# Who's the Boss?



## Ghost (May 20, 2012)

I've heard people say their characters are in control. The characters are unruly dogs the writer tried to walk, and now a pack of energetic, opinionated mongrels drags the hapless writer up and down the streets.

I've heard of people making their characters perform. The characters are little puppets forced to carry out the writer's wishes. The plot requires the character to join the circus? That character better find his clown shoes or the writer will kill off his friends and family, one by one.

Alright, those are both exaggerations, but I wonder: are you at the mercy of your characters? Do you control their every move? *Who is in charge of your story?* I expect many writers fall between or use completely different plan of attack.

My main characters form around whatever situation I've imagined, or a fragment of that character comes to me and I try to uncover the story to go with it. If I try to take the story from the character or the character out of the story, what's left is awkward and limp. They influence each other too much. Because of that, I can't imagine forcing the narrative or being run roughshod over by my own creations.

I'm really curious about everyone's strategies for moving characters forward in the narrative. It's interesting to hear how different or similar our approaches are.


----------



## Devor (May 20, 2012)

Ouroboros said:


> *Who is in charge of your story?*



When I write, I really don't feel like anything is optional.  I've got a concept buried in my head somewhere, and everything in my pages of notes and story has been dictated by that concept.  With everything, I feel that this is what's necessary to bring the elements together, and nothing else will do.

It's like I wrote the story in another lifetime, and I'm trying to remember how I did it.

That's how I feel when I write.  The characters aren't in control, but neither am I.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 20, 2012)

When I create a character concept, I begin with a couple elements.  Then, as I put the character through the wringer (because that's where I get my fun from), I get to know them better, and let them have a  little control.  However, as soon as a character's function is complete or they get boring, I get rid of them.  All the more reason to keep the challenges coming!


----------



## Penpilot (May 20, 2012)

Characters used to run rough shot over me, but I studied hard and learned all their little secret wants and desires, and in doing so, learned how to control them. I learned to build the maze called an outline and baited it with shinys to temp their souls and warp their desires. For the most part they do as I wish, but every so often, the temptations aren't enough. They'll turn left instead of right and find a secret path I never knew was there or an exit out of the maze I didn't know existed. Rebellious little shits.


----------



## The Dark One (May 21, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Characters used to run rough shot over me, but I studied hard and learned all their little secret wants and desires, and in doing so, learned how to control them. I learned to build the maze called an outline and baited it with shinys to temp their souls and warp their desires. For the most part they do as I wish, but every so often, the temptations aren't enough. They'll turn left instead of right and find a secret path I never knew was there or an exit out of the maze I didn't know existed. Rebellious little shits.



Very similar to my method. I get to know my main characters really well at the very beginning - in fact, there will always be something about the plot's resolution inherent in the MC's native condition - and I percolate ideas about that character (and how they might contribute to plot, until one day I find myself writing an essay about the character. This is not part of the book - it's just a way of creating detail about the character which is already in my head when later writing the story. Some of the material may be mentioned but it doesn't need to be to have already served its purpose. You can't write wooden, one dimensional characters if you know them as well as you know your mates. 

And yet, for all my careful planning, my characters constantly amaze me with their unanticipated antics. Sometimes I let them go where they want to go (within the lines of the story plan) but as often as not I drag them back to where they ought to be.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 21, 2012)

I'm not above changing a character's entire personality if I don't like how I'm writing him or her, but this means changing it in every single scene I've already written, and potentially changing the story arc if the character would no longer do or not do something. I guess that's still following the character's will--it's just doing so in a more labor-intensive fashion than usual.


----------



## Kit (May 21, 2012)

I am a newspaper reporter. I can decide which witnesses to interview and how to word the copy, but I got ZERO control over events and even less over personalities. I'm their bitch.


----------



## gavintonks (May 21, 2012)

hahhahh very well said, but I like to look through the eyes of my characters to see how they react and I believe they are responsible for the story as it is their personality and likeability or hateability that engages the reader with the story in the end


----------



## Ophiucha (May 21, 2012)

I'm very much in control of my characters. I'll completely alter or remove them if I feel it necessary, or condense two or three characters into one. I craft them very specifically for the purposes of the story I want to tell, which has its ups and downs. I find that it generally tells a better and more solid story... but it basically makes it impossible to write sequels or tell any other story with that character. To the point where if I change anything important about the world or the plot, I basically need to rewrite the entire character as well. So, yeah, ups and downs, but I like the end product better when I'm in control.


----------



## JCFarnham (May 21, 2012)

I find it rather bizarre when authors act as though the characters are in charge for one specific reason:

*You, the author, are by definition in control.* If you "aren't" then you're not doing it right. You are God in your created world, you can give life, or take life away, you can lop out bits of peoples personalities and replace then with something new. 

I completely understand where the characters-in-control mind set comes from (ie, creating something so real and instinctively knowing what that character would do) but to me - I'm not accusing any one don't worry - going that step further and acting as though they are genuinely alive...?

Anyway, if you (the general "you", not the specific) _don't_ have control then I'm not sure whether you have a good enough hang on the craft.


----------



## Kit (May 21, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> I find it rather bizarre when authors act as though the characters are in charge for one specific reason:
> 
> *You, the author, are by definition in control.* If you "aren't" then you're not doing it right. You are God in your created world, you can give life, or take life away, you can lop out bits of peoples personalities and replace then with something new.
> 
> ...



Art- like religion- is subjective to the point of being defined by subjectivity. God (or whatever equivalent you recognize, if you recognize it/him/her/them at all) comes to you the way it comes. Art comes to you the way it comes.


----------



## JCFarnham (May 21, 2012)

Kit said:


> Art- like religion- is subjective to the point of being defined by subjectivity. God (or whatever equivalent you recognize, if you recognize it/him/her/them at all) comes to you the way it comes. Art comes to you the way it comes.



Even so, the point of being an author (or painter, or musician, or...) is the act of creation. You decide what you do. However you choose to embellish that point, you do what you do because you want to do it. How we human beings explain things - because we do like to explain and catagorise don't we? Human nature. - doesn't change anything.

What I'm saying is the explanation/view point is the subjective bit. Being in control the creation is the fundimental core of art (even if you're on commission, you're still the one doing the work.)

The art controlling you just doesn't logically make sense to me.


----------



## Kit (May 21, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> Even so, the point of being an author (or painter, or musician, or...) is the act of creation. You decide what you do. However you choose to embellish that point, you do what you do because you want to do it. How we human beings explain things - because we do like to explain and catagorise don't we? Human nature. - doesn't change anything.
> 
> What I'm saying is the explanation/view point is the subjective bit. Being in control the creation is the fundimental core of art (even if you're on commission, you're still the one doing the work.)
> 
> The art controlling you just doesn't logically make sense to me.



Where does artistic inspiration come from? Where does artistic talent come from?

I like piano; wish I could play, and maybe if I worked my tail off I could eventually learn to be competent at it.  

I like ballet; it just comes.  

Control is limited when it comes to art. Regardless of which art forms I like, and would like to do, I don't get to choose which ones just fountain out in an organic and inspired way versus which ones I need to grind at in order to produce a minimal level of dexterity. (And sure, the nuances of the "fountaining" arts take work to perfect, but it often doesn't seem like work.... and anyhow, it's pretty damn good even without perfecting) 

Art is not a math equation- the more I try to control it, the less artistic (and crappier) it becomes.  It's always best when it just gushes.

Your mileage may vary as always.


----------



## JCFarnham (May 21, 2012)

We probably just have varying definitions of "control".

I'm not talking about "forcing" art, that's something entirely different (and what you're on about). When I write fiction, or compose music what I'm inspired to do is what I do. Again I don't classify that as, say, my instruments controlling what I'm playing. Or... my characters being in control.

I'm still in control of them (or, to extend the comparision again, the intruments), and inspiration is separate to that - An indescribable thing that happens in the moment and informs, but honestly _isn't_ in the driving seat. I could ignore it - that's my control as an artist.

But I'm not in my opinion being forced into doing anything. You know?


----------



## Steerpike (May 21, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> I find it rather bizarre when authors act as though the characters are in charge for one specific reason:
> 
> *You, the author, are by definition in control.* If you "aren't" then you're not doing it right.



Bingo.

The statement that the characters are control and are running away with the story is shorthand for something else, either a lack of discipline, or a conscious decision to let your own subconscious run with the story in whatever direction it seems to you the characters would take it. But you're in control. You can write the story how you want and make the characters do whatever you want. Even if you let your subconscious roam free and just follow wherever the writing takes you, you're only fooling yourself if you think that you can't stop it any time you want.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 21, 2012)

I describe myself as a "Literary Calvinist." All characters are pre-ordained to do my bidding. That said, I have been known to change my mind, frequently, forcing them to change as well.[1]

--------
[1] I am an evil, capricious deity. John Calvin would not approve.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (May 21, 2012)

I think maybe it's a way of saying that characters seem to take on a life of their own--as an author, you can let them go off and do things and you seem to have no control over it... while you're writing.

But then there comes a time when you have to step back, pull out your axe, and chop that character to bits and start over.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 21, 2012)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not an inherently creative person. Everything I write is in some way stolen from other sources (and I disagree with Picasso on this one--many of the artists I steal from created rather than stole.) I can rewrite a character when I really have to, but if I don't let them follow their base characterization in unexpected directions, my plots will turn out cliched, since my original idea of them is always cliched.


----------



## The Dark One (May 22, 2012)

I think some of you are being wilfully semantic here.

Of course the characters are under our control in the end, from an editing perspective, but I took the point to be about the inspiration of story at any particular moment. In my opinion, you can only have control over that in retrospect. You don't generate artistic ideas with the conscious rational mind - art comes from the unconscious/subconscious/id-state and is then refined and translated by the rational mind. The unconscious etc mind is by definition not inherently controllable but that is the exciting well into which we dip when in the muse.

When I'm deeply into the muse, it's like watching a movie and the scenes just pour through my fingers onto the laptop screen. Honestly, I can read back over something I've written and hardly remember the process (or what it produced) at all. It's almost as though I'm a reader - getting to enjoy the work for the first time without knowing what's coming.

When dipping into that well of possibilities it really can happen that characters do things I hadn't consciously thought of previously. This won't change the plot in any fundamental way because I've always mapped all the important parts of the plot before I start, but it can certainly pile on layers of extra texture and meaning.

In every one of my books, I've realised something profoundly important when writing the last chapter, which was always lying dormant in the genes of the story and makes perfect sense. It doesn't really change the ending but lets me understand it in a whole new way I'd never adverted to in the planning.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 22, 2012)

You see, even if we stretch what we are talking about to include that definition, I _still_ don't think I fall into that. Of course I am occasionally struck with a spot of inspiration, but the way I craft my stories and the ideas I get from my inspiration is certainly quite calculated. The only time I've ever read over and not known, nearly word for word, what was written down on the page was when I found the old .doc file of the first novel I ever wrote, back in 6th grade, while looking through my backup drive.

To take a recent example of one of my projects, #soundworld, I feel like everything in it serves a distinct purpose. I said to myself, firstly and before anything else, that I wanted to create a world where the _only _form of magic was sound. How did I come to this? I think I was talking about bards in Dungeons & Dragons with my husband for a bit. How did I decide on some of the creatures of my world? I studied evolutionary hypotheses (particularly, what do scientists believe will inherit the Earth after us) and extrapolated. My cultures, though not based on any world culture in particular, are crafted around interests and ideals. My characters all serve some distinct purpose or reflect some character trait I find lacking in my fantasy fiction. The only divine inspiration I had for Kori was "there really aren't enough single father protagonists in fantasy", so bam, single father protagonist.

In White Moon, another WIP, even though I wrote the scenes and the emotions on the fly (since it's historical fantasy, a lot of the events were sort of predetermined), they are all based firmly on my deep understanding of the characters which I established beforehand. Being struck by inspiration, for me, is suddenly being able to tie together a couple of loose strings. Realizing how the pieces come together. If I am suddenly considering some new idea for the story or the character or the world, something radical, I tend to stop writing for a minute to figure out how to include it before proceeding, I don't just start typing away.

I don't think it extends how long it takes me to write a story. I can still do by 1,666 words/day for NaNoWriMo most years, and I can do 1,000 words/day during the other eleven months without fail. If I am really in love with a character or the story, I can do 2k or 3k a day on the first draft. But I am still a generally calculated writer. I don't _let _my subconscious write the story, I let it tell me ideas and I put them into consideration.


----------



## SeverinR (May 22, 2012)

Stories are like marble mazes, 
you set up the maze, with possible forks, alternate paths, you place the marble at the top,
and you see where it goes.

There is some control, but the more you do what you want, the more it becomes;
Why did this happen?
Because its in the script!

Every decision made in a story is based on how the character sees it, reads it, deals with it, not by how the author thinks it should go. The author creates the character and how they fit in the story, but the character personality will determine how they react, not just the whim of the writer.

If you do something just becasue you can, the reader will wonder why you just don't destroy all the "bad guys" with your God like powers, so they can go on a find a book that is more believable.


----------



## JCFarnham (May 22, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> Every decision made in a story is based on how the character sees it, reads it, deals with it, not by how the author thinks it should go. The author creates the character and how they fit in the story, but the character personality will determine how they react, not just the whim of the writer.
> 
> If you do something just becasue you can, the reader will wonder why you just don't destroy all the "bad guys" with your God like powers, so they can go on a find a book that is more believable.



I'm fairly sure none of us are suggesting that. 

I see where you're coming from, but still, the fact that you created the character is all the control you need. If they aren't doing what you want to you can just change them to better fit the story. In fact, you _should_ change them in that case. The story isn't published yet. Nothing's set in stone.

Being faithful to your character is one thing, but you the author still have absolute power. It may not seem like it sometimes, but you absolutely ARE the boss.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 22, 2012)

Actually I *AM* suggesting that.

I'm telling a story. I'm telling a story I want to tell--not a story my characters want to tell. They're *in* the story I want to tell--they serve the story, not the other way around. If I *wanted* to tell a story where the writer decided to intrude and fix everything, I jolly well would. I'm not sure it would be a good story, but that's what I'd do.

If that bothers you, don't read my stories. But I'm still going to tell the stories I want to tell.


----------



## Steerpike (May 22, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> Actually I *AM* suggesting that.
> 
> I'm telling a story. I'm telling a story I want to tell--not a story my characters want to tell. They're *in* the story I want to tell--they serve the story, not the other way around. If I *wanted* to tell a story where the writer decided to intrude and fix everything, I jolly well would. I'm not sure it would be a good story, but that's what I'd do.
> 
> If that bothers you, don't read my stories. But I'm still going to tell the stories I want to tell.



Yes, I think this is right. You have to maintain the sense that the characters are "in character," or else provide a reason when they are not, but I think ultimately this is a true view of things. Even when people are in the throes of inspiration and the words are just pouring forth, that is still coming from your own subconscious, and if you really want to you could put on the brakes and go in a different direction.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (May 22, 2012)

The Dark One said:


> I think some of you are being wilfully semantic here.



Don't knock it; the overwhelming majority of arguments and misunderstandings in all of human history have to do with people not being precise about exactly what is under discussion. If I had my way, all debates would start with and continually refer to precise definitions of terms. As much attention should be paid to those terms as to the topic, if you want a rational outcome.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 22, 2012)

I think _Battle Royale_ is the perfect demonstration of why it's a bad idea to go with the plot you intend rather than a plot your characters would lead to. There were so many less cliched ways the story could have ended if the writer hadn't pulled out one unfortunate coincidence or ill-timed mental breakdown after another to kill off every interesting character whom the cliches said had to die.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 22, 2012)

Feo, you make the assumption that if you write the way you intend, you will automatically adopt every trite cliche in the book. I categorically reject the assumption.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 22, 2012)

I agree, and following, reject the idea that I, as the author, do not know better than anyone what my characters would do in a given situation, the characters themselves included in 'anyone'. After all, I am God. I'd like to imagine that if God existed, S/He'd know me better than I know myself. I created and shaped these characters from scratch and I'm fully aware of how things resonate. If I change one thing about them to fit a scene, I will reflect that in all previous and following scenes. Being in control doesn't mean manipulating the characters to fit the story, it means manipulating _both _to fit each other. My only problem with the "my characters are in control" mentality is that it seems like you're willing to compromise the story for the sake of the characters, when in my opinion, you should always - as the author - be willing to change either and both simultaneously for the sake of the overall piece.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 22, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> Feo, you make the assumption that if you write the way you intend, you will automatically adopt every trite cliche in the book. I categorically reject the assumption.



I've never watched you write, so I have no right to say that your writing style doesn't work for you. I've read books that were clearly written in that style, and that clearly didn't work, but when a book is well-written, I can't tell in what style it was written. All I can say is that I personally don't have whatever skill is required for this, and that some other writers who either don't have it or don't utilize it could probably have produced better books if they'd tried something different.


----------



## JCFarnham (May 23, 2012)

In my last post I was against the bit suggesting that everyone was trying to pull a God on their stories.

And as I said, no one is suggesting anyone should do that. So my point stands  [In hindsight I may have quoted a teeeeeny bit too much of the post]


----------



## The Dark One (May 23, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> I'm fairly sure none of us are suggesting that.
> 
> I see where you're coming from, but still, the fact that you created the character is all the control you need. If they aren't doing what you want to you can just change them to better fit the story. In fact, you _should_ change them in that case. The story isn't published yet. Nothing's set in stone.
> 
> Being faithful to your character is one thing, but you the author still have absolute power. It may not seem like it sometimes, but you absolutely ARE the boss.



As I said in my previous post, of course you're the boss ultimately, in an editing sense - making all the final decisions. But you make decisions reactively to the antics of your characters as generated in a deeper, less conscious mode of your mind. You do not apply the conscious rational mind to the unfolding of the story - all its atmospheres and flavours, visuals and depth. The underlying textures and subtleties that build up over the course of your narrative can unleash the unforeseen.

Of course, you will then make the conscious call as to what part of the unforeseen you keep, but on some level it's all unforeseen at the beginning.


----------



## Philip Overby (May 23, 2012)

I think, yes, ultimately the writer is in control.  But once you design that character a certain way, you can't suddenly say "I'm God, so I'm going to have him do this even though it makes no sense."  Well, yeah, sure you can make them do anything you want, but sometimes the way you design the character has to be faithful throughout.  If suddenly as "God" you decide to have your badass warrior character suddenly get smoochy with a princess, the reader will say, "Wait a minute.  I didn't think he'd do that."

So your job is create compelling characters and then make sure you don't screw them up by making them do stupid things.

You're in control, but you need to know your characters and what they will do.


----------



## JCFarnham (May 23, 2012)

Right, I can see I'm beating a dead horse here haha.

- Being faithful to your characters is one thing.

But if something about the story isn't working, well we can do what ever we like to that characters personality to make the story work. This is in an editting sense. I'm not talking about changing tack within the story itself. Logical consistency is God. 

Appologies if any of you got the wrong idea. I'm not exactly a fan of discussion where two people hold exactly the same position and argue opposing each other 

Anyway, all the points I've made are common sense really, but for the sake of "complete-ness" I figured I would mention them.


----------

