Have you ever cried while writing something?

Yes and no. It's more complicated than that.

The best way to explain it would be this: If a character of mine were to pose the problem of evil as a philosophical question, I'm not sure how I could answer it. In theory, the fact that I, as the author, am not purely benevolent should be the final answer, but it's not an entirely satisfactory answer to me, at least not without further consideration. For instance, if a character I create naturally forms as an in-story product of monstrous cruelty, is it a matter of me, them, or both? The same follows with a truly repulsive character. It's a problem that goes to the heart of where characters "come from," and one that I find fascinating.

Then again, I created a certain character explicitly to explore those problems, and I'm still confused.

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

I don't really understand the problem here. Traditionally the 'problem of evil' is why is there evil in the world if God is benevolent and all-powerful. Applied to fiction it's irrelevant because characters only have moral worth in the fictional context. In the real world, where we write, the moral question is not 'how can we make characters happy' but 'how can we make the audience happy', which we do by torturing our characters because people are sadistic savages :D Or, to be more accurate, character suffering is a medium for people to find expression for their own suffering and thereby a sense of peace.

Which suggests an interesting solution to the philosophical problem of evil. God is benevolent and all-powerful, but humans are morally worthless. I like it.

edited 19th Oct '12 6:33:56 AM by Kesteven

gloamingbrood.tumblr.com MSPA: The Superpower Lottery

Once when I was writing a self-monologue for one of my classes and it kind of struck a nerve.

It's only irrelevant from a purely Doylist perspective; from a Watsonian perspective, things get dicey, particularly when some element of metafiction comes into play.

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

The problem (at least as I see it) is in applying a Watsonian perspective at all. Fictional characters have no existence or agency outside of how they're written.

It's why I think the "creator as god" metaphor breaks down if examined too closely, and part of why I think (conventional) metafiction can come across as self-indulgent.

edited 19th Oct '12 11:53:16 PM by nrjxll

I thought that the dichotomy was between in-universe and out-of-universe commentary? Regardless of the type of commentary you employ there's never any difficulty separating the real world from the fictional one as long as you're clear about things.

Things are actually even simpler from a Watsonian perspective than a Doylist one because Watsonian commentary is in-universe and therefore nothing to do with the author, who is out-of-universe by definition. All metafiction does is muddy the waters, the boundary itself is still clear if you look for it.

Although I'm noticing this is getting decidedly off-topic, should we discuss it elsewhere?

edited 20th Oct '12 9:22:22 AM by Kesteven

gloamingbrood.tumblr.com MSPA: The Superpower Lottery

OT: I can't say I've ever cried while writing, though I do feel sad at the notion of losing my favorite character, or even my most hated, just because they're so cool.

About the people above me. One way of looking at what the first post of the 2nd page (likely the one this is on) is the song Vicarious by Tool. Also, if possible, could you enlighten me to the Watsonian perspective, and the other people you were talking of? It seems interesting if I knew who they were xD

Watsonian vs. Doylist basically breaks down into how you choose to look at a story. It comes from two schools of thought on Sherlock Holmes: is a particular detail because of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who actually wrote the story, or is it because of Doctor Watson, who is credited by the author with relating the story?

While "everything is always the author's fault" has a certain appealing simplicity to it, the fact we have a page for I Just Writethething should tell you that not all authors find it a satisfactory explanation for what occurs on the pages of their work. I know I haven't always.

edited 20th Oct '12 6:22:38 PM by Night

Nous restons ici.

Yes. Though when it happens it's usually when my intentions for the scene overlap with personal experience. It's almost always inadvertent.

However I have a chapter in my current WIP that pulled some heart strings as I was writing it. There is nothing happy about the MC trying to save a little girl in a fire, failing and having the reader realize her death before the character does.

I almost went back and changed it, but then I realized that's probably exactly what I was going for.

edited 23rd Oct '12 10:34:03 AM by Dimanagul

All Heroes die. Some just more than others. http://dimanagul.wordpress.com

Yes, and I hope those passages get the same reaction from readers. The worst thing that has happened to me like this was when a lead character said something I wasn't really aware of - I had one of those moments when your character does or says something you hadn't planned, but was obviously the next thing to happen. I was about to write one thing, when the lead character said "I nearly had [a very close friend] committed to a psychiatric hospital." Instead he tried to deal with the problems himself, and although qualified to do so, because of the closeness, he would have destroyed his friends family if he got it wrong."

It did literally come out of nowhere- I had NO idea! I typed what he was saying with increasing shock. At the end I went back and wrote it properly, the first draft was really me just listening - I didn't cry, but I was as deep in shock as the people he was telling!

Do the job in front of you.

No.

Help put an end to Geek Pride today and everyday in any way you can.