The Little Tin God of Characterization

[DeltaV]

A while back I picked up a complete set of Asimov’s Science Fiction for the year of 1985. Frankly, a bit of a slog. Many of the stories should have been in Weird Tales or Fantastic Adventures, instead of in a magazine that has “Science” in the title.

Although there were a handful of good stories scattered across the year, in general my reading confirms my belief that the 1980’s were a bit of a wasteland for magazine SF.

However, what was interesting and entertaining were the editorials and articles written by the good doctor himself. Several of them were about the obnoxious SF fans out there in SF fandom. Typical anecdote: a fan writes Asimov ‘I’ve got a great idea for a SF story. If I send it to you, would you ghost write a novel for me? I’ll look after publishing it!’ Stuff like that. Asimov’s comments are good for a laugh though.

Then there were the more serious articles such as the one in my subject line. In this article, Asimov states that the importance of characters in SF is overrated, and detracts from the principal mission of SF: the exploration of ideas.

Here are several quotes from the article in question (Asimov’s Science Fiction, May 1985):

“I make no special effort to create Dickensian types. I have no enormous interest in having my characters live in human consciousness as though they were so many Prince Hamlets and Huck Finns.”

“I, however, am anxious to illuminate the human condition in a different way-not through characters, but through ideas. You've heard it said, perhaps, that "Science fiction is a literature of ideas"? Well, I believe it.”

“In a way, all literature has, or should have, a content of ideas, just as all literature has, or should have, characters. It's a matter of emphasis, I suppose. I cannot speak for other genres, or for literature generally, but in science fiction, the ideas are of prime importance and (in my opinion) should not be sacrificed to the welfare of any other aspect of the story.”

“Well, then, if someone is going to take the trouble to write science fiction, why should he feel he must bow down to the little tin god of characterization? If he is so anxious to create characters, why not write something that is a lot easier to write than science fiction is, so that he can concentrate all the more
effectively on characterization?”

“No, I'm not saying that, as a matter of Principle, you should forget all about characterization if you are writing science fiction. If you can stick some in and make your characters interesting and even unforgettable, great. Why not? But that is not what you should be concentrating on.”

Now, I don’t want cardboard characters in any of my stories (and I think that Asimov has even come up with some memorable characters, as Norman Spinrad points out in a later issue). However, If I want to read about unforgettable characters, I reach for Tolstoy or Austen.

As a hard SF fan, I tend to agree with Asimov's viewpoint on the place of ideas in SF.

But all of this is opinion. What do you think?

 

[BAYLOR]

Books and stories with big ideas and cardboard characterizations have a tendency to become shelf bound dust and book mold magnets.

 

[Toby Frost]

Horses for courses, really. A short story like "The Nine Billion Names of God" is structured quite like a joke, and any deep characterisation wouldn't make it much better (and might make it worse, as it would take attention away from the "punchline"). And there seems to be a subset of hard SF fans who believe that the inclusion of anything other than hard SF isn't proper science fiction. A lot of Asimov's work is problem-based, and doesn't require strong characters, but if it wasn't problem-based, better characters would improve it.

However, I think that great writing needs good characterisation. If the characters in, say, Consider Phlebas were weaker and less sympathetic, readers would learn less about the setting (as they represent different factions) and would be less invested in their survival. Good characterisation doesn't have to be particularly "literary" or arty - look at Raymond Chandler's crime novels. I'd give the example of 1984, which has both good "normal novel" elements and has very good SF elements. That to me seems to be the highest point an SF novel can aim for.

So I think that by rejecting characterisation, Asimov is like a pianist deciding not to play certain notes on the piano: he can produce excellent work, but there are aspects that he won't ever be able to do.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

During the golden age and beyond, people were writing science fiction to give other people ideas about what the future could look like. To do this they didn't need to create great characterizations. It could be said that a science fiction story more bent on humanizing the characters is using the science fiction as a standard backdrop instead of being the main thrust of the story.

Asimov influenced a lot of people with his non fiction writing. He hoped his science fiction would help people ahead of their times find a way forward where they could better utilize their talents. In the 1960's he said we were living in a science fiction world. 70 years later that has become a forgone conclusion.

A lot of people were motivated by early science fiction stories to get jobs in science and technology where they they made ordinary products that everyone used. They also enjoyed reading about what could be done that wasn't being done.

Some authors were actively engaged in telling readers how to lead their lives, hoping that would create a better society. Changing society was a goal that seemed to be achievable. Science fiction got people thinking, but there was no way to contain it and the enthusiasm flowed in all directions.

The future we create is constantly changing and needs new ways of coping with the fall out. If science fiction can provide escapism and thought provoking ideas at the same time, it performs a much needed service.

I think excessive characterization can turn a science fiction story into a drama story where nothing much changes. Its hard enough to create a great science fiction story or a great drama story, but to combine the two would seem to make a great drama story more likely to have a more personal impact and less of a societal impact. Talking about personal things in the 60s used to make things change. 70 years later, talking about things seems more likely to normalize a situation instead of changing it.

We need all kinds of stories. A large tree has a big trunk which rises out of the ground and then pushes branches of all sizes in a all directions. The base is straight forward and the resulting leafy crown can be seen for miles. A forest does far more for the land and life than a field of bushes can ever do.

 

[DeltaV]

Books and stories with big ideas and cardboard characterizations have a tendency to become shelf bound dust and book mold magnets.

Hi Baylor. I'm curious: which SF novels do you have in mind? And how would you describe, for example, Doc Smith's Lensman series?

 

[BAYLOR]

Dhalgren by Samuel Delany . Tried twice to read this one both the story and the character are incomprehensible . even reading the plot synopsis didn't help. Everything else ive ever read by this author , i've liked
The Night Land by William Hope Hodgson This book about a future in which remnant of humanity lives in a giant 7 mile minster haunted earth in which the sun has gone dark . This book has great imagery but absolutely nothing else going for it . It had no character development, no dialogue and for some strange reason Hodgson decided to write this one using a very painful to read archaic writing style. I forced my self to read it hope it would get better, it didn't. iI took me three-month to get though this book only 584 pages. A few years a go another writer James Stoddard did rewriter of this one The Night Land: A Story Retold. added dialogue and character development , the result was amazing. Ironically everything else ive read by Hodgson 'ive liked .
Voyage to Yesteryear by James Hogan. Too much tech not enough completion story or character.
Islands In the Net and The Difference Engine by Bruce Sterling. Couldn't get past the tech on the first and couldn't found the that alt world novel and its character very uncomplying and underwhelming. Both pretty boing books.
The Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick , had an interesting idea but the novel rally does go anyweorewiht them . The trouble is the ending resoled nothing , the characters were not all believable . its really not a great novel . The tv series vastly improved on whatDick came up with

It's funny you mention the Lenman series Im reading it now . In reading First Lensman right now. It's the template for all Space Operas that came afterwards but it pretty dated. Character development is 2 dimensional at best and the writing is bit on the clunky side . Like all old science fiction it's showing it s age probably why relatively few modern readers bother with it . I plan to read the whole series . Why ? It is the fist space Opera this one Id like see as much of the totality off as I can stand. One of the biggest problems with this series Is the first book Triplanetary which is not a great book I almost gave up on the series because of it.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Dhalgren by Samuel Delany

Interesting selection of authors. Shows that anyone can write something that doesn't resonate with everyone. Dhalgren might be one of those stories that has a personal resonance that falls flat if you weren't there at the time. Most of the ideas in that story didn't have much in common with classic science fiction. I'm not put off by it. As a big fan of Phillip K Dick, The Man in the High Castle I've never gotten into and the tv series didn't do anything for me either. The Difference engine, a product of Sterling and Gibson, who I haven't read much of, but wasn't much interested in what I have read, is one I'll have to read. Sometimes the presentation and interpretation of past information is more illuminating than the story itself. The Night Land sounds more like a premise for a story which did grow into a story later on. Good characterization is a big part of writing as seen by all the different kinds of stories that use it and it will continue to be be a big driver in supplying stories to read for an number of reasons. I still think the launching of ideas is more important than the characters personal details when it comes to good science fiction. Back in the day while I was reading The Lensman series I was also reading the Weapons Shops of Isher. For me, both authors works were more than entertainment.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Here is an interesting book Baylor brought to my attention. It provides a good perspective of what was happening in the science fiction world, Astounding, Joh W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction. It's a landmark account of the extraordinary partnership between four controversial writers that ran from the time of simple earthbound rockets to the flights of the space shuttles. With personal and historical details it gives an inside view into what drove these writers, and others to write science fiction.

 

[KGeo777]

I would agree that a story does not need much characterization as a default requirement. Depends on the story and the author's intentions (and the reader's preferences).

A long story would likely necessitate more characterization but it depends on the nature of the work.
I am not a fan of the "soap opera" format--where we are given a lot of character background which may not really add something to the story. I am thinking about ST: TNG. They added so many sub-plots and serialized elements---relationship stuff--and TOS never did that.
Does it make the original series too simplistic or is it more focused because it avoided that kind of thing?

 

[Robert Zwilling]

plowing into the The Difference Engine. First hundred pages are more likely, The Indifference Engine. Seems like the story starts on page 100. Could be wrong as I haven't seen page 101 yet. I suppose the first hundred pages are setting up something but so far no idea how important it is.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think we're getting off topic, but I've found exactly the same thing with The Peripheral (except more than I did with The Difference Engine). It's sort-of plotless, in that there's no real sense of forward motion, of characters needing to do something with a degree of urgency. I think this might be a problem with Gibson.

 

[Bill D]

Dhalgren by Samuel Delany . Tried twice to read this one both the story and the character are incomprehensible . even reading the plot synopsis didn't help. Everything else ive ever read by this author , i've liked
The Night Land by William Hope Hodgson This book about a future in which remnant of humanity lives in a giant 7 mile minster haunted earth in which the sun has gone dark . This book has great imagery but absolutely nothing else going for it . It had no character development, no dialogue and for some strange reason Hodgson decided to write this one using a very painful to read archaic writing style. I forced my self to read it hope it would get better, it didn't. iI took me three-month to get though this book only 584 pages. A few years a go another writer James Stoddard did rewriter of this one The Night Land: A Story Retold. added dialogue and character development , the result was amazing. Ironically everything else ive read by Hodgson 'ive liked .
Voyage to Yesteryear by James Hogan. Too much tech not enough completion story or character.
Islands In the Net and The Difference Engine by Bruce Sterling. Couldn't get past the tech on the first and couldn't found the that alt world novel and its character very uncomplying and underwhelming. Both pretty boing books.
The Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick , had an interesting idea but the novel rally does go anyweorewiht them . The trouble is the ending resoled nothing , the characters were not all believable . its really not a great novel . The tv series vastly improved on whatDick came up with

It's funny you mention the Lenman series Im reading it now . In reading First Lensman right now. It's the template for all Space Operas that came afterwards but it pretty dated. Character development is 2 dimensional at best and the writing is bit on the clunky side . Like all old science fiction it's showing it s age probably why relatively few modern readers bother with it . I plan to read the whole series . Why ? It is the fist space Opera this one Id like see as much of the totality off as I can stand. One of the biggest problems with this series Is the first book Triplanetary which is not a great book I almost gave up on the series because of it.

And here we stand, our works of great eclat in hand, with no publishers competing for them.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Two important factors in a story are the characters and the plot. The background information can be based on ordinary everyday life to extreme situations, which in itself can be enough to keep a person reading a story. Any one of these can be enough to keep someone interested in a story. Each one of these can be subdivided into additional categories.

William Gibson used a different style of writing than previous science fiction authors which instantly appealed to people. He writes for present times. Cyber punk wasn't new, but the way it was described was new. For some people too much characterization can be just as uninteresting as not enough characterization. Samuel Delaney was also using a different style which was a head of it's time, I would say he was writing for the future.

Science Fiction used to be boxed in by a set of rules which have been removed. Characterization has been added to science fiction to modernize it. This has resulted in stories that are both highly respected by some and left on the shelf by others. This is nothing new, just one more reason to like or not like a story. If the characterization advanced the progress/destruction of technology it would continue to stay within the old fashioned ideas about what is science fiction. But it usually doesn't, because it's based on what we expect people to do, as we might do ourselves. This makes the story personal in a familiar sort of way. It makes what we are doing acceptable without changing anything.

 

[Bill D]

Two important factors in a story are the characters and the plot. The background information can be based on ordinary everyday life to extreme situations, which in itself can be enough to keep a person reading a story. Any one of these can be enough to keep someone interested in a story. Each one of these can be subdivided into additional categories.

William Gibson used a different style of writing than previous science fiction authors which instantly appealed to people. He writes for present times. Cyber punk wasn't new, but the way it was described was new. For some people too much characterization can be just as uninteresting as not enough characterization. Samuel Delaney was also using a different style which was a head of it's time, I would say he was writing for the future.

Science Fiction used to be boxed in by a set of rules which have been removed. Characterization has been added to science fiction to modernize it. This has resulted in stories that are both highly respected by some and left on the shelf by others. This is nothing new, just one more reason to like or not like a story. If the characterization advanced the progress/destruction of technology it would continue to stay within the old fashioned ideas about what is science fiction. But it usually doesn't, because it's based on what we expect people to do, as we might do ourselves. This makes the story personal in a familiar sort of way. It makes what we are doing acceptable without changing anything.

 

[Bill D]

The single constant in stories set past and future, high tech or low, is human nature.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Halfway through The Difference Engine, it appears to be a case where what happens to the characters is what drives the interest in the story. Its not even what the characters are doing. That could be caused by the layout of the story. The science fiction is hardly noticeable as a driving interest. Its there in great detail but only provides a backdrop for the story. The alternate history is part of the story but in itself is just information that describes things but doesn't tell you anything. For myself, it's not a great science fiction story, but is an excellent example of classic noir fiction.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Last hundred pages probably would have been better cut down to a single chapter. I wouldn't recommend The Difference Engine as a book to read if you're looking for action/adventure steampunk.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Plot-driven stories work well for short stories, which Asimov appears to have excelled at in his own day - but for novels, especially towards the modern day, some degree of character to help draw the reader in seems essential - especially in today's media-rich environment where there are many other distractions competing for a reader's attention.

 

[Sargeant_Fox]

Jorge Luis Borges would have agreed with Asimov. I can't think of a single memorable Borges character - except, ironically, Funes the Memorious, who by and large is an idea in himself - and yet that didn't stop him from being lauded as one of the greats of the 20th century.