Who's the Boss?

[SeverinR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.