World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Do you love a story for its complex or unique characters, plot, or story universe, or quality of language/writing?

Does it differ by genre? For example, broadly speaking, I'd say that sci-fi tends to be driven more by the story universe than other genres.

Caveat: If the story doesn't grab you, then all bets are off, but some combination in the aforementioned 4 major story components would probably be at fault.

Here are two rather different opinions on the subject. One focuses on "commercial fiction" while the other on "tragedy".

On commercial fiction:

"There are no new plots, but there are plenty of fresh new character with whom you can grab the reader. Characterization is the key to successful commercial fiction."
(GMC: Goal, Motivation and Conflict: The Building Blocks of Good Fiction)

On tragedy:

The primacy of plot
The most important element is the construction of the plot. Tragedy is a representation not of persons but of action and life, and happiness and unhappiness consist in action. The point is action, not character: it is their moral status that gives people the character they have, but it is their actions that make them happy or unhappy. So it is not in order to portray moral character that the actors perform; rather, they include characters for the sake of action. The events, the story, are the point of tragedy, and that is the most important thing of all.
(Poetics)

Thoughts? Which books do you really love and why?

Alex wrote: "Do you love a story for its complex or unique characters, plot, or story universe, or quality of language/writing?

Does it differ by genre? For example, broadly speaking, I'd say that sci-fi tends..."

I think there needs to be 'magic' in writing itself, which if exists can make even trivial plots enjoyable and not extraordinary heroes emotionally engaging..

I am not sure I agree, although the concept that commercial fiction has no new plots may be because if it had one, the story would not get published and promoted. But I would suggest Harry Potter was tolerably novel at the time.

I disagree about tragedy. Tragedy should be about character, and the tragedy arises out of character defects. Thus the tragedy for Lear is his ego won't let him value his non-sycophantic daughter, at least until far too late. At least that is what I think, and I have incorporated those sort of ideas into some of my books. Of course, the idea still has to be recognised by the reader.

Shakespeare's tragedies were extraordinary. They were introspective and complex. Hamlet's incapacity to act, stems from his own ingrown conflict: passivity, playing out brilliantly, "the plays the thing that will catch the king's conscience." His long soliloquies reveal how he suffered even to come this far.

Lear's tragedy occurs, albeit but out of a failure to judge human nature. Ego, definitely, leading to short sightedness and then tragedy. A king without wisdom is dangerous. A classic case of "the blind leading the blind", a fatal flaw in the character indeed!

In much of my fiction, I do try to make a character's downfall a consequence of his own character failings, although sometimes, the failure is off-stage, including a failure of the government to do its job as it panders to vested interests. One of the more subtle ones was in my theocracy - a cardinal thought he received a divine message, without really stopping to question what it really was.

This a very interesting question, and if I can beg your indulgence, I'll refer to the one plot I know best...

My two main characters are Anton and Chloe, and there is a major character named Crane.

Chloe is older, wiser, and far more skilled at the arts of deception and war.

Anton is young, naive and unskilled but possesses a very rare talent that makes him the perfect tool for Chloe.

Chloe seeks her own liberty/freedom from an enslaving curse. A noble and reasonable goal. The only way she can be free is to kill her master - Crane - an action the curse forbids her from doing.

There are two core relationships.

Chloe as protagonist vs Crane as antagonist.

Anton as protagonist vs Chloe as antagonist.

This would be like Darth Vader manipulating Luke Skywalker into killing Emperor Palpatine so that Darth could smash the rebellion and take over the Empire while Luke ends up with nothing but the ashes of an empty victory...

The key parameters of the conflict are that Chloe's manipulation of, and forging of Anton as a weapon against Crane must occur in secret both to Crane and Anton. If Crane finds out - he will end her slavery by killing her and if Anton finds out, he would thwart her plan by not killing Crane and would focus entirely upon killing her - becoming in the process her Nemesis.

There is an element of the Frankenstein story here, if Anton becomes strong enough to destroy Crane, but is also beyond the control of Chloe - he could become her nemesis.

There is a strong element of the modern epic - the struggle of the individual against a corrupt authority - but expressed in two layers.

Crane's authority over Chloe is established through the corrupt means of a curse. Chloe's authority over Anton is established through the corrupt means of deception, manipulation and murder.

Chloe has a noble purpose/motivation - her liberty/freedom from unjust enslavement.

Anton has an ignoble purpose/motivation - revenge on Chloe for the murder of his mother and the abduction/turning of his father.

Both motivations set up major character arcs. Will Chloe's purpose remain noble to the end or will it descend into corruption. Will Anton move beyond revenge to a purpose based on justice.

For both characters, their purposes are nuanced via their actual methods. Chloe pursues her noble purpose with utter ruthlessness. Anton pursues his revenge with a moral sensitivity that constrains his choices. These internal contrasts provide character nuance and depth.

It remains to be seen.

The above illustrates what I'm looking for.

A multi-layered plot.
Nuanced characters with depth.
Characters that are ambiguous wrt good & evil. (all evil or all good characters don't work for me).

Ian wrote: "In much of my fiction, I do try to make a character's downfall a consequence of his own character failings, although sometimes, the failure is off-stage, including a failure of the government to do..."

Interesting concept., Ian What's the title of this book?

Mehreen, the theocracy one is called Ranh. It is SF, it is stand alone, but it also ends a series for one character (maybe). The planet is occupied by civilised dinosaurs (evolved raptors) that had been moved there by some other aliens 65 million years before - hence the theocracy. They could not have evolved from anything prior to the Cretaceous like dinosaurs because there were no fossils before then. I had a lot of fun writing a raptor culture too.

Ian wrote: "Mehreen, the theocracy one is called Ranh. It is SF, it is stand alone, but it also ends a series for one character (maybe). The planet is occupied by civilised dinosaurs (evolved raptors) that had..."

Wow!! Awesome!

I typically gravitate more toward interesting characters rather than the plot itself. I agree that there are no "new" plots--everything is the same when boiled down to its core--simply because it wouldn't be a story without them. I would be angry with a book if it had no conflict, or if it had no protagonist, just to name a few examples.

While plot structure is the bones (beginning, conflict, resolution) I think the setting and characters are what make the flesh of a story. If those are interesting, I'm down. Even if the writing is off, so long as the characters/dialogue is good, I'm pretty forgiving.

If "plot" is generalised to "Beginning, conflict, resolution" obviously there are not many plots. But I think all three of those terms have a lot of room for variation.