Rebellious chartacters?

[Selena_Kitt]

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.

If you have an ego separation between you and the collective unconscious (as most of we humans do!) then of course you, like Charley, who has a very well developed ego thinks "characters lead nothing - I, the all powerful writer, am in control of my work and my actions at all times!"

There are people who have no ego-separation... schizophrenics for example. The "voices" they hear in their heads become real. They can't differentiate.

We, as writers, hear the same voices... we can just differentiate. We put them down on paper, they walk and they talk (and they... do lots of other fun things! ) but when we walk away from the computer, we can shut those voices off if we like. (Thankfully... imagine if we couldn't!)

But it doesn't make them any less real. Those characters that exist in the collective unconscious would have something to say about your insistence that they're not "real." Truth is, control is an illusion. So is ego, actually. We're all potential schizophrenics. The voices are always there.

 

[3113]

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.

But it doesn't make them any less real. Those characters that exist in the collective unconscious would have something to say about your insistence that they're not "real." Truth is, control is an illusion. So is ego, actually. We're all potential schizophrenics. The voices are always there.

I think Selena said it best. We all could have assumed that Charley meant that because we make up our characters and they're all in our heads we are always in control. That the Author always leads because its all the author's imagination, and only a schizophrenic is going to let characters lead which will, indeed, create a bad narrative. I made the assumption, however, that Charlie knows writing, writers and what we're talking about better than to say something so self-evident. Maybe I was wrong.

Presuming Charley isn't saying something like that, then she evidently believes it's foolish for a writer to let the imaginary characters in their head (the ones they know are imaginary, however emotionally invested they may be in them) decide where the story is going. This as compared to a writer working out a plot and making a character do what they want them to do, period. And I think, gauchecritic, this would include NOT letting a character MAKE you adjust the plot so that the character says, "Okay, now I'll do what you want me to do." Isn't that "leading"? "Knowing your character very well," means, I assume, that you don't force a square peg into a round hole of a plot that you worked out ahead of time. Right? So you let shape (square) lead the story (adjust the plot till it's square, not round). Hence, the character is still leading.

The fiat that letting character lead the plot is going to result in a "bad narrative" is hooey. Flat out. It all depends on the writer as to whether they can create a better narrative by leading or being led. Some writers create terrible stories by "leading" because they force characters to do stupid, unbelievable things just because they want the characters to do those stupid things. Saying that authors always lead (or should lead) is ridiculous. You can get just as bad a story that way as any way.

 

[gauchecritic]

And I think, gauchecritic, this would include NOT letting a character MAKE you adjust the plot so that the character says, "Okay, now I'll do what you want me to do." Isn't that "leading"? "Knowing your character very well," means, I assume, that you don't force a square peg into a round hole of a plot that you worked out ahead of time. Right? So you let shape (square) lead the story (adjust the plot till it's square, not round). Hence, the character is still leading.

But you're argueing that the character is real, I'm saying that the character isn't realised.

You can have a character do anything at all that you want them to do, but you will find, and your reader will find that the realisation isn't solid. That the character is a character when what you need them to be is appear real.

For the sake of arguement lets say a 4 year old character is realistically incapable of solving the general theory of relativity. There is no way you can have that character solve that theory, so the character has to be between 25 and 35. Having the character live for 21-31 more years isn't being led by the character it's being driven by the plot. It's impossible for your theory solving character to be realised until 20-30 years have elapsed.

I'm not re-shaping the story, I'm re-shaping the character.

 

[3113]

But you're argueing that the character is real, I'm saying that the character isn't realised.

I'm not arguing that at all. The characters aren't real. Period. They're not real, they're not real, they're not real.

For the sake of arguement lets say a 4 year old character is realistically incapable of solving the general theory of relativity. There is no way you can have that character solve that theory, so the character has to be between 25 and 35. Having the character live for 21-31 more years isn't being led by the character it's being driven by the plot.

You can't argue that the character is being driven by the plot if you never PLANNED for them to solve the theory at age 4! But what if you DID plot it out so that they solved the theory it at age 4? And then the character says to you, "gauchecritic, I am not a child genius, and so cannot solve this problem at four years of age. If you really want me to solve the theory of relativity, you'll have to wait till I'm older."

At this point, the character is leading and making you change the plot to suit them.

If, on the other hand, YOU were leading the story, then the 4-year old would solve the theory whether it made any sense or not. Because that's your plot and that's the way you want it, and so that's the way it is. Right?

Which is all to say, your example isn't a good one. Try this: Your 4 year old's family is dirt poor. One day, a rich uncle offers to send the 4-year old to a special school that teaches science. The grateful parents accept and the 4-year-old has no option but to go to this school for the next ten years, learning all the math and science he needs to know to solve the theory.

THAT is the plot driving the character. Plot is the author playing God, tossing down meteors to destroy a character's home, making the slot machine come up all lemons or a jackpot, having the voyage interrupted by pirates. In such cases, the plot drives the character and sometimes, if the author really works hard at it, they can put the character between a rock and a hard place and make sure the character does what they, the author, wants them to do because they offer no other option.

Of course, I've found that even when I do that, characters can still rebel and surprise me by finding a loophole or way out. You never know. The 4-year old kid may decide, after ten years at science school, to run away to join the circus. And there goes your story of him finding that theory, to be replaced by the story of him becoming a lion tamer

 

[BlackShanglan]

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.

I enjoy the back-and-forth of plot and character development. I'll start with some brainstorming and planning on each, and then as things evolve I'll discover that I need to know a little more here and a little more there. It gives them a chance to shape each other, and I think you're right that that flexibility needs to be there. A good deal of it, in my case, gets done in the "late/heavy planning" stages when I'm basically doing paragraph-sized roughs of each full scene, but there's more still falling into place later on too, as I see more issues I want to address or gaps I need to fill.

When the plot's getting sticky or stalled, going back to character brainstorming often seems to be the way out. Not enough action in the 8-12 minute part? Go back to the characters and ask what they would be likely to be doing. The answer is just about never "sitting here on my hands waiting for the next scene."

 

[hmmnmm]

Read something a few minutes ago that made a lot of sense. One of the basics that I admit a tendency to forget.

What do the characters need or want or need to avoid? And how will they go about getting or avoiding what they need or don't want? The personality components of each character would of course determine a lot of the directions they go in pursuit or avoidance. Where did their personalities come from? Who made them? Why are their actions surprising or rebellious? A desperate situation may lead to desperate recourse?

The difference between "Ah, that's exactly what I expected that person to do in the circumstance" and "wow, I would never guess such an action or such words from that person."

It may be unexpected to the creator or the character or the viewer, but not necessarily to one of the others.

 

[sr71plt]

Read something a few minutes ago that made a lot of sense. One of the basics that I admit a tendency to forget.

What do the characters need or want or need to avoid? And how will they go about getting or avoiding what they need or don't want? The personality components of each character would of course determine a lot of the directions they go in pursuit or avoidance. Where did their personalities come from? Who made them? Why are their actions surprising or rebellious? A desperate situation may lead to desperate recourse?

The difference between "Ah, that's exactly what I expected that person to do in the circumstance" and "wow, I would never guess such an action or such words from that person."

It may be unexpected to the creator or the character or the viewer, but not necessarily to one of the others.

That's interesting. When I'm writing a series (of either stories or books), I try to use the Lawrence Durrell (The Alexandria Quartet) technique of having characters do something surprising in a subsequent work that isn't inconsistent with their personality but that sheds light on why they did what they did in an earlier work and that jolts the understanding (usually deepening it) of the earlier work by anyone who read both. You can make great use of minor characters in this technique.

 

[CharleyH]

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.

First? I hardly mind arguing with a dead guy. While I enjoy Dickens, I do believe you have misread his work. As far as I read, he is very calculated in his writing. Character can lead a story if you work out a complete trait profile. Sure. I am not arguing with that. I am arguing with the fact that many Lit authors, as Liar points out, say that their stories are RUN by their characters. I find it hard to believe that any story is lead or run by a character and not an author.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's interesting. When I'm writing a series (of either stories or books), I try to use the Lawrence Durrell (The Alexandria Quartet) technique of having characters do something surprising in a subsequent work that isn't inconsistent with their personality but that sheds light on why they did what they did in an earlier work and that jolts the understanding (usually deepening it) of the earlier work by anyone who read both. You can make great use of minor characters in this technique.

Ah, I was thinking just the same - that there's something particularly rewarding about seeing a character do something that one would not have predicted, but that nonetheless is consistent with the character's deeper nature. It's a good way to reveal and explore characters and bring new aspects of them to light in dramatically satisfying ways.

The tricky bit, of course, is getting that lovely "harmonious surprise" situation set up - the one where you're surprised, and yet you quickly see that it does make perfect sense. Any character can do something unexpected; the real prize, to me, is when it's unexpected and yet absolutely in keeping with the plot and character.

 

[CharleyH]

But you're argueing that the character is real, I'm saying that the character isn't realised.

PERFECT answer. All of it that I have not already quoted, also.

 

[CharleyH]

The tricky bit, of course, is getting that lovely "harmonious surprise" situation set up - the one where you're surprised, and yet you quickly see that it does make perfect sense. Any character can do something unexpected; the real prize, to me, is when it's unexpected and yet absolutely in keeping with the plot and character.

Just to backtrack a bit ... are there (can anyone recall) any 'real' surprises (keeping with character and plot as Shang says) in anything seen in film or read in novels or even on Lit, lately? I am not dissing, just suddenly wondering what original means to people.

 

[3113]

I am arguing with the fact that many Lit authors, as Liar points out, say that their stories are RUN by their characters. I find it hard to believe that any story is lead or run by a character and not an author.

PERFECT answer. All of it that I have not already quoted, also.

It would seem I was wrong. Like Liar, you haven't experienced what we've experienced, and so find it hard to understand what we mean when we say, "Characters lead a story." Whatever it is you're thinking of, it's unlikely it's the same thing that the rest of us, who are taking about characters leading, are talking about.

As for my reference to Dickens: Dickens admitted to having such experiences, daily, in his writing--as said, as if he were jotting down dictation from the characters. I'm glad you find his writing calculated, even though "Dickens did not write the chapters very far ahead of their publication" and did not have his novels planned out in advance. He didn't know, for example, that little Nell was going to die and had to be convinced of that this was the right course for her. This proves my point very nicely, that letting characters lead doesn't necessarily create a bad narrative or erase "calculation" entirely from the writing. A writer need not lose complete control of the writing simply because he/she allows one or more characters to lead the story.

You say letting characters lead creates "poor narratives," yet you offer no evidence of this. The thing so many of us here experience in our writing that Liar, and you (?), are not experiencing is what we're talking about here, what we're discussing when we mention letting the characters lead. If this thing, which you don't experience, gives us good stories, then how you can you argue that it's a bad way to write?

I don't think you can argue against something that you don't do and aren't likely to ever do...unless you can provide evidence that all authors who admit to doing it are poor writers.

 

[CharleyH]

It would seem I was wrong. Like Liar, you haven't experienced what we've experienced, and so find it hard to understand what we mean when we say, "Characters lead a story." Whatever it is you're thinking of, it's unlikely it's the same thing that the rest of us, who are taking about characters leading, are talking about.

As for my reference to Dickens: Dickens admitted to having such experiences, daily, in his writing--as said, as if he were jotting down dictation from the characters. I'm glad you find his writing calculated, even though "Dickens did not write the chapters very far ahead of their publication" and did not have his novels planned out in advance. He didn't know, for example, that little Nell was going to die and had to be convinced of that this was the right course for her. This proves my point very nicely, that letting characters lead doesn't necessarily create a bad narrative or erase "calculation" entirely from the writing. A writer need not lose complete control of the writing simply because he/she allows one or more characters to lead the story.

You say letting characters lead creates "poor narratives," yet you offer no evidence of this. The thing so many of us here experience in our writing that Liar, and you (?), are not experiencing is what we're talking about here, what we're discussing when we mention letting the characters lead. If this thing, which you don't experience, gives us good stories, then how you can you argue that it's a bad way to write?

I don't think you can argue against something that you don't do and aren't likely to ever do...unless you can provide evidence that all authors who admit to doing it are poor writers.

I admire and respect your take. I enjoy reading your response. I need to leave right now and wont be back for a few days due to personal things, yet I will return to answer you, 3113 and in full army mode!

Kisses
CH

 

[BlackShanglan]

Just to backtrack a bit ... are there (can anyone recall) any 'real' surprises (keeping with character and plot as Shang says) in anything seen in film or read in novels or even on Lit, lately? I am not dissing, just suddenly wondering what original means to people.

It's difficult to do well. I think that "The Sixth Sense" is a good example of a plot-based surprise that is perfectly rooted and that adds real depth and meaning to the work as a whole. It's not just that many people don't see it coming; it's that once you do see it, the entire movie means everything you thought it did up to that point plus an entirely new level of meaning that gives depth and resonance and power to the whole.

I don't think that Shyamalan has achieved that in any of his subsequent films, but to have done it even once is remarkable.

Other good surprises, from my point of view:

Dorian Gray killing Basil Hallward.

Dorian Gray stabbing his portrait.

Winston (1984) loving Big Brother.

Bigwig accepting that he may die in defense of his warren in Watership Down. He's been a very confident character up to that point, and it's something of a shock - but a heroic one - to hear him state that he may well die, but that he will still not leave his post

Mr. Bounderby's version of his childhood turning out to be a complete sham in Hard Times.

That last is interesting fuel for the Dickens debate, because that was definitely planned out ahead of time. The notes I've got in my edition state that "From the time of his writing Dombey and Son (1846-48), it became Dickens' practice to jot down on loose sheets of paper a series of briefly worded suggestions for his own guidance about his work in progress; the suggestions were about plot and theme, names of characters, significant phrases to be used in narrative or dialogue, and more particularly about how his story might best be divided into installments for periodical publication."

The notes for Hard Times published in my edition are dated January 20th, 1854; the first installment of the novel was published in April of that year. These notes aren't much in terms of detail, however; they're quite broad and only amount to six manuscript pages. His brevity and sort of personal short-hand in the notes suggests to me that he had fairly strong ideas of some characters at that stage, but others are more difficult to weigh. The notes do indicate that the surprise of Bounderby's mother showing up and giving the real version of his childhood was already planned at that point.

 

[CharleyH]

It's difficult to do well. I think that "The Sixth Sense" is a good example of a plot-based surprise that is perfectly rooted and that adds real depth and meaning to the work as a whole. It's not just that many people don't see it coming; it's that once you do see it, the entire movie means everything you thought it did up to that point plus an entirely new level of meaning that gives depth and resonance and power to the whole.

I don't think that Shyamalan has achieved that in any of his subsequent films, but to have done it even once is remarkable.

Other good surprises, from my point of view:

Dorian Gray killing Basil Hallward.

Dorian Gray stabbing his portrait.

Winston (1984) loving Big Brother.

Bigwig accepting that he may die in defense of his warren in Watership Down. He's been a very confident character up to that point, and it's something of a shock - but a heroic one - to hear him state that he may well die, but that he will still not leave his post

Mr. Bounderby's version of his childhood turning out to be a complete sham in Hard Times.

That last is interesting fuel for the Dickens debate, because that was definitely planned out ahead of time. The notes I've got in my edition state that "From the time of his writing Dombey and Son (1846-48), it became Dickens' practice to jot down on loose sheets of paper a series of briefly worded suggestions for his own guidance about his work in progress; the suggestions were about plot and theme, names of characters, significant phrases to be used in narrative or dialogue, and more particularly about how his story might best be divided into installments for periodical publication."

The notes for Hard Times published in my edition are dated January 20th, 1854; the first installment of the novel was published in April of that year. These notes aren't much in terms of detail, however; they're quite broad and only amount to six manuscript pages. His brevity and sort of personal short-hand in the notes suggests to me that he had fairly strong ideas of some characters at that stage, but others are more difficult to weigh. The notes do indicate that the surprise of Bounderby's mother showing up and giving the real version of his childhood was already planned at that point.

Aiy. And now you make me need to read everything again, dammit. Isn't that wonderful?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Aiy. And now you make me need to read everything again, dammit. Isn't that wonderful?

Yes.

No.

I've been a very bad horse.

 

[CharleyH]

Yes.

No.

I've been a very bad horse.

I meant every classic, not every post! Therefore, not SUCH a bad horsey.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I meant every classic, not every post! Therefore, not SUCH a bad horsey.

Extremely naughty. Badly in need of chastisement.

I can get worse? *hopeful look*



Re-reading the classics is always a good use of time, I think. That's what makes them classics There's always more there when you come back to them.

 

[WRJames]

I just wrote a story (Strangers in the Night) where I was keeping very deliberate control of the characters -- I had an definite outline of what I wanted to happen, and I was trying to shape the characters to make that plausible. To some extent, though, they were based on people I had actually observed, although only briefly, so I was trying to stay within the boundaries of what those people could actually be like. Pretty difficult, when you are trying to work them up to some wild and bizarre sex acts. But of course, that has happened to me in real life at times.

On the other hand ... when I write music, I do it without a consious plan. The music just flows. I can literally sit down at the piano at play a finished compostion, without a clue as to what it is going to be, before I start. Some of these I write down and refine.

Some of the writing I do is the same -- I will start to write a scene, and all of a sudden things are happening that I had no clue about. And the source of some of my characters is equally mysterious.

In a long series, like the Eden novels, character development becomes, at least for me, the central driver. The characters develop their own identity, their own experiences, their own hopes, fears, desires. What has happened in the past becomes a burden, it limits the choices that the writer can make for the character's future, just as in real life.

 

[DearEmma]

I love you guys.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I love you guys.

We love ourselves too

 

[Dragonlipz]

If only they were just rebellious! Mine are demanding divas! Most would like to have their own story or a series devoted to them. Some get them. Those who are so compelling that they won't be ignored get more consideration. I have one character who's getting a couple of chapters in two different series devoted to their wild selves!!!
That's the way of the muse................a blessing and a curse.............

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

If only they were just rebellious! Mine are demanding divas! Most would like to have their own story or a series devoted to them. Some get them. Those who are so compelling that they won't be ignored get more consideration. I have one character who's getting a couple of chapters in two different series devoted to their wild selves!!!
That's the way of the muse................a blessing and a curse.............

OMG! Yours too?

I'm guilty of giving in to my divas. Gotta love em though.

 

[Katyusha]

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

That's a good way of putting it. For me, my stories aren't something I plan out ahead of time, per se. I know how I want them to start, the general direction I want them to take, and where I want them to end up (this as opposed to end), but not really much else. I once had a character in a story who was very strong, very decisive, and very willing to take a course of action that nobody else was willing to take because he felt it was the right thing to do, even if the consequences of that decision were disastrous to him. He ended up a POW and began refusing to resist and fight his captors. He started discouraging others from rebelling, tried to get people to just buckle under their iron fist, all while acknowledging to himself that rebellion was badly needed not just to get out, but also to keep up the morale of other prisoners. What happened was he allowed his captors to break his spirit, although it's never described how. I was writing him as one of those people who would take the tactics used by those who would break him to make himself stronger inside.

And what was more interesting about that is that if he hadn't been broken, the rest of the story wouldn't have worked.

See, the ins and outs, the choices between various paths the plot can take, the characters and their development, all of that is manifestations of my subconscious, I believe. I'm a very empathic person (no, not like Deanna Troi, thankyouverymuch) and it's that strong sense of emotion that gives me the ability to write out emotion the way I do. But I think a large part of that sense is subconscious...I often don't consciously realize that I don't just understand how someone feels, rather I feel what they feel. Since I can do that, then when my characters are in the various situations they might find themselves in, I can anticipate how they'll think and feel. And when they surprise me it's because my subconscious realized that where my conscious mind wanted to go wasn't going to work out somehow. And that comes out as feeling as though my characters are writing the story and taking it where they want it to go.

 

[Katyusha]

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.

Yes they are on paper, and yes, their lifestyle, emotions and fears are all in the writers' head. My problem with this is that there's a difference between what is and what it feels like. I am very well aware, when I finish a piece, that everything in there came from me, that I drove the plot, created and developed the characters, etc. But my subconscious is, I believe, often more aware of what would work best for the plot and for the characters than my conscious mind is. When that begins to override what I consciously wanted the story to do, it feels like my characters have taken over and are moving the plot where they want it to go.