Writers' Cafe

Post Reply New Topic

I would like to say my stories have no characters, but this would be false.

In fact, I was remembering, reading the above, that I created some characters, what sounds strange to me. I believe my stories are very aspie ones, and my characters must be too; I think I radically don't understand NTs. I believe my speaches are very poor, and I avoid it, everybody sound like very young in it, teens or children.

I like to create absurd worlds that must only be inhabited by absurd people.

I think I live at an absurd world populated by absurd people, and my task is to turn all this cool!

I have thirty in my book. The first write was the main ones, others hardly got names. On rewrite they came forth, I found three groups, all different points of view. More rewrite and I found that the story was driven by second and third tier groups. Leads were reacting to the group.

The group dynamic is the story, it starts with one view, but interacts with other points of view. Group actions may have very different motives. By the end, the common goal is a blend of three groups each doing what they see. None are bit players when their actions carry the whole, and the end could not be reached without them.

I've been thinking about characters.

When I was in class, and when people respond to things, they always talk about liking, or disliking characters, or they talk about identifying with characters. My significant other says he likes a story because it has good characters.

I probably don't think about characters as much as I should. I read about how characters should be just as multi-dimensional as the main character, and I think that's true. It makes a story interesting for other people. I suppose that a good character might imitate a person you think you could probably meet.

I know my characters, but it's a challenge to get other people to know my characters. I read a good article about expressing good characters not just through dialogue, or through lengthy descriptions, but through brief mentions of appearance, or mannerisms. Perhaps it is easier for a reader to identify with a character if they learn a character in a similar way to how people learn each other by knowing each other.

I have a bad habit of treating characters like objects, or symbols. Sometimes characters become symbols in a series of symbols, within a symbolic framework. It's hard for other people to read the layers upon layers of symbols. The characters seem inaccessable to people who read my work. People don't want to read symbols, they want to identify with characters.

Characters are important. Creating characters other people can identify with is hard. Making character sheets is okay, but it doesn't help me to know my characters better. I already know them. I have a hard time writing my characters well enough for someone else to know them. I'm thinking about both main characters and secondary characters. All characters should be believeable to the reader because many readers seem to be character focussed.

I'm sorry. I'm rambling.

This comes to a movie idea which is using stereotypes. In my story, I've got a character who's clearly in the Emo/Goth realm of things, and as such all I needed to do was describe her, make her talk for a bit and everybody knew who she was and what she is about.

To make characters relatable, normal discussion small talk scenes can help. They act as a break from the action, and the discussions they have show the characters thoughts, feelings and opinions about things. Just pick a random topic, and let it flow from there. As an example, if your characters are heading to the bad guy's main city, and you want to show a character who is into art, have them discuss the city and have the artsy character mention that she used to draw the buildings of his/her hometown. If the other discusser doesn't like art, mention that, in however severity would be natural for the character (Ranging from "I wasn't really into art" to "Ugh, I hate art, I think it sucks.").

Rambling is an art form.

Characters must have a simple view, the good wear white hats, the bad black.

As for readers, "Shoot low, they are short!"

Most are not seeking content, or message, just a story.

Characters are onions, they just are, but the story exposes inner layers.

Most will read over it, but to some it shows even deeper layers.

A good story is a simple tale that little children would like, but that older readers find more depth in.

Through the looking glass, is such, a child's nonsense, and an outline of the English class system.

Tolkien mines local mythology for LOTR.

I use little known historical periods, it gives me a location and a cast to play with.

Every big thing that happens is made out of little un-noticable things done for other reasons, that come together and form a big thing, to everyone's surprise.

Background, cast, events, are not what drives readers, they want a story about people like them, doing things, being people, that has a meaning to them.

Readers judge character responses by their own, and it can be daring or clever, but not far away. It is a person like themselves, doing what they would do, that falls into an interesting situation.

Bilbo, Dorothy, and Alice are very normal people till one falls down a rabbit hole, one gets taken by a tornado, and the other gets a visit from a wizard, then life gets strange.

First there was identity, a cause, strange events, then it resolves and they live happily ever after.

I disagree with you on a few points here. Firstly the whole 'characters must have simple views'. I see absolutely no reason for a character to be a stereotype/cliche/stock character, it isn't challenging or creative to just browse through the list of templates and go
"Hmm, what shall I pick? Oooh, this looks nice! I'll use that". there are too many black and white characters in fiction, I feel. Too many heroic barbarians and power-hungry kings.

Next, the "simple tale that children will like" bit. I REALLY disagree with this. I don't think a child would like Lovecraft, or War and Piece. Sure, some adults love stories designed for children, as they generally are comfortable and easy to handle, But I personally don't want something designed for someone 2/3rds my age. I want a piece of fiction that confronts things that people are NOT comfortable with and make them think about it. I like work that challenges the way we see the world or the things in it and ask us to contemplate these things in a different manner. Children would not necessarily grasp these things, otherwise Animal Farm would be up there with Harry Potter.

"Background, cast, events, are not what drives readers, they want a story about people like them, doing things, being people, that has a meaning to them." now this, this is the point I disagree with the most. it sound too much like the self insertion that happens in so many fanfics. Yes, characters should be sympathetic and have broadly understandable characteristics, but how can you cater to the will of possibly thousands of readers? especially when every single one is different? by your logic, how can an American adult enjoy a story about an English boy wizard? How can the western Audiences enjoy a Japenese story about Samurai? It doesn't make sense to me. Another example of why fiction does not mimic life. In the 80s and 90s there was a spat of movies about terrorism. Die hard, Patriot Games, the Jackal (sorta), Face/off, True Lies, Air force all those sort of films. In most them, Terrorists plan to do soemthing nasty is a big US city, but the FBI, or the CIA send in a lone gun-toting agent who single handedly pwns all the terrorists then saves the day and everyone goes away happy, the end, or something similar. then 9/11 came along. where was the FBI's super-skilled surveillence that could pick up any sign of terrorism? where was the Government Agent who could take out an army of Syrians with only a Browning? Nope, there was no hero to save all those people in the planes and the twin towers, may they rest in peace. There was no happy ending. It just shows that the most popular fiction is that of idealization and escapism. The most popular fiction is that which removes the audience from their everyday troubles. "why should I care that my girlfriend dumped me when there's a zombie apocalypse going on!"

Next, the "background, cast, events are not what drive readers" bit. these things are VITALLY important to the success of a good story. Read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, read Accidental Death of an Anarchist . The success of these plays hinges on the setting and the cast. forgoing one part of your writing for one particular area will pretty much damn you into creating an average piece of fiction.

The whole "through the rabbit hole" plot device is a good one, but I feel it's been overused. In fact I'm beginning to dislike it as much as Deus ex Machina (the literary device, not the user). Personally I like In Medias Res.
"First there was identity, a cause, strange events, then it resolves and they live happily ever after." i think this is a very cookie-cutter way of writing fiction, especially the happy ending. I prefer to end on a much more sombre note, where the protagonist is victorious, but is he still the same man or woman that he was at the beginning of the story, or does he still think the world is worth saving?

Now, before anyone writes a heated retort, these are merely my opinions, I am NOT saying them my word on fiction is law, or that you are wrong, or that I know any more than anyone else, I just want to put my own view up here for people to see. You are allowed to disagree, you are allowed to disregard absolutely everything I've written if you want. I just think that with over 6 years of writing and studying fiction as an art form I might have soemthing worthwhile to add.

I haven't actually given my story any sort of inner message. Maybe this is why people like it so much: I don't spend time in the story dawdling around trying to emphasize a point I'm trying to make, I'm just writing an adventure the characters go on. And lessons taught to the reader I guess would be part of the sub-plot, if that makes any sense.

Vorzac,

Right on all points, a Great Work makes it's own rules. Great Works are rare.

Harry was a lower class orphan, till a letter arrived.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, Hariaquin Romanances sell. I doubt if it is because they are great art.

Story struucture, background, depth of character, are all more or less developed in stories. They do have to be there, but their importance varies.

Like the cowboy movie turned propaganda, the lone Texas Ranger riding into Iraq, his six gun bringing MTV and other western values, reality becomes distorted.

The first thing is getting people to read the book. Most potential readers are young, or have low reading skills. Most media is pitiched to a fourteen year old. The exception is the news, which is fair and balanced lies told to ten year old's.

The structure of the human brain is very cookie cutter, they have been programed. A story must fit within that format. It can push the limits, but must not lose the reader.

The first problem is having a story to tell, it is set somewhere, and has so many characters. This had better orient the reader in a paragraph or two, hook them in, so they know what they should, before the zombie apocalypse starts.

Ordinary people, a device of danger, the adventure, resolved, and safe home. Once you have it in 300 pages, it can be retold, the rewrite, near endless.

Now comes the background, I put it in to guide me, then cut most of it that does not drive the story. Characters fill a role, do things, but now they get some depth, motive, something in their background.

Some parts of the story are off point, they can be removed, and the main story line developed stronger.

Now you have a story, a location, and a bunch of disconnected characters playing roles. They must be built up to mesh, how real humans interact, for better or worse.

I do like to stay within reality, in fiction. I know if Rambo was at the Twin Towers that day, he would have gone to the CEOs workout room, taken apart a Bowflex, knocked the head off a Big Bretha driver, and with his quickly made bow and arrow shot one of the wings half off causing the plane to turn and land in Central Park. Somehow I would have to work in a car chase.

Stephen King has done well writing movie scripts and calling them books. It is a wide field and as usual, money and art do not come together often.

Writing is like building a chair, it must become a solid piece with four legs, a seat and back, the variations are endless, and most buyers are looking for something simple in their price range.

I don't have the focus to read through all of these, but I will give a piece of advice or three... I've read writing books and taken a course so far, as well as done a lot of writing, and haven't finished a danged thing. My trouble is the completion of plot. Do I have ideas? A million. And I intend to make my next step be sitting down and writing out what feels like a complete story. After that I can refine, cut and splice, manipulate. The thing the books say is to sit and write first of all. Let the ideas flow, don't worry about grammar, spelling, structure. I recommend the book Becoming a Writer by Dorothea Brande as being one of the most encouraging books for writers I've ever seen. It's not a technical text and is easy to read (I have little patience with dense instructional tomes). She points out that anyone can write if they choose. Anyone can learn if they want. It isn't a matter of being born with talent. Some people are, sure, born with some natural ability to spin a tale. I'm not. I have an imagination and I have been shorted out by technical whatnot. I seem unable to tell a story in order. And at this time I have kids and little focus. So I would suggest to those starting out and wondering if you can do it, well, first off, find and read that book. There are other good books for structure and technical business, for selling and presentation, for ways to get out of a writer's rut (those are awesome, there's no writer's block they can't get you out of - re: the instructional books of Janet Burroway).

But I gotta jet, so here's my advice. Write freely until you've got a story, start to finish. Then work on making it fit into a plot or form of some kind, correcting spelling, like that. Just let the idea happen and do the hard part later. And when that time comes, be willing to work, write and rewrite, even change. The best artists in the world only get better working at it.

One of the biggest mistakes I've seen in any write is thinking they're already good enough, and that if a piece doesn't come together the first time, it's a failure.

I describe, people and places, action comes, then images form, fantasy, but with an inner reality.

It is a scene, but standing there, I can look out the door, and there is something more than I created.

What I wrote was static, but it took on action. My words are silent, but I hear the characters singing.

I create in bits, but it forms a whole, then tells me the story.

My imagination seems smaller than the final product.

I start, then type for a Muse.

Is your creative from within, or without?