Fiction: Most Important Aspect to You

[Schmidty]

I just finished a series of novels that, although very good, also left me wanting a bit. It got me thinking about what the most important part of a novel is to me. Of course, in the perfect world everything would be superb, but since that's not usually the case, I decided to pick.

After some thought, I decided that it's all about the characters for me. A great plot is obviously huge, but if I don't give a crap about the characters, the plot means nothing.

So anyway, what is the most important thing to you?

[Lathum]

naked ladies, lots and lots of naked ladies

[Schmidty]

Damn. You're fast.

[Schmidty]

Oops. I forgot it posts before I finish the poll. So you aren't as fast!!!

[Lathum]

oh, it's a poll.

[larrymcg421]

Great characters. A compelling plot and exceptional prose mean nothing to me if I'm not interested in the people involved, whereas memorable characters can make up for the other flaws because I still want to turn the next page to see what happens to them.

[SFL Cat]

All of the above, actually. Few books have done that for me. Only two I can think of off the top of my head are "To Kill A Mockingbird," and "Dune."

[JonInMiddleGA]

I was going to say "whatever it takes to entertain me" but if I enjoy the plot then ultimately I'm likely to be entertained. The degree may vary but that's still a success to some extent. But all the characters in the world put in uninteresting situations probably isn't going to get the job done, nor is a beautifully written manuscript that's as interesting as watching paint dry.

[kcchief19]

Character development is essential to greatness but great characters in a story that goes nowhere is no good, whereas weak characters with a riveting story can be entertaining.

[sabotai]

Tough choice. Excellent prose probably goes at the end (although I can admire exceptional writing, I'll read badly written stories if it the rest of the elements are done well). As for the other three, any one of them could destroy the book for me even if the other two are done well.

I guess I'd go with plot, since if that's done well and the rest is crap, I'll probably end up reading it longer than a book that only has one of the other elements done well.

[Izulde]

Oi, this is a tough one.

Rich Setting/World is actually the easiest to knock out. I have a tendency to create the images in my head as I go along anyway, which may or may not match what's written on the page.

Plot's pretty easy to knock out too. Often some of the most striking stories or novels for me are ones that have very simple plots. The whole thing about there only being a handful or so of stories is true.

So it comes down to prose versus characters. And that's where it really gets nasty, as memorable characters and memorable prose both tend to stick with me.

In the end, though, prose is going to get the nod. As much as I enjoy compelling characters, what gets me to re-read things most often is excellent prose. Thus, while Gabriel Garcia Marquez's characters thus far tend to blur together into types for me, the magnificence of his prose will keep me coming back to him. Another example: while Nabokov has problems with pacing in some of his novels, I'll try again to finish Despair and Ada, simply because of his fantastic writing.

On the flip side, I refuse to read many contemporary authors because they can't write worth a damn. The list is too long to rattle off here, but Anne Rice and Stephanie Meyer are particular enemies of mine.

Even Rowling, as much as I enjoy her writing and am extremely thankful for her singlehandedly saving not only the publishing company who released her books, but an entire generation of readers, is only average in terms of her prose. Her strength, much like Dumas, is in plot and character.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

All of the above, actually. Few books have done that for me. Only two I can think of off the top of my head are "To Kill A Mockingbird," and "Dune."

"To Kill a Mockingbird" is still one of my favorite novels, and I agree that it has everything needed for the perfect read. The fact that the movie is just about as good is like icing on the cake.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Oi, this is a tough one.

Rich Setting/World is actually the easiest to knock out. I have a tendency to create the images in my head as I go along anyway, which may or may not match what's written on the page.

Plot's pretty easy to knock out too. Often some of the most striking stories or novels for me are ones that have very simple plots. The whole thing about there only being a handful or so of stories is true.

So it comes down to prose versus characters. And that's where it really gets nasty, as memorable characters and memorable prose both tend to stick with me.

In the end, though, prose is going to get the nod. As much as I enjoy compelling characters, what gets me to re-read things most often is excellent prose. Thus, while Gabriel Garcia Marquez's characters thus far tend to blur together into types for me, the magnificence of his prose will keep me coming back to him. Another example: while Nabokov has problems with pacing in some of his novels, I'll try again to finish Despair and Ada, simply because of his fantastic writing.

On the flip side, I refuse to read many contemporary authors because they can't write worth a damn. The list is too long to rattle off here, but Anne Rice and Stephanie Meyer are particular enemies of mine.

Even Rowling, as much as I enjoy her writing and am extremely thankful for her singlehandedly saving not only the publishing company who released her books, but an entire generation of readers, is only average in terms of her prose. Her strength, much like Dumas, is in plot and character.

As an English major (never quite finished), I totally understand and respect your conclusion; however, when I read for enjoyment (which is usually the case), I just can't get past the caring thing. Regardless of how mesmerizing an author's writing is, if I don't give a damn about his/her subject, I can't enjoy it.

Anyway, it's interesting to read other reader's thoughts.

[Schmidty]

Just to be forthcoming, the series I finished was A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'll try again to finish Despair and Ada, simply because of his fantastic writing.

I've tried again and again to get into Ada but never succeeded

I'm not sure which category my preference falls into - maybe the fourth - but it's novels that involve great ideas that cause you to ponder their meaning. The 1920s/30s/40s were full of them. Kafka's "The Trial", Camus' "L'Etranger" etc.

One book I've read again and again - mainly because I've not yet figured out the meaning behind the ending in the Magic Theatre (billed as "For Madmen Only - Price of Admittance, Your Mind") is "Steppenwolf" by Herman Hesse. I tend to read it about every 5 years but no matter how many times it always entertains and always leaves me wondering. His "The Glass Bead Game" is very good too. A science fiction novel that also sticks in my mind (I usually find sci fi way over the top) is Jerry Pournelles' "The Mote in God's Eye" where we meet a world where evolution has produced very different beings.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I am definitely a character-driven reader. Even if there is a minor character I really, really like, I will continue to read the book to see his/her fate.

That's one of the things I've enjoyed most about the A Song of Ice and Fire series, there are just so many characters I enjoy, both major and minor, that I like reading about them and figuring out where they fit, not only in the current story, but in the past and in the greater scope of things.

[MacroGuru]

For me I really get into the Characters followed by the Rich/World Setting...

If the author is good with those 2 I can read almost anything.

I constantly am trying to find the combination with new writers and it is becoming tougher.

With Eddings and Jordan passing recently and Feist having 2 more books left to wrap up his Midkemia setting I am at a loss on who to read..I have even ventured into the Clancy and Cussler arena to see if that is where I am shifting too, but I am still drawn to the Fantasy genre.

[ColtCrazy]

I think a compelling plot is vital to a good book, but I don't think compelling means complicated. Here's where I think the different aspects blend. The writing of the plot makes a difference. I've read books where the plot is simple, but well written, and I've loved it. I've read books that have complicated plots, but are poorly written and they always leave me thinking "that could have been better"

I guess I could have voted either way.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Character development is essential to greatness but great characters in a story that goes nowhere is no good, whereas weak characters with a riveting story can be entertaining.

Yup. See the Honorverse for a great example. All he DOES is discuss characters and their motivations at length nowadays. Compare "On Basilisk Station" to "Storm from the Shadows" and the first is a much better book because it has a compelling plot that also develops a couple of characters, while the latter goes on ad nauseum about the characters without much of anything actually happening.

[boberot]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Oi, this is a tough one.

Rich Setting/World is actually the easiest to knock out. I have a tendency to create the images in my head as I go along anyway, which may or may not match what's written on the page.

Plot's pretty easy to knock out too. Often some of the most striking stories or novels for me are ones that have very simple plots. The whole thing about there only being a handful or so of stories is true.

So it comes down to prose versus characters. And that's where it really gets nasty, as memorable characters and memorable prose both tend to stick with me.

In the end, though, prose is going to get the nod. As much as I enjoy compelling characters, what gets me to re-read things most often is excellent prose. Thus, while Gabriel Garcia Marquez's characters thus far tend to blur together into types for me, the magnificence of his prose will keep me coming back to him. Another example: while Nabokov has problems with pacing in some of his novels, I'll try again to finish Despair and Ada, simply because of his fantastic writing.

On the flip side, I refuse to read many contemporary authors because they can't write worth a damn. The list is too long to rattle off here, but Anne Rice and Stephanie Meyer are particular enemies of mine.

Even Rowling, as much as I enjoy her writing and am extremely thankful for her singlehandedly saving not only the publishing company who released her books, but an entire generation of readers, is only average in terms of her prose. Her strength, much like Dumas, is in plot and character.

I also came up with "prose" and the first person that came to my mind as an example of a guy who could write mesmerizing stuff without a big emphasis on characters was also Garcia Marquez.

I've read books with really compelling characters, but then I find that I hate the bullshit the author puts them through and the crappy story trumps any appreciation I had for the characters.

If something is exquisitely written, then the other stuff matters much less in my mind.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Character development is essential to greatness but great characters in a story that goes nowhere is no good, whereas weak characters with a riveting story can be entertaining.

I'll even go so far as to say that great characters with a mediocre plot is boring while a good plot with mediocre characters can still be a page turner.

SI

[JPhillips]

Plot.

Poetics FTW!

[Noop]

Izulde is an English major right?

I pretty much agree with what he said. Although I voted character, prose was close. My favorite book is A wrinkle in time because of the characters.

[chesapeake]

Dan Brown and his million$ says that the answer is a good plot. I am inclined to agree.

[Schmidty]

[quote=MacroGuru;2043755With Eddings and Jordan passing recently and Feist having 2 more books left to wrap up his Midkemia setting I am at a loss on who to read..I have even ventured into the Clancy and Cussler arena to see if that is where I am shifting too, but I am still drawn to the Fantasy genre.[/QUOTE]

Tad Williams is great if you like high fantasy. "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" trilogy is amazinng. I'm just starting his "Shadowmarch" books.

David Drake's "Lord of the Isles" series is also very good.

[Karlifornia]

If you're going to a write a book that people pay for, you better have all of the above.

[Antmeister]

Plot for me gets the nod.

In fact a common thread for my favorite books appear to be a good plot, because I can get over weak characters, sparse settings and average prose if there is a fantastic plot that keeps me turning the page.

This is how I see it. If I have a great plot and it is weak in all the other areas, it is an average book. If the book has a great plot and is average in one or more of the other areas, it is a good book. If there is a great plot and it is at least good in one or more areas, it is a great book. If it has a great plot and great in more than one area, you are probably reading a classic book. If the plot is the weakest area, regardless of the other areas, the book is horrible. I feel as if I am cheated if the plot goes nowhere and the strength lies in those other areas.

If you can apply this to movies, imagine Star Wars - The Empire Strikes Back, Alien, Lord of the Rings with a plot that goes nowhere.

Or to illustrate this point even better, watch the last Indiana Jones movie and see how a horrible plot that destroy what used to be an iconic character.

[larrymcg421]

I would not give a shit who had the ring, who wanted the ring, why they wanted it, what the ring did, etc. if it weren't for Gandalf, Frodo, Legolas, Gimli, Sam, Smeagol, etc.

I think the Indiana Jones example is a bad one. Yes, the last movie was weak, but the only reason it is still somewhat watchable is the main character. Now imagine if the original Raiders had a weak character. Imagine someone bland like Ryan O' Neal had the role. I would rather watch Crystal Skull on an endless 24 hour loop than the Ryan O Neal Raiders.

[Buccaneer]

Interesting poll, Schmidty. I easily knocked out Prose as most books that are considered 'excellent prose' are basically incomprehesible. As far as the other three, I chose Setting because most fiction that I've read were historical novels and it's the historical setting that interests me most. If a historical novel is in a time period I am not interested in, it doesn't matter if it has great characters and plot.

[StLee]

I selected style ("The way it is written") because I think good style can make or break the experience of reading a novel. Of course, the best novels have all of the elements listed in the poll, but the only contemporary novels I can enjoy are novels where words sing to me.

As an example, I read The DaVinci Code years ago and absolutely hated the novel because of the style. The story seemed good and the characters were interesting, but I felt like the author was insulting my intelligence through each passing chapter, with basic plot summaries to start each chapter and long dialogues telling rather than showing the action of the story.

On the contrary, I recently read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night, a novel told through the eyes of an autistic teenager, and I was blown away by the style of the book, the unique perspective offered through the read.

Thus, style is my favorite part of a novel experience, and for the most part for a short story experience.

[AgustusM]

for me I like learning about new things within the context of a story

the aforementioned DaVinci code was a good example.

I loved most of Michael Crichtons novels for that reason - he did a great job of interweaving interesting things into his stories.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Just to be forthcoming, the series I finished was A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin.

I just finished it a couple weeks back as well. So, are you excited about another book or are you done? I've decided I'm excited......well, interested anyway.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by path12

I just finished it a couple weeks back as well. So, are you excited about another book or are you done? I've decided I'm excited......well, interested anyway.

That's totally like me. Very interested, but I guess I could live without another installment. I loved "A Storm of Swords" (my favorite), but was a little underwhelmed by "A Feast for Crows". Also, I just don't see the series finishing before the author dies. There are too many things to resolve, and he seems like a slow writer.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I would not give a shit who had the ring, who wanted the ring, why they wanted it, what the ring did, etc. if it weren't for Gandalf, Frodo, Legolas, Gimli, Sam, Smeagol, etc.

I think the Indiana Jones example is a bad one. Yes, the last movie was weak, but the only reason it is still somewhat watchable is the main character. Now imagine if the original Raiders had a weak character. Imagine someone bland like Ryan O' Neal had the role. I would rather watch Crystal Skull on an endless 24 hour loop than the Ryan O Neal Raiders.

Yes, but I don't consider those characters to be very deep. In fact, I consider most of them archetypes with possibly the exception of Frodo, who is struggling internally.

And the Indiana Jones example is still a good example. It clearly illustrates what a weak plot can do with a great character. And as I illustrated above, if you had a great plot and weak character, it would have just been an average movie. Probably wouldn't rewatch it, but I won't be ticked that the story didn't go anywhere.

And yeah, it is difficult to gauge great character is in movies, because success is determined by appearance, demeanor and acting ability along with a well written script. This is unlike a novel in which a you can go into a character's thoughts and let him develop more over time.