I find it difficult to define ‘character-driven’. For me, with the possible exception of whodunits, if the characters don’t drive, the narrative goes nowhere. The characters make the story happen.

I've just bought Cloud Atlas. Looking forward to reading it when I've finished The Time Traveler’s Wife. Now that’s definitely character-driven.

Dee

I am in the middle of reading Joyce Carol Oates - The tattooed Girl.

This is a very much character driven plot and a wonderful read so far.

Julie

I find it difficult to define ‘character-driven’. For me, with the possible exception of whodunits, if the characters don’t drive, the narrative goes nowhere. The characters make the story happen.

I think what is meant here is that the very character of the character, ie his or her inner life, make things happen, as opposed to plot driven stories, such as thrillers, where the plot is the main thing and the charcaters are just cut-outs; it doesn't matter what they are like, how they feel etc, or if they do feel anything, it's the sensational stuff such as terror, horror, or whatever the plot is supposed to evoke in the reader.

An example of plot-driven would be the Da Vinci Code. The chaarcters are completely flat and it doesn't make any difference what they are like; they could be anybody, and their inner life is subservient to the plot.

My pick is Madame Bovary, which its author, Flaubert, described as "a book about nothing." Actually, it's a book about everything in emotional terms, but the plot (romantic schoolgirl marries the wrong man, can't cope with the mundanity of small town life and, well, I won't spoil it for you) is a certainly a vehicle for the characters.

Adele.

<Added>

A contemporary choice, which could also be considered a Young Adult novel, is The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. There's a kind of whodunnit plot, but I'd say it's much more character driven.

Colin, when I was about 12 I read My Friend Flicka and the two sequels and they are definitely character driven. Those books remain some of my all-time favouties. I think MFF was the first time I really felt with al my being the power of a novel - I dissolved into tears at the end and could not forget it for weeks and weeks.. in fact, I stil haven't forgotten!
(Dreamy, inefficient, sensitive boy falls in love with a filly and breaks his heart necause she is so wild he can't tame her - until she almost dies in his arms.)

Oh, Aruna! I think we had the same childhood bookshelf! Mary O'Hara, wasn't it? The boy's name was Ken, and the father was borderline abusive. The mother was depressive, possibly suicidal, and the whole thing was set in the Depression. I must have read those books three or four times at least, and I wish I'd never parted with them. It's only now you've reminded me that I realise how much they influenced my writing.

Julie

The charcters are completely flat and it doesn't make any difference what they are like; they could be anybody, and their inner life is subservient to the plot.

Sharon, I understand what you mean but, if the characters are flat and therefore not convincing, isn’t that just poor writing?

Dee

I think its a mix of the two, Dee. Action and plot driven stories can have shallow characters and get away with it. We don't really care about the hopes and fears and dreams of any of Arnie Schwartzy's characters, be it Commando or Kintergarden Cop - we take the lot at face value. The Da Vinci Code was firstly a vehicle for a conspiracy, secondly a thriller (a pretty lame one); character depth didn't come into it. It would have made the book better, but I don't think the target audience cared. Likewise, Legolas or Gimli in Lord of the Rings. Each is a character based on a race, stereotypical to the extreme, but it doesn't matter to the reader, because the reader of those books isn't really after internal conflict or a reflection of human nature. You have to weigh the two up and consider what you think is important as a reader, or a writer.

So I don't think The Da Vinci Code was badly written; it was just a little too heavily biased on the action/plot theme.

Colin M

Julie, My Friend Flicka influenced me so much I can still quote from it - and that was 40 years ago! The father was Rob and he was a miltary man who thought Ken was a wimp and needed toughening up. And the mother wanted a little girl desperately,. And Ken said to his mum, "I wanted a little girl too!" (Flicka of course means Little Girl in Swedish)
I read it at least 5 times and I am happy to see it is still in print and available on amazon! (Just checked)

Hmmm… yes… good points, Colin. I have The Da Vinci Code but haven’t got round to reading it yet. I still think that if the characters were not flat it may – what am I saying! – it may have been a more successful novel. Maybe it isn’t the best example of my point.

I read a book recently where I got to the end without working out who the main character was. Now that story was obviously plot-driven. There wasn’t, in fact, a ‘main character’. Maybe it comes down to personal preferences? When I read I want to be able to relate to the characters; not necessarily understand them, but empathise with them.

Likewise, Legolas or Gimli in Lord of the Rings. Each is a character based on a race, stereotypical to the extreme, but it doesn't matter to the reader, because the reader of those books isn't really after internal conflict or a reflection of human nature. You have to weigh the two up and consider what you think is important as a reader, or a writer.

But Legolas and Gimli weren’t main characters and there was a very strong thread running through LOTR about the internal conflict of hobbit nature. I'm not suggesting that LOTR was character-driven, but can you see where the edges blur?

Dee


<Added>

Just thinking – maybe I don’t read enough plot-driven novels, so I have a distorted view of them?

This is going to sound really weird, but I do believe it true. One of the main attractions of 'Lord of the Rings', is the sheer distilled humanity of the characters. Despite the fact that non of them are human.

I'm either being stupid or quite poiniant.

You decide (tm)

Darryl

The only developed characters on Lord of the Rings are Frodo, Sam and Bilbo, but we only think that of Bilbo because of The Hobbit where he was in constant turmoil about not wanting to be part of an adventure. Frodo isn't quite the reluctant hero, and Sam is little more that Pantelaimon from His Dark Materials ie, a device to reflect the thoughts of the character without having to rely on first person. Gollum is a good character, you can't avoid that - he really is the star of the show, but Merry and Pippin - can anyone actually seperate them?

I used the word "stereotypical" because each race seems to represent a human trait, rather than, (in a character driven novel) having several human traits battling within the single human character. I think Lord of the Rings is brilliant in that respect; it does play with character traits, even though the theme is firstly the landscape of Middle Earth, and second, the multiple plots (the hobbits' quest, Arogorn getting his Kingdom back, the politics of dwarves and men).

Just looking up at my shelves there, I spotted a few James Herbert novels. Now I can't think of a single one where the character's had any real depth. I think he tried in Haunted but for the rest of them you could just have "The man" or "The woman" and make do with that. Not because he's a crap writer, I just think he appeals to readers who want action, horror and story.

ps the weather was fine for the BBQ.

Colin M

Dee,
I agree with you that ANY book could be improved by fleshing out the characters better, including the Da Vinci Code. But this still wouldn't change a plot driven book to a character driven one - because the plot would stay the same; simply that the author has used fuller characters, better dialogue etc. But the murder, the clue-hunting,the racing from here to there chasing the murderer or escaping from him, the subsequent murders etc, would all be a result of the PLOT, not a result of the better characterization.
It's as if the author thinks of the plot first, and then figures out what kind of chaarcters to people the story with.
Whereas an author who writes a character driven story (such as myself!) FIRST thinks of the characters, and takes it from there - the plot follows them in their fears, aspirations, and so on.

Both can be successful - and there are readers to suit both types of books. I know which type I prefer! Broadly speaking, perhaps men prefer plot driven books, women prefer character driven.

A purely plot-driven book leaves me dissatisfed and frustrated. But I can enjoy a plot driven book very uch if I love and care about the characters. AN example of this is The Little Drummer Girl by John LeCarre, or in fact any book by him. An excellent mixture of plot and character.

So you're not a big Star Wars fan then?



colin

A good example of a character driven plot, and also a cracking good read is Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow by Peter Hoeg. It has one of the best drawn female characters I have ever come across.

Cocaine Nights by J.G Ballard is also great, as is his Rushing to Paradise. Hunter S.Thompson's The Rum Diary is also character driven and a brilliant read.

If it's fantasy or horror you're after, read Imajica by Clive Barker if you haven't already. That's got some great characters, and is very 'real' for a work of dark fantasy.

JB