Yeah, that's exactly what it was for me. I was so massively stressed out that I was at a point of complete burnout or exhaustion, and I was in what's known as survival mode, where your anxiety system is always switched on. That was because of some really bad stuff going on in my life that was threatening my existence. So I'd sit down to watch a favorite movie thinking it was something I could enjoy. Nope! The threats and conflicts just made my anxieties way worse. Things that normally are fine, because normally your life isn't under severe threat. There are people who suffer from severe anxieties all the time. Something is wrong inside the parasympathetic nervous system or whatever, and it never shuts off and lets them relax. They're in survival mode all the time. I imagine ordinary movies and stories would be torture for them. I had been studying stoicism at the time, but that was when I was first able to really put it into daily practice. They say you don't really become stoic until you need it and turn it into a daily practice. That's how it worked for me. I emerged from that period a stoic.
Sorry to hear about the difficult times. I have found that writing a letter can be a good way to vent off that kind of emotional overload. The times I have done this, I would write to a dead relative, knowing it would never be read, which gave that extra bit of freedom to let things out.
I don't think that would have helped. This was existential dread, meaning my very existence was under threat on a daily basis. Actually a situation like that is the perfect training ground for stoicism. But I do know what you mean. Many times when I had something I really wanted to say to somebody but it would have destroyed a relationship or something, I wrote and never sent the letter (or the email, or the response on the message board). Like in the song Nights in White Satin—"Letters are written, never meaning to send." It helps you get it out of your system.
Glad to hear you made it through the trials. Sadly, we as a society have moved away from the ideals of the stoics.
Even in ancient Greece and Rome, stoics were very much the exception rather than the rule. Most people are very anti-stoic. In fact, Mister Spock was based on a common misunderstanding of the stoics, that they operate on pure logic and have no emotion. Not true! When you learn how to divert the overpowering emotions you can remain cheerful even in really tough situations. Stoics were often the life of the party. But I'm diverting the thread off topic.
Most people haven't read Marcus Arelius either. There are so many works that get left out of general education that should be there. The Prince for one, but then people would see the games politicians run.
I can't find the original discussion. I did some searching on my own. A few people pointed to some Japanese novel styles--I've heard that before, but what little I've read of them I would not go so far as to say there is no conflict. I also saw people mention Arthur Clarke's Songs of Distant Earth and Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast. I don't agree with those (I'm more familiar with Gormenghast and there is plenty of conflict there). I also saw Swann's Way mentioned, and while I can see what they're talking about, in a way, there is conflict in that novel as well. Some of the people talking about books with no conflict seem to be focusing exclusively on overt external conflict, but that's not all there is to it.
I like this definition: Conflict is thwarted, endangered or opposing desire. That builds tension, and "Tension is the mother of fiction." What is Conflict in Literature
I took the thread as discussing works like James Joyce Ulysses. Something to appeal to the High Literature crowd. Personally, if I am going to put that much work into something, I want something that is readable, and brings some enjoyment to the reader.
Different strokes. What kind of enjoyment? I like all kinds of books, high literature pretense or not, but there are times with the classics where one thinks: critical acclaim be damned, this could have been a few pages shorter, could have gotten to the point sooner and been none the worse. The last one I had the feeling with was Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky. It seemed to have lots of chaff, far too much dialogue.
I believe so. To tell a story, regardless of genre, the characters have to 'feel' real and by this, I mean that their actions, their reasoning are true to themselves, not an interpretation of what someone thinks they should do. One member wrote that if they wrote an alcoholic character suddenly stopped drinking the next day, this would not be plausible, and this is something I agree with entirely. To broaden this analogy means a writer needs to invest and 'be' the character, go through their history as to why they would do something all in the attempt to have an obligation to the reader. I agree and disagree with what was said here. When I write the characters must stay true to themselves and if it means altering the story for it, I will do so. I view writing a story very much like running. We all set ourselves the goal of reaching the finish line, but some won't make it, others just about crawl across but the one constant is that this 'course' is full of hardships. I've read some great stories only to be pulled away from them because of inconsistencies of a character. It isn't really because the choices they make go against their character (like what was pointed above in shifting a character to fit a situation) but that the reasoning behind their decisions fitted the story more than the reasoning of a character's decision. Question marks are bound to occur in stories, but if they are not fully developed for the reader to understand then this leaves a poorer reflection for me as the reader, largely in part, because the author took little care towards the reader, thus I feel there is a great importance to understanding your characters, their backgrounds to uncover their reasoning and finding a way to show this to the reader. I agree with this entirely. I agree with this a lot too. Whether a story is plot central or character based, characters are what binds a reader or a viewer to the 'scene.' It could be Sci-Fi, Star Trek and the viewer can feel they are on the Star Ship because of the plot, because of the action, but if a character is not well formed, is inconsistent, then my attention would draw to the flaws of a character even if the story has little to do with them. Call it a plot hole, but well rounded characters are a must. I don't like the word control, I like to think that if you develop a good enough character, they tell you what to do, so much so, that say in dialogue, certain words and expressions arise from what they comment on even if you have written down the exchanges to make it sound more like 'them.' Completely agree. I think the Chess analogy works. Characters are like pieces on the board, we are the player who moves the pieces. If we do not understand where a knight can or cannot move, then it is likely we will be defeated to those who know the precise places in which every piece can move to get a check mate. I used to follow a writer who was very stubborn in their views towards writing. They were strong in their opinions and I didn't agree with their styling and approaches to writing, but began to understand their pickiness and study to writing. They could trim down a well crafted sentence to the minimum, making a passage lose all the style of the original and that isn't something any writer should do, but it made me realise that every component of writing needs to work in order for a story to be memorable. By viewing a character as one part of a story, is like over writing to me, making a sentence a little too purple. If overly done, it doesn't read good, under cooked, and a character does not read believable, and all to the detriment of the story. Having the tenacity to look deeply into writing is I think critical to making a story that will leave an impression to a reader, and in short terms, making a reader turn a page, in the longer term, making a reader view the writer as a great one. Sorry this is getting long for everyone... I was late to this thread, but there is a lot of truth to this, but I don't think the characters are 'me' but more in recapturing and developing characteristics of people who know or have seen. A phrase, an impression builds characters that we use, that are not part of our traits but fits the character we create. Completely agree with this. I think the further you write, the characters naturally develop in your own mind to the point they tell you how they are reacting. I think it is the responsibility of the writer not reader. If a writer does not give a damn about their reader, they will not have any. A writer has to take the care towards their readers (this is regardless of any action or anything) because readers look for bonds and connections with characters, like certain characters more than others based on how they make a reader tickle or feel sad. If a writer destroys the perception of a character for the reader, it doesn't matter how good a story is, the trust between the writer and reader is broken. Many writers view their stories as their babies, it sounds a little exaggerated by I side with this. I have kids and if I did not care how they turn out, or place any attention to bring them up decent and well behaved in this world, they won't be. Care must come from a writer (parent) in order for others to see their values.
So true. The word that is used is "authentic." I'm not sure if this word is interchangeable with "truth" but it's pretty close. I think I understand you. Create the person in your imagination, in your mind, and then they almost take on a life of their own. The relationship between the writer and the characters they create is a unique one. Some say, “My characters are me.” Others say, “My characters are my children.” Neither of these, though, quite fit the relationship between me and my characters. I guess the closest analogy in my case would be that my characters are close friends, confidantes, but I am totally and completely responsible for their welfare, for everything that happens to them. In using my agency, I give them agency. And I feel everything they feel.
You mean "owe" them something as in give them good endings/lives? No, and here's why. In my stories, I like to portray the cruel reality of this world. The world is full of things that sting. I make my characters go through these things to seem more relatable. It can be anything from losing a loved one to losing militarily and being subjugated. Of course, this isn't the only way I treat my characters since the world is full of beauty too so I make sure to have my characters experience that as well.
No, that's not what I was thinking of. More like, making both them and their experiences genuine and authentic, whether they be good or bad.
I see what you mean. Yes, that's my goal. I want to make my characters feel as real as possible and relatable to at least some people. This is why I want to make the antagonist garner sympathy as well, because oftentimes, because have motivations that we don't understand but that doesn't make them bad guys. They may have similar solutions to a problem but different ideas on how to get there so if I made my antagonist(s) one dimensional villains, I wouldn't be doing them or my protagonists much justice.
