This is something I should've realized earlier but didn't. However, I must contest the trait part, more specifically, in that everyone has those traits. Namely... not everyone is charismatic, as being charismatic, from what I understand, is a superlative of a social trait, not a social trait everyone possesses. Even with this, the problem is if someone has an extreme deficiency in a trait... well, that can make things difficult. But okay, looks like research is the key.
This. There a number of times I've been yanked out of a story by something obviously false to someone who knows anything about the science/skill/what have you in question.
I hate unskilled magicians. Like Nee said, if you write about a real part of a knowledge body without actually knowing about it and you get it wrong, people will 100% of the times call you on it. It won't matter if the rest of the book is a masterpiece, one will still be called a half-arsed writer who won't even be bothered to research correctly. So either research or create.
I agree, research is key. You just gotta have it. I ran two workshops for some psychologists two years running at a convention they have in Indianapolis. I used creativity to help them explore different aspects of self. I asked them all to name the strongest part of their inner self, then asked them to name the weakest part. I gave them each a small ball of clay and a blindfold. Then I told them to take the clay and give a shape to the weakest part of themselves. The blindfold was used so that their critical mind could not influence the process. If they struggled, I told them to call upon their strongest part to help them to see their weakest part. At the end we all talked about the shapes, their journey of creation, and what new insights were discovered about this part of them. It was amazing to see the recognition in their eyes. I've heard from some of them later, after they had more time to digest the experience. They found out how that part wasn't weak at all, it simply never had the opportunity to express itself without their critical mind screwing the whole thing up. We have more in us than we know. We should research, no doubt. It is a must. But the linear mind cannot always make the logical leap. It often takes imagination, ingenuity, and letting parts of us out that we never knew we had. Just a thought.
Maybe my choice wasn't the best, because I like your look at "charisma," and it doesn't disagree with what I was trying to say. Let's say that "Being social" is the trait everyone possesses, and let's say there's a spectrum. "Charisma" is what we call it when people are on one side of the spectrum. I think that all writers have the power to create new characters by exaggerating qualities within themselves. Therefore, I think it's possible for writers to create convincing charismatic characters without needing to do research. However, "convincing" isn't always enough, and that's where research comes into play. Lately, on this thread and one or two others, it sounds like people think the key to writing is doing all the research. Well, we literally don't have time to know everything, and at some point we're going to have to start faking it.
Yes, yes. As for exaggerating traits... perhaps, however I'm not sure how well that'd work at times. Intelligence and the like can be abstracted, or have other ways to be worked around, as I doubt the person who wrote Sherlock Holmes was literally a genius himself, as an example. By comparison, Charisma is something that shows up every time someone speaks, or even appears around people. However, with research, I could see at least such a process becoming easier.
You don't have to know everything. But you have to know enough to understand what you are writing about. If you don't know what a differential equation is, you can't write a book on math. If you don't know what a smutter does, you can't write a book about smutters.
To quote Brent Weeks from his advice on writing: "There is one great thing above all about writing fiction that people consistently forget: you get to lie. The writer is the ultimate dilettante. We need be masters of nothing except writing. " (bolding added) So yeah, it helps to understand tricky mathematics, but one doesn't have to become a mathematician. The best case: write the scenes based on your reseach and then ask/bribe/blackmail a mathematician (soldier, fencing master, rocket scientist, super villain) to read it! The best thing is, you'll learn so much yourself when you write. And when you have the more knowledgeable poke holes to your masterpiece.
I'm gonna be silly but accurate Television has the answer. Try watching sitcoms and be sure to find the good ones. Gauge the actions and reactions of the characters from actually serious moments and/or a drama serious works well too (specifically The Wire, writing so gritty and realistic you could use it as a driveway)
Great idea and well said. There are many ways around a story. What gripes me are nah sayers who say that if you are not exactly, perfectly, spot on accurate due to years of research, do not write it. And if you do be prepared for our wrath for the lies you tell. I don't find that kind of advice helpful. It is always best to use skills, talents, occupations, etc that can be described accurately. It makes it easier for a reader to get into the story and believe it. Shy of that there are other creative ways to do it that can enhance the story and move you on to a finished manuscript. If all else fails, be an ultimate dilettante. I like that.
It really is. But if you watched the third season of the wire, then went and wrote a novel about drug dealers in Baltimore, but have never lived in baltimore and never been a drug dealer - you're going to produce The wire. Fun fact: The wire was or is studied at Harvard as a part of a sociology degree.
For Charisma, there are hundreds of books out there on the subject. People have studied personal magnetism and what makes some people more charismatic than others, so my suggestion would be to get one of those books.
If possible, interview some mathematicians as well. There is a lot of subtle mannerisms that wouldn't be described in a book or show, and you may find yourself in a situation in which he/she has to bust out some mad skills in day to day life that you can later fictionalize. After you finish your story, I would also get a mathematician to look over your manuscript, at least the pertinent parts, to make sure everything is kosher. IMO, believability of character, plot situation gets brought to life in the details.
