They seem interesting. I'll check them out. I think this is why our opinions are so different. No. At least, I don't think so. Yes. That is exactly what it is. Didn't I mention I like post modernism? This part of my argument was merely to bring into play subjectiveness, so feel free to ignore it. 1st: What?! 2nd: I think our inability to agree lies on our definition of great literature. This is also another difference in our viewpoint. You argue that some things are pointless. I argue that everything is pointless, and is any given thing is only better than anything else on it's own merits. Depressively nihilistic? Somewhat. Fair? I like to think so. Agreed.
Ahhh! Post modernism! Post modernism? *shudders* I don't think it's depressingly nihilistic, I just think it is utterly pointless. That is to say, I do not like post modernism. Actually, never mind, it is pretty nihilistic as well. Nothing has meaning, nothing has purpose, etc etc. So you're saying that Harry Potter has not more merit than 1984, that Twilight has no more merit than The Scarlet Letter, and that the Wide Sargasso Sea has no more merit than Jane Eyre...yikes. Actually, I'm wrong. Judging by your theories, Harry Potter and Twilight clearly have far MORE value than the Brothers Karamazov. Because more people find Meyer and Rowling entertaining than Dostoyevsky. Now, there are some parts of postmodernism I do like. Relativism is alright, and universalism is not alright. Fine. But that doesn't mean that nothing has meaning. Not to mention that half of post-modernists are, as Richard Dawkins has said, "intellectual charlatans who deliberately obscure weak or nonsensical ideas with ostentatious and difficult to understand verbiage." The other half just don't find any meaning in anything, aka they are nihilists...which I find to be little more attractive. Nihilism is just impractical and untrue. Some things in life DO have meaning. There's no avoiding it. Otherwise we all might as well just end it early. Even if your view is that there is no meaning to life other than entertainment/fun (I could probably go for that to some extent) it doesn’t matter, that is meaning in and of itself! But still, I think there’s a lot more purpose than that. No thanks. Seems like a useless theory to me. Life is way more complicated than just things looking pretty. And what's more, I think it's terribly rude to deny authors their purpose in writing. I seriously doubt that, oh say Dune was written without a purpose. Something being beautiful isn't mutually incompatible with a purpose. And to deny the author their purpose is to deny them their life's work. Arrgh! What's this? "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others." "All writing is pointless, some writing is more pointless than others?" Nope, that's not my point at all. I would argue exactly the opposite. All writing has a purpose, some writing has a more blatant prupose than others. Whether you want it to or not, your writing is going to have a purpose. It is. Your experiences, your political beliefs, and your view of the world are going to be channeled down into your writing, if it is writing of any decent length at all. Whether you want it to or not...writing is a creative expression of yourself, even fun writing, and therefore you will be expressing your views. Now, if you know this, and you set off with this purpose in mind, you will end up with a more focused and powerful work. For example, you have a firm belief that fun is the only thing that matters to you? Quite possibly the moral of your story will be along the lines of that. Even if you didn't intend it. Social constructivism, for the win. Heck, even a painter cannot avoid expressing his views of the world in art. Nor should he avoid expressing his views of the world! That’s a good thing! By the way, I am absolutely sending you a friends request now. Why? Because your views could not be more insanely different than mine. Excellent. I think we have wandered WAAAAY off topic now though!
We have merely taken the discussion to it's logical continuation! That being said, moderators might not feel the same way, so I'll continue this privately : ).
It is the logical conclusion indeed! Character driven writers are, by nature, post modernist and nihilist. Purpose driven writers are, similarly by nature, constructivists. Still agreed though, this discussion is better carried on privately in case the mods don't quite agree with this sudden transition into a vaguely political debate...
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. I'm not going to read a dreadfully boring piece of dreck passing itself off as fiction just because it has a point, and I would never not read a compelling book just because there's no real theme to it. This goes the other way as well. Applying such specific standards to what constitutes good writing will leave out great works. You want a theme, apply one yourself, because I can assure you many of the themes applied to great works were interpretations of the reader rather then anything confirmed or even thought of by the author.
As always, I'm right in the middle about this. I love it when everything falls into it's place naturally --it reads with that much more ease, you know? It's natural and how it should be, and it often keeps me as the author entertained to see my characters act surprisingly out of character, as if they themselves are dictating their lives, and I am just along to observe and transcribe. At the same time, when it gets down to business, I do have and do use character profiles. Appearance, general personality, sketched background, etc --just an outline. It helps because I've caught on several occasions the same character with conflicting traits!
Wow! Thank you all for the responses. It was very enjoyable and educational for me to read other people's opinions on the subject!
Oh my gosh! This has happened to me so many times, it really is like the characters take on a whole life of their own. I started out, with Dathon and David, having them look one way, then all of a sudden, it seemed out of nowhere, Dathon is looking and acting one way, and David completely opposite of what I had originally started out with! I love using character profiles, but sometimes they don't always go according to plan. I always map out the general idea of each character, and it just kind of takes shape from there.
I think the reason that characters 'create themselves' is because the imagination wanders, and once it reaches a certain point, it is very difficult to return. For example: I want you, right now, to think of a pink elephant. Think of a pink elephant. Now, STOP thinking of a pink elephant. Tell me; were you able to completely discard the image of a pink elephant? Are you thinking of one now? As soon as you think of a trait in your character that you had not intended, especially if you think of the trait while combining it with an action or gesture that brings him to life, it is difficult to withdraw from the idea and it is thusly planted firmly.
Oh, one of my MCs runs away from me all the time! He hates this girl, but by the end of the book he loves her because she does something amazing for him... But he's starting to have a crush on her now! It's too early, I need more suspense. Sometimes, characters paint themselves completely in my head, wholly formed. But sometimes I only have a rough idea of an image of a person, or a personality, and that's when I really need to work on it.
I think part of the answer lies in the type of fiction a writer writes. Is it plot or character driven? And where along that spectrum. Sure, for my writing the characters take on a bit different direction than I anticiapted, but they don't run away and "do things" totally unexpected. It may be the process I use, as I generally develop an idea, or a storyline first, and then populate it with characters. Terry
Has never happened to me, and I find the concept completely alien. They are figments of your imagination, and on a subconscious level, part of yourself. How can you surprise yourself? How can you not know what a character is going to do at any given moment? How can characters "have their own ideas?" I simply can't wrap my head around that. Can somebody explain?
Paul, think about this. Have any of the dream people in your dreams surprised you? Have you ever had conversations with them not knowing what they would say?
No, never. In my dreams, everything always makes perfect sense. Even if they're telling me that I should never put the mango inside the watermelon, it never comes as a surprise. Even when they stab me. I can always see it coming.
Hmm, so your dream people never feel like real people? Or like seperate people from you, like people you are not controlling? Have you ever while dreaming thought it was real, and only upon waking did you realize it was a dream?
Of course, all my dreams are like that. I always think my dreams are real, but yet everything makes perfect sense. I never question my actions nor those of others. And in some cases, I managed to realise I was dreaming and wake up before something nasty happened. I can't really explain it, but even though my dream people feel real, they can't surprise me.
Interesting. That might explain why your characters have never surprised you. My dream people always surprise me. They do things I did not expect, even when I am lucid. That is, even when I am fully aware that I am dreaming, and that my body is lying on the bed. They do things that real people would, and I have no awareness that I made them act the way they act. Nonetheless, you have had conversations with fake people in dreams. Did those conversations feel authentic at the time? Here is what I think happens. While writing, I sort of dose off. I see the scenes in my head as though they were a dream or a movie. I think I enter a sort of sleep state, perhaps hynotised by the rather stready appearing of black letters on white screen, which I don't really see when I enter this frame of mind. So like in my dreams, the characters tend to take on minds of their own. They have often surprised me, chosen to do things I never intended. They often make me laugh. It seems sort of schizo, but so do dreams.
I see. But that still doesn't make things any clearer. I would understand if you told me that they surprise you while dreaming normally, but even in lucid dreams? I can't comprehend. Well, yes, my dreams (and all their parts) always feel real and authentic. What's your point? Also, I find your writing method completely alien. How can you write without knowing what you write? How do you know which words to use, if your grammar and spelling are alright, if you avoid repetitions, if it's clear and understandable, if you are keeping things consistent, etc? I imagine you need to do some serious editing afterwards. But above all: How on Earth can they surprise you? I understand the "make me laugh" part, since I've often found one of my own jokes amusing, but surprise? How is that possible? Are you saying that you somehow lose consciousness while you write? That you... sleepwrite? By golly, the very thought chills me to the core.
Not sleep write. It's sort of a trance. I don't remain in the trance-like state. I write part of the scene, stop, re-read the paragraph, change some stuff, and continue. My character's surprise me. I don't know how else to explain it. I will be writing, and all of a sudden I write that the character did such and such, and I am like, wow, that is cool, didn't see that coming. Sometimes they do stupid things, and I have to erase and start again.
Well, that's still highly disturbing, but at least it makes a modicum of sense. Butbutbutbutbut... how? To me, you're just saying "Hey, I can fly!" and when I ask how is that possible, you just say "Easy, you just do it!" You must know what you're writing, at some level. You are producing something, it must come from somewhere. The only explanation I can think of is some sort of voluntary dissociation. Perhaps I should do some research in psychology textbooks. Or Wikipedia. Or both.
Most of the story I see ahead of time. Some of it I write as I go, especially dialog, and some of it comes as a surprise. I am sure the parts that are surprising are thought up on the spot so quickly it feels like the character made the choice with out me knowing it. For example. Clay and Peach the fembot were talking. He asked her if all fembots are named after fruit. She said, "It must be a fad." I am paraphrasing here. Later she asks Clay what his name is. He tells her Clay. She made a comment if it was a fad on his planet to name boys things like clay, mud, dirt, etc. Then they are saying bye and Peach completely surprised me. He grinned. “I’ll see you around, Peach.” “See ya, Mud, I mean Clay.” I had no idea I was going to type that.
I think I am beginning to understand. Somehow, you get carried away and you make connections that surprise you because they happen so fast that you didn't perceive them consciously. I think that's somewhat believable. Still not entirely convinced, but at least I have some sort of grasp on the concept. Thanks for your patience, by the way.
I'm not sure, but I don't think people should have to think too hard about their characters. The details should work themselves out naturally, subconsciously, in the head. For some reason, sitting at the desk and consciously drilling for characters traits seems to conjure up images of men and women without fluidity. The subconscious usually does a nice job of solving problems for you and presenting nicely built characters. At least for me.
Yes, but there's a difference between having your character subconsciously figured out and actually being surprised by them. I have a completely intuitive grasp of all my characters. Of the top of my head, I'd have a hard time describing them, because I don't have a list of their traits and personality quirks. However, I can instantly answer how any given character would react to any given situation at any given time.
