Well, i have to disagree with you there. By questioning the character you are essentially asking yourself questions. Questions lead to answers and answers lead to more questions etc. This type of exercise can generate fresh ideas, new lines of thought etc. So to dismiss it as 'inferior practice' is a bit unfair, and is potentially chucking the baby out with the bath water. but each to their own.
I have to agree with Solar, and everyone else who says there is no right or wrong way since it has to work for you. You can't decide how another writer handles it and you can't say it's a wrong exercise just because it's wrong for you. I don't use this method for all the characters and certainly it's not the only one. I found that it helps me to 1) get to know them better (behaviour, past: I ask very personal questions which I try to complicate, just to dare myself really) and 2) get inspired. But I'm not trying to imply it works for everyone, or that it works for every character. But I think it can be useful to some, if used right, because I understand what lanphea is saying about getting trapped. I just don't think it has to go that way.
I don't believe so. The benefits of interviewing, IMO, can be achieved better through just writing. An interview essentially takes you out of the story and I see it as a distraction. It might be good for a laugh or a bonus feature but as a tool to get to know your characters better, I have not seen evidence that it provides any usefulness. Why don't you show me some examples of how interviewing can help you better understand your own character? Show me an example of a character interview and how it really is useful.
I really don't mean this in a bad way, but why do you want anyone to convince you? If it doesn't work for you, then that's perfectly fine. Why would you want to decide for others what works for them and what doesn't? I can only speak for myself and it helped me as stated above: it especially inspired me and before I used it I was stuck on my characters past. Through the interview I got a whole bunch of new ideas and some of her personality traits fell in place. This was just for me, as the writer, not for the reader (so I wouldn't list it and I didn't write a chapter about how she got 'this way'; but I was helped a lot by it). And as said before; I think it's a lot of fun to do. But if it doesn't work for you, nobody is forcing you to do it.
Well, it IS a forum. If we're to have any kind of two-way discussion where we pose questions and then start taking issue with the answer, it's generally a good idea to offer some examples as a foundation for your point. So if the point is that interviews are beneficial, then some examples would go a long way in making a case for that. Writing off dissenters doesn't seem like a good method for discussion. If that's the case, why pose the question at all? And if it really does work for some people, than they should have no problem showing me how. And if the interviews are being done for fun, that's fine. But doing something for fun and doing something because it provides actual insight are two different things.
There is something in human nature that leads people to want to be shown objectively right, even when the issues are purely subjective or personal. It seems to me self-evident that techniques that work for one writer may not work for another, and that the degree to which such things work may also vary from person to person. If a writer posts here and says character interviews are a valuable technique to them, personally, then it is silly to argue with that assertion. There is no way for any of us to know the individualized value any other writer here gains from this approach.
First and foremost, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop putting words in my mouth. I said that this practice has the potential to lead to bad habits, not necessarily bad prose. Problems can be overcome by any writer, but I’m simply stating that some can be avoided if certain practices are also avoided. Second, no practice is “bad practice” and I’m not telling anyone to give anything up. I don’t know where you’re getting this from, but I never said any writer should stop because of their methods, I was merely making known the mental consequences of some exercises and why they should perhaps be avoided. Everyone has their own ways of brainstorming and progressing, but in my experience as a writer and with many inexperienced writers, it is sometimes better to know less to begin with and allow your mind to develop the characters as they are introduced to various situations as opposed to simply asking and getting responses. When writing, the author should become one with the characters to get to know them and an interview creates distance as well as forced interaction. I’m still not sure how my opinion seems “dramatic,” but if you feel that way then I can only assume that a fair bit of defensiveness also fuels your reply. To assume that everyone works the same would be ignorant and self-centered, and I don’t appreciate, again, this assumption you’ve made about what I said. It is not final that what is discussed in an “interview” is set in stone, but it is subconsciously easier to avoid that mentality if it’s never created. By being less precise, you can avoid this outcome, otherwise their are other hurdles to be overcome. I never once stated that there were no other ways and that how I do things is absolute. As far as “delving deeper,” I suppose we’re going to have to simply agree to disagree, because no amount of “probing” is going to reveal someones true character, fictional or not. For many reasons, probing is almost worse because, in real life, it causes the person being interviewed to strive for an answer because of pressure, and the same can be said for a writer answering for their respective characters. Most interviews, no matter how “deep,” have a sense of superficiality to them and seeing the character in action, how they did react, their emotional reactions, is the only surefire way to know, superficial questions or not.
What kind of example would be persuasive? If someone tells you they create characters more effectively with an interview than without, what possible basis for disagreement could you have? How do you know what goes on in their creative process and what does not, and how it works better? Again, it's a silly point to argue. Just as silly as the reverse, which would be if someone was insisting that no matter what you say, character interviews work for you, personally. What could be the basis for such arguments relating to what does or doesn't go on within the head of another person?
Same here. Double posts when submit was hit only once, and also database errors. Been getting those off and on for a week or so.
Oh good it's not just me. Hopefully it will be fixed soon then, because double posting is irritating for everyone
Well then let's shut down the forum, by all means. After all, who are we to question what's in somebody's head. And since we cannot question what is in somebody's head, well, there is no need to start a thread talking about some technique because we're not permitted to critique said technique. Because if somebody says it works for them, it must be unquestionable accepted. If somebody is going to contest my point and say that interviews work, I'd like to see an example of how. Again, if interviews work, then telling me how they do and showing me an example shouldn't be so impossible to do. After all, it works, right? Share the wisdom so others may see the benefits! Maybe I am merely curious to see the benefits of a given technique. I would hope that promoters of that technique are able to give it a reasonable defense and not hide behind "who are you to question what works for me?" as a defense in a discussion.
Nice hyperbole. But of course those issue don't comprise the entire subject matter of the forums. Let's be more rational. If someone tells you the technique works, it doesn't mean it is susceptible to proof. Just like if I tell you that many times I write better longhand (which is true), there is no way for me to demonstrate it apart perhaps from having myself videotaped over a period of time writing and typing. The reason is argument is silly is there is no resolution to it and nothing that can be shown to convince a person of something other than that which they innately know to be true about themselves. For some reason, it seems very important to you that your view is validated as the only correct one, but that's just not possible. If someone tells you they tried interviewing and it gave them a good starting knowledge of the character and helped them know how a character would reaction to situations as they were writing, then what, you say "well my technique works better," and maybe they say "I tried that and it didn't work for me," and then it's just an endless series of yes-no-yes-no as two people contradict one another over a matter that neither is in a position to judge. Not sure how you don't see that. In any event, the discussion is already little more than contradiction for its own sake.
+1 (can't remember if we're allowed to do that, but considering the rest of this thread is I'm right/you're wrong stuff, I'd just like to +1 this since it sounds good to me)
@Steer: The premise was the reason I used the hyperbole. It's a poor premise to apply to a discussion. This is a thread about a technique. Thus, I feel asking defenders of said technique to show examples of it's benefits is not a silly argument. If we cannot discuss the merits of the techniques because it's silly to evaluate them because "if it works for somebody, then it works for them," we might as well close the forum down. And it IS susceptible to proof. You could give me a snippet of an example interview and tell me what that taught you that you could not have learned otherwise. If it really works, it's easy to present an example. I am actually not trying to validate my view as correct. I actually am genuinely curious. Maybe I would try the technique if somebody gave a convincing argument as to how it helped them. But all I get is an excuse that basically says "I know that it helped me. It's silly to ask me to show examples of how it did." I only intended to post one comment but then somebody quoted me, clearly wanting their own view validated. So I, in turn, asked for examples to give said poster a chance to make a case to me. I don't see how that is silly. IMO, what is silly is having a thread about a writing technique and not allowing any true discussion of that technique to occur.
The character Development Clinic in the Word Games sub-section of the forum is basically the "interview" technique being used to help anyone that needs help fleshing out their characters. I haven't seen any real deviation apart from this technique being used in there. You can is it working though there is no real way to gauge how effective the technique translated into someone's work as no one is actually posting their work. But there are a few returning members that continually use it and if you actually pay attention, you'll see a subtle trend in the type of questions being asked. It's hard to gauge a technique without knowing how to even measure a technique's worth or to even figure out if the technique is being used correctly of if there is even a correct way to use the technique. As far as if the interview technique is helpful or not, I have mixed feelings. I think applying it to a character can be helpful as long as you're constantly evaluating and reinforce your answer with your novel concept and how overall you want your character to be perceived at any given time. I mean sure if you employ the technique, you will get a whole slew of extra and maybe worthless information, but part of being writer is also knowing how to discern and discard the worthless info and only taking what you need just as any other area of research. Maybe someone's novel is not plot driven, but character driven. I mean there are so many scenarios of how someone can write a novel that that being so vehemently opposed to a method seems odd when you haven't seen it being used with the desired results. To apply it personally, I like writing things are essentially social commentaries. Beyond the plot, I usually have something that I'm making a point about, commenting on some situation based on certain themes and ideas that tie my novel together; and so when I'm writing, I am constantly asking myself if my overall ideas and themes are being reinforced behind the scenes. I don't see how me asking my myself if my novel is moving in the right direction, questioning myself, question a scenes worth, a scene's effect, is really any different from questioning a character when you strip everything down to it's basics. Maybe I don't specifically "interview" my characters to with questions like "do you consider yourself to be conservative or liberal" but I am constantly myself if their actions are reinforcing the intent of my scene and if they're not, then why didn't my MC react that way?
