Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

When you read a science fiction or fantasy book, what attracts your interest more? Do you prefer getting to know the characters and what makes them so human? Or do you prefer the main plot they follow and the actiony parts where the tempo picks up and fists fly?

I've always been most attracted to getting to know the characters. What made them who they are; why they act the way they do; what makes them tick and what makes them cry; what their backstory is. The plot could be wholly formulaic for me, but if the characters are intriguing, that lack of spark in the plot-wise department won't matter to me. And action, that's never really appealed to me in literature. I can tune out pretty fast if it's prolonged.

What say you?

To be difficult, I like both.

Ok, let me clarify; I LOVE a good space battle... but I get bored if the whole book is one long battle.

So take something like Hammer and Bolter: Issue 2 - good battles, but the WHOLE thing is battles, and it very quickly gets boring.

However something like Peter F Hamilton's Common Wealth Saga (Pandora's Star etc) is much more geared to the social/relationship aspect - it's not a perfect book/series, but it is pretty darn good.

I like a good mix. Great characters that you slowly learn more about as they go through the plot, short action scenes scattered throughout. I don't want too much sitting around talking, or pages and pages of descriptions of battles.

But the action should come from who the characters are and they should act in a way that fits, does that make sense? I mean, not every thirty pages the author plops in a bar fight or an ambush or a kidnapping or something just for the sake of action.

I've read A LOT of fantasy, and I like the "Young Obscure Person must Grow Up and Kill the Badguy because Prophecy" plotline if it's done well and feels like a fresh or interesting new take. Same with, "Oh noes! Aliens!" and "Horrible stuff has made Apocalypse, Now What?" and "Plucky Snarky Band of Misfits just Wanna Make Money but Oops, We Saved the World!"

So the plot is the bones and the characters are the flesh. Can't have too much of either.

Both. Plot reveals character. Would Luke Skywalker have ever become a Jedi, if he did not leave Tatooine with Obi-Wan?
And character drives plot. Luke left, because his aunt and uncle were killed.

The best SF has both...I love Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel Rat series. Lots of action, but if Slippery Jim wasn't such a fun, well, rat, the series wouldn't be nearly as good. Same goes for a favorite fantasy series of mine, the Myth Adventures series by Robert Aspirin. On the other hand, there's lots of good idea-drivin SF out there too...tons of short stories from the Golden Age were I couldn't give a darn about the people populating them, but the ideas are just so grand I love the stories anyway.

Brenda wrote: "Both. Plot reveals character. Would Luke Skywalker have ever become a Jedi, if he did not leave Tatooine with Obi-Wan?
And character drives plot. Luke left, because his aunt and uncle were killed."
True. Plot was an important factor in those films, and really what drove it, along with the awesome spacecraft and the designs of everything because the characters, ehhh... They weren't that complex (but they were great, some of them). But in some franchises, particularly with Mass Effect 2, which has really inspired me, it's showed me that the plot doesn't have to be anything dynamic, yet can still be thrilling, riveting and moving as long as the characters are solid and their stories engaging. Hyperion is another fairly good example of better characters over plot, although the main plot is pretty good because of the mystery. They've convinced me that characters should ultimately come first, especially in literature.

Nicholas wrote: "When you read a science fiction or fantasy book, what attracts your interest more? Do you prefer getting to know the characters and what makes them so human? Or do you prefer the main plot they follow and the actiony parts where the tempo picks up and fists fly?..."

I think you have your answer - all of the replies so far have, in various ways, said "Both, in balance". That last may be the key - I have read quite a few new authors, many self-published in the last few years. All were at least OK in what they regard as the main component of their story, whether that was plot, action, character, setting, world-building, humour, whatever - but what they offered was not always what I was looking for. A real master of the craft has all of those, in a balance that will appeal to many (most?) readers.
The problem, of course, to a reader, is knowing when your own particular tastes match the aims and abilities of the unfamiliar author whose work you are thinking about trying - and the problem for the author is finding the balance that will appeal to the target audience. Some can do it instinctively (they are the masters of their craft), others can't do it at all (but some of them go ahead and publish anyway!).

I want to answer the question again if you ask it the other way - "What lack can make me put down a book, action or character?"

This one I'd definitely answer that character is much more important to me. I'll keep reading a book with a weak or tired plot or even too much action, lame action, if I really enjoy the characters. But if the characters bore me or annoy me I'm very likely to dump the book, no matter how thrilling the action or fascinating the plot.

I guess it all really depends on the intention behind the driving force of the novel. Typically, novels will be plot or character based that make it interesting, and have elements of the other to help move the story along.

I can say this, and I've read this comment a lot in reviews, I could care less if the characters eat, poop and shower. Maybe I'm missing the metaphor, but unless I am reading a more literary work, I don't want to see my characters do hum-drum, everyday stuff. I'll assume they take potty breaks.

My thoughts exactly Michele uninteresting characters is book killer for me but interesting characters will make me overlook other flaws.

Michele wrote: "I want to answer the question again if you ask it the other way - "What lack can make me put down a book, action or character?"

This one I'd definitely answer that character is much more important..."

Agreed. I do the same, unless it's a classic where I'll see it through just to see what the fuss is all about. Mostly.

If I had to pick one I'd say character development is more important to me, but that's not to say that plot/action/pacing are not important. The absence of either one is not a dealbreaker for me if it really makes up for it with the other - great characterization can make up for poor pacing, and a plot that really keeps me engaged might make me overlook a deficiency in character building. And then there are other important elements like world-building, writing quality/descriptive language, etc. Ideally a good book in these genres will have all of that going for it; however, a book can still earn 3 or even 4 stars from me if one or more of these facets is lacking, but it would have to wow me with the quality of at least one other facet.

I had thought that characters drove my interest in the stories I read, but after reading some of the reviews on a few of my favorite books, I am beginning to think that it is a balance of character building, world building, and plot.

One series I have been recently introduced to is Sharon Lee and Steve Miller's Liaden books. I love them, though there has been quite a bit more world building recently than character work. However, I still hang on every hint of the next book due out.

Kind of the same thing with David Webber's Honorverse books. Really hoping to see a completion of the last arc he introduced, even though the plot is pretty predictable - similar to Dirty Harry's cars - give Honor a ship and she brings back a wreck. But, seeing how she wrecks it this time is what's so fun.

As for the fantasy books, I'm actually embarrassed to admit I haven't been able to keep current with those. Will have to keep an eye out for recommendations. But, so many of the new books I've come across weren't worth my time, and I've gotten a little gun shy. Need to get over that.

I like to see both well described characters and action. A good story should show the development of characters via their interactions and reactions to events.

Nicholas wrote: "When you read a science fiction or fantasy book, what attracts your interest more? Do you prefer getting to know the characters and what makes them so human? Or do you prefer the main plot they fol..."

For a novel to draw me in, it has to have well-developed characters. I like action, but without human drama, even the best action lacks poignancy. It's basically violence-porn.

Nicholas wrote: "But in some franchises, particularly with Mass Effect 2, which has really inspired me, it's showed me that the plot doesn't have to be anything dynamic, yet can still be thrilling, riveting and moving as long as the characters are solid and their stories engaging. "

Have to disagree with you on the plot and characters - the PLOT itself was great. Amazing. The way it played out? Eh...the idea behind it was good, but not the way it was presented. Still, the action in it was fantastic!

The only characters I found myself really caring about were the ones who had been in the first ME. Grunt? Who cares? I want to see Wrex! (And I was probably a little too excited to see my favorite Turian return...)

Totally agree about the inspirational part, though. Going through the ending? Ha! I still get goosebumps going through it.

I would have to say I prefer action over characters - I'd rather have a little bit more of a flat character and some awesome action scenes than the other way around - but there is definitely a balance that needs to be had.

Take Dawnthief, by James Barclay for example. The fights were fun (despite some details that irked me) but the characters died off so freaking much that I distanced myself from them. I kept reading for the action scenes - not even so much as to "what happens".

When I write SF my characters are the main driving force. The social setting and worldbuilding are part of who they are. I see the action as evolving from that setting and their interactions with others. So whether I am reading or writing I want to know what is going on socially and what their environment looks like - a built environment or a natural one, to start.

Take the Red Mars series - the drive to colonise Mars and terraform it is impelled by the population pressure on Earth, which only increases as the series progresses.

Characters are just plot vehicles to me. All I really ask is that they behave plausibly in order for interesting plot or thematic things to happen. When the characters are actually good, it's a surprise bonus.

I think this is the big difference between LotR and Harry Potter. Potter fans seem to be all about the characters- "Harry's feeling this, Ron's growing so much, etc." LotR fans tend to talk more about whether it's a metaphor for anything and the quality of the world-building.

I'm a character-driven writer and reader. There is no story without the characters. Of course, scenes that develop their characters should be written to show, rather than tell, to keep the reader engaged. I like action scenes too, but if a story is just going through action elements without any real engagement via the characters, it won't hold my interest for long.

In my brain, the main character of The Fountains of Paradise was the elevator. The well-crafted human characters were a great bonus, but I could have done with just the elevator.

The Lord of the Rings is an epic war/quest story. Harry Potter is a bildungsroman with a Dark Lord to fight as validation of growing up.

Different structure require different characterization.

I'm in the minority, but give me a good plot any day over characters. I read science fiction because I wish I could "do" science, but I don't possess enough scientific acumen and intelligence. For example, I am fascinated by the idea of a space elevator and how it could impact human lives, but I'm not smart enough to actually build a the darn thing. So I read Fountains of Paradise. I really want humans to expand beyond Earth and colonize other planets. What impact would such colonization have on human civilization as a whole? Those are the kinds of reasons for why I read science fiction.

Of course, a reader needs some character development. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But I don't need 200 pages of the protagonist's inner turmoil about his childhood or love interest. I need a brief explanation of who everyone is, where we are, where we are going, why we are going and what happens when we get there. Then explain some new technology that might be possible one day and how it affects the story. And then let's go.

Do you like Hal Clement?

Of course, his notion of a plot was to arrange the facts of his invented world in a suitable order for discovery and set the characters to find them.

Mary wrote: "Do you like Hal Clement?

Of course, his notion of a plot was to arrange the facts of his invented world in a suitable order for discovery and set the characters to find them."

Thanks for the heads-up, Mary! Hal Clement seems like my kind of guy- most of his book covers don't even have people on them.

I'm not sure that the differences between HP and LotR are driven by structure, though. The Harry Potter plots are highly repetitive, but the characters are endearing and clearly defined. LotR has one of the most compelling plots of all time, but many of the characters are interchangeable. I find that people's responses to the two series say a lot about what they're looking for in fiction.

Definitely the plot, then the action, and then the characters. I read SF for the ideas and the scope of the concepts, not the personal angst of a character or characters. That said, a strong character helps, but to me isn't critical, it just adds colour.

Mary wrote: "Do you like Hal Clement?

Of course, his notion of a plot was to arrange the facts of his invented world in a suitable order for discovery and set the characters to find them."
We might need a third category here. What Hal Clement was famous for (in his day) was creating planets with extreme environments so far as the science of his day could extrapolate. That doesn't really fit social or action.
(Alert: Clement was reckoned pretty good in his day, which was the 1960s. He tried a comeback novel in about 1995. It is worth avoiding, do not judge the man by that example)

My books are character driven, but the people don't exist in a vacuum. The environment and the people they meet shape their actions. Getting nice, challenging environment or ongoing situation established is key to any story.

Alan wrote: "Mary wrote: "Do you like Hal Clement?

Of course, his notion of a plot was to arrange the facts of his invented world in a suitable order for discovery and set the characters to find..."

Possibly "Event Driven" stories. It's not just the setting, but what happens.

I really enjoy the Setting-driven stories, e.g. Clement's Mission of Gravity.

In both science fiction and fantasy, I think setting and world building rule. What new technology did you introduce? How does your magic system work? What's the physical environment? How does your government, society, and economy function? Plot only exists to explore that setting, and the Characters are the tour guides. Cut them out of Central Casting Cardboard™, I don't care! Just put them someplace clever and interesting.

Writer Robert J. Sawyer strongly feels that SF stories should be about some important topic, ie. be built around a core theme. He considers SF a literature of metaphor (often using Planet of the Apes as an example). Is theme as interesting to you as plot and character?

While themes are good, and I think we all include things to do with out belief systems (consciously or unconsciously), my greatest desire when writing is to simply tell the story that's knocking on the inside of my brain, demanding to be released.

It can be dangerous to consciously try to put one in.

" Let the pictures tell you their own moral. For the moral inherent in them will rise from whatever spiritual roots you have succeeded in striking during the whole course of your life." -- C.S. Lewis

I wouldn't like it if there was no action. But, it's the characters that keep me coming back (especially if it's a series). And, why I'm struggled a bit with Leviathan Wakes. I haven't really gotten attached to any characters enough to compel me to read on...

Mary wrote: "It can be dangerous to consciously try to put one in.

" Let the pictures tell you their own moral. For the moral inherent in them will rise from whatever spiritual roots you have succeeded in stri..."

I love theme, but I hate preaching. I think that's the difference between The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land.

Lack of well-executed theme is one of my biggest complaints against popular SF. I don't think the themes in The Hunger Games mesh well, and that's part of the reason I have trouble taking it seriously.

Most people agree that LotR has theme, but they don't agree on what it is. I love that about LotR.

I agree with you, Phil. Preaching kicks the reader right out of the story. I also think that the richest novels present all sides of their thematic issues faithfully. That results in more complex characters and plots, too.

Yes, that's called author intrusion. It's when your own personal beliefs enter into the story in a way that doesn't fit it, but fits you.

Lynne wrote: "Yes, that's called author intrusion. It's when your own personal beliefs enter into the story in a way that doesn't fit it, but fits you."

Just to be contrary, there are some times that author intrusion is the whole point of the novel, because the author is intruding with something so amazing you can't look away. For example, The Illuminatus! Trilogy: The Eye in the Pyramid/The Golden Apple/Leviathan.

That would definitely be the exception, not the rule, and something that should only be attempted by the best of writers. Author intrusion is called that because it usually sticks out like a sore thumb.

Lynne wrote: "I'm a character-driven writer and reader. There is no story without the characters. Of course, scenes that develop their characters should be written to show, rather than tell, to keep the reader e..."

I agree. A novel has to have characters that are not only fully delineated but are also ones I care about. It also needs a good plot, but that's secondary to the characters and should develop them.