From analyzing the different archetypes of literary characters in class, it seems like if your characters are lacking in some basic qualities, your story will fall flat on it's plot-failed face. But, according to the kind of success books like Twilight have with their admittedly addictive and enthralling plots, but characters that lack the depth of a puddle in July, are fully developed characters really strictly necessary to satisfy today's readers?
And then take all of the teen novels that girls all over the world spend hours and hours reading. The kind of books that cause you to spend a straight 6 hours one day getting through because you can't put them down, but that you know you will never remember the main character's name of, or the town it took place in. Now take Harry Potter. Where does THAT take place? Alright, so it's a series AND a movie. Maybe the facts get beaten into your head around book number 3, or movie number 2. But what about the main character's name in the popular "City of Ember" Trilogy? That one's a movie too.
Now this isn't to say that the City of Ember books aren't entertaining, and don't have a great plot line. They do, infact, and from what I've gathered from reviews, and from my own reading, the plot is precisely what makes the books such page turners. But the characters have no internal conflict, and not much depth. Their sole purpose seems to be to propel the plot along, and nothing more. Can a book survive on plot alone?
Now lets look at a book whose plot may be slightly less appealing to today's day and age. Great Expectations. Remember the main character's name? How about what country it takes place in? But I'm going to be honest; maybe it's my astonishing lack of literary class, but I did not find Pip's story to be a particularly quick moving read. Is it a coincidence that the globally acclaimed classics with brilliant writing tend to have more to do with the characters than the plot?
How about Catcher in the Rye? Sure, you could spend hours analyzing the plot, and how symbols in it relate to the characters, but the book would be nothing without Holden's crazy, contradictory internal monologues. These two books are examples of how books can indeed, be wild successes from the characters alone, with some side help from the plot to give the characters something to work with.
And that brings us to Twilight. This book seems to be the biggest exception to the rule that characters make the book. Everyone knows where Twilight took place. They know the character's names, their history, even their favorite colors, foods, and what car they drive. But any critic will tell you that Twilight's characters are nothing special. They're as flat as a piece of paper, and quite honestly, about as blank. But the population for the past couple years has been Vampire obsessed. And it's not just that more people are watching Buffy. So what is it that makes Twilight so ridiculously addictive?
The plot. It's connectable, an easy read, moves quickly, and is almost never lacking in action. And what teenage girl hasn't put herself in Bella's shoes? But that's just it; girls don't identify will Bella specifically because there isn't much to connect to, other than the basic qualities everyone would like- kindness, ingenuity, and a little clumsiness (only enough for her to fall so that Edward can catch her). No, girls identify with the plot. Because who wouldn't want to fall in love with the perfect boyfriend archetype, only in vampire form? And Bella is the MOST developed main character in Twilight, being the sole human. The rest of the characters rely on the "fate" or "expectations" of their kind to drive their string of the plot. Twilight's plot is what gives it such wild success on paper and in theaters world wide.
And yet, as a whole, people seem to be satisfied with Twilight. Is the whole nation lacking in literary selection skill? or have books like Twilight simply become the norm of what is an acceptable read? It's not like the nation goes around reading Charles Dickens before bed any more.
So going along with your title, I believe the character came first. I don't think the story could be thought of with out a character that would bring it all together. The personality of the character helps develope the events that occur during the book, but it was interesting to read your blog
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that now a days people are more concerned with fast moving plots. I admit when books begin to drag and get into nitty gritty details about internal conflict I find that my attention spands tend to grow smaller. In my opinion, a good book is where there is a somewhat equal developement of both the characters, and the plot of the story.
ReplyDeleteThough-provoking and impressively delivered blog, Lindsay. And what the heck is up with our nation's obsession with vampires? Twighlight, True Blood, this new series on one of the networks (I'm not quite sure about the title and it's frankly not worth my time to look it up)...Vampires seem to be quite in right now. It baffles me, but I digress.
ReplyDeletePlot is certainly more important to people in today's day and age than character depth or development. This is fodder for some interesting conclusions to be drawn about our culture. Yes, we are blitzed with information from all sides at all times of the day, so it's no wonder that our collective attention spans are much shorter than they were in Dickens's day. Also, I think people, in general, especially generation Y-ers and generation C-ers ("content") are, on the whole, extremely self-involved. Perhaps today's reader doesn't find too much depth of character to be very interesting; they would rather express themselves or explore their own inner conflicts. What think you?