I have no interest in writing stories based around an epic plot and the characters are nothing more than a specal effect.

I was wondering if anyone felt this way. When I sit down to write a story I may have an idea but I never turn this idea into a fleshed out plot and then make up some people to shove into it. I usually come up with some characters that I find interesting and then have them write my story for me.

Think about it in the world of movies. Especially when it comes to writer/directors like Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarintino. Can anyone tell me what Pulp Fiction or Chasing Amy was about? Probably, not, but I bet you have a few lines of dialouge memorized, a scence that automatically comes to mind, or
know the first and last names of your favorite characters.

I don't know; I've shared this theory with a lot of writers and violently disagreed. What do ya'all think?

As for me, I'm probably the exact opposite. I read mostly for pure escapism, and I much prefer concept to people, at least normal, everyday blah kind of people. They are the ones I am escaping from! I like ideas and concepts and noble events that stimulate my imagination and intellect. I would much rather have an intriguing concept than meet some character with an entertaining wit or with tormented psyche. I like LotR because of the plot, and the vision, and the noble deeds; I find the extremes of moral character refreshing (although I know other people find that unrealistic.) I like stories like Dragon's Egg, or Diaspora (Greg Egan?), or Tau Zero (Poul Anderson). I admit there are some character stories I like. I like the Wheel of Time, but if Jordan doesn't start getting back to the PLOT I'm going to abandon him.

OSC states (IIRC) that people read to understand other people even better than they ever could in real life. I'm not sure that fits with me. I read to find 'cool' ideas. I've read probably 25 feet of SF/F and still have yet to run out of neat things to come across or new ideas to discover. I guess if I get to 50 feet, I might then have found them all, and then will become jaded. Who knows?

Just my 2 cents worth!

Characters to me can be either vehicles for myself - like Frodo, or Ender, or Michael Douglass in the Game - or be characters I'd want to meet. The first type is where you insert yourself into the role, and want to be part of the action. What does Ender look like? He's short, end story. OSC never gave him physical description other than that. Hair color, eye color, distinguishing marks like scars or freckles, etc. And it made it easy for me to picture myself as Ender. (and makes me fear the movie ever being made)

Other times I want characters who I'd want to meet, or hang out with. Bean, for instance, in Ender's Game - he was fun, and I liked him. Dink, Alai. Aragorn, Gandalf. Hockney from Usual Suspects. They're fun, they're alive.

But I need the story, the cohesive plot. S'why movies like ID4 turn my stomach, because they're so contrived. And why movies like Planet of the Apes bug me because they make no sense or have no real development.

The reason that I read primarily sci-fi and fantasy is because they are almsot all based on cool ideas that differ from the world we live in. I love speculative fiction because it is just that: "What if we lived forever? What if we could put on and cast of bodies like so much clothing? What makes us human, the mind, or the genetics? Is death a curse or a blessing?" (All questions raised in the series I'm working on.)

Characters are a vehicle for a worldview, or at least they are in my stories. Sure, I try and make them real and believable like every other writer I've ever met, but I've never written a story about a character, only about an idea.

Just my two cent's worth.

~The Muse

"In the speculative science fiction story, accepted science and established facts are extrapolated to produce a new situation, a new framework for human action. As a result of this new situation, new human problems are created - and our story is about how human beings cope with those new problems.

The story is not about the new situation; it is about coping with problems arising out of the new situation."

Emphasis was his, not mine.

The idea is important, yes, but having your characters deal with it in a realistic, human way that a reader can relate to... well, to me that's of equal or more importance. It's not enough to have the possibility of faster than light travel, and explain your new and fascinating take on it - that change to our reality has to have an immediate effect on the characters and plot for me not to see it as extraneous information.

This isn't to say I don't think purely idea stories work - in fact I often find great enjoyment from them. But the ones I enjoy generally come in under 10 pages - any longer than that and I start looking for some more depth.

This disagreement could go on and on, you know.

Different readers read stories for different reasons, some want to read about ideas, some want to read about characters, some want to read about the setting (Milieu), and some want earth-shattering thrills and adventure (Event, perhaps?). And some want combinations of those things.

Writers start from different things when they write their stories, and they don't always start from the same thing. This is why OSC has talked about these different kinds of stories and the different ways to approach them and develop them.

I remember when idea was the center of the stories I wanted to read, too. It isn't so central to me any more as a reader. I find now that I need to care about the characters in order to care about a story. Later, I may care about other aspects of a story, and then, again, I may not.

Perhaps different things appeal to different readers at different times in their lives, and perhaps some readers prefer the same things throughout their lives.

Every reader is different because we're all individuals. Same for every writer. That's why we have to write what is important to us as writers who like to read. It's also why not everyone will love what we've written.

Stranger in a Strange Land - the idea was there merely to set up an objective character, and see how that character would interact with the world.

Ender's Game - the idea itself is actually pretty cliched. "And the game turned out to be real" is one of those no-no's... but because of the importance of character, it's a fantastic book.

There are lots of others, but mostly they fall into the softer side of SF. Speculative fiction focuses more on the impact the idea has on the characters and the plot - rather than the novelty of the idea itself. And Fantasy, for the most part, relies far less on idea to carry it. World creation, strength of character, powerful events, and epic plot are often more important.

I think it's important to find a balance. OSC talked about the MICE quotient in Character and Viewpoint - four important things that are addressed in every story, but with different emphasis: Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event.

Thinking of one to the exclusion of others, or to the detriment of others, only wounds story potential. Focusing so much on character that you skimp on idea yields a weaker story than one where a bit of time was also spent generating some sort of novel concept. Similarly, focus on idea at the cost of strong characters or events handicaps a story in other ways.

Personally, stories that focus exclusively on idea need to be short, or they become tiresome. This is not so for other focii - like character, event, or milieu. Lord of the Rings is focused almost exclusively on the milieu and events - with flat, static characters, and ideas lifted directly from mythology. But I read that through all 900 or so pages without complaint. It was a world I wanted to know more about.

If a story focusing around a novel way of looking at time travel lasted that long, without characters I could relate to, or intense events, or some fascinatingly alien environment... well, I'd put it down after I realized my other needs wouldn't be fulfilled.

Granted, focus on those other areas can seem "boring" to some. Anne Tyler's Back When We Were Grownups was a great book based solely on character development. There was very little action, no real original ideas, and a standard milieu - but the cast of characters and their interplay was rich, intricate and compelling. (Though it wasn't SF, I confess).

But I liked it, and it put my parents to sleep. (Then again, Jane Austen puts me to sleep, and I have friends who just can't get enough of her)

In short, Idea to me is like candy. Your body burns it really quickly, it doesn't give a lot of nourishment, and you can't really sustain yourself on it indefinitely. But damn it tastes good, and it's fantastic for giving you a quick boost.

If you want to run a marathon, though, you need your carbo's and a heavy meal of character/event/milieu pasta to keep you going.

On the Ender note, I completely (but respectfully) disagree with your statement about the idea being 'it was all a game'. That was the ending, the event part of the story. The character of Ender, though it could have been a novel in it's own right, was NOT the central focus of the novel--Ender did not decide to change his life or make a huge decision (at least, not as the point of the story). It started when Ender became involved with the chaos--the Buggers--and ended when he destroyed it. But it was grounded on the idea that the commander shapes his troops, and that the victor will be the one who is the better leader. Even if he is a child.