As a spin off of the fantasy thread I’m curious on the title’s question: when you are reading a novel are the concepts presented in the novel more important than prose, character, or plot?
The thing about this for me is that I’ve bumped heads a lot with science fiction and fantasy fans when I point out how flawed some very popular novels are on those grounds. My theory has been that a lot of those fans are dazzled by the big idea(s) presented in the novel and as a result are much more forgiving of problems with the other aspects of the book than I am.
So, are concepts the most important thing to you when you’re reading?
Never. Not even a little. The concept can be groundbreaking but I won’t bother reading past five pages if the writing is no good. I suspect everyone feels the same, but they have different thresholds or parameters for what is good writing.
I can forgive a ridiculous concept and shaky plot if I like the writing and the characters.
Mary Doria Russell’s The Sparrow is a good example of weak science fiction that is nevertheless a good novel because Russell is such a talented writer.
Definitely most important. I’ll read (almost) anything if I really like the concept, and I glaze over if the concept bores me, regardless of how good the rest is.
Helps that I have much lower standards than most, so I can enjoy both the universally acclaimed books and the universally panned. I consider it a blessing, personally.
No. The concept is a minor point, and has nothing to do with how good the book is.
And it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a concept that was particularly new or strong enough to sustain a novel. Now, sometimes there’s a short story with a particularly good concept, but even those are few and far between.
As any writer can tell you, ideas are a dime a gross. It’s the execution that makes an idea work.
The story-idea (plot, etc) is certainly important, but if the writing is below mediocre I won’t care because I’ll give up on it; whereas, if the writing (dialog, character development, off-plot commentary, general language use, etc) is really scintillating, I’ll often read the whole thing even if it “goes nowhere” or the underlying story is just a thinly veiled macguffin to allow the author to write amusing scat. Mostly I need both, though.
I plowed through more than one Michael Crichton thriller over the years. He would get great ideas at the concept level and come up with pretty intriguing plots, but he couldn’t write or develop characters well enough to make his writing enjoyable.
I also did finish at least one Douglas Adams book (L, the U, & E) but I got very impatient with him and his riffs. Tell me a freaking story, willya?
It’s always the characters and how they interact with other characters. The REALNESS is what keeps me reading.
There really aren’t that many plots out there. People come to town, people leave, it’s a story about a journey (whether internal or external), a hero defeats the odds, people fall in love, out of love, find love again.
There are some good ‘concept’ stories/ books. I can think of two off hand Misery by Stephen King (nutty chick keeps writer hostage) and “The Pusher” <short story by John Varley–what if there is no 'faster than the speed of life travel? How will the people working on the ships with the ‘twin paradox’ exist?>.
In both it’s the characters that make it fascinating.
Most concepts have been done to death already. I think that how it’s written is most important.
I know a lot of die hard types thought the novel Oryx and Crake (and other of Margaret Atwood’s forays into sci fi) were unrealistic or not that novel. But what I liked about it was the how…the characters, and how the concept played out. And it was new enough to me that I liked it.
I think if I like a concept I will go a long time with clunky dialogue and stupid characters. Of course I prefer cool concept, sparkling dialogue and pitch perfect characters (Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, ahhh)
The only thing I liked about Oryx and Crake was the concept. Every time the Crakers were on deck, I perked up and then the characters went back to their boring petty little conflicts among the ruins. Same with Handmaid’s Tale now that I think of it. Margaret Atwood just doesn’t work for me. Too politically heavy handed, too depressive.
I generally come for the concept, stay for the writing. The period of time that Neal Stephenson writes about in the Baroque Cycle wasn’t of that much interest to me but his writing style is (IMO) incredible and sucked me in for the thousand upon thousand pages of it. Keven J Anderson came up with a good concept in the Saga of the Seven Suns, but he can’t write his way out of a paper bag so I’ll never know how it ends.