Characters, Plot, Themes

[Gormenghast]

Just a little game I was doing. Take an author and rank the three general aspects according to their priority (for "theme" I intend some kind of goal or revelation that should come with reading).

For example I come up with this:

Martin: Characters > Plot > Themes
Erikson: Themes > Plot > Characters
Bakker: Themes > Characters > Plot
Sanderson: Plot > Characters > Themes
Abercrombie: Characters > Plot > Themes
Rothfuss: Characters > Themes > Plot (not entirely sure since I haven't read enough)

Consider, though, I'm not rating them in order of "quality", but in the order of general priority in the structure of a novel.

For example I was noticing that often in Erikson's novels the characters are shaped by the environment. A journey from point A to B often can change or define a character. And in general the theme is that people are crushed within large events. There are gods that manipulate them and so on, people are caged in their life. And all that gives a sense that the single character is the product of what's around himself, more than a will that shapes and transforms events, and changes the world. It's characterization dominated by the outside and by the huge disproportion between internal will and external force.

For Bakker it's even easier because the themes are like the fervor that powers the written page, characters are the strong focus, but only as weapons shaped around those themes, meant to damage one own's view, and plot is only secondary to all that. It's holy writing infused by themes.

Martin is also fairly easy. Characters have firmly the priority, but also in the sense of what I said about Erikson, it's the characters that drive the plot. There's a tight control on the events that depends solely on who the characters are and what they want, so the plot is deliberate and direct, it's about characters acting and affecting each other. Whatever thematic depth, it stays on the characters themselves and how they perceive each other, or how they gain or lose power on each other.

Which is curious, because I see real life being a bit more Erikson's interpretation than Martin's. I see it more as a thing moved by events, or in general by things outside one's control. You can be very important and very powerful, or the opposite, but it's like you're always showed down a corridor without much choice. So what's left is only the "awareness" of where you are, but not a real sense of deliberate, willful direction that is popular on most popular fiction (character-driven).

So what I mean with all this is that, outside subjective preference, there isn't a particular priority that is "better" and works for everything. Goals are different, and a book that focus on plot or themes can be as good as one that focuses on characters.

[Darth Richard II]

I'd take this more seriously if I thought you had actually read most of those books.

[Cubarey]

I think you are exaggerating the differences between Martin and Erikson. While Martin focuses on specific characters and events, his overall them is quite similar to Erikson's to the extent that individual wants and desires get overwhelmed by element beyond their control. Political intrigue and infighting occurred during the Targanyans, Baratheon's and will alamost certainly continue in some form in Westeros (if the others are not victorious). The nobility plays there games and the small folk pay the butcher's bill. That's not so different from Erikson's view of individuals living there lives where the God's battle over their games and its the people who usually pay the price. I think that the main difference comes from two facts, while Matin kills the occasional protagonist Erikson kills almost the entire cast of his books and starts over with new characters or minor surviving minor characters that become the focus of the action.

As for Marin's characters being able to control their surroundings the fallacy of that view begins with Ned Stark and extends with to just about all characters with the only two characters having significant control are Varys and LF. and LF by self-description thrives in the mailstrom of chaos.

As for Erikson's characters while they in fact end up being consumed by greater power most actually attempt to impact their own destiny even in the face of a reality that offers them few real choices. Thus, the difference is more in the emphasize that each author gives to the inevitability of fate then to whether characters can make their own fate.

[Gormenghast]

I think you are exaggerating the differences between Martin and Erikson. While Martin focuses on specific characters and events, his overall them is quite similar to Erikson's to the extent that individual wants and desires get overwhelmed by element beyond their control. Political intrigue and infighting occurred during the Targanyans, Baratheon's and will alamost certainly continue in some form in Westeros (if the others are not victorious). The nobility plays there games and the small folk pay the butcher's bill. That's not so different from Erikson's view of individuals living there lives where the God's battle over their games and its the people who usually pay the price. I think that the main difference comes from two facts, while Matin kills the occasional protagonist Erikson kills almost the entire cast of his books and starts over with new characters or minor surviving minor characters that become the focus of the action.

Well, that's the part I don't agree with.

You seem to say that the way society is structured in Martin's books creates these layers of power that distinguish between those who count, and those who suffer the effects. With Erikson the struggle is often impersonal, it's not about a degree of power or "injustice", it's a lot wider and deeper than that. It's a struggle against the breadth of human life, there isn't just one villain that decided people should be miserable.

So Martin is still about that "character-driven drama". Elements beyond control are still people crossing each other plans. The second season of the TV series Black Sails is a perfect example of that. The tangle of plot is written so well that it outdoes Martin in what Martin does best (limiting to just this one aspect, of course). It's really the best thing I've ever seen in any medium, when it comes to the plot. But that only works because it's a written story where each character is carefully positioned to obtain the great effect.

Life doesn't go that way. Those sort of plans are only made after the fact, when you line up events that were originally entirely occasional and unplanned. The point is: even those at the very top of the power scale don't have a whole lot of control and are still slave of the system they are caged in.

So, hugely simplifying, in Martin's the struggle might be political, so people against people, right in this moment and human-driven. For Erikson the struggle is more existential. It's about people universally, runs deeper in history than just one battle. And so it often becomes more contemplative than pro-active.

[unJon]

I'd take this more seriously if I thought you had actually read most of those books.

No you wouldn't. 😛

[The Reckoner]

Sanderson: world > characters > plot > theme

I've taken two shots at getting through The Way of Kings...the worldbuilding is what stood out most. He does do a bit for the characters, moreso than plot, but his characters lost be halfway through it.

[Jo498]

Of those mentioned I only read Martin, Abercrombie and two and half of Bakker. I agree that Bakker is uncommonly "theme"-driven (this aspect seems far more prevalent in SciFi than in Fantasy).

I disagree about Abercrombie. The first trilogy is mainly plot driven.

Bayaz' cabals almost always overrule character's decisions. Logan is both Bayaz' pawn and subject to the Bloody9 persona, Jezal is a mere pawn etc. As Bayaz is hardly a main character (compared to Logan, Glokta, Jezal etc. this overall plot clearly dominates. It is not generated by the characters trying to fulfil their wishes and their clashing interests

Not so sure about the three single ones but I tend to mainly plot-driven for "Best served cold" and somewhat theme-driven for "Heroes".

As every good genre fiction should be, Martin's is also to a good extent plot-driven.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think there's a fourth dimension here: the world.

Tolkien: world > themes > plot > characters

Peake: world > characters > themes > plot

Howard: plot > ...

[Happy Ent]

Cute perspective. Thanks for making this thread.

Bakker: Theme > World > Characters > Plot

Martin: Characters > Plot > World > Theme

Abraham: Characters > World > Theme > Plot (?)

Lynch: Plot > Characters > World > Theme

[Happy Ent]

Oh, and there’s the arboreal perspective.

Tolkien: Sentient trees > World > Theme > Plot > Animal characters

[sologdin]

goodkind: (important human) themes/(100% non-fantasy realistic) plot/(jawkicking) character/(non-fantasy but completely original) setting

[The Marquis de Leech]

Stephen Donaldson varies depending on the series.

Thomas Covenant: Theme > Character > World > Plot

Mordant's Need: World > Plot > Character > Theme

The Gap: Character > Plot > World > Theme

[Gormenghast]

Sanderson: world > characters > plot > theme

I've taken two shots at getting through The Way of Kings...the worldbuilding is what stood out most. He does do a bit for the characters, moreso than plot, but his characters lost be halfway through it.

I've read Stormlight too so I come from the same perspective. The reason why I put plot before characters is that I see characters as been created by the necessity of the plot. You see very easily what kind of role Kaladin plays in the structure of the novel, and it is mostly determined by "plot" requirements. So even if the writing is character-driven, more or less, it's still the plot in the structure of the novel that shapes the rest.

For a character priority you need a case like Martin, where characters determine the plot directly.

And I'm not sure that I'd add "world" as a thing, since this worldbuilding stuff is already inflated in the discussion about fantasy ;)

[Jo498]

Tolkien also varies. In the Hobbit I'd say: Plot - Themes - Characters - World

[Larry of the Lawn]

Stanek - awesomesauce > characters > >bugville critters > plot > photoshopping Brian Jacques photo > themes

[EruditeFool]

Victor Hugo: World >>>>>>>>>> Themes > Characters > World

Alexander Dumas: Plot > Characters > World > Themes

Ayn Rand: Theme > Plot

Eye of Argon: Masterful Prose > Realistic Dialogue > Loveable and Unique Characters > Beautiful Action Scenes.

[Circle_breaker]

Lynch: Characters > plot > theme > world