Writing, Plot, or Character?

I’m still in the process of putting together a post detailing the events of my recent book tour. Here’s a link to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune. And here’s a fun picture of the Elementary school I graduated from.

But in the meantime, I thought I’d talk a little about what, in my opinion, makes a novel bad, good, or great. What I want to discuss are three of the key elements of any novel: plot, character, and writing. (Quality of writing, not, you know, writing itself—as opposed to say ballads, campfire stories, interactive hula dancing, etc.)

For some reason, lately I’ve been rereading several books. I’m reading A Wrinkle in Time to my kids, I’m rereading the Thomas Covenant trilogy, and I’m rereading Asimov’s Foundation series. Interestingly enough, the only story I’m enjoying as much as I remembered is Foundation.

Why? Well first of all, Wrinkle in Time is much slower reading than I remembered. The writing is beautiful, the characters are a little one dimensional, but the pacing is so slow, my kids’ eyes glaze over. We just finished the part where one of the women (Mrs. Who?) turns into the flying horse and flies to the top of the mountain to show the children the shadow of evil. Literally, the story reads like, “They flew higher and higher, until they were past the clouds. And higher still. But the top of the mountain still seemed far away. Meg marveled at how high they were and how thin the air was. Still the horse’s wings strained against the thin air.” Right, I get it. They are flying high. Get back to the story!

So why do I remember enjoying the book so much? Was it because of how unique it was at the time? Did that make me overlook the flaws that put my boys to sleep? Or is life just faster now? Are our expectations different because of computers, video games, etc? I don’t think it can be the pace of life because other books are still as interesting. Maybe it’s that in memory I overlook the flaws because the overall story was so good. Or maybe I just hadn’t read a lot of fantasy back then, so everything seemed more magical?

The last time I read the Thomas Covenant series was back in high school. I remembered it was darker than most fantasy. What I didn’t remember was what an incredibly annoying protagonist Thomas Covenant was. I’ve reread the first two books, and I want to grab him by the hair, and shout, “People don’t hate you because you are a leper. They hate you because you are a big selfish crybaby! Get over yourself and think about someone else for once. Come on man, you’ve spent two entire books offending people and refusing to even try to help. Man up!”

Again, why did I like the series so much back in the day? I had read Terry Brooks by then; and of course Lord of the Rings. So fantasy series weren’t brand new. But it was still pretty unique. There are parts of the story that are powerful, the writing is strong, and the world-building is amazing. But, at least to this point, I’ve had to force myself to finish each book, and it’s been a slog.

How about Foundation? I’ve heard people say how stark Asimov’s writing is. I honestly didn’t remember that. But as I go back and read his work, they are absolutely right. I don’t think there is any mention of smells, sounds, or other senses. The characters have no personality at all to speak of—except that nearly anyone of any importance smokes cigars. The pace is extremely quick. No character stays around for long. It shouldn’t be a good book. But it is. The story is just so compelling, to me at least, that I have to read more.

So what makes a good book? First of all, I have to say that greatness in any of the three above mentioned categories can override weaknesses in the other two. Asimov’s plot is so strong that the reader can forgive the fact that his writing is stark and his characters are merely placeholders. In the same way though, one major weak point can pull down the other two. Stephen R. Donaldson is a poet of a writer. His descriptions and world-building are incredible. And the overall story is powerful. But the main character is so annoying, he nearly ruins the whole thing.

Obviously, we’d love a book with great writing, memorable characters, and an incredible plot. When all the pieces are clicking, we have a book that can achieve lasting greatness. But which of the three is the most important—whether for the good or the bad?

Let’s start with quality of writing. In my experience, books that are extremely popular, with a lot of readers tend to have only adequate writing. Books that are popular with the critics tend to have incredible writing. Why? Because really beautiful prose can actually overpower a story. The average reader wants to see the hero hurl a bolt of fiery blue steel at the rushing horde of gnolls or the heroine find her true love. She doesn’t want flowery prose and vivid descriptions to get in the way of the action. Of course there is a time for flowery prose, but if the focus turns from the story to the writing, the author has intruded on the reader.

Don’t get me wrong. I love great writing. In fact, one of the best compliments I received on my tour was from a librarian who said I should thank my English teachers. She said that she reads so many children’s books that have a great story but lousy writing. But she loved my writing and my story. (Yes, I misted up a little.) J

A great plot beats great writing in my book. Imagine this crusty old miner sitting around a campfire and telling you about the time he and Bessie were trapped for three days in a collapsed gold mine with a dozen hungry rattlers. He may not use the most beautiful language. He may jump back and forth a little and overuse the word fearsome. But you are still on the edge of your seat. A Wrinkle in Time may not have had the fastest paced writing. But it was a cool story. I mean she invented IT before Stephen King did. A Camazotz is just dang spooky.

But, personally, I have to put character at the top of the list. The biggest complaint I have about many of the books I don’t like, is that I just don’t care enough about the characters. Put Julie T. Protagonist in the middle of a raging fire, with bad guys everywhere, and the love of her life in the clutches of I. M. Antagonist, and I’m just going to yawn if I don’t care about the characters. Ideally I should love your protagonist. I should definitely empathize with her. But if I don’t even care about her, your story is destined to fail.

I think characters are what made the Harry Potter series so incredibly successful. JK Rowling has a way of making you care about even the most minor character. Think about Colin Creevey. He is a thrown in. A minor walk-on character. But anyone who has read the series remembers the cute little kid with the camera. I also think that’s a huge part of the success of Twilight. People loved Edward and Bella. Of course this is also why many people were less happy with some of the later books. But the very fact that they cared enough to get that upset, shows the emotional investment the author built up in her readers.
Next week, I’ll take a stab at what makes strong characters. But for now, I’ll open the question to you. What is most important to you when reading a book? Writing, plot, or character?