Overcoming Influence
If you're 30ish or younger, if you're from those generations where television truly permeated American society, but you're a writer, you have the potential for deficiency. It's a broad assumption, as I've seen it in older writers as well. Visual media has overtaken text media and our understanding of story and character is derived more from what we see on the screen (whether television or movie) than what we read in a book.
Characters on screen have to be built and established in a short amount of time. Serial dramas have the luxury of longer exposure, but they still have to be able to relate to the viewer in a set time frame. That's perhaps the greatest strength of a book (along with the absence of budget restraints keeping you from going to the most exotic locales, of course) is that you can see the full depth and breadth of a character.
Of course, if you grew up watching more than you did reading (like me), you may find that your characters are too two dimensional. They may seem dynamic, but if you step back from your work and analyze them, what you'll find is that you've molded them into an archetype or worse, into a cliché. The stalwart hero, the conflicted antihero, the seductive sociopath, blah blah blah. Dramatic actions don't necessarily equate to character. They equate to dramatic actions. And while you might drape our characters in the robes of heroism or pride or whatever, rarely will you meet a person that is composed of one or two, but rather filled with a spectrum of all the virtues of vices known to man.
The character I worry about most is Bear. He's one of the two main characters of my first book (although in the larger story he's actually a secondary character). And of the two, he's my favorite of the two characters. You've read about him here (if you read what I post) and you've already seen what little character I've given him. He's a Friar. He's an Advocate. His mother was stoned to death. He takes pleasure in killing religious authority. Awww, angsty rebel as part of the establishment!
And that kills me! Because that's not even the character I'm writing. Well, sort of, but more than that drivel. It's meant to be the conundrum that his faith in god is so strong that he's made the ultimate oath, while his faith in the institution that supports that god is hollow. The trick is, unless your Kevin Smith your characters don't stand around talking about their feelings. They have a task at hand and they set about that task. What tasks they choose to pursue and how they pursue it is how you display character. Showing my TV influences, I begin and end my stories with a properly evocative moment (like Fox wanting to start Firefly with the Train Job, even though I thought shooting Dobson was evocative enough to earn my allegiance). My pacing is visual pacing not textual pacing and I have to work on that.
I have no sage advice or words of wisdom. It's a problem I have that many other people do too (maybe even you). I have to work on that. That is all. :)
Characters on screen have to be built and established in a short amount of time. Serial dramas have the luxury of longer exposure, but they still have to be able to relate to the viewer in a set time frame. That's perhaps the greatest strength of a book (along with the absence of budget restraints keeping you from going to the most exotic locales, of course) is that you can see the full depth and breadth of a character.
Of course, if you grew up watching more than you did reading (like me), you may find that your characters are too two dimensional. They may seem dynamic, but if you step back from your work and analyze them, what you'll find is that you've molded them into an archetype or worse, into a cliché. The stalwart hero, the conflicted antihero, the seductive sociopath, blah blah blah. Dramatic actions don't necessarily equate to character. They equate to dramatic actions. And while you might drape our characters in the robes of heroism or pride or whatever, rarely will you meet a person that is composed of one or two, but rather filled with a spectrum of all the virtues of vices known to man.
The character I worry about most is Bear. He's one of the two main characters of my first book (although in the larger story he's actually a secondary character). And of the two, he's my favorite of the two characters. You've read about him here (if you read what I post) and you've already seen what little character I've given him. He's a Friar. He's an Advocate. His mother was stoned to death. He takes pleasure in killing religious authority. Awww, angsty rebel as part of the establishment!
And that kills me! Because that's not even the character I'm writing. Well, sort of, but more than that drivel. It's meant to be the conundrum that his faith in god is so strong that he's made the ultimate oath, while his faith in the institution that supports that god is hollow. The trick is, unless your Kevin Smith your characters don't stand around talking about their feelings. They have a task at hand and they set about that task. What tasks they choose to pursue and how they pursue it is how you display character. Showing my TV influences, I begin and end my stories with a properly evocative moment (like Fox wanting to start Firefly with the Train Job, even though I thought shooting Dobson was evocative enough to earn my allegiance). My pacing is visual pacing not textual pacing and I have to work on that.
I have no sage advice or words of wisdom. It's a problem I have that many other people do too (maybe even you). I have to work on that. That is all. :)