Let's talk about ... control

[Edward Teach]

I believe that an author is the auteur of his/her world. Any writer (and I know this seems harsh) that articulates that their characters rule them is, well, to make a long story short - not an author.

Whether your characters develop in your head before you commit them to paper or whether they develop and change as you write, I think the creative process is pretty much the same. I think it helps some of us to think of our characters as “alive” or “real” whereas others may not need that device. Regardless, characters have to be imagined one way or another. If one “writer” decides to have a character develop into a snotty ass because the story needs it as opposed to another writer’s “character” deciding to become a snotty ass, it seems to be the same process to me. Each character developed in the individual writer’s brain -- it was just viewed and would therefore be described in a different way by each.

 

[CharleyH]

Whether your characters develop in your head before you commit them to paper or whether they develop and change as you write, I think the creative process is pretty much the same. I think it helps some of us to think of our characters as “alive” or “real” whereas others may not need that device. Regardless, characters have to be imagined one way or another. If one “writer” decides to have a character develop into a snotty ass because the story needs it as opposed to another writer’s “character” deciding to become a snotty ass, it seems to be the same process to me. Each character developed in the individual writer’s brain -- it was just viewed and would therefore be described in a different way by each.

You missed the point, my friend.

 

[Edward Teach]

You missed the point, my friend.

Did I miss the point or are you splitting hairs.

 

[CharleyH]

Did I miss the point or are you splitting hairs.

Define a writer and and an author. We can split hairs after that.

 

[Edward Teach]

Define a writer and and an author. We can split hairs after that.

I don't feel like splitting hairs right now but if I were going to, there is no one I'd rather split them with.

Now be nice before I send Stup Dity to pay you a visit.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I am not arguing the flux of history or the rise and fall of societies. My fave short story is Aldous Huxley's 'Usually, Destroyed' after all (great short story that I highly recommend). You used the phrase "I think we're developing a society ..." I simply don't think that there has ever been a society that didn't lay blame elsewhere.

To be fair, I used the /sentence/ "I think we're developing a society that finds it too easy to blame others or circumstance for personally controllable factors." It was a comment not on the existence of a society that blames others, but the degree of ease by which the blaming of others is available. Given credit institutions, greater powers of government, the pervasiveness of the media, ADD, pharmeciutical companies (sp?), etc, and the actual differences between today and twenty or forty or eighty years ago... I think there to be a greater availability of ease--to the point of it being too easy.

I claimed nothing other than I disagreed with you and I know you know it. You do raise a good point, though. Can societies develop when the culture of that society is locked into a certain mind set?

Bush's approval ratings plummeted--surely its possible.

But lets qualify the terms we are discussing here. I don't recall any post regarding Germany, but I am very happy to discuss Germany from the first World war through the 30's and 40's if that's what you want.

[/quote]
We'd only have to discuss it if you didn't understand the analogy. But, given that you did, it would need no more discussion than Aldous Huxley would (assuming you meant to mention him in a similar "example" capacity).