Some writerly thoughts

[jebbypal]

I'll preface this with the caveat that I don't expect comments to this in one way or another, it's just something that occurred to me about writers that I like and what I feel my weaknesses in writing to be.


It occured to me a few minutes ago that there is a common thread among writers whose work I enjoy (and that could probably be extended to screenwriters, but we'll leave that for another post) - amazing characterization. The characters are alive. I could have a conversation with them and predict what their responses are because the authors have fleshed them out so well. As much as I enjoy the occassional fluff of a Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum novel (and this is in some cases a generalization. I haven't read one for years now) or something action oriented, I couldn't predict what a dinner conversation with Jack Ryan would be like because he is no more than a slave to the plot device. What we know about him derives directly from what occurs in the plot of several novels.

In contrast, I would love to be able to pick the brain of almost any character from a Robert Heinlein or Octavia Butler novel. I feel like I know them as well as any of my best friends, and while I'd love to be surprised, I'm reasonably confident that a conversation with one would happen much like it does in my head. They live and breathe even thoughh they exist only on the dry paper and text and my fleshly brain. Granted, I'm somewhat out of love with Heinlein after rereading Friday over Christmas -- I realize that most of his adult novels are PEOPLE just sitting around and talking. And while the philosophies were eye opening and comforting as a teen, 20 rereads later, it's boring to see the same conversation you remember verbatim.

And now I've fallen in love with Octavia Butler's writing, may she rest in peace. I haven't read many of her novels, three now to be exact, but the most recent (I suck at remembering the names of novels, sorry) Wild Seed contained a lot of just talking, but the characters who did the talking were complete and I couldn't put the book down because I wanted to know what they discovered over the course of their life. They were whole people whom I feel cheated to not be able to meet in the flesh.


Realizing this, I came to a conclusion that characterization is a skill I still lack. *holds up hands to quiet the horde* Not to say that I don't think I can capture an already created character with some precision. But creating a whole new character and bringing them fully to life on the screen, yeah, not so much. I've tried my hand at Original Character (OCs) in the past, and they have enjoyed a good reception among fanfic readers. But I still feel that even my most successful ones were built out of stereotypes and cliches and were nothing more than window dressing. Which, since the story wasn't completely about them, is probably as it should be.

And I know, figuring out how to write plot is no small accomplishment...but I still can't help but want more tools at my disposal. Plot, point of view, tenses, these things I've achieved some mastery at. World building and characterization - hurdles that still exist between me and the hope of actually deserving the title of author.

I think that's enough navel gazing for one post. Continuing it will cause rambling (assuming that it's more than that in anyone's head besides my own).

Comments

[zoesbackup.livejournal.com]

Heinlein is my personal deity of choice and I completely concur regarding his ability to make his characters so real and intimate that you can almost smell the B.O. that he often refers to when it comes to women. Of course that statement could be taken completely out of context were one not familiar with Heinlein. Anyways, I think Friday was a check-the-block book he dumped on the masturbating masses in order to fulfill a contract. There are only so many broken taboos that most readers can take. I recall a few years ago that his were on a list to be banned, down in one of the south central states, for that very reason. Oh yeah Point, there you are! Many times characterization is determined by the situation. It is a rare writer who can have a riveting tale of people blathering on self-importantly. If you know the character then the verbalization of their thoughts is almost redundant. I have the absolute opposite problem that you have. I can write conversations for days that seem witty, profound, and inspiring in my mind but apparently crank up the yawn factor for anyone with a pulse. Heinlein had some great actions scenes, often times so complex that you had to go back and read it three or four times just to figure what the hell happened and why that person said this at that time. Specifically, 'The Cat who Walked Through Walls', 'Time Enough For Love', and many of his later books that took on a more evocative style dealing with politics, philosophy, and morality. I haven't read Octavia Butler but have heard many good things. I suppose it just comes down to what you want the reader to take from the story. Do you want them to delve within and question their own assumptions or do you just want them to enjoy themselves and have a damn good read? Or both? Most people just want the damn good read and, then again, most people don't really want to have to think about what they are reading. So the loftier your goal, the narrower your audience. Until you get back to work on 'Twin Regrets', you'll get no more frothy praise from me ;D

[jebbypal]

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed almost all of heinlein's books, but at least to my recollection, it was a lot of talking with intermittent action. That is say in comparison to Orson Scott Card where the action was pretty much throughout.

But oh, I still love the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I never got into The Cat Who Walked Through Walls -- it seemed like a pale imitation of Time Enough For Love. But Heinlein can be forgiven much for simply producing STranger in a Strange Land. It's not bad...I just tend to skim over the excessive talking to the same extent I do the excessive description that Louis L'Amour is prone to.

Do you want them to delve within and question their own assumptions or do you just want them to enjoy themselves and have a damn good read?

That's a good question and you know...umm, well, in actuality, not something I think about. I mean, I love feedback, don't get me wrong, but for me it's about getting the scene and the story down on paper and finding out where it goes. Writing is like reading a book for me -- I want to see what happens and I can't wait to see where it goes. But since I've decided to start sharing what's in my head, I want to do it well.

Which doesn't really answer the question. But basically, any theme or philosophy that I work in actually occurs by serendipity because it's something the character shoved in my face. Which is easy when I'm working with characters that are whole. But I've yet to have an original character do the same thing -- instead it's an idea that demands characters to fulfill it.

And yes, twin regrets. *is sheepish* I think someone from my flist is going to come and kidnap my tv and playstation if I don't start writing more. Just trying to divide my time between actually doing work for school and writing is hard cause when the brain is tired, the muse won't talk. It'll happen though!! Hell, the muse insists it happens cause it wants to start on the sequel already.