SF authors really do try not to write for characters

I think it's safe to say that some authors, period, don't write for characters.

But SF, if your concept is cool or strong or mindbending, there are other valued characteristics that can make you, with otherwise good writing, a big name.

I always thought that Brecht, while trying hard to uphold his theatrical ideals of distancing the audience from the material to incite action rather than emotion, created extremely emotional plays. This might have something to do with the values of the time he was working in, as he was reacting directly to realism/naturalism, where everything was so authtically perfect-- and I find realistic theatre frankly, boring, because we have movies. Back in his day, not so much.

I don't mean to say there aren't other writers in other genres that don't write stock characters or get by on violence or shock value or... but somehow, early on, I got prejudiced against SF from, probably an Asimov that hit me "wrong" personally. For instance. But there are probably many different styles of SF writing too.

I think that the nature of SF as a genre makes it more idea-driven than not. Which isn't to say that there aren't character- or plot-centric SF novels, but the act of creating an SF universe (whether it's future or alternate-now or completely made-up) for your characters and plot to take place in forces you to answer, or at least pose, some pretty big What Ifs. You have to decide what kind of governments exist in your world, what races/species exist, and whether or not they get along. What technological powers do humans (or whoever) now possess, and how do they use them? Etc etc.

On a semi-related note, I was at a Q&A with the screenwriter/director of Syriana over the weekend, and he mentioned Tolstoy as an influence (he did admit that that was about as pretentious as it gets), and talked about Tolstoy's 4 rules for writing. The 4 most important things for Tolstoy, in order, were (1) transitions, (2) backdrop/worldbuilding (3) character, and (4) story. Discuss.

He ranked transitions first? that's kinda odd. I mean, sure, transitions are important, but you can have a perfectly fine story if you have crappy transitions but an interesting plot and well-drawn characters. Bad transitions will not make or break a novel for me.

I think that the nature of SF as a genre makes it more idea-driven than not.

I'd say there was a time in history when that was true, but that it's not necessarily so any more. A fair amount of SF since the New Wave has been interested in what the characters do, and setting and world-building are just context to create the situation for the characters. For example, Joanna Russ's short story "When It Changed" is all about the patriarchal snottiness of the astronauts who arrive on Whileaway and immediately assume their own dominance. The idea of a female-only society is sketched out in extreme brevity, just enough to make clear that these astronauts are way out of their own depth: the real point is drawing out the female characters' unease and distrust at the stupid patronizing assumptions. (It's also hella depressing.)

The 4 most important things for Tolstoy, in order, were (1) transitions, (2) backdrop/worldbuilding (3) character, and (4) story. Discuss.

I don't put that much stock in transitions, or anyway, I don't run across that many really awkward ones. I would also posit that if worldbuilding is not part of both character and story, there is no reason to be worldbuilding in the first place. Sort of surprised "theme" doesn't even make his list, especially considering we were talking about "how to make a statement without making the story into boring propaganda" just yesterday.

What's interesting about it (and why I think Stephen Gaghan was so taken with it) is that it's such a cinematic way of thinking. I mean, it's basically Eisenstein's theory of montage, only about books, and about a half-century earlier. Which is just nifty.

[eta: And also makes me think that Eisenstein had read a lot of Tolstoy. Or maybe Russians just think in more transitiony terms than the rest of us.]

it's basically Eisenstein's theory of montage, only about books,

Actually, that was my first thought, when I read your summary of Tolstoy. "Anybody who watches enough hour-long drama TV shouldn't need help with transitions." I think we as a aprtly-visual culture are so good at them that they have become an invisible skill.

Transitions are important, but for me the other three are crucial.

I'm just not sure whether it's better to create a world and then find a story in it, or to have a story and create a world for it.

I'm not too familiar with Tolstoy, but I suspect that "transitions" aren't just the mechanics of getting from one scene to the next. A character arc is a kind of transition. I could be totally wrong, but if you think of "transitions" as "changes" it makes a bit more sense.