Thread: The Theory of Fictional Characters as Reflections of Writers’ Personalities.

Does “what you know” include what you can conjure up with your imagination? It seems “what you know” would also include what you can learn through research. To me, the phrase “write what you know” is so banal and limiting that it’s practically meaningless.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Does “what you know” include what you can conjure up with your imagination? It seems “what you know” would also include what you can learn through research. To me, the phrase “write what you know” is so banal and limiting that it’s practically meaningless.

That would be a problem on your end then.

You know, Ox, I didn't quite disagree with the first paragraph of your post, although instead of 'determine', I would find 'tends to subjugate' more agreeable. Well at least in terms of a narrative voice, I would think. Where you went after that seemed a bit of a leap. Sorry, but I think it's horse shit, too. I blame the 'politically correct' for this sort of thing. For some reason, you aren't allowed to talk about anything that you don't know first hand anymore. But I'm digressing.

This is the same sort of thing that I'd file under 'self-limiting fictions' the same way I file away writer's block. All it does is invent some limit to hobble one's craft in a ridiculous way. A body's going to sit there thinking: 'well I can't write that, it's just not my nature,' when the real issue is: 'I can't write that, I'm too lazy to put in the enormity of that effort.' I think plenty of people have touched on the sort of effort that goes into it.

I would expect a writer -- one driven to research and well honed in his/her craft -- to write better quality stuff on things they didn't know rather than things they did... mainly because the former appeals to the drive.

Originally Posted by Ungood

That would be a problem on your end then.

The idea of “write what you know” – taken at face value, is limiting, and could even be discouraging to new writers – especially when it’s doled out without thought or any explanation. The phrase implies that people are stuck with writing within the constraints of their own knowledge and experience. And that’s baloney.

Of course, as with most hackneyed advice, there is some truth to it -- if it means putting some of yourself into your characters or including things you can draw on from life into your stories. There are also feelings and emotions that are almost universal – love, pain, sadness, etc. You can tap into those. But all these are no-brainers. No need to attach any of them to some instructional cliche.

I look at it this way --

When I use my imagination, the possibilities are endless.

I can write about any subject I chose -- if I’m willing to do the research.

So, it’s not a problem for me at all. In fact, I see ignoring it as beneficial.

Anyway, this is all boilerplate. Whenever someone trots out “write what you know” someone comes along and says basically what I’ve said. And so it goes.

*yawn*

Originally Posted by ash somers

*yawn*

Apparently, "empty vessels" yawn also.

Empathy is one’s ability to feel and experience another’s feelings and experiences as one’s own.

There is no way another person can feel and experience what we are going through UNLESS they have first felt and experienced it themselves.

In other words, a woman who’s given birth knows what another woman in labour is experiencing, and all other things being equal could write about it; a man who’s never been in love with a woman can’t know how a man who is in love with a woman feels, and no matter how clever he is at punctuation and grammar, can’t write about it.

You cannot expect writers to be able to accurately portray characters behaving in ways in which the writers have never behaved.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Empathy is one’s ability to feel and experience another’s feelings and experiences as one’s own.

There is no way another person can feel and experience what we are going through UNLESS they have first felt and experienced it themselves.

In other words, a woman who’s given birth knows what another woman in labour is experiencing, and all other things being equal could write about it; a man who’s never been in love with a woman can’t know how a man who is in love with a woman feels, and no matter how clever he is at punctuation and grammar, can’t write about it.

You cannot expect writers to be able to accurately portray characters behaving in ways in which the writers have never behaved.

Maybe not, but that's more a matter about attention to detail. A woman who's never given birth can't describe the pain, the moment of birth, the smells of the hospital room an' all that, but depending on the story the exact details may not be important.

Besides, you're forgetting one important thing: you have the internet now. You may not have experienced something, but someone with an internet connection probably has. Take advantage of modern research tools - it may not be the same as a first-hand view, but raw data can be sufficient in the hands of a writer with some imagination.

.

Gee, I can wind people up without even trying. Imagine the mayhem if I put my mind to it.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Gee, I can wind people up without even trying. Imagine the mayhem if I put my mind to it.

So says the Australian cultural attaché.
Have another read mate, it's well thought out well written and potentially useful.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

So says the Australian cultural attaché.
Have another read mate, it's well thought out well written and potentially useful.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle
this is one of Ox's threads, I always have a mental image of him cracking a beer and saying "Look, there's another pom took it seriously, one born every minute, come in spinner"

The biter bit. Came in like the tide, 'e did.

I haven't perused the entire thread so maybe I'm rehashing a bit. The initial premise here seems to confuse itself between adopting a voice and portraying a character. Going in reverse . . .

And to wrap it all up, male writers cannot successfully portray female characters, nor female writers male characters.

Successfully portray to whom? This version of the arguement is predicated on an assumed audience reaction. If women are portrayed, let us assume by a male, as gold digging wantons, probably it will be successful with considerable segment of divorced men, but fail miserably in other sectors. I personally always fall for it when Australian men are portrayed as kahki-shorted, hairy fellows with outsize . . . beer cans.

I think I would extend this character-portraying objection to the larger question of voice as well, the intrepretation of which is after all ultimately also subjective with respect the audience. One man's reasonable bread winning narrator may easily be some little woman's mysogenistic lout. And successful relate the story to either, albeit with differing reaction.

This smacks to me slightly of saying that male artists can't "successfully" paint, let us suppose, nude women. One might try to argue some superior objectivity in an art of vision over one of language but maybe something such as purient interest will effect brush strokes as well as verb choice.

But in this case debate is a poor substitute for merely reading a good book, which will evaporate all these contentions. In appreciation, pp.

Originally Posted by ash somers

to put it another way, writers can only write about what they know

but you've taken it too far regards the male and female characters

i think that's just horse shit

For the most part that’s how I feel about I too.

If we can only write about what we have experienced then how do we explain George Lucas and Star Wars? Unless he’s hiding some super spacecraft in his garage, there’s no way in hell he’s experienced any of that. I would think that writing about the opposite sex could prove a little difficult in the erotica sense. I think it would be a little difficult for most if not all men to adequately write what a woman is feeling during sex or maybe even childbirth. Other then that I think it would be fairly straightforward writing a character of the opposite sex, especially if you have been married or lived with someone for a number of years.

I don’t think we have to experience everything we write about, we just need to have a vivid imagination. And the ability to put that imagination to paper in a coherent fashion. We do need to be aware of stereotypes also. That can take a story from believable to plausible to completely unbelievable in just a few words. Let me use bikers since I seem to know that so well. TV would have you believe everybody on a Harley is a hell raising criminal. They might know how to raise hell but for the most part they are everyday people with everyday jobs. Go to the Blowout in Mississippi and you’re libel to see your doctor, teacher or lawyer. Of course you’re liable to see plenty of 1% ers too, that’s the guys you have to be leery of. If they have that 1% patch on they had to earn it, usually not in too friendly of a way. They make up 1% or less of all bikers, hence the patch. Here’s some of the history of it, I don’t have any clue of how accurate it is.

My point is, be wary of stereotypes. If your main character was randomly assaulted by bikers, make sure somewhere in your story you point out that it was 1%er’s. Otherwise, you are taking the chance of making your story unbelievable to a large group of people. I guess it does pay to research the hell out of some things.

Watch for this over the left shoulder,

Originally Posted by Foxee

I might have used the example before but I have Sidney Sheldon book here somewhere that someone passed on to me and it threw me out of the story in the first chapter. I didn't much care for the main character to begin with, not really the author's fault there. And I was willing enough to keep reading and see if I warmed up to the book.

Then a female character was introduced. It made me laugh, shake my head, and put down the book when I read, supposedly from her point of view, that this well-dressed woman who was going out for the evening, 'checked her reflection in the mirror and messed with her hair.'

Sure, a woman's observed action might be that she messes with her hair...but that was a masculine interpretation of that action that didn't fit with the feminine POV as it was presented. She was quite serious about looking lovely and would not have seen a last-minute perfecting of her hairstyle in a negative light.

It was a small thing but added to the presentation of the main character it pitched me right out of the book and I haven't picked it up since.

What did I take away from that as a writer? Actions observed from reality are not enough. Your character has to have believable motivation for the action and a mood that fits. The wording should follow.

your example made me laugh, that is exactly what i was talking about. i think at this point we are all more or less in agreement on the answer to the OP.

I am a bit curious though... how many of you consciously make an effort to observe and understand peoples' motives for the sake of writing a better character and how many people do it out of curiousity which leads to writing better characters? i cant say that i write characters well but i can say that im in the latter category, i spend an unhealthy amount of time and energy thinking about why people are doing what they're doing, from the body language in a mundane everyday conversation to world changing speeches/actions by politicians.

although sometimes i find myself observing people interacting on the tram and then they see me and i realize I've been staring... ive mastered the "i swear im not the creepy guy in the corner" apologetic look

EDIT :

Gee, I can wind people up without even trying. Imagine the mayhem if I put my mind to it.

Ox, you're like the annoying kid who thinks he's smart because he can pull one over on his friends. People don't avoid this behavior because it's difficult to do, they avoid it because it's obnoxious and destroys their credibility. Aren't you like triple my age? must be an australian thing...