At the Center of the Critical Triangle

Rating: 10/10 (24 September 2012)

As a science-fiction fan, I often have to defend my favorite genre from the disdain of mainstream and academic literary and film critics, who complain that it shortchanges plot and characterization.
If I'm pressed for time, I shortcut my response by citing Sturgeon's Law. Master of the SF short story, Theodore Sturgeon was once being interviewed on the radio, and the host provocatively asked him why 90% of SF was crap. Sturgeon's snappy reply: "90% of EVERYTHING is crap!" And this is tritely true. The only reason anyone thinks of the early 19th Century as the golden age of music is because the only stuff that's survived from then till now is the 10% that's NOT crap. But there was plenty of bad classical music being written then, too, and not even all of Beethoven's stuff is top drawer.
But that's the facile reply. With more time (such as what I have here), I expand the limited horizons of the critics by expanding their favorite spectrum into the 3rd dimension. They are accustomed to drawing a straight line, labelling one end "plot" and the other end "character", and assigning each book or movie to a point somewhere along that spectrum, depending on what they perceive to be the balance between the 2 elements.
But I insert a 3rd point, off the line, forming the vertex of an equilateral triangle, and label it "setting". I show my own disdain for mainstream mimetic fiction by saying "Sure, ANY old hack writer can start a novel with 'It was raining as the battered gray Chevy pulled up to the Empire State Building, battered gray Harvey Bluedorn emerged, and his battered gray flannel suit immediately started showing big dark blotches.', because your readers immediately understand the setting and circumstances; they're familiar with New York, Chevies, and suits, even if they've never been there, driven one, or worn one.
SF and fantasy writers have the added burdens of not only inventing whole new worlds where their stories take place, they must also describe them clearly enuf to form a useful mental picture without dropping a huge expository lump into the early going. (This is somewhat easier for movie-makers, who can show without having to tell, but it's still more challenging than an establishing shot of, say, Antarctica.)
So, to me, the ideal balance is not midway between plot and characterization, ignoring the duty of setting altogether, but rather at the center of the equilateral triangle.
By that measure, the platinum standard of accomplishment — the apotheosis of balancing plot, character, and setting, in the full richness of each — is Gone with the Wind, not merely ONE of the best movies of all time but the VERY best.
I speak as a science-fiction and fantasy fan who recognizes that there's not a speck of either in GWTW and still rates it higher than Avatar or Lord of the Rings (but they're also smack-dab in the middle of the Critical Triangle if you take the time to look).