How Fiction Works Writing Meme -- Day Eight
7 - Are you a modern relativist, or an author of more classical style, or the rare bird that is somewhere in between? The modern relativist divorces themselves from their writing, makes no judgments upon good and evil, lets the reader decide many things for themselves. The classicist has a more clear moral or message, and sometimes speaks directly to the audience. Which are you, and why?
I can't really say, TBH. I think I'm more of a modern relativist. I can't stand the idea of preaching to the readers what to think; I personally want the characters to speak for themselves, so to speak (yeah, I know how that sounds. :P), and let the readers decide for themselves. I just think that the audience should be given more credit. I don't buy into that whole...well, there's this one line from THE PRODUCERS (I think) where this one guy says, "I'm the author, you're the audience; I outrank you!" (I think) But basically, I don't really buy into that because if nothing else, the audience is smarter than a lot of people (not here, just elsewhere) give them credit for. For example, I know there are some people elsewhere on the Internet who criticize Lucas' audience for not liking everything he does, when if nothing else...well, honestly, there are some things that I wish could be put to rest, like Lucas having bad dialogue (I mean, his dialogue's a bit clunky, but then again, I think a lot of people have problems with dialogue. God knows I do -- which is kind of ironic considering it's one of my favorite things to write. I just love coming up with witty things for characters to say, or poignant things, or things like that; I guess my problem is reading over it later and thinking, "Oh God, self, what in space were you thinking when you wrote this?" or "Get your verbal tics out of their dialogue!" or things like that) and him prizing special effects over story (especially considering that I think a lot of people level that charge at modern movies even when there's next to nothing to back it up. It's nonsensical, really). But if nothing else, that doesn't mean that some of Lucas' detractors don't have valid points, e.g. plots not making sense, and so on and so forth. Honestly, I think everyone's opinion should be held as valid no matter what it is. And one shouldn't have to resort to stuff like, say, if you don't like a certain part of X, it means you're stupid. Which...no. Maybe it's just not to their tastes or standards, or they didn't get it, and so on and so forth. It's not a big flipping deal.
Not to mention, I think in real life, while there may be the rare case of things being black and white, most of it isn't. Everyone has justifications and reasons for what they do no matter how awful, stupid or bizarre it is. Everyone has certain elements that factor into their decisions, the bad guys don't always wear black and twirl their mustaches (because that would give them away pretty quickly), the good guys don't always ride white horses and look snazzy, and the good guys don't always win. That and I think we all kind of have a bit of good guy and bad guy in all of us -- I know I've been struggling with that aspect a lot. (I guess it just doesn't help that sometimes I can have a run-in with Being Good Sucks and its cousins. Then again, I can imagine it can't be easy being on the side of the bad guys either. I guess that's another way real life deviates from fiction; evil isn't really cool. It can be petty and misguided and awful a lot, really) And there's this mistaken belief at least...not here but elsewhere, where heroic seems to mean "free of faults" -- when if nothing else, that's not the case. If being a saint was easy, everyone would be doing it, but if nothing else, it's not that easy in the slightest. Because we all have a bit of light and dark inside of us, and sometimes, in the worst of situations, the dark side can emerge (see "Midnight", "Turn Left", "The Runaway Bride" and "The Waters of Mars" for good examples -- the last two being on the Doctor's part. And see TORCHWOOD: CHILDREN OF EARTH for an entire miniseries devoted to it. It's really one of many reasons I love the miniseries, even if it does prove that Russell T. Davies is adept at crushing souls. Semi-kidding here. :) and threaten to take over. It's really going up against that dark side, being scared to death and saddling up anyway as the Duke would put it, that really makes us heroes. Humanity is far from perfect, but I think it's facing fears and working to overcome weaknesses that makes one a hero, not a complete void of it. (There's also the matter of flaws creating conflict and jeopardy and heightened stakes, which is really what keeps a plot going, I think) That and I think there's a hero in all of us, even someone who, for example, holds up her Prime Minister badge to the Daleks to defy them, all while saving the Earth one last time.
That and I think in fiction, one of many things I want to do is be able to tell the truth. Even if it's in fantastical situations, I want to be able to tell the truth, about humanity, about how people act, and so on and so forth. I don't think I'd write a certain sort of character or plot point or whatever if there wasn't a degree of honesty in there, whether it was to the story, or the characters, or to myself. I know that for "As The World Falls Down", I poured out a lot of my uncertainties about the future and frustrations into the characters, which worked considering the storyline. I know that I want to have a degree of honesty in regards to my characters as well; for example, the matter of a villain who does what they do not out of sheer spite (honestly, I think it's very rare that someone does things for the hell of it; even the most infamous of criminals had twisted justifications for what they did, which really makes them more horrifying), but out of a feeling of being wronged, or thinking they're doing something right (indeed, I think it really makes things more chilling). Or a hero who wants revenge on the villain, or develops a sense of anger towards the villain if only out of a sense of grief (it's sort of a coping mechanism, I've heard). And so on and so forth. That doesn't mean I don't allow myself to indulge in a bit of embellishment (e.g. witty dialogue, etc.), but overall, I think I'd just be really, really uncomfortable if I wrote something dishonest in my fiction. I think there's a difference between embellishment (because it kind of spices things up a bit, I think) and downright dishonesty (just not being true to how people think or act, or downright lying about certain things).
I think that's really why I wasn't entirely content with the idea of the Jedi Order, because if nothing, it seemed almost as if it was downright lying about human nature and how we act. I know full well that over-attachment can be a bad thing, but saying that no attachment at all is the "ideal" place to be for a Jedi is just...it doesn't sit well with me. It's human nature to be attached to others -- family, friends, pets, things like that. And while Lucas was probably setting it up to make a point...I think the problem is that he didn't delve deep enough into why the mentality was unhealthy. Maybe it's also an in-universe case of Values Dissonance, but I think the problem was it wasn't examined from all sides. I would have loved if he had done that. I guess the problem is also the fact that he seems to subscribe to some of the ideas, e.g. self-defense is cold-blooded murder (I wish I was kidding. :/) and attachment makes you greedy. And while the latter was more talking about Anakin...honestly, I just don't get it. One of many reasons I love Anakin was if nothing else, he felt honest. He felt honest and human and very, very real, not some idealized version of humanity as...some others elsewhere may have wanted. It's just sort of...more of that, please! I'm not saying that traditional capes and such are bad things, but you can't really portray them as completely emotionally infallible, if that makes any sense. Everyone has flaws, after all, and besides, they make a good story.
So yeah...that's kind of why I lean towards the "moral relativist" angle. Because if nothing else, I don't want to feel like there's an anvil being driven into my skull. I just want to read a good story. And sometimes...sometimes the moral relativist stories can be a bit more idealistic and bright than one gives them credit for (I know the KOTOR II light side ending is a pretty damn good example of that).
Rest of questions:
8 - Do you use the passive voice or active voice? Both? Do you make a conscious decision to do it, or is it simply something that happens? When do you use passive voice versus active voice, and why? Example of passive voice: The ball was thrown by the boy. Example of active voice: The boy threw the ball.
9 - The devil is in the details - which ones are important to you? To your characters? Is it you, the author, or the character narrating that notices certain details throughout the story? Is every detail brought to light important to the plot, or are some presented for another reason? Why?
10 - Do you show, or tell? Wax poetic on the emotion of the moment? Or simply describe the moment and let the reader find the emotion for themselves? Which do you prefer reading?
11 - Are you a realist or a stylist? Do you record every detail, every moment indiscriminately, or do you prune your prose for the sake of style and story focus?
End of Section Exercise: Choose one classic author and one modern author. Write a paragraph or two for each, original or fanfiction, mimicking their style as closely as possible. What do you notice about the different styles? Record your thoughts at the end of the exercise.
Section III - Significant Insignificance
Literature differs from life in that life is amorphously full of detail, whereas literature teaches us to notice... - James Wood
12 - In literature, the well rounded author accompanies the fantastic with details of the mundane. Do you agree? What is an example of your own writing in which you combine the fantastic and mundane?
13 - Have you ever taken a small detail, such as a character rubbing their lips, and given it greater importance through narration? Why? Do you enjoy reading such details?
14 - Thisness and the written word: Do you ever use abstract descriptions in specifying little details? Given an object or interaction a sense of "thisness"? For example, "the clouds were glassy in the sky." Clouds cannot literally have a quality like glass, yet in this sentence they have been given a sense of "glassness" that gives the reader a more specific description of them, and somehow maintains an air of believability. Discuss why this is a believable description, though it is not actually possible.
End of Section Exercise: Write one sentence that includes detail. Is it a compelling sentence? Is it long? Short? What kind of details did you include? Record your thoughts at the end of the exercise.
Section IV - Character
Very few brushstrokes are needed to get a portrait walking, as it were... the reader can get as much from small short lived... characters as [they can] from large, round towering heroes and heroines. - James Wood
15 - How do you try to bring a character to life, or "get them in" as James Conrad says? Where do you start? Is how you begin different with fanfiction and original fiction? With original characters within fanfiction?
16 - James Wood writes that the inexperienced writer clings to the static - they describe a photograph, a person standing still, a snapshot of a moment rather than a dynamic moment itself. It is getting a character in action, in motion, that is the difficult part, he says. Do you find this to be true in your own writing? Do you agree with his assessment?
17 - We can tell a great deal about a character by how they talk and who they talk to. Are you aware of any changes you make from character to character in either narration or dialog? Show us an example. Is this something you choose, or do without fully realizing it? Do you do this at all? Why?
18 - How much time do you take to "get in" your character? In your opinion, is it possible to "get a character in" in one sentence? Is it different for original fiction and fanfiction?
19 - How much time must be spent on a character for them to be a character? Does a character have to be living, have a voice, or can it be a place, an era, a coffee cup? Do characters exist at all?
20 - An absence of characterization can be as powerful as characterization in knowing a character. Agree? Disagree? Any examples in your own writing?
21 - The Myth of the Solid Character - even "well rounded" or "fully fleshed" characters are less solid the longer we look at them, writes James Wood. Agree? Disagree? Is there always room for more? In canon? In fanfiction?
22 - Are the characters you create like you? If you write fanfiction, are there shades of yourself in the characters you choose to write about? Some people suggest that the mark of a great author is the creation of free and independent characters that are separate from the author. Can an author who writes characters similar to themselves still be a great author?
23 - Static and Dynamic Characters: By definition a static character possesses one key attribute and does not change, while a dynamic character is possessed of several characteristics and changes over a story. Is one superior to the other? Do these categories really exist, or all characters simply characters? What kind do you use most often?
24 - Does characterization change depending on who a character is seen by, much like how a child sees their father much differently than their mother does? What are examples of this in your own writing?
25 - Is there only one correct way to interpret or view a character? What makes a character 'out of character' ? Is everything created by the original author 'in character' ?
End of Section Exercise 1: Create an original character. Use one sentence to "get them in." Now use one paragraph. Do the same for a pre-existing character, and compare the two. What do you notice? Write your thoughts at the end of the exercise.
End of Section Exercise 2: Choose a pre-existing character that you do not like. Write a paragraph or two from their point of view. Is your writing shaded by your dislike of the character? Has writing from their point of view changed the way you view them? Write your thoughts at the end of the exercise.
I can't really say, TBH. I think I'm more of a modern relativist. I can't stand the idea of preaching to the readers what to think; I personally want the characters to speak for themselves, so to speak (yeah, I know how that sounds. :P), and let the readers decide for themselves. I just think that the audience should be given more credit. I don't buy into that whole...well, there's this one line from THE PRODUCERS (I think) where this one guy says, "I'm the author, you're the audience; I outrank you!" (I think) But basically, I don't really buy into that because if nothing else, the audience is smarter than a lot of people (not here, just elsewhere) give them credit for. For example, I know there are some people elsewhere on the Internet who criticize Lucas' audience for not liking everything he does, when if nothing else...well, honestly, there are some things that I wish could be put to rest, like Lucas having bad dialogue (I mean, his dialogue's a bit clunky, but then again, I think a lot of people have problems with dialogue. God knows I do -- which is kind of ironic considering it's one of my favorite things to write. I just love coming up with witty things for characters to say, or poignant things, or things like that; I guess my problem is reading over it later and thinking, "Oh God, self, what in space were you thinking when you wrote this?" or "Get your verbal tics out of their dialogue!" or things like that) and him prizing special effects over story (especially considering that I think a lot of people level that charge at modern movies even when there's next to nothing to back it up. It's nonsensical, really). But if nothing else, that doesn't mean that some of Lucas' detractors don't have valid points, e.g. plots not making sense, and so on and so forth. Honestly, I think everyone's opinion should be held as valid no matter what it is. And one shouldn't have to resort to stuff like, say, if you don't like a certain part of X, it means you're stupid. Which...no. Maybe it's just not to their tastes or standards, or they didn't get it, and so on and so forth. It's not a big flipping deal.
Not to mention, I think in real life, while there may be the rare case of things being black and white, most of it isn't. Everyone has justifications and reasons for what they do no matter how awful, stupid or bizarre it is. Everyone has certain elements that factor into their decisions, the bad guys don't always wear black and twirl their mustaches (because that would give them away pretty quickly), the good guys don't always ride white horses and look snazzy, and the good guys don't always win. That and I think we all kind of have a bit of good guy and bad guy in all of us -- I know I've been struggling with that aspect a lot. (I guess it just doesn't help that sometimes I can have a run-in with Being Good Sucks and its cousins. Then again, I can imagine it can't be easy being on the side of the bad guys either. I guess that's another way real life deviates from fiction; evil isn't really cool. It can be petty and misguided and awful a lot, really) And there's this mistaken belief at least...not here but elsewhere, where heroic seems to mean "free of faults" -- when if nothing else, that's not the case. If being a saint was easy, everyone would be doing it, but if nothing else, it's not that easy in the slightest. Because we all have a bit of light and dark inside of us, and sometimes, in the worst of situations, the dark side can emerge (see "Midnight", "Turn Left", "The Runaway Bride" and "The Waters of Mars" for good examples -- the last two being on the Doctor's part. And see TORCHWOOD: CHILDREN OF EARTH for an entire miniseries devoted to it. It's really one of many reasons I love the miniseries, even if it does prove that Russell T. Davies is adept at crushing souls. Semi-kidding here. :) and threaten to take over. It's really going up against that dark side, being scared to death and saddling up anyway as the Duke would put it, that really makes us heroes. Humanity is far from perfect, but I think it's facing fears and working to overcome weaknesses that makes one a hero, not a complete void of it. (There's also the matter of flaws creating conflict and jeopardy and heightened stakes, which is really what keeps a plot going, I think) That and I think there's a hero in all of us, even someone who, for example, holds up her Prime Minister badge to the Daleks to defy them, all while saving the Earth one last time.
That and I think in fiction, one of many things I want to do is be able to tell the truth. Even if it's in fantastical situations, I want to be able to tell the truth, about humanity, about how people act, and so on and so forth. I don't think I'd write a certain sort of character or plot point or whatever if there wasn't a degree of honesty in there, whether it was to the story, or the characters, or to myself. I know that for "As The World Falls Down", I poured out a lot of my uncertainties about the future and frustrations into the characters, which worked considering the storyline. I know that I want to have a degree of honesty in regards to my characters as well; for example, the matter of a villain who does what they do not out of sheer spite (honestly, I think it's very rare that someone does things for the hell of it; even the most infamous of criminals had twisted justifications for what they did, which really makes them more horrifying), but out of a feeling of being wronged, or thinking they're doing something right (indeed, I think it really makes things more chilling). Or a hero who wants revenge on the villain, or develops a sense of anger towards the villain if only out of a sense of grief (it's sort of a coping mechanism, I've heard). And so on and so forth. That doesn't mean I don't allow myself to indulge in a bit of embellishment (e.g. witty dialogue, etc.), but overall, I think I'd just be really, really uncomfortable if I wrote something dishonest in my fiction. I think there's a difference between embellishment (because it kind of spices things up a bit, I think) and downright dishonesty (just not being true to how people think or act, or downright lying about certain things).
I think that's really why I wasn't entirely content with the idea of the Jedi Order, because if nothing, it seemed almost as if it was downright lying about human nature and how we act. I know full well that over-attachment can be a bad thing, but saying that no attachment at all is the "ideal" place to be for a Jedi is just...it doesn't sit well with me. It's human nature to be attached to others -- family, friends, pets, things like that. And while Lucas was probably setting it up to make a point...I think the problem is that he didn't delve deep enough into why the mentality was unhealthy. Maybe it's also an in-universe case of Values Dissonance, but I think the problem was it wasn't examined from all sides. I would have loved if he had done that. I guess the problem is also the fact that he seems to subscribe to some of the ideas, e.g. self-defense is cold-blooded murder (I wish I was kidding. :/) and attachment makes you greedy. And while the latter was more talking about Anakin...honestly, I just don't get it. One of many reasons I love Anakin was if nothing else, he felt honest. He felt honest and human and very, very real, not some idealized version of humanity as...some others elsewhere may have wanted. It's just sort of...more of that, please! I'm not saying that traditional capes and such are bad things, but you can't really portray them as completely emotionally infallible, if that makes any sense. Everyone has flaws, after all, and besides, they make a good story.
So yeah...that's kind of why I lean towards the "moral relativist" angle. Because if nothing else, I don't want to feel like there's an anvil being driven into my skull. I just want to read a good story. And sometimes...sometimes the moral relativist stories can be a bit more idealistic and bright than one gives them credit for (I know the KOTOR II light side ending is a pretty damn good example of that).
Rest of questions:
8 - Do you use the passive voice or active voice? Both? Do you make a conscious decision to do it, or is it simply something that happens? When do you use passive voice versus active voice, and why? Example of passive voice: The ball was thrown by the boy. Example of active voice: The boy threw the ball.
9 - The devil is in the details - which ones are important to you? To your characters? Is it you, the author, or the character narrating that notices certain details throughout the story? Is every detail brought to light important to the plot, or are some presented for another reason? Why?
10 - Do you show, or tell? Wax poetic on the emotion of the moment? Or simply describe the moment and let the reader find the emotion for themselves? Which do you prefer reading?
11 - Are you a realist or a stylist? Do you record every detail, every moment indiscriminately, or do you prune your prose for the sake of style and story focus?
End of Section Exercise: Choose one classic author and one modern author. Write a paragraph or two for each, original or fanfiction, mimicking their style as closely as possible. What do you notice about the different styles? Record your thoughts at the end of the exercise.
Section III - Significant Insignificance
Literature differs from life in that life is amorphously full of detail, whereas literature teaches us to notice... - James Wood
12 - In literature, the well rounded author accompanies the fantastic with details of the mundane. Do you agree? What is an example of your own writing in which you combine the fantastic and mundane?
13 - Have you ever taken a small detail, such as a character rubbing their lips, and given it greater importance through narration? Why? Do you enjoy reading such details?
14 - Thisness and the written word: Do you ever use abstract descriptions in specifying little details? Given an object or interaction a sense of "thisness"? For example, "the clouds were glassy in the sky." Clouds cannot literally have a quality like glass, yet in this sentence they have been given a sense of "glassness" that gives the reader a more specific description of them, and somehow maintains an air of believability. Discuss why this is a believable description, though it is not actually possible.
End of Section Exercise: Write one sentence that includes detail. Is it a compelling sentence? Is it long? Short? What kind of details did you include? Record your thoughts at the end of the exercise.
Section IV - Character
Very few brushstrokes are needed to get a portrait walking, as it were... the reader can get as much from small short lived... characters as [they can] from large, round towering heroes and heroines. - James Wood
15 - How do you try to bring a character to life, or "get them in" as James Conrad says? Where do you start? Is how you begin different with fanfiction and original fiction? With original characters within fanfiction?
16 - James Wood writes that the inexperienced writer clings to the static - they describe a photograph, a person standing still, a snapshot of a moment rather than a dynamic moment itself. It is getting a character in action, in motion, that is the difficult part, he says. Do you find this to be true in your own writing? Do you agree with his assessment?
17 - We can tell a great deal about a character by how they talk and who they talk to. Are you aware of any changes you make from character to character in either narration or dialog? Show us an example. Is this something you choose, or do without fully realizing it? Do you do this at all? Why?
18 - How much time do you take to "get in" your character? In your opinion, is it possible to "get a character in" in one sentence? Is it different for original fiction and fanfiction?
19 - How much time must be spent on a character for them to be a character? Does a character have to be living, have a voice, or can it be a place, an era, a coffee cup? Do characters exist at all?
20 - An absence of characterization can be as powerful as characterization in knowing a character. Agree? Disagree? Any examples in your own writing?
21 - The Myth of the Solid Character - even "well rounded" or "fully fleshed" characters are less solid the longer we look at them, writes James Wood. Agree? Disagree? Is there always room for more? In canon? In fanfiction?
22 - Are the characters you create like you? If you write fanfiction, are there shades of yourself in the characters you choose to write about? Some people suggest that the mark of a great author is the creation of free and independent characters that are separate from the author. Can an author who writes characters similar to themselves still be a great author?
23 - Static and Dynamic Characters: By definition a static character possesses one key attribute and does not change, while a dynamic character is possessed of several characteristics and changes over a story. Is one superior to the other? Do these categories really exist, or all characters simply characters? What kind do you use most often?
24 - Does characterization change depending on who a character is seen by, much like how a child sees their father much differently than their mother does? What are examples of this in your own writing?
25 - Is there only one correct way to interpret or view a character? What makes a character 'out of character' ? Is everything created by the original author 'in character' ?
End of Section Exercise 1: Create an original character. Use one sentence to "get them in." Now use one paragraph. Do the same for a pre-existing character, and compare the two. What do you notice? Write your thoughts at the end of the exercise.
End of Section Exercise 2: Choose a pre-existing character that you do not like. Write a paragraph or two from their point of view. Is your writing shaded by your dislike of the character? Has writing from their point of view changed the way you view them? Write your thoughts at the end of the exercise.