Discussion The Scribble Pad (Fanfic Writing Discussions)

Yes, although I think distance has to factor in. Whatever it is has to be worth the cost of the fuel & labor to ship it the distance it has to go. (And of course, legal vs. smuggling?) So... medicines & medical supplies? Parts for droids & manufactures? Agricultural (seedlings?)

(Now we're sorting out how the Galactic economy works! My dad would never believe this...)

 

Re backstories: I guess I’m like Sorkin in that the backstory evolves when it needs to evolve. I don’t say “event x happened in Character’s life when she was a teen, therefore she has reaction y.” I’m more likely to have reaction y happen, then figure out the reason why Character said or did what she did. Plot first, backstory later. That said, once I’ve got a backstory it does color the character from that point on. Each of my OCs has info that has not (and may never) make it into a story.
I know there are writers who create elaborate backstories and time lines for their characters, then create the stories. But my characters’ stories kind of develop on a need to know basis. I don’t need to know her childhood dog’s birthday to understand how she feels at age 30.

Re character as tool: I guess this is really saying which is more important, plot or character. Is the character a tool to move the plot along or is the plot the vehicle for the character? My stories are more character driven rather than action driven, so I am going to have to say that for me, the characters are not tools.
To go back to Sorkin’s comment that characters aren’t people, well, yes and no. They aren’t people as much as they are paper dolls or puppets, doing what I direct them to do. But they are often composites of people. And a lot of me goes into them.

Re happy endings: I prefer satisfying endings as opposed to happy endings. The character has found peace or can make it now (crisis worked through) or has accepted their life. Happy endings are often artificial and life isn’t like that. I want the reader to feel something emotional at the end - contentment is fine, but some stories I’ve written should make the reader feel sadness, dread, or shock. As long as it’s authentic.

 

Everything.

Alternately, think about what a planet would need, or what it could not produce itself.

Sometime back, someone raised a point about fictional worlds only having the one weather pattern, or terrain type; so what would they need shipped in?

A simple example would be the Rampa planet that in the Brian Daley Han Solo trilogy, was so industrialised that there was a great business smuggling fresh water in; so much that the hyperlane or space route became known as the Rampa Rapids.

 

Any advice on introducing a planet that is unfamiliar both to the protagonist and the reader without having the chapter become an info dump? Right now, I’m trying to have a character the protagonist just met on the planet tell him a little bit about the main settlement as she’s escorting him to the medical center. How much and/or what kind of things do you think it’s important to tell the reader at this point?

If it matters, the planet, Giaca, is one that I found in an RPG sourcebook, so it is “official” but more than likely unknown to the reader, unless they just like to trawl the Wook looking for Unknown Region planets

 

As much as I like a positive outcome, I @divapilot nails it here. As long as the ending is consistent with the story being told and is authentic I can enjoy it. I am watching the final season of a favorite show of mine and a supporting character that I really enjoyed did not have a positive outcome. However, the outcome was consistent and very well handled in the show. The character recurred, and was important, but only appeared in about 10% the overall episodes. I was satisfied with the conclusion of his story arc.

 

I think you hit my mark with medicine and meidical supplies. Thank you @Mistress_Renata!

 

I love you.

IMHO, character-driven storytelling CANNOT go with the characters as tools philosophy.

Divorce your husband, marry me. Or adopt me as your third kidlet.

I also want to be adopted by this actress that turns 100 in September, this scientist living in Germany says that she's my other mommy, though my mommy can be her mommy (not kidding) and I would not mind being adopted by @Findswoman as an older sister of sorts. Our family friend called me her third child on Sunday, too and my ex-pdoc and my psychologist said they were my aunts.

My family is beautiful. <3

 

Taken from us too soon, he really nailed the Solo character, IMHO. Plus he wrote the OT radio dramas, a real thrill to listen and look forward to ...

 

Re: Character flaws - a.k.a., in order to have a “good” character, you must “give them flaws” - This is a concept that has always bothered me. I’ve been mulling over if for several days and I think I might finally be able to at least somewhat put my feelings into words. Whenever I hear someone say, “Your characters shouldn’t be perfect, you must give them flaws,” I think of a perfect, complete, beautiful sculpture—and then the sculptor taking a hammer and smashing a hole in it. There are two problems I see with this: 1) Why are you ruining a beautiful sculpture???? and 2) The “flaw” is obvious, intentional, and inflicted after-the-fact.

Maybe this is me failing to really get what is meant by flaws, or taking the words too literally. But in my own mind, I like to think a character should be given a variety of characteristics, and each characteristic has both positive and negative attributes. Rather than saying, this column has the good qualities, and this column has the flaws, every characteristic goes in both columns.

For example, if the character is shy, that can be a good thing in that they think before they speak and don’t often put their foot in their mouth; it can be a bad thing in that they might be overlooked. Generosity can be good in that the character is selfless and others admire them; it can be bad in that they might be easily taken advantage of.

Even the ultimate “tragic flaw,” pride, can have it’s good points—people who take pride in their work tend to produce quality; pride usually also comes with confidence, which can inspire others and make ostensibly impossible things possible, simply because they are willing to try when others are not.

Ultimately, as with real people, the depth of the character comes from the unique combination of characteristics, the prominence of each characteristic relative to the others, and the background that has shaped those characteristics.

 

Agreed, @Tarsier. I think this also goes back to how one creates or develops their characters. As said above, at least as a ff write, I create characters on a whim an discover them as I write them. With Lens, for instance, I started with 'smart mouthed prankster and loyal friend'. The rest I discovered organically as I wrote different drabbles and vigs.

For those who are more thoughtful ahead of time, they may want to have all the characteristics mapped out first and then integrate them into the character in the story. That could become challenging unless the character and the story are blended from the start. Babbling concluded.

 

Re: Characters as tools: Having heard Sorkin talk about writing and characters a few times now (and I get to see him live in a few weeks!), I think people might not be understanding what he means by characters as tools. I don't know that I can explain it, though.

He doesn't come across as a guy who is very sentimental, that's for sure. But I have no doubt that he loves his characters and loves telling their stories. He is very much a character-driven writer, his characters are very real and very much the backbone of what he writes. I think by tools he's trying to say that they are what we use to tell our stories, they are the story. But they aren't real, and sometimes that means doing something to them your wouldn't do to a friend.

Example: (And I'm going to use The West Wing because it's his work I know the best). He wrote the character of Josh Lyman for Bradley Whitford. It's clear he loved the character and after they started, the way Bradley played him. But he also shot Josh, gave him PSTD, made his sister die when he was a child in a very traumatic way. You wouldn't wish those things on anyone, but because Josh Lyman isn't real, it's okay and serves to tell a great story. To not do things to characters would make for a boring story (and I'm not talking about a fluffy one-shot, I'm talking about a long arc, and thinking about he's a screen/playwrite) so they are tools in that they are what you use to make the story interesting.

I think this is exactly what most people mean when they say flaws and I doubt anyone will disagree with what you've said. That no one is perfect and if your character is perfect, it's not realistic. I know I'm personally afraid of making someone too ideal, so I try to think about the ways the character might not be perfect. Kinda like in a job interview when they ask you to tell them your weakness so you show you've thought about them and you know what you need to improve on. I try to think about my characters in the same way.

 

Makes more sense that way, fo sho!

Then again, I give my characters severe pathology every now and then. Doooon't mind me.

 

Keep meaning to reply to the character discussion and now most of what I wanted to say has been said.

Yeah, I think knowing Sorkin and how he works puts the quote better into context. He certainly loves his characters and writes more character driven stuff (TWW isn't totally character driven but they are the focus). Sorkin has said that after he decided to quit TWW, he tried to watch season 5 (he stopped after season 4) and got all of like 10 seconds into it before he dashed to turn it off. He said it was like watching someone make out with his girlfriend (however, I always argue, as brilliant as the Sorkin seasons were, I don't think Sorkin could have put his own politics aside to give us the enjoyable campaign arc that was Santos VS Vinnick. Anyways, sorry, off topic).

I think the context of the quote is that writers should, like Mav said, use their characters to tell the story. The story should take priority and not to be afraid to do mean things to further the story or bring it to the appropriate conclusion (more on that below). I killed my favourite TWW character (Charlie) in a story even though I really didn't want to (and I almost didn't) but I did and the story turned out to be so impactful for it. It wouldn't have been the same story if he had lived. And, yeah, I've done horrible things to my (and Mav's) OCs (I had her permission) and had them do hurtful things. And the wouldn't be the same characters without these horrible things.

Going off of this with regards to endings, I agree with Divapilot that satisfactory or appropriate conclusions are what we should aim for. And if that means that it's happy, sad, or bittersweet, then great! It should just fit the story.

But, at the same time, as someone said previously, this IS fanfic. We aren't writing Emmy-winning TV shows or movies that make billions. We do this as a hobby, so if you want a fluffy, happy ending, go for it.

I agree with his approach to backstory. I kinda winged my OC's backstory and just how close he was to Mav's OCs. I have since gone and filled in some of the backstory so maybe some of the earlier stuff doesn't 100% fit, but I think that's fine. If I had sat down and plotted every single element of my OC's backstory beforehand, 95% wouldn't have made it in anyways and I wouldn't have nearly as much fun or flexibility.

Sorry if this is everywhere and makes no sense. There are reasons.

Also:

If you are going to what I think you are going to, then I kinda hate you. WHY DO I LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE AND NOT GET TO GO TO ALL THE FUN STUFF?!

 

Hmm... To "give them flaws" (just to be clear I'm not referring to anything you or any other specific user has said, but to general writing advice I've seen in various places) sounds to me like something is being added on. I created a character, then I added some flaws. But to me, that's just not how the process works. It's more like, I find some characteristics I want to explore, I mix them together in a character, I see how they interact, I think about how a character could come to have this particular mixture of characteristics, and as the plot unfolds I see how various aspects of the character help or hinder them on their journey. What seems to be a flaw at one point in the journey may become an asset later. And vice-versa.

I guess I also don't understand how a character can be "too perfect." Perfection is such an amorphous concept, what's perfect to one person could be a disaster to another person. If too perfect means boring, isn't boring a flaw? I could see how a "perfect" (flawlessly boring?) character might not be the most dynamic or engaging, but that doesn't mean they are completely useless and to be avoided at all costs.

If perfect just means unrealistic.... well, I guess I feel like I need a lot more information before I can advise someone on how to make the character more realistic (or if that is even the right thing to do - some characters are unrealistic and that's okay - Luke Skywalker? Superman? Atticus Finch?).

Maybe this is just a matter of semantics; maybe I'm being pedantic. I just feel like talking about flaws isn't very helpful, and maybe can even lead new writers astray. For example, every time I hear someone talk about flaws, or a character being too perfect or a Mary Sue, I think of Bella Swan from Twilight. I'm not here to bash Twilight, I think it is a perfectly fine book, and a lot of people really like it and that's great. But I'm pretty sure Bella is not generally revered as one of the great characters of modern literature; I've heard her called a Mary Sue more than once. And every time I see her called a Mary Sue, I have this image of her author in my head. Let me back up a minute, in case anyone is unfamiliar with the book - I didn't make it very far into Twilight, but I remember in the first few chapters much is said about how clumsy Bella is. Like, she was being stalked by people who wanted to assault her and she walked briskly away. Why didn't she run? Because, she says, I tend to fall down a lot when I run. Now back to someone calling Bella a Mary Sue - I imagine the author reacting something like this: "How could she possibly be a Mary Sue?! I was told to give her flaws! She has a big, honking flaw! She's ridiculously clumsy! How is that not a flaw? And she's whiny and indecisive as well!"

Anyway, enough rambling from me. I hope this doesn't sound too argumentative. This is just something that has bothered me for a long time and this is the first time I've really been able to put my feelings into words.

 

I think there is a difference between giving your character a flaw just so you can say s/he isn't a Mary Sue and having the character BE flawed, so that they have something to wrestle with and to overcome in their life.

 

So...what are your thoughts about retconning a character that has appeared in two stories so far, his parents in one? I was still new to all this when I came up with his species on the whim, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

And no, it's not that Selonian. But he might be subjected to this, too. This one is an Ortolan, and that's an issue, because...

- no opposable thumb
- in new Canon, their hands are just another pair of feet
- in new Canon, they absorb food through the said feet (eh?)

So, I still want a humanoid biped with a trunk, but something else, something with normal hands and normal mouth, perhaps a bit less stocky. No Toydarians, I already have two of those, plus it would not match his character. The dude is a drummer in a pronk band. He's silly. Like, bizarrely silly.

P.S. The singer/quetarra player/lyricist is Human, the bassoon player is Duros.

 

Would anyone know if the GPS function on a smartphone shows a person (In the form of an icon or something) hiking along a pre-loaded map, with the arrows and "turn R here* directions as one does in a car?

NM, this seems more for the "Questions" thread. I'll ask it there. My bad.

 

@Findswoman - I just looked and regardless of just how obscure they are, the Elespad seem to be more practical than the Ortolans, plus one can come up with their own fanon and homeworld for them. Would that be too weird?

That said, some stuff from the same game...
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sasori_Vader

O_______________________O

 

Wait, I never said that I wanted Sasori Vader in a fic. Then again, there is THAT particular one where it would fit...

 

Maybe he has an detachable artificial opposable thumb? I gave one to a pilot character of mine..

 

A random list of our jargon:

- can't-wait-to-postitis/cantwaittopostits
- SQUGGLE(S)
- Sheevy Sheev
- Sheevster
- ANGRY MACE™

...and long-wait-to-postitis, AS COINED BY ME JUST NOW.