Discussion: Storytelling and characterization
I've seen a few posts lately that have me thinking about writing as it relates to storytelling and characterization. There's so much involved in telling a story, and fleshing out a character. Even if that character belongs to someone else. Especially when that character belongs to someone else. People write stories that move them, things that are stuck in their heads and itching to take form and exist outside of the imagination. That's the motivation to write, whether a story is original to the writer or based in a universe written by someone else.
Everybody has their own style when it comes to writing. Some writers are verbose and some are precise. Some play with innuendo, others favor a direct approach. To quote emeraldsedai, a writer's style is like a thumbprint. There are similarities, but each writer brings their own distinct voice to a story.
Above and beyond style, many writers in fandom also tend to explore certain characters, themes, and ideas. Often, readers think of well-known writers as brands, and when they go for a WriterX brand story, they have certain expectations firmly in place, based on previous stories by that writer. If you become a brand, you have a core audience. They want the WriterX brand story, and they will often read the WriterX brand story no matter what fandom or pairing you write. There's a consistent kind of story that WriterX tells. Doesn't mean WriterX isn't innovative, or fantastic, or brilliant. They can be all of the above. But WriterX and their audience have a comfort zone, and as long as WriterX stays within that specific range, the core audience will be reading. It's a comfortable and mutually beneficial relationship.
But if you write outside of a comfort zone, your audience has no idea what to expect. Some readers like that, but many readers don't. I think this is where fandom can be a challenge for writers that are not as easy to categorize. The audience for an unpredictable writer is more capricious than a branded writer, and tends to be smaller. A significant number of recreational readers don't favor risky emotional investments. That's been demonstrated many times over in fandom, with warning label debates, pairing debates, characterization debates, etc.
The same idea extends to characterization. Beyond what is and is not plausible according to canon, each writer brings their own perspective to the characters they write. Some writers portray characters the same way from story to story, and some vary characterization based on things like pairing, timeframe, and setting. Some writers mold the characters to fit the story they have in mind, while others prefer to have the characters shape and direct the story.
There are three basic types of stories: character-driven, situation-driven, and both. This is not a measure of quality, as fantastic, mediocre, and horrible stories have been written in each category. A character-driven story will focus primarily on the involved characters, their thoughts, and their motivations. The location and circumstances are secondary to the development of those characters. A situation-driven story reverses this, focusing primarily on the location and circumstances around the characters. The situation defines and explains the characters. In cases of both, the characters and the situation are equal and primary forces in the progression of a story.
Speaking as a writer, I prefer darker themes and characters. It's comparatively rare to get a funny or lighthearted story out of me, although it does happen. I tend to push the limits of my own comfort zone. I'm a big fan of trying new ways of writing a story, and exploring new characters and ideas. I like ensemble casts, and I rarely have a specific pairing that I consider inseparable. I prefer to vary characterization based on circumstances. People change, adapt to events, and modify their behavior based on a number of different factors. Well-developed fictional characters behave in similar ways. I write character-driven stories most of the time, although there have been a few situation-driven stories. I haven’t quite managed to pull off a story with both of them as of yet.
What are your thoughts on these ideas? How would you categorize yourself?
Everybody has their own style when it comes to writing. Some writers are verbose and some are precise. Some play with innuendo, others favor a direct approach. To quote emeraldsedai, a writer's style is like a thumbprint. There are similarities, but each writer brings their own distinct voice to a story.
Above and beyond style, many writers in fandom also tend to explore certain characters, themes, and ideas. Often, readers think of well-known writers as brands, and when they go for a WriterX brand story, they have certain expectations firmly in place, based on previous stories by that writer. If you become a brand, you have a core audience. They want the WriterX brand story, and they will often read the WriterX brand story no matter what fandom or pairing you write. There's a consistent kind of story that WriterX tells. Doesn't mean WriterX isn't innovative, or fantastic, or brilliant. They can be all of the above. But WriterX and their audience have a comfort zone, and as long as WriterX stays within that specific range, the core audience will be reading. It's a comfortable and mutually beneficial relationship.
But if you write outside of a comfort zone, your audience has no idea what to expect. Some readers like that, but many readers don't. I think this is where fandom can be a challenge for writers that are not as easy to categorize. The audience for an unpredictable writer is more capricious than a branded writer, and tends to be smaller. A significant number of recreational readers don't favor risky emotional investments. That's been demonstrated many times over in fandom, with warning label debates, pairing debates, characterization debates, etc.
The same idea extends to characterization. Beyond what is and is not plausible according to canon, each writer brings their own perspective to the characters they write. Some writers portray characters the same way from story to story, and some vary characterization based on things like pairing, timeframe, and setting. Some writers mold the characters to fit the story they have in mind, while others prefer to have the characters shape and direct the story.
There are three basic types of stories: character-driven, situation-driven, and both. This is not a measure of quality, as fantastic, mediocre, and horrible stories have been written in each category. A character-driven story will focus primarily on the involved characters, their thoughts, and their motivations. The location and circumstances are secondary to the development of those characters. A situation-driven story reverses this, focusing primarily on the location and circumstances around the characters. The situation defines and explains the characters. In cases of both, the characters and the situation are equal and primary forces in the progression of a story.
Speaking as a writer, I prefer darker themes and characters. It's comparatively rare to get a funny or lighthearted story out of me, although it does happen. I tend to push the limits of my own comfort zone. I'm a big fan of trying new ways of writing a story, and exploring new characters and ideas. I like ensemble casts, and I rarely have a specific pairing that I consider inseparable. I prefer to vary characterization based on circumstances. People change, adapt to events, and modify their behavior based on a number of different factors. Well-developed fictional characters behave in similar ways. I write character-driven stories most of the time, although there have been a few situation-driven stories. I haven’t quite managed to pull off a story with both of them as of yet.
What are your thoughts on these ideas? How would you categorize yourself?