Putting non-obvious bits of yourself in the story/characters

[limyaael]

Huh. Well, okay, this is one of those rants, like the “ten alternatives” ones, where each item is short because each is obvious and I don’t have much to say about it.

Comments

[dsgood]

You're going to use bits of yourself without intending to, you know.

Chances are that some of what you consider true of everyone is actually true only of you and ten percent or less (sometimes much less) of the population.

[limyaael]

I use bits of myself without intending to all the time. That's why I'm so suspicious of the overly-conscious part of character creation, whether it's saying, "Oh, that character will represent my past," or "Oh, this character will be the comic relief." It strikes me as overly artificial and controlling.

[slobbit]

I think the greater danger than throwing in fragments of oneself is the danger of living vicariously through the characters.

I'd say that of the bad fiction I've read (and I've read quite a lot now), the kind that stinks the worst is the stuff revolving around an author insert that's obvious -- not because of the details, but because of the general scope. In these cases the character ends up with blessings that leave the reader scratching her head wondering how on earth it made plot-sense to the writer. It reads like someone outfitting a D&D character out of the pages of the player manual, with unlimited starting funds. "Oh, and he happens across a +4 vorpal blade . . ."

I never know about the little author details, unless I know the author, and I might not notice if it's done with a light touch, but I can smell the other stuff a mile away. I do draw on little personal details, from many people -- not just me -- to help flesh my characters. But the idea of throwing something in *just because* I do it? Ick.

[limyaael]

The "Write what you know" advice is perniciously responsible for a lot of random author-insertion, I think. Authors think they should use their own experiences, which is fine, but then they use it randomly or badly or when it makes no sense for the story. And, too, there's always the danger of one character suddenly going on a tangent, especially a long speech, that espouses one of the author's pet causes. (There was an anti-environmentalist rant in one of the Honor Harrington novels that was about two pages long and made me suspect David Weber, the author, shared that point-of-view).

[pixelfish]

One of the techniques I use is to parcel out various traits to different characters so not a single character is ALL ME. This has immensely improved a bunch of secondary characters, and kept them from wandering into stock territory. (Of course, I do try to make sure they have lots of other traits, so they don't turn into allegories of various personal issues.)

[codecompass]

That LKH blog makes me want to eat my own hand.

[limyaael]

That bad, huh? Well, at least it wasn't a foot. ;)

[cartesiandaemon]

Yup. I remember her ranting that the ardeur was a part of the story now and she couldn't just write it out or ignore it. So why fiddle it so Anita has to fuck even MORE men? Was that *so* integral? Why not design the ardeur so it can finally be controlled and concentrate on something else?

Apologies to LKR. I really loved some of the early books. And lots of the sex. IMHO it's gone a bit far. Gratuitous sex can be good, but I'd love to see more plot from you.

[pico_the_great]

Points 2 & 3: this was part of what brought on the revamp of my novel; I started it when I was 16 and just went with a paper version of me who actually got away with what she said. Except that I looked back at this char a year later and cringed.

Very, very quickly changed that. Much better to have a real person than a what-you-wish-you-were-but-aren't.

Oh, and the LKHblog? (shudders.)

Right now I'm at the point where characters are people, not inserts (of myself, or of others' traits). I don't consciously give them traits; they're just whatever people they end up being.