Writing weaknesses: Characterization and reader manipulation

Just some thoughts on teaching. I've taught many subjects. I've instructed in math, science, grammar, history, and writing. Teaching the mechanics of language is completely different than teaching writing. Writing is an art. And like any art, much of what constitutes "good" art is subjective. Even professional editors can disagree on what is "good" and what is not.

Writing is meant to have an impact, make the reader FEEL something. It is not a dry set of facts or rules that are to be memorized and regurgitated.

Of course, a student can be taught to write more effectively. Isn't that what any of us do when we get something back from a beta?

So while the mechanics of writing are a part of the overall picture, it would be a mistake to say that if you do x, y, and z, you will be a good writer. It doesn't work that way. I've read things that follow the "proper formula" that has been put forth here as "correct" and it has left me completely apathetic. Please note that I am not talking about fan fiction here, but material by professional writers who get paid millions of dollars to do what they do.

Every piece you write can be an opportunity to hone your craft, work on your art. To ME, that is what writing is about - constantly improving and learning. I don't consider myself a particularly skilled writer, just one that is willing to work hard at it every day.

 

I agree with all the above and what they said towards LEX. But at the same time, I do understand a little bit about what Herman is saying and sometimes it is good. In fact, I think I might attempt to experiment with this in a ongoing fic of mine. But I still think in writing you should be able to describe a person's facial expression like 'he had an incredulous look on his face' or 'he gave him a funny look' or something along those lines. To say that being descriptive is wrong is wrong.

All in all, I understand a little about what Herman is saying and his replies were very mature. Darth Lex however is not also gone beyond the realms of offensive but I believe is out of line. You claim not to be offensive and yet you say something very rude right after.

 

But that doesn?t mean there are no standards.

Look back to Herman?s reason for starting this thread, and his explanation of the problem he saw in the story he mentions. The author is browbeating the reader emotionally, and exploiting the characters seemingly for no purpose than to laud the author?s own talent. I suppose in some sense that?s an issue of characterization ? but whatever we call it, it?s just bad writing. It?s too much tell instead of show. It?s too much authorial self-insertion instead of letting the characters speak for themselves.

Some people like action; others like introspection. Some prefer dialogue; other prefer description. I?m not quarreling with that. What I am quarreling with, though, is the notion that serious writing ? not just writing for fun ? is an ?anything goes? enterprise. Principles like POV and show-not-tell aren?t just arbitrary rules. They?re just as integral to effective fiction writing as grammar and punctuation.

I think we?re talking about different kinds of writing, but I do see your point.

Let?s make it a little less abstract, though. Imagine you?re giving feedback on a piece of creative writing.

You might say, ?This shift in POV midway through the scene is confusing. Try to stick to a single POV.? The student might respond, ?But it?s not confusing to me, and I need both POVs to make the point.? Your reply could be a couple things. One, you might say, ?It doesn?t confuse you because you wrote the piece and know what to expect, but your reader doesn?t.? Or you might say, ?Do you really need two POVs in this scene? See if you can find a way to reveal the other character?s thoughts without changing POV. Maybe you can use show-not-tell to reveal their emotions without needing to see inside their head.?

Or take an example of show not tell. You might say, ?Instead of telling the reader that ?Obi-Wan was angry?, how about showing the reader by writing that ?Obi-Wan frowned? or ?Obi-Wan clenched his jaw??? The student might respond, ?But I want to be sure the reader knows he?s angry!? Your reply is probably something like, ?Yes, but they?ll figure it out. You don?t need to beat them over the head.?

Now, if the student really insists on shifting POV, or using tell instead of show, that?s their call to make. But if they?re seeking to learn how to write better from you, they need to be willing to listen to why you think certain parts of their writing are weak.

If you tell them that it?s all just fiction writing, anything goes, there are no rules ? then they?ll never improve.

I couldn?t disagree more. Concrit is the key to growth in every part of life. If we?re unwilling to deem some things better and some things worse, we will never achieve excellence in anything.

That?s completely backwards. Just because Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Philip Glass have very different styles doesn?t mean there are no rules in music. The principles of tonality and atonality still govern. Chords are

 

How would one measure "appreciation"? Reviews? Imaginary awards? Fan clubs? There's a lot of technically proficient writers around here who've neither thousands of reviews, legions of readers nor a handful of awards. Does one doting reader count for "appreciation" or do you need twenty?

And now you've added the conventions and styles of SW writing? How is that different from other styles of fiction? Where are those standards spelled out?

 

Aw, so it's about the word usage. Instead saying the actual emotion, make hints on that's what their feeling. But what about a person's tone of voice. At times, you might have to use words like 'angry' or 'darkly' to describe their tone.

 

There's something we all need to bear in mind. Being a Good Writer and being a Successful Writer are not the same thing. As VaderLV said (sort of), x and x and z don't equal bestseller's list. Now I have reservations about Allegiance but I'm pretty sure the majority of fandom will give it rave reviews. You can't get a story written with jumping PoVs into the TFN archives but Agatha Christie was made Dame of the British Empire.

So what's my point? Can we just discuss the topic academically without taking shots at our own work? In the end, it probably won't make a difference to your ranking on the New York Times that half of your book is or is not filled with 'This is how it feels to be...' scenes.

 

That should be the goal. I know when I was a newbie around these forums I benefitted immensely from topics very much like this one. It is tough because any time someone expresses an opinion, someone who doesn't share that opinion might take offense, but ideally we're all able to share ideas without adopting a "you can't say that" attitude.


Back to something that was said earlier, there are varying experience levels when it comes to writing and there is no magic formula that says "write this way." However, if you talk to anyone who has been writing here for more than a few years and ask them to critique their first work, often they'll reply that they can't stand to read their first story because with their current level of experience they can now spot all of the mistakes they made because they didn't know better.

And it's not that these mistakes are necessarily 'wrong' but instead the the person has found what their strong suit is and that they can now (in their personal estimation) do it better.

 

However, if you talk to anyone who has been writing here for more than a few years and ask them to critique their first work, often they'll reply that they can't stand to read their first story because with their current level of experience they can now spot all of the mistakes they made because they didn't know better.

And it's not that these mistakes are necessarily 'wrong' but instead the the person has found what their strong suit is and that they can now (in their personal estimation) do it better.

Sometimes I cringe when I read what I wrote the night before. My very first story here? YIKES! Personally, I think if you're ever completely happy with what you write then you've stopped learning. I have to make myself stop editing or it would be a never ending process.

 

POV and introspection depend greatly on the author and are very subjective. Stephen King, for example, has mostly dialogue to express his works and he is a truly fantastic writer. Jane Austen has mostly introspection in Pride and Prejudice. Both authors utilize different writing styles, yet both are very well known and well read. The "rules" of writing are not truly set in stone, as they chance with the generations. What the latest writing craze was a hundred years ago is not employed that often now.

Resorting to insults is not the way to get your point across. Please leave the insults out of this. These really are opinions, not facts.


It may really be a matter of taste. I agree that there is a line of introspection that tips a story into "badfic" (Obi-Wan crying over a hangnail would be an example of it but Obi-Wan crying over the death of Qui-Gon might not). But I think people need to be careful about what they say characterizes "badfic". That's their own interpretation. Perhaps, instead of calling it "badfic", they might call it a story not to their taste. One person's "badfic" might be another person's great story.

I couldn't agree more. Writing is an art and depends on perspective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as the saying goes.


Calling someone a passive sponge because sometimes he wants to be told the story, rather than wading through it, is rude. Sometimes stories are simply stories, something to relax and unwind with. Not everything has to be Tolstoy.

Some characters cry and others don't, depending on the situation. Though Shmi did cry when Anakin left. I think all of the characters (okay, maybe not Palps) would cry at some point, they just have different stressors. Why is having a character cry a bad thing? Sometimes it's funny to see Anakin cry at a stubbed toe and it's moving to see Anakin cry at the death of his children. Crying characters and telling signs of emotion are NOT bad, they are simply human reactions.

 

I disagree - the construction of chords is more akin to sentence structure than artistic style.

If they're seeking appreciation of the masses, then yes - they should write the literary equivalent of predictable Beatles knockoffs. Gaining acceptance and growing as a writer aren't mutually-exclusive endeavors, but the way you grow is typically through trial and error rather than following a pre-established collection of popular conventions. Emulating the style of <insert critically-acclaimed author here> will not make you a good author.

Certainly, you can grow into that style of writing, and if that's the style that expresses yourself - great. If it doesn't adequately express your ideas or convey the message you want to convey - then it isn't the style for you.

Or perhaps they ultimately refine their style until they mature into brilliant authors. Everyone starts out as a hack.

My advice: Read what you'd want to write, then write what you'd want to read. Take notice of techniques that work on you and reproduce them. Try to come up with your own. Push yourself to write things that are outside of your own norms. If it goes against convention, so be it. Read your own work and refine it until you enjoy reading it.

[face_beating_dead_horse]

 

You're not going to make new friends with comments like that.

You actually sound just like Hollywood did when they tried to prevent George Lucas and Steven Spielberg from getting to the top. In the end, the creative mind will prevail.


Edited out statements of personal nature. We need to keep this on a friendly level and discuss writing, not individuals that can read as flaming and or baiting.

Keep this in mind when posting at all times.

Leona

 

Hey Dont be hard on Darth Lex! He's my friend!
I need him to continue is story on Jag becoming the Emperor or my Tuesdays are shot!


Back to the discussion-

You may continue...

 

I'm sorry about the flaming. I won't do it again .

 

In that spirit, I?ll throw out my 2 credits on the original questions:

I think it can be tough, especially in a vignette or short piece. As a writer, I try to establish a premise so that any reader emotions are a result of the setting/action/events and not from any particular characterization aspect. Then again, exposition is not my forte. My attempts at introspection are often lacking or overtly sappy, and I admire authors who can write it well.

(And after weathering a few bouts of unexpected and controversial reader responses/debates, I've learned not to try to predict reader emotions or responses, LOL. I pretty much just tell a story and let the emotions fall where they may.)

I wouldn?t say ?out of character? as much as I would say that fanfiction, in particular, is vulnerable to plot devices that lend themselves to reader manipulation.

On the flip side, writing is a subjective craft and a fic/technique that is the proverbial fingernails against a chalkboard for me may be quite moving/inspiring to someone else. I don?t think there?s any ?right? or ?wrong? way to express characterization, as long as it is supported by the surrounding work and consistent throughout the story.

 

I swore I was not going to post anything on this subject, because like rebel_cheese said, I'll only be ignored anyway, but I can't seem to help myself.

We used to have debates EXACTLY like this in art school. Rendering vs Abstraction. Ultimately writing is an art as Luna so eloquently put it. Does it have structure? Of course! But should it be mummified in it's own rules? God, I hope not! Writing to spec and rules without some personal license will get you just that!

Kurt Vonnegut once said "Literature should not climb up it's own a******. " Personally, I try hard to keep that in mind.

I'd have to say in response to Herman's question, that characterization, by it's nature, is to a large degree in the eye of the beholder. This thread is a good example of that. Not every writer is going to see each character in the same light.

I think one of the problems is that we are all "sharing" these characters, if you will. So, while Herman, for example, may say to himself: "Darth Vader acts likes this..." another person may feel that's not the case at all. Does that make his stories bad? Not necessarily, they just may not be to your taste.

Some people like some telling. I'm looking right now at my copy of Dune - it's lauded as (and I quote) "Science Fiction's supreme masterpiece." This is one of the most tellin'est stories ever! It also shows a hell of a lot too. Not only that, but it skips POV as well, and if you ask me I'll quote you the sections.

Writing, just like art, can become mummified and stayed if creativity isn't encouraged. I'd venture to say that there isn't a writer here, unless GL shows up, that has the right to say "this is how you have to see these characters... " or "This is how things must work in this universe." Of course it does beg the question, "why not just go original?" With some of these very creative young (and not so young) people around here, I wouldn't be surpised if that very thing didn't happen and we don't end up seeing their names in print someday.

[bedit[/b] - commas

 

And thank the stars you (and many of the other great fan fiction writers) Do.

Without the Marcel Duchamps of the world, we can't appreciate the Fredrick Harts.

(Of course, there are those like an old art instructor of mine who would reverse that - but to each their own...)

 

Exactly!

 

I knew Resource had been quiet for too long.

"An ******* should not climb up it's own literature"?

 

[anakin voice] Well, if it works...[/anakin voice]



but really Face, very good point.


edit - capitalization

 

Perhaps, it all depends on the usage of emotion. Perhaps it's best to use emotion words like 'happy', 'curious', or 'anger' to describe a character's tone of voice instead of their facial expression.

 

As far as the quality of writing and/or subjective/objective nature of writing goes, I think when you evaluate any work you have to consider the audience it was intended for. Some writers purposely write to people that want to be intellectually stimulated, or forced to think, or whatever. And there's a very good reason that adults can rarely stand to read children's books. And I say this as a person who read all the Jedi Apprentice/Quest books - and even owns a few. But at this point in my life? I find them frustrating to read because they can be rather simplistic.

Of course, I've seen authors that can do both - give you a fantastic story that you have no problem following, and beneath it, all kinds of complex ideas and characterization that you don't have to pay attention to if you don't feel like doing so. But those concepts are still there if you want to be challenged or made to think. Those kinds of stories, my personal opinion, are the best kind - they satisfy you whatever your reading mood.

 

Going through the earlier discussions, more thoroughly, there are a few things I'd like to point us:

Introspection: In my not-so-humble opinion , introspection does not violate 'Show not Tell' - that would mean that almost all of the Harry Potter books, which are almost exclusively written from Harry's Perspective, are Telling not Showing which I think we can all agree is false. Introspection in the strictest definition of the word, is the character looking inwards at himself, and what he is seeing may not be completely true. As we know very well from real life, a lot of people live very happy, self-satisfied lives lying to themselves or exaggerating circumstances to best fit their perception of reality. Once again, I point Pride and Prejudice (can you tell it's one of my favourite books? ), where Elizabeth Bennet spends the first half of the book brooding about Darcy until the climax when she informs her future husband that he's the last man she'll ever marry. By the end of the book, we see that everything Elizabeth had believed up until that point, had introspected on, and had declared from her PoV as Fact, is completely false. I daresay some more insightful readers may have seen through Wickham from the beginnning; but I wasn't one of them. Up until the Letter, I was completely taken in by Elizabeth's Introspection. I truly believed that Darcy was deplorable and Wickham might end up being Elizabeth's true love. on retrospect at that possibility.


Another example of misleading introspection brilliantly executed is Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

On the other hand, if an introspection is written from the more omniscient, narrator's point of view, it is no longer an introspection of a single, flawed character. It is the writer Telling us that this is how this character is or how that character was, their motivations, their values, etc, etc. That is Telling, and that is what throws me (personally) off. Some readers are fine with it (as evidenced by the popularitf of Orson Scott Card's Ender stories) and whether it is right or wrong can be argued about from now to the end of time.



Crying: I don't think crying/laughing has anything to do with the Show/Tell discussion. Personally, I don't think much of stories where Obi-Wan cries at Qui-Gon taking on Anakin as a Padawan (this is where subjective perception of characterization comes into play) but that's not because the writer is Telling me that Obi-Wan is sad. Obi-Wan crying is Showing that Obi-Wan is sad. And that, like any other example of Showing not Telling, the reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the character. Some might read Obi-Wan crying and feel sorry for him. Some [like me ] might despise him. But if the writer were to add a few sentences, paragraphs, pages or chapters talking about how every other character except Qui-Gon was consoling Obi-Wan in this time of great sorrow and berating Qui-Gon for having the audacity to recommend his Padawan for Knighthood - that is Telling the reader, ramming it down my throat as it were, what a Bad Bad Thing is happening to Obi-Wan and that, in my not-so-humble opinion, is Bad Fic.

 

^Still you got to admit some explanation to things are helpful plotwise. Maybe not to tell us of a character's present, but his or her past. I have this thing where I love too get to know the characters. How they feel? Their past and little things that humanize them. I like dialogue, I presume most here who say 'show not tell' hate dialogue. But i love dialogue and conversations. Especially when their about the plot and the characters.

In a sense, you're still telling the reader. By putting down the words, Obi Wan is crying, you are telling the reader that he is crying. So in the end you're still telling the reader what's happening. You're still painting a picture. And also, i don't know about you, but sometimes it's good to describe the character's facial expression. And sadly, sometimes the words of emotion will show up. Plus you should also sometimes describe a character's tone of voice especially if you're trying to paint that scene for the reader. Either way, you're painting a picture for your reader. Whether you just say 'he looked at her' or 'he looked at her affectionately' or 'he looked at her incredulously' or even 'he gazed at her', you're still painting a picture. And whether you like it or not, when you're trying to write a scene between several generals about having to take down a super weapon, there's going to be explaining. You can't have a proper war without explaining the strategy.

The Three Musketeers uses both 'tell', 'not tell' methods and it's a classic.

 

Double post.

 

In the strictest sense of the word, every bit of writing is telling in one form or the other but I'm not going to enter an argument over semantics. How I understand 'showing not telling' is that 'telling' is saying 'Obi-Wan is sad; he's right to be sad; and Qui-Gon is a mean horrible person for making him sad'; showing is 'Obi-Wan is crying because of what Qui-Gon has done.' and leaving the reader to decide whether or not the crying makes him a sympathetic character or a wuss. That is what the topic is about: reader manipulation. The Telling gives me as a reader no other choice but to sympathize with Obi-Wan; the Showing tells me what's happening in the story and lets me make up my mind as to what to feel.