Young Writers Society

If you're familiar with literary lingo, you probably have heard the two terms in the subject line: character driven and plot driven. Often, they're thrown about as synonymous with "literary fiction" and "commercial fiction."

"Literary fiction," you might have heard a teacher preach, "focuses on human beings, on people, on their shortcomings and their faults and their world perceptions. Not on the events they go through."

And in fact, I can distinctly remember my AP (Advanced Placement) Literature and Composition teacher, who was incredibly open-minded in his idea of "literature," who taught high school seniors postmodern and existential literary theory, telling us that we couldn't choose anything "plot driven" for our end-of-the-year book projects.

I love Chekhov. I really do. His short stories are fantastic and his plays are even better. But I blame him for instilling in the literary realm the notion that plot is Evil and the Sum of All Things Unliterary And Unartistic. Ever since he revolutionized the idea of what literature should be (and mind, it did need some revolutionizing), it's always "character this" and "character that" and open-minded left-wing-literary-theorists equating everything you might consider "plot driven" with the books spun out several times a year by authors such as James Patterson.

What I'm really trying to get at here is that:

1) I don't think "character driven" and "plot driven" properly characterized the sorts of novels they're supposed to characterize. (Stephen King denounces plot, and instead builds fantastic characters. His characters often influence what happens next, but no one's putting King up on a throne next to Hemingway or Mark Twain or, dare I say it, the Russian Literary Greats.)

2) I disagree with the notion that "character driven" and "plot driven" are "literary" and "commercial." respectively. (Take Cat's Cradle. You've got a classic "plot driven" plot, apocalypse and all, but no one's calling it commercial fiction.)

3) While I love fabulously drawn, complex, original characters with something to reveal about humanity quite a lot, I find just as much value in a devilishly well-constructed plot. (In fact, the deus ex machina endings typical of literary novels, where everything just suddenly works out, is always a low point for me, no matter how deep a character is.

I'm by no means settled on this issue, which is why I'm posting here. I want to know... what do folks here think about this issue?

I actually wrote an article on the subject a while back. Or at least, a somewhat related article.

In any case, you can read it here.

Personally, I think there's too much emphasis on what is "literary" and "commercial". What is literature? Why is it literary? And why are commercial works considered non-literary? As far as I'm concerned, quality is quality, and those stories which have quality are the ones that last, whether they were written to be literary or commercial. And just because something was written to be literary does not prevent it from being badly-written drivel.

And I'll stop rambling now.

Kyllorac wrote:Personally, I think there's too much emphasis on what is "literary" and "commercial". What is literature? Why is it literary? And why are commercial works considered non-literary? As far as I'm concerned, quality is quality, and those stories which have quality are the ones that last, whether they were written to be literary or commercial. And just because something was written to be literary does not prevent it from being badly-written drivel.

And I'll stop rambling now.

While I agree to a point, themes and literary skill are the difference. Popular fiction (commercial...not a fan of that term, doesn't get to the point) uses different standard themes and has an expected formula. Often the external struggle is not matched with a compelling internal struggle. The result is a static character with a formulaic plot.

There are reasons why popular fiction is, pun intended I guess, more popular now and days: it's simple and easy to write. Plot driven stories normally utilize character stereotypes that do not change, thus static personalities. This is part of why popular fiction is seen as "commercial". It gives the reader what culture of the time lists in reasonable bounds.

Additionally, popular fiction uses themes which often mirror the time it is derived from (this is exactly why you don't hear about these kind of stories, save for a rare few, generation to generation!). I don't know how many times I've read about the teenage struggle against the big bad old people who are just bad because and are given a line's worth of background (very modern theme, teenagers, a very modern concept too). This is also why Japanese manga/anime/etc are often seen as suited for children in the West; many utilize teenagers to draw in the largest viewing market, but a wise observer knows that that perception is flawed (the Japanese fever will probably bottom out soon if the economy doesn't pick up or we don't get material suited for older audiences). Popular fiction is culture specific, BUT, it uses key themes it seems: target a younger audience, use cosmopolitan themes and morals, clearly illustrate black and white, use a standard genre.

High Literature (literary fiction...not a fan of that term even if it has been popularized) is different from popular fiction in writing level and the themes used; often cultural perceptions are challenged or tested with characters that are non-static (or meant to...it's very easy to fail with High Literature). One of the key differences is that High Literature uses characters to DRIVE sophisticated plots, but this isn't set in stone. This is where experimentation in literature is observed. Modernism was the last significant change in literature, and without it, you would not have the "commercial" literature you have today in the manner you know it as.

Of course the reality isn't that clear, but this is the general sense of how the two work. One thing: I think Scott Pilgrim is well written and Scott is a fairly diverse dude...but is it High Literature? Well for one it's not even the same writing format, so it's not fair to compare the two. But on themes of conflict in comparison between popular and high, it's not even close which one requires more talent: would you compare Lolita to Scott Pilgrim? Poor Pilgrim!

1) I don't think "character driven" and "plot driven" properly characterized the sorts of novels they're supposed to characterize. (Stephen King denounces plot, and instead builds fantastic characters. His characters often influence what happens next, but no one's putting King up on a throne next to Hemingway or Mark Twain or, dare I say it, the Russian Literary Greats.)

2) I disagree with the notion that "character driven" and "plot driven" are "literary" and "commercial." respectively. (Take Cat's Cradle. You've got a classic "plot driven" plot, apocalypse and all, but no one's calling it commercial fiction.)

3) While I love fabulously drawn, complex, original characters with something to reveal about humanity quite a lot, I find just as much value in a devilishly well-constructed plot. (In fact, the deus ex machina endings typical of literary novels, where everything just suddenly works out, is always a low point for me, no matter how deep a character is.

King is not ranked among the greats for reasons far more complex than his churning out a bajillion works. For one thing, he's still alive. Few writers get that pleasure of being considered the very best in their lifetime (this notion of Classic is also fairly recent). I find no qualm with character and plot terms: they're loose ideas that bend and mold but succinctly divide High Literature from Popular Fiction when looking at the emphasis of the writing, the tools utilized, etc.

You can disagree, but the majority of both types respectively, adhere to those descriptions. This isn't a matter of mislabeling or being irresponsible to the content of novels and books, I would never place Howl's Moving Castle next to anything by Richard Powers. The difference with High Literature that might skimp on character is the skill in displaying the struggle, the themes, and pushing the envelope against conventional society. It's also time specific to view this (I haven't read Cat's Cradle so I can't comment on that).

Cool, I'm glad you have your tastes. But...uhh..."literary fiction" has deus ex machina plots with character driven plots??? You have a misconception here. Read Kafka's "Metamorphosis" and tell me he uses deus ex machina to have a happy ending. That is very character driven: the plot is frivolous (the same goes for Chekhov's "The Lady with the dog"). The main character's horror and struggle is the entire focus and is a staple of "literary fiction". I'm not sure what you mean when attributing cliche endings to High Literature, rather than "commercial" fiction. The conflict might be that you like commercial themes more than literary ones. There is nothing wrong with that though, and don't let anyone, much less a professor, tell you otherwise.

Does that help Rachael?

This is mainly a response to Rachael, than you Kyllorac (I'm pretty sure we're on the same wave length and I'm elaborating, with some differences).

This is mainly a response to Rachael, than you Kyllorac (I'm pretty sure we're on the same wave length and I'm elaborating, with some differences).

I figured as much. :P

And there really aren't that many differences, except perhaps in terminology and depth of explication. :P Though I do quibble about comparing a graphic novel to anything written by Nabokov. For one, they are different forms of media. For another, the periods both works were created in is quite different in terms of aesthetic preferences, philosophical and political currents, and social mores, among other things. And yet another, they were written for completely different audiences and purposes, arising from the previous point. In other words, they are quite dissimilar, and any comparisons made are superficial and ultimately fruitless. It is roughly analagous to comparing Pollock's abstract paintings to Vedic statuary. Doubtless, comparisons could be drawn, but whether they would valid is another matter entirely.

And I still think that the designation of literary fiction (which I consider separate from High Literature) was created more for the sake of feeding the egos of those "Writers" who couldn't otherwise get the recognition they so crave. Even though most of what I write would get shoehorned into the literary fiction corner. >.>

Seriously though, I am so sick of literary fiction. I happen to not appreciate, most egregiously, all those turns of phrase and technique (which often contain misused words) that exist solely to show off the Writer's prowess as they laugh up their sleeve at their own cleverness. Then again, maybe I'm just jaded when it comes to literary fiction.

Kyllorac wrote:And there really aren't that many differences, except perhaps in terminology and depth of explication. Though I do quibble about comparing a graphic novel to anything written by Nabokov. For one, they are different forms of media. For another, the periods both works were created in is quite different in terms of aesthetic preferences, philosophical and political currents, and social mores, among other things. And yet another, they were written for completely different audiences and purposes, arising from the previous point. In other words, they are quite dissimilar, and any comparisons made are superficial and ultimately fruitless. It is roughly analagous to comparing Pollock's abstract paintings to Vedic statuary. Doubtless, comparisons could be drawn, but whether they would valid is another matter entirely.

I agree, but the point is to show a puppy next to Pyramid Head. Poor puppy.

And I still think that the designation of literary fiction (which I consider separate from High Literature) was created more for the sake of feeding the egos of those "Writers" who couldn't otherwise get the recognition they so crave. Even though most of what I write would get shoehorned into the literary fiction corner. >.>

Completely agree. I hate the designation. Let it all be High Literature, the worthwhile and meaningful works will survive or be revived in the future. There's no reason to water them down. Plus, High Literature is totally cooler and more pompous (don't we all feel that way about our writing? :]).

Seriously though, I am so sick of literary fiction. I happen to not appreciate, most egregiously, all those turns of phrase and technique (which often contain misused words) that exist solely to show off the Writer's prowess as they laugh up their sleeve at their own cleverness. Then again, maybe I'm just jaded when it comes to literary fiction.

Yes! Everyone wants to write the next great -insert country here- Novel...and fails spectacularly. A writing genre defines not meaning the reader will take in. Fitzgerald is Fitzgerald because he understood the 20's and still connects to readers.

I cannot stand pretentious writing, nor can I abide clumsy and lazy write-by-numbers. We are such schnobs.

Oh dear. I think I unintentionally sent this discussion in a direction I didn't intend it to go! Never should have mentioned the notion of literary and commercial fiction.

Because....

High Literature (literary fiction...not a fan of that term even if it has been popularized) is different from popular fiction in writing level and the themes used; often cultural perceptions are challenged or tested with characters that are non-static (or meant to...it's very easy to fail with High Literature). One of the key differences is that High Literature uses characters to DRIVE sophisticated plots, but this isn't set in stone. This is where experimentation in literature is observed. Modernism was the last significant change in literature, and without it, you would not have the "commercial" literature you have today in the manner you know it as.

I definitely agree. And I definitely didn't intend to imply that I hold Stephen King and Vonnegut in the same (kind of) esteem. There are generally two reasons something's considered a Classic or High Literature or whatever term you want to use: one, for the reasons you mentioned, the work actually has something to say that transcends its immediate situation; two, stuffy people say so.

There's a reason, after all, when someone asks me what my favorite books are, I have to pause before I decide what angle I go from. I love Huck Finn and The Hobbit more or less equally, but in different ways and for different reasons. While both are classic, English folks are likely to write papers on the first and sociologists on the next. "Literary" and "Non-literary" have different goals and I have a great deal of respect for them both.

But...uhh..."literary fiction" has deus ex machina plots with character driven plots??? You have a misconception here.

Whoops. I agree. Certainly didn't set out to imply that all the Literarydom ends with nice neat, clean, happy endings. (If anything, the reverse is true.) Don't have anything to say but... yep, you got me there.

And I further agree to what you (Mustard Dude) and Kyllorac mention about the "literary fiction" and "High Literature" and all that, but we're going to get tangled up in terminology when we're probably agreeing without realizing we're agreeing.

If I haven't said it yet, I agree with nearly all of what you two have said. But (my bad) we also veered into Classics and not-so-classics and commercial fiction... though we didn't touch on the so-called "airplane" or "dime store" novels that are truly formulaic in nature and that I, personally, cannot assign much value to at all.

But that's all terminology again.

So, excluding the obvious Classics and Greats and whatever you want to call them.... Hrm.... how to phrase this...

All right. Here's the scenario. You've got a well-written novel with well-developed characters and thematic depth. The characters change over the course of the novel, learn things. Their internal desires and conflicts have a prevalent role in what happens to the characters around them. It's because of these characters that "stuff" is happening--outside conflicts. And the outside conflicts cause internal conflicts, and so on and so forth, until events are happening on their own accord rather than by an author's influence, and the resolution leaves the reader feeling different, affected. It's indeed the best book you've read in months, and its gripping pace left you little choice but to stay up until 5 am reading...the morning after you finished it the first time.

That's the "plot-driven" novel. And I suppose I object to the notion that just because it has a strong sequence of events (or plot, or whatever the heck you want to identify all that business as) means that it has no value worthy of recognition--that a high school English teacher (and not the typical "Tolstoy or bust" type, either) can lump the above described novel with a formulaic, empty "dime store thriller" without batting an eye, simply on the basis that both are "plot-driven"--this being where my objection to the term begins.

And instead, that something "character-driven" automatically has value merely because it's "character-driven." Which is a load of crap, if you ask me.

To put it in metaphor, which sometimes works better for me, the whole "character-driven" and "plot-driven" deal would be like saying all music played by an orchestra is automatically better just because it's played by an orchestra, while a rock band, no matter how good the rock band is, no matter how much of a cultural sensation, will never amount to being more than a rock band.

I never meant to say that, say, Queen was as good as Bach (let's ignore the whole debate about whether music can be objectively judged for the sake of argument, since the same, after all, applies to literature). But lumping Queen in with [Your Favorite "Gods, I Hate That Band! Change The Station!"] of choice, while allowing the piece by some random composer to ascend to higher status simply on the virtue that it is "composed" and played by "classic instruments" is.... well, a load of crap.

Let's see where we end up this time!

RachaelElg wrote:All right. Here's the scenario. You've got a well-written novel with well-developed characters and thematic depth. The characters change over the course of the novel, learn things. Their internal desires and conflicts have a prevalent role in what happens to the characters around them. It's because of these characters that "stuff" is happening--outside conflicts. And the outside conflicts cause internal conflicts, and so on and so forth, until events are happening on their own accord rather than by an author's influence, and the resolution leaves the reader feeling different, affected. It's indeed the best book you've read in months, and its gripping pace left you little choice but to stay up until 5 am reading...the morning after you finished it the first time.

That's the "plot-driven" novel. And I suppose I object to the notion that just because it has a strong sequence of events (or plot, or whatever the heck you want to identify all that business as) means that it has no value worthy of recognition--that a high school English teacher (and not the typical "Tolstoy or bust" type, either) can lump the above described novel with a formulaic, empty "dime store thriller" without batting an eye, simply on the basis that both are "plot-driven"--this being where my objection to the term begins.

And instead, that something "character-driven" automatically has value merely because it's "character-driven." Which is a load of crap, if you ask me.

To put it in metaphor, which sometimes works better for me, the whole "character-driven" and "plot-driven" deal would be like saying all music played by an orchestra is automatically better just because it's played by an orchestra, while a rock band, no matter how good the rock band is, no matter how much of a cultural sensation, will never amount to being more than a rock band.

I never meant to say that, say, Queen was as good as Bach (let's ignore the whole debate about whether music can be objectively judged for the sake of argument, since the same, after all, applies to literature). But lumping Queen in with [Your Favorite "Gods, I Hate That Band! Change The Station!"] of choice, while allowing the piece by some random composer to ascend to higher status simply on the virtue that it is "composed" and played by "classic instruments" is.... well, a load of crap.

Let's see where we end up this time!

I'm slow and got busy Rachel, but I re-read your post.

I see your example and what you intend to describe, but you're getting caught up in your opinion leaking through (the plot focused novel is a page turner...well if that's the example I WOULD always think it's worthy to be next to character heavy novels, no?). For unbiased examples, l would stress "Plot strong novel is thoroughly well written next to Character strong novel which is thoroughly well written" and you read both of them from start to finish over some unspecified period of time (possible or not without sleep). I think our working plot based novel definition is just that...something that is plot centric, while the same goes for character based novels. Well, what this entails is very important to viewing the two: plot based novels focus on themes and worldly consequences which happen to affect the character to an extent...but the focus is the unwinding of events, not the internal struggle of the character.

Harry Potter is a hybrid, in my opinion, of these two. Character based novels/series/whatever must present an internal struggle, BUT, this internal struggle can be represented by the external factors. Thus, the plot in these novels can play into the character's continuing and evolving experiences. I believe in Harry Potter, you see this quite a lot. Harry Potter is not every book though; it is rightfully considered to be like the Beatles in sudden fame and success (cultural impact, not at all), which I think comes from Rowling being lucky and somehow getting this combination right.

Red Wall series? Totally plot centric. I like them, I really do, but they are not deep to the extent to which Vonnegut, Kafka, and Orwell could be in describing character and the world. R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt series is very fun to read in my opinion, but Drizzt is hardly a deep character.

Yet that's not the point, as you understand. Plot centric books aren't trying to be something they aren't (good ones at least, which proves my point).
[aside]
Rock music is fine in its own right and equally interesting as Classical. Comparing the two is pointless by what they have done. BUT, rock music does not have the musical depth and qualities that Classical does. The ability needed to make a composition that is used in Classical is monstrous and the playing is much harder. Many popular music styles use 4/4, 3/4, 1/2 time only or only a single clef. That's friggin' easy! Even if they ascend scales and do high notes like classical, the chords are about as hard as it gets. At the same time, many popular forms only use a few voices, that is instruments, and don't require a unified voice in harmony & melody that makes or breaks a Classical orchestra. The exposition element of Classic is what ranks it above Popular music's beat based tunes.
Not convinced? Classical is older. Modern popular music is young. Remember that Modern popular music owes Classical music its creation, more than it does Medieval traveling bards.
[aside done]
Plot does not utilize the complex literary techniques and historical roots to which Character novels do. You can observe this in the inherent differences I explained earlier: the internal character is a smorgasbord of symbols and events which define, seek to define, or are at odds with the world around them. The struggle of character novels is portraying this in a manner which a reader can connect to and enjoy; the world must be as engaging and sensible as the character. In plot novels though, let the stereotypical character for the genre guide the way through a mysterious world and remain generally the same character albeit some tough luck and deaths. Star Wars, for example.

Shorthand version?
Plot: character is non-static and the world is the focus with overlying themes.
Character: World typifies the struggle within the character, character focused therefore, static character.

For 99/100, the writing skill for Plot is just much, much lower to be successful. It's not hard to make a plot novel, in fact I think most people could write one in their lifetime if they had the time.
Character though... you need immense skill. So even a typical one will be better received because it's considered to have taken more talent to pull off.

Responding to the aside first, because I'm relying on the metaphor for the argument.

[aside]
Rock music is fine in its own right and equally interesting as Classical. Comparing the two is pointless by what they have done. BUT, rock music does not have the musical depth and qualities that Classical does. The ability needed to make a composition that is used in Classical is monstrous and the playing is much harder. Many popular music styles use 4/4, 3/4, 1/2 time only or only a single clef. That's friggin' easy! Even if they ascend scales and do high notes like classical, the chords are about as hard as it gets. At the same time, many popular forms only use a few voices, that is instruments, and don't require a unified voice in harmony & melody that makes or breaks a Classical orchestra. The exposition element of Classic is what ranks it above Popular music's beat based tunes.

Not convinced? Classical is older. Modern popular music is young. Remember that Modern popular music owes Classical music its creation, more than it does Medieval traveling bards.
[aside done]

I play violin, and listen to Classical music, and am aware of the amount of skill required to play, say, Vivaldi's Concerto in A Minor. And that's just a duet piece. Playing in an orchestra is much harder, and there's a reason I don't do it any more. And, to compose such a piece as... Beethoven's 5th... takes more than just training. It takes an incredible amount of natural gift. But I'm not including these incredibly talented composers, nor the incredibly talented modern composers whose work hasn't had the opportunity of still being played hundreds of years from now, in my metaphor here.

I'm talking about composers of "Classical" (taken to mean orchestrated and not the particular division of Classical music) whose music is not necessarily so great. In other words, we're leaving both Mozart and Tolstoy out. Instead, let's take...

Person A, who plays...flute, and composes a song for that flute in the "Classical spirit". Is it automatically better than the music of the garage band next door, simply by virtue of being in the "Classical spirit"? When both are judged by experts of either side to be mediocre? Poor? Brilliant?

Now I'm losing myself in the metaphor. Oops. And whether one is objectively "better" than another is not really my question. I assume you'd agree that both are weighed and measured against their own goals and standards and how well they accomplished them?

I'm fully aware, after all, that when I sit down to read So Called Plot-Driven Novel X and Literary Great Of Choice Y that I'll typically be looking for well-drawn, intricate, believable characters with depth in X, and I'll be 'grading' the dialogue, and the quality of the plot (which is a multi-faceted issue unto itself). With Y I'll be looking at the writing from another perspective--usually the goal of "plot driven" novels, after all, is for the writing to disappear--and I'll be looking at themes and symbolism, looking for meaning. Gauging it as a work of art, and X on its value in the entertainment, cultural medium.

You mention Harry Potter, though, which I find interesting. Harry Potter, after all, was the exact example my AP Literature and Comp teacher used when giving us examples of what books we could choose from. Not James Patterson's latest thriller, but Harry Potter. And yes, of course, Harry Potter is not a literary masterpiece. It is not ripe with meaning about the human condition or the nature of love. It will not be plumbed by the majority of English majors or English classes for complex thematic systems or whatever else you want to dub it.

But to group both Harry Potter and Grocery Store Thriller in the same category, on the virtue of them both being "plot-driven," seems wrong to me. While Harry Potter might not resonate with White Tower English circles, it resonates with the public. People'll quote Harry Potter for their Facebook blurbs, use it as examples in discussion, put it in their signatures on various forums--and not because of diehard fan-ness, but because Harry Potter meant something to them. Perhaps even changed their lives a little.

I've never seen anyone do this with James Patterson Thriller #18743. Not that Harry Potter is necessarily better or worse than JPT 18743, because they were both written to different ends and when it terms to accomplishing goals, Patterson is actually probably more successful. After all, he has the writing of best-selling thrillers down to a science. He can create a three-hour time-sucker like no other author alive. They're quite fantastic for when you really just want to get completely and utterly lost in a book. But, when you finish it, you put it away and forget about it.

And thus, I question the validity of the term "plot-driven" to encompass all of "commercial" or "mainstream" literature. (Even "commercial" and "mainstream" are pretty bad.)

And...I'm out of time. Shucks. Now I don't even know if I'm arguing anything or just going in circles

I once tried to tackle defining "commercial" and "literary fiction" [url]here[/url].

But these two paragraphs are probably the only ones that really matter:

For instance, your story could be literary fiction, which highlights most strongly on style, depth, and character. Literary fiction contains less action and movement and more dialogue and thought. More often than not, they are stories with one major theme or lesson drawn out and reinforced throughout the entire novel. They have a slower pace because of the time they spend focusing on thought and description. Examples of literary fiction include John Updike’s Of Mice and Men and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird.

Commercial fiction is often the opposite of literary fiction. The plot and the story are often the major focus of the story. They are packed with action and movement and spend more time focusing on the plot than on characters. Examples of commercial fiction are wide ranging because commercial fiction is often broken down into smaller, more specific genres whether that genre be historical, science fiction, romance or horror. They may even be a blend of one or more genres.

And the more I think about it now, especially with all of the time recently that I've spent reading older books like Fahrenheit 451 and The Great Gatsby, the more I find myself wondering if it is ever completely possible to classify a story as one or the other. If a story has plot, it has to have characters to drive the plot. And if the story has great characters, well they aren't just going to sit around, twiddle their thumbs and think allowed between one another. There has to be one to drive the other.

...thought that's just my pointless two cents!

Gotta jump into this one, but where?

Plot does not utilize the complex literary techniques and historical roots to which Character novels do. You can observe this in the inherent differences I explained earlier: the internal character is a smorgasbord of symbols and events which define, seek to define, or are at odds with the world around them. The struggle of character novels is portraying this in a manner which a reader can connect to and enjoy; the world must be as engaging and sensible as the character. In plot novels though, let the stereotypical character for the genre guide the way through a mysterious world and remain generally the same character albeit some tough luck and deaths. Star Wars, for example.

This is a very interesting point, but I don't agree with it. To say that executing a story's plot doesn't require immense literary technique, and especially to say that plot development isn't equal to character development in terms of historical roots, is to dismiss some of the earliest definitions of literature. What about Sophocles? Antigone is nothing to sneeze at, and it's not because of the great insight into the minds of an incestous couple. What about Shakespeare? The end of Romeo & Juliet is orchestrated, iconic, and most importantly plot-driven. The gasps from the audience are a product of the action rather than the internal turmoil.

Similarly, I don't believe that every novel with characters whom the reader connects to can be dubbed "character-driven." A character-driven novel occurs when the action is literally in the hands of the character. Not the setting, not the narrator, not what happens when the character takes the left fork in the road, but in the character's decisions. We, the readers, are reading and responding to what the character decides to do. The Catcher in the Rye. Prep, by Curtis Sittenfeld. The Hours.

As for the other argument, literary fiction versus commercial fiction...I don't know if there is any correlation between those concepts and character-driven vs. plot-driven stories. Plenty of literary fiction is plot-driven, and plenty of it is character-driven. What isn't literary is situational fiction. James Patterson, the vast majority of Jodi Picoult. It, Misery, The Running Man. I do believe that it takes minimal technical skill for a writer to create a situation and then deposit previously determined characters into that situation and simply record what happens.

Plot-driven fiction, though...that's skill. I consider Watership Down to be plot-driven fiction, and Slaughterhouse-Five. The plots contain situations, but the story isn't comprised of the characters dealing with unrelated, objective forces. The rabbits take off in Watership Down because of the destruction of the warren, but the rabbit society with the steel traps, the lack of females-- those are twists in the plot. New threads being woven in, as opposed to the commentary on the initial situation.

The music metaphor lost me, so I'll stay out of that one.

Rachael, I think you'll appreciate this and this. First is metal, second is rock, but both songs translated very well to violin only, and impressively so in the case of the first.

It also leads me into my main opinion that quality exists independently of genre, category, or even medium of expression.

Purely plot- or character-driven works bore me, to be frank. For a work to be lacking in one or the other immediately places it lower on my list of books I enjoy/like/think good. Now, this isn't to say that a work can't have more emphasis on plot, character, or setting (which is often neglected as a category/element), but that all the elements of the work need to be crafted with care so that one isn't a farce compared to the others.

All the truly good works of writing have this balance of elements. The Hobbit is very much plot-driven, but you can't say that Bilbo's character development was stinted in the favor of plot, or that his actions/emotions had no effect upon the story. Or, in the case of Lord of the Rings, Middle Earth, the setting of the story, is almost as much a character as any of the others, with the plot and characters more of a vehicle to showcase the world. And yet, each of the characters are full, and the plot is compelling enough that folks who don't appreciate the "description vomit" still read the trilogy from beginning to end and can take something out of it.

Granted, Tolkein is one of my all-time favorite authors, so I'm unashamedly biased. :P

RachaelElg wrote:You've got a well-written novel with well-developed characters and thematic depth. The characters change over the course of the novel, learn things. Their internal desires and conflicts have a prevalent role in what happens to the characters around them. It's because of these characters that "stuff" is happening--outside conflicts. And the outside conflicts cause internal conflicts, and so on and so forth, until events are happening on their own accord rather than by an author's influence, and the resolution leaves the reader feeling different, affected. It's indeed the best book you've read in months, and its gripping pace left you little choice but to stay up until 5 am reading...the morning after you finished it the first time.

That's the "plot-driven" novel.

I disagree.

Plot-driven to me means the events outside the scope of the characters' control is the main focus of the story. For instance, a story about a war or a quest is more plot-driven as the war or quest exist independent the characters; they would continue to exist and have an impact whether or not the characters were a focus of the story. As such conflicts tend to be of the more external kind.

Character-driven stories are more focused on the internal conflicts of the characters. As such, the characters' emotional states, events they perform, and their motivations tend to be more of the focus. The removal or replacement of characters in the story would completely change the dynamic and impact of the story as the characters have a greater control/influence over the main story.

However, as I mentioned before, all good stories have a combination of the two. There always exists a dynamic between internal and external conflicts; it would be idiocy to deny that everyone is influenced by their environment and influences that environment in turn. The degree of this influence of one upon the other can vary, but to lack one half of this dynamic, or to neglect it, leads to a lack of depth in the story, and that lack of depth is fatal to any themes or deeper meanings a work could impart upon its readers.

I think we can all agree that deeper works tend to be more worthwhile and memorable reads, while shallower works tend to be quickly forgotten and rarely the source of any serious contemplations.

Now, that isn't to say that all deeper works are inherently better than shallower works, as the purpose of the work's writing must be taken into account. Salvatore, for instance, is by no means a "great" writer, but he writes to entertain, and in that, he excels. While I'm not about to hold Salvatore up as an example of a writer I consider worth emulating or recommending to everyone I see, I have a healthy respect for his skill in writing entertaining stories and having fun writing them. Even if they sometimes make me headdesk with how obvious some of the plot points are, but what can you expect from brain candy?

I had another point, but I forgot it.