Writer/Character Disconnect

[A. E. Lowan]

I have an interesting... not really a dilemma because I'm not changing anything, more of a dual paradigm. My writing partner and I are gun control advocates (I'm a stronger one than she is). However, our characters live in a brutal world where violent death can be waiting around every corner, and not all of them are as resilient as a vampire or a shape-shifter - so they carry guns. Now I have to get more familiar with guns to better write about them.

Does anyone else out there have any strong philosophical differences between you and your characters?

 

[Steerpike]

I had a strongly pro-life MC, even though I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp.

I think the key here is exposing oneself to a diversity of people. The truth is, for virtually any political or social issue that exists, there are plenty of kind, decent, intelligent, and thoughtful people on various sides of the issue. If you self-select your media and interpersonal interactions to reflect your own views, you lose sight of that. It is vital for a writer to have a diversity of experience. If every corporate CEO you write is a caricature of evil, or every environmental activist you write is a maniacal eco-terrorist, your story is likely to suffer. Unfortunately, human nature and certain aspects of current society lend themselves very much to the us v. them mentality, whereby people create caricatures in their own mind of anyone holding an opposing viewpoint.

 

[Feo Takahari]

For me, it's most often religion, since that's something that affects how people live their daily lives. I also write a fair number of characters who're more vengeful than I am, since it seems to be pretty rare for people to believe as strongly in forgiveness as I do. I don't generally get into this stuff unless it's relevant, though (it's easy to start a shouting match about economic policy, but few people are directly involved in it.)

This is outside the topic of disagreeing with your heroes, but I put a lot of effort into making my villains self-consistent, and that often means getting into their heads. I have one character who's basically trying to enslave the human race, and at least one reader thought she was supposed to be the protagonist. Another one tortures people to try to convert them to her religion, and my beta reader didn't really hate her until she turned out to despise men. It's a lot of fun to twist readers' perspective inside out and make them question who to sympathize with.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

"You can't blame the writer for what the characters say." - Truman Capote

I think the same principle applies when considering world views. I'm not homosexual. Does that mean I can't write a convincing homosexual character? I'd hope not. Perhaps I'd have need of some education but I could pull it off. It also says nothing about me, it's the character's lifestyle, choices, and views...it has nothing to do with mine. I'm trying to write realistic, well rounded, & varied characters. People exhibit so many differences in reality. I want my cast to reflect those differences but also highlight similarities.

I don't see any difference for your dilemma. Your characters need guns to survive. That's their world. Learning about firearms doesn't have to change your political opinions. Does it bother you to learn about guns? It's only knowledge.

That being said, learning about both sides of any issues or choice can give tremendous insight to the human condition & psychology. Steerpike is correct that every issue has supporters on both sides that are rational, intelligent people.

As a final note, I served seven years in the Marines & have been around firearms my entire life. I even had to hold a fugitive at gun point once until the police arrived to apprehend him (and I'm not law enforcement). If you need someone to bounce ideas off of, or give you some technical advice on use or operation, hit me up.

 

[Jabrosky]

I had a strongly pro-life MC, even though I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp.

I think the key here is exposing oneself to a diversity of people. The truth is, for virtually any political or social issue that exists, there are plenty of kind, decent, intelligent, and thoughtful people on various sides of the issue. If you self-select your media and interpersonal interactions to reflect your own views, you lose sight of that. It is vital for a writer to have a diversity of experience.

I have definitely encountered a variety of opinions in all my years of browsing the Internet, but my experience has tended towards the opposite result. My respect for people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from myself has if anything gone DOWN over the years after reading the bile they spew all over the Web. Now to be fair, there are self-righteous snots on my side of the spectrum too, and I hate them too, but at least they started out with their hearts in the right place.

 

[Steerpike]

I have definitely encountered a variety of opinions in all my years of browsing the Internet, but my experience has tended towards the opposite result. My respect for people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from myself has if anything gone DOWN over the years after reading the bile they spew all over the Web. Now to be fair, there are self-righteous snots on my side of the spectrum too, and I hate them too, but at least they started out with their hearts in the right place.

I think people on both sides tend to start with their hearts in the right place. But I'm not talking about the web, where many things are a distortion of reality buffered by the anonymity people enjoy. I'm talking about actually getting out in person and getting to know people of all different creeds. Web comments don't seem to me to be a good reflection of the diversity among reasonable people (in fact I think it is mostly the opposite, but again on all sides of the issues) whereas if you're getting to know people with those various viewpoints on a face to face, personal level, you start to get a very different (and more accurate) picture in a hurry.

 

[Jabrosky]

I think people on both sides tend to start with their hearts in the right place. But I'm not talking about the web, where many things are a distortion of reality buffered by the anonymity people enjoy. I'm talking about actually getting out in person and getting to know people of all different creeds. Web comments don't seem to me to be a good reflection of the diversity among reasonable people (in fact I think it is mostly the opposite, but again on all sides of the issues) whereas if you're getting to know people with those various viewpoints on a face to face, personal level, you start to get a very different (and more accurate) picture in a hurry.

This makes sense. My own family have different views from myself on multiple issues, yet I will always love them. I believe it is easier to respect your opponents when you see multiple dimensions of their being beyond those areas of disagreement.

 

[Steerpike]

This makes sense. My own family have different views from myself on multiple issues, yet I will always love them. I believe it is easier to respect your opponents when you see multiple dimensions of their being beyond those areas of disagreement.

Yep. I'm in a similar boat with family. And apart from that, of the two most genuine and kind people I know (not to mention two of the smartest and well educated, both having Ph.Ds in their respective disciplines) one make most Republicans look liberal, and the other is a self-avowed socialist. So they cover a lot of ground between them

 

[Svrtnsse]

"You can't blame the writer for what the characters say." - Truman Capote

So there's two way to argue against this.
1. It's up to the writer to decide what the readers sees the character say. It's the writer who makes the decision whether to put it into words or no.
2. No matter how much we try, there will always be a little bit of ourselves in our characters and in our work. We may not like it and it may not be much, but it will be there.

Of these two options I much prefer the second one.
I'd like to think that the reader will be intelligent enough to tell whether an opinion expressed is that of the writer or of the character. I'm not sure that's always the case, but it'd be cool if it were. We're still in the end responsible for picking out the words and its us putting them down on the paper.

The second argument is a lot more interesting to me. How much can you detach yourself from your own way of thinking and how far into the mind of another can you get. Personally, I have very limited experience of this, not havving written much or for very long, but I believe it's hard.
As mentioned, going out and talking to people (face to face) will give you an insight into their way of thinking, but you'll have a hard time letting go of your own prejudices completely.

 

[Chessie]

I wrote a story once where the character was a severe drug addict, and all the decisions she made in regards to herself and her family were extremely selfish. I kept thinking to myself damn, she's a walking basket case, but she made the story so darn interesting. I hated her habit because I've had personal experiences with drugs destroying close friends and family members. It was kind of my way of healing from it all. Look deeper, there's always a way to discover something about yourself through differences in perspective/personality from your character.

 

[Penpilot]

I do, but I find it helpful to really understand the other side of the coin. I look at the reasoned arguments for the position I'm personally against and try to put myself into the other side's shoes. I find that sometimes I'll agree with the opposing position, but then there's a point when something will tip me back to my original position.

When I drive, I listen to talk radio, and when there's a good discussion happening on a topic, I play a game with myself. I imagine myself faced with the topic's dilemma and try to ague both sides as I drive.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

So there's two way to argue against this.
1. It's up to the writer to decide what the readers sees the character say. It's the writer who makes the decision whether to put it into words or no.

It could be argued, that if you allow yourself to make decisions on their actions that you wouldn't be writing with honesty. Meaning, if a character naturally should behave, or think, a certain way, and the writer decides against this, it is not true.

"Some people--and I am one of them--hate happy ends. We feel cheated. Harm is the norm. Doom should not jam. The avalanche stopping in its tracks a few feet above the cowering village behaves not only unnaturally but unethically."
- Vladimir Nabokov

I've always thought this quote carried a lot of meaning. One of which is his views on things behaving as they should, without being forced in unnatural ways by the writer.

2. No matter how much we try, there will always be a little bit of ourselves in our characters and in our work. We may not like it and it may not be much, but it will be there.

Maybe. I'm not convinced of this however. In the case of a protagonist, MC, or even some villains perhaps. Though I think I could write a real bastard of a character that has nothing of me in them, and do it convincingly. For the most part, I agree though.

We're still in the end responsible for picking out the words and its us putting them down on the paper.

Sure, but we're using those words to tell a story through conflict involving characters. We're not necessarily preaching.

The second argument is a lot more interesting to me. How much can you detach yourself from your own way of thinking and how far into the mind of another can you get. Personally, I have very limited experience of this, not havving written much or for very long, but I believe it's hard.

I would agree that it's difficult. The best writers do it well, in my opinion. I'd say those that are most effective do so by writing with honesty.

 

[Guy]

I have an interesting... not really a dilemma because I'm not changing anything, more of a dual paradigm. My writing partner and I are gun control advocates (I'm a stronger one than she is). However, our characters live in a brutal world where violent death can be waiting around every corner, and not all of them are as resilient as a vampire or a shape-shifter - so they carry guns. Now I have to get more familiar with guns to better write about them.

Does anyone else out there have any strong philosophical differences between you and your characters?

Well, I hope i have a huge difference with the antagonists in the two books I've written. The evil both of them do is the result of their refusal to face themselves. I actively strive to face the uglier aspects of my nature. Don't know how well I succeed, but I honestly try.

I grew up around guns, so if you need any technical knowledge, I can also be of help.

 

[Feo Takahari]

So there's two way to argue against this.
1. It's up to the writer to decide what the readers sees the character say. It's the writer who makes the decision whether to put it into words or no.
2. No matter how much we try, there will always be a little bit of ourselves in our characters and in our work. We may not like it and it may not be much, but it will be there.

Of these two options I much prefer the second one.

I'd invert the second one, and in doing so agree with Orson Scott Card. I think there's a lot of truth in Card's statement that when you truly and completely understand someone, you love them. To build from there, when you love someone, you invite a part of them into yourselves. Thus, if you understand all your characters, even your villains will in some sense be a part of you. (Consider Humbert Humbert, the most repulsive character I have ever encountered in any work of fiction. Nabokov said of him that although he belongs in Hell, there's a garden in Heaven where he'll be permitted to walk once a year. Even this twisted monster was in some sense loved by his creator!)

 

[Svrtnsse]

It could be argued, that if you allow yourself to make decisions on their actions that you wouldn't be writing with honesty. Meaning, if a character naturally should behave, or think, a certain way, and the writer decides against this, it is not true.

"Some people--and I am one of them--hate happy ends. We feel cheated. Harm is the norm. Doom should not jam. The avalanche stopping in its tracks a few feet above the cowering village behaves not only unnaturally but unethically."
- Vladimir Nabokov

I've always thought this quote carried a lot of meaning. One of which is his views on things behaving as they should, without being forced in unnatural ways by the writer.

I agree you need to be true to your character. You can't have this horrible, mean-spirited villain go an change his mind at the last second.
What I'm getting at is you shouldn't go and have your character do obscene and offensive things and then blame the character when someone calls you out on it. You need to be aware of what kind of person your character is and what they're doing. You create the character and you set them free in your story. You're responsible for what they do.

But, I do understand the original quote (not the one about the avalanche) and the concept. I just don't fully agree with it when pulled to extremes.
I like the avalanche quote. If you've brought an avalanche down on village, it's your duty to make sure the village gets burried in the snow.

Maybe. I'm not convinced of this however. In the case of a protagonist, MC, or even some villains perhaps. Though I think I could write a real bastard of a character that has nothing of me in them, and do it convincingly. For the most part, I agree though.

This is probably more a case of personal opinion / belief / world view than of facts. I don't believe I could write a character that doesn't have at least a trace of me in them. If you believe you can, I'm not going to challenge you on it. I'll never know you well enough to actually tell if you pulled it off or not.

Sure, but we're using those words to tell a story through conflict involving characters. We're not necessarily preaching.

Indeed. I wasn't thinking of preaching when I wrote that, but I can see how it's a concern in this context.

I'd invert the second one, [...]

No objection. Good point.

 

[Helen]

I have an interesting... not really a dilemma because I'm not changing anything, more of a dual paradigm. My writing partner and I are gun control advocates (I'm a stronger one than she is). However, our characters live in a brutal world where violent death can be waiting around every corner, and not all of them are as resilient as a vampire or a shape-shifter - so they carry guns. Now I have to get more familiar with guns to better write about them.

Does anyone else out there have any strong philosophical differences between you and your characters?

I think that's a blessing.

You've got an arc there that you're familiar with and passionate about.

 

[The Rivan King]

I often try to write characters who have different views from me. Being of a liberal view myself I usually try and write more conservatively minded characters just to see things from a different point of view.