Do you write, or do characters act?

[DurfBarian]

"If you invent two or three people and turn them loose in your manuscript, something is bound to happen to them--you can't help it; and then it will take you the rest of the book to get them out of the natural consequences of that occurrence, and so first thing you know, there's your book all finished up and never cost you an idea." --Mark Twain

When you write a character-driven story, do you plot out the entire thing first and then set your characters into their fixed roles? Or do you conceive the characters and set them to walking in your tale, and see the finished product only when it lies written in their footsteps behind them?

I can see both methods being viable in the hands of a talented creator. I'm curious about which of these methods you have tried, which you prefer, which you feel leads to a better story . . . Or do they both have their uses in creating different kinds of tales?

[Cloud_Walker]

It depends on the writer, I believe. Characters sent wandering would tend to adhere to the author's, because subconsciously to him/her such actions would seem right, and would produce a good story. As I said, this depends on the author, and therefore can be good or bad.

However, if you blueprint the story and then "write by numbers", you can do anything. This is because, quite simply, you have a plan. Sure, you could throw in that sideshow character without a plan, but it could easily end up taking over the story, or working against the main theme.

What I believe best is a mix. A frame needs to be established, and then side stories and some means to that end can be free-written.

This is all coming from someone who has no personal writing experience, but has read a lot.

[Gdog4evr]

My method is somewhat of an inbetween area, although it's definatly closer to the planned-out side. When I have a story in mind, I more or less have a planned set of events that I want to happen, and the rest happens as it happens.

Or in other words, I'll sort of have specific points in the story that I want to reach, and inbetween those points I try to figure out how the characters get from stage to stage.

EG: "Alright, Darwin is going to use a rocket launcher to try and demolish the Red Base, but will be captured when he realizes he used up all his rockets. Once he's out of ammo, he'll turn around and the Red Team will be standing behind him, pointing their guns at him."

This raises questions such as, "How did the Red Team get from inside their base where they were having a meeting, to behind Darwin? How does Darwin aquire the rocket launcher? Where are my pants?" That last question is not related to the story and may be ignored.

Come to think of it, when I'm writing a script it DOES lean alot further towards "let the characters play in the environment you've given them". Hadn't thought about that before...

[Anyee]

I tend to write very character driven stories. An'yee, Maiev, Queen of Blades...for me, the story isn't the adventure so much as it is the person. Especially when you have a preformed snapshot of a char, such as Maiev, and a set plot, such as that of D2, you need to make the sory revolve around how the character interacts and not how many archers are shooting at that damn twat Tyrande.

I have the endings of all my stories mapped out already, but they weren't usually there when I started them. As in, I started writing with a concept and I often knew where the story had to go, i.e. An'yee's going to face Baal and Maiev does get offed by Illidan as per the story Blizzard set. The non-storyline pieces I've done still may not have endings. I'll occasionally force a line of thought when I need to get the plot through, and I find the writing suffers tremendously when I do. When I let the characters do what they want, the writing is much more organic.

[Nephilim]

I find that there are times when I do just that - throw some characters in a situation and watch it play out with nothing but a vague idea of what I want to happen. For more thoughtful (on my part, I mean) pieces, though, I usually do know what's going to happen. Take Winds as an example. I know what's going to happen to M'avina, but the writing's still very character driven. I know how she'll react to things, and I won't write a reaction that I'd question. Sometimes I write myself into a corner in these situations, but I either devise some out or go back and fix it. Usually.

I wrote a series for my school chums that started out as a tongue-in-cheek play on comic books and quickly turned into a very gritty, insidious and stark play on comic books. But I think those changes happened because these characters were unsuited to the environment I had placed them in. They were based on real people so it was natural that the world they're in became more "real." THAT's an example of a story I had no control over. From one story to the next, I had no idea how things would turn out.

However, I find that this method takes away from the story thematically, on occasion. When I know what I want the piece to say and mean, that usually means that I know how it ends from the moment I write the first word. If I don't, then it's the character's development that reflects the themes I'm going for, not the plot itself.

[tamrend]

Mark Twain was very fond of hyperbole, and I believe this phrase has no small amount of his legendary humor behind it. In other words (and I'm speaking more to the true novice writer, I suppose) don't take this quote too seriously.

When I'm writing, I usually have events for the next two or three chapters ahead already in mind. By the time I finish the first chapter, no later, I have an idea--either as a general concept or in the form of a visual scene--for how the story will end. When I come to the end of chapter two, I already know the major events of chapter three and probably at least one minor, character-building scene as well, I've got the overall picture for chapter four, and I'm considering what this will all lead to in chapter five. Beyond that, I've got some foggy speculations for major events (these often a few chapters in the making) followed with a steadily more defined picture of the novel's end.

Having that clear picture of the conclusion early on is, I think, an essential part of the writing process. It provides the focus for everything that comes before it. I think I've actually read stories where the author doesn't know how things will end, possibly as an egocentric excercise and a misguided attempt to create a story that surprises the reader. The problem is that this can have the opposite of the intended effect. Because the author does not know how the story will end, because he has willfully made himself as blind as the reader, it is extremely difficult to build a mystery, and readers love mysteries. The end result is a mad dash to join together the loose ends of the story into a coherent plot and create the focal point that should have existed right from the beginning!

On the other hand, a writer has to be flexible and willing to change pre-planned events. Sometimes, a scene you had in mind three chapters ago just doesn't make sense anymore when you finally come to writing it out. I had to toss out half a chapter from "The Key" and basically abandon a character's backstory because what I wanted didn't fit with the pacing and was dragging the narrative backward rather than advancing it. It caused significant delays as I rethought how that chapter and the one following would be rewritten to still connect at the immovable plot point coming up. But the story is better off, I believe, from my willingness to change it.

Having said that, I think that most all good fiction is character-driven in that it is based upon the characters' reactions to their circumstances. Whether you plan it out far in advance or not, it is the crises that a protagonist encounters in trying to reach his goal that both creates drama and defines his character. As Nephilim mentioned, sometimes it's effective to just toss the characters into a situation and then come up with a way to get them out. But this is hardly a "wandering character" scenario because you, the writer, predetermined the situation itself, if not its eventual outcome.

[proudfoot]

Personally I just write and see what happens. Writing longer fiction I prefer to write individual scenes or scenarios, for the most part, using my characters, with their personalities, to make something happen, and then linking the scenes together logically and fluidly as best I can. This does cause some problems, but it means I can do whatever I want with it and have fun and be free.

[Jazzmosis]

Typically when I write, I place my characters into situations with "the big picture" in mind. I know how it will end, but I just let whatever happens lead into that big picture. Alot of my stories are dialogue driven, and I develop my characters through thoughts and speech moreso than description of their physical features. Why? Because saying the 6'0 150 pound, black haired man in a business suit at the beginning of the story won't stick as I read on. . . the way they act gives me a better mental image of what they look like. If this well dressed man speaks in slang and backtalks everyone, and secretly carries a gun in his jacket, readers will suddenly get a completely different mental image of this man. I like to allow a somewhat broader spectrum of what a reader will perceive a character to be, which is why I would say "tall, dark haired man who dressed as if he was going to a meeting." People would get a different view, and his actions would make him more memorable than his physical features.

For the most part, my characters act as I write their fates.

[Üdorim]

When you write a character-driven story, do you plot out the entire thing first and then set your characters into their fixed roles? Or do you conceive the characters and set them to walking in your tale, and see the finished product only when it lies written in their footsteps behind them?

Personally I start out with one usually specific theme or idea, drop some fingers on my keyboard, and then go back to WarCraft when the story doesn't turn out anything like I had in mind. And then I usually lose at that so I go outside for a bit. I've finished few stories, and just about all of those exist at tdl or are deep-sixed somewhere in these forums, so all that should give you some indication of how I write. Everything else ... well, they're all just lonely paragraphs in the multitude of .txt's, .doc's and .rtf's.

My real answer is I've tried a lot of methods including those mentioned above and none of them have worked. There are only two necessary ingredients: practice and focus. Nothing else matters so crucially, neither talent nor technique. What I lack is the ability to stick with an idea.

I think the most interesting part of your question is the significant point that it makes, "what of stories that aren't character driven?" I dare someone to attempt a story without character development. Two cookie points for any takers (macademia nutted).

[Gdog4evr]

I think the most interesting part of your question is the significant point that it makes, "what of stories that aren't character driven?" I dare someone to attempt a story without character development. Two cookie points for any takers (macademia nutted).

How about pathetic character development, does that count for anything? 'Cuz i'm good at that...

Hmm, tiss' an interesting challenge: How long do you want it to be?

[DurfBarian]

I think the most interesting part of your question is the significant point that it makes, "what of stories that aren't character driven?" I dare someone to attempt a story without character development. Two cookie points for any takers (macademia nutted).
I've read a lot of fantastic writing in the natural sciences without characters . . . although I suppose that isn't "stories." Adding characterization to straightforward nonfiction could be another direction in which to go, though: "The single-celled organism had always felt at war with itself, and having at last discovered the power of cell division, it shuddered in a sublime mixture of the ecstasy of liberating cytokinesis and the agony of rending mitosis . . ."

[Mercenary]

Good stories without characterization? Greek mythology strikes me as that type of writing, Nordic too, but less so as some of them are characterized a little.

[Üdorim]

Good stories without characterization? Greek mythology strikes me as that type of writing, Nordic too, but less so as some of them are characterized a little.

Mythology isn't exactly equivalent to fiction in the first place. But. I completely agree! There is no character development in Greek mythology whatsoever, there are barely even characters. I somewhat disagree with your opinion on Nordic mythology however. Mostly because I'm only assuming that Nordic would be the same as Norse and such-like — Odin and Ragnarok and all that. However if that is the case, I'd remind you that the vast majority of norse mythology was cleansed by Christians. Of the entire religion (it was more of a religion back then), only two major works remain, The Poetic Edda (which is not as important as) The Nibelungenlied.

Anywho.

[BlueNinja]

When you write a character-driven story, do you plot out the entire thing first and then set your characters into their fixed roles? Or do you conceive the characters and set them to walking in your tale, and see the finished product only when it lies written in their footsteps behind them?

I can see both methods being viable in the hands of a talented creator. I'm curious about which of these methods you have tried, which you prefer, which you feel leads to a better story . . . Or do they both have their uses in creating different kinds of tales? Speaking solely for myself, I think that both methods are neccessary. The author needs to have a good idea of what the grand, over-arching plot will be, and he needs to have well-thought-out characters that actually have personalities of their own, because the simple interactions between the characters can provide you with a lot of good writing material, both important and irrelevant to the grand plot.

Adding characterization to straightforward nonfiction could be another direction in which to go, though: "The single-celled organism had always felt at war with itself, and having at last discovered the power of cell division, it shuddered in a sublime mixture of the ecstasy of liberating cytokinesis and the agony of rending mitosis . . ."
That's the funniest thing I've read today. :clap:

[Tarot]

I find that undeveloped characters tend to fall into the stereotypical roles that are stale and without redemption. The predestined hero, the old wizard, the princess that comes around to loving her peasant rescuer all come to mind.

I've always made my characters to reflect parts of myself or people around me. One of my old and unfinished projects revolves around a party of heroes that are also family members. Each member is patterned after myself or one of my siblings. Too bad I have to scrap it as the characters are no longer accurate.

So that leads me to the next point. My stories are character driven. Before I even sit down to write, I think about how each character would react to the situation I have created. For example, Seraphina the assassin would have preferred to have remained annoymous to Valor the paladin as she was sure the hostilities that arise between law-abiding and shadowy would result in her death or imprisonment. When Valor essentially trapped her in the tower she felt that there was no other option other than fighting. It would have been successful if not for Valor's Salvation aura.

I would find it difficult in writing an engaging story without character developement.

[DurfBarian]

Apologies for the necromancy, but:
Mark Twain was very fond of hyperbole, and I believe this phrase has no small amount of his legendary humor behind it. In other words (and I'm speaking more to the true novice writer, I suppose) don't take this quote too seriously.
Probably true, given this other quote of Twain's I just saw: "The time to begin writing an article is when you have finished it to your satisfaction. By that time you begin to clearly and logically perceive what it is that you really want to say."

(I was writing a post on a mailing list that included that previous quote, and I found this one to go with it.)

[Disco-neck Ted]

Nice. Just yesterday I stopped myself from similar reanimation of one of your posts here (the 'rules for fantasy' one).

As for the advice, it's true that re-thinking what you've got and what you want to say can make for a much stronger story/article, but there is the corollary that one shouldn't endlessly re-write the same piece or it won't ever be finished.

Roger Zelazny provides an excellent example of what can happen if an idea isn't given the proper attention and suitable gestation time. In Unicorn Variations, or possibly Frost and Fire, he includes a short that he rushed due to pressure to have it included in an anthology. A pretty mediocre offering it was, but RZ didn't let go of the idea and eventually took a second, and more thorough, shot at it, producing the Hugo and Nebula award-winning novella, "Home is the Hangman".*

Fyi, the short story collections mentioned are fine reading and include comments from the author that are pretty valuable for anyone interested in fiction writing. Nothing too in depth, just some "what I was thinking at the time" bits. I like to read the stories first and the comments after, since the "prefacing remarks" were written much later than the tales themselves, but your mileage may vary.



*Starting to repeat myself. Next I'll be self-referencing with the word "crotchety".

[DurfBarian]

As for the advice, it's true that re-thinking what you've got and what you want to say can make for a much stronger story/article, but there is the corollary that one shouldn't endlessly re-write the same piece or it won't ever be finished.
I forget which of the Hitchhiker's Guide books it was in, but there was a passage about a man who wrote a magisterial tome of a book, wasn't satisfied, edited it and distilled its meaning, wasn't satisfied with that either, and repeated this process until his entire universe-spanning masterpiece had become the single word "Sh*t."

[RevenantsKnight]

Ooh! Thread necromancy!

On writing/acting: I'd say that my situation sounds similar to many others who have claimed a sort of mix between the two. As much as I do tend to have a plan for a story's beginning, end and some major points in between and end up sticking to it for years (literally,) the stuff connecting those solid ideas can go all over the place as it follows characters around, and I've even dropped one or two of those planned guideposts in favor of something more...spontaneous. I rarely write without a general arc and a character in mind, so I'm not sure if I favor one over the other, but it certainly isn't an absolute thing. Whatever classification I am, it seems to work out OK for me.

Thanks for pulling this back up, by the way...it's an interesting topic, and now I don't get stuck with the label of necromancer when I throw in my redundant two cents. :grin: