What do you enjoy most? Character or Story?

[kojewki]

What do you enjoy most? Character or Story?

Now I know that's a silly question to ask. Why should we have to choose? Shouldn't it be both? The long and the short of the answer is "yes, it should be both". However, rarely does the writer- in any medium- balance the two in such a way that the character's journey naturally motivates the story-- or the story's progression begins to grow the character.

In Pixar, they used to have a saying "Story is King" but not anymore. According to John Lasseter and his book " Creativity Inc." with this to say looking back onto it:

"People glom onto words and stories that are often just stand-ins for real action and meaning".

With that in mind, what is your definition of character and story?
and...
What examples have you enjoyed over time where you feel character and story have been done well?
or...
What examples do you think have been done wrong and how can we learn from it?

Lets Discuss!

[fleohr]

I have the feeling that "Character" would meant only an image of it, and you won't have the same feeling you have towards that character without a story. I can draw a normal guy and then his version as a psycho, but would it bring the same feeling if I told you his story?

The same would be if I tell you a story without any characters, is that possible tho? I can't think of a story like this

One example I have is the webtoon "Bastard". Once you know the characters' personality, you will have a good vibe towards some of them, and a bad vibe towards other, but again, you only know that because of the story.

TL;DR The story wouldn't exist without a character and the character wouldn't bring the same feeling as if it had a story behind it

[amortelito]

You can definitely make a distinction between the two
For example, folklore fairy tails were centered on the story because the purpose was to teach morals, educate and warn children. So the characters were any generic person that barely had any development or description. The only distinctive traits were mention only to serve a purpose in the story.
Modern TV and plays can be based entirely on monologues where there is no story, we are only getting into the charter's mind.
More specific examples...My favorite movie The Company of the wolves was criticized for having very little character development, But to me, this is good because what happens is more important than the people because of it is a fairy tale. My favorite show Twilight zone has some chapters that are literally plotless and we see the dude going crazy by himself in a room. So is hard for me to choose! If it is a short powerful story I don't care to know the characters XD. But in general I think I enjoy characters the most. For example I can love a garbage movie with crappy story only because some character is interesting. What you read is also true nowadays people seem to respond better to good characters than good story. Having both is a dream come true.My comic is literally based on character development.

Of course, they need each other but definitely, some projects can have a huge unbalance between the two and still be successful.

[Wumbl]

For me there's no difference between the two but that's because my work is character-driven.

Some stories don't focus too much on characters, and are more about bigger and less personal concepts.

Depending on the story sometimes individual characters are really important to emphasise the theme but if it's not really meant to take the characters themselves on a journey then it's not a big deal.

My preferred type of story is character driven, for sure. Without interesting characters I struggle to get invested because I'm an empathetic type rather than a sympathetic type - I need to connect to somebody or something to fully care about the story.

[punkarsenic]

hot take: character is story

your characters react to the plot, make decisions to move the story forward. the story is their development, their change.

i like character driven stories over plot driven, so i enjoy character most as story. ive read some plot driven stories i do really like, but largely because of their worldbuilding.

[shazzbaa]

I feel the same as punkarsenic -- this is something that book I won't shut up about goes into, the idea that character and story genuinely can't exist without each other.

The example I usually use is, suppose you have a character who is sort of grumpy and unkind, but when push comes to shove, he would sacrifice himself to keep others safe. His character is revealed through that decision -- a decision that can only be shown through story. If the story never threatens anyone, then we'll never see what kind of person this grumpy guy really is. And without an interesting character, there's nothing to reveal about them -- and thus no story.

When I started looking at story that way, it completely changed how I approached storytelling. Story isn't a separate thing you just sort of come up with to give your characters something to do -- it's the medium through which you illustrate a character.

[Croik]

I don't think it's too much to ask for both, and the best works are able to balance it. I watch a lot of horror, which as a genre can often swing too far one way or the other, especially into the realm of not enough character. The dividing line between a great slasher and a boring one often comes down to how much you care about the hapless victims getting slaughtered (The Descent is one of my all time favorites because the characters are so good). But you can also have well developed characters in a slog of a haunted house (the recent Veronica was really well acted but had nothing new to say IMO).

A really interesting example for me is the recent movie Annihilation, based on the book of the same name. The book is EXTREMELY character driven, by a single character in fact, establishing the protagonist extremely well. I ended up liking her a lot. But the plot starts in the middle with no clear beginning or end, and basically spins its wheels the entire time, going nowhere and explaining nothing.

The film is very different, much more interested in discussing the world and its weirdness. You still get to know the protagonist very well, and there are more side characters that range from likable to okay. A few I liked a lot from just a few short scenes, even if you don't get as in depth as in the novel.

Personally I preferred the film. Even if the novel had a stronger central character it didn't feel as though she learned or accomplished anything, while the film balanced plot and character in a more interesting and consistent way. If I HAD to choose between character and plot I'd choose plot, but I don't think you should have to choose, because you can have both!

PS if you like scifi horror you should definitely see Annihilation!

[DiegoPalacios]

The same would be if I tell you a story without any characters, is that possible tho? I can't think of a story like this

A story without characters?.....that reminded me of this strip without characters from "garfield minus garfield minus john".....

well......that`s the answer about how a story without characters would be

[fleohr]

Hmmm that's interesting, thank you for sharing!

[Jenny-Toons]

I do think both are evenly intertwined together -- one feeds on the other and vice versa.

BUT -- I do like stories where a character's actions affect the plot instead of a character being inside a plot already made for them, if that makes sense?

Like, with each action, there's an explanation along the way. Kinda like the real world.

[Hodge]

There are a lot of good responses so far. It seems like story and characters necessitate each other, which makes sense. Personally, I prefer the stories that get intimately involved with the psychology of the character(s). However, what I love about comics is the close proximity with the creator. There are some stories comics in which the characters aren't as developed/complex, but when I see it more as a reflection of the creator it makes it more enjoyable.

For most romance and action comics I've read lately, I have a hard time caring about the fictional characters since I feel like they're usually too simple. But it's okay since I like thinking things "What does this story say about love, relationships, power, etc.?", "What is the moral of this story?", "What philosophy is being espoused here?", "What is this saying about the human experience and our relationship with the world?", and what not. It's fun figuring out what I agree and disagree with, and how I can use this in my own story.

[Harmony-S-S]

My answer......BOTH!!

[fighterxaos]

There's no right or wrong answer really. I prefer (see it's in bold meaning just my preference not a rule) complex characters with a simple story.

[spadesart]

i think character is more important to me as a consumer, like for instance voltron has a really interesting plot but i just cant get invested in the characters and its not enjoyable to watch. it kinda goes the same for me as a writer, spire is definitely a more character driven type of narrative, the main plot does actually step aside from some one off narrative chapters that focus on specific characters only.

[KSlinger]

"People glom onto words and stories that are often just stand-ins for real action and meaning".

Dunno if I'm just a bit thick, but I don't actually understand get what this means. Really. No idea.

ANYWAY.

1. With that in mind, what is your definition of character and story?

If the story is the a hot wheels racetrack, the character is the toy car. The racetrack itself can be a straight road, or a series of ups and downs, or a loop-de-loop leading to a dive off the edge of the table. Depending on the car you put on the track, things will turn out differently. Like well-written characters, cars will respond in a unique way to the track they're set on. Some might take corners really well, but fall off on the loop-de-loops. One car might stop-start, or flip itself off the track unexpectedly. We don't know! But the way you construct the track and choose your cars makes for interesting stuff.

2. What examples have you enjoyed over time where you feel character and story have been done well?

Obvious example: Toy Story.

Going back to the hotwheels analogy: every character in Toy Story is a car with its own quirks. Woody is jealous and impatient. Buzz is brave and gullible, blah blah blah.

At the beginning of Toy Story the track is simple. All the issues within Andy's household can be solved by the characters themselves, like Woody tossing Buzz out the window, but as soon as the track goes a little bit wild (i.e. they end up in the neighbour's house or Pizza Planet) we really start to notice the problems with the cars themselves and things get exciting when we start to wonder if they'll even make it to the end or not.

I think what makes Toy Story compelling in an objective sense is that character flaws are outlined to us before the story gets wild. Like, we just know Woody is going to react badly to x, y or z because it's made clear to us from the very beginning that he just is that kind of person. They give us a rundown of what each character is at their core during that early segment, then show us this wild track and go SHALL WE SEE HOW THEY GET ON??

TLDR; Before things get pacey in Toy Story we have all the tools needed to form expectations of the characters. Seeing if a character meets or defies those expectations is what makes a compelling story.

3. What examples do you think have been done wrong and how can we learn from it?

I can't think of one off the top of my head, but a story where the characters are insconsistent can be really frustrating. Like a character who is historically wicked suddenly being merciful without a valid reason...brain surgery or bribery for example. It's a huge wtf. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a character defy expectations but it has to make sense. It'd be like picking a car off the track before the loop-de-loop and putting it down on the other side and going 'lets just say it everything went well'. BULLSHIT. We know that car would have hit the deck.

[MariMontoya]

I like @amortelito take on it. There's a lot of historical/literature history behind this story/character relationship. For me, I can enjoy any story that is just plot, character, or both​

[hjfsdh2222]

I love them both very differently.

The story I don’t explicitly love, I need to take a step back to appreciate it. I think I appreciate my stories more than my characters.

The characters I always love playing around with. It’s more the fun part I guess.

When I make stories, I always start with the story and then the characters. So I always have more attachment to the story.

At the end of the day these things are pretty inseparable though. In my experience, The characters are born from the story. And then the characters help you make the story even better:3

[indagold]

Well a character is a story in itself so its really a chicken or the egg situation. You can't have one without the other. So i'd just say I like both.

[phen]

I agree with @JakiraJurosawa, they both are like... integral to one another yet seem completely different.

While I deeply enjoy writing stories, when it comes to reading them, I much prefer strong characters to latch onto. A lot of the time, I can sort of fill-in-the-blank with stories that are primarily character-driven so even if there's holes or otherwise "washy" writing, I can still enjoy the piece in general.

I don't subscribe to the notion that a story neatly tied up at the end is ideal. But fully realised characters are fun, organic, immersive, and can bring life to dull events whether from the author's hand or fan's.

[GalacticPotato]

I think a good story can carry mediocre charcters and good characters can carry a mediocre story, i prefer characters because they're the ones you actually get attatched to, the reason you may want to come back. A good story can make you go back but if it has mediocre characters, you start to get tired of them.
Good characters work well even without a story to back them up.