Dumping Responsabilities On The Characters

So we were talking about creating vocabulary that would be unique to the concept of a certain work, and Kotep, God bless him, came up with the very interesting notion that some things are better left to the characters, rather than to the narrator/author. So I was reminded of Death Note and how the writers went to great lengths to show the impressionable readers that Light Yagami was a piece of shit and not a Messiah, or how the writer of the Hannibal Lecter novels became more and more blatantly enamoured with and supportive of his characters, or how Oscar Wilde projected bits of himself in the characters of The Picture Of Dorian Gray*

... but didn't escape responsibility for them (despite how the narrative doesn't approve of them at all) and they were used as evidence against him in a trial for homosexuality, and got him jailed.

So I was wondering about the complexities of having characters commit crimes that you can't do as an author, whether it be moral crimes, such as supporting vigilante justice, or stylistic crimes, such as coming up with new words to name something that hasn't a name yet. And, of course, the problem with first-person narrative, and how not to get the stupidity or immorality of the character (or their bad grammar) wrongfully attributed to yourself.*

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Well, most writers with some modicum of common sense are capable of separating what their charcters do and think from what they do and think, and most readers with common sense are capable of distinguishing between the two. Obviously, a lack of common sense in either party can spell disaster—Twilight, Atlas Shrugged and Gor demonstrate this in the former; nearly any moral panic does so for the latter—but for a reasoned, self-aware author with no desire to preach or live vicariously and a good grasp on characters that are not themselves, I don't think that this should really be a problem outside of the occasional rogue book critic with too much time on their hands.

Now, some extreme subject matter does move the goalposts on this particular issue, if only because it is much easier for people to assume a hidden agenda or sinister overtones even when they are not present. Take, for instance, Theodore Sturgeon's submission to Dangerous Visions, which raised all kinds of hell for the position it played devil's advocate for. Or maybe Ramsey Campbell's serial killer novel The Face That Must Die, or the depredations of Pierre Guyotat or John Hawkes. To write in the voice of evil does not make one evil, nor does to write with the eyes of perversion make one perverted. But if simulated properly, with the requisite emotional imagination, it can be quite easy to assume that the empathy is personal rather than speculative. In other words, the better that you write from a reprehensible perspective, the easier it is to be seen as reprehensible. So it's difficult.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Isn't that actually a common practice for most writers? Giving various characters pieces of yourself and having them do something you wish you could? Of course, many times it becomes "I'm a short, hairy dude who drops an eviiil ring into a volcano" or something of the sort, but sometimes it's vigilante justice and similar. I don't think many people in modern times would hold such a character against you.

Thanks for the reference. I'll buy that book as soon as I get the munnayz.

Depends on how likable they find the character.

edited 26th Jun '12 3:28:14 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Or, if I'm reading the OP somewhat differently, you seem to be surprised that characters are somewhat independent entities of their own rather than total puppets of the author. A good character is usually one with a personality that is distinct from the author. That they are capable of acting on this personality and the author merely transcribes while this is going on should not come as a shock.

Yes, one can brutalize the characters into total obedience to the author's whims, but this is usually a bad idea; they will seem not themselves and the story will probably suffer for it. To be capable craftsmen, what we craft will not always please us. I can remember a character I grew to genuinely hate, far more than I've ever hated any actual breathing human; her presence scuttled the story in the end.

edited 26th Jun '12 5:00:47 AM by Night

Nous restons ici.

Couldn't you just put her on a bus? And no, I know characters are sort of independent things "out there", but some people seem to think they are a faithful reflections of the author's repressed self, if not outright spokespeople.

And, as for "common sense", honestly, what does that even mean? Don't you mean "cultural synchronism"? Why doesn't anyone ever question males having romances with murderously dangerous villainesses? They think that, because they're male, they should be smart enough to care for themselves?

edited 26th Jun '12 5:15:27 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

As she was the defining antagonist of the story, no, not really. There were bigger villains who did bigger things, but they had reasons besides "if this works out, it'll be fun", and many of them weren't truly in control of their actions. No excuses, no redeeming features, not even psychosis or sociopathy.

In the end she scuttled the story not so much because I wouldn't write her (I longed for those moments she was foiled), but because I was certain that my hate was leaking onto the page, and in seeing that, the reader would also be able to see the person doing the hating. Much as with actors judging the characters they play, there is a danger in judging our characters. We should avoid it if we can.

...I confess though have no idea what your second paragraph is about. It doesn't seem to relate to anything in this thread.

edited 26th Jun '12 5:53:20 AM by Night

Nous restons ici.

I agree that characters are, to a degree, independent entities, but not to the degree that I would give them anything resembling "agency". A character's "agency" is just what the author wants to give him/her, even when it seems like the character is making the decision. A character is always an agent of the story, no matter how much independence they're given.

Well, let's say they're more like chess pieces. There's restrictions to how they can move, and, if you don't think with enough advance, you may well find yourself locked in a situation that has only one In Character ending. Not to mention the sort of situation where you are literally forced to move your pieces in specific ways regardless of whether it's logical for them to do so or not, sort of like a Godzilla Threshold except instead of rampaging they've got to become human shields and the like.

...

I should explain this better, shouldn't I? Who here gets it as it is written?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

No, what you say makes perfect sense.

For example, I have a story where I wish I'd written a particular character a different way, because the only "logical" end that I can think of now takes the character a place I didn't intend for her to go. Not wanting that outcome at all, the only way out for me now is to introduce an Ass Pull that I'd never planned before and hope that it's well-done enough that the audience doesn't mind.

edited 26th Jun '12 7:43:46 AM by KingZeal

That strikes me as more reflective of a personal choice and possibly a style of storytelling than as a literal truth.

(i.e. the character is not an agent of the story if they are the story)

Nous restons ici.

Depends on what your answer to "The Problem Of Free Will" is.

edited 26th Jun '12 7:59:09 AM by KingZeal

That's a woefully inadequate comparison: unlike you, God has forethought all the moves.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Arguable. That presumes a lot about both a definition of God and our hypothetical author.

edited 26th Jun '12 8:48:58 AM by KingZeal

Dangerous Visions and Again Dangerous Visions are probably my two favourite "speculative fiction" anthologies ever. To read them is truly a pleasure. I would also recommend Campbell's output in general, as he's a fantastic author. Hawkes is brilliant as well, but much harder to get into, so I'm not sure; and Guyotat... Éden Éden Éden was a very important book in terms of its subject matter and style, but please: Don't inflict that on yourself.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Well, after awhile of writing, you get a feel for the character's personality.

If faced with a choice of X or Y, you'd know that they'd choose Y. Or X. Or take a third option with Z.

You would also know "Well, they'd normally choose X, unless a set of circumstances stacked up to make them choose Y".

For example, one member of the Official Couple would never cheat on the other—unless these very specific things happened to occur.

Then

• step one: make them happen
• step two: drama
• step three: well, it depends on the execution

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.