Life as we know it...

Been reflecting on why I'm taking such exception to thoughts of characters and character study.
You know, none of my previous characters seemed to hit the heights. Except, maybe, in my first story - a children's short. Yeah, my protagonist was quite good, I thought. Except: protagonist - what an awful word to use for a child in a children's story.
Got me thinking again.
It seems such a mechanical thing.... that we are being asked to do (in writing). Plot characters. Why is it, or why has it become, such a mechanical thing?
Perhaps it hasn't. The lists of rules, and character-inducing plotting: maybe they are there just to act as a guide. A guide when you are stuck, somehow. But if it isn't mechanical, and is natural, then why should any writer be stuck with their characterisation? It could be that they aren't stuck at all, just looking for the correct direction in which the personality of the character would take in the circumstances of the story.
Would a list help you there?
It could kickstart your mind into finding the right direction, the right answer.
But if you didn't know this answer, then why did you allow the character to get to this point? You clearly don't know your character, or you don't know how to characterise. It could even be said that you don't know people.
Hmmm, argumentative. Some characters take a lot of sussing out. In life, they often cannot be sussed out. And writing should reflect this reality, not twist it so that characters are unrecognisable. Care is needed.
So when you created this character, you must have known why?
I ask myself why, too: why do we call people in stories 'characters'? What is it about the word character that causes it to be used almost universally?
So much is said about emotion, about engaging the reader with the protagonist (another bugbear), the story's emotional content, and so on. And all of this involving a 'character', or 'characters'.
Mechanical-sounding words.
Is this why writers so often under-sell their 'characters'? Because they are called 'characters'? The word itself: does it block human thoughts? Subconsciously?
Hmmm, is this why people feel the need to draw up lists?
In my latest story, I decided that each person in the tale had to be as human as possible. No mechanical 'arcing' (how can a character have an arc, when emotions are so up and down, so extreme?) Argumentative, again, I know, but something that needs addressing. What causes these terms to be used? And then misunderstood or forgotten, so a list is needed.
Anyway, I listed (!) all of the people (avoiding the character word) in my latest story, and just explained who they were, how they came to be there. The heading I put them under was 'Life'. I felt, as I talked about them (to myself), that I was talking about people and not characters. I was far more at ease. The title had added more subtlety to the way I approached things. Leon no longer hid - after all, I was now calling him a person, a part of life.
I wrote another heading: Wisdom. And here I began to write what I would previously have called the plot. Or narrative, or even exposition. Once again, the mechanical prodding gave way to a more serious consideration.
Yes, I'm sure you are right - whatever rocks your boat, Es: it doesn't really matter what you call it, as long as you get the job done. But is that true, though?
For back-story, I wrote: History.
For exposition, I wrote: Why? (Scientists may be right about its magical properties, after all!) Why? didn't actually make things any easier to explain, but I've kept it, as I like it a lot more than 'exposition'. I actually haven't got to the bottom of all of the 'whys' yet - still planning that!
Exposition? I really do wonder that it can be so readily accepted that the words 'emotion' and 'exposition' actually belong in the same thought process. How can your mind possibly join up the ends?
I think it can't, so we keep getting it wrong and start looking for lists and advice - which usually brings you back to characters and plots and exposition and narratives, thus perpetuating the problem.
Well, there has to be a reason for all of the forgetfulness, or non-understanding, in the writing world. I've been a part of it, so I know - something made me forget, to not fully understand. I probably knew more when I first started - I can see that now. I should have understood that then. Instinct buried by knowledge. My first, and greatest, mistake, I feel.
I'm hoping to put things right. So far, it feels like I've gone some way to doing that.

Do your characters belong to you?

Just a thought. Only, I've been reading such a lot about characters and character construction. Some very interesting and valid discussions. Not a lot for me to disagree with - which, for me, is some kind of hell, as I reject just about everything at first, then allow it to filter back into my head bit by bit. Which usually means eventually accepting most of what has been put to me, if only after a while of thinking/disagreeing about it. Accent on the word 'most'. Me, the eternal pedant!
It's actually not much of a thought, more a feeling.
If you accept everything you read, or hear, and if it's the same as everyone else has been hearing or reading, then I wonder if your character will maybe read the same as other people's characters.
But people are people i.e. they are individual to themselves and to the whole. They are unpredictable, to themselves and to the whole. You really don't know what they are going to do next. Not all of the time, and not most of the time. Just some of the time. People are flawed. They do not follow rules.
However, I'm sure they follow an individual's rules - each particular character's own rules, though not a set of general character rules.
If a character followed a set of rules, acting well-rounded, full of character-rule fullness, then is it possible that the element of surprise, and even discovery (for the character, reader and writer), will be missing?
A flawed character cannot follow rules. Something jolts, something goes missing, awry - in the journey, and even at the end of it. All characters are flawed: they are products of the writer's imagination, so they have to be, as the writer is also flawed. Unless you attempt to make them flawless. So that they follow rules. That is a flaw in itself. (Discuss.)
However, I do think you need to know rules, otherwise how do you flaunt one or two? Of course, you have to follow the number one rule: the reader must bond with your characters, especially the protagonist(s). Is there another rule? Hmmm, another discussion?
I wonder, if a character (and I guess we are really talking about the protagonist) follows every rule, then he cannot fail to come out the other side better than when he went into it. Of course, again, this is not true life. In fiction writing, though, he has to. Unless he dies!
Hmmm. In life there are characters. They don't follow all of the rules. They may follow certain rules belonging to a specific character-type, but not rules to any unspecific character-type. They will, I'm sure follow certain rules from A to F, but not from G to J. Being flawed they may miss out more letters than that, but if you hit the jackpot they will follow every single rule in the 'book'.
Does it really mean you've hit the jackpot if you've followed the rules? It may also mean that you've made a false call.
Jeez, this writing lark is so difficult... trying to please everyone... trying to please yourself... trying to please an agent... trying to please an editor (lol, neither of the last two exists... for now! That may be my problem!)
Which rules must you always follow, and which can be variable? All? None? Some? So easy to get lost. Perhaps it's best to follow the rules, otherwise you might not make it back. If you had followed the rules, you wouldn't have got lost. Nobody would. We'd all have well-rounded characters travelling on the same emotional journey. Is that what is wanted? Required? Well, what are the rules, then? Somebody must have them. Aha! Someone has a set - they've made them up. So has someone else. There are differences, though. We have no 'official' rules.
No, no. These aren't character rules, they are story rules. I think. Story around the character, then. Aha! Now that's different. Or is it?
But if these rules came from someone else, then they may be just what I need - I don't have any, other than 'get the protagonist to gel with the other characters and with the reader'.
See, I told you I can be persuaded.
Just me thinking. Or maybe not thinking all that well. Maybe I'm just floored - oops! Flawed!

Does your protagonist listen to the rain?

I went out tonight for a few drinks with a couple of old friends. Well, it should have been the three of us, but one couldn't make it. It was still a good night: playing pool, a few beers and I got some advice about a new curry shop down the road: "You gotta have one - it's the best in Shields."
Vital information, as curry is a staple diet in South Shields. The best Indian-English curries are here, right on my doorstep. I love 'em!
Afterwards, I climbed out of a taxi, curry takeaway in hand, into the rain, just outside my front door.
I like the rain. It makes me think; it makes me dream. Tonight, it made me wistful. At least, I think it was the rain that did that. But I missed my other friend not being out tonight. The banter would have been sharper, wittier, because it would have involved more of us. I would have laughed more, for sure. It got me thinking: do my friends miss me if I'm not there? Well, I know they do - they always ring, or want to call by, or go for a drink. They always ask why I wasn't 'there', if I couldn't make it, when a bunch of us decide to go out for a drink. Sometimes it borders on the hostile, making me wonder if they think I don't care about them as much as they care about me. Sounds melodramatic, I know. But some of my friends are no longer around - life deals terrible hands, sometimes - and there is probably a lot more depth than usual to feelings when things happen to shake the 'secure' world we live in. Or believe we live in.
A funny thing, but the little Indian guy in a pony-tail who served me came up to me as I was waiting for the taxi, and asked if I remembered him from another curry house. Suddenly, I remembered where I'd seen him before - it was absolutely years ago! - and he brought quite a few memories flooding back. Hey, he was a great bloke to talk to then, while waiting the statutory half-hour for the curry. And he hadn't changed much in that respect, asking me how I was, and that I had to ask for him next time I came to his shop. Perhaps that was the real reason I became wistful as I ate my curry. It really wasn't all that nice, to be honest. I must say so to the friend who advised me to go to this new place. Curries are rather important. If you don't have 'the knowledge', then you aren't a true Sand-dancer!
Now then, I'm not building myself up to being 'Mister Wonderful', as I'm sure most everyone has friends, and memories that never die but just need a certain catalyst to bring them flooding back. I simply decided to put these (brief) thoughts up here, because they do relate directly to someone 'everybody who writes' needs to know: the protagonist.
Each writer must have a means of identifying the protagonist as someone the reader will care about, identify with.
Well, one great way (I believe) is through the people around him. Ask yourself: Does your protagonist have friends? Do they care about him? How do they show this? Do they help him? Hinder him? Advise him? Save him? From the world, or from himself? Even sacrifice themselves for him?
And how about turning all this round: how does the protagonist feel about his friends? You can apply all of the above to the other way around.
There are other ways of gelling the reader and the protagonist. But using other people, for me, is the best possible way. If people care about him, then so might the reader. If nobody cares for him, then why should the reader? Of course, he may be on his own and have a pet dog to help make you think nice thoughts about him. Dorothy was on her own, and she had a pet dog, too. But she did make friends along the way. The most important thing, to me.

Just a thought, and I can be persuaded otherwise. But if your protagonist also doesn't listen to the rain, or something like it, then I doubt it.

Macca was right

You don't know how it's going to turn out.

Good or bad, before and during writing, you just don't know how it's going to turn out. It's only afterwards that the real worrying begins: did I get it right? Did I get any of it right? Which bit is good? Which bit is not so good? Should it be longer or shorter? And so on...

Hmmm. How do you not worry about it beforehand?

I guess what the great Fab meant was that you shouldn't worry about your ability to do things if it's already been demonstrated that you can. Draw confidence from the fact that you've already done it, so you can be confident that you can do it again.

You could say, though, that this doesn't help you very much if you haven't written anything yet. But maybe it does. My first story was a short, and I didn't worry about it in the slightest. I thought about it, dived in, and came out the other side. Once again, it was only afterwards that I was able to tell whether it was any good or not. It was probably the only time I didn't worry about my actual writing.

Aha! That's it: think like a new writer!
What, every time? It's not possible. Once you've completed your first story, it's not possible.

Perhaps if we substitute 'worry' with 'doubt', it makes more sense. Or rather, makes it easier to understand. Don't doubt yourself. Think about your work. Do the research, the planning. Be positive. If you are any good, it will all turn out fine. But you'll only find that part out afterwards. And the knowledge gained will help you with your next work.

Hmmm. But Macca chose to say 'worry', and not 'doubt'. Then again, he is mostly musician - John was more of a poet. I wonder who wrote the words to 'Paperback Writer'?
Perhaps, in this context, worry and doubt mean the same thing.
I know, let's do both: don't worry and don't doubt! Acceptable overkill. Yeah, that's the answer.

Time, infinity, and us!

I was reading through a few posts on a rather brilliant blog named 'fencingwiththefog' (there is a link to it on my blog here - any kind of writer, but especially screenwriters, should go there), when House, in the aptly-named series 'House', said 'If the world is infinite, then what use is life?' Or something like that.
Indeed.
That took me back to the eternal question: Will I ever get published?
Oops, sorry - the eternal question is: why? Why are we here? Why us? Why are we? Why anything?
I actually wonder whether that is a true, valid question. You can apply the question 'why?' to anything.
I always think that the real question is 'how?' Unfortunately, the answer to that also only goes so far back, too. It has its own unresolved theories.
This all got me thinking a bit further (House, you sod, I was trying to relax!). The world, the universe, apparently is growing. The planets are hurtling through the heavens, away from each other and at ever-increasing rates. This reminded me of the astronauts travelling through space, who appeared not to age too much, grew taller, and other physiological and psychological things, too. And time slowed.
Now, the advent of the computer/internet age, to me, has caused something: the world appears not to have too much use for time in its ordinary sense. We live 24/7. Minutes seem not to matter any more. Further to this, I keep getting the feeling that the '24' part is losing its significance. We are beginning to do everything 24/7 as a matter of fact, to the point where it really seems to be the '7' bit that matters.
And our children are getting taller, and people are living longer.
Could all of this be linked to the planets (includng Earth) moving faster?
How long before the '7' becomes irrelevant?
Could be a great idea for a story.
I've just tried a Coke Zero. It was probably that...

The protagonist

So I sat up in bed with a new sheet of paper headed: Who Is Leon?
I thought I'd already done this, but in retrospect had merely scratched the surface. I'm new to this planning lark (I told myself). After some time of searching through what seemed like an impenetrable fog of uncertainty, I had a full A4 sheet of events and circumstances which had shaped Leon's arrival to this point in time i.e. the beginning of the book.
This has landed me with a problem: how do I show/illustrate this chain of events to the reader without it turning them off from the story in hand, and this first book becoming book 1 of 10. (Actually, I've just demonstrated longevity, so maybe that's a selling point!) Well, the past and the present are inextricably linked, and unresolved (the plot!), so this potential black hole has hair (see Prof. Stephen Hawking about that reference). My protag has a full head of it, so there's a further link!
I have an idea. No, I'm not going to write a blurb for the back of the bookcover to get round it -unless an agent/editor insists!
This is all mainly because I'm one of these freaks who actually like exposition. I need to know. Not only that, I need to know lots. And before you all jump on me, each brandishing a strait-jacket and crying 'Section this madman!', I have no intention of saying: 'Well, it's all because...' or 'Way back...' I want to be published and am well aware of the suffocating spectre of explanation.

The beginning I've chosen reads better than I originally thought. I know I mustn't spoil it.

Thinking...

Yeah, I have an idea.

Goodo !!

The Longest Night

Way back, I wrote - and lost - a poem about what would happen in the event of a nuclear war. All very earnest stuff, and probably just as well for the world that it has disappeared. The poem ended with the rather unoriginal
"... And sullen mist shall hide the truth,
And the truth shall hide for ever."

A lady from the workgroup I belonged to at the time believed I could improve the ending by saying "And the truth shall be lost for ever." As ever, I railed against such impertinence, but (much) later, relented and accepted her version of the ending. It sounded better, if nothing else.

However.

Later, I remembered why I said 'hide' and not 'be lost'. It was a comment on the reality of life; that the truth is often not lost, but may be hidden i.e. is hidden, either accidentally or deliberately, until someone else uncovers it. The question is: uncovered by who? I had no answer. Aliens, perhaps, or some surviving race stumbling upon it centuries later. Of course, I couldn't illustrate this at the ending of the poem. It would have been silly to try, and would have ruined my attempt at a dramatic ending.

I feel this way about my protagonist. His truth is hiding from me. He seems to be hiding from me at the beginning I've chosen. It could be because I've called him Leon. There is already a book and film about someone named Leon (unread by me), and so I feel I will probably have to change his name. Perhaps he is upset with me, because, like me, he loves this name. Hmmm. Change of name or not, he and I have begun to talk; tentatively. I've begun to understand him, but still haven't captured everything about him. Who he actually is. How he actually came to exist. Once I've done that, I'm sure Leon and I will get along fine. There, I've called him Leon again. Guess it really must stay like that. I hope so.