Why is literary fiction obsessed with muh character, muh psychology, muh personality, muh emotion etc? How is this any better than plot? Sounds like a step down if you ask me. I only just started getting into literary fiction by reading A Hero of Our Time.Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.
>>25483806Fiction is mostly written and read by wordcels, who believe there's nothing real outside of people. The idea that someone could be genuinely interested in, say, geology makes no sense to them. It's not people so it's not real.
>>25483806What is the one thing that unites you with characters like Captain Ahab, Andrey Bolkonsky, Winston Smith? You're not a whaler, you're not gentry, you're not a propaganda peddler. You can relate very little to what their realistic everyday life experiences would be like. The one thing that you have in common with all of them is being humana and having psychological, emotional, human struggles. If you remove that aspect and make them all one-dimensional stoic chads who react the same way in any circumstances or whatever, then the story just becomes a dry description of their professonal occupation, which you would only ever read if you're interested in that specific field. And literature is supposed to appeal to more than just niche interest autists.
>>25483812Never heard of such a thing. Idealists believe there's nothing real outside of ideas. Not the same thing as people. But I guess "idea" in that sense is more what we think of as "mind". I guess that's what you mean by "people". Nevertheless, in the realm of the mental, I think ideas are a higher domain than everything else, ie emotions, personality, character etc.
>>25483806>I don't know anything at all about your field>but here's why it's retarded and I'm rightI just know you work in the tech industry
>>25483806plot is all soap opera stuff.
>>25483812So read geology then? And not fiction?Wtf is wrong with scificels???
>>25483806If you want ideas, read a math paper. Fiction is about existence. This is something you're constitutionally incapable of grasping, though.
all these threads about prose vs plot, style vs story, character vs concept, they go in circles, it's interminable, it's based on a false problem, no serious reader experiences texts in terms of those divisions. i have sworn to depart this board forever because of how stupid you're all determined to be, but as my last word i beg you to stop debating these inane artificial hierarchies and read some actual criticism.
>>25483821So? Why does one need to relate to people and their experiences when one reads fiction?
>>25483806>>25483812OP is a jeet that reads scifi under the belief that it has no prose and that it's a substitute for actual science.
>DUDE LORE LMAO
>>25483806The ones who praise "ideas" tend to have the worst ideas, and those who don't have the best. You're deriding Lermontov and citing Asimov. Take a look at yourself and then go back to your containment thread.
>>25483847How much would you enjou a book about Kwkised from planet QedrffejeI whose favorite acitivities include sfdoivxck, lewrjm, efoijojmv, and mxjsoje? None of those things are ever explained to you in terms you can understand by the way, they just exist and get mentioned matter-of-factly.
>>25483812you don't read>>25483830/thread
>>25483854>MUH MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS
the best writers can do both and explore both plot and character shit as textures in the same tapestry. that fiction needs to be either literary or genre is a classification that exists only on the internet or around academics... transcending nonsensical garbage like this through versatility and a genuine love of learning in all things is how we usher in the future
>>25483830Why does tech attract so many dunning-kruger narcissists and smug control freaks? Like even more so than psychology it seems
>>25483845Fuck off.
>>25483932lots of high iq people are like this. or at least lots of experts are. you can read about nobel prize winners who are world-class in their own field expressing themselves on other fields, and what comes out of their mouth is just nonsense. chemists telling geologists that everything they're doing is wrong and all their conclusions are retarded, etc.
>>25483837I think a big part of the appeal of the Fellowship of the Ring is that it's fiction about a natural environment as much as the characters.
>>25483821There is lots of great adventure fiction with one dimensional characters. The character in those cases is just an avatar to insert yourself into as you experience the adventure.
>>25483806There are seven different plots, all those other things are what make fiction stories different from each other
>>25483965It sounds like you're saying readers of adventure fiction relate to one-dimensional characters because they themselves are also one-dimensional
>>25483991I'm saying ideas are what's valuable, not plot. However, character is EVEN below plot in value. Plot can be used as a vehicle for ideas though.
>>25483806Post the full article, I love Asimov's nonfiction
>>25484036https://archive.org/details/Asimovs_v09n05_1985-05/page/25/mode/1up
>>25483806Weird that Asimov of all people wrote that, he had cool ideas, but his characters were flat as fuck
>>25483806I agree for different reasons. Every aspect of the story is important, it's ok to have a more psychological story without a formulaic plot, however, at the end of the day the reader has to want to turn the page. I only qualify this by noticing that enjoyment varies as between readers depending on comprehension level. Older literature has longer sentences with more sophisticated grammar, the authors assuming an appreciably higher baseline literacy among their audience than today's.Character and all those things you said are fascinating when done well. A character is not only a depiction of a person, it's a representation of an idea, their role in the narrative logic defining them as something. Emotion and dialogue between the characters is an essential part of a plot. Any good author should be able to understand how the reader would begin to anticipate confrontations, generally, but tense conversations between characters which advance the plot. That kind of payoff is the lifeblood of any drama.
>>25483946>lots of high iq people are like thisI can agree with this but we're talking about tech and psychology.
>>25484085>cool ideas, shitty charactersSounds like sci-fi alright.
>>25483845the stupidication will continue until every last bit of media is solely consolidated to the state sanctioned propaganda ministries known as the MSM. Stupification, mystification, bewilderment, and otherwise intellectual regression schemed in totality spanning generations until all prior knowledge is wiped out completely. A cultural operation the likes of which never seen before
>>25483845>AI GENERATED TRIBALISM>MUH HECKIN CONSOLE WARS>TREATING BOOKS LIKE TRADEABLE POKEMON CARDS IS ACTUALLY....LE GUD
>>25483806>reads one book>immediately proclaims every author is the samePlenty of authors prefer ideas over characters. Read Melville, Mann, Gaddis and Pynchon.Dostoevsky does both, but his style can be clunky.
>I only just started getting into literary fiction
>>25483932>picrelevergreen
>>25484418nuke truth
>>25483806Funny to see Asimov directly addressing his biggest weakness. I don’t think any fan of his defends the cardboard characters. But the false dichotomy of “either I write ideas or people” is stupid (and a cop out for lack of skill). Why aren’t you writing both?
