This site has a lot of informative articles about the difference between plot-driven and character-driven writing. (I would recommend checking out Kyllorac’s The Different Types of Story for a general overview.) The purpose of this particular article is to go into more detail about issue-driven and character-driven writing- what they are, the differences between them, examples, and common pitfalls that might trip up an amateur writer.
On an online discussion board for my AP English Literature course, I made the observation that our summer reading books (Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse, The Stranger by Albert Camus, and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) were not necessarily written to be stories enjoyed by the reader. I called these books ‘literature of ideas’, written to communicate the personal beliefs of the authors, with the stories and characters only a method of transportation.
To which my teacher replied, ‘Aren’t all fictional characters, created by authors, vehicles for the author’s ideas?’
That’s true, but kind of an oversimplified way to view it. The relationship between characters and their position as authorial mouthpieces is more a spectrum than an ‘either-or’ situation.
Although to start off, I don’t really like the term ‘literature of ideas’. It’s very vague. All authors deal in ideas in one way or another. A better word would be ‘issue’, as in a philosophical problem or prediction that the author wishes to express his opinion about through fiction. This is still slightly different from ‘ideas’, which as far as writing goes, could deal with storytelling or characters in general. Issues, at least in my mind, go along more philosophical or thematic lines. With that defined and hopefully clarified, we can now return to the spectrum between ‘issue-driven’ and ‘character-driven’.
Issue-driven Writing
At one end, you have the issue-driven authors, such as Hesse, Camus, and Huxley, where you could argue that each character represents a facet of that issue that the author wants to write about, and not much beyond that. They exist solely to prove a point. The characters serve the point that the author wants to convey. For the issue-driven writer, the philosophy trumps the story of the characters.
Not that this isn’t a powerful method to write when it’s done right, but you’re not dealing with fictional people quite completely. And also, we’ve all encountered those stories in which you immediately know that this book is Against Racism or Against Homophobia or, very commonly, Against Sexism. (You know the one- where the Rebellious Princess throws a tantrum over the fact that she has to have an arranged marriage and, god forbid, wear dresses! Because that’s the absolute worst thing about sexism. Wearing a frilly dress.)
This happens a lot more often in fantasy than science fiction, at least as far as my experience goes. The point is that when you want to have a philosophy or your most passionately held beliefs reflected in your novel, please be careful that they don’t form a black hole of preaching that swallows up your story, characters and any reader’s interest. Also, if you’re writing an issue-driven novel, readers would appreciate it if you took some complexity into account. (More on that later.)
As in anything else, it takes skill and savvy to pull off a true issue-driven novel. When done right, it can be wonderfully incisive and focused, opening people’s minds and opinions. When it isn’t… the reader will know.
Character-driven Writing
At the other end of the spectrum, you have the character-driven authors. These attempt to create people, in all their complexities, and the plot is driven by these people without any external focus on what kind of philosophical point of view the author’s trying to get across. That’s not to say that there aren’t ideas or philosophical points in the books, or that the characters don’t carry them out. Rather, the characters drive the philosophy, not the other way around (as it tends to be with the issue-driven authors). The character-driven book can a lot more realistic, ambiguous and complex when done well, but often isn’t as clear or focused as the issue-driven book.
I would take George R. R. Martin as a good example of the character-driven author. (To those who haven’t heard of him, his novels are the basis for the ‘Game of Thrones’ TV series on HBO. They are completely dependent on compelling character development, and anyone who’s interested in writing character-driven fantasy would do well to read his work.)
Character-driven writing is what a lot of authors would like to strive for, but often it falls flat. As I mentioned earlier, issue-driven writing takes skill to pull off. The same principle applies on the other side as well. (In fact, almost everything about writing well could be boiled down to IT’S GOING TO BE HARD, DEAL WITH IT.)
While the budding issue-driven author often trips up by blaring their message far too loudly and indiscriminately, the character-driven author’s downfall tends to be the opposite- he (or she) doesn’t go far enough in thinking through their characters. The shallowness and inconsistency that result cause the house of cards to completely collapse.
Although on second thoughts, pitfalls in both writing methods (and most writing in general) boil down to one thing: not thinking. Clichés are the result of years and years of authors being lazy and taking the least complicated way out. Almost by definition they are not true representations of anything.
Readers are smarter than some authors may give them credit for. They know when you’ve delivered them recycled, re-vomited ideas from every pulp fantasy novel they’ve ever read. (Rebellious Princess, I’m looking at you.) They know that people, ideas, and issues are complicated. Sometimes, taking the time and effort to portray that in your writing goes a long way, no matter what your method or your ultimate point is. And in the process, you end up with a much more interesting result.
Conclusion
I could put it a lot more concisely in this way: issue-driven authors write their novels to illustrate a philosophical point to their audience by using fictional characters. Character-driven authors focus on the stories of people, but in the process of living the story, the audience has managed to pick up an underlying point or two that’s buried underneath the events of the characters’ lives.
Neither method is better or worse, objectively, as long as they’re done well (although the subjectivity of that is a whole other matter). They’re two ways to write, and great things have come of both. If you know what you’re trying to write and are completely adamant that that’s what you want to do, my only advice would be to seek out the masters who have already written in a similar style, learn everything you can from them, and then attempt to apply that to your own writing.
However, issue-driven and character-driven writing are not pure and sacred ideals. The spectrum, such as I’ve defined it, is actually very blurry. Why limit yourself? If good books can be written that are issue-focused, character-focused, or even plot-focused (and they have been), wouldn’t it stand to reason that an amazing book would have everything?
swenson on 22 August 2011, 19:08 said:
That’s pretty much the best writing advice I’ve ever heard.
I liked this article. I think it’s useful to make a distinction between the two. And I agree that the underlying problem in both poorly-done issue fiction and poorly-done character fiction is simply not thinking deeply enough about it. The point of issue-driven fiction, after all, is to examine an issue and come to a conclusion about it.
You mentioned Siddhartha, which I also had to read in school. In that book, the titular character is seeking… well, enlightenment, I guess. He tries many ways to find it, in asceticism, in hedonism, and so on, before reaching what Hesse thought was “enlightenment”. But the point is that many aspects of alternative points of view are also discussed. Hesse didn’t start off trying to hammer a point home. He actually took the time to show why each of the other paths didn’t work. Whether or not you accept his conclusions, you have to agree that at least he put in effort to fully examine the issue.
The problem of poorly-done issue fiction, like all those Anti-Sexism Author Tracts that plague fantasy these days (see the spork of Hawkmistress! on this site for a prime example of that…), is that the author didn’t examine the issue fully. No attempt was made to look at the other side. No attempt was made to show where the other side is flawed, other than to just say “THEY’RE WRONG, OK.” And that’s just not very convincing of an argument.
The problem with poorly-done character fiction is exactly the same. In well-done character-driven fiction, the author says “OK, if you have these characters with these personalities in these positions in this setting… what would they do? Where would they go?” And the story is born out of that. But if it’s done poorly, you end up with a railroaded plot where the characters do things because the author wants them too. In a sense, you get a plot-driven story, only in a very bad way. That’s not true character-driven fiction anymore than the “MEN ARE EVIL” Author Tracts are true issue-driven fiction.
Snow White Queen on 22 August 2011, 21:16 said:
Exactly.
I’d also like to add that cliches are not necessarily bad (this was being discussed in the forums) in and of themselves, though I was rather harsh about it here. What matters is that the author is aware and thinking about the cliche in question.
To make an example of myself, I bashed the Rebellious Princess stereotype a lot in this article, despite the fact that that one of the protagonists of my WIP is herself a princess who is none too docile. For whatever reason, I was attached to the stereotype, but I wanted to play with it and take it further. There’s nothing lazy about that.
I’m glad you liked the article, swenson.
WulfRitter on 22 August 2011, 21:38 said:
I lol’ed. Not because sexism is funny, but because too many writers who set out brandishing the blade of Anti-Sexism get caught up in a lot of issues that are not actually the issue. It’s like they’re going to attack something safe and not go balls-to-the-wall (forgive the ironic and vulgar saying) and go after something that might hurt.
Anyhow, this is a very good article. I particularly like this bit:
Too many writers forget that and it’s one of the things that turns me off of a book is if the author thinks I need my hand held from one cover to the next. Although God knows I’m guilty of it, too. It’s a very easy mistake to make and one we all need to be mindful of. Well done. :)
Yorkshire on 22 August 2011, 22:03 said:
I was looking forward to this article! Great read, and very well articulated. I like your bit at the end about how the lines can blur. I think it really boils down to not setting out to write an “issue-driven” or “character-driven” story when you first sit down to write it. Like any writing, it has to happen naturally. You just have to tell the story, and if you’re a talented/practiced writer, issues and complex characters will arise without you even realizing it. A lot of amateur writers want to wow the world, so they set out to do something overly ambitious and what they think will be considered “mature” by trying to tackle a political issue or something. What they (hopefully) learn is, good writing doesn’t happen that way.
Sharkonian on 22 August 2011, 22:37 said:
Is the Cider House Rules an example of issue-driven fiction?
Thea on 22 August 2011, 23:14 said:
Maybe point out to your teacher that those novels didn’t come out until the novel became an accepted form of art, and could be published for its own sake, and that took a long time. Before then, novels had to rely on readers who had to enjoy it for the story and not for the technique. Think of the early classics: though Dickens had a point, he made it through his stories first…they were illustrative first. Like the transition in physical art from the Renaissance to the Pre-Raphelites and then the abstractists (to hideously oversimplicate both issues and make up words).
Despite being an English major with something of an emphasis in literature, I have Issues with how the subject has be academicized.
Okay I’ll stop making up words and address the rest of the article:
Yay!
Ahem. And, of course, the best bit is, “IT’S GOING TO BE HARD, DEAL WITH IT.” Indeed it is. Work it through or don’t write it, please. (Well, okay, you can figure it out during rewriting, too, just don’t forget.)
I appreciate that you have this so concise and don’t go academic on us, since it doesn’t need to be that hard. As Yorkshire said, “Great read, and very well articulated.”
TheArmada on 23 August 2011, 02:33 said:
Love this article, very good advice. All the authors here should get together and write a big advice book on writing books, it would be great.
And swenson, your words on character drama, those are the words I live by when writing.
TheArmada on 23 August 2011, 02:53 said:
Wanted to add something about my story: its character driven and I spent a ridiculous amount of time brining my characters to life, until I saw them as fellow people. The story has taken 2+ years and despite my numerous attempts to put it down and find another idea to fail at, it just won’t die. Is that a good thing?
Fell Blade on 23 August 2011, 09:48 said:
@Thea,
I was thinking of Dickens also after reading this. “Oliver Twist” had a definite messgae (bringing the plight of the poor in London to people’s attention), but the book didn’t turn into an essay on social reform. Dickens let his characters drive the message home for him.
Requiem on 23 August 2011, 12:09 said:
I’d personally rather combine the two, character’s with issues driven by story and themselves. You can have some characters that represent a philosophy and characters that make their own and use it to convey an entirely different message or multiple messages depending on interpretation. I think its better to drive your moral/philosophical point of view in by drawing from many points, which is usually done with literature and music and other media. But I wonder what problems lie in making something so open to interpretation, perhaps people can take it too far and lose the meaning all together. So should a book be more open to interpretation and gain more perspective or focus on one main message and be narrow and up front? I wonder if there is a middle ground somewhere.
Yorkshire on 23 August 2011, 13:34 said:
Really good point. I wonder about this a lot.
@TheArmada, that is a very good thing. I feel the same way about my characters.
Snow White Queen on 23 August 2011, 14:24 said:
I would say that the great thing about writing is that there are no rules except ‘do what works for you’. I think there is a middle ground, going back to the spectrums I was talking about. There aren’t really that many extremes in writing.
This means you love it. This is a good thing. Why would you want to kill it off?
Yeah, this was what I was talking about at the end. I’m the same way; I take a character and story driven approach, with the issues acting as an undercurrent, if there are any. Don’t know how well it works, but it’s challenging and interesting, to say the least.
Requiem on 23 August 2011, 17:50 said:
Anyone here a fan of the manga Beserk? I think it does a good job of combing both character with issue driven problems, it’s also one of the inspirations for some of the main parts of my still unfinished book.
Fallling on 26 August 2011, 03:33 said:
One thing that struck me when reading Isaac Asimov’s stories is how they seem to be centred around a concept rather than a character. My term for him at the time was a ‘concept writer’ which seems more or less issue-driven plot.
I haven’t read the examples of issue-driven authors, but based on Asimov’s writings, I wonder if issue driven writings are a little easier to manage in a short story form? The concept is much more contained in any event. Maybe it’s my own character/plot driven method of writing that finds it so hard to base an entire novel on an issue/concept.
Inkblot on 27 August 2011, 16:06 said:
Sci fi, as Asimov developed it in particular, is more the central issue there, I think. He was a weak character author, choosing instead to focus on big ideas, as you’ve noticed. However, this focus on the big, bold ideas and questions was the very thing that cultivated the ‘sense of wonder’ he’s still famous for and that made his works so very worth reading and so compelling. You may be right about the short story point you bring up.
One of my all-time favorite Asimovs was a short story, little more than a thousand words or so, in which a group of scientists and military men watch a high-speed replay of an atomic bomb explosion in slow motion. In one particular frame, the mushroom cloud blows up and outward to form the face of Satan. The characters were not even worth speaking of, little more than vehicles for necessary setup dialogue, but that image will haunt and intrigue me for the rest of my life.
Klaus Schilling on 28 May 2014, 07:53 said:
I dislike all stories driven by realistic characters, while issue-driven fiction is for me the most noble and worthy of being read.
Issue-driven stories may be as long as they want to be, such as Hugo’s Miserables or Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. There’s no need for them to be short stories.