Psychology of Character Motivation
- Thread starter Alessia Brio
- Start date
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
I'm in agreement.TheeGoatPig said:
There's a serious problem with #6 and advising a writer to "be a sadist" because it means that you can end up with a story where the character is tortured beginning to end...and that's as dull, believe me, as a story where nothing or only happy things happen to a character.
I remember reading a story where the character was imprisoned, raped, tortured, raped, beaten, raped, tortured, raped....
I started flipping through pages wanting to see if it was ever going to end. And I tossed the book aside because I got tired of it. The point is, just telling a writer to "be a sadist" isn't enough. A "victim" as a character gets really boring--you stop rooting for them and start wishing they were on the other side doing the beating and torturing.
And torture doesn't always develop character. There's the assumption that what doesn't kill us makes us stronger...but it can also leave us a vegetable--as it did, by the way, with this character in this book who seemed to exist only to be tortured.
As for #8...that's frankly ridiculous. The LAST thing you want to do in a story is either *frontload* information (which will slow thing down to a crawl), or give the reader ALL the information that you know...but that they don't need to know to read the story. Will you tell them the character has yellowish toenails? Why? Yet that's information.
And you certainly don't want them to be able to finish the story for themselves. If they can do that, they'll put it down and they won't read you again. Suspence, surprises, etc. keep readers reading and make them want to pick up the next book so they can have more of that. The success of Harry Potter proves that--a book which relies on each chapter leaving behind a mystery, and even bigger mysteries being left for the next book and the next to solve.
If everything we needed to know about Harry, the villians, Hogwarts, etc. was all in the first book...to the point where readers knew what was going to happen, why would they bother with more than the first book? A good writer picks and chooses from the information they need to present--what goes where and why. Either for character development, for mystery, for setting, for plot. It can't and shouldn't go all go upfront.
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
But there's a difference between "tension" and the advice to be a "sadist." New writers take things literally and over the top--and as I offer in my advice above, there's a difference between a guy worrying over losing his job (tension) and being kidnapped and tortured for hours on end.cloudy said:
In the first book of "Lord of the Rings" (Fellowship) Tolkien does a masterful job of giving the reader AND THE CHARACTERS breaks from "torture" (aka, as you're defining it, tension). They go through the mines of Moria (torture/tension) and lose Gandalf...but they also go to Lothlorian, where they're given gifts and friendship.
"Be a sadist" is not really good advice. Most writers I know have to be told the opposite--stop torturing the character and give both the reader and character a break, and a reason to keep going. Otherwise both are going to give up on this story.
Last edited:
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
I stopped reading John D. McDonald's "Travis McGee" series, when I realised that- as much as ol' Trav loved and respected women- his author killed and tortured them to the point of monotony3113 said:
CharleyH
Curioser and curiouser
- Joined
- May 7, 2003
- Posts
- 16,771
OH I HEAR YOU. Today I came up with the MOST perfect beginning (for me as a writer) to making readers kind of get a (can't say - as it will inflame) but damn - I GOT IT! You will too in your write just keep writing and re-writing as the "AH HA" moment will come to you, Stell.Stella_Omega said:Oh, if only!
No, I'm serious- here I have a pirate ship full of pleasure-loving rascals, up against the dour, self-righteous, genocidal, Puritan separatists of Boston, ca 1670- who want to do my pirates as much dirt as they can. We can use the libertinage as an excuse, but the real motivation of course, is profit.
But damned if I can think of a method, where this nasty action would start from. because, truthfully, I have never written any sort of double-dealer into anything yet. It must be some sort of avoidance issue.
I think I need to address this in therapy.
Or, just crib from the Aubrey/Matelin series
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Well, I actually think this spectrum chart might be helpful to me, to get back to the original topic!CharleyH said:OH I HEAR YOU. Today I came up with the MOST perfect beginning (for me as a writer) to making readers kind of get a (can't say - as it will inflame) but damn - I GOT IT! You will too in your write just keep writing and re-writing as the "AH HA" moment will come to you, Stell.
And the "W" sequencing line as well, that's being talked about in the other thread- my protagonist definitely goes from very high to very low and climbs back up.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
*goes to google McKee*CharleyH said:
(edit) wow, promises promises! pricey, of course...
Doid you ever hear this guy, Charley?
Last edited:
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
this book here? Yes, madame- even though it's primarily for screenwriters, I take it?CharleyH said:
That's a pretty strong recommendation!
Huckleman2000
It was something I ate.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 4,400
Interesting advice from Vonnegut and Alessia's seminar.
I wonder, is Vonnegut's #8 (give as much info as possible...) at odds with the idea of an 'arc' between ends of the character spectrum being the driving force in a story? How to reconcile these two, when I can think of books that are good examples of either approach? Some possibilities:
* Vonnegut may mean that 'giving as much info...' is establishing all aspects of the characters as soon as possible, as they exist at the beginning of the story. What he calls 'torture and sadism' are the plot circumstances that propel the 'arc' of change noted by Alessia.
* These are simply two different approaches, either of which can be used to different effects. Vonnegut's writing strikes me as more plot-driven. Weird things happen to his characters - they get taken away to different planets, etc.
I wonder, is Vonnegut's #8 (give as much info as possible...) at odds with the idea of an 'arc' between ends of the character spectrum being the driving force in a story? How to reconcile these two, when I can think of books that are good examples of either approach? Some possibilities:
* Vonnegut may mean that 'giving as much info...' is establishing all aspects of the characters as soon as possible, as they exist at the beginning of the story. What he calls 'torture and sadism' are the plot circumstances that propel the 'arc' of change noted by Alessia.
* These are simply two different approaches, either of which can be used to different effects. Vonnegut's writing strikes me as more plot-driven. Weird things happen to his characters - they get taken away to different planets, etc.
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
Thinking about it, it may also have to do with when Vonnegut wrote and advised writers of these rules. The book it's from contains short stories from the 50's and the advice offered on writing might well be that old or nearly that old.Huckleman2000 said:
Now, back then, writers like Vonnegut were often faced with new writers, especially in Sci-fi/Fantasy, who indulged in fiction where *nothing* happened. It was the optimistic tenor of the time to have Sci-fi stories where young heroes explored futuristic worlds from rocket-ships to robots, all fun and games, but no real plot or character development. There are famous pulp stories from that time where heroes on distant worlds just wander around as if on tour ("Look at that cool alien! Whoo-wee! with this gravity we can actually fly! Neat-O!"), and characters are pretty much perfect male specimens, smart, strong, good, etc.
Budding fantasy writers in the 60's and 70's were even worse--they had their main characters visiting pretty lands of unicorns and elves where everyone lived in harmony and peace.
Trust me, this *was* the way it was--NOT with professional writers, but with would-be, fan writers, and it's no surprise that Vonnegut would advise such writers to "be sadistic."
There is a two-fold problem, however:
1) Beginning writers who create their fantasy worlds and stories like that, as self-indulgent visits to Disneyland where nothing bad ever happens and everything is pretty and everyone has fun and the main characters are perfect....well, it's doubtful that writing is their calling, isn't it? Not saying they can't have that lightbulb turn on in their heads, but it's unlikely. Most writers--with writing as their calling--have a natural instinct that there needs to be conflict and tension in a story; that characters need to go through a crucible and be developed. We may forget now and then, may need an outside reader/editor to smack us on the head and say, "This section is boring, nothing's happening!"--but we're not likely to make the WHOLE STORY uneventful.
2) The second problem is that, in the sci-fi/fantasy field at least, there's been a complete turn-around since Vonnegut wrote those stories; his advice might have been good for some 20 years, but sometime in the late 70's early 80's, everyone discovered their BDSM side and how much fun there was in torture. It came into vogue with slash fiction and, yes, romance novels, which rely on lovers "torturing" each other with misunderstandings.
Beginning writers NOW are, as I said, far more likley to be overly sadistic to their characters rather than overly nice. They're far more interested in the Mel Gibson method of character development....make the character suffer, suffer, suffer. And then suffer some more.
I think if Vonnegut were advising now, he might step back from the sadism recommendation and actually tell writers to tone it down. The problem with new writers isn't that they don't make characters suffer...it's that they don't give readers a reason to keep on reading about a character's suffering.
Huckleman2000
It was something I ate.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 4,400
Good answer, 3113!
It all really does come down to Tension and Release, doesn't it?
It all really does come down to Tension and Release, doesn't it?
Huckleman2000
It was something I ate.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 4,400
LOL, I should know better than to post anything that appears as a double-entendre here!3113 said:Are you flirting with me again?
But, now that you mention it, maybe I am! I like to think I know what I'm doing, but there's a lot I'm doing that I don't have a clue about.
cumallday
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Posts
- 547
TheeGoatPig said:
I believe Vonnegut's rule #6 is the need for conflict, or tension as others have noted. Alessia's polarities - (Tough guy/Whiner, Team player/Rebel, etc.) all suggest a need for conflict. I also believe Vonnegut missed the mark, as you have pointed out, by using the word "sadist". Even though it's a hell of a lot more fun, you need not be a sadist.
