What makes a deep piece of fiction deep?

[Vraith]

This from the GI today, seems relevant to some of this discussion:

But the characters are what make the settings and events interesting and meaningful. Without the essential passions of characters, settings rapidly devolve into mere scenery, and events/conflicts soon become empty activity. When character becomes subordinate or subservient to setting or event, the result is reliably trivial.

That’s theory. In practice, I’ve read plenty of books--historicals and westerns as well as sf and fantasy--that place setting above character; and each and every one of them was junk. I’ve also read plenty of books--thrillers and mysteries as well as sf and fantasy--that place events above character; and each and every one of *them* was junk (although it is true that activity is usually more interesting to watch than scenery).

Think I’m wrong? Show me.

Before you try, however, I will admit that in the VERY BEST stories, character, setting, and event (not to mention narrative voice) show a remarkable tendency to become indistinguishable from each other.

The question related to a statement Card made that SF/Fantasy place setting above character.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

I used to have a book by Card on how to write Speculative Fiction, as he calls scifi/fantasy. He said there were four primary types of stories...I think they were, Mileau, Event...I can't remember the rest...

For my Lord, have others on the Watch read your work?

[Worm of Despite]

I equate depth with all factors of a story, but characterization and background are important, and they can communicate to you and move you, and I think mine have, SRD's have, a lot of great writers have. TC's characterization, the Land's history, Kevin Landwaster, on and on, etc. These are all important and need each other to subsist and breathe the story to life. I don't see how you can't equate any part of a story with depth if you've got a "deep" story.

I guess I would say characterization and background can be necessary, or just helpful, to write something deep. But they aren't the depth themselves.

There are deep short stories. The depth is accomplished with necessarilly limited background and characterization and just about everything else.

It's all about what the auther gets you thinking about. Some authors can take you straight there. Other authers need a while to get there. Other authors want to take a long while to get there.

Oh yeah, I find short stories easier to make deep, personally, because their shortness requires more emotional intensity, as well as the shortening of other things like character and background for brevity's sake (this is even more true in a short poem, especially concerning emotion).

[Brinn]

In fact, that's my general gripe with Malazan. Lots of detailed characterization. But nothing spoken to you. And after eight books, I'm actually at the point where I get sick of meeting new characters. Trying to empathize with about three hundred characters is back-breaking for the reader. And none of them - none - pay off the work of following them. None of them even change, never mind change in a way that invites thought.

I've recently stated in a few posts how Malazan never really grabbed even though I've gone through 4 or 5 of the books (I've stopped in the middle of Midnight Tides). I've never been able to put my finger on what it was lacking but after reading your post I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Great post Wayfriend, you're literary criticism and comments are always enlightening, interesting and intelligent. I look forward to reading them.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

The word before, "fiction."

[deer of the dawn]

Before you try, however, I will admit that in the VERY BEST stories, character, setting, and event (not to mention narrative voice) show a remarkable tendency to become indistinguishable from each other.

Fantastic point from SRD! Which points back to a couple of comments that basically say what makes a book "deep" is that it is very human. It speaks to you in a similar way to getting to know a friend or lover. Relationships always affect us in some way. Layers, conflict, passion-- all of that, but very little of it is simple. Deep books, imho, are the same way.

(I have to part ways regarding Eco. I've read The Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum and just ended up feeling manipulated rather than moved. After 250 pages of byzantine arcanity, some disaster happens that substitutes for authentic plot resolution. *ducks rotten vegetables*)

[stonemaybe]

*ducks rotten vegetables*

Not at all *tossing a tasty ripe apple* I tend to agree.

Personally, I detest the very term 'deep' with regard to literature. But trying to overcome that, and get in the spirit of the thread, I agree with Vader's recommendation of Flann O'Brien. For some reason I am moved most 'deeply' by books that have an element of comedy about them ('tragi-comedy'? maybe). So Flann O'Brien, Richard Braughtigan, Tom Robbins, Vonnegut, certain bits (by no means all) of Patrick O'Brian.

Maybe I'm too sceptical, and a book that puts profundity above story makes me think the author is being egocentric. Maybe a bit of comedy dispels that impression for me.

[deer of the dawn]

*ducks rotten vegetables*

Not at all *tossing a tasty ripe apple* I tend to agree.

Personally, I detest the very term 'deep' with regard to literature. But trying to overcome that, and get in the spirit of the thread, I agree with Vader's recommendation of Flann O'Brien. For some reason I am moved most 'deeply' by books that have an element of comedy about them ('tragi-comedy'? maybe). So Flann O'Brien, Richard Braughtigan, Tom Robbins, Vonnegut, certain bits (by no means all) of Patrick O'Brian.

Maybe I'm too sceptical, and a book that puts profundity above story makes me think the author is being egocentric. Maybe a bit of comedy dispels that impression for me.

*wipes apple juice from chin* An element of comedy helps make it more human, after all.