Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

I have discovered that those who like my SF novel "Pygmalion Conspiracy" do so primarily because they like my character Jeevra. Most like the plot, but most comment on Jeevra. The sequel, not published yet, has similar responses to the characters. I did not really focus on character development when I was writing. I am not sure why they are so attractive, but most of my readers are not science fiction readers. Perhaps science fiction readers will not be so enthusiastic.

I think character development is important for ANY genre, and the books that I adore enough to reread I do so because of the characters. Of course, plot is huge and a bad one will sink a book no matter how lovable the characters are, but I think that readers become fans because they fall in love with your characters.

Similar to what you said, the majority of people who bother to get in touch with me to tell me that they like my work tend to do so because of the characters (they may also praise my writing and plot, but usually the most emphatic praise is directed at the characters).

I think that makes sense, because I think that art of every kind is about connection, and readers feel most connected to a story they can identify with in some way, and the easiest way to do that (especially when the action is fantasy or science fiction and thus not something they've likely experienced themselves) is through the characters.

My two cents. :-)

Virginia wrote: "I think character development is important for ANY genre, and the books that I adore enough to reread I do so because of the characters. Of course, plot is huge and a bad one will sink a book no ma..."

I agree. Without character development it's hard for the reader to identify with the story's suspense and danger.

There are some who don't care, but for me it's always the characters. I can read most genres if the characters make me care.

When I think of science fiction novels I have read by such authors as Arthur C. Clarke and Greg Bear, it is not the characters I remember, but the skill and vision they revealed in their creation of strange events, new worlds and great dramas beyond the scope of ordinary life and thinking. It is the monolith on the moon, I remember from 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke more than the astronauts in the story, who are less interesting than the computer, Hal. Perhaps Captain Nemo in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea by Jules Verne is the most memorable character I can think of from the science fiction novels I have read. Every character in a story ought to be believable and develop as they are affected by its events and environments. I do not think science fiction is known for its great characters, like the novels of Charles Dickens are, for example, more for its strange worlds and events.

Philip wrote: "When I think of science fiction novels I have read by such authors as Arthur C. Clarke and Greg Bear, it is not the characters I remember, but the skill and vision they revealed in their creation o..."

With science fiction I pick it up for the concept, but it's the characters that will keep me reading. Yet at the same time, I couldn't tell you the names of the characters in the last science fiction novel I read this month. I would have to look them up in my book journal. I could definitely tell you the names of many mystery series protagonists because the reason why I read them is because I love those characters. So I'd tend to agree with you, Phillip. Science fiction is a concept genre.

I certainly see two distinct points of view, Both points combined lead me to wonder what leads. Perhaps some plots demand developed characters and some don't. Perhaps what we really mean when we say that a story doesn't develop its characters well is that the plot demanded development. Perhaps when the plot does not demand in-depth character development we don't notice it. It may even be true that when the author spends too much time on undemanded character development we see the book as too slow, I suspect that the same could be said for description.

Character is, or usually is, paramount in any writing. But it's certainly not THE paramount element in SF.

Read Azimov's Foundation series and you'll see. It's pointed to all over the place as a prime example of great Sci-Fi. But it's really got no character development in it. It's big on history, but short on exposition and character. The supposedly best character in that trilogy (Mule) is really not much more than a cartoon character. There's a tiny bit of depth to him, but not much more than your averqage comic book boss bad guy (bordering on anti-hero).

I read SF primarily for one thing: Ideas. And I require consistent world building (as in it can't break the rules of the world's internal logic).

If I get good characters as well, that's a bonus. A huge bonus.

I think Philip K. Dick put it best when he defined SF:

I will define science fiction, first, by saying what science fiction is not. It cannot be defined as 'a story set in the future,' [nor does it require] untra-advanced technology. It must have a fictitious world, a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society... that comes out of our world, the one we know:

This world must be different from the given one in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society…

There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation…so that as a result a new society is generated in the author's mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader's mind, the shock of dysrecognition.

[In] good science fiction, the conceptual dislocation---the new idea, in other words---must be truly new and it must be intellectually stimulating to the reader…[so] it sets off a chain-reaction of ramification, ideas in the mind of the reader; it so-to-speak unlocks the reader's mind so that that mind, like the author's, begins to create…. The very best science fiction ultimately winds up being a collaboration between author and reader, in which both create---and enjoy doing it, [experiencing] the joy of discovery of newness.

--Philip K. Dick, The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick, Carol Publishing, 1999, xviii-xiv.

So there you have what I consider to be paramount in SF: the intellectually stimulating shock of the new. Character can dramatically help that along, but cannot carry it on its own.

Louis Wu, Nessus, Speaker To Animals (later changed to Chmeee in subsequent novels), and Teela Brown. These are all characters from my favorite science fiction novel, Ringworld by Larry Niven. All interesting characters in a story with an interesting scientific idea. I instantly remembered all of their names, because of the characterization. I've reread that book many times. Asimov's Foundation trilogy bored me to tears within just the first three chapters. I never bothered reading the rest. No interesting characters to care about, so I didn't give a damn about the book's concept.

Some people may forgive the lack of characterization, but I find it the most important part of any story. If, as a writer, you are driven to write fiction about a scientific idea, it is in your best interest to take the time to create good characters that readers will enjoy reading about. The lack of characterization in many science fiction novels is one of the reasons so many people look down their noses at this genre. I, as a writer, like to incorporate interesting scientific ideas when I can, but work the hardest at creating memorable, 3 dimensional characters with a character-driven story arc. This is what I like to read, and what I strive to deliver in my novels.

Arguably, the organization of a society and it's level and type of scientific development would affect people's character and relationships? To me, that's a particularly fascinating edge of science-fiction.

For authors who don't set out to do that, I think it's true that character development is all over the place within the genre. There are stereotypes, neutral observers through whom readers experience the fictional world, and 'normally' developed characters. Maybe the best choice depends on the author's aptitudes and intentions. After that, you get eclectic readers and those with strong preferences... I'm very eclectic.

I think some readers are put off by characterization in a genre that has traditionally had little, but I can't write a story without developing the character--if only to keep that character from evolving into a stereotype. I have to give him/her both flaws and talents to keep the character believably human, with a behavior pattern that's plausable. Science Fiction is my first love, but if I couldn't write real characters into the story, I'd want to find another genre that would allow it.

I have reread all the comments including my own. They lead me to believe that if you leave out humour books must have either exciting innovation, excitement, or dilemmas. Dilemmas usually involve people and if the reader doesn't care about the people he/she isn't grabbed by the dilemma. For character development, it seems to me that the most compelling dilemmas are moral dilemmas and science fiction is made for moral dilemmas. They go hand in had with innovation; they go hand in hand with dilemmas over the balance of the ends and the means. Even excitement falls flat if I don't care about those involved. My book "Pygmalion Conspiracy is perhaps weak on thrill, but I hope it is seen as having innovation, moral dilemmas involving them, and characters you care about,

I think every story must have well developed characters, because how else can your readers truly 'experience' the environment you have created? There are SF stories with shallow characters I have enjoyed due to fascinating and creative scenarios, but in those tales I watched from the sidelines and the human element was missing. In the ones I love the best, I was a participant and that was because the writer made me identify with the characters and took me with them on the adventure.