"The characters won't do what I want them to!"

>"The characters won't do what I want them to!"

Is this autism? I see a LOT of writers who say shit like this

Are you a writer? A character feels the most natural when its their motives and actions pulling the story, not the author's. The author may think its cool if his big badass hero saves the day, but what if that character is founded on emotional conflict that leads to apathy in his later years. What if he hears about a burning building relativley close by but thinks its not worth the effort. That hes become more conservative in his later years and doesn't want to risk his life for something like this anymore. That would form a more genuine and interesting conflict in the end.

But did that character you just came up with make up itself or did you think of it?

The supposed and expected development of a character can take a left turn depending on the events of the book. If you want your character to act a certain way but it goes against the logical progression of the character then there's your dilemma.

It's the same with people; your masterfully tailored ideology clashing with the reality of life. Your ego expects life to work a certain way but life doesn't follow your suit.

Important words

Your emulation of your character's personality outstripped your conscious ability to track it.

They are amateurs who have no plan or deeper meaning behind their work.
They are essentially first draft books with light editing.

It doesn't work the way you think it does.
Writing isn't like playing with action figures. It is, in a way, manipulating reality as though it had substance, like painting or sculpting, but the substance is the setting, the characters, the themes, etc. They have a flow to them, boundaries, tendencies, implications of objectivity. Good writing is pinned down in reality, it's not just farting in the wind. There's weight to it and it dictates itself. Real creation is more like discovery than creation.

Many writers write in such a way that their characters, once fully realized, dictate the story for them. Faulkner, McCarthy, Murakami, Hayao Miyazaki; they establish a setting, they develop characters, and they plunge into it with no idea as to where their characters will take them(I don't do this, it's just an example and it is an immensely difficult methodology) because for all intents and purposes the characters are real and you cant control them any more than you can control the people around you. You just examine them.

Well said.

Why do you mock them for seeing how to make their work better and implementing it? Get over yourself.

You'll notice that the only people who actually say this are genre writers

Literature takes true mastery of your craft, not simply throwing dice at a wall and hoping for a good roll.

>. Faulkner, McCarthy, Murakami,

Give me a single quote from ANY of these three where they say ANYTHING along the lines of "The characters do what they want, I don't make them"

>X is more Y than X

read anything Faulkner ever said about writing The Sound, or his writing process for that matter.
Murakami has stated multiple times that he doesn't know where his story is going half the time and is simply on an adventure with his characters.
I dont remember where I read McCarthy's process but there is very little on McCarthy at all in terms of interviews/process so it shouldn't be difficult to find, but it's probably not going to sound as idiotically simplified as the way you put it.

If you can't understand context without tripping over semantics then there's no discussion to be had

So you can't give a single quote?

>If you can't understand context without tripping over semantics then there's no discussion to be had

If you can't articulate your argument without tripping over your limited vocabulary there's no discussion to be had.

...

>Faulkner, McCarthy, Murakami, Hayao Miyazaki; they establish a setting, they develop characters, and they plunge into it with no idea as to where their characters will take them

How do you know this?

Faulkner
>I would say to get the character in your mind. Once he is in your mind, and he is right, and he’s true, then he does the work himself. All you need to do then is to trot along behind him and put down what he does and what he says. It’s the ingestion and then the gestation. You’ve got to know the character. You’ve got to believe in him. You’ve got to feel that he is alive, and then, of course, you will have to do a certain amount of picking and choosing among the possibilities of his action, so that his actions fit the character which you believe in. After that, the business of putting him down on paper is mechanical

I'm not your mom, I'm not going to hold your hand and spoonfeed you. I don't actually care about you or what you can or can't understand

I read interviews

you care enough to go scrambling for quotations:) Its ok that feel like a horses arse, at least youre user x

>Faulkner, McCarthy, Murakami, Hayao Miyazaki
The only writer you listed who ever comes close to writing anything of depth is Faulkner, and then there's pic related.
Also, Miyazaki isn't a writer; he directs children's films.

His colon told'm

share

That quote seems more like "Keep character actions true to characterization" and less like the tumblr's "the characters didn't do what I want them to"

He's not saying "Characters won't do what I want them to" he's saying "Characters doing things that aren't consistent with their previous characterization makes shit writing"

I'm still confused why you're trying to make Faulkner a tumblr-tier writer?

>taking that quote literally to mean characters have a will of their own

>I'm not your mom
Not much of a logician either, I mean, m8, you literally made a X != X, X = Y argument and then got mad when called on it

If you want to leverage the fact that I spent ten seconds googling it on my phone to charge your "psychological insight" of my "character" than at least you're maybe getting the idea of characterization and the writing process, but projection and wish-fulfillment is considered bad writing, user

type "(author's name) interview" into google and hey look, interviews with that author. It's not hidden information my dude
Read the entire interview, obviously I cant post it. Faulkner is very talkative. Also read into his process for TSaTF
>I'm still confused why you're trying to make Faulkner a tumblr-tier writer?
You're confused because you think in memes
you're so knowledgeable, you read one whole quote out of context
>
I would have unpacked it if you weren't being purposefully insufferable. I'm not even mad, I'm on a bunch of painkillers and I'm not convinced that you don't understand what I meant

>You'll notice that the only people who actually say this are genre writers
this

>I would have unpacked it if you weren't being purposefully insufferable.

You made a post. I pointed out a flaw. You proceed to focus fully on my point rather than your flaw.

You will not unpack it because you cannot. You cannot fix a "God is Love" argument.

You would have if you could and you continue this chain in some strange need to save face on an inherently faceless argument.

Oh come on you must've known what he meant. Granted I think his choice of words was too broad but I think it comes out fine. Rather than discuss the point you are just attacking him.

> Real creation is more like discovery than creation

Is more like:

>[In the context of writing characters (sometimes?)] real creation is more like discovery than [what most people think of as] creation
As in, it's less like you're pulling all the ideas about characters actions out of the aether of your creative brain, and more like you gave the character a structure and then simulated what should happen to the best of your ability. Rather than making things up from pure inspiration, it's more like running an experiment. Sometimes it will disagree with your presupposed outcome, and there you have discovery.

I don't think all "real" creation is like this, but I think he has a useful point.

>creation is more like discovery than creation
>(The process of) creation[noun] (of a work of art) is more like discovery(, examination of the world being reflected; psycological and thematic insights, emulation of character, and how these components interact with each other naturally) than creation[verb] (of something "new" that stems solely from the mind of the author)

I think it's true to some extend. Authors can characters do whatever they want, but there are many actions that will not be credible because the character has already established certain treats of its personality that limit very much the action the character can perform without showing "the hand of the writer" (to think along Aristotle's Poetics).

Many great novels had characters that, having their character and personality well-established, it is impossible to think they could have behave differently.

Madame Bovary spoiler
I think of Emma Bovary for example. Flaubert portrayed her psyche so wonderfully that it is impossible to imagine another ending for her than suicide.

>of course, you will have to do a certain amount of picking and choosing among the possibilities of his action
This is what irks me about Stephen King's and probably others' writing philosophy. It's pretty clear that most of the time he just writes the first thing that pops into his head and says "lol the muse made me do it" as if that excuses not thinking about what you're writing.

hilariously wrong

>creation[verb] (of something "new" that stems solely from the mind of the author)

This is not what creation means

DIAF

i unironically believe this applies to all our actions in life and then we retroactively rationalize why we did things

>Type Thomas Pynchon interview in google
>receive nothing back
>mfw


But honestly, what you posted about Faulkner and what OP said are pretty much the same thing: Once characterization is done, characters will act their way.

You guys are just being very obtuse because the dude who said it was on tumblr, and he's probably a bit of a dolt so he doesn't say it as well as Faulkner, but it's the same thing.

>Once characterization is done, characters will act their way.

Hey, don't know if you know this, but you can write down literally fucking anything you want.

The guy you have that is characterized as a good guy? You can write something different and change that.

The character doesn't control anything, the author controls everything.

haha sorry man, Pynchon is a recluse.

But yeah, I'm just dropping it. It's more a fundamental misunderstanding than it is real disagreement

>It's more a fundamental misunderstanding than it is real disagreement
It is not possible to have a disagreement with someone you share fundamental understanding with.

Edgy but reasonable

we can share a fundamental understanding of concept but disagree on its usefulness or relevance

Then there exists a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, one of you doesn't understand its actual usefulness/relevance

you can't seriously believe that
>We both have a comprehensive understanding of postmodernism as a literary genre but i prefer modernism
>We are both auto mechanics but I think that turbocharging an engine is better for drag racing than supercharging
>going into a fight with a quick left jab is a common technique but I prefer leading with a low kick
>the composition of a painting is more important to me than the content alone
>literally what is an opinion

>prefer
>think...better
>prefer
>important to me

You see the pattern?

Whoever you're discussing this with in each case, one of you has a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.

I will allow that you BOTH might have a fundamental misunderstanding, but it cannot be the case that you both have a fully comprehensive, fundamental understanding, but still disagree.

not everything can be measured on an objective metric down to a molecular scale.
There is not an objectively superior example of everything.
There is not an objectively superior first move in chess.
There is not an objectively superior novel, or painting, or song.
I like the sound of the muted trumpet. If someone prefers the cello there no misunderstanding of what we're hearing.
you have to have an autistic lack of empathy to believe otherwise.

>not randomly introducing natural disasters so the characters don't start getting uppity

Fuck, this argument slays me. 2meta4me

>not everything can be measured on an objective metric down to a molecular scale.
It can
>There is not an objectively superior example of everything.
There is
>There is not an objectively superior first move in chess.
There is
>There is not an objectively superior novel, or painting, or song.
There are
>I like the sound of the muted trumpet. If someone prefers the cello there no misunderstanding of what we're hearing.
There is a misunderstanding
>you have to have an autistic lack of empathy to believe otherwise.
What a strange view of the world you have, to assume subjectivity simply because you don't possess the knowledge to understand the objectivity.

Do you believe that simply because you cannot track the body's exact count of calories burnt that there does not exist an objectively best diet plan for you?

This thread is a good example of why Veeky Forums is filled with terrible writers (not that the guy in the OP is a good writer necessarily, mind). Some of you guys really can't conceive of novel writing as anything other than a mechanical process of creating Great Art. Yes, there needs to be a plan, there needs to be intent, but anyone who has actually written anything in their life will understand the spirit if not the letter of what the OP image talks about. But I think that's also part of why Veeky Forums is filled with writers who are too afraid to write, who plan out novels or stories and then lack the confidence to taint them with the inevitable disappointment of realisation.

Excuse me that I refuse to believe in the muses, user, I think it all very silly.

It's not about 'muses', it's about the fact that to be an artist you have to have some kind of spark, some underlying drive to imitate the psychology of the people and moments you write about, and that can and often does lead to things that on a conscious level you did not intend occurring within your writing. Actors can improvise and musicians can have free sessions, and prose writers can have scenes turn out differently than how they look on the fancy Scrivener document with everything all mapped out.

Okay? What does this have to do with the autist in the OP that believes his characters act independently of his will?

It's clear that he's just an excitable novice who's using flowery, over-the-top metaphorical language to describe a common part of the creative process. You were young once, weren't you, user?

Certainly I was young once, but I've had talent to keep me out of this very pathetic area that you all seem to inhabit where you think subconscious effort is worth a damn.

King sometimes seems like, mentally subnormal. You cant believe hes ever read a book let alone written one. But then when genre writers trot out that 'its all about the STORY' line you can feel there's a human being in there somewhere who feels awful for just pumping out an endless stream of sewer- shite and destroying humanity. The Shining was aright desu x

Muses are a way of thinking about it.

I think of it as how most of the time, my mind is struggling, or working against itself. But sometimes a person might be in the shower or something, and their whole mind will work together on something.

I think when you get "lost" in a book, in order for such lostness to happen, the author had to have gotten lost as well. authenticity can't be forced, it just comes when it wishes to come, like a muse.

It's only worth a damn edited and cleaned up, but that goes for all prose, surely. I'm sorry that you feel so strongly about this you've got to get personal. Maybe if you were young once, it might be worth trying to remember what it felt like not to be so cynical.

I'll gladly take advice from the doll-fucker

Yes, it's fucking autism. Don't listen to

you're like the protagonist of a novel who is cynical at the beginning and thinks writing is about work

but slowly he realizes the true purpose of writing is the fun you have along the way, reassembling parts of yourself which you never expected to fit with each other

And I'll write a great novel about fucking dolls, and you can write a great novel about counting the exact number of grains of sand on a beach, and together we can both be great, user. The future is in our hands.

i would like to make love to her with my penis

Please, invite me to your book signings.

I'm suuuure you'll create works worth reading, what with such great characters in your head to lead your hand when you write.

Never let go of the dream!

But if you read my earlier post () I specifically state that my interpretation and defense of the OP image's position had nothing to do with taking his talk of fictional characters having sentience literally. Are you sure you shouldn't be in bed, user? It might be late in whatever country you're posting from.

Generally, your writing adapts and changes iwthin lengthier works. You're taking the quote too literally, and the person quoted is being unrealistic. Only a retard would actually posit that fictional characters are somehow willful beings. This thread is just people slinging shit at one another

>Are you sure you shouldn't be in bed, user
are you sure being condescending to anonymous users on the internet is constructive

I agree with you for the most part but you're being insufferable, chill with the middle school "insults"

>Are you a writer?
Stopped reading here

I dont think this quote is meant to be taken literally. Autism is a hell of a drug.

>All you need to do then is to trot along behind him and put down what he does and what he says.

And THAT, user, is called being a shit writer. People don't just do something they wouldn't do for no reason. You don't want your character to do what they're doing? Don't make them that way. You're exactly right. You don't try to shoehorn a desire or action into a character because you wanted them to do that thing, despite the fact that it causes dissonance with their beliefs/background/desires/ect.
But at some point, you have so much story and development before the thing you want to change or have happen, that to suddenly make things go your way, you would have to write an entirely different story. An author may make a story in its entirety, but once things start rolling, the characters determine much of what goes on with their actions. You would have to understand every single character front to back before even starting to write, know every facet, every idea they could think of, just to have everything go your way. In most cases, things are different. At times you're making up the story. At times, you're just writing down what happens.
This, taken from a guy who hosts D&D on the side and hasn't finished writing a real story yet because he gets new ideas and moves on without ever closing up the previous one. So take this insight with a grain of salt.

So what you're saying is it is better to keep a shittier version of a story rather than change things and create a better version?

>At times you're making up the story.
>At times, you're just writing down what happens.

When you're "just writing down what happens" it is still YOU MAKING UP THE STORY

Unplanned =/= Shittier
I think you missed the point. It wouldn't be better if you had to force someone to do something out of character, with no provocation other than you wanted it to happen or had planned it that way.

>Unplanned =/= Shittier

As an editor, I must disagree. The few clients I have that possess talent, sure, but for most of humanity, when you don't plan you're planning for shit.

ignore this fascist. he can't entertain thoughts without an ego to generate them.

Trying to avoid the "You just don't understand until you do it" logic is really difficult. This is like trying to describe colors to someone who only sees in black and white.
"I GET WHAT COLORS ARE. I SEE THEM. YOUR RED ISN'T ANY DIFFERENT FROM GREY. YOU ARE CLINICALLY INSANE."

Borgesian Conundrum

The philosophical term "Borgesian conundrum" is named after [Borges] and has been defined as the ontological question of "whether the writer writes the story, or it writes him."

This is not a new Tumblr concept.

You simply can't realize that your thoughts are all your thoughts.

Just because you SAY "I thought of the characters first then let the plot come from that" doesn't mean that it still isn't ultimately YOU that creates the plot.

Not to say the entire story is unplanned and just flying on a whim. Unless ANY unplanned portion of a story has been a red flag for you in your experience. I've never been an editor, so I can't disagree with you with confidence, though I do disagree.

Watch out everyone, we got a writer here! Careful, he thinks differently from the rest of us!

The irony in your post is that deep down you clearly DO want people to think the same way as you.

jesus christ you're really miserable.

On no, don't attack my character, who's gonna lead my hand!

Character attacks ruin writers like myself!

I'm completely aware that everything that happens comes out of MY own thoughts. Characters aren't real. This is obvious. However, when writing fake people, it's difficult to understand everything they think beforehand, leading to situations where you intend for someone to do something, but have inadvertently written yourself into a corner by making them a certain way. And rather than scrap the progress you've made, you have to bend your outline a little instead. Many times this isn't because you're a shitty planner, rather, you understand your characters more now than you did before.

>there are people who actually believe fictional characters in their mind tell their stories to them

Is this like how biblical prophets were really just crazy?

Not the intended purpose of that post, user.

Then why not call this what it is: Planning

You're just creating a new Plan after finding flaws in the first. You're reaching a point that the first plan couldn't cover (because no plan is perfect) and using your craftsmanship as a writer creating a new plan to continue the work.

you keep on doing this thing where some witty rejoinder occurs to you after you reply, to you just post it without a reply to make it seem like people agree with you—but your insults are so consistently cookie-cut that it's plainly obvious that it's you. you're like that kid who gets bullied and then spends the rest of the day thinking up comebacks and kicking himself for not delivering them, only here, delivering them late and with renewed anonymity actually works to your advantage.

why not call you what you are: retarded

Bitterness is unwelcomed outside of a coffee shop, user :)

You're only showing more and more how little you understand the concept.

Did you ever think, because these are WRITERS saying this about their process, that perhaps, just maybe, they are using METAPHOR to describe how the process feels to them?

Because "planning" is not an accurate way to describe it, and they are WRITERS WHOSE WORK IS DESCRIBING SHIT ON A SYMBOLIC LEVEL.

>Because "planning" is not an accurate way to describe it
How so?

do you have a teenage daughter because you sound like a soccer mom

Well, that's exactly what it is. Why is it not called that? Because the way that it feels and how you react to it is more in line with trying to configure REAL people than doing preliminary work to a piece of writing. It feels like there are indeed real people doing real things and you are their chronicler. Despite the fact that everything they think and do has been dictated by you. Strange, I know. And that may not be the best way to describe it even. That's just how I perceive it.
Also excuse me if I sound some some kind of new age hippie with all this FEELING. I'm really just trying to get an idea across accurately.

Because it doesn't feel as if they have planned out every aspect of the story, it FEELS SUBJECTIVELY as if the act of creation were occurring spontaneously and driven by already established dynamics in the work (i.e., the characters, chains of events).

If you want everyone to only ever write things literally, rather than express their experiences with metaphor and whatnot, what the FUCK are you doing on Veeky Forums?

Probably picked the cadence up from being around so many, too easy to pump and dump.

Perhaps one of them has become a character in my mind, directing my fingers to type in her voice?

>what the FUCK are you doing on Veeky Forums?

Jesus Christ, user, pulling up the clubhouse ladder?