/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3836726]

I found this question on Critique Circle. I think there's some sort of hidden meaning to it, but I'm not sure.

How do 'not' control your characters? They are of your own creation and thusly, you are the god that decides what they do.

[Anonymous No.3836734]

>posting on shitty sites other than /lit/

[Anonymous No.3836735]

>>3836726
that's a really stupid question and i don't see how this would relate to literature.

did they interview people with scizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.3836736]

think about a wind up toy. You turn them full of action and potential and then let them loose, to react to situations at they see fit with the character traits you've given them. You don't drag the toy across the table. It moves itself.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.3836744]

This is obviously more of a metaphor that's been extended too far than an actual argument for the autonomy and agency of characters in fiction.
They're just asking about the ways in which people allow the plot to form and the writing process to take place.

[Anonymous No.3836746]

>>3836726
you're doing it wrong. having expertise in many professions, especially within the arts, is not about controlling, but about mastering the craft and then letting go. A danish football player described it thus: "It's not as if I got better, the more i trained, I just got more lucky.". Another way of comparison is to the inuit sculptors, who describes the sculpting process as finding the figure within the soapstone. The art of writing is not about controlling and deciding what the text is about, but on the contrary about framing the the text in deciding the overall terms for the writing and then letting it go. I would prefer to describe this with God, but as we all know God is a term that has become too corrupted (Which is why Nietzsche declared the death of God). You could of course use some psycho-cognitive-neuro-babble or neo-liberal-buddhist lingo, but I prefer not to.

[Anonymous No.3836749]

>>3836744
i agree.
they are doing it too literally though.
(but you already said that)

[Anonymous No.3836753]

This is just narcissism coupled with misunderstanding.

'My char'cters are just so... I don't know... Organic! I've got no i-dea what they'll do neyxt!'

- I'm picturing a puffy Southern woman in a floral dress, eyes flickering around the room, feigning thoughtfulness. Her literary idol is probably Dean Koontz.

[Anonymous No.3836758]

My characters are not even persons. They are masks that shout at me and I can't understand them. They haunt me and control me and confuse me and all I can do is try to obey them to appease them.

[Anonymous No.3836759]

You've apparently never played dungeons and dragons then. Or written anything longer than a short story.

The writer defines and identifies the character, but the events and his nature govern the character's responses. A dozen times you'll be writing something where you'll come to a place where the character just won't cooperate. If you're in complete control of your characters they're either avatars of yourself or they're wooden puppets.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.3836773]

>>3836759
> Playing dungeons and dragons is like writing serious, long-form fiction
> I can't construct a plot properly
> Here, have another extension to what was already a tired, paper-thin metaphor

Are you fucking kidding me
I bet you play 4.0 you drooling halfwit

[Anonymous No.3836796]

>>3836773
dope. the point of the dungeons and dragons reference is the game teaches kids that they aren't their characters: they have to learn to stay within the limitations and perspectives of whatever character they're playing and not just make them do whatever it is they want to have them do, It's a good exercise in separating yourself from your creation. And the very last thing you want to do in writing any story is make your characters into plot-puppets.

>drooling halfwit

And while I realize that using the language and manners of an ass-scartching redneck rube might be intended to convey your distaste for anything more subtle than some plot-heavy Dan Brown opus or the latest spy thriller, a tad bit of courtesy if not actual civiltity might make people a little less likely to dismiss your opinions as those of someone who actually lives on pork rinds and Falls City.

In other words try to act older than twelve.

[Anonymous No.3836821]

the conundrum of characters r the reason why i dont enjoy writing stories/prose tbh

exploring language is infinitely more appealing than attempting 2 conjure up either a specter of my own bias inherently built 2 hoodwink the reader or a form only fitting 2 the permutations of its situation

if i want human experience i will get it out in a world that is human not by deluding myself via words which will never suffice because the words are valuable on their own regardless if we are "there" as characters or not imo

then again no one enjoys what i write so yeh

[Anonymous No.3836834]

>>3836821
you might be best advised to either write non-fiction without characters (such as essays on science or history) or journalism, where you're reporting the behavior of actual people,

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.3836839]

>>3836796
> Implying it's impossible to have meticulously crafted plots and characters that don't demonstrate self-insertion at the same time
If you get plot development by letting your characters not "cooperate," that's just how you do it, well and good. That's not how many -- maybe even most -- of the great writers do it, however, and this dichotomy you're drawing is strained at best. Also,

> All this misplaced cultural stereotype

Last time I called someone a 'retarded faggot,' I got a two-day ban for 'excessive trolling.' 'Drooling halfwit' was the second thing I came up with after reading your post.

[Anonymous No.3836859]

>>3836839 For a much better written example of how the characters make the story, by behaving in ways natural to themselves while at the same time adhering to the plot guidelines, read Johnson's introduction to Shalespeare. It's omne of my favorite pieces on the subject, and I think displays very well how an absolute master can sort of "have his cake and eat it to" with wildly independant and uncooperative characters, and a strict storyline.

And games, dungeons and dragons type or video games are reasonable examples of the same sort of things as plays: The story is predetermined and the characters have to arrive at the end, but while the game places certian restrictions on their choices, and the character traits do as well, the "authors" merely have to confront them with certain circumstances and let them react and speak as they would in those cases. If the slave child is drowning in the river, Simon Legree isn't going to be the one to risk life and limb to save him. No matter how much the author needs that to happen for the sake of the plot.

>'retarded faggot,'
>' 'Drooling halfwit'

The problem is, either one of those phrases conjures up an image of a slightly drunk fat guy with a t-shirt covered in Cheetos crumbs yelling them at Obama on the television. It's the kind of Thing you'd expect from a supporting player on Idiocracy.
You might as well just post "I'm an asshole: ignore my opinions"

[OP here No.3836865]

>>3836859
I'd just like to thank you all for contributing to this thread. I've gained some wonderful advice and wish to apply it to my own writing.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.3836924]

>>3836859
Two posts after saying "If you're in complete control of your characters they're either avatars of yourself or they're wooden puppets," you've actually developed something closer to a working opinion on plot and character development. Or you did for a second, anyway:
> People playing videogames are like authors
Look at that, just when the extended metaphor couldn't get any more laughable.

Your analysis is still predicated on the idea that a great author isn't capable of the creation of both rigid plot and character simultaneously. Franzen and Faulkner are two examples off the top of my head of authors who have been vocal about their willingness to put their characters through the ringers. Truly great authors don't back themselves into the types of corners you're describing -- there's a reason why Legree was never in that position to begin with. Your argument is thin, and I recommend that you continue watering it down.

> Insults of any type make me think of plebs
Just make sure you're getting enough vitamin D in there, mayng.

[Anonymous No.3837000]

>>3836924
You misunderstand the idea of the character driven story. The plot railroad that forces characters to be brave here, cowards there, unconcerned over there, to be wise when required, idiots on demand and colorless and bland at all times is just the sort of thing it takes a master writer to pull off. I'm thinking of Kate Chopin as the mistress of this myself, and Shakespeare of course. Also, i used Stowe as an egregious example: while Legree never broke character per se, he was very much a plot puppet.

And people who play and write video games are authors of their character's actions as well as the plot of the game. It's not really even a metaphor; more a simple parallel.

> Insults of any type make me think of plebs

well, vulgar insults do. And good deal lower than plebeian in fact. I also assume that that's the impression you intend to give: of the guy driving past in the van yelling "nice book, faggot". "drooling halfwit, and "retarded faggot" aren't the sorts of things you'd expect to hear more than a mile from the trailer park, I' think you'll admit. The hallmark of the upper classes, of the elites if you like, are courtesy, condescension (the good kind) sympathy and a desire to educate and enlighten, as well as manners and perhaps a bit pf noblesse oblige. You expect tolerance, culture, and restraint: the traits of a gentleman. "Your argument is thin," is about as strong and negative as I'd expect anyone who aspired to civilized discourse to ever get.

[Anonymous No.3837034]

>>3836734
>/lit/
>Not shit

Every time.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.3837088]

>>3837000
First, writing a book and playing a video game are two very different things. Assuming it was a metaphorical tool you were employing was apparently giving you more credit than you're worth. 'Parallels?' If you genuinely believe that they are in any way related beyond the most rudimentary and symbolic levels -- and especially if you believe that they're mirrors of one another -- then you're a retarded faggot who can't grasp fundamental concepts concerning agency and aesthetics. 'Character' and 'action' are different things in both mediums.

Second, I don't have any problems understanding character-driven stories. Seeing as you're no longer refuting my points on the subject or defending your own, though, I think we can just call it a day.

Finally,
> aspired to civilized discourse
Quick now, take off the fedora before the top bubbles over.

[Anonymous No.3837376]

>>3837088
Video games and books have narrative, plot, theme, characters, exposition and dialog. seems pretty parallel to me

>take off the fedora before the top bubbles over.
thanks for the advice: you might want to turn that Ford cap around, too. wouldn't want your neck getting any redder.

[Anonymous No.3837564]

>>3837376

You're an idiot. Anyone can draw arbitrary similarities between shit. You may as well be saying cows and Hamlet are the same thing, because you're going to move goal posts until they are

You aren't clever, you're just a stubborn, stuck up twat.

[Anonymous No.3837590]

>>3837564
i really want to here the "cows and hamlet" thing now, is that sad?

but you're grasping: there's a reason it would be much easier to make video game based on hamlet than, say, a cow based on Macbeth. They are very similar art forms. Plays novels, movies video games have a hell of a lot in common.

and I'm sorry if i come across as a pretentious twat; you just have a kind of snide oafishness in your post that rankles a little.

I do actually own a fedora weirdly enough. My mom bought it for me for my first job interview. i got the job too. Probably helped that my boss wore a fedora too. And suspenders. and a bow tie. I wore a bolo once to a Christmas party and he made me change it.

[Anonymous No.3837601]

"My characters have life" is another term to "I don't know what write so I'll spend some pages talking about nothing for a while".
We call it YA books.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.3837667]

>>3837590
↑Should know that I'm not↓
>>3837564
We dusted through our initial disagreement, and I'm not going to dignify the argument that "video games parallel literature" with more than a scoff. Well, that and calling you a faggot.
I've been tripping for months now and apparently the eyes glaze right over it

[Anonymous No.3837690]

>>3836726
Yes, it's a fantasy amateurs have. They wish it was like that. It also is one of the reasons for bad characters and/or "writer's blocks".

An actual well-written character is meticulous, scrupulous toil. You don't register them as "living, breathing" people, because you've set up their clockwork yourself.

[Anonymous No.3837717]

>there's no all of the above!

Typical shitty author

[Anonymous No.3837734]

>>3836726
Characters are set to do whatever you want them to do; what that kind of bullshit really means is "how often do you come up with neater ideas for your characters than what you had planned?".

[Knee Ander Thall No.3837748]

>>3836726
Some people might just b trying to b deep in holding the belief thier ccreations have a life of thier own and that might help make them more believable and relate-able.
I fear tho that many authors blend the line of illusion and mystification into total delusion seeing their characters as more real then the people around them and the false relationships they portray as unshakeable foundations of the universe they create ,and possibly isolate themselves in.

[Anonymous No.3837767]

>>3837034
>You
>Reading comprehension

[Knee Ander Thall No.3837819]

>>3836736
I have to disagree. Characters are not like a toy that has whims or bouts of excess energy that lead them in directions you hadn't planned on

I picture characters like a pachinko ball you create them to your own ratio of Dense/smooth then drop them into the maze of pegs that smack them in the face the ball doesn't land when you might have expected not because the ball has a choice but because you are so distracted by one aspect or another of the balls journey through your maze that you begin pontificating about the curve/speed/ or complication of the path it took

[Anonymous No.3838019]

>>3837667
i'm mildly curious as to what you're tripping on.

I mean I picture you in a wifebeater sitting in a recliner with a stack of TV dinner trays and beer cans on one side of it and a stack of Louis Lamour westerns and some Herman Hesse and Sartre mixed in on the other. I'm quite aware that that's mostly derived from trying to reconcile your passionate defense of plot-driven story with your vulgar and styless language.

You probably have a pretty good image of me if only from the fact that I expect civility from an internet image board and am mildly surprised that i don't get it, if not that I've admitted to wearing a hat at a time when everybody over the age of eighteen did. But I still sort of wonder whether you're tripping on oxy or heroin or whatever drugs the kids do these days.