so...if you already have the answers to your own question, why did you even post it? I mean you already seem to have made up your mind on where you stand on this, so I don't get it really.
^This I totally agree. I think having too much detail to characters and settings is a good way to write yourself into a corner. Rigidity is not conducive creativity.
I disagree: if you use your creativity to mold the characters the plot naturally and logically comes out of their actions. When is detail excessive? In Lord of the Rings? Left hand of darkness? Dune? These three books are considered very detailed (to the point the authors invent calendar different from our own) but they aren't "rigid" or forced stories,at all.
I have to go ^this at that. I may write a detailed background to get a good grasp of the character, but this background and the character him/herself can be changed at any time if what I got make a bad story. You create a character the story needs. And I have never written myself into a corner because of it. If anything it helps me get on with the story. Though of course it depends on whether or not your story is plot or character driven. If your story is very plot driven, character development may not be important. If the story is character driven, backstory and a lot of development is needed for a good story.
I always create "character outlines" (for my own reference) detailing a character's background, their personality profile, what makes them tick, etc. This helps me really get to know the character and visualize how they would react to different situations. However, 90% of what I put in these outlines doesn't make it into the actual story - I only put in the minimum amount of "back story" that is necessary for the reader to understand where the character is coming from.
I've seen this assumption around a lot, and I am getting pretty sick of it. I, personally, write very character-driven stories; almost to the point where the plot is nonexistent, in some cases. But I still don't fill out character sheets or questionnaires, and I only plan as much background as I need to tell the character's story. Sometimes it is a lot, but often, it is maybe two or three sentences worth of information.
Nonsense, imo. If you limit yourself as a writer by giving characters a background, then you aren't a very good writer. Backgrounds of fictional characters are also fictional and can be altered as necessary or desired.
To be honest, I don't see this dicotomy character driven /plot driven: I don't believe in this scheme, to me characters and plot are the same thing, the plot is made in movement by the actions of the characters so if you want a good plot you need to have good characters, on the other side good characters doing nothing is not a novel, it's a study of characterization or an investigation on human behaviour.
When you meet someone new, their past is a blank slate, as far as you are concerned. Yes, they have a past, and it undoubtedly influenced who they are. But you don't need to know thyat past, and neither do your readers. You can create the character's pas as you go along, as it becomes relevant to the current story. If you create a whole bunch of background tales, they are stories too. Wy didn't you just write one of those as your master work - after all, there has to be a first story written (not necesaarily fisrst in the character's chronology). Oh. Right. Those other stories aren't what you are writing as the main work, because they simply aren't interesting enough. Also, you don't want to write yourself into a corner. If you write some bit of history for your character, and then you find the main story needs something different that conflicts with the past you gave her, you have to revise her history along with any other bits influenced by the obsolete history. What a waste. Spending all that effort in backstories is a dilatory tactic. Dive into your story, and the character will shape herself.
That doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I get that. Very few books are only one or the other, but I do think a book can completely ignore characterization or completely be removed from the plot. 99% of books are somewhere in the middle, though, and most of the ones at the ends are very post-modernist, hyper literary, or - if done quite badly - outright pretentious. Still, I would perhaps more accurately define the two as, "what is more important: the actions, or the characters involved in them?" That is, as an example, is the focus of the story the cause and effect of an apocalypse and how it affects humanity as a whole (likely following many characters without focusing heavily on any one of them in particular), or is it the view of one character and perhaps only their close friends, family, or travel partners midst it and their personal struggles during the event?
Well, might be a little OT, but not much, we are talking about characters and backstories after all. I can't really answer to your question, because I don't see this dualism actions/characters. For me an action is something that a character does, another character with a different background, in the same conditions, will take another decision and thus another action. For your example, I can say that in my work I placed the "big picture" in the chronology, with the main plot that focus on a certain amount of main characters,everyday people trapped in a difficult situation.
Obviously most books are 'somewhere' in the middle. I'm not sure why you think books at the ends are post-modern (post-modern has more to do with language than characters or plot) or hyper literary, whatever that means, and I'm not sure how being heavily plot or character driven to an extreme = outright pretentious. Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing a lot of blanket dismissals lately, where instead of discussing the actual situation, people just go with some widespread assumption or accusation something is some generic, pejorative statements. The fact is, being more plot or character heavy is highly dependent on the story being told, and has little to do with post-modernism or whether something is 'hyper literary' (whatever that means), and I've read plenty of stuff that was pretty well balanced between plot and character that was plenty pretentious, since it has such little to do with that one aspect, and more to do with style and agenda of the writer. I'm even trying to come up with genres that are more to one extreme or another, and the best I can do is that action, thriller, horror and mystery are typically more toward the plot side of things, mainstream, literary and I'd argue even chick-lit more character driven. And even still there is variation based on the style/choices of the writer and the type of story, so it's not even that cut and dry. The point still seeming to be that without characters the reader cares about (character driven) the plot events won't feel urgent, as if there's something at stake unless the writer is going for the most base 'neato, 'sploshuns!' demographic. And without meaningful plot events (plot driven) we don't have a chance to see characters in action to get to know them. So, as pointed out, it's not an either/or situation, and I would argue it's not even a sliding scale, as you can have stories (as most successful fiction is) that is both heavy on plot and character. People assume it's one continuum, but good writers seem to realize it's two different sources they can dip into, meaning you can have 100% of both and don't need to settle for either being only 50%.
Not off topic at all, imo. Plot is how you reveal character background and characterization in general. Without something happening, by definition, you then have to provide an info-dump style exposition, because the characters aren't doing anything that can lead to relevant, contextual revealing of history. So yeah, seems perfectly on topic to me, as the way to deliver a character that feels real and like they ARE their histories, not just have one, is to set them into action so their nature is revealed.
Post-modern literature often experiments heavily with elements of story and character as well. I was not really saying a story with a heavy focus on one or the other is any of those, as much as "if there is only character, and no plot" or "no character, only plot" - which is very rare, but it does pop up in literary fiction-sorts from time to time. I have never read an example of either in genre fiction, and I think it would be very, very, very hard to pull off. I don't think I said a thing about pretentious writing only being something that focuses on one aspect of writing. It could be, but by no means does it have to be. I wouldn't deny that. Most old school fantasy has little to do with the characters. They are definitely plot driven, but not - as I've said - so far to that extreme that they have no character at all. Says the person who hates blanket statements. Yes, most stories benefit from balancing the two, and doing it well. But there are stories with little to no plot, or little to no character, that are still great stories. For 'all character, pretty much no plot', streams of consciousness writing teeters into that most of the time. Joyce and the like. Slice of life, too. All plot, no character is admittedly rarer, but as you mentioned, there is a demographic for the explosion and fisticuffs action-packed schlock, and as I mentioned earlier, many apocalyptic or disaster stories are very, very plot-heavy, some of them never even name a character.
I am most definitely glad to see this turning into a bit of a debate, I think. This is exactly right, as well, esp. the bolded.
Interesting discussion. I agree that someone's 'background' should come out as and when needed, to shape and move the story forward. Too much, too soon is really not the best way to go. In the story I'm working on, the MC learns bits about his love interest's background & what makes her tick via conversation. It works well so far. Way back when I would have had monster-character descriptions & infodumps (and dumpsters, frankly ) all over the opening chapters. Not good.
I still create my characters the way that I did when I was roleplaying. I can't say whether that's going to work--I'm not yet published, so I can't claim that as evidence of success. But for me, characters appear fully formed in my mind, in their present, and as I work with them I slowly learn their background. I don't create them, at least consciously; I discover them. That doesn't make their background unimportant - it's incredibly important, even if almost none of it appears in the story. But I don't create it ahead of time. ChickenFreak
I normally do the same thing Chicken does. I write my characters as if it actually happend to them. I even put in information that I don't write in my story. I even give them date of births and describe what they look like. Even though some ideas are disjointed, I would work on the plot structure acter I findish writng my characters down. Sometimes my story will let me know what to include in my character description and what not to include. It works for me and I continue to use this technique. By the way, I'm not published either.
Giving your characters a vivid background is never, and I repeat Never, "limiting". Sure they are fictional and can always be altered, but once you have an idea of who they are and how they got to be who they are you can put them into a scene and have them react realistically. You should not include any kind of info dump regarding their past when they first show up, but should instead hint at and reveal slowly as the story progresses. This makes every character jump from the page. You become a bad writer when you don't know your own characters, which includes knowing their backgrounds.
I don't know the purpose of your post, since I am in agreement with you. You either misunderstood me or you are restating my own view for emphasis.
I think the persian cat meant that a writer who feels limited by the background of the characters he invented is not good a writer because after all he feels limited by something he wrote...
Oh, I see Bad sentence on my part. I was responding to an earlier comment where someone said creating a background was limited. What I meant to get across was that if creating a background for your character limits you as a writer, then you're doing something wrong. Yes. Thanks, Clint.
