I don't think a Mary Sue character is necessarily a bad thing. I loved Phedre. I just thought, "Wow, she's too perfect. I want to be her! Maybe without the pain"

Another favorite character that I think is a little Mary Sue-ish is Catherine LeVander in Sharan Newman's medieval mystery series. Yes, she's beautiful, spunky, intelligent, and uncommonly well educated, but she's interesting. I like her. I think she would be a good friend. I don't want to throw her into the nearest moat.

I don't care if characters are perfect as long as they're interesting and not annoying.

I do find that SF is often home to Idea Fiction -- historically, to the detriment of its quality. That's not always nor even often the case these days, but Idea Fiction is alive and well and learning to be subtle.

(Not to say that SF is the exclusive home of Idea Fiction. Dickens's Hard Times is totally a novel of ideas, where the chief idea is, "Dont' be scientific to the detriment of being loving." Actually, as plots go, Hard Times is a little flimsy and a little convenient, but it conjoins idea and emotion and plot in the one action of Louisa Bounderby's journey in the night, back to her father's house.)

Fiction of ideas without a plot can't win me over, but I do find that a fiction of plot without any ideas behind it is rarely substantial enough to be satisfying.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking Idea in the sense where the author has some Truth they want to convey, and they're using their novel as a vehicle to preach their Truth rather than trying to tell a compelling story.

I think the disconnect is that you view putting Idea above Story as a flaw, and I view it as a matter of taste. Don't get me wrong -- I love well-drawn characters in a compelling storyline, but that's not what I'm actively looking for when I pick up a book.

Fiction of ideas without a plot can't win me over, but I do find that a fiction of plot without any ideas behind it is rarely substantial enough to be satisfying.

This. Though if lots of things are blowing up and people are being snarky, I'll generally hang in till the end.

Don't get me wrong -- I love well-drawn characters in a compelling storyline, but that's not what I'm actively looking for when I pick up a book.

Ah. For me it is. Especially the well-drawn characters part. I can do without the compelling storyline, or I wouldn't be so enchanted by the likes Alcott and Montgomery. I like to read about people, and how they interact with other people. Which may be why I settled on writing romance for now, out of all the genres I read, because I like having that primary focus on people in community.

Fiction of ideas without a plot can't win me over, but I do find that a fiction of plot without any ideas behind it is rarely substantial enough to be satisfying.

t puts on writer hat I think my books have ideas behind them--the second one, at least, has a very strong theme about embracing risks. But I didn't sit down and say, "I'm going to tell a story about why it's important to take risks, and the perils of a certain type of risk avoidance." I sat down to tell a story about what happened to a particular character in a particular situation, and the theme evolved from the story. I've read guides to writing that say you must--MUST--determine your theme before you sit down to write, and IMO that's crazy talk, and exactly backwards compared to my storytelling process. To me, ideas are more compelling when they arise from character than the other way round. That's how I write, and how I read.

(This is sure to be hella crossposted, since I've been dealing with baby issues off and on for the last half hour.)

all his protagonists seem to fall into the exact same destiny

Yes, and Frodo would like it back.

I've read guides to writing that say you must--MUST--determine your theme before you sit down to write

I've always thought that the basic theme of any story can be "life is hard and you're got to persevere to get what you want." Which, essentially, is the theme of life itself. I'm with Susan on "themes will reveal themselves." The focus on themes seems to be some sort of attempt to convince writers that, yes, they are doing something worthwhile when a writer is feeling guilty that all they're telling is a nifty adventure that only appeals to low-brow folks. t checks brows, finds they're fairly low on the forehead Adventures are cool.

I've read guides to writing that say you must--MUST--determine your theme before you sit down to write,

Good god, NO. I'm with you, Susan. Story comes first, always. Generally I discover through the writing that there's a central theme or metaphor, and then I go back and beef it up a bit.

I'm at that stage in a story right now, actually. I finished the first draft of this thing (20,000 words roughly), and realized that I'd ended with the character in the same physical position that he'd been in as the story opened: on his back, with his arm thrown over his eyes. And with that I began to think about what he goes through over the course of the story, and develop a theme of growing into leadership against his will.

Theme first has never worked for me: I have a forever-unfinished story that is all theme and metaphor, without much of a plot. I can't really write that way.

Theme first has never worked for me:

BtVS, seasons 1-3, even?

Hmm. Thinking back, the literal "must write a book!" moment varies from project to project for me:

First Book: I saw that Mansfield Park adaptation from a couple years back and started picking over why it didn't work for me. At some point I said, "I know it's Austen's most challenging work for the modern reader, but if I were adapting it, I'd do things a lot differently." So I started playing with it, and next thing I knew I was pulling it apart, putting it back together, and picking up a pen. So I guess it kinda did start as an idea book, but as soon as I'd determined what sort of person the heroine should be, she took on a life of her own and seized control of the story. And the story changed a lot as a result, though you can still see the MP skeleton buried within.

Second Book: A character from my first book started out as a plot device and something of a stereotype, but as I wrote she turned into an individual. I started liking her, and I realized she'd be utterly miserable in the marriage the plot required her to make. So I had an "Aha!" moment where I decided to do her justice by writing a sequel where her husband dies in the first chapter. Then I started playing around with what might happen to her, and what combination of events would give her a happy ending, but an exciting, rocky ride to get there. So that one is more character-based.

Third Book: Often I'll read some nugget of history and think, "There's a novel for me there." In this case it was a book about women aboard Royal Navy ships, including women who disguised themselves as men for various reasons. I filed it away in my mental "interesting scenario" file and went about my business. Then I was thinking about the romance cliche of a young woman disguising herself as a boy to run away from home, and wondering how you could put a new twist on it. Without conscious volition on my part, the ideas mated, and I literally shouted "Press gang!" Fortunately I was alone in my car at that time. And somehow the instant I had the idea, a set of characters fell into place as though they'd been waiting for an author to come up with a story for them. Though no doubt they'll evolve in unexpected ways once I actually start writing them.

OK--baby woke up and is demanding food. Will return at soem point today.