'Too much' diversity?

Not even remotely! The Great Course I took on writing fiction referenced the difference between British and American acting: American actors generally try to understand their characters' backstories and psychology to figure out how they would act, but British actors generally try to build a character up from unique mannerisms (one Brit even saying that he didn't connect with his character until he came up with the perfect walk). An American actor asks the director, "what's my motivation?" but a British actor/director would tell an actor, "let the wig do most of the work."

The same principle applies to the written word: some novelists are more inside-out (American-style), other novelists are more outside-in (British-style). And apparently there are also some writers in this thread who are outside-only (which makes no sense to me whatsoever ), but I do tend to be about 75% inside-out American, 25% outside-in British: sometimes I come up with a cool line that I need to use for a character, then ask myself what it is about the character that would make her say that, but normally I try to understand as much about the characters' motivations as possible and let everything branch out from there.

 

Which is kind of funny, because the big thing that hard-core literary elitists claim that film and television can never do as well as literature can is get inside the characters' heads, that film/television are limited because you can only see the character's outwardly plot-relevant actions and nothing more personal Almost every film/television writer worth his salt is trying to copy literature's ability to show us who the characters are on the inside, and here you are saying that literature should be more like film and television

 

So, really, everyone's agreeing and we're just talking past each other, right?

Because NOBODY is saying we should include things in our books just to show off research. We're all saying there should be reasons.

Sexual orientation, like every other damn thing, should be included in a book if it adds to the effect the author is trying to create.
Sexual orientation, like every other damn thing, should be excluded from a book if it does not add to the effect the author is trying to create.

Can we all agree on that, and agree that each author will have to decide for herself what effect she is trying to create and what details will most effectively create that effect?

 

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make here.

There's reasons why almost any specific detail of a character could or should be included; it depends on the book and the story and the other characters. But it needs to be playing into something in the book for gods sake. You took the time to put it in the damn book, the reader will presume that it matters.

This is Chekhov's Gun. And it's crazy to me that this is about the fifth time in a year that I've had to explain at length what this is as a concept to people who supposedly know a thing or two about stories.

Checkhov's Gun - "If you put a gun on stage then the audience expects that it'll be fired."

You control every detail of the world in fiction. And the details you do include the audience will expect to matter to something. And if they don't matter then it's unsatisfying. That's why you shouldn't include details that don't play into something of value in the book, and no being interesting is not value. If it doesn't tell us something about how they are acting or their relationship with someone or give us insight into something then it's a detail that does nothing. It doesn't have to do a huge thing. But the readers are literally reading every word you write, they only have those words to go on to know what to expect coming forward. They will be disappointed if you dangle a gun in front of them then not have it fire. Why did you describe this gun then? Because describing it actively made your book worse; it leads the reader towards things that they shouldn't be thinking about.

Readers are savvy people. Most have read lots of books. They know how the form works. They know there are no accidents in the words they read, they think the words you put in front of them are going to matter.

That's why you don't add things that don't matter. Because it hurts your book.

 

That was pretty much what I said back on page 1 dude.

If being gay matters, tell us everyone is gay. If it doesn't don't. But don't tell us everyone is gay if it doesn't matter that they are gay.

But here we are.

 

But a gun is an odd thing. You wouldn't say, similarly, "If you put a dish on stage then the audience expects that it'll be thrown" or "If you put a rug on stage then the audience expects that a body will be rolled into it," or "If you put a chair on stage the audience expects that a prisoner will be tied to it." Dishes and rugs and chairs are normal scene-setting.

One of my points is that a non-straight orientation is not an odd thing that requires a dramatic excuse for being in the plot.

 

Isn't Chekhov's Gun generally considered to be more applicable to stage productions than to novels?

 

Do you really think no one in this thread knows what Chekhov's Gun is? Goodness.

Here's the thing: if the plot/story/however we want to reference it calls for - to use Wrey's example from the previous page - Bryan to awkwardly bump into someone he had a fling with and snap at them, it doesn't matter if the fling was with a woman or a man. All that the beat requires is a person. But if the person is a guy, it contributes to 'diversity', which seemingly frustrates or sticks out to some people (per the OP), and somehow becomes some type of issue. The existence of David rather than Diana is not an important detail to the story. It's not a gun. Bryan's prospective implied bisexuality is no more a plot point that his prospective implied heterosexuality would have been; it's just a tiny choice made by the writer.

 

Could you make your argument without being condescending, do you think? I mean, I assume we're probably all familiar with the Chekhov's Gun analogy. We understand it. You don't need to explain it to us, and you certainly don't need to bother with the "supposedly know a thing or two" crap. It just gets in the way of what we're talking about.

And in terms of what we're talking about... I agree with @ChickenFreak that guns aren't the same as orientation, but I also think there are plenty of reasons to include a gun in a story even if the gun is never fired. Like:

It depends on the way your stage is set. If you have only a chair and a gun on the stage, then, yes, probably the gun should be important. But if you have a richly detailed set, and the gun is hung over the set fireplace between the heads of two prize bucks, then the gun is just one more detail of setting the scene, or even the characterization (because what kind of person hangs a gun over her fireplace?) - this obviously ties in with @ChickenFreak's idea - is a gun unusual, or is it not?

It depends on the characters you're using. A bunch of soldiers/police officers/ranchers without guns? That'd be remarkable in itself, wouldn't it? Distracting, even?

It depends on the mood of the piece and how the gun is presented. If it's incidental, just one of many odd objects a comedic character pulls out of a chest, then, no, of course I wouldn't expect it to be fired.

etc.

It depends on loads of things.

So, we get your concept. But it's crazy to me that I have to explain the subtleties of the concept to a person who clearly thinks he knows a thing or two about stories. (now imagine I'd left it without that final dig. Wouldn't your mind have been a bit more open to my words? If I were a bigger person, I'd delete the line, but, fuck it. I'm not that big.)

 

It's about stage plays because Chekhov wrote stage plays. But the point is the same. You control every detail that the audience can see. The world is a blank space until you fill it. There is nothing placed by accident. So when you fill the world you only put the things that should be taken notice of.

That's because you are taking the phrase too literally. Being fired is not the only way that the gun can play into what's happening.

Extrapolate the phrase out a bit:

"If you place [object] then [object] should have an impact."

Things can matter in many different ways. But they still have to matter.

 

So any detail about a character should be included in a story if the detail matters to the characterization, theme, plot, setting, style, or other goals of the writer. Yes?

 

Don't encourage him, Homer!

 

No, no "h"

I always wondered why he never pronounced his name "Chekaw"

 

You seem to have fairly thoroughly ignored @BayView's entire post. You did quote one line, but you didn't seem to understand the context at all.

 

So someone else just started a thread "Filler vs Depth/Substance," would anybody like to head over there and let this turn back into a diversity thread by any chance

 

To be fair, with the dig at the end, I made it harder for him to have an open mind. But... yeah. He did gloss over most of it.

 

We're back to the "page upon page" business.

How could it take page upon page to define someone's sexuality? Like, assuming someone actually wanted to do this stupid thing, how would they be able to do it?!?

Alternatively... enough with the "page upon page" and "describe it at length" nonsense. NOBODY WANTS TO DO THAT.

 

Ehh... not sure. In my world, stories are inanimate and don't have goals.