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.

In "What I'm Reading" news, as a result of the Fandom Wank-ed kerfluffle about femslash, in which people kept mentioning Libba Bray's A Great and Terrible Beauty, I got it from the library. It's not *quite* Harry Potter's older, darker, sexier, Victorian cousin....but it's somewhere in the family tree. I really like it.

It's not *quite* Harry Potter's older, darker, sexier, Victorian cousin....but it's somewhere in the family tree.

Soooo, what you're saying is I really should get around to reading it?

Libba Bray's A Great and Terribly Beauty

Ooooh ooooh! I know the author, and she's one of the smartest, funniest, snarkiest people ever. I loved A Great and Terrible Beauty (although I am, of course, biased).

Just started Rebel Angels, the sequel, and am loving it so far, too.

It's not *quite* Harry Potter's older, darker, sexier, Victorian cousin....but it's somewhere in the family tree.

Soooo, what you're saying is I really should get around to reading it?

Yes, indeed. The beginning is a little *off,* in terms of it being historical fiction, b/c the protagonist's voice is a little too modern, but then the book really hits its stride and slips into fine Victorian voice.

I'm about halfway finished, and I just requested the sequel from the library, b/c I know I'll have it finished in the next day or so.

if you think of "transitions" as "changes" it makes a bit more sense.

Ah. Like movement? Okay, yeah, that does make sense. Thanks, Strega.