A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Friday, June 29, 2012

I've got a theory, it could be characters

When I consider what I'm able to do as a writer, in those times when I'm honest with myself, I realize that there is actually a very good reason why I tend towards science fiction: my grasp of people is...limited at best. Not to say that sci-fi can't be character-based. It's just that, when I compare a sci-fi novel like Door Into Summer by Robert Heinlein to some piece of realistic fiction like, say, Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, I can't help but feel that science fiction is heavier on the big ideas and the plot rather than character motivation/interaction.

This is very much the case for me. I can think of ideas for how a story's plot should go fairly easily, but when it comes down to it, I feel like I ruin them every time by using characters that are perhaps less alive in my head than the plot that they are forced through is.

I've only ever "finished" one WriMo, in the sense that I got all the way through the plot I planned: my first JulNoWriMo in 2009. In retrospect, though, it is also one of the worst offenders among my WriMos for containing characters who fall flat, who feel more like archetypes than fully-fleshed characters. It had all the stereotypes: the superficial bitch who cares more about appearances than reality; the conformist who tries too hard to fit in with societal norms and only destroys herself and her self-esteem by doing so; the odd one out who is too quiet and crushed by the Establishment to leave her role as a cog in the machine; the manipulative scientist who goes beyond the boundaries of sanity and humanity to advance society. Etc., ad nauseum, and so forth.

And now it's time for a...

PRETENTIOUSNESS WARNING: The following contains pseudo-intellectual musings that may tip the bullshit scale.

There is an obvious reason why they are stereotypes: they speak to ideas and truths that appeal to people at their cores. The fact that they speak to us at such a fundamental level does mean something, and I don't think it's inherently bad for characters to fall into these categories, as long as they are fleshed out in a more realistic way as people. I think my problem has been that when I write for WriMos, the characters end up just going through the motions of my plot in order to fill a particular role, rather than encountering situations as people and reacting to them.

(As a side note, I typed out "going through the motions" and started singing a particular song from the Buffy musical episode. What can I say? I'm a proud dork!)

I'm trying harder this year to remedy this failing. The general plot points I blabbed about went through in the last post are just that: general. I want the events to be motivated by what Sarah and Wesley are thinking and feeling instead of occurring to fulfill some Grand Plan of mine.

Oh, and a last thought before I sign off: I hate when my cast bores the hell out of me. For two or three of my WriMos, I have tried to write about normal people. Problem is, normal is dull as dirt, both to read and write about. I like weird, quirky people in real life; hopefully I can do justice to a cast of weird, quirky people in the written word. :)

No comments:

Post a Comment