Tag: character

what’s my motivation?

I’m writing a short story. The premise of “chupacabra in Rudolf II’s court” just wouldn’t leave me alone. So I thought I’d tame the plot bunny, practice writing an (original) short story, and work out my writing muscles between books*.

But when I sat down to write it I couldn’t make it go anywhere. I described the setting. I described the chupacabra. I walked my protagonist and the chupacabra through different scenarios. I even tried naming them**. I couldn’t get any of it to cohere into something resembling a plot.

So I turned to Oblique Strategies, a card deck/randomizer developed by Brian Eno in the 1970s to help him unwind creative snags. I got “Remove ambiguities and convert to specifics”.  Frustratingly vague, but enough to shatter my rigid mind.

So I noodled with specific mannerisms for my protagonist: rubbing his eyes, tugging his doublet, smoothing his (thinning hair). But what in his personality would make him do any of these?

Is he tired? Fussy about his clothing (or does it not fit)? Why do I imagine him with thinning hair? Why do I imagine him as a “he”***?

Ryan Reynolds in scrubs saying

So that got me thinking about his personality, and what would lead someone of his inclinations and situation to rub his eyes, smooth his clothes, and drag a potentially deadly creature across Europe to give to an Emperor.

Which gets into backstory, because why would anyone travel with a chupacabra (threats? Prestige? Serious money? A death wish?) Which brought me back to:

The story is always about people (or aliens/animals/something standing in for people) and what motivates them, and how they act in situations they encounter or seek out. I couldn’t begin to get at a plot until I had at least some idea of character.

So now the story is moving along, if not perfectly at least better.

Don’t know what I’ll finally do with this thing – maybe it’ll just sit on my hard drive forever. But it continues to be a useful exercise.

*I’ve started research for the new book. No spoilers but I’m feeding the muse.

**Good thing I based my first novel on real people because I can’t name a damn thing. Thank doG for Scrivener’s Name Generator function.

***I already know the answer to this one: the story takes place in the sixteenth century and regrettably in most historical times and places (hell, even today) men had more freedom of movement than women.

the stupidest Slytherin

I’ve been re-watching the Harry Potter movies of late. I find myself still impressed again at how engaging the saga is and how the stories grow up with the characters: as they mature to into a more nuanced, less black and white outlook the stories gain complexity as well. And damn if she doesn’t know how to world-build!

And I got to thinking about The Book (hell, I’m always thinking about The Book). Rowling rolled at least one historical magician into the Potterverse (are there more I’m forgetting?) so surely there are others. So:

If John Dee were any more Ravenclaw he’d live in a library OH WAIT. He certainly embodies wit, learning, and wisdom, even if he’s a bit gullible. What do you wanna bet his wardenship of Christ’s College Manchester was just cover for his real trip north for a Hogwart’s fellowship?

Edward Kelley may have all the ambition of a Slytherin but he’s not together enough to carry out his wildest schemes…or is he? I think the Snapes and Malfoys of the world would disown him if he didn’t get himself kicked out of Hogwarts outright.

Jane Dee is a muggle, period. She doesn’t approve of all this magical nonsense–it’s dangerous and unseemly besides.

I imagine Kelley’s brother Thomas is clearly Hufflepuff. He’s loyal and patient to though Kelley often doesn’t deserve it.

Joanna Kelley may well be the only Gryffindor. She’s got to be brave to see all of their continental travel as an adventure rather than a hazard, and she’s determined to put a bright spin on everyone and everything.

Elizabeth Jane Weston (Lizzie), Joanna’s daughter? She’s about four years old during the story – too young to sort, certainly. But she’s definitely got some of her mom in her.

The spies Sledd and Pucci are Slytherin through and through. Sledd would make a stone-cold Death Eater but Pucci would be a toady like Peter Pettigrew and possibly less competent than Kelley.

Draco Malfoy sitting under the sorting hat
Pucci would make Draco Malfoy look strong willed. Courtesy Giphy.

Of all my characters Joanna is possibly the only truly likeable one of the lot (but are there any unlikeable Gryffindors?). But at least my less-than-savory characters aren’t dull.

How do your characters (or your favorite fictional characters) sort out?

8-10-2016 biweekly links: the writing edition

Changes in my day job dictate that I’m spending much of my usual writing time looking for my next gig. Blogging may be sparse, but I’ll try to post bits when I can.

For this week, I share some of my favorite writing and writing business websites:

reboot

I attended a local class on historical fiction last weekend. It covered challenges specific to the genre (time/time frame, historical figures vs. fictional characters, POV) but the most useful discussion regarded the balance of documentable fact vs. creative license.

I approach my historical fiction the way I approach historical costume: there’s room for a spectrum of accuracy long as I know where and how I’m cutting corners. So far my inner history nerd has adhered closely to the timeline of Dee’s diaries. After discussing my approach with the instructor, she suggested I may be limiting myself out of fear of writing actual fiction.

The short version: she suggested that Jane Dee, not Edward Kelley, should be my protagonist.

I am not convinced she is wrong.

When I start I wanted Jane to be my central character because I imagine her life with two occultists as a strange and stressful one seldom (never?) examined fictionally. Then I had difficulty finding an obvious story arc for her and my research led me down the rabbit hole of Kelley’s motives so I abandoned the idea.

The instructor pointed out that Jane Dee’s lower profile in the diaries is a perfect excuse to make things up. There’s more freedom to create a story that isn’t slavishly locked into Dee’s day-by-day spirit diaries. The possibility that a female protagonist might sell better to a readership that is mostly women is a nice bonus.

This is exhilarating and scary at the same time, and I’ve spent the last week in a shaky creative exhale. I still need a story arc, so I’m playing with the seven point outline and identifying gaps where Jane might be acting without Dee’s knowledge. I’ve not abandoned the story of Edward Kelley’s descent into madness, but I’m experimenting with him visiting Jane’s world rather than the other way around.

Essentially I’m writing two books at once, and trusting that the protagonist will reveal themselves in rewrites.

what is it?

I’ve been secretive about the details of my book out of irrational fears of being scooped and having a stupid premise. Then I remembered I’m not the first person to write about these people, and the informal feedback I’m getting suggests I’ve found an interesting angle so I thought I’d come clean:

My novel is about the strange working and domestic partnership of the 16th century mathematician/magus John Dee and his crystal ball gazer (or “scryer”) Edward Kelley. The short version: Dee was one of the geniuses of the Elizabethan age and still Kelley managed to convince him for almost 10 years that he talked with angels. This delusion led them to create a magic system still in use today, scold the Holy Roman Emperor, piss off some clerics, have a seance with the King of Poland, and ultimately swap wives.

Most scholars seem to write off Dee as a rube and Kelley as a con man, which they undoubtedly were to some degree, but on closer examination the story is much more complicated. Kelley questioned the veracity of his own visions and tried to leave Dee more than once, and the sheer volume and variety of their output suggests there was something more going on.

In my research I’ve only found one article that explores in depth the idea that the “angels” were the product of fraud combined with mental illness, and that’s my premise.

My story assumes that Kelley pulled a con that got out of hand when he started actually seeing things. With Dee’s encouragement this turned into a kind of “folie a deux” and they dragged their wives along with them.

Kelley is my protagonist, as he seems to have the most obvious story arc and because I’m personally fascinated by his motives and his possible perspective of Dee’s obsession with their “actions” (seances).

Dee’s wife Jane is my other POV character, as she’s been given short shrift in the other fiction I’ve read (when she appears at all), and given what must have been her demanding responsibilities managing an experimental household, I figure she’s got good reason to be angry at both Dee and Kelley = conflict ahoy!

It’s turning into a bit of a genre bender – it’s certainly historical but not clear-cut military or romance (though there is sex), with elements of ambiguous paranormal/psychological horror (are the angels real or shared madness?), then there’s the adventure on the Continent and domestic drama…

So, kinda hard to pin down. But never dull.

I don’t even know these people

Last week I gave another friend my “elevator pitch” about the novel and the historical characters on whom I’m basing my story. While most people express surprise at how strange and unlikely the reality was, she asked a question that I’d not heard before:

“Do you like any of your characters?”

It’s a good one, especially considering that part of what made me want to write this story is that none of the people involved seemed like they’d be overly pleasant to deal with, even before taking fictional liberties. As it stands now my protagonist is an unstable con man, the man he is conning is pious and obsessive, the pious man’s wife is an angry control freak, and the con-man’s wife is shaping up to be timid and naive.

As such, these people are lots of fun to write (because happy, stable characters are boring), but I can’t say I’d want to hang out with any of them!

Having said this, I have compassion for them as well: the con man gets in way over his head, the pious man’s needs drive him to compromise his principles, the control freak is lonely and frustrated, and the milquetoast may well be the sanest person in the room.

I suppose it’s good that I appreciate their strengths as well as their weaknesses. After all, if readers unconsciously emulate their favorite fictional characters, imagine what it’s like for those of us who write them.

My mixed emotions also come from the fact that all of the characters embody aspects of myself, and not always my best points. I suppose this is inevitable because the only head I’ve ever been in is my own. I’ve been obsessive, angry, questioning, and out of my depth; incredibly I’ve even been the sanest person in the room at times. While this may not make my characters pleasant, I hope it makes them relatable.

And they continue to take shape as I write them. Just this week I wrote one making a gaffe that embarrasses another and I’m still not sure how their different personalities are going to deal with the aftermath. I just keep referring back to my character profiles for cues and hope that something believable comes out in the narrative wash.

In short – do I like them? Sorta and not, but honestly I’m still getting to know them.

reticence

There are times when I find it uncomfortable to write.

I don’t mean physical discomfort or run-of-the-mill writer’s block, but a sort of anxious distress that has me doing everything from laundry to reloading Facebook to avoid having to face the work in progress.

What I always want (what I suspect all writers want) is that perfect state of flow where the words just pour out like water, the imagery and emotions so clear in my mind that I am merely describing the unfolding events and the character’s reactions to them.

For a long time I assumed “real” writers were in that state all the time; through discussion and experience I’m learning that this is definitely NOT the case and that part of learning to write is plowing through the times when you’re not “in the mood”.

I’m finding that the two main things that make me want to flee to the cuddly vapidity of YouTube cat videos are 1) I can’t get inside my character’s head, or 2) I feel like I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Dealing with the first is easier – I created elaborate back stories and personality profiles of my main characters that I can refer to when I just can’t “go there”. It’s not the same but it does give me some direction when I’ve written them into a corner.

The other is harder because even though everyone says to “write what you know” it’s impossible to stick to my own narrow range of experiences and inevitably I wind up in uncharted territory.

This is especially true with historical fiction, and even though none of my potential readers have lived through the 16th century either I still cringe at the thought that someone who has done better research than I will read something I’ve written and realize I’m winging it.

This is my critiquing Kryptonite – I’m more self-conscious about someone catching me being clueless than I am about lousy grammar, poor plotting or anything else.

Of course I’m (over)doing the research to avoid that possibility, but I suspect the real lesson is how to get over my flailing and find a way into “the zone”. I know what to do once I’m there – it’s just the getting there I’m struggling with.

characterization

I’m looking at the local community college’s Character Workshop for Fiction Writers for this fall, as I think it would help me with what I consider to be my biggest weakness – I can’t design a character to save my life.

Full disclosure: in a past RPG I did have a couple of original characters, but I don’t think they were very good – introductory descriptions felt like I was ticking off check boxes just to get it out of the way, and then I wrote whatever fit the plot/my whims. I just couldn’t get in their heads (“what would x do in y situation based on z personality characteristics?”), and I don’t think I developed them well.

I confess this is why I’ve tended to lean on fan fiction as my writing outlet: characters are already established, and I’ve read/seen them in action so I can better imagine what they might say or do. Additionally, fan fiction audiences are already familiar with them/the property to which they belong, so I can be lazy and forego introductions/”establishing shots”.

I don’t mean that as a criticism of other fanfic writers (it’s fun to play with characters in worlds you already know and love), just noticing that I happen to use it as a crutch to avoid improving the things I’m bad at.

Truth: I’m more comfortable inventing worlds, but then I don’t know how to populate them. Which bugs me because I tend to find that characters and dialog are what make or break a story for me, and if I’m going to bother with this at all I want to write stuff I’d actually want to read, dammit!