Lemma Soft Forums

OokamiKasumi wrote:

junna wrote:0_0 ooohh *amazed* Direct source. You know some really fun people don't you.

Um... I write for 4 different erotic romance publishers?

*still feels awed+amazed...amawed?*

OokamiKasumi wrote: Sorry, I tend to look at a story's plot before I even notice the characters.

no worries. I tend to look at the characters, interaction, development, cause n effect rather than the plotline. Usually for me the plotline just flies overhead and is mentioned as the "the author is creating the impact on readers through the plotline" or "the story is a reflection of..." blablabla. Some hazards of doing literature. I tear into characters too much.

junna wrote:

OokamiKasumi wrote:Sorry, I tend to look at a story's plot before I even notice the characters.

no worries. I tend to look at the characters, interaction, development, cause n effect rather than the plot-line. Usually for me the plot-line just flies overhead and is mentioned as the "the author is creating the impact on readers through the plot-line" or "the story is a reflection of..." blablabla. Some hazards of doing literature. I tear into characters too much.

Is that something they teach in college Literature; to take apart the characters and their interactions rather than the plot-line? (I never went to college.)

I'm asking because some of the writers I teach seem to have this hyper-focus on the characters to the point that it's become a Problem for them. They're actually having difficulty coming up with reasons why they're characters should interact; or what to do with these character interaction scenes once they have them written. In other words, they're having a problem coming up with an overall reason to have those scenes in the first place -- a Plot.

I think, yes. But only for literature, so far. I only remember lots of essays on what are the meanings behind certain way authors wrote things. like Horton Hears a Who is said to be a comment on being different and that it is usually unacceptable in society to be different.
The meanings are usually driven by the characters...not entirely by plotline. Sure the interactions happen and shows the readers there are meanings to them but it usually comes down to the individual character's reaction. Anything else, I have no idea, I'm a B student for literature. I do better in academic argumentative essays (most of my papers). So I think, I could see why people are obsessed with characters and characterization.

OokamiKasumi wrote:

junna wrote:

OokamiKasumi wrote:Sorry, I tend to look at a story's plot before I even notice the characters.

no worries. I tend to look at the characters, interaction, development, cause n effect rather than the plot-line. Usually for me the plot-line just flies overhead and is mentioned as the "the author is creating the impact on readers through the plot-line" or "the story is a reflection of..." blablabla. Some hazards of doing literature. I tear into characters too much.

Is that something they teach in college Literature; to take apart the characters and their interactions rather than the plot-line? (I never went to college.)

That's something they tried to teach me in HIGH SCHOOL. As a 10th grader. With Alice in Wonderland.

That went over oh so well. /sarcasm
Seriously, my teacher was one of those "clearly this is all a euphemism for drug abuse and child prostitution" people for Alice and he tried so hard to read into things that were most likely just not there. "The blue curtains in the room symbolize his secret depression" and all that jazz.

Now, I know this is legitimate for a lot of stories (to go on the Seuss example, there are a lot of small messages in his stories that people don't get from the first look) and I do find it fun to look into the characters and the whys and hows and what it all really means, both as a reader and as a writer. But sometimes... not so much.

Granted, I am a more character oriented person than a plot oriented person and I can read books with only the the barest excuses for plots and love it so long as the characters and what is going on works with that plot and makes sense so... (I tried to take lit courses in College... I ended up not enjoying them at all. I had that high school teacher all over again)

junna wrote:I think, yes. But only for literature, so far. I only remember lots of essays on what are the meanings behind certain way authors wrote things. ... The meanings are usually driven by the characters...not entirely by plotline. ...it usually comes down to the individual character's reaction.

Whoa... Leading with the Character...? That is so Not how I construct a story. I certainly don't teach it that way either.

For starters, the meaning; the Premise, of a story is supposed to be the sum total of all it's parts, not just the characters and what they do. In fact, when you have a strongly premise-driven story, such as the way Seuss writes them, the characters are merely Symbols of different ways of addressing the Premise, or problem, that the story is about. The main character is usually if not always a "Joe Normal" archetype, while all the other characters are archetypes symbolizing differing opinions. The plot is actually fairly simple: "Joe Normal" always takes the obvious, straight-forward route, only to be beaten back once the other archetypes notice. Then a crisis point hits and Joe must make a decision on whether to support or deny the story's Premise.

The Matrix, (the first one) is a prime example of a more recent Premise-driven story; Knowledge vs Ignorance. This story is so premise-driven, the characters' names are dead give-aways on what they symbolize -- how they address the story's problem of "Choosing to Know, vs Choosing to Ignore."

Anyway...

I teach storycraft from the Plot inward. Basically...
-- FIRST: Decide what you want to happen at the main crisis point; the Climax.
-- THEN: Add characters to Make that climax happen.

Simple, ne?

Blane Doyle wrote:

OokamiKasumi wrote:Is that something they teach in college Literature; to take apart the characters and their interactions rather than the plot-line? (I never went to college.)

That's something they tried to teach me in HIGH SCHOOL. As a 10th grader. With Alice in Wonderland. That went over oh so well. /sarcasm
...Now, I know this is legitimate for a lot of stories ... and I do find it fun to look into the characters and the whys and hows and what it all really means, both as a reader and as a writer. But sometimes... not so much.

Literature is more than merely the symbolism hidden in some of it's parts. I've always felt that it's how a story makes you Feel, and how it makes you look at the world afterwards.

if I knew then... TT_TT

oh well, arguments papers here I come.

and thanks!

junna wrote:if I knew then... TT_TT

oh well, arguments papers here I come.

and thanks!

Just think, I learned all this the hard way: Trail and Error.

-- Something to consider:
If you want to construct a premise-driven story; like one of Seuss's, you MUST start with the Premise; the argument you intend to present because you can't make archetype characters without first knowing which side of the premise-argument those archetypes need to represent.

"No matter what you try to do, someone has already done a version of it. Trust me."

Pardon me, but you are mistaken.

Or else you can name to me the precursor to the works of these writers. Proust, Kafka, Joyce, Nabokov, Becket, Marquis de Sade, Carroll, Ginsberg, on and on and on and on. And so it will continue to be. And why not? The state of the world is wholly original at all times. It was Nabokov who eluded, in his way, to art being often original and, therefore, will hit the viewer as a shocking surprise I think the problem is the "masters" you choose to study.

HumbertTheMerciless

OokamiKasumi wrote:For starters, the meaning; the Premise, of a story is supposed to be the sum total of all it's parts, not just the characters and what they do.

...

Anyway...

I teach storycraft from the Plot inward. Basically...
-- FIRST: Decide what you want to happen at the main crisis point; the Climax.
-- THEN: Add characters to Make that climax happen.

I disagree with this idea on principle. Perhaps if you're trying to use all the characters as symbols to apply to real life intentionally and use a "story" as a persuasive essay or parable (like Seuss does). But if you're just trying to tell a story and be entertaining, the ones I find far more enjoyable are the ones that don't start with plot and then add people that act as the plot decrees - they write their characters first. Here's why I prefer this.

The only "plot" that I start with, given a story, is a situation. A setting, a world, and established "powers" (governing forces, either natural, supernatural, or human, which shape the world), maybe a catalyst event. That's it. From there, I put interesting people in the world who will react to the situation provided to them in different ways. Essentially, each character has a motive (or several) which clashes with or supports the motives of other characters - and they each have a style and method with which they approach problems and rewards. From there, it's the characters themselves who decide what will happen in the story.

If you add the characters once your plot has been decided, it's very easy to end up in the trap of "but this character, with this personality, wouldn't actually DO that." Even if you try and force them to act a certain way to fulfill your pre-written plot and give them good reasons for doing so, you always run the risk of making them feel "programmed" and not really "alive." If you write the characters first, get a good feel for what they would do in certain situations...what situations they can keep their cool in...which ones make them divide by zero...what their motivations are, and where do they rank in importance to that character...the character will always be consistent, living, breathing, believable, and most importantly, engaging. From there, the plot practically writes itself.

And really, when looking at stories of all kinds - even if the plot is the same, even if a character happens to follow some kind of "archetype," consciously or subconsciously from the author's perspective, each and every character ever written (even one that doesn't engage readers at all) is unique, just like people are, and they aren't going to act the same way. That's where you get this "originality," even when you end up with a plot that goes back to ancient Greece. It comes from the people. (If we're using the term "people" loosely, if you have a living, breathing setting for those people to play in, it can come from your world, too.)

So, yes, the plot is the whole, not just the sum of the parts. But the "whole" IS the characters and what they do - and most importantly, how they interact with each other and with the setting.

That's something they tried to teach me in HIGH SCHOOL. As a 10th grader. With Alice in Wonderland. That went over oh so well. /sarcasm
...Now, I know this is legitimate for a lot of stories ... and I do find it fun to look into the characters and the whys and hows and what it all really means, both as a reader and as a writer. But sometimes... not so much.

Literature is more than merely the symbolism hidden in some of it's parts. I've always felt that it's how a story makes you Feel, and how it makes you look at the world afterwards.

Another thing a lot of lit professors/teachers fail to realize is that most of those symbols are unintentional, just like writing "unoriginal" plotlines is unintentional (I did have one professor admit this, but say it was our job as scholars to point out symbolism and the like where the writers themselves did not). I realize a lot of times, AFTER I've written something with round characters and let them craft the plotline, that "symbols" and "premise" pop up everywhere. In other words, the premise grows naturally out of the plot the characters have written. If/when I notice them, I highlight them and add in foreshadowing and all those other literature buzzwords to construct the premise around the living entity - like tailoring a dress to fit a living person (all of which are different shapes and sizes) perfectly, instead of handing her a mass-produced size medium machine-washable plotline and expecting it to fit like a glove.

Also, the author was on opium when he wrote Alice. He was, in fact, bitter for the entirety of his life, that Alice was his most popular work, when what he really took pride in was his work on mathematics (of all things!). Of COURSE hidden meaning slipped in there, unbeknownst to him - writing that was likely to him like dreaming is to most of us, where our brain just fires off random images in response to things that are happening in our lives. But he didn't MEAN any of the blue curtains stuff...it just happened to be how he felt at the time.

...

This being said, I agree with the first post (Brian McDonald's) entirely. I just have a problem with going "plot first" and then trying to force characters into a mold. If you go characters first, you'll end up with an "unoriginal" plotline, surely, but the trick is not to worry about that, and just write something that makes people feel, and something you enjoy.

Addendum: I'm also not saying writing plot first is necessarily wrong, but the idea that this is the "right" way to go about it is inherently flawed. I think the plot needs to bow to the characters at all times that they conflict - because an unrealistic plot can go from "unable to be believed" to "unbelievable/incredible" when given strong characters.... It doesn't really work the other way around, making unrealistic characters believable because the plot is cool or highly structured. That's why I think it's easiest (for me) to write the characters first.

HumbertTheHorse wrote:"No matter what you try to do, someone has already done a version of it. Trust me."

Pardon me, but you are mistaken.

Or else you can name to me the precursor to the works of these writers. Proust, Kafka, Joyce, Nabokov, Becket, Marquis de Sade, Carroll, Ginsberg, on and on and on and on. And so it will continue to be. And why not? The state of the world is wholly original at all times. It was Nabokov who eluded, in his way, to art being often original and, therefore, will hit the viewer as a shocking surprise I think the problem is the "masters" you choose to study.

HumbertTheMerciless

I could probably name a few inspirations to these, but I think you're missing the point of the quote. Many of these precursors can't be named, because they weren't written down. Even "classic" works which appear to be original were inspired by old fairy tales, stories and legends handed down orally (even urban legends), and true stories. Maybe an old wive's tale repeated by an old grandmother about a monster who eats bad children gave Carroll his inspiration for the Jabberwock (even though, as I mentioned, it was likely a creature born of opium ._. and I don't even know if he had a grandmother, but you get the point). Each story you come up with is going to be a mish-mash of things you've experienced. You can't just make one out of thin air...you take it from bits and pieces of your memory. That's what this is really saying.

athenastar17 wrote:
I could probably name a few inspirations to these, but I think you're missing the point of the quote. Many of these precursors can't be named, because they weren't written down. Even "classic" works which appear to be original were inspired by old fairy tales, stories and legends handed down orally (even urban legends), and true stories. Maybe an old wive's tale repeated by an old grandmother about a monster who eats bad children gave Carroll his inspiration for the Jabberwock (even though, as I mentioned, it was likely a creature born of opium ._. and I don't even know if he had a grandmother, but you get the point). Each story you come up with is going to be a mish-mash of things you've experienced. You can't just make one out of thin air...you take it from bits and pieces of your memory. That's what this is really saying.

That has nothing to do with originality, which is a measure of uniqueness. What you are stating, indirectly, is that you do not believe in free will. I agree with you but what does that have to do with the undeniable originality of Alice and Wonderland.

HumbertTheHorse wrote:

athenastar17 wrote:
I could probably name a few inspirations to these, but I think you're missing the point of the quote. Many of these precursors can't be named, because they weren't written down. Even "classic" works which appear to be original were inspired by old fairy tales, stories and legends handed down orally (even urban legends), and true stories. Maybe an old wive's tale repeated by an old grandmother about a monster who eats bad children gave Carroll his inspiration for the Jabberwock (even though, as I mentioned, it was likely a creature born of opium ._. and I don't even know if he had a grandmother, but you get the point). Each story you come up with is going to be a mish-mash of things you've experienced. You can't just make one out of thin air...you take it from bits and pieces of your memory. That's what this is really saying.

That has nothing to do with originality, which is a measure of uniqueness. What you are stating, indirectly, is that you do not believe in free will. I agree with you but what does that have to do with the undeniable originality of Alice and Wonderland.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...where did free will come into this? ._.;;; (also, ** "Alice in Wonderland?")

Um...and...it...doesn't...have to do with originality. That's what this whole discussion is about, that I think you may be missing.... People are so worried about being "original" that they think they have to do a story no one has ever thought of before in the history of the human race in order to be "original." The point of this whole thread is...no...you don't. What they see as "original" is just impossible.

Here's the point. Technically, you could say that any story in which a person is transported into a strange new world is just Alice in Wonderland retold in a different way. Or you could say Alice in Wonderland is copying any story that did that previous to its publication, such as the numerous stories of journeys into the underworld, or into hell. This may or may not be valid, but in the end, it's not important. Both the chronologically previous work and the later work are unique in the details, even though the later story is technically following a plotline that's "been done," or if it took inspiration from somewhere else.

PS, Originality isn't a measure of uniqueness. It's a measure of doing something that no one has ever done before. After all, there's nothing unique about Frankenstein nowadays after all the spinoffs and derivative works and movies and whatnot, but it's still original, because at the time, it based on a fresh and new idea.
PPS, I'm not saying that those writers' works weren't "original" either - just that the saying "Nothing is original" is a SAYING, based on the idea that every story was inspired by others, and takes pieces from other stories as part of itself. And as with all sayings, you shouldn't take it verbatim literal. It's there to make an interesting point - the point that instead of fearing this aspect of storytelling, you should either embrace it or just not worry about it, as those other authors did. They wrote stories to write stories, not to make something different from everyone else's stuff.

athenastar17 wrote:...Originality isn't a measure of uniqueness. It's a measure of doing something that no one has ever done before. After all, there's nothing unique about Frankenstein nowadays after all the spinoffs and derivative works and movies and whatnot, but it's still original, because at the time, it based on a fresh and new idea...

Actually one could look at Frankenstein as being a Pygmalion gone bad? So even that wasn't wholly original. However, the Execution and where the author took that story WAS original!

athenastar17 wrote: ... This being said, I agree with the first post (Brian McDonald's) entirely. I just have a problem with going "plot first" and then trying to force characters into a mold. If you go characters first, you'll end up with an "unoriginal" plotline, surely, but the trick is not to worry about that, and just write something that makes people feel, and something you enjoy.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
-- It's too easy for me to adjust the plot to force the characters into going in directions they don't want to go.

"I would never kiss you. Not in a million years."
"What if I offer you $100.00 for it?"
"Pucker up, but I won't guarantee that you'll like it."
"Hey, a kiss is still a kiss, right?

It's really interesting how the there is such a strong division between writers who plot first, then add characters to fit, and those that start with characters and make a plot to suit them. Once you start story-crafting one way, it's really hard to switch gears. I've tried! It actually feels unnatural.

OokamiKasumi wrote: Actually one could look at Frankenstein as being a Pygmalion gone bad? So even that wasn't wholly original. However, the Execution and where the author took that story WAS original!

Lol, true, true. I was trying to think of something that didn't have much of a known precursor, but I guess that's about as possible as trying to write an "original" work XD

OokamiKasumi wrote: It's really interesting how the there is such a strong division between writers who plot first, then add characters to fit, and those that start with characters and make a plot to suit them. Once you start story-crafting one way, it's really hard to switch gears. I've tried! It actually feels unnatural.

Interesting that you say that, because I actually started out writing plot first, and did so for years and years and years...and then I had a spark of realization of why all my stories seemed hacked together to me when they were all done and I reread them. Ever since, I've always written characters first. I think it's a matter of personal style and what works best for you, though I'll defend characters-first style to the death Because story-crafting with plot first really just made all my stories feel awkward, but for others, it's the only way to go. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree here on what's "best," since...well, I guess I don't think there IS a "best" way, as long as it works for the writer. But there are definitely two distinct ways that work, and it seems there's not much in-between on the subject XD

It might also be of note, for context, that one of the reasons I believe so strongly in this is because I'm very accustomed to doing writing for Dungeons and Dragons, where the plot MUST bow to the will of the players, otherwise it becomes...not fun. For them, or for me, the dungeon master. I of course have techniques I can use to bait and manipulate their courses of action, and all in all the players I choose create consistent characters that are easy to predict (for me, not the NPCs, of course). However, not having direct control of one to five of the main characters (and each of those characters being controlled by different "writers") puts a whole new perspective on my writing style.

Even when I write traditionally, with all characters and aspects of the plot under my control, I'm constantly consulting with others and asking "What do you think X character would do in this situation?" The response is always different. Keeps things interesting.

I won't say the characters-first style is without flaws. I always have trouble writing climaxes and endings, since the story is written in a way that allows it to never really end. But that might also be because my stories are so long and detailed in the first place, I don't have half as much practice ENDING them as beginning and developing them. (As if you can't tell by my wall 'o text posts...my apologies... *bow, bow*)

The best published examples of the character-first style for those interested, I think, are Baccano and Durararara...and any other works by those same creators, really. It's kind of their thing. I'm sure there are books that follow the same lines, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.