As a writer, do you feel a strong sense of responsibility towards your main characters? Like a moral obligation to get their stories right. To do right by them. Even the bad guys. What do writers owe to their characters?
No. They're fiction. They don't care. And if they did care, I can just write them so they won't. Problem solved. I do feel a strong obligation to my audience, however. If I'm tackling a subject that is sensitive, I feel responsible for victims of such incidents. I do feel responsible to myself to ensure that my character accurately portrays the themes I'm trying to state.
Interesting question. I think it's the same as if I was speaking of someone's character. I would feel horrible if I misrepresented someone. Portraying my characters accurately w/re to the internal and external influences of which they consist is definitely something I owe them almost as much as I owe it to myself or another dead/living person. There's a sense of respect there, but more so for some characters than others. That said, I'm not one of those 'I can't control my characters' people (nothing against creators who are, though). If I discover something unexpected, that's just fruit of intro and extrospection in my opinion: a better understanding of what I've been trying to say the whole time.
I've had further thoughts on this (I am one of those people) and it's relevant to this thread, especially in conjunction with your answer. What it really means when a writer says "I tried to get the character to do something but he didn't want to", is that you had a subtle intuition that the action isn't right for the character. If you have a good feel for the characters and you say something like "They started to take on a life of their own", what it means is that they're not just simple anymore. There's a complexity and a subtle level of characterization that you need to consult your intuition for. And that happens when you try to get them to do something and you just feel it isn't right for this character. It's a slight tug of consciense that tells you you're trying to force a character to do something they wouldn't. If you ignore it then you're forcing them to be shallow, ignoring some depth that you can feel is there but maybe haven't explored yet. An analogous situation would be if you try to get somebody you know to do something and they say "No, that wouldn't be right," and you just say "Shut up and do it anyway, I don't care." That would be a complete lack of respect to that person. And it's also a lack of resepct to ignore your intuitions about characters in the same way. I think it comes down to writing from the known vs exploring out into the fringes of the unknown. The only way to do that as an artist is to listen to subtle intuitions. And good art is made at the edge of the unknown.
Hmmmmm... this is a good question. I don't think I have an exact answer but I do have some thoughts. I guess I do when I'm writing certain types of characters where getting them right is important and crucial to the core theme of the story. For a year I was working on a story that revolves around a character who is a genius, but is a woman, and lives in a time period where women are treated as lesser. I felt (and I still do) that getting her and the story as a whole right was absolutely crucial. It was a bit like doing a puzzle, the pieces all needed to fit together, or else it doesn't make sense. My other story exploring a computer addict and a technologically advanced world was much the same. It was really important to get them right as well, because if there isn't an accurate representation of how she got into that place, and how she got out of it, then it all again feels a bit pointless. The whole point is getting them right. In fact, a part of me wanted the whole thing to have accurate information underneath all its fictional narrative as a way to possibly help others. So yes, damn right I felt a responsibility in that case. On the other hand, the only things I've written so far are serious stories that explore realistic situations with fictional elements , so it makes sense I put a hefty amount of time and thinking into everything. I suppose if I were to write something less serious, and a little more fun, such as a comedy, then I wouldn't care as much? I'm honestly not sure.
I'm doing the same. And in fact the characters I'm thinking of are based on real people I've known. But I am ficitonalizing them to some extent (you have to). So they aren't exactly like the actual people. I suppose when you write based largely on reality you're more aware of this responsibility to get characters and situations right, and you have to listen more to intuition. This is also true in my case. It's more than just the characters that tell me what they would or wouldn't do, it's the situations and the fictionalized elements I'm adding in. They need to be just right or I lose something vital. In fact it's true mostly I think for the actual elements of life that I'm mining from my memory. It isn't that it needs to be 'accurate' in my case, because reality is so complex we don't understand most of it, but it needs to be right for the tone of the story and evoke some sense of the magic I felt at the time.
I'm with you on this. I don't "tell" my characters to do something, I write them to do it. They exist only on paper. "Their story" is what I make it. And I'm with @Xoic. If a character "doesn't want" to do something, that's entirely on the author. You wrote the character to be a certain way, and now you want to write it to do something out of character. It'd be like Superman turning evil, or Captain America becoming an authoritarian dictator. Oh wait, that already happened.
I have to confess that I don't really understand questions like this. My characters are total figments of my imagination. The idea that I would (or could) 'owe' them anything makes no sense to me.
There's long been a conversation among poets, artists, alchemists, mystics, and philosophers about the differences between 2 kinds or levels of imagination, often called Imagination on one hand and Fantasy or Phantasia on the other. I've also heard the second kind (the weaker one) referred to as Fancy. The difference is that the one they call Imagination relates to objective truth and Nature—it has depth to it and power that mere fancy lacks. In the early times they had some trouble defining the two and how they differ, but in more recent times it becomes clear that Imagination emerges from the unconscious, or at least connects up with it, and Fancy or Fantasy is only a product of the conscious mind, aka the Ego. To connect with the power and depth of the unconscious you take things like intuition seriously and follow where they lead. It can be difficult at first to tell the difference between real intuition and mere fantasy, but if you keep trying and apply some discrimination to the results, you can start to feel the difference. I think another way to define the difference is through that sense of responsibility. If you're just writing fun fanciful stuff and aren't trying to go deeper than that, then there's nothing to feel responsibility toward. But if you want to reflect reality, the deeper reality of the mind and the heart and soul, then you must be willing to go some way into the unconscious, into mystery, and discover what you can find there. I suppose this is what I mean when I say I'm a discovery writer. You go beyond the known, some ways into the fringes of the unkown, and find truths there or at least you feel that certain of your ideas relate to truths and others don't. And if you're concerned with this difference you start to reject the ideas that don't connect up in a deep way with truth. It's hard to find anything about this online, at least so far I'm having a tough time of it. I did find this, about Coleridge and Wordsworth on the subject: Distinction between Fancy and Imagination—S T Coleridge It's rather poorly written. Strangely written—maybe the writer isn't a native English speaker. The best info I've run across on it is in a book called Jung and the Alchemical Imagination by Jeffrey Raff.
Here' a much better article on it, and much more clearly written: Coleridge’s theory of Primary and Secondary Imagination in “Biographia Literaria” Note—I'm definitely not saying I'm there, that I'm on the level of Coleridge or Milton. I'm saying that I've become aware of this difference and that I'm trying to learn to differenciate between the two and move toward the secondary imagination. I'm sure many people have far better access to the unconscious than I do.
For each story and each character, yes. One piece of advice I keep, and I don't remember who said it, 'be true to your characters'. To me this means I must write each character how they should be. Meaning if I have an alcoholic character they are not going to drop a bottle and be sober in a day. I have to draw out their road to recovery. If I have a true friend, I have to write them as such. I can't shoehorn actions I want to see in the story into my characters if they wouldn't do those things given their background and personalities. Ugh that was a jumble of words that might make sense. Anyway, I try to get them right even if they screw up my plot.
Thank you everyone for the responses. Well said, and I agree, it is a matter of respect. I am a big believer in following your intuition when writing, and in fact in day-to-day living! And she can't speak for herself. You had to speak for her. Your responsibility was to accurately tell her story.
I think the finding of these truths requires we feel empathy for the characters. If you haven't got empathy for them, how can you express the full depth and reality of their situation?
You can have empathy while at the same time, understand that the characters are not real. As Leonard Nimoy said, "I'm an actor, not a Vulcan."
Nobody is saying they're real, not in the sense of being real people. I've said they take on a life of their own, and that they develop some depth beyond what I originally put into them. Really it's doing what actors do, so your quote there is perfect. Some actors are faking it and that often shows in their work, but some can really dig deep inside themselves and 'find' the character. In fact, let me link to some things I said about this before. I did 4 posts in a row here (you guys know me): Downloading Characters.
I certainly understand that they are not real, but while I am writing they come fully alive in my imagination. Whatever I am trying to say, whatever truth I want to express, cannot be stated outright, cannot be forced, it must be shown by what the characters say and do. Empathy means I am able to get inside these characters and make them true not only to to themselves but to whatever question was posed and I am answering in the story.
I really like the way you put that. Following intuition to write a character must be why people experience "a character writing themselves". But it can also be really tricky since intuition is not something you really understand in the first place, and yet I have to rely on it many times. And like Louanne said: Discriminating between intuition and fantasy is hard, but with enough thinking and observation (re-calling past experiences, what I've done so far, where I am now with the character), I've done it. I remembered that thread myself and you posted it while I was typing the response I think this is what you'd basically call an uninspired character. Flat characters that not even the writer cares about never come right. It's been my experience that if I don't feel something, my audience will not care for it either. It's the opposite for some other writers but I just think that those writers just have extremely high standards.
The ultimate comment on the subject: Railroad Bill Lyrics and Music: Andy Breckman ©1990 Andy Breckman 1 Now Railroad Bill was a hard-livin' man. He used to take his whiskey two at a time. And everyone agreed he was the baddest engineer T that ever drove for the Santa Fe Line. 2 His name was known from the folks back home To the tippy-top of Telegraph Hill. And all the little boys when they were sneaking cigarettes, They used to dream about Railroad Bill. 3 Now one fine day Bill was walking along, When he saw a kitten stuck in a tree. When he saw what was the matter, he ran to get a ladder To set that kitty cat free. 4 And Bill said, "No. I ain't gonna do it. I ain't gonna climb up no tree! This is a stupid stupid song, and no folk singer Is gonna make a fool out of me." 5 I said, one fine day Bill was walking along When he saw a kitten stuck in a tree. When he saw what was the matter, he ran to get a ladder To set that kitty cat free. 6 Bill said, "No, I ain't gonna do it. I ain't gonna do what you said. This is a stupid stupid song, and as far as I'm concerned, That cat can stay there 'till it's dead." 7 I said, "Wait a minute, Bill, you can't argue with me. For God's sake, I just made you up! I got the pen in my hand. I want you up in that tree, And I want that cat unstuck!" 8 And Bill said, "No! I hate cats! I ain't gonna climb for no cat! Why don't you have me save some beautiful girl Who's been tied down on the railroad track?" 9 I said, "Well, maybe there'll be room in the 8th or 9th verse, But right not I want you up in that tree. I'm the writer, goddamn; I got the pen in my hand, And you're supposed to listen to me." 10 "Listen to you? Why should I listen to you? You should be listening to me instead. I'm a railroad man, and if I was real, I'd separate your face from your head!" 11 "Why, you ungrateful brute!" I said, "You've pushed me too far! I'll show you I can do as I please." Just then an earthquake came and shook the whole terrain And brought Railroad Bill to his knees. 12 And then a tidal wave broke and everything got soaked, And Bill was almost completely washed away. And then a big green monster from the planet Neptune landed And bit Railroad Bill on the leg. 13 I got the pen in my hand. I can do what I want. I'm a bright new young talent on the rise. So get your ass up that tree, or I swear you ain't gonna Get out of my folk song alive. 14 He said, "You don't scare me. You may be funny, but you don't scare me. And if you don't leave me alone, I'm gonna tell everybody W here you stole this melody." 15 But before he could speak, his tongue fell out, And he could not make a sound. And then he jumped on top of me and he grabbed me by the throat A nd he pulled me to the ground. 16 And then he punched me in the stomach and punched me in the face real hard And I think he almost broke my nose. Just then a lightning bolt came out of nowhere and hit him right between the eyes And killed him instantly. 17 Well, the cat came down from the tree, Had a bowl of warm milk, and went to sleep for the night. Railroad Bill is survived by a wife and three small children. Dear God, I love to write.
Sure. Going back to my acting classes, we were taught to develop a "toolbox" of personal experiences, which you draw on to develop your character, and understand what they would be feeling. But there's a key difference between being an author and being an actor. An actor has a script - they can interpret the character only within the bounds of that script. An author has full license to change what the characters do. That's what I mean by understanding that the characters aren't real - even within the boundaries of their character, they're not "making" the writer do anything. If the writer wants them to do something, they do it. If, as a writer, you have a sense that what you're writing is out of character, then to be consistent, you need to give them a reason to do it. Sure, you can just have them do it anyway, but the reader will question it, and you could end up losing them.
But not all reasons are good reasons, even if they make sense in your head, and even if they are inline with one's character! There are such characters that are inherently flawed and no matter what you do, they'll be bad characters. If the foundation is not done right, what's built on top of it will always be unstable, no matter how much or how cleverly you built on top of it. Making sure this isn't the case is what it means to be "responsible" by my own personal interpretation. To bring this into perspective, have a look at Sia's film titled "Music". Why this film was bad is honestly a huge rabbit hole full of reasons, so I'll just overly simplify it down to its core issue that relates to the topic as well: The main character, who is supposed to represent autistic people, does it in a very bad and a very insulting way. Sia, who is not autistic, did not properly research things. She wasn't responsible with the way she handled her autistic main character and the way she fit into the world. And that matters because she is portraying and depicting people that actually exist in real life, so it makes sense she'd get the backlash of the century when she did it the way she did. In simpler words, Sia was irresponsible, and she paid the price. She didn't give accurate representation, she just made up a bunch of things in her head and called it a day. So her character makes sense, but at the same time, not really. This is what I more or less tried to communicate in my above post. Sure, some characters can be entirely fictional archetypes that don't represent anything in particular, you'd have more freedom in that case. Even more so if you write comical stories that aren't meant to be taken seriously. But when you tread into serious territory like Sia did, then you better be freaking careful. Realistically though, most people won't get as much backlash as she did. If you try to tackle serious topics and you do it in a bad way, then people would just not care. It's just that Sia's film was aggravating.
But as someone mentioned above, this isn't being responsible to a character, it's being responsible to the audience who are viewing that character. Ultimately, the character won't complain - the audience will.
I know someone who was the lead writer on what was meant to be a very substantial Hollywood TV series. It fell apart because the rest of the writers room (hired by the studio, not by her) took against her view that the characters should serve the plot. The other writers felt that the plot was disrespecting some of the characters' 'truths', and refused to move the plot on without dwelling on motive more. People were fired, the main writer walked out, many monies went down the drain. These things happen. But what makes it interesting in this case is that the other writers weren't upset that the plot was being rushed, or that the end result would be the worse for the main writer's methods; they were specific, explicit and open about being upset by fictional people being disrespected.
If you make a character do something they wouldn't actually do, that's what's known as being tone-deaf. Sure you can change the situation to keep the characters actions consistent. That's fair play. Adjust whatever you want to so the character remains consistent. What I've been talking about though is that moment when you created a character, and in writing a scene you suddenly discover it now has more depth than you gave it. But I know I'll never convince everybody, and that isn't my intention. I don't see any point in this devolving into argument.
