Between event-based and character-based fiction, which type is considered to be of higher standard?

Question

Although with a smaller scope of growth and intrigue, character-based stories are deemed to be of higher level art by the Hindi novel-king Munshi Premchand. I'd love it if I could get some insight on the topic by all you wonderful people.

I hope you like the question and yes, today I am in an "asking" sort of mood. Check out my other two open questions too!

I am so thrilled to have you answering my question, Macsteed sir!

Answer 1

It's difficult to quantify a "standard" when it comes to styles of prose, beyond the purely subjective, of course. But based upon my own opinion as a long-time writer and devotee of literature, I would be inclined to agree with Mr. Premchand. As one of your answerers has already suggested, character-based fiction is driven by dialogue. I believe writing intelligent, interesting, plot-moving dialogue is more difficult than simply setting a scene based upon descriptions of places and events.

Most of my favourite authors were known for their brilliant characterizations. Dickens made the characters (even the minor ones) who populated his wonderful novels so lifelike that they seemed to leap off the pages and into your world. Dostoevsky, Hardy and James placed the reader inside the very hearts and minds of their protagonists, thus launching the whole concept of the psychological novel.

So, between the creation of stimulating, thoughtful and engaging dialogue and probing into the thoughts and motivations of the story's central characters, the writer of the character-driven novel truly allows his readers to enter into the story and feel what his creations are feeling. When done well, it is a literary marvel and truly a thing of beauty.

Event-driven fiction, on the other hand, relies more on the author's 3rd-person narrative structure and often fails to draw you (the reader) in to the otherwise well-framed world in which his story takes place. Many such writers are quite gifted, even eloquent, at creating landscapes (both literal and figurative) in which to populate their characters. Their strength lies in letting the events play out on a well-crafted canvas, whether beautiful or horrifying, and the reader is able to maintain a certain detachment because he really doesn't "know" the characters. (Note: One often encounters this phenomenon in film, especially so-called action movies.)

In closing, I return to my original argument. This is a purely subjective opinion based upon personal preference, even if it receives more critical backing than opposing views might. Whether when reading a book or watching a film, I'd rather be drawn into the lives of the characters I'm watching/reading about than simply be entertained by exciting events and beautiful (or hideous) scenery. As with beauty, itself, the choice of which brand of fiction is the higher standard is truly in the eye of the beholder.

Answer 2

That's kind of a loaded question. I would say, on an academic level that character-based gets a little bit more attention, but I think there's way too often a melding of the two. In certain time periods everything was really event-based because there was so much going on in the world. Any time there was a war, writers jumped at the chance to use the setting. However, the story would really revolve around the characters involved with the event as opposed to the event itself. I'm of the mind that character is the driving force behind any kind of literature, whether that is the main focus or not. It wasn't until more modern times that we began to see a plethora of literature that's not really about a major event at all. It can be a narrative about a woman going for a walk, but yet there can be more to that story than any other. Good question and I hope my perspective helps.

Answer 3

As a novelist published through a major publishing house, an occasional book reviewer and a former student of comparative literature (I have an MA in literary theory centering on semiotics and communication), I would say it's all pissing in the wind.

There is a story -- probably an urban myth -- of how a Booker Prize winning auhtor (I won't name names) was once overheard at a reception pooh-poohing the works of a very successful pulp novelist. In my humble opinion, however, the Booker Prize winner would not be able to write a good pulp novel if his life depended on it. (Whoops, just gave away the person's gendre, but heck, live dangerously, I always say.)

In other words, we are all only inspired to write what we write. It's as simple as that. Although my work would be commonly categorized as literary fiction with focus on characterization, I have the utmost respect for authors of genre fiction that centre more on plot action. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, belonging to a genre commonly regarded as high literature is not going to redeem the work any.

Higher level of art? Wazzat? Japanese kabuki originated as theatre for commoners. Now it is considered the height of sophistication. Jazz has experienced a similar shift in perspective. If you are a reader, just enjoy what you enjoy. If you are a writer, just write what you write. Don't get distracted by the moaning and groaning of people masturbating in the dark.

Answer 4

I personally like a median of the two. An event based often has a shorter area to work with, you have the event, what happened before and after, and reaction. It is usually it, I find it boring after a while. Character based is more stretched in a storyline, it can go on and on. Which to can get bothersome. A good mix of the two will often switch between a character and the event keeping me on my toes and interested.

Answer 5

Character-based fiction is, for the most part, better than event- or action-based because the character must be believable and fully developed. Otherwise, the story/novel is episodic in nature and the action is not as convincing because the characters don't seem like living, breathing, erring humans.

Answer 6

Hi there. Character based fiction is much more difficult to write because it requires a lot of dialogue. Many writers do fine with descriptive material, but have problems producing colorful or believable dialogue. They also don't know how to punctuate dialogue properly, as that is a complicated subject in itself, so they try to avoid it. That's a big mistake, in my opinion. Great dialogue brings the characters to life and furthers the storyline. Paragraphs full of descriptive info about the sky, the trees and the ground DO NOT.

I hope this helps. Good luck with your writing.

Jon F. Baxley (Author, Editor, Ghostwriter and Proofreader)

THE SCYTHIAN STONE (eBook only)
THE BLACKGLOOM BOUNTY (eBook and hard cover)
THE REGENTS OF RHUM (coming fall '07)

*****

Answer 7

I write a lot of stories where the action centers around a few main characters (rarely more than 3-4) and people seem to like it okay. I'd rather see stories where things happen to believable characters.

Answer 8

Usually the character-based, event based usually is of higher standard. Tho, I tend to be a realist (nicer word for pessimist), so that is probably why I chose that option.

Answer 9

Depends on the writer, how well he can put up the story whether event based or character based.
st

Answer 10

Character based fiction.