Reader-Character Confusion & Character-Author Confusion

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

The first time it was mentioned the author painted a rather graphic picture of what was happening, and I say that as someone who isn't squeamish and has seen blood and gore in the real world.

Yes, I think that's also a rather important part. The more detailed a scene is described, the more an author must have invested themself into it.

It's like a teenager, who has yet to learn the difference between love and lust, will never be able to write a convincing love story. Or if I read about a sexual act where the author completely omits all the details about whatever sensations come with said act, that tells me how the author is, in reality, just describing what they saw in a porn movie instead of retelling something they actually experienced. So, if you write me a rape story, and go into great detail about the emotional excitement the rapists felt while doing it... Well, best case scenario, the author is (hopefully!) just speculating on a higher level.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Okay, but you're kind of binding up different things here. A reader can be emotionally invested and not have reader-character confusion. This holds true especially when one considers that more emotional investment in a character means knowing more about them, which necessarily correlates to a better read... meaning that a reader who truly emotionally invests in a character knows where that character draws the line and won't try drawing it for them, even if they're different in their tastes and dispositions.

Or perhaps the impression created in the reader differs from what the author intended to convey.
There is plenty of valid literary criticism focused on the idea that a character is acting inconsistently with the personality the author has established.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It’s not unreasonable to assume an authorial fixation is it?

Or, at the very least, pandering to a particular audience.

Em

Very much so, if you are spending several pages to belabor something that doesn't advance the plot, I do have to question why you are doing it.

I wouldn't believe an author who included anal in every story then told me she wasn't interested in it.

 

[lc69hunter]

As you may know, I read a lot of stories, and comment on a lot of stories. I am probably at times a bit guilty of the above, but do not try to be.

Authors have predilections as to the resolution to their stories. They may start with a new premise and maybe a different plot line, but generally a similar resolution. I often wonder, does that resolution come from the author's life experience/fantasy etc, or are they writing for a particular audience? I use tags to decide to read your story or not, because I have triggers (we all do)

 

[EmilyMiller]

I wouldn't believe an author who included anal in every story then told me she wasn't interested in it.

You’ve been reading my stories haven’t you ?

Em

 

[intim8]

It really makes me question the author, because it was unnecessary.

Gratuitous anything is weak and unnecessary. Even gratuitious sex. Even here.

 

[intim8]

especially when one considers that more emotional investment in a character means knowing more about them,

Except for naricissists.

 

[AwkwardMD]

So, yeah. I think the reading experience as a whole and our comment sections would benefit from this if people stopped reading stories as if they are the main character, and/or as if the author and character are the same. These are both wrong ways of reading even when the author has a self-insert, or if the reader self-inserts as a character (again not what I'm referring to)–wrong ways of reading in the sense that it deteriorates the quality of the read, as in, literally the likelihood of misreading the text becomes higher.

The human brain does not have a 'media mode' that it drops into when consuming fiction. If you watch first person footage of a person riding a roller coaster, your stomach will react, even if your inner ear says that nothing is changing, because the brain told it to.

We treat all media as if it is happening to us, and our body reacts as if those things are true. Subrurban moms don't consume bodice rippers like candy because of the genre's legendary depth, it's because it makes them feel something that society has categorically deprived them of.

Human beings are not wired for what you are suggesting. Not really. Instead of poo-pooing readers for not 'getting it', you should instead focus on how you can use your tools to the maximum of their effect.

 

[intim8]

more detailed a scene is described, the more an author must have invested themself into it.

I think that's jumping to conclusions. Much of what I write is not from direct experience if the thing I'm writing about, but is extrapolated from my experiences. I may never have had sex in public, but I've had sex, and I've been publicly embarassed and been the focus of public attention (non-sexual), and I've seen naked people in a public setting. I can combine theose experiences, and other seemingly unrelated experiences, to relate, in some detail, an experience I've never actually had.

I think a good writer can take fragments of experiences and re-assemble and re-apply them to make one completely new experience out of them.

 

[intim8]

Politics should just be avoided completely, no matter how strongly we believe we are right.

There's a place for it. Just not in erotica.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've noticed several things in my reflection on the site, the readers, and my writing. The main thing I've noticed recently is a concept I'll call reader-character confusion. This isn't reducible to the banal statement that readers oftentimes identify with characters, especially the main character in any given story but not necessarily. It's more that they have done so to the extent that they confuse their own lives with those of the characters as written. This isn't to say that the reader begins LARPing as said character full-time; it's not anything close to method acting that I'm attempting to describe. What it means is that the reader's expectations and tastes are inserted, by them, by force, into the fictional world of the story. The reader has confused themselves for the character they're reading about when they say "no humiliation! I don't like that" or something of the like, like if the other character says something very brutal, and the reader says "how could you say something like that? it makes it hard to like her..." but it doesn't make it hard to like her for the character they've confused themselves with.

Took me a couple of reads to get the distinction you're making here, but I think I get it.

When I'm writing a story, I usually do aim to have my readers to identify with one or more of the main characters. Mostly because it makes it much easier to evoke big feelings, sometimes also because I want readers to understand something outside their own experience. But they're never going to be exactly the same person as my character, and once in a while I get very impassioned essay-comments from readers who take a plot twist as a personal affront.

To some degree it's a challenge for the writer - can we get the reader to understand why that character likes this thing even when it's against the reader's preference. But the reader has to be willing to come halfway on that.

Sometimes authors run into the reverse problem: the author presents somebody who's intended to be a bad person, and readers embrace that character and try to justify all the things that the author didn't intend as justified.

Additionally in our little "wrong ways of reading" seminar, there's character-author confusion, as well. This would be when the reader takes the sentiments, statements, and actions of one character and inserts all of that into the author's intentions and belief system, as if the character represents exactly what the author thinks and feels about the world, their moral compass and their values, and so on. At the extreme end of character-author confusion, there are people who genuinely believe that if something happens in a fictional story, that story's author condones that action morally, no matter how reprehensible that action might be in reality.

This is a difficult one, because authors often do use fiction as a mouthpiece for their own real-life views and it's sometimes important to acknowledge that. Atlas Shrugged and the Narnia series weren't written just as entertainment and trying to evaluate them solely as fiction comes up short.

Even when an author's not deliberately plugging their own opinions those will sometimes come through in the story, because we default to writing the world and human nature according to our own understanding. The tricky part is distinguishing the bits that really are speaking for the author, vs. those that are just fiction, vs. those that might be intentionally against the author's beliefs.

It's entirely reasonable to think that Aslan speaks for C.S. Lewis' values. It's rather less reasonable to think that Jadis (the White Witch) does.

 

[Bramblethorn]

A very valid point. I read an otherwise quite good series a few years ago where the "bad guys" practiced ritualistic human sacrifice. The first time it was mentioned the author painted a rather graphic picture of what was happening, and I say that as someone who isn't squeamish and has seen blood and gore in the real world.
Great, we've established the bad guys are bad and do terrible things.
EVERY subsequent book brought up a new ritual which was again graphically described.
It really makes me question the author, because it was unnecessary.

I got this way with CSI-type shows sometimes. There were some that felt like they were just a little too fond of showing attractive young women getting stalked and murdered, far beyond what was needed to set up the story.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I think that's jumping to conclusions. Much of what I write is not from direct experience if the thing I'm writing about, but is extrapolated from my experiences. I may never have had sex in public, but I've had sex, and I've been publicly embarassed and been the focus of public attention (non-sexual), and I've seen naked people in a public setting. I can combine theose experiences, and other seemingly unrelated experiences, to relate, in some detail, an experience I've never actually had.

I think a good writer can take fragments of experiences and re-assemble and re-apply them to make one completely new experience out of them.

Please note how I wrote "invested" and not "experienced".

If you, as an author, describe a scene, that takes time. The more details you work into that scene, the more time it takes. Not just because it takes more time to type it up, but mainly because you INVEST more time into imagining it, working out the particulars of what is happening and what emotions and sensations it invokes in the participants, before deciding on the best wording to convey all of that information.

Now, if you describe a rape scene in great detail, you must have first worked it out in your head in equally great detail. But occupying your mind with the details of a rape scene is... rather hard. Occupying your mind with a rape scene for a prolonged amount of time will most likely leave you in a dark place. Unless, of course, you have done this so many times already that you learned to compartmentalize... or enjoy it in some capacity.

 

[XerXesXu]

‘Who writes this stuff?’ and ‘Who reads this stuff?’ are the first two questions in any critical appraisal of a piece of writing, even non-fiction. You are what you write, and you are what you read; you must expect people to be curious about who you are and who your readers are.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not sure I completely understand the point of the original post, but I think I mostly disagree. There's no point in trying to lecture readers about what they are supposed to do, how they SHOULD read a story. They're going to read a story how they want to read a story, and there's nothing you as the author can do about it. When you hit the key to publish a story, you give up control over it. It will be read how it will be read. There is no right or wrong. I think it's silly to take the attitude toward your readers, "You SHOULD read my story THIS way." Nope. That's never going to happen.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm not sure I completely understand the point of the original post, but I think I mostly disagree. There's no point in trying to lecture readers about what they are supposed to do, how they SHOULD read a story. They're going to read a story how they want to read a story, and there's nothing you as the author can do about it. When you hit the key to publish a story, you give up control over it. It will be read how it will be read. There is no right or wrong. I think it's silly to take the attitude toward your readers, "You SHOULD read my story THIS way." Nope. That's never going to happen.

It’s no longer our story once published. I agree. What is art without personal interpretation.

Em

 

[ronde]

If a writer does a good job of initial character development, it's inevitable that a reader will for his or her own opinion of how that character will react to situations and other people. If that same character doesn't act according to the reader's expectations, that will cause the reader to have a problem. I don't view that as a bad thing, but I do think if you change a character's personality in the middle of the story, an explanation of why it changed can go a long way toward keeping the reader satisfied.

As far as a reader transferring the characteristics of a character to the author, that's probably unavoidable. While a lot of us write about things we've never done and probably will never do, we do so to enjoy a fantasy or to let readers enjoy their own fantasy. If the writing is good enough, it is very likely a reader would think it was the writer writing from experience or personal belief rather than just fiction.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm not sure I completely understand the point of the original post, but I think I mostly disagree. There's no point in trying to lecture readers about what they are supposed to do, how they SHOULD read a story. They're going to read a story how they want to read a story, and there's nothing you as the author can do about it. When you hit the key to publish a story, you give up control over it. It will be read how it will be read. There is no right or wrong. I think it's silly to take the attitude toward your readers, "You SHOULD read my story THIS way." Nope. That's never going to happen.

If the writer's writing their theme well enough though, I think their authorial intention is going to come across. The OP is fond of saying about readers, "They don't get it." If that was happening to me time and time again, I reckon I'd start looking more closely at my side of the equation.

 

[Britva415]

Yes. Or... OR... and bear with me here... it's not always about people self-inserting into a story, wishing to be delivered a fantasy about themselves. It's about people coming here to be entertained, and wishing for stories that align with their interests.

I mean, seriously, why do you think people dressed up in Gryffindor outfits or glued fake ears onto their heads before visiting a bookstore when the last Frodo Potter book came out? Why do you think Star Trek conventions are a thing? Why do you think people write fan fiction? It's not really an hommage to the creators of whatever franchise they like, it's more to show the world how invested they are.

It's because, if we read something, we get an emotional response. Either because your story was so good people got invested in it, or because your story was so atrocious that it's the literary equivalent to a car crash and they just can't look away. In both cases, it's a perfectly normal response to want to share that with others and find people who think the same.

And, regarding your "character-author confusion"... Generally, I disagree with that as well.

Yes, people write to explore emotions and settings. They may even write in an attempt to understand where people with conflicting or just different views come from. But, at the end of the day, you are sharing your work here for the entertainment of others. So, it stands to reason that you write about things you, yourself, find entertaining and want to share that. Especially if the "bad" things you write about seem to be a consistent theme in everything you share. It's the logical conclusion, not a malicious insinuation.

I completely agree with you.

I don't think reader-character confusion happens. When

the reader says "how could you say something like that? it makes it hard to like her..."

they're not talking about whether the character is liked in the story, by other characters, or by them as if they were a character in the story, they're talking about how they don't like reading about this unlikable (to them, anyway) character.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think that's jumping to conclusions. Much of what I write is not from direct experience if the thing I'm writing about, but is extrapolated from my experiences. I may never have had sex in public, but I've had sex, and I've been publicly embarassed and been the focus of public attention (non-sexual), and I've seen naked people in a public setting. I can combine theose experiences, and other seemingly unrelated experiences, to relate, in some detail, an experience I've never actually had.

I think a good writer can take fragments of experiences and re-assemble and re-apply them to make one completely new experience out of them.

You make a valid point, but the challenge is when we get into more extreme behavior.
We've all had sex (hopefully).
We've all been embarrassed (most likely).
So, you are correct it's easy, there is very little cognitive lifting to combine these concepts.
Hopefully none of us have sexually assaulted someone.
So what is the jumping off point to extrapolate that kind of behavior?
Based on my admittedly limited knowledge from Psych 101 and Criminal Justice 101 in college, NC isn't really even about sex. So, where do you begin?

 

[lc69hunter]

AS a reader, if you have hooked me into the story, I become invested in a character. That is what good stories and books do. Be proud of that fact.

 

[lovecraft68]

Re-reading something I published for sale a couple of months ago to get the feel of something I'm working on now. It made me think of this thread, but where the topic here is readers blurring their views into the story and thinking the character always reflects an authors views, this example is one of my views infusing the story, and this is common and creates the reader always assuming its true.

This exchange between a therapist and the attorney who's son she's treating for issues stemming partly from the divorce:

“I’m not exonerating her in anyway,” Regina assured him. “But it’s obvious Harley had issues of her own that I suspect you may have been aware of and used to your advantage.”

“Oh, look, toxic feminism, man bad, woman always the victim.” Rick smirked.

“I’m doing my best to keep this professional, Mr. Rivers,” she replied coolly, “If you want to have this debate another time, we can. Men have had free reign since the beginning of time, and every holy book written by them and for them to keep women in their place. A few years of society waking up and no longer giving you man babies a free pass and all you do is whine.”

This is me through and through here on the boards, in real life, and at times in my stories. In this case I want no confusion I want to tweak the type of man this line would bother. Its why they lick their chops if I drop something in LW, but I'm not changing an important personal world view for the sale of better votes and comments

 

[LilyWaters]

I agree with Simon. I once read a quotation by poet Paul Valéry that I never forgot:

"I write half the poem. The reader writes the other half."

I love that idea. It means that the art isn't ever really "finished," that it is always in the process of being made. It's a fluid process, not a static one, a relationship between the artist and the audience.

 

[SimonDoom]

lick their cops

Freudian slip?

 

[Djmac1031]

If the writer's writing their theme well enough though, I think their authorial intention is going to come across. The OP is fond of saying about readers, "They don't get it." If that was happening to me time and time again, I reckon I'd start looking more closely at my side of the equation.

Exactly.

I find it funny when people choose to write about controversial subjects, and yet are surprised when readers tell them "hey, I find this controversial!"

Authors don't want readers telling them how to write, right?

Guess what? Works both ways. We can't tell readers how to read.

Best we can do is own our choices as writers. And hope we can face ourselves in the mirror without shame afterwards.