"Who" my character is depends on what I am using them to say in my story. I am not one to ever write out those silly character bios because I'm not much of a fan of YA lit, and it's really in that venue that this dependance on an affinity for a given character is most important because that's the level at which young readers tend to read. They want to relate and feel inside of the skin of this alter-ego they are reading. To use a rather hackneyed example: Harry Potter. The Harry Potter books (yes, I've read them) aren't about anything other than the adventures of Harry and his crew of cohorts. There is no deeper meaning to these stories past the surface plot-line. Harry Potter tells me nothing about the human condition. He's just a shell for little boys to inhabit for a while. For me, a character's personality comes from his or purpose in the story, the story being the core event, the characters are just tools to tell that story.
Umm...so Rowling's major themes of demonstrating the difference between actual evil personalities and those who merely have bad attitudes, and self-sacrifice for the benefit of others; not to mention her providing a number of good role models for children that may not have any real-life role models got past you eh...?
Charaters have a way of evolving with the story so there's no real need to know everything at the start. Charaters sheets are a wayforward but you dont need to be so formal. Just note down the bare bones and add back story as and when you think of it.
This is a non-sequitur. I think readers of all genres need to like a character. I actually find characters to be less developed in YA and MG lit than in adult lit, which is why I don't generally read much YA or MG. A lot of genre writers agree with this to an extent, whereas literary writers feel the opposite. I'm of the group that believes characters are very important, and if people really like and identify with a character, they'll forgive quite a bit. But even a very good plot that has underdeveloped or unrelatable characters will fail. If you have a very compelling and complex plot, you can get away with less development, but an author can never know too much about his characters.
No. None of this gets past me, but I don't consider any of that to be thematic scaffolding. What you mention are elements of all children's stories. And please don't think I was disparaging the use, purpose, or meaning of YA lit. Far from it. YA is written for and correctly targets a particular audience at that audience's reading and maturity level. I just haven't been a YA target audience member for a number of decades. Having a story tell me about the difference between good/pretty, bad/ugly, and how these things shouldn't be thought of as inextricably linked is not something that I think of as thematically profound at my age.
It is the number of people moved by a literary theme that defines its profoundness, not the age or preference of a single reader.
I too believe character is of supreme importance. So much so that you can not separate character from story: all stories are characters going through crisis. Period. *Edit: Oh and literary is a genre also.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Rowling has perhaps 'moved' unaccountably more young people with her rather masturbatory writing than say, Foer, but to say that Harry Potter is thematically deeper or more intricate than Everything is Illuminated is a powerful stretch. And Foer populates his story with people who are infinitely more real because each character is a person, a concept, and paradigm all at the same time. To say that Rowling is more profound because of popularity is like saying cigarettes are better for you than running because more people smoke than run.
"...but to say that Harry Potter is thematically deeper or more intricate than Everything is Illuminated is a powerful stretch." Who in the hell said that Harry Potter is thematically deeper or more intricate than Everything...? So, here we have yet another one who seems to be here only for argument sake.
You said it: "It is the number of people moved by a literary theme that defines its profoundness" All I did was apply two examples that fit your criterion in order to test the validity of your hypothesis. And frankly, my original post in this thread was just me giving my opinion. YOU are the one who came back with a snarky retort, so... Own that.
I hardly consider the real life application of what folks say here in the forum as absurdity. You made a statement, I plucked two examples from real life to apply to that statement. One example with a very broad readership and one with a very narrow readership, both of which speak to "the number of people" portion of your statement. How is that absurd?
Although technically correct, in the publishing biz, you often hear publishers, editors, agents, and authors making a distinction between "genre" (meaning a particular, recognized category of book - YA, Sci Fi, Romance, etc) and "literary," which sometimes can simply refer to everything else. There are occasionally problems categorizing books within the "literary" category, but that's another issue. Generally, novels in the literary category contain more of an emphasis on characters rather than plot. I've borrowed their language because it was relevant to the point about the importance of characters. If there was a question of "which genre is this story" or "what genre do you write," then "literary" would be an appropriate response, assuming the author believes the story to be literary instead of one of the other genres. Otherwise, there are discussions predicated on a dichotomy between "genre" and "literary."
Yes, true. Also, I have noted that literary fiction places a greater emphasis on, for lack of a better term, the quality of construction in the writing. Though there are genre authors like Mieville and Delany who are utter wizards of the word, literary fiction would seem to place this craft of wordsmithiness on a higher pedestal than 'genre' lit.
No, that's not what I meant. Perhaps I stated my original case poorly. As you have stated, "a really interesting, compelling, relatable and compelling character, readers will follow him just about anywhere" is truth to the point of axiom. What I mean is that I feel, personally, that writers often spend more time trying to create a person without giving thought to the purpose of that person in the story. There are uncountable threads in this forum that begin to the tune of, "Is this person believable" followed by some character bio and absolutely nothing about that character's place in the story they are to populate. So, from that bio alone, no answer is givable to the question of believability. The initial question whence springs this thread is "How to get to know your characters" and again my answer remains, by understanding their role in the story, the reason they are there, the message you the writer is trying to send to the reader through the actions and event of this character. Hence, the reason for giving the example of Foer's writing. His characters are not just people for me to know, they are complete paradigms to ponder. So, in truth, I think you and I are actually on the same page. I just attack the writing of characters from the other side of the spyglass, so to speak.
I see -- we actually are closer to agreement than I first believed. I agree with most of this. It may be true that sometimes authors try to create a character, and perhaps in the story they are writing, that character turns out not to have a role. But, a writer can always use a well-developed character. This character can be used in another story. I don't think it's time wasted. I agree that the threads of "is this person believable" are essentially unanswerable. A small snippet posted with this question doesn't give enough information. Simply giving a bio of a character (or a plot outline, for that matter) doesn't really tell us anything -- a policeman who discovers he's a wizard and decides to devote his life to saving stray cats. Okay - maybe. Write it well and he'll be believable. BUT, the initial question being "How to get to know your characters" is NOT the same. No matter what you're writing, you can never know your characters too well. Generally you get to know your characters by writing the story, and they emerge. But you can get to know your characters on a deeper level by spending even more time with them, and that will make writing future scenes even easier. That's different from simply filling out a character sheet, which I gave my 2 cents on earlier in this thread. They're of marginal usefulness, but not a real substitute to spending quality time with them.
And again, I agree with you. Everything herein quoted makes perfect sense to me. I really don't think we are so far apart in our opinions. For me, "spending time" with my character is realized through thinking about their purpose, not on a plot level, but on a thematic level. From their purpose, for me, springs 'who' they are.
I totally agree with this, too. I had a minor character who really wasn't supposed to appear much at all in my story but ended up playing a major role in the story. She ended up playing such a major role that she and another character got a novel of their own.
Seriously? I would once again entreat you to reread your initial reply to me. It was snarky as all get-out. You feel that I am argumentative? I feel that you are a hit-&-run artist, one who feels at liberty to drop some snark or cheek and then not have to deal with the response. Be an adult. Own it.
You made an assertion that Rowling writes one denominational stories, when it is clear that she does not. Now I see that it is merely the fact that she wrote a YA story and not whether there is any literary quality to them that has you in a pinch. You can like whatever you like but be a little more specific and you'll make your point easier and faster--without appearing to be so intolerant of other writers.
Nope. You had it right the first time. Her stories are one dimensional. Are they entertaining? Of couse they are. Are they fun? Of course they are. Do they leave me thinking about my place in the grand play of life after I turn that last page? Absolutely not. They are, like most things these days, disposable stories. Your remonstrations and unsolicited permissions aside, I gave my opinion. My opinion does not have to suit you nor make you happy, nor fit some predetermined requisite set by you. I don't have to pretend to find literary value in Rowling's works to ameliorate some PC notion that I must say something nice about all things. And again, I am falling in love with your inability to own your initial snarkiness, the catalyst of this entire kerfuffle.
