Rebellious chartacters?

[Liar]

warmAmber's thread titled "If a character challenges..." reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask.

I see it all the time here, authors who talk about how their characters took the story in an unexpected direction, how their characters don't want to do what the author wants them to do, letting the character follow their own heart, or as someone said in that thread - "let the character fly" ... and so on.

How does that work? How can a character react differently than the author intend for him to do? How can a character make choices that surprise the author? I've been writing short stories and plays for over a decade, and I've yet to have that happen to me. I sometimes read what I just wrote and see that what I made my character do was implausible. Then I trace back and change it to something plausible. But it's still my choice and my choice alone.

Can someone explain? What happens when they run amok? And how does it feel? Because frankly, it sounds kinda spooky to me.

 

[Topanga_Blue]

warmAmber's thread titled "If a character challenges..." reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask.

I see it all the time here, authors who talk about how their characters took the story in an unexpected direction, how their characters don't want to do what the author wants them to do, letting the character follow their own heart, or as someone said in that thread - "let the character fly" ... and so on.

How does that work? How can a character react differently than the author intend for him to do? How can a character make choices that surprise the author? I've been writing short stories and plays for over a decade, and I've yet to have that happen to me. I sometimes read what I just wrote and see that what I made my character do was implausible. Then I trace back and change it to something plausible. But it's still my choice and my choice alone.

Can someone explain? What happens when they run amok? And how does it feel? Because frankly, it sounds kinda spooky to me.

I've never really understood that myself.

My characters pretty much always do what I tell them to. Of course, sometimes I can't seem to get them to where I want them. But that's more of an issue with my writing than my characters own ideas.

I will say though that as a story develops my characters have tended to develop in ways I hadn't always intended.

 

[hmmnmm]

I think the degree of surprise or unexpected behavior from anyone - whether real or make-believe - is proportional to the degree of intimacy one has with that person or persons real or make-believe.

Some people establish in our minds that they are capable of anything, thus we are not surprised at any direction they take. Others who seem to us more predictable and habitual offer the greater surprise if they go askew.

We'd then ask the whys and such: the mild-mannered neighbor turns out to be a serial killer... fr'instance.

 

[3113]

I'll point out first that it doesn't happen a lot--that is, with most characters in most stories, things go as planned, no surprises. But once in a while, you get that rogue character. It happened, most famously, to J.R.R. Tolkien who wrote of the character Strider (Aragorn), that he had no idea who Strider was when he turned up in the tavern, had no idea if he was a good guy or a bad guy, and was as shocked as the hobbits to learn the truth. Dickens, likewise, use to say that he wasn't writing so much as taking dictation from his characters, and if they come alive well enough, then, like an actor improvising during a scene, you don't *feel* like you're part of the process, even though you are. You're too deeply into your imagination, as it were. And I suppose, if you're deep enough, you enter into something almost hypnotic. Rather like "stream of consciousness" writing.

I'd put it closest to acting and improvisation, however. It's not that the character is "rebelling" as it were, so much as you know them so well, you can't imagine them doing something that doesn't suit them. If you've written up Sherlock Holmes, then he's going to look for clues to solve a mystery, to the point of bringing out a magnifying glass and combing the rug for tobacco ash. He isn't going to consult a crystal ball and tarot cards. And I think what's going on when this happens, is that the writer is trying to make their characters do something they KNOW in the back of their minds, isn't right for them. In the back of their minds they're telling themselves, "That doesn't make sense. Sherlock Holmes wouldn't do that."

I once had a scene that wasn't working. I mean it just wasn't working and I was very frustrated. I had a bunch of characters partying in a room with their host. The next scene was to be an ongoing conversation among these characters, but I just couldn't write it. So I finally envisioned the characters, as real as I could make them. All their personality traits and quirks and how they walked, talked, thought, felt. And I imagined myself asking them: "What's going on? Why aren't you talking in this scene?" And I swear to you, one of the characters said, "We're not talking because we're not there. We got bored and left."

What did this feel like? Like those lightening flash ideas you get for what to do in a story. Something you didn't plan, something that just comes to you out of the blue, that makes you say, "OH! yeah. That would work." And it *FEELS* like the character is telling it to you, because you're all wrapped up in them and what they're doing. To add to this, you may feel resistant to the idea, as it wasn't planned out. Also because it's probably going to be more work--more research. Maybe it's going to fuck up what you did have planned. But it always seems to work out better for the story. If the character tells you to do x, y or z, they're usually right.

 

[sr71plt]

I wrote a series of beach-read mysteries once (six books). I tried to kill off a minor character in book two but a better twist than I had planned intervened and he only went to the hospital. Then he popped up in each succeeding book and I continued to try to off him. Despite that, he worked his way into being a major character and I couldn't be rid of him until book five, where his death was central to the plot of the book. And I think all of the books are just fine for his unwillingness to go quietly and early.

 

[Lalah]

What surprise me is that people actually take these "Rebellious characters" jokes seriously. It's just a poetic way of saying the personalities you've given your characters are clashing and opening new opportunities you hadn't thought about.

It also only tend to happen to those writers who prioritize characterization, as opposed to writers that use their characters as tools to move the plot. Characterization happen as you write, it's usually subtle and come slowly through dialogues and character interaction, it's part of the character's personality.

Some writers like to establish their character's personalities, and then when they get into a scene just think how the characters would react according to their given personalities and write it that way. This make realistic interactions. You don't so much make the character act, but create their personalities and then create scenes that would make those personalities react like you want them to, if they were real persons.

Let's say in the course of writing you have turned your female character into a feminist, but you've turned the male character in a lecherous frat boy who keep harassing and humiliation his best friend. You had at first planed for these two characters to hook up, but when the male character accost her with his cheesy and sexist pickup line, you realize there's no realistic way these two characters could ever end up a couple, but that the feminist could have the guy as a villain and that she could fall in love with the guy's harassed best friend. What's more, this could actually make for a more complex and organic plot than the one you started with.

This is what is called "Characters Rebelling".

 

[Selena_Kitt]

What surprise me is that people actually take these "Rebellious characters" jokes seriously. It's just a poetic way of saying the personalities you've given your characters are clashing and opening new opportunities you hadn't thought about.

It isn't "just"... our inner lives are just as real (to our psyche/soul/imagination) as our outer ones. Intuitive writers tap into the collective, which is why it feels, for these authors, as if the story is writing the writer instead of the other way around. Those people who take it seriously know it's serious.

 

[elsol]

How does that work? How can a character react differently than the author intend for him to do? How can a character make choices that surprise the author? I've been writing short stories and plays for over a decade, and I've yet to have that happen to me. I sometimes read what I just wrote and see that what I made my character do was implausible. Then I trace back and change it to something plausible. But it's still my choice and my choice alone.

Can someone explain? What happens when they run amok? And how does it feel? Because frankly, it sounds kinda spooky to me.

To me, it happens because I plan the story consciously but the story is written with an equal part of the subconscious. I believe that the rebellious character is the author's subconscious expressing that there is something wrong with the PLAN.

The most rebellious character I ever had was one named Brittany who I introduced as the standard cheer captain high school fantasy, but chapter after chapter she kept breaking back into the story (I wrote her out of the story THREE times!). After the story was complete, I realized that the planned ending would have been very hollow without her... in fact, she was the ending of the story.

I think of writing as very rhythmic... and the rebellious character as my subconscious making an adjustment because I'm getting discordant.

 

[3113]

I think of writing as very rhythmic... and the rebellious character as my subconscious making an adjustment because I'm getting discordant.

Oh, nicely put! Yes. It feel like that. Like if you go the way you insist on going, rather than the way that's more "right" for the character, your rhythm will be off. In my case, it's even worse. I usually stop dead.

 

[Lalah]

It isn't "just"... our inner lives are just as real (to our psyche/soul/imagination) as our outer ones. Intuitive writers tap into the collective, which is why it feels, for these authors, as if the story is writing the writer instead of the other way around. Those people who take it seriously know it's serious.

Did you read my whole post Selena? If you strip the fancy talk it all come down to our characters and their personalities are inspiring us. I know when I claim my characters have a mind of their own I'm doing it tongue in cheek. The truth is they're just making my imagination go wild.

Edit:

Oh, nicely put! Yes. It feel like that. Like if you go the way you insist on going, rather than the way that's more "right" for the character, your rhythm will be off. In my case, it's even worse. I usually stop dead.

Gotta hate when that happen! I have been working for a while on a non-english non-erotica story and my writing pretty much stopped because of that. The plot I had originally planned doesn't fit with the characters as I made them grow. I'd let them go wild, but there's another character coming up that I just WANT in the story, but I haven't found a way to introduce him if I let the characters go wild. As a result I've pretty much stopped until I get the gut to break the rails. Hopefully inspiration will strike soon.

 

[tickledkitty]

My characters don't just go berserk and strike off on their own and do all kinds of crazy things. Though I don't actually sit down and write outlines for stories, the framework is in my head. Whatever the characters do is usually inside that framework. It's almost like a leash that I'm holding. They're restrained, but within the confines of how far they can pull that leash, they can do and say all kinds of things. Sometimes they drag me along behind them a bit, but I'm still holding that leash.

I know it all comes from me, and it's not creepy at all. Some of it is my subconscious speaking. Maybe all of it. I'm not sure.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I often don't know a character well when I start a story. I know what role I want him (or her) to play, but I don't know his personality. He shows me his character as the story unfolds in the way he speaks and acts, and finally he may develop a personality that's totally inconsistent with what I had planned for him.

It happens quite a bit with me. I have a hard time conceiving a story until I sit down and start writing it. Before then, things are rather shadowy.

Eudora Welty said that she wrote "to see what would happen" when she put certain characters together in certain situations. When you work like that, you're bound to have runaway characters.

I lost almost a whole novel because one girl wouldn't whore it up for one guy like she was supposed to in her contract. She'd become too pure and above-it-all, supercilious bitch!

 

[slyc_willie]

I often don't know a character well when I start a story. I know what role I want him (or her) to play, but I don't know his personality. He shows me his character as the story unfolds in the way he speaks and acts, and finally he may develop a personality that's totally inconsistent with what I had planned for him.

It happens quite a bit with me. I have a hard time conceiving a story until I sit down and start writing it. Before then, things are rather shadowy.

Eudora Welty said that she wrote "to see what would happen" when she put certain characters together in certain situations. When you work like that, you're bound to have runaway characters.

I lost almost a whole novel because one girl wouldn't whore it up for one guy like she was supposed to in her contract. She'd become too pure and above-it-all, supercilious bitch!

For most of my stories, I start with a basic premise, or a set of scenes I have in my head, and then try to influence the characters through dialogue to get to those scenes. Sometimes, it takes more effort than I thought. There are certain factors that come into play, such as realism and believability. Sure, I could just 'make' Suzie Q pop up out of the blue on Johnny's doorstep and say "wanna fuck?" But the believability would be lost.

As I describe my characters, and more importantly, their dialogue, I am always conscious of the compromise between what I want and what they want. A steamy sex scene is more enjoyable, I think, if there is a lot of build-up, including second guessing, wondering, hesitation and other 'what ifs.'

 

[Liar]

I think of writing as very rhythmic... and the rebellious character as my subconscious making an adjustment because I'm getting discordant.

Metaphor-Of-The-Day Award goes to elsol. Interrestingly put.

I guess that means that I'm either very in tune with my subconscious, or I can't hear it, or I don't have any.

 

[tickledkitty]

Metaphor-Of-The-Day Award goes to elsol. Interrestingly put.

I guess that means that I'm either very in tune with my subconscious, or I can't hear it, or I don't have any.

Maybe you're just feeling and interpreting it in another way.

 

[BlackShanglan]

How does that work? How can a character react differently than the author intend for him to do? How can a character make choices that surprise the author? I've been writing short stories and plays for over a decade, and I've yet to have that happen to me.

In my case, I think one of two things happens.

In some cases, I unintentionally make choices in execution that change my conception of the character. In one story, for instance, I at first pictured the male lead as cold and rather cruel. However, I happened to give him a name that I'm very fond of, and in the early action I softened him up a little because I was trying get the female lead to be less ... well, drippy, and ridiculously timid. In the process, I shifted his voice around, and it got more engaging. I began to hear him as a more charming and engaging sort of person, and then I had difficulty reconciling the voice and persona I'd written with the original plans. I decided to let him have his head and be charming.

The other way characters break loose, for me, is when I haven't really thought about who they are and what they want out of life as thoroughly as I ought to have. I spent ages trying to get to my planned happy ending in one piece, but eventually had to step back and ask myself if a classic Anglo-Saxon warrior could really have, as his goal in life, "to live happily ever after wife with my wife." Of course he didn't. He wanted to die in battle doing something heroic, he always did, and I was an idiot for trying to jam that character into a soft-focus happy romance ending. "The character rebelling" was really me realizing that the character I'd created didn't match the actions and plot I was trying to put him in.

Sometimes, of course, the two processes above go together. If I have to tweak and fiddle character backstory or social roles or persona to fit the plot, sometimes I find that that instills new depths or drives that I need to incorporate into the story to make the rest logical. It does feel like the character rebelling sometimes, even if, when I step back from the story, I know that it's really just my own mind telling me that I'm creating something inconsistent with what I've already established about that character.

(And I loved 3113's and ElSol's posts as well. Very good points - hadn't really thought about the subconscious aspect, but I'm sure you're right that it's there.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh, and I did once have the joy of leading an insurrection in someone else's characters. *laugh* Colleen was very kind about it.

 

[TxRad]

"let the characters fly"

Yes, I said this and now reading it, the songs "Angel with a Broken Wing" and "If we Could Fly" spring to mind.

A lot of my stories come from pictures. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I can stretch than a hundred fold. Very seldom do I have anything planned from these pictures other than a feeling and a title. So I toss the character out there and let her or him fly as they may. I think of myself as a story teller. The story in that picture wants out so I release it.

That's not to say that the story goes where the picture points. The characters take it it where it needs to be. Sometimes that is very unexpected directions. Directions that may or may not be out of my comfort zone. Sometime they get so bizarre that I have to ask, "Where the fuck did that come from, I've never done that or been into that?"

In my sig line it says I use characters and plot. I put that there very shortly after I got to Lit because some people said I took to long to get to the sex. Sorry about that but I have to wait until the characters are ready not the reader.

 

[3113]

I guess that means that I'm either very in tune with my subconscious, or I can't hear it, or I don't have any.

I've found that writers tend to go one of three ways. And all of them are valid, all have their advantages and disadvantages:

1) Very controlled

2) Half controlled

3) No control



Very Controlled: I've met quite a few of the first, and I have to say, they're among the most confident and contented writers I know. Everything plotted out and every character doing exactly what the writer wants them to do. Very few surprises if any. They have an enormous advantage--they can create a lot of stories and do so consistently. See, the problem with "lost of control"--that is, not knowing exactly what's going to happen with plot or character--is that you stop and start and edit out whole chapters that weren't working but that you took time to write...So you waste a LOT of time. And to make matters worse, some stories are great, and some are, well, not so great. I sometimes wish I could write like the controlled folk, because they get stories done and they get them done with a quality that can be counted on. These are the darlings of publishers.

No Control: Then there's the other end of the spectrum: people who are completely free-form. They barely sketch out a character or scene before they run with it. Almost stream of consciousness. Like Jack Kerouac at his typewriter with sheets of paper taped together so he could just write and write and write. The problem with this type of writing is, first, you never know when you're going to finish it or even if you'll finish it. Maybe two-hundred pages in you'll realize that it's not working and into a trunk it goes, another unfinished masterpiece. It's entirely in the hands of the muse. You also don't know how good it's going to be if you do finish it. It would be a complete wash-out.

But...BUT. If they come out right, those are the stories that often stick with readers. I guess because there's a willingness on the writer's part to let out whatever comes out. Like, I guess, when you're in therapy and stuff you don't usually tell people comes out. The real, dark, gut-level stuff and powerful emotions. Maybe that's why writing like that often has scenes or characters that readers keep feeling and thinking about. Neither writer nor reader can predict what will happen, it's all one great surprise.

Half-Controlled: Most of us writers, however, fit into the second category. We control *some* aspect of the story. You, Liar, are unusual because you control the characters, but leave other things messy. Most of us would say, I think, that we control the plot (or try to), and leave the characters messy. Very much the process that Dr. M described. The characters aren't completely drawn so as they develop, they surprise us. But we've got an idea about what's going to happen in the story. It's not completely free-form.

So, while you're not doing the usual, I think you're still pretty much in the middle there with most of us writers. And it's a good place to be. The control helps to make sure you don't leave too many stories unfinished, and the lack of control helps to keep a writer off guard, so that, now and then, both writer and reader get a gut-level surprise.

 

[Boota]

I operate very controlled at first and devolve into half-controlled. When working on novels at least. Short stories - I wing everything. But before undertaking a novel I have to know where it's going and how it's going to end. I'm working toward that end. I know what needs to be in the story and approximately where it needs to be. Then I let some of that control slip and just let my mind go crazy with the plot, story, characters, everything. The only rules are to be true to who I made the character and how the story ends.

I'm writing a children's novel right now that is a complete blast. The planning (very controlled) stages were drudgery. It was just a flat he does this, she does this, they do that, and here we are kind of thing. Now that I am into the story it's really alive and the characters are fleshing out very nicely. From learning the characters so completely I have come up with whole new areas to explore. A twist that I hadn't thought of is the new ending, even though it doesn't really change the old ending all that much. I still get to live within that structure and be true to it, but by losing some of the rigidity of that control I have thrown the doors wide open. It's almost like slapping a neon rainbow exterior over cold steel girters.

 

[CharleyH]

warmAmber's thread titled "If a character challenges..." reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask.

I see it all the time here, authors who talk about how their characters took the story in an unexpected direction, how their characters don't want to do what the author wants them to do, letting the character follow their own heart, or as someone said in that thread - "let the character fly" ... and so on.

How does that work? How can a character react differently than the author intend for him to do? How can a character make choices that surprise the author? I've been writing short stories and plays for over a decade, and I've yet to have that happen to me. I sometimes read what I just wrote and see that what I made my character do was implausible. Then I trace back and change it to something plausible. But it's still my choice and my choice alone.

Can someone explain? What happens when they run amok? And how does it feel? Because frankly, it sounds kinda spooky to me.

Characters do not lead a story. Author's do. Period. When a character runs a story then it turns into a bad narrative orchestrated by a poor conductor who does not know what instruments to play. Great ask, L.

 

[3113]

Characters do not lead a story. Author's do. Period. When a character runs a story then it turns into a bad narrative orchestrated by a poor conductor who does not know what instruments to play.

No, it doesn't Charley--unless you really want to argue with Charles Dickens who wrote just like that, by letting his characters lead the stories.

Any fiat you state about art can be broken, easily, by a master to produce something brilliant. Hence, it's not wise to ever state such absolutes except for the apprentice. Because in the end, they're all lies.

 

[sr71plt]

Any fiat you state about art can be broken, easily, by a master to produce something brilliant. Hence, it's not wise to ever state such absolutes except for the apprentice. Because in the end, they're all lies.

Amen. They don't award Pulitzers to writers who think there is one way of doing anything.

 

[gauchecritic]

I was all ready to jump all over Charley (who isn't?) but realised quick enough that she didn't say what I thought she'd said.

Unless you have actual people who come into your house and tell you that they wouldn't do what you are writing them to do then characters lead nothing.

Characters are on paper, their lifestyle, emotions and fears are all in the writer's head. If you are able to make the characters concrete for yourself then you limit your imagination as to what the character is capable of.

I was one of those thread starters that said my main character won't go with the plot, what I've discovered is that she will go with the plot if I work it around enough. The answer of course is that I didn't know my character well enough.

 

[sr71plt]

I was all ready to jump all over Charley (who isn't?) but realised quick enough that she didn't say what I thought she'd said.

Unless you have actual people who come into your house and tell you that they wouldn't do what you are writing them to do then characters lead nothing.

Characters are on paper, their lifestyle, emotions and fears are all in the writer's head. If you are able to make the characters concrete for yourself then you limit your imagination as to what the character is capable of.

I was one of those thread starters that said my main character won't go with the plot, what I've discovered is that she will go with the plot if I work it around enough. The answer of course is that I didn't know my character well enough.

Although there are those who prefer to work this way, I don't chart out my characters in detail (usually far more detail than will be used--creating a "real" person in my mind). If I did this--and let these new people remain consistent as programed--the characters would, indeed, be controlling and limiting my work. Although I have a broad purpose and motivation for them from the beginning, and usually a good idea of how I want them to be as personalities, I let their characteristics, physical descriptions, personalities, and actions evolve with the other elements of the story.

This may be loose and may (and often does) end up with a somewhat different story than I had in mind, but it doesn't mean I've given up control--I've only left options and choices open and gone with innovation and creativity.