Going beyond the bounds of the story

[sweetnpetite]

How much do you think about your characters lives beyond the bounds of the story? Do you know what happens to them when the story ends- or what happened earlier in their lives to make them the way they are? Or do you only think about what happens from the begining to the end of the story?

What do you think about taking the time to think out your characters life-story? Does it make a better story? Is it a waste of time? Does it, maybe even do detriment to the project?

Feel free to elaborate- I want to pick all of your brains on your process here

 

[tolyk]

I've been working on a fantasy novel for entirely too many years. I know everything about my main character, hell I even have dreams where I am him.

It makes me able to write him rather well, but then I never feel as if my secondary characters are fleshed out enough. I mean, if one is written brilliantly it doesn't make up for the others being two dimensional. (this is my own problem, just ranting)

I know his entire life line, from birth to his current age, and a lot about what will happen to him in the future, even if I never write another story about him. The fact that I based his personality off of my own probably doesn't help though

 

[cloudy]

I have a couple of characters that I created for my (unfinished) NaNo that I know just about their whole life story...from birth to their 30's. I had to get that deep into both of them to work out their motivations, fears, wants, etc.

Both of them seem like my best friends now, but it's made them almost effortless to write.

 

[oggbashan]

Yes and No

My major characters exist for me as complete personalities but I do not plot or construct their life history.

I only know what the reader knows about them - what they have done, who they interacted with and how. As I write more I get to know more. The more I write about a particular character, the more I know how they will react to a new situation yet sometimes they surprise me with a different response that is still consistent with their overall character.

When I start to write another story about an existing character, I re-read everything I had written earlier that involved that character. The new story shows a bit more but it must be in character.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

In my short pieces of smut, no. My characters are there to get it on.

In my longer pieces, usually I do a pretty complete history of who they are. To my mind it helps the reader understand why the character reacts the way they do.

I don't worry much about the future after the story is over. Except once when I did a sequel. Sort of.

 

[Weird Harold]

What do you think about taking the time to think out your characters life-story?

I don't do an explicit life history for my characers, but I know who they are and where they come from and what makes them tick (and why). Its ll in general terms -- "came from a large rural family, fifth of seven children; four boys and three girls" -- without worrying about specifics unless I need to mention a sibling in the story or something like that.

It's the kind of detail you would get from asking, "so what about you" of a new acquaintance and getting a precis of their life.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Filling in extensive life histories of your characters seems to me like mental masturbation. What does it matter if he's the fourth of five children or the third of four? In a short story especially all that matters is who they are now.

Knowing of my own proclivity to do just about anything to avoid the hared job of sitting down and writing, I'd be very suspicious of any desire to plot out entire life histories rather than dealing with the problems at hand.

In other words, I think it's just fucking around.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Filling in extensive life histories of your characters seems to me like mental masturbation. What does it matter if he's the fourth of five children or the third of four? In a short story especially all that matters is who they are now.

Knowing of my own proclivity to do just about anything to avoid the hared job of sitting down and writing, I'd be very suspicious of any desire to plot out entire life histories rather than dealing with the problems at hand.

In other words, I think it's just fucking around.

What about in a novel length work? I had tons of notes written on my characters for my novella that I didn't use in the finished work. Sort of an outtakes reel.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Filling in extensive life histories of your characters seems to me like mental masturbation. What does it matter if he's the fourth of five children or the third of four? In a short story especially all that matters is who they are now.

Knowing of my own proclivity to do just about anything to avoid the hared job of sitting down and writing, I'd be very suspicious of any desire to plot out entire life histories rather than dealing with the problems at hand.

In other words, I think it's just fucking around.

Welll, I was thinking it might make a really kick ass story to plot out (in your head) 1 characters life and then choose the sort of 'defining point' in that persons life and *that* would be your story.

[obviously not a stroke story ]

I think that you could end up with a very rich story that way. And maybe there's even a lot of novels out there that would be *better* if they eliminated everything but this particular section. (Just a thought)

 

[Weird Harold]

Filling in extensive life histories of your characters seems to me like mental masturbation. What does it matter if he's the fourth of five children or the third of four? In a short story especially all that matters is who they are now.

I used the specific example of "third of five children" because to me that describes certain set of personality traits "a middle child" tends to have. For me, it's a way of describing "who they are now."

"Third of four children" produces different person that being the "second of three" or "third of five" because the dynamics in odd numbered families are different than in even numbered families.

To somone else, it may not be important to know what kind of childhood made a character who they are, but there may be some other historical/formative condition that defines "what they are now."

"Grew up poor" describes a different current personality than "was never denied anything as a child."

I can't write a believable character -- even in short story -- without having some idea of what makes them tick and the way they grew up has a lot to do with how people tick.

 

[Belegon]

I have a general idea of what has happened in a characters life, but no detailed history...

 

[English Lady]

I'm pretty much with Dr M (woo hoo!)

Anyhow, I don't write down any kind of history but I know it. I know if my character is an only child or not, I know things that happened to them in their childhood and how it's effected them. I know all this, I don't need to write it down because...well i know it. (have I said that enough yet)

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm pretty much with Dr M (woo hoo!)

Anyhow, I don't write down any kind of history but I know it. I know if my character is an only child or not, I know things that happened to them in their childhood and how it's effected them. I know all this, I don't need to write it down because...well i know it. (have I said that enough yet)

Agreed I like to know those things, but on the whole I can't be arsed to write it down unless it's part of the story. I just need to know the broad strokes and any details with a lasting effect.

I agreed with Weird Harold on birth order / # of siblings, though. I get certain impressions from "eldest of a large family living in poverty" or "single child of wealthy parents." I just like to know enough to know where the character's personality comes from and how events are likely to affect him/her. I think background is part of that.

Shanglan

 

[Halo_n_horns]

How much do you think about your characters lives beyond the bounds of the story? Do you know what happens to them when the story ends- or what happened earlier in their lives to make them the way they are? Or do you only think about what happens from the begining to the end of the story?

What do you think about taking the time to think out your characters life-story? Does it make a better story? Is it a waste of time? Does it, maybe even do detriment to the project?

Feel free to elaborate- I want to pick all of your brains on your process here

There's only one story that I've bothered putting that kind of time, and more, into. It can be found in my sig line.

Not only did I create a background story for each of my characters (A few of these background stories are actually in the chapters here on Lit), but I also created a set of rules to go by during the course of the story(ies), new ideologies that were created from the combining of various theologies and biological evolutionary belief systems, as well as a whole set of 'cause and effect' circumstances that will lead the story from being just one book to being three.

I have no intention of ever doing this much background work for any other story. This one has given far more than enough headache.

 

[Alex De Kok]

My major characters exist for me as complete personalities but I do not plot or construct their life history.

I only know what the reader knows about them - what they have done, who they interacted with and how. As I write more I get to know more. The more I write about a particular character, the more I know how they will react to a new situation yet sometimes they surprise me with a different response that is still consistent with their overall character.

When I start to write another story about an existing character, I re-read everything I had written earlier that involved that character. The new story shows a bit more but it must be in character.

Og

This is pretty much the way I work, too. I don't think I've ever worked out a complete character before starting to write. I keep meaning to do it, but so far just haven't got around to it. I've used the same group of characters in several stories, and the temptation to write crossover stories between them is getting stronger.

Alex

 

[Op_Cit]

I like making them up as I go along, and they seem to take on a life of their own and become people I never imagined.

The couple of times when I spent effort working on background are the works which are still unfinished and hardest to continue.

 

[Boota]

In short stories I don't even think about their life outside the story. If it doesn't directly relate to the situation at hand it probably isn't important enough to worry about. In novel length work I don't write down anything ahead of time, but I'll make notes if it is something that I think I'll have to remember for continuity.

I have been asked hundreds of times to write a sequel to Mr. Undesirable. I am flattered that these people enjoyed it enough to want more, but I don't know what happened beyond what I already wrote. As far as I'm concerned Lenny Kapowski's story is finished and he can go live happily ever after.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

For me, developing the characters and their lives is just as important as the plot (Yes, I said "plot") and quite frankly more important than the sexual element (Living on the wild side now).

 

[BlackShanglan]

For me, developing the characters and their lives is just as important as the plot (Yes, I said "plot") and quite frankly more important than the sexual element (Living on the wild side now).

Yeah. Like ... are they alpacas, or vicunas, or a rouge branch of black llamas ... enquiring minds want to know!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My working definition of a short story is a single episode or event that causes a change in a person. As such I don't feel I need to know eveything about my characters.

As for SnP's novel idea, I think I'm more likely to start with the events and then work back to the characters rather than starting with their life stoyr and trying to find a novel in it. Not that it can't be done, but what if you plot out someone's life and then relize that there's just nothing very interesting in it?

If you asked me anything about any of my characters - their upbringing, education, love history, what sports they played in school - I could probably tell you. I just don't see the value in figuirng all that stuff out before hand.

When I used to take a lot speed and write, I would get way into people's lives. It was fun and it just came naturally, but it wasn't necessary, and it wasn't good fiction.

 

[nushu2]

Tough question. I am tempted to say that unless the character's history is part of the story, developing the history is a waste of time. There are an infinite number of paths to the same destination.

On the other hand, a "true" story has growth of character. To show that, the character has to have a starting point. A bit of history can be helpful for the reader but not absolutely necessary. Please don't spend the first page introducing the character.

Too much history ends up reading like a comic book. We may have wanted to know how Batman and Superman started but not Joe Shmuck.

What it comes down to is what works for you and what works for the story. Overly ambitious stories have too much scope and not enough focus.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Yeah. Like ... are they alpacas, or vicunas, or a rouge branch of black llamas ... enquiring minds want to know!

Actually, they're all different tribes of quadrupeds that went their separate ways after being kicked out of paradise. Mostly, they got kicked out for spitting, which was considered unsanitary. So they moseyed to the four corners of the earth . . . then decided their calling plan was too expensive, so they all went to South America.

It's all true. Pretty sure it's in the bible somewhere.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

How much do you think about your characters lives beyond the bounds of the story? Do you know what happens to them when the story ends- or what happened earlier in their lives to make them the way they are? Or do you only think about what happens from the begining to the end of the story?

What do you think about taking the time to think out your characters life-story? Does it make a better story? Is it a waste of time? Does it, maybe even do detriment to the project?

Feel free to elaborate- I want to pick all of your brains on your process here

It depends on the format. For short stories I do very little life story other than some sketchy background for major characters.

Most of the characters in my novels get extensive backgrouns/life histories including time charts for the major ones. The latter is helpful for consistency if two characters have some shared history.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Honestly, i don't mention much about the background, unless it affets what goes on in the story. I've never made a full character history, and don't see the point. Only so many things are really necessary to give yor character life, so why are all the other things really needed to be mentioned or plotted out? If you can get the point across that the character is the middle child without going miles out of the way to meet and greet and name and characterize all the siblings then what difference does it make that there are two brothers and two sisters or not?

My working definition of a short story is a single episode or event that causes a change in a person. As such I don't feel I need to know eveything about my characters.

This is important here. For a character-driven story, that is. When you look at your life, you can see certain things that have changed you that stand out over others. You should be somewhat familiar with those things if you're planning on digging into the characters past. If not, why know them? So long as the trait they caused remains intact, what's the point?

Of course, I usually dig into the past when I write, so maybe I'm full of it here...



Q_C

 

[Weird Harold]

Tough question. I am tempted to say that unless the character's history is part of the story, developing the history is a waste of time. There are an infinite number of paths to the same destination.

On the other hand, a "true" story has growth of character. To show that, the character has to have a starting point. A bit of history can be helpful for the reader but not absolutely necessary. Please don't spend the first page introducing the character.

SnP' original question is more about what the author knows about a character than what the reader is told. How much of what the author knows needs to be given to the readers is another question entirely.

How much do you think about your characters lives beyond the bounds of the story? Do you know what happens to them when the story ends- or what happened earlier in their lives to make them the way they are? Or do you only think about what happens from the begining to the end of the story?

I think that in spite of the disclaimers to the contrary, most of us fall in the middle of what SnP originaly asked -- We know who our characters are now and have at least a rough idea of the history that made them that way (and what's likely to happen afterwards, even if it's just "they lived happily ever after.")

Very few of us have expressed the need to put what we know about our characters into a separate biography or even write down more than the most cursory of descriptive notes for continuity purposes.

I really can't say if knowing my characters' pasts makes them better characters or if I plotted out their pasts in detail would make them better. I can say that the others who have admitted to a similar level of knowledge about their characters' histories write very good characters that, as a reader, I can imagine them having an existance outside of the story.