fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2105 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2105 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 107 secrets from Secret Submission Post #301.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

One could just as easily argue that authors who don't develop their characters with full and complex personalities, goals, and desires such that their actions and responses flow organically from their established personalities will end up with "pretty shitty" stories. When an author decides that he can make his character do whatever he wants to serve his plot, regardless of the personality of the character in question, it comes across as forced to the reader and makes the character seem flat or nonsensical.

If a writer has a firm sense of a character's personality in their mind and feels they cannot "force" the character to do something that would go against that personality, it's not ~delusional~ for the writer to say that the character won't cooperate. Similarly, trying to stick on details that don't mesh with the established characterization won't work, even if the writer doesn't consciously realize why those details don't mesh. If a writer conceptualizes that impression as the character "refusing" what the writer does, how does that hurt the story?

Or do you just like shitting on any creative process that's different than yours, or that you perceive as "quirky"?

When an author decides that he can make his character do whatever he wants to serve his plot, regardless of the personality of the character in question, it comes across as forced to the reader and makes the character seem flat or nonsensical.

Um, I never said a writer should do this. Obviously, a character should follow a natural progression just like a plot should. When a writer endows a character with certain characteristics, the character needs to act in a believable way according to these parameters.

However, things become problematic when an author starts treating a character as a separate entity with their own thoughts, opinions, etc. Yes, a writer should not write a character doing something against their personality. But a character doesn't refuse to do anything. Instead, a writer realizes that a character's actions may not be appropriate in a scene because those actions do not compute with established parameters.

A writer needs to realize that they are the sole person in charge of the story. Characters aren't real. Yes, they should seem real to the reader, but the writer should view them as devices. Thinking of them as "real people" takes away from critical thinking. If a writer's justification for not writing a character a certain way is "he refused" instead of "his actions go against his personality," then they are distancing themselves from critical analysis. In short, it's lazy.

You say it's merely conceptualization. I, on the other hand, think this attitude impedes writers. I have yet to see a good writer who hold such views. I think one problem many writers who utilize this "conceptualization" run into is that they separate themselves from their writing. They stop looking at it with a critical eye because their characters are "running the show."

Frankly, I don't consider this creative process "quirky." I consider it asinine. I'm against it because I have seen so many poor writers employ it time and time again. I have no problem with people having different creative processes than me, but it's difficult to turn a blind eye when there are some that are clearly ineffective.

You're right.

Frankly, I don't consider this creative process "quirky." I'm against it because I have seen so many poor writers employ it time and again.

I've noticed that writers who do this also tend to be extremely crit-averse.

[ SECRET POST #2105 ]

Re: Ranting about your main characters

Re: Ranting about your main characters

Re: Ranting about your main characters

Re: Ranting about your main characters