Down yonder a reader writes concerning the absence of a much-needed equivalent to Han Solo in the current Star Wars films:
A lot of authors would say that there isn’t one of "those figures"
in the new films because there wasn’t one of "those figures" around
where they were being filmed. They might say their characters are not
placed there by the author like ingredients in a soup, they simply
portray the story as it exists in their head. Luke n’ em’ ran into Han
at the point in time that they did, cause they did. Obi wan and Anakin
didn’t run into one of those, so we didn’t see them do it.
They aren’t made-to-order circumstances, and companies. So, perhaps
they might be reasons that you don’t enjoy them as much, but they would
agrue that you can’t really call them flaws in the story. I am sure
there are some people who were annoyed by Han, and would even argue to
Lucas that he was a distraction. To them he would also reply…" He
annoyed the characters too, but I can’t remove him. How could I? He was
there!"
I appreciate the thought, and writers do sometimes talk about their characters controlling the story.
But . . .
I iz onenna them thar writer fellers.
An’ I don’ buy it.
Whether I’m doing fiction or non-fiction, I am fully in control of what I’m writing. Sure, sometimes one gets to a point in the writing where it just seems to "flow," without deliberate effort, but this happens (when it happens) after one starts the writing, not when one is pre-planning and deciding what elements need to go into the mix.
It isn’t the case that a writer sees the whole story in his head and has to write it down. Stories almost invariably come into one’s mind a piece at a time (in fact, agonizingly slowly), and one can and must control the mix of elements needed to make the story effective for the audience.
In fact, the ability to do this is an essential part of making the transition from an amateur writer to a professional writer. Amateurs are too wrapped up in their ideas to be willing to sacrifice them for the sake of the overall work, and their work suffers as a result. They also often feel so passionate about their material that they can’t see what’s working and what’s not from a reader’s point of view.
To get to the point of writing on a professional level (I don’t mean publishing a few stories or articles here and there; I mean being able to place pieces consisently and frequently such that you can make a living at this) you have to get a feel for the reader’s point of view (which is not the same as your own) and you have to be willing to control and shape the piece to what will work for the reader rather than simply wallowing in your own "artistic expression." Too many writers have gotten stuck at the "I am an artiste!" level and never gotten to the point of doing work that is actually . . . well . . . good.
It is true that writers sometimes talk about things "writing themselves," which just means that they had a very easy time writing a piece. They also sometimes speak of characters demanding to do or say things in a story, but what this means is that they have lived with a character for so long in their head that they have a very clear idea about what the character would do or say in a particular situation–or what would be really good for the character to do or say.
For example, in the fourth season of Babylon 5, Joe Straczynski had an episode ("The Long Night") in which the mad emperor Cartagia needed to be offed for the good of Centauri Prime. He originally planned to have Londo Mollari do it, which was the expected, predictable thing. Then when he came to write the scene he realized that it would be much better for Londo’s timid, bumbling assistant Vir to accidentally kill Cartagia.
So that’s what he wrote.
He later said that the character Vir stepped up and demanded to do this, but that is just a metaphor for having a sudden flash of inspiration about what would be the best use of character based on his long familiarity with the characters of Londo and Vir (who he had been writing for at least four to six years by this point).
This is a wholly different subject than should there be a Londo or a Vir in the story. How would dropping characters like these into the mix affect the show? How would it add to or take away from the mood and the dramatic possibilities of the story? Those are very different questions than what the characters do once you add them to the mix and write them for so long that you have an instinctive feel for what they would do.
So writers do–particularly with things like television shows and motion pictures–focus consciously on the mix of characters and how they combine to create an overall emotional experience for the audience.
The "My characters made me do it!" defense may work on the level of particular scenes written with long-established characters (including scenes that have plot points in them), but it doesn’t go to the question of whether a writer lets a particular character into the story.
This would seem to be the case particularly for George Lucas, who makes movies like children working with PlayDough. He starts shaping a movie in a kind of loose way, then tweaks and pokes and prods it, adding material, snipping material, even coming up with new material in the editing process. An examination of the prehistory of his shooting scripts reveals that he dramatically changed both the characters and the story as he went along. He did not have the overall story worked out in his head from the beginning, and he is quite capable of making major changes if he thinks they are needed.
The difficulty is that he seemingly hasn’t realized the mood problem created by the absence of a Han Solo equivalent.
I’m glad the Star Wars thread came up again on your blog Jimmy. A friend of mine pointed me to a comment on Slashdot (a technically oriented, heavily liberal, blog) that should be hilarious for any Star Wars fan who is also actively Christian/Jewish. That comment said (in relation to the bible):
I hear that in the Directors cut, David and Goliath shoot at the same time.
Which got me thinking. There’s a whole lot of fun to be had “adding scenes” (or changing for that matter) to the Bible. The best one I could come up with was the “missing scene” from Genesis where the Ark almost sank from hitting an Ice Burg.
I’m sure there are tons of these possibilities out there.
Thanks for a great post, Jimmy. I once complained to an author about anti-Catholicism in her novel that I felt was unjustifiable and was mightily annoyed by her “My characters made me do it!”-response. At the time, I couldn’t think of a good comeback — at least not one that is as well articulated as yours — so this is good to have for future reference.
Thankfully, The Lord of the Rings made up for the general crapiness of the new Star Wars films.
It’s always possible that inspiration doesn’t strike, and you don’t have the idea that your story needs to work.
That’s what the backburner is for.
Sometimes weeks, sometimes months, sometimes years — sometimes it turns out that you couldn’t write that story after all.
Tee-hee. I just got yelled at by Jimmy Akin. That was Awesome. (I know you didn’t really yell, I’m being silly, but it is sort of fun to be corrected by a famous guy)
Thanks for replying Jimmy.
Do you believe that there is a difference between plot-writing, and character-writing? And is one better?
The difference between saying :I want to write a story in which this and that and this and that happen, and now I need to find some characters to do that, or make my current ones plus a new one or two do it.
and…
I have characters, and I want to see what happens to them in “this” situation.
Thanks for the feedback!
And I wasn’t yelling. I USES SUSTAINED ALL CAPS WHEN I DO THAT (except in links–e.g., GET THE STORY–in which case all caps is ordinary stress). Otherwise, please imagine me using the same laid-back tone I tend to use on Catholic Answers Live.
Regarding your question, I do recognize the difference between plot-driven and character-diven storytelling. I probably orient more toward the former than the latter, but that is just my own inclination. But I don’t regard either as superior to the other.
I suspect that charcter-driven storytelling works best with established characters who the writer has known for a long time (e.g., “What would happen if we locked Londo and G’Kar in a closet for an entire episode?”–something JMS did in the third-season episode Convictions).
But when you are staring out, plot-driven seems to work best (at least for me). That may not hold for “non-genre” stories, but for anything with an identifiable genre, I suspect that plot tends to come first.
I’d also add that, whenever I think about writing an episode for an existing series (something I think about from time to time), I’m immediately drawn to character-driven stories (e.g., “What would happen if *this* happened to Teal’c/Dexter/SpongeBob?”).
There we are then. That is the major difference. The “non-plot” types (Stephen King is a BIG fan of this style of writing- see his “On writing” book for his thoughts) are the ones that claim the world shows them what happens, not the other way. Basically it is “what if” writing. And after you have a “real person” to work with and you place him in a situation, the rest is like clearing away a fossil.
For example, King says that the goings on in his novel “Bag of Bones” were in no way premeditated. He thought up a character (a widowed writer), and placed him in a haunted house. In the end the story is quite complex, but he swears that there was no “plot” worked out. He didn’t control the things that happened, nor the people with which he came into contact.
And yeah, you’re right, pre-existing characters, would work well. But King would say that if you don’t have a character to begin writing about, you don’t have a real person, not just a plot-driver, the reader won’t care about them enough to care what happens to them.
Just another style I guess. As for me, for fiction-literature it is the style that I use. It is so close to acting (my first job…well part of it anyway) that it is so easy for me to just place myself as that person, and imagine going through that situation. Like you said though, this is for more of a free-form novelish sort of thing.
But, for writing screenplays, and like you said “genre work”, it is sort of an impossible task so shun plots.
HAHA! SO, I guess then I should bring this around to the original point and admit that Lucas should have made a new Han Solo to liven up the new trilogy!!!
Oh man. Did you just “rabbit season/duck season” me?
heh.
A Star Trek vs. Star Wars crossover would do wonders for both franchises.
Re: figures of speech
Um…don’t be too sure. There seem to be a large group of people out there who, quite literally, “hear” and “see” scenes and characters in their head. This is often what gives them either their ideas or their entire stories, and indeed, some people simply write down what they hear and see. Others quite literally “chat” with the characters they hear and see, negotiating to be “told” their stories or to get them to do something. That’s just how their brains work — very visual and auditory in their imaginations, and with little sense of conscious control of the process. Some of them are even pros. It’s just another mode of imagination.
I know two people like this myself. One only “sees” flashes, which she must then connect together (something she can seldom do successfully), while the other has sustained relationships with many of her favorite characters from years back. BTW, my friends are also the sort of folks who have extremely vivid dreams, and actually remember and affect them. Like I say, very visual.
I, on the other hand, had always figured this sort of thing was in fact a figure of speech until I started questioning people on this subject. I do find, however, that the process of writing produces better plots and characters from me than any pre-planning does. (And not just because sometimes after I’ve written an outline, my brain decides that the precis is a story, and thus done.) I am big on suddenly figuring out that some minor bit 30 pages back is actually A Motif or A Clue, which makes everything else make more sense. So my subconscious does do some work for me, but it doesn’t actually walk up and show me video while playing a soundtrack.
Dress shoes casual shoes work shoes snow shoes athletic shoes
Shoes generally fall into one of the following categories: dress shoes, casual shoes, work shoes, snow shoes, athletic shoes…