Is the action in OOTS character-driven?

[Reddish Mage]

Rich has stated on occasion that the Order of the Stick is character-driven. I find this statement curious, because I thought here was a precise definition of plot vs character driven stories and it is one that cannot be determined by authorial intent but has to be read organically from the text. A character driven story is one that the events and actions arises from the interactions between the characters, while a plot-drive story is one in which external forces demand the character's reactions. I think with these definitions it is clear that OOTS is, and has been since the plot's inception, plot-driven.

The gates do not arise out of the actions of the OOTS, the gates existed long before the OOTS but there existence (along with a host of forces external to the OOTS and there interactions) demands the protagonists go out and deal with their existence.

Similarly most of the actions coming from the NPC arises from the plot, Miko's mission is gate-related and the railroading that occurs to force the OOTS into there new mission is so obvious it is lamp-shaded (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html). Also, Tarquin's agenda existed before meeting Elan, who Tarquin then tries to shoe-horn into it. The Order is continuously reacting to crises that demand attention.

There is a considerable bit of character development. At this point, nearly every major character has undergone major character changes, but these changes are not the engine that is runs the story, the story is stemming from external forces and agendas that existed long before the Order stumbles upon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0727.html), or gets dragged in chains to becoming involved with.

[SiuiS]

The plot is not the gates. The plot is, for example, Roy deciding that he was smart enough to catch an oracle in wordplay and making the decision to totally avoid the next target in his goal, which is to follow the nemesis of his father regardless of what that nemesis is doing.

The OOTS have not yet cared about the gates. The gates are a means of getting to Xykon and getting to Xykon is a means of fulfilling Roy's character. All the drama so far hasn't been about external forces but about how those forces show the internal spinning a and musings of the team.

Sure, external stuff is contrived to show that in a way the author wants, but I can say that I feel OOTS is character driven. The characters can – and have – veer off to do something based on their whims over the importance of the plot. Because the importance of the plot has always been how important it is to them.

[Knaight]

Sure, external stuff is contrived to show that in a way the author wants, but I can say that I feel OOTS is character driven. The characters can – and have – veer off to do something based on their whims over the importance of the plot. Because the importance of the plot has always been how important it is to them.

More to the point, the gates are just there. The thing that makes them relevant is the actions of Xykon and Redcloak, both of whom are characters, both of whom are major driving forces in the story.

[Keltest]

Well its certainly not plot driven. Im going to agree with the Giant on this one and say that between just about everything besides the characters being as thin and unimportant as he can get away with making them, and his standard rebuttal to any question asked about something not plot related that happens off screen seems to be that he doesn't care and didn't make up an answer. I have never had any other impression than that of the setting being deliberately paper thin. Replace "gate" with just about any other possible doomsday weapon and you have the same deal. The closest we have seen to a world map is a very vague image of the continents, and one of some unstable political boundaries on the western continent. The plot is practically nonexistent except for what serves to provide motivation for the characters, and to help flesh them out.

[Jasdoif]

I'm just going to quote the Giant here, in case anyone hasn't seen this particular post:


The MacGuffin is not the antagonist. The MacGuffin is the object sought by the antagonist. Narratively speaking, it does not matter what it does—only that the antagonist is willing to kill the protagonist to get it. That is the source of the conflict. It does not matter what is in the rift, it matters who is willing to kill whom to get it, even if they are mistaken about its usefulness. What is in the rift is only important insofar as it may, at some point, change who is willing to kill whom and why. And that IS important, because those details will change the shape of what happens, but not as the source of conflict. The Snarl is not the threat; Xykon is the threat. The Snarl's powers have as much relevance to the quest to get the Snarl as the exact properties of the glowing briefcase have on the plot of Pulp Fiction, or the exact dollar value of the statue in The Maltese Falcon.

Likewise, the setting is not the protagonist. What happens to the world is only important because the protagonists are the sort of people who care about what happens to the world. If Team Evil or the Linear Guild kills the entire Order of the Stick and then takes the Gate only to find that it does not do what they thought it did...how does that help the Order of the Stick? They will still be dead, and the story is about them. The Linear Guild is not a threat because they will do something bad with the Gate; they are a threat because they will kill the Order of the Stick to do it. At the end of Star Wars, one does not care that the Death Star is about to blow up Yavin 4; one cares that the Death Star is about to kill the protagonists, some of whom happen to be on Yavin 4.

If one does not care about the protagonists or antagonists and is not emotionally invested in their struggles—whether those struggles are external or internal, relevant to the MacGuffin plot or not—and all one cares about is the resolution of the MacGuffin chase, then you will almost certainly be bored with a lot of the material I'm producing. And more importantly, I won't care. The Snarl plot is part of the armature upon which I hang the characters' conflicts; it is not the whole of the story. The strip is titled The Order of the Stick, not The Chase for the Snarl or even Saving the World. Ultimately, it seems like you want the story to be about things it is not going to be about, so it's unlikely you are ever going to enjoy it.

[Porthos]

It doesn't matter that the Gates arise from 'the plot'. The Gates are, as noted by Rich, the MacGuffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macguffin). Their actual existence doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. They could stand there unmolested forever and it wouldn't affect the characters one jot.

It's the fact that everyone is trying to posses/destroy them, and what happens when they do, that makes it important. Which is pretty much the classic definition of MacGuffin.

Moreover, the Gate 'arc'/'plot'/whathaveyou disappears from the comic for hundreds of strips. It wasn't present at all, for instance, in Don't Split the Party (at least not in any way that was very impactful on the story). The Gate subplot was absent for about two-thirds of Book Five. In fact, the actual 'Dealing With the Gate' part of Book Five took, what, twenty strips top? Maybe sixty if you count the Battle for Girard's Gate in total. But once the Gate went kerplooie, the combatants still fought for about another forty strips.

Because their personal conflicts were more important than dealing with the Gates. At least at the time.

To put it more simply, and to paraphrase Rich, the comic is called The Order of the Stick, not Race for the Gates or even Saving the World.

To further drive this in, the characters have been FAR more shaped by their own actions and interactions with each other and the world, than the Gates themselves. That really says it all. At least IMO.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that Gates and other elements of the plot are just ways that the characters interact with the world. The story isn't that the Snarl could destroy the world and needs to be stopped, but about how the Order accomplishes that goal. Focusing on the Order and their struggles makes it more character driven. Also, for a large part of the comic, the Gates were not the main source of conflict, and the conflict was between the members of the party.

[Reddish Mage]

Also, for a large part of the comic, the Gates were not the main source of conflict, and the conflict was between the members of the party. [italics mine]

This is just wrong. The Gates may be a MacGuffen, but the main plot arises because the Snarl draws the Dark One, who in turn draws in Red Cloak (who is mainly reacting to what goes on) who draws in Xykon who draws in the Order. Most of the non-gate involving subplots involve other events, external to the Order of the stick as their driving force. Kubota, drives one subplot in DSTP and the need to get back together to get back on track remains the main focus. Haley steps up to lead the rebels because they were there and needed a leader, V has sleep deprivation problems because (s)he is reacting to something that happens.

The conflicts between the members of the party are real, but, like the Avengers in the movie, it is a consequence of being brought together by an external threat rather than the threat/other story elements stemming from that conflict.

About the only cases of stories stemming from non-reactive character decisions in the story occurs because the villains decide to start a conflict, usually because of motivations existing prior to the protagonists entrance. That is not what anyone seems to mean by a "character-driven story."

[Keltest]

[italics mine]

This is just wrong. The Gates may be a MacGuffen, but the main plot arises because the Snarl draws the Dark One, who in turn draws in Red Cloak (who is mainly reacting to what goes on) who draws in Xykon who draws in the Order. Most of the non-gate involving subplots involve other events, external to the Order of the stick as their driving force. Kubota, drives one subplot in DSTP and the need to get back together to get back on track remains the main focus. Haley steps up to lead the rebels because they were there and needed a leader, V has sleep deprivation problems because (s)he is reacting to something that happens.

The conflicts between the members of the party are real, but, like the Avengers in the movie, it is a consequence of being brought together by an external threat rather than the threat/other story elements stemming from that conflict.

About the only cases of stories stemming from non-reactive character decisions in the story occurs because the villains decide to start a conflict, usually because of motivations existing prior to the protagonists entrance. That is not what anyone seems to mean by a "character-driven story."

I think youre being overly literal. Yes, there are non-character stimuli that help motivate the conflict, but there literally has to be, otherwise we would be looking at a void filled with chat bubbles, and that strikes me as too thin of a setting even for OOTS.

In your avengers example, yes there was an alien threat, but the driving cause behind that was Loki being... whatever the heck is wrong with him. Crazy, I guess. The invasion happened because Loki was using it as a tool to get him what he wanted.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

About the only cases of stories stemming from non-reactive character decisions in the story occurs because the villains decide to start a conflict, usually because of motivations existing prior to the protagonists entrance. That is not what anyone seems to mean by a "character-driven story."
I think we have different ideas of what a character-driven story involves. To me, a character-driven story means that the focus is on the characters, how they change, what they learn, and how they grow, as opposed to a plot-driven story, which is where what's happening in the story is more important than the characters themselves. You can have a character-driven story where the plot is what stimulates those characters, so long as the focus remains on those characters as opposed to the plot as a whole.

[Reddish Mage]

I think youre being overly literal. Yes, there are non-character stimuli that help motivate the conflict, but there literally has to be, otherwise we would be looking at a void filled with chat bubbles, and that strikes me as too thin of a setting even for OOTS.

In your avengers example, yes there was an alien threat, but the driving cause behind that was Loki being... whatever the heck is wrong with him. Crazy, I guess. The invasion happened because Loki was using it as a tool to get him what he wanted.

This makes most action stories "character driven" since we count the antagonist as the one driving things to be a "character" who is "driving" the plot. Even if the antagonists agenda is totally alien to the interpersonal relationship between the characters, and stems from nothing the protagonists ever did. By this logic, Lord of the Rings is character driven (Sauron is ultimately driving the plot), so is the Hobbit (Smaug is driving things in the book, I think the movie makes the case that Smaug is reacting to something Sauron is doing). What would be the examples of plot driven stories then? We are left with, what disaster movies?

I can speak of what stories I can find to be character-driven. Many authors use "decision-driven" as a synonym. In these stories the story revolves around interpersonal relationships or the decisions made by the protagonists: most slice-of-life type stories, soap opera stories for the most part. There is Ann Rand's The Fountainhead (Howard Roark is creating the conflicts by pursuing his artistic vision), Pymaglion (the conflicts are all created among the characters), and Game of Thrones.

The question is what controls the story. In OOTS it is villains and minor NPCs, as it is in even the thinnest shell of an action piece. That is the very definition of a plot driven story.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

...so is the Hobbit...

The Hobbit is actually quite character-driven, though not for the reason you suggest. The Hobbit is character-driven because the main point of the Hobbit is about Bilbo and how he changed. The actual plot isn't the main focus, but instead on how Bilbo grew as character, from the person he was when he left Hobbiton to the person he was when he returned. Sure, these changes are caused by the plot, but the focus is on Bilbo.

[Keltest]

This makes most action stories "character driven" since we count the antagonist as the one driving things to be a "character" who is "driving" the plot. Even if the antagonists agenda is totally alien to the interpersonal relationship between the characters, and stems from nothing the protagonists ever did. By this logic, Lord of the Rings is character driven (Sauron is ultimately driving the plot), so is the Hobbit (Smaug is driving things in the book, I think the movie makes the case that Smaug is reacting to something Sauron is doing). What would be the examples of plot driven stories then? We are left with, what disaster movies?

I can speak of what stories I can find to be character-driven. Many authors use "decision-driven" as a synonym. In these stories the story revolves around interpersonal relationships or the decisions made by the protagonists: most slice-of-life type stories, soap opera stories for the most part. There is Ann Rand's The Fountainhead (Howard Roark is creating the conflicts by pursuing his artistic vision), Pymaglion (the conflicts are all created among the characters), and Game of Thrones.

The question is what controls the story. In OOTS it is villains and minor NPCs, as it is in even the thinnest shell of an action piece. That is the very definition of a plot driven story.

That LOTR analogy only works if you consider Sauron to be a character. While he is certainly an entity, for the purposes of the story he is no more a character than the Ring is. LOTR isn't about how the Fellowship interacts with each other, its about what happens to the world when Sauron wakes up the ring and tries to take over the world. Its very much a plot-driven story, because what the characters do is far less important than the implications for the world. When Boromir tries to grab the ring, the danger of failure is to the world and setting, rather than to Boromir's relation to the fellowship.

[Reddish Mage]

I think we have different ideas of what a character-driven story involves. To me, a character-driven story means that the focus is on the characters, how they change, what they learn, and how they grow, as opposed to a plot-driven story, which is where what's happening in the story is more important than the characters themselves. You can have a character-driven story where the plot is what stimulates those characters, so long as the focus remains on those characters as opposed to the plot as a whole.

That is another way of defining things. The OOTS has a good case to make that the character interactions are more interesting than the plot. Still, the characters interact in the early comics and in the Dragon magazine and Gigax magazine comics, and there IS no story, these are just gag strips.

It is clear the story is "character driven" in that Rich thought up the characters before he created the plot and that the plot elements are less compelling than the characters (though I think this is true in all good fiction). It isn't true, however, in the sense of the characters "driving" or "directing" or in any sense of the plot flowing from the protagonists.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That is another way of defining things. The OOTS has a good case to make that the character interactions are more interesting than the plot. Still, the characters interact in the early comics and in the Dragon magazine and Gigax magazine comics, and there IS no story, these are just gag strips.

It is clear the story is "character driven" in that Rich thought up the characters before he created the plot and that the plot elements are less compelling than the characters (though I think this is true in all good fiction). It isn't true, however, in the sense of the characters "driving" or "directing" or in any sense of the plot flowing from the protagonists.

It seems though, from the comments made by the Giant, that he takes "character-driven" to mean "focusing on the characters", as opposed to "being largely caused by the characters".

[Miriel]

The reason the characters interacted with the Gates at all was Roy's promise to his father. The reason they got deeper in the Gate thing was Roy's personal motivation and conflict with his father, combined with the bond uniting the Order and its members together behind Roy.

The familicide event is one of the clearest example of how characters drive the story. Sure, familicide had huge implications in the Gate plot (it left Girard's Gate undefended, for one thing), but it came to be as a result of V's actions and the consequences thereof -- their killing of the young black dragon, the mother's revenge on V, V's answer to the mother black dragon and Faustian pact, familicide itself, the failed attack on Xykon which got Team Evil moving, all of this is V being V as V was back then. At least the decision to resort to the pact is the direct consequence of V's character until then, and arguably familicide was to. Their reaction to their acts was character-development, first by reconsidering the power of arcane magic (because of their defeat to Xykon) and later by desire for moral compensation for the familicide.

[Reddish Mage]

It seems though, from the comments made by the Giant, that he takes "character-driven" to mean "focusing on the characters", as opposed to "being largely caused by the characters".

When is it not true that a story doesn't focus on the characters though? I tend to think this version of "character-driven" amounts to calling it "compelling fiction." I have trouble of thinking of any fiction that doesn't focus on the characters, except for perhaps the thinnest pulp or some extremely short stories.

[Keltest]

When is it not true that a story doesn't focus on the characters though? I tend to think this version of "character-driven" amounts to calling it "compelling fiction." I have trouble of thinking of any fiction that doesn't focus on the characters, except for perhaps the thinnest pulp or some extremely short stories.

"Focusing on the characters" may have been a poor phrase. Perhaps "Focusing on the way the characters interact with each other and exploring the consequences thereof." as opposed to "focusing on the characters' viewpoints as they travel through the story and explore the plot and setting." In the first one, the characters are the most important part of the story, and replacing one or more of them with a different character completely changes things, while in the latter it doesn't matter if you say "Bob did this" instead of "Andy did this" so long as the consequences to the world of whatever "this" is are the same. While some characters will be better suited for certain actions (Pippin is easily the most believable for taking the Palantir in LOTR, for example) if a different character does it, and they don't have something about them that explicitly alters the scene (for example if it had been Merry who took it) then the story can keep going. But in a character driven story, suddenly you don't have "Fool of a Took!", you have Gandalf and Merry deeply distressed and disappointed with Pippin, and they examine their thoughts in great detail.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

When is it not true that a story doesn't focus on the characters though? I tend to think this version of "character-driven" amounts to calling it "compelling fiction." I have trouble of thinking of any fiction that doesn't focus on the characters, except for perhaps the thinnest pulp or some extremely short stories.

Stories that aren't character-driven are where the characters don't change or grow very much, and most of the attention is devoted to the events in the story as opposed to the evolution of those characters. A lot of stories that are mostly about depicting events tend to be more plot-driven, because you are using your characters to follow the plot, as opposed to using the plot to develop the characters.

Edit: And, as Keltest pointed out, focus might not be the best word choice.

[Reddish Mage]

"Focusing on the characters" may have been a poor phrase. Perhaps "Focusing on the way the characters interact with each other and exploring the consequences thereof." as opposed to "focusing on the characters' viewpoints as they travel through the story and explore the plot and setting."

In LotR the writing's focus on the characters is MORE about the characters' reactions to what's going on around them and the progressing story. Sure there are deep interactions by the team members, but more often then not the writing is about dealing with their hungry bellies, or being on the run, or worries about the next attack, or dealing with the next attack.


In the first one, the characters are the most important part of the story, and replacing one or more of them with a different character completely changes things, while in the latter it doesn't matter if you say "Bob did this" instead of "Andy did this" so long as the consequences to the world of whatever "this" is are the same. While some characters will be better suited for certain actions (Pippin is easily the most believable for taking the Palantir in LOTR, for example) if a different character does it, and they don't have something about them that explicitly alters the scene (for example if it had been Merry who took it) then the story can keep going. But in a character driven story, suddenly you don't have "Fool of a Took!", you have Gandalf and Merry deeply distressed and disappointed with Pippin, and they examine their thoughts in great detail.

Again this sounds like it is just marking the difference between good writing and bad. Had have had Merry take the stone, the action wouldn't have unfolded much differently. Similarly, Sam could have finished bringing the ring to Mount Doom. I think you'd be hard pressed to give me examples from popular fiction of plot-driven stories and they are going to come down to "I don't see much of any real characters here."

[Keltest]

In LotR the writing's focus on the characters is MORE about the characters' reactions to what's going on around them and the progressing story. Sure there are deep interactions by the team members, but more often then not the writing is about dealing with their hungry bellies, or being on the run, or worries about the next attack, or dealing with the next attack. I think youre misremembering. While there was certainly some of that near the end, that was a very real problem Frodo and Sam had, meant to add tension as to whether or not they would be able to make it to Mt Doom.


Again this sounds like it is just marking the difference between good writing and bad. Had have had Merry take the stone, the action wouldn't have unfolded much differently. Similarly, Sam could have finished bringing the ring to Mount Doom. I think you'd be hard pressed to give me examples from popular fiction of plot-driven stories and they are going to come down to "I don't see much of any real characters here."

Youre missing the point. A character driven story examines the interactions between the characters, as well as their growth in detail. A plot driven story examines the actions of the characters and their ramifications thereof to the greater plot in detail. A character driven story would focus on someone, say, growing out of abandonment issues, while a plot driven one would focus on how it causes problems without really showing/emphasizing how the character deals with it. To bring it back to OOTS, weve seen how Haley is overcoming her trust and abandonment issues, but weve never seen it cause any problems for the party besides rendering Haley unable to talk for a while, which inconvenienced the readers more than the order.

[Reddish Mage]

I am still wondering where the plot-driven stories are, and whether "plot-driven" doesn't end up as a synonym for "cardboard characters."

[Keltest]

I am still wondering where the plot-driven stories are, and whether "plot-driven" doesn't end up as a synonym for "cardboard characters."

Have you been missing me using LORT as an example? The characters don't change, they don't grow. Frodo doesn't gradually grow into being a hero, Aragorn doesn't resist his destiny then embrace it (im looking at you movies!) The closest we see is Pippin not being as much of an idiot as he was before, and Legolas and Gimli hating each other less, which was a pretty informed attribute to begin with.

[Nilehus]

The protagonists react to the antagonists, and the antagonists react to the protagonists. Xykon dragged the Order into the whole Gate scheme, the Order blew him and the gate up. The Gate exploding tipped off Shojo, who sent Miko to collect them, etc etc.

If you see Shojo, Xykon, and Redcloak as entities, not characters, I can see where you're coming from. But going off the LotR thing, Sauron was an entity. He loomed over the entire story without ever showing his face. He had no motivations, no development beyond a primal hunger for the Ring. Xykon has a changing personality throughout the story, even if it's something as subtle as "Losing his **** when he lost the ability to taste" or growing to distrust Redcloak more and more.

The only reason the Order is together is because of the gates, but that doesn't automatically disqualify OotS from being character driven. Nothing exciting is completely harmonious, and the Order is far from harmonious. However, they all do have genuine motivations to stay with the Order. And when V felt that that their motive had been lost, V bolted and kicked off the next two arcs.

Sure, things work out conveniently sometimes, but hell, it's a story. :smalltongue:

[BrotherMirtillo]

I think you'd be hard pressed to give me examples from popular fiction of plot-driven stories and they are going to come down to "I don't see much of any real characters here."

For that, I'll add mysteries -- or short ones, at least. I've read a lot of Agatha Christie's work, and it varies in its scale. "And Then There Were None" is emphasizes character very deeply because it depends on terrifying everybody involved, cracking them under life-or-death-or-someone-else's-death pressure.

However, in the collected short stories of Hercule Poirot, character doesn't matter much at all -- at least, not in the sense of audience appreciation. When I read those stories, I know the whole thing is going to be over in a few dozen pages max, and I'll never see the characters again, so I don't bother much with them. Their traits matter very much in the sense that it shows what could or could not be the answer to the story, but it's the mystery -- that nearly-impenetrable conundrum of hidden logic -- that makes me read it. And boy howdy, does it make me read it.

Sometimes the characters mattered to me, and sometimes they didn't. Either way, I would say Dame Agatha was very good at her writing.

[Miriel]

Have you been missing me using LORT as an example? The characters don't change, they don't grow. Frodo doesn't gradually grow into being a hero, Aragorn doesn't resist his destiny then embrace it (im looking at you movies!) The closest we see is Pippin not being as much of an idiot as he was before, and Legolas and Gimli hating each other less, which was a pretty informed attribute to begin with.
Actually, Frodo changes quite a bit because of how the quest affected him. All the Hobbits grow in the story. It's especially obvious in The Souring of the Shire. But even then, it's the plot that changes Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, not the other way around. LOTR is plot-driven all the way, or world-driven perhaps.

[Reddish Mage]

Have you been missing me using LORT as an example? The characters don't change, they don't grow. Frodo doesn't gradually grow into being a hero, Aragorn doesn't resist his destiny then embrace it (im looking at you movies!) The closest we see is Pippin not being as much of an idiot as he was before, and Legolas and Gimli hating each other less, which was a pretty informed attribute to begin with.

So basically you see the movies as being plot-driven, er focused (have we agreed driven is no longer the operative word?), while the books are character-focused, largely because the movies strip out most of the character development.

[Keltest]

Actually, Frodo changes quite a bit because of how the quest affected him. All the Hobbits grow in the story. It's especially obvious in The Souring of the Shire. But even then, it's the plot that changes Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, not the other way around. LOTR is plot-driven all the way, or world-driven perhaps.

Pippin grows a bit, becoming much more serious. Frodo... I don't know if I want to call what happened to him growth or not, because while he changed it wasn't as a person so much. He seemed... tired. Merry and Sam seemed the least changed to me, since they were always at least moderately serious when appropriate, even if they were out of their comfort zones. Certainly Merry was never as bad as Pippin.

[Keltest]

So basically you see the movies as being plot-driven, er focused (have we agreed driven is no longer the operative word?), while the books are character-focused, largely because the movies strip out most of the character development.

No, the other way around. The movies add a lot more character development and interaction than in the books, although calling them character focused is still stretching it. Its easy to see a change in how Gimli treats Legolas and vice versa at the Council of Elrond vs at the Battle of the Black Gate. Aragorn is given a lot of indecision about whether or not he wants to love Arwin (who basically gets added as a character herself, since she had all of like one line in the books) and whether or not he should become King of Gondor. You can see Merry is at one point very frustrated with Pippin's foolishness after he looked into the Palantir, but still sad when they get separated.

[Nilehus]

If you're looking for an example of non-character driven plot, I'd recommend the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov. Almost by definition, all the events in the series occur according to a greater plan. There are also time skips periodically, so the main character, if you want to call him that, only appears in prerecorded messages after the first few pages.

There's a prequel later in the series that does flesh out Hari Seldon, but the first few books are an excellent example.

The one time a character comes along that actually manages to break the preordained order of events, it is treated as a HUGE deal.

[Reddish Mage]

No, the other way around. The movies add a lot more character development and interaction than in the books, although calling them character focused is still stretching it. Its easy to see a change in how Gimli treats Legolas and vice versa at the Council of Elrond vs at the Battle of the Black Gate. Aragorn is given a lot of indecision about whether or not he wants to love Arwin (who basically gets added as a character herself, since she had all of like one line in the books) and whether or not he should become King of Gondor. You can see Merry is at one point very frustrated with Pippin's foolishness after he looked into the Palantir, but still sad when they get separated.

Ok so the movies and the book still fit in with my usage as an example of plot-driven fiction, however, it contains character-driven elements and scenes?

[Keltest]

Ok so the movies and the book still fit in with my usage as an example of plot-driven fiction, however, it contains character-driven elements and scenes?

Basically, yes, with the movies more so than the books. Theyre still characters after all; they do have personalities, opinions and whatnot.

[Miriel]

Pippin grows a bit, becoming much more serious. Frodo... I don't know if I want to call what happened to him growth or not, because while he changed it wasn't as a person so much. He seemed... tired. Merry and Sam seemed the least changed to me, since they were always at least moderately serious when appropriate, even if they were out of their comfort zones. Certainly Merry was never as bad as Pippin.
Frodo's pacifism is certainly new, and it would be unfair to say it's just tiredness.

For the other three, it's not just a question of seriousness, but of courage, confidence, authority and strength -- as I said, The Scouring of the Shire shows this in full. Sam was loyal early on and loyal at the end, but this loyalty gains content and strength with the quest. Merry is the least changed, but could he have led the revolt as he did without his experience? Probably not. The growth the Hobbits experienced by going on their adventure is not the only, or even the main focus of the novel, but it's just one of the themes that unites it, if you take it from the beginning (scared Hobbits leaving the Shire) to the end (confident Hobbits reclaim and rebuild the Shire), as opposed to just looking at the middle.

[SiuiS]

[italics mine]

This is just wrong. The Gates may be a MacGuffen, but the main plot arises because the Snarl draws the Dark One, who in turn draws in Red Cloak (who is mainly reacting to what goes on) who draws in Xykon who draws in the Order.

But the story is still Roy and crew vs. Xykon. If gates>snarl>dark one>redcloak>Xykon had ne'er happened, the story would still be Roy and crew vs. Xykon.

[Reddish Mage]

Basically, yes, with the movies more so than the books. Theyre still characters after all; they do have personalities, opinions and whatnot.


But the story is still Roy and crew vs. Xykon. If gates>snarl>dark one>redcloak>Xykon had ne'er happened, the story would still be Roy and crew vs. Xykon.

There are plenty character driven or focused elements to OOTS. Outside the text, Rich thought of the characters first and still thinks of them as more important (how that translates to his choices on where to take them is obscure). Within the text, the fight against Xykon is personal to Roy, the desire to control the gates is tied up to Redcloak's backstory, and character growth happens in nearly every sub-plot. However the story as it is written is one that can accept Elan going at it with Rob Redblade. It would be boring but it retains the same overall structure

You can see other stories with OOTS and Xykon in SSDT and the Kickstarter rewards. They are DIFFERENT stories and the comedy comes in part from shoehorning the characters and their antics into Shakespeare.

[warrl]

Just to add to the confusion, there are setting-driven stories.

The purest setting-driven story I can think of offhand is H.G.Wells' The Time Machine. There's no overall plot. The main character has no overall impact, and doesn't even get a name.

[Rodin]

There are plenty character driven or focused elements to OOTS. Outside the text, Rich thought of the characters first and still thinks of them as more important (how that translates to his choices on where to take them is obscure). Within the text, the fight against Xykon is personal to Roy, the desire to control the gates is tied up to Redcloak's backstory, and character growth happens in nearly every sub-plot. However the story as it is written is one that can accept Elan going at it with Rob Redblade. It would be boring but it retains the same overall structure.



I think we're back to differing definitions in what makes a story character-driven. That explanation you just gave is almost word-for-word the argument I would use to say that the story is character-driven. If the plot "would be boring" with generic characters, but the story is manifestly not so, then what makes the story? The characters do.

Heck, the entire last arc had almost no plot relevance outside of developing the characters. The amount of plot that was advanced in terms of events? A gate was blown up. That's it. We spent 274 pages in doing that. All of that time was spent in developing the characters and exploring their relationships - including the murder-y elements of Nale's relationship with Tarquin.

When I'm watching a James Bond movie, I'm not tuning in to see how he grows as a person. He's James Bond, I know who he is as a person. I'm there to watch him save the world.

For the Order, I'm not there to watch them save the world. I know they will, eventually. I'm far more concerned with whether V will redeem hirself, or whether Durkon will survive his condition, and whether Belkar is going to survive his prophecy. Elan and Haley's story's have largely finished, although there's certainly some room for epilogue. Roy has been fairly static as a character for a while, so I'm expecting some more growth from him soon.

The people I'm most interested in seeing the resolution of their character arcs are, oddly enough, Redcloak and MitD. Redcloak I think is due for a tragic end at some point, while MitD has huge room to grow as a character.

That's what I tune in for, not a relatively standard "6 gates/crystals/orbs/temples protect the world from eldritch horror, and they're going boom at the hands of the bad guy".

[Murk]

[/I]
That's what I tune in for, not a relatively standard "6 gates/crystals/orbs/temples protect the world from eldritch horror, and they're going boom at the hands of the bad guy".

I Always thought it funny that this is what I tune in for. It's amazing how a writer can write a story with a totally different idea in his head, not even with me as a target audience, and still make it coincidentally suited for me. Then, even better, we have these things called internet fora where I can go and disagree with the author about why his story is good.

I feel that the main, essential story revolves around the plot. However, since the gates, world, and gate-driven plot actually have very little screentime, and the squabbles and feelings of the characters make up about 90% of the comic, I would say the story is plot-driven, but the comic as a whole might be character-driven.

After a review it seems that sentence didn't make much sense. Oh well.

[Reddish Mage]

Just to add to the confusion, there are setting-driven stories.

The purest setting-driven story I can think of offhand is H.G.Wells' The Time Machine. There's no overall plot. The main character has no overall impact, and doesn't even get a name.

Yes, but fortunately, OOTS is not setting driven, nor is Lord of the Rings, despite having one of the richest settings ever written for it, and remember J.R.R. Tolkein basically created "elves" "dwarves" "goblins" and "orcs" borrowing from actual mythology and going so far as to invent the language. I would think Brazil is setting driven, or 1984 is driven by the setting more than anything else. However, my definition, and its an often used one despite being "literal" for "-driven" is that literally either it is the story-element that drives is the one that is in control. The setting forms the base for the action, the story, that takes place within it, but does not present the conflict, Sauron, the Dark One, Redcloak, Xykon, and there desire for the MacGuffen, that is what forced the

OOTS that is clearly not the case that the protagonists are in control, the characters are always reacting. I can see "character-focused" as alternative language, though I think too much fiction, especially too much many action stories, falls under "character-focused" literature, it basically comes down to how good the characters are. Are the characters made of cardboard, like in the original Foundation novel, or not? I don't dispute that the characters are the most interesting thing about OOTS, I'm just saying that without a plot there is no story arising from their interactions. What we would have without a plot is a gag-a-day comic, like what we have with Dragon magazine, and we may have with its would-be successor Gigax magazine. It is the constant interventions by antagonists, half orc lovers, dashing air pirates, magical curse removals, and pre-approved soul-splices that force the protagonists to react, to change, and to grow.

[Bulldog Psion]

I wouldn't say that the characters are purely reactive. Sailing to the western continent and setting out from Sandsedge to search for the desert gate was pretty much their active plan. However, as soon as Girard's illusion showed up, the plot started leading them by the nose again, and basically hasn't stopped.

So I'd say "mostly plot driven with occasional futile attempts by the characters to take the initiative themselves." :smallamused:

[DaggerPen]

Serious question - do the NPCs not count as characters?

To me, OOTS is very character-driven- but it is not protagonist-driven. Redcloak's decision to steal the phylactery, Miko's fall, Tarquin's loss of control over the story, O-Chul's torture and escape, the MitD's crisis of conscience - these are all as important to the story as any decision any Order members have made, but they're vastly more important as developments in those characters' arcs. These aren't external forces with no development, but characters in their own right.

[Darth Paul]

Raiders of the Lost Ark was mainly plot-driven- Indy chased the Ark, Nazis tried to stop him. There was a little character developement between him and Marion, but that was mainly peripheral and didn't affect the quest.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was much more character-driven- Indy and his dad interacting was the most important thing, what Macguffin they were chasing really didn't matter. The plot elements merely served to highlight their character developement, and in the end their relationship actually saved Indy. Compare to Raiders, where the Macguffin itself saved Indy and Marion from the Nazis.

OOTS seems closer to the latter than the former, to me. It is intriguing to ponder about the Snarl, sure- but I haven't really thought about it in any cartoon where it didn't directly come up. I actually find myself thinking about the characters, the decisions they are making, and the direction they are going. That's character-driven as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, I chose the films mentioned because most people have seen them and can instantly identify them. If you want an almost purely character-driven movie, watch Changing Lanes sometime.

[Reddish Mage]

Serious question - do the NPCs not count as characters?

NPC is a D&D term, not a literary one. You mean antagonists and minor characters, and no, their decisions are do not count for this subject. The literary analysis I can find on the subject of "character-driven" vs "plot-driven" is that "character" is taken to be the main character(s). It is also has been asserted that most stories are plot-driven or that certain genre's (particularly action, fantasy, and science-fiction) are given to plot-driven stories.

In almost every story, someone is making decisions that gets the plot moving or turning and the heroes make some decisions along the way that have some influence.

[Keltest]

NPC is a D&D term, not a literary one. You mean antagonists and minor characters, and no, their decisions are do not count for this subject. The literary analysis I can find on the subject of "character-driven" vs "plot-driven" is that "character" is taken to be the main character(s). It is also has been asserted that most stories are plot-driven or that certain genre's (particularly action, fantasy, and science-fiction) are given to plot-driven stories.

In almost every story, someone is making decisions that gets the plot moving or turning and the heroes make some decisions along the way that have some influence.

Why cant antagonists be main characters for literary purposes? Ive read plenty of books that had them as a viewpoint character up until the end, explaining their motivations and thought processes. Not something where we get a chapter saying "they did this and that" but like half/a third of the book devoted to them and their thoughts.

[orrion]

NPC is a D&D term, not a literary one. You mean antagonists and minor characters, and no, their decisions are do not count for this subject. The literary analysis I can find on the subject of "character-driven" vs "plot-driven" is that "character" is taken to be the main character(s). It is also has been asserted that most stories are plot-driven or that certain genre's (particularly action, fantasy, and science-fiction) are given to plot-driven stories.

In almost every story, someone is making decisions that gets the plot moving or turning and the heroes make some decisions along the way that have some influence.

Wait, are you saying antagonists can't be main characters?

[Reddish Mage]

In addition to explaining my take of what "character-driven" stories are and finding out what other people think or what they are. I am interested in what the Giant might mean and what he might think (or does think if anyone has statements on the subject).

We know he thought up the characters, particularly the protagonists, first. Then, he thought of things that would happened to them, explicitly Durkon turning into a vampire. Then, he created Xykon as a sort of cliche'd boss monster of the dungeon. Then, Rich finally started thinking about the plot around the introduction of the Linear Guild (which is the first time the comic starts to tell a story). While writing the stories, Rich continues to think about how the characters will react and grow to them, and he may even conceive of certain side stories (such as Nale kiddnapping Haley or Belkar getting his curse removed) in order to show character growth.

Could it be Rich is thinking entirely in terms of his own thought processes, of what is motivating his own writing?

[Keltest]

In addition to explaining my take of what "character-driven" stories are and finding out what other people think or what they are. I am interested in what the Giant might mean and what he might think (or does think if anyone has statements on the subject).

We know he thought up the characters, particularly the protagonists, first. Then, he thought of things that would happened to them, explicitly Durkon turning into a vampire. Then, he created Xykon as a sort of cliche'd boss monster of the dungeon. Then, Rich finally started thinking about the plot around the introduction of the Linear Guild (which is the first time the comic starts to tell a story). While writing the stories, Rich continues to think about how the characters will react and grow to them, and he may even conceive of certain side stories (such as Nale kiddnapping Haley or Belkar getting his curse removed) in order to show character growth.

Could it be Rich is thinking entirely in terms of his own thought processes, of what is motivating his own writing?


Ummm... Maybe? Im not sure I see the difference between "Rich is writing about how characters interact and grow." and "A character driven story is about how the different characters interact and grow."

[Morty]

[italics mine]

This is just wrong. The Gates may be a MacGuffen, but the main plot arises because the Snarl draws the Dark One, who in turn draws in Red Cloak (who is mainly reacting to what goes on) who draws in Xykon who draws in the Order. Most of the non-gate involving subplots involve other events, external to the Order of the stick as their driving force. Kubota, drives one subplot in DSTP and the need to get back together to get back on track remains the main focus. Haley steps up to lead the rebels because they were there and needed a leader, V has sleep deprivation problems because (s)he is reacting to something that happens.

The conflicts between the members of the party are real, but, like the Avengers in the movie, it is a consequence of being brought together by an external threat rather than the threat/other story elements stemming from that conflict.

About the only cases of stories stemming from non-reactive character decisions in the story occurs because the villains decide to start a conflict, usually because of motivations existing prior to the protagonists entrance. That is not what anyone seems to mean by a "character-driven story."

And why do the Dark One and Redcloak want the Gates? Because they (allegedly, in case of the former) want to right the wrongs they think have been perpetrated against the goblin peoples. Redcloak wouldn't give a whit about them if the Sapphire Guard hadn't butchered his family and if he hadn't been chosen as the High Priest of the Dark One. If the Sapphire Guard hadn't been so trigger-happy, the events would have unfolded in an entirely different manner. Likewise if the gods hadn't screwed over several races of sapient beings, but since it's not certain to have happened, it's not as good an example.

[Vinyadan]

I'm just going to quote the Giant here, in case anyone hasn't seen this particular post:

I like this quote. I must find someone to write a story where the McGuffin IS the antagonist, because he's looking for himself; and, once he will have found himself, HE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. D: The heroes must stop his introspection, for now and ever, by every possible means. :smallcool:

[Keltest]

I like this quote. I must find someone to write a story where the McGuffin IS the antagonist, because he's looking for himself; and, once he will have found himself, HE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. D: The heroes must stop his introspection, for now and ever, by every possible means. :smallcool:

One day Bob opened his eyes, looked at himself, and the world exploded. The end.

[BrotherMirtillo]

I like this quote. I must find someone to write a story where the McGuffin IS the antagonist, because he's looking for himself; and, once he will have found himself, HE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. D: The heroes must stop his introspection, for now and ever, by every possible means. :smallcool:

Have you ever read "Good Omens" by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman? It's a humorous story of angels, demons, modern England, and prophecies leading up to the life of the Anti-Christ, the one will usher in the apocalypse, the final war, and the unmaking of the world... except one demon and an angel he knows are kinda fond of the world and humanity and don't want the upcoming war.

Also, the demon in question is entrusted with getting the baby Anti-Christ to a family that will prepare him for leadership, except someone misplaces the baby, and nobody realizes this until years later.

What follows employs all the sardonic wit of both authors as every character on the face of the planet tries to figure out what the deuce is going on -- not least of which is the kid with his utterly unknown capabilities.

[orrion]

I like this quote. I must find someone to write a story where the McGuffin IS the antagonist, because he's looking for himself; and, once he will have found himself, HE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. D: The heroes must stop his introspection, for now and ever, by every possible means. :smallcool:

Brandon Sanderson's "Mistborn" trilogy says hi, though in that case it's a bit more literal and less metaphorical.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Brandon Sanderson's "Mistborn" trilogy says hi, though in that case it's a bit more literal and less metaphorical.

That's a pretty good point, although it is definitely literal searching for itself as opposed to introspection. I don't think I've ever thought of it in quite those terms.

[Unisus]

And there i thought it would be so easy to decide what drives the story - it's the elemwent you can't remove. Would we have an awesome story here without the gates? I'd say yes, as we can see in a lot of content that has nothing to do with the gates (e.g. Cliffport, Scoundrel). Would we have an awesome story without the OotS? Let's just imagine what would happen if they would be killed right now - the story would end. If it was all about the gates, we would start with a new group of adventurers - but that wouldn't be OotS any more.

[LadyEowyn]

If you're looking for an example of non-character driven plot, I'd recommend the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov. Almost by definition, all the events in the series occur according to a greater plan. There are also time skips periodically, so the main character, if you want to call him that, only appears in prerecorded messages after the first few pages.

This is exactly the example that sprang into my head when someone asked for examples of a plot-driven (or plot-centred) rather than character-drive story. Any characters are around for a few chapters at most, and then the story skips ahead to events one or several generations down the line. The whole thing takes place over millennia. It's not character-focused at all. And the series is still regarded as one of the great science fiction classics (although I, while liking it, find it a little dry due to the lack of characterization).

James Bond films (lots of action/thriller films and books, really) are also good examples, in a completely different way - the character is fairly static and the plot itself is the focus on the story. Ditto for mystery novels (maybe why I've never really enjoyed them).

A prime example of "setting-centred" stories to me would be a lot of Lovecraft's short stories, e.g., "At the Mountains of Madness". The protagonist is kind of peripheral to the story, serving only as the eyes through which we see the world. There are plot events that occur, but they don't have a major impact on anything (other than horrifying/driving insane the protagonist). You read them out of curiosity about the world and beings Lovecraft has invented more than for character development (which is mostly the same in all Lovecraft stories - the protagonist ends up somewhere on a spectrum from "troubled and disturbed by what he's seen" to "drive mad by what he's seen") or the plot.

Character-centred stories are a lot more common though, on the whole, because most readers like to have a reason to care about the people whom they're reading about. It takes a particularly gifted writer to make you care about a story if the characters aren't interesting. OOTS is definitely character-centred, because it would still be engaging if the characters were fighting for something with lower stakes than the fate of the world (as they actually are in DSTP, where the main villains are fairly passive and the Order members are dealing with minor antagonists, but undergoing major character development), whereas the plot of "heroes try to stop villains from gaining control of potential doomsday weapon" is, by itself, fairly generic and not inherently of interest.

[Nilehus]

It is a bit dry, but it's still one of my favorites. The settings and cultures had just enough detail that I could fill in all the blanks, the crises were inventive, the solutions even more so, and the completely unexpected appearance of the Mole and the Second threw it on a new track just when it started getting repetitive.

Plus, it's still more interesting than Dune. :smalltongue:

Edit: The sequels that weren't written by Asimov were all extremely... Disappointing is the most concise way to put it. Would not read again.

[LadyEowyn]

Oh, I enjoy Dune a lot more (although I've only read the first book). The world-building with the Bene Gesserit and Mentats and Fremen and everything is fascinating, Paul's ongoing attempts to avoid his destiny while realizing he's failing are tragic, and the characters (well, the protagonists - the Harkonnens are pretty flat villains) are well-drawn. The interlocking intrigues are complex enough to show that even the characters who end up being outwitted are intelligent.

But to each their own.

[Nilehus]

I've read summaries and characters and all that, and I know I'd love it if I read it... But something about the way it's written just bothers me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the writing style is just painful for me to read. -shrug- Shame, but different strokes and all.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I enjoyed both the Foundation trilogy and Dune. However, I didn't enjoy the other books as much. At around God Emperor, I found myself not really liking the book, and I couldn't finish Heretics. I've been thinking about rereading it, though.

[orrion]

It is a bit dry, but it's still one of my favorites. The settings and cultures had just enough detail that I could fill in all the blanks, the crises were inventive, the solutions even more so, and the completely unexpected appearance of the Mole and the Second threw it on a new track just when it started getting repetitive.

Plus, it's still more interesting than Dune. :smalltongue:

Edit: The sequels that weren't written by Asimov were all extremely... Disappointing is the most concise way to put it. Would not read again.

They aren't my favorite writers either.. although I'm still annoyed that they didn't let Betancourt finish the Amber prequel series.

---

Also, Terry Brooks' Shannara series might qualify as setting and/or plot driven occasionally, depending on which part of the series you're reading. Sometimes the characters are well-developed and are obviously the focus (Word and Void trilogy) and other times the plot is what dominates the book even if the characters are decent (Elfstones of Shannara).

There's even one example (Genesis) where the PROtangonist is the MacGuffin.

Unfortunately, the latest trilogy of books was.. well, not very impressive.

[ti'esar]

I've read summaries and characters and all that, and I know I'd love it if I read it... But something about the way it's written just bothers me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the writing style is just painful for me to read. -shrug- Shame, but different strokes and all.

I can completely empathize with disliking Frank Herbert's writing style, but even then I can't see how one could consider Dune "not interesting". There's just so very much going on. More relevant to this thread, I think it's interesting as being about an equal mixture of character-driven and setting-driven (though I don't really like the setting, actually).

[factotum]

Unfortunately, the latest trilogy of books was.. well, not very impressive.

I think the only Shannara books I've read were the original trilogy, and frankly, they were so obviously LOTR with the serial numbers filed off that I never bothered reading any others. Did they improve later on?

[Bulldog Psion]

Serious question - do the NPCs not count as characters?

To me, OOTS is very character-driven- but it is not protagonist-driven. Redcloak's decision to steal the phylactery, Miko's fall, Tarquin's loss of control over the story, O-Chul's torture and escape, the MitD's crisis of conscience - these are all as important to the story as any decision any Order members have made, but they're vastly more important as developments in those characters' arcs. These aren't external forces with no development, but characters in their own right.

Very interesting point you raise there -- OotS is character-driven, it's just that the characters are, for the most part, Redcloak and Xykon. They are the ones taking the initiative to which the rest of the characters react. Fascinating.

[Rodin]

I can completely empathize with disliking Frank Herbert's writing style, but even then I can't see how one could consider Dune "not interesting". There's just so very much going on. More relevant to this thread, I think it's interesting as being about an equal mixture of character-driven and setting-driven (though I don't really like the setting, actually).

It depends on how impenetrable you find the setting. It took me a couple of readings to actually "get" the book, and the sequels are far worse in that regard. The writing is very dense, which makes it tough to actually follow the plot - the first time I read it as a teenager, I think I read the attack on the Atreides base about 3 or 4 times before I comprehended what had happened. Dune is one of those odd cases where I think it transitions much better to the screen than in the original work, because you can use a combination of "show, don't tell" and cutting out extraneous background information to get a good feel of the setting across. The result is over-simplified, but it flows much better and is easier to understand.

On the topic, don't many stories swing back and forth between being plot-driven, character-driven, and setting driven anyway? The one that comes to mind is 11/22/63 by Stephen King - there are parts where it is very much plot-driven where he's trying to prevent the assassination, but then there are large sections where it's barely mentioned and the focus is on life in the 1960s. The setting and characters are ultimately just as important as the plot, but what is driving the story depends on where in the story you are.

The same could be said of the OOTS - War and XPs was very plot-focused around the events of the war. The most recent arc was primarily centered around the characters of Elan/Tarquin, Durkon/Malack, and Vaarsuvius. As we move through different parts of the story, the emphasis on characters waxes and wanes appropriately.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think the only Shannara books I've read were the original trilogy, and frankly, they were so obviously LOTR with the serial numbers filed off that I never bothered reading any others. Did they improve later on?

The first one, from reactions that other people have had to the series, often provokes that sort of response. I found that Elfstones and Wishsong, didn't feel like a LOTR rip-off at all. Heritage (the series after the original) is pretty good. After that, I find that it gets worse over time. I didn't even bother reading the most recent series.

The Word & Void series is also good, though it can be technically seen as not part of the Shannara series.

[orrion]

I think the only Shannara books I've read were the original trilogy, and frankly, they were so obviously LOTR with the serial numbers filed off that I never bothered reading any others. Did they improve later on?

The original trilogy - by which I assume you mean The Sword, The Elfstones, and The Wishsong of Shannara - didn't strike me as a LOTR ripoff. On the other hand, there were several years between my reading LOTR and Shannara.

The books as a whole were decent until this latest trilogy (Wards of Faerie), which was basically just a plot rehash of The Elfstones of Shannara without a satisfying ending for any of the characters. Most of them are just left drifting, and I was severely annoyed when he brought back a character from a previous series and had them do NOTHING before getting screwed over through no fault of their own. I'd better not go any further because I can rant about this trilogy for a while if I get going.

If you haven't read the Word and Void trilogy, which is technically separate from Shannara though linked through the Genesis trilogy, I'd read that.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It's been a few years since I read either, but Sword felt very much like LOTR to me. Allanon is very similar to Gandalf, Shea is similar to Frodo, the dwarf was much like Gimli, they get split up and some of them go to a human city to defend it from the bad guy's armies, while Shea presses on to face the bad guy. Even the bad guy has a very similar backstory to Sauron. However, the next two books really don't resemble it at all.

[factotum]

It might just be the first book I read, then--long time ago for me. I'm amazed you didn't notice the obvious LOTR parallels in that first book, though, Orrion; heck, it even had pretty much all the same characters, just with different names.

[Bulldog Psion]

I take that "OOTS" in the title refers to "Order of the Shannara?" :smallwink:

[Nilehus]

I can completely empathize with disliking Frank Herbert's writing style, but even then I can't see how one could consider Dune "not interesting". There's just so very much going on. More relevant to this thread, I think it's interesting as being about an equal mixture of character-driven and setting-driven (though I don't really like the setting, actually).

Not interesting wasn't exactly the right phrase. About as fun to read as chewing on a mouthful of sand, maybe. I just couldn't get into it. I struggled through the first few dozen pages, and after that, I just gave up.

Seriously, I know it takes place in deserts, but he didn't need to make reading the book like walking through one.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I take that "OOTS" in the title refers to "Order of the Shannara?" :smallwink:

...We may have gotten a bit off-topic.

[137beth]

...We may have gotten a bit off-topic.

Giant in the Playground: Often Of Topic Stuff