Do you write, or do characters act?

[DurfBarian]

I think the most interesting part of your question is the significant point that it makes, "what of stories that aren't character driven?" I dare someone to attempt a story without character development. Two cookie points for any takers (macademia nutted).

I've read a lot of fantastic writing in the natural sciences without characters . . . although I suppose that isn't "stories." Adding characterization to straightforward nonfiction could be another direction in which to go, though: "The single-celled organism had always felt at war with itself, and having at last discovered the power of cell division, it shuddered in a sublime mixture of the ecstasy of liberating cytokinesis and the agony of rending mitosis . . ."

[Mercenary]

Good stories without characterization? Greek mythology strikes me as that type of writing, Nordic too, but less so as some of them are characterized a little.

[Üdorim]

Good stories without characterization? Greek mythology strikes me as that type of writing, Nordic too, but less so as some of them are characterized a little.

Mythology isn't exactly equivalent to fiction in the first place. But. I completely agree! There is no character development in Greek mythology whatsoever, there are barely even characters. I somewhat disagree with your opinion on Nordic mythology however. Mostly because I'm only assuming that Nordic would be the same as Norse and such-like — Odin and Ragnarok and all that. However if that is the case, I'd remind you that the vast majority of norse mythology was cleansed by Christians. Of the entire religion (it was more of a religion back then), only two major works remain, The Poetic Edda (which is not as important as) The Nibelungenlied.

Anywho.

[BlueNinja]

When you write a character-driven story, do you plot out the entire thing first and then set your characters into their fixed roles? Or do you conceive the characters and set them to walking in your tale, and see the finished product only when it lies written in their footsteps behind them?

I can see both methods being viable in the hands of a talented creator. I'm curious about which of these methods you have tried, which you prefer, which you feel leads to a better story . . . Or do they both have their uses in creating different kinds of tales?

Speaking solely for myself, I think that both methods are neccessary. The author needs to have a good idea of what the grand, over-arching plot will be, and he needs to have well-thought-out characters that actually have personalities of their own, because the simple interactions between the characters can provide you with a lot of good writing material, both important and irrelevant to the grand plot.

Adding characterization to straightforward nonfiction could be another direction in which to go, though: "The single-celled organism had always felt at war with itself, and having at last discovered the power of cell division, it shuddered in a sublime mixture of the ecstasy of liberating cytokinesis and the agony of rending mitosis . . ."

That's the funniest thing I've read today. :clap:

[Tarot]

I find that undeveloped characters tend to fall into the stereotypical roles that are stale and without redemption. The predestined hero, the old wizard, the princess that comes around to loving her peasant rescuer all come to mind.

I've always made my characters to reflect parts of myself or people around me. One of my old and unfinished projects revolves around a party of heroes that are also family members. Each member is patterned after myself or one of my siblings. Too bad I have to scrap it as the characters are no longer accurate.

So that leads me to the next point. My stories are character driven. Before I even sit down to write, I think about how each character would react to the situation I have created. For example, Seraphina the assassin would have preferred to have remained annoymous to Valor the paladin as she was sure the hostilities that arise between law-abiding and shadowy would result in her death or imprisonment. When Valor essentially trapped her in the tower she felt that there was no other option other than fighting. It would have been successful if not for Valor's Salvation aura.

I would find it difficult in writing an engaging story without character developement.

[DurfBarian]

Apologies for the necromancy, but:

Mark Twain was very fond of hyperbole, and I believe this phrase has no small amount of his legendary humor behind it. In other words (and I'm speaking more to the true novice writer, I suppose) don't take this quote too seriously.

Probably true, given this other quote of Twain's I just saw: "The time to begin writing an article is when you have finished it to your satisfaction. By that time you begin to clearly and logically perceive what it is that you really want to say."

(I was writing a post on a mailing list that included that previous quote, and I found this one to go with it.)

[Disco-neck Ted]

Nice. Just yesterday I stopped myself from similar reanimation of one of your posts here (the 'rules for fantasy' one).

As for the advice, it's true that re-thinking what you've got and what you want to say can make for a much stronger story/article, but there is the corollary that one shouldn't endlessly re-write the same piece or it won't ever be finished.

Roger Zelazny provides an excellent example of what can happen if an idea isn't given the proper attention and suitable gestation time. In Unicorn Variations, or possibly Frost and Fire, he includes a short that he rushed due to pressure to have it included in an anthology. A pretty mediocre offering it was, but RZ didn't let go of the idea and eventually took a second, and more thorough, shot at it, producing the Hugo and Nebula award-winning novella, "Home is the Hangman".*

Fyi, the short story collections mentioned are fine reading and include comments from the author that are pretty valuable for anyone interested in fiction writing. Nothing too in depth, just some "what I was thinking at the time" bits. I like to read the stories first and the comments after, since the "prefacing remarks" were written much later than the tales themselves, but your mileage may vary.



*Starting to repeat myself. Next I'll be self-referencing with the word "crotchety".

[DurfBarian]

As for the advice, it's true that re-thinking what you've got and what you want to say can make for a much stronger story/article, but there is the corollary that one shouldn't endlessly re-write the same piece or it won't ever be finished.

I forget which of the Hitchhiker's Guide books it was in, but there was a passage about a man who wrote a magisterial tome of a book, wasn't satisfied, edited it and distilled its meaning, wasn't satisfied with that either, and repeated this process until his entire universe-spanning masterpiece had become the single word "Sh*t."

[RevenantsKnight]

Ooh! Thread necromancy!

On writing/acting: I'd say that my situation sounds similar to many others who have claimed a sort of mix between the two. As much as I do tend to have a plan for a story's beginning, end and some major points in between and end up sticking to it for years (literally,) the stuff connecting those solid ideas can go all over the place as it follows characters around, and I've even dropped one or two of those planned guideposts in favor of something more...spontaneous. I rarely write without a general arc and a character in mind, so I'm not sure if I favor one over the other, but it certainly isn't an absolute thing. Whatever classification I am, it seems to work out OK for me.

Thanks for pulling this back up, by the way...it's an interesting topic, and now I don't get stuck with the label of necromancer when I throw in my redundant two cents. :grin: