that close character heart and soul almost naturally, seamlessly, and I admire it. Sometimes for me, introduction of thoughts and emotional character reactions can be almost like a cudgel: I'll have all that sensual, tactile stuff then tag on a character reaction at the end, heh. In any case, it's not my mode in the way it's your mode. So I think that you view writing through that lens, and it's a great lens. I envy your ability in that regard. But my response to your comment above was more like a "yes, but." Yes, you hit an important mark, but there are other ways of approaching the writing of a story.

I'd said in my comment that I didn't know if I had the chops or natural inclination to write the kind of story I described. A part of me actually wonders if that's what I should be writing. Well, you know I can tend toward abstractions, so, ideas and concepts, heh. But I've not challenged myself to try to write a long project in that mode. I think, now, that maybe I could sustain a short story doing something like that, but not a longer length story like a novel. Because I do always have that cudgel ready. I naturally imagine characters reacting deeply to what they experience, I like that consideration of character, and that'd naturally creep into the story the longer it lasted.

Along those lines, I do believe that a type of shorter story exists that might often forego the deep character development and great personal stakes and still come out a pretty good, interesting story. A type of fable does that, for instance one that might start with something like,

One day, the goatherd boy Damrin was leading his goats to their normal pasture grounds, and he ran into the hermit Supilak who happened to be walking down the mountain from the very same pastures. Supilak lived in a cave much further away, on the other side of the village, so this was odd. Damrin asked him what he was doing.

And then Supilak could launch into a story about watching a mountain brook to discover the secret of mortality. Or, whatever, heh.

Some of Plato's dialogues involving Socrates are similar—although, even some of those will involve side characters who do get worked up.

So...I was just reacting to the blanket statement that all great stories must do the one thing that you seem to do so well and naturally...

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah. I can see how that would come across pretty bad lol!

For me, saying a story doesn't need a character is like saying a sentence doesn't need a subject. "Running," is not a sentence. Someone has to be running, even if we don't know what that someone is. In a story, you may claim you don't have a character, but who is the narrator then? The narrator would add the human element necessary for reader connection, thereby taking on the role of "character voice" and offering (even possibly without knowing it) opinions and subjective thoughts. But just as in a sentence, your story would have to include "something" doing "Something", so that something, be it a rock or a blade of grass would need to be doing "something." The rock or blade of grass would be the character. If it is just blowing in the wind then it's not a story, it's a long sentence. As soon as you introduce conflict then it becomes a story.

The blade of glass blew in the wind. Above it roamed the deer, teeth bared, ready for lunch.

 

[Devor]

For me, saying a story doesn't need a character is like saying a sentence doesn't need a subject. "Running," is not a sentence.

Truth: People write sentences without a subject all the time. It just takes... what's the word? Ahh, right. Context. I'll show you. I just need to take an example and run with it. And that's what I'll do. Here we go. Running.

Someone has to be running, even if we don't know what that someone is. In a story, you may claim you don't have a character, but who is the narrator then? The narrator would add the human element necessary for reader connection, thereby taking on the role of "character voice" and offering (even possibly without knowing it) opinions and subjective thoughts. But just as in a sentence, your story would have to include "something" doing "Something", so that something, be it a rock or a blade of grass would need to be doing "something." The rock or blade of grass would be the character. If it is just blowing in the wind then it's not a story, it's a long sentence. As soon as you introduce conflict then it becomes a story.

The blade of glass blew in the wind. Above it roamed the deer, teeth bared, ready for lunch.

This is a problem with conversations like this. At some point we're taking character and conflict to such an abstract place that they don't mean much anymore. And then we can define a "story" to require these things, as separate from, say, a "vignette" which doesn't. So where does that leave us?

"For sale, baby shoes, never worn."

^ Where's the character? Where's the conflict? Is it a story - it's commonly called the "six word story" - or something else? Is it enough that the baby's life and death are implied, or are they key elements of character and conflict making it a story? Or are the shoes the character, and is the "never worn" what's creating the conflict? Nothing here is changing - except by the implied backstory.

At what point does it become so abstract and tenuous that any useful purpose of the analysis falls apart - except to prove the integrity of the analysis? And instead of stretching things beyond any functional purpose or substance, can't we just admit there are exceptions to everything?

 

[FifthView]

Heliotrope

Ah, the narrator. I hadn't thought of that in this context. You know I've talked about on-the-nose narration before. I tend to always view the narrator as a type of character, although I do think that some objective approaches eliminate the subjectivity in the narration. Even a close third limited will try to hide the narrator behind character voice, or at least give no clue of a second character heh.

And there'll always be a narrator, whether that narrator is the author or not. I'd not thought of this in terms of adding the human element, but I think you are right. If nothing else, that would add it, even if only subtly. A story without a narrator is like prose without words, heh. Doesn't happen.

But there's also another human already present: the reader.

As a reader, I can see a dog being kicked and still feel my hackles rise without needing another character in-story to react with anger, plan a complicated plot to hunt down and kill the dog-kicker. I don't even need the dog to be that character's dog. This is one of the reasons I become a little confused with the insistence that we need a character reacting personally to things in order for the reader to care about those things, or a plot that is character-driven for readers to care about what happens.

It's almost insulting. What, I, the reader, can understand and care about something only if some main character is having conniption fits about it? The other direction can become frustrating: What, I'm supposed to care about that inane event or situation simply because the character does? I could care less if Sally wins Bobby's heart; Bobby's a creepy guy, anyway, and Sally's ignoring her ailing father because she's too wrapped up in romanticizing about Bobby. And in any case, this is every pop love song ever written, heh.

When I mentioned the "greater stakes" re: murder in my second comment to this thread, I was alluding to something like this. The reader can have a stake in what is happening without—or, regardless—of whether the main character has a stake in it.

But, none of these considerations eliminates the power that connection to a character may have in creating reader engagement. Just as I may care about that dog being kicked, I may care about the character.

I do think that, if we are going to put more of the heavy lifting on the ideas, milieu, and events in the story, and less on engagement through character, then that introduces a need to really make those other things worthy of attention and engagement. That's another reason the thought of writing that space-going odyssey myself gives me pause. But maybe it shouldn't. [I think this is where we can insert that advice to work on these areas, in addition to characterization, for everything we write, heh.]

 

[Russ]

?

"For sale, baby shoes, never worn."

^ Where's the character? Where's the conflict? Is it a story - it's commonly called the "six word story" - or something else? Is it enough that the baby's life and death are implied, or are they key elements of character and conflict making it a story? Or are the shoes the character, and is the "never worn" what's creating the conflict? Nothing here is changing - except by the implied backstory.

At what point does it become so abstract and tenuous that any useful purpose of the analysis falls apart - except to prove the integrity of the analysis? And instead of stretching things beyond any functional purpose or substance, can't we just admit there are exceptions to everything?

Good place to import the concept of vignette vs. story.

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 plain reading of 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.