Writing Discussion 4

[kriadydragon]

Sick of these, yet? ;) Although I do apologize if you are. I've been having such a blast with them and every time I think I'm going to take a little break, topics start popping into my head - both mentioned in the lists and other topics not mentioned - that I so badly want to discuss.

The first of today's topics is geared more toward original fiction, though it could also be geared toward fanfic.

Ways to make a story as unique as you can even if it's a trope that's been done nearly to death. For example, you have this great idea for a story about a boy wizard and a magic school but you can't bring yourself to write it in fear of accusations that it's just another Harry Potter knock-off.

The second, inspired by previous discussions...

Giving your characters flaws, but without hitting the pitfall of making them too perfect or so flawed you want to strangle them with your bare hands.

Comments

[black-raven135.livejournal.com]

Sick of these, yet? ;) Although I do apologize if you are.

Hey, no worries. I am delighted and I am glad that you hit on two that I
asked for..............

I can relate to both of these in discussion four
There seems to be a tendency when it comes to Sheppard for part 1......ie
'been done nearly to death'............
and also the part about a flawed/perfect personality which pushes the limit
almost to camp level........

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

They say there's no such thing as original but that doesn't mean you can't make your own work unique from what's out there. In fact I think it's important to make a story as unique as possible, whether fanfic or original fic. Besides allowing the story to stand out it also keeps things interesting so you don't feel like you're reading just another "knock-off" or just another "whump."

[black-raven135.livejournal.com]

Besides allowing the story to stand out it also keeps things interesting so you don't feel like you're reading just another "knock-off" or just another "whump."

**NODS**
Sadly I begin a story and soon it is 'been there, done that'
It turns out to be a rehash, sometimes blatantly so........
I just move on then and often it happens very quickly
The weird part is they can be very long pieces too
And speaking of long, have you ever read a story where it seemed as
though the writer was only interested in length?
It is like a maze, no end in sight, just a lot of wandering. . .in all
different directions.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I've read stories where it seems like the writer just won't let the story end. What I dislike about those is that a lot of times the author has this really great story, but then push it to keep going and end up with something weird. There was an M7 story I read like that. It was pretty good, but where it should have ended it didn't, and the author turned into a whump for whump's sake story. The longer it went the more ridiculous and squicky it got until I gave up all together.

[black-raven135.livejournal.com]

The longer it went the more ridiculous and squicky it got until I gave up all together.

***NODS***
Been there, done that..it just keeps going and going and often in circles.......
It tires me out so I finally leave it behind.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I often run into the issue of one of my ideas coming off as too much like the thing that inspired it. For example, I have this one story that was inspired by a video game. I haven't written the story yet, but I worry that when I do, people who know the video game will read my story and cry knock-off.

And I hate knock-offs, I really do. I get tired of the same ideas being rehashed over and over again *cough*SyFy movies!*cough* That said I know that some of my ideas will probably smack a little of being like other ideas that already exist. That can't be helped since we don't know everything that's been done. But an effort should be made to at least try to do things as differently as possible. That is, if you have a scene 9or character, or setting) in your head that you know has been done and done a lot in other stories or media, and the plot allows it, it may be a scene you want to rethink.

It also helps to do the opposite of what's been done. I like to avoid the "chosen one" trope if at all possible. I've never been a fan of "the chosen one" as I feel it takes too much agency away from the character, and I can't stand stories where the protagonist is little more than a tool for the greater good, never allowed to make decisions on his or her own, to learn on his or her own, bossed around by their mentor/care-taker/teacher who always knows better and never makes mistakes.

But that said, that doesn't mean I will never use the chosen one trope, because by toying with the possibilities I can come up with something that steers away from what I dislike about the trope (the character never knew they were "chosen" but when they find out they become overwhelmed by the stress of responsibility and falter. Even better, the character wasn't meant to know they were the chosen one for this very reason. But the villain finds out and uses it against them, or a jealous friend finds out, or someone who only meant well). In fact I love taking cliche tropes, picking them apart and putting them together as something else.

For example, instead of monster terrorizing space explorers, the space explorers have to save the monsters. And I'll keep picking until I come up with a working plot - the humans save the creature, the creature helps them survive the alien planet.

Instead of the barbarian saving the day, it's the street beggar. The dragon slayers aren't the good guys, they're the bad guys. Instead of a kid finding the cute, fluffy mythical creature, an adult finds it. The butler didn't do it, the victim's personal masseuse did. And so on. I think the majority of my stories started off with me pondering B instead of A or C instead of B and going from there.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

My problem with making a character flawed is I have to make them flawed and I don't want to! *whines* You think "flawed" and what comes to mind is "must make character unlikable" for some reason. Or maybe it's more flaws = character ending up unlikeable? Either way, it actually scares me because we all read a situation differently and what I might see as a minor flaw someone else might see as a reason to hate that character.

But the thing I've come to learn about giving a character flaws is that it isn't so much about establishing their flaws when you establish who they are. It's more... finding their flaws as you send them on their little adventure, if that makes sense. Flaws are definitely a matter of show rather than tell. As mentioned in the previous discussion about characterization and avoiding Mary sues, every action has a consequence, good or bad, and it's through those consequences we see that the character's aren't Mr/Mrs. Perfect.

But you also have to be able to allow them to fall and not have their mess cleaned up as quickly as possible. You have to allow them to be wrong, to "not get it," to be a little annoying, or incapable, or clumsy or afraid or allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes from time to time.

That said, you also need to be careful not to give a character a fault for the sake of giving them a fault. I mean, if your characters are about to step into a trap that, really, they should have seen coming a mile away, you don't want them falling for that trap hoping the readers will just chalk it up to the characters having an off day. The consequences still need to make sense according to the characters and situation.

First your character needs to be well-established enough for you to be able to pick out what about them could be considered a flaw. As was mentioned in the discussion on characterization, even a character's strengths could harbor opportunities to show their less-than-perfect side. A brilliant scientist, for example, gets so frustrated with the people who don't know what he's talking about he ends up insulting them more than once. The fearless leader who is unable to hand control over to someone else. The skilled warrior who makes the mistake of underestimating their opponent.

Going back to consequences; making a character grouchy or sarcastic or deceitful isn't a fault unless it has some kind of negative consequence to back it up as a fault. It doesn't have to be anything big and world-shattering. It could be as simple as someone losing patience with the crotchety old wizard who expects everyone to trust him despite that he's never forth-coming. Or that crotchety old wizard, so sure that he's always right, being wrong at the worst possible time.

Which brings up another point - being used to the crotchety old wizard's crotchety ways doesn't mean the other characters are going to put up with it forever. Everyone has their breaking point, something they won't tolerate, or maybe they're just having a bad day. And each moment that breaking point is reached it shouldn't be immediately followed every single time by a mad scramble by one or the other party, or even both parties, to make things right. Sometimes there needs to be an apology, sometimes a character needs to be put in their place, but neither one should be a constant.

[sholio]

But you also have to be able to allow them to fall and not have their mess cleaned up as quickly as possible. You have to allow them to be wrong, to "not get it," to be a little annoying, or incapable, or clumsy or afraid or allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes from time to time.

I think this is the key point. For me, writing flawed, believable characters is not so much a matter of formally assigning flaws to them (this character has a hot temper, this character is suspicious of everyone) so much as just letting the characters screw up, fail, and be wrong in more or less equal measure with each other.

That, and it's also important to keep in mind that most character traits are not always a flaw or a virtue. One thing I absolutely love, on TV or in books, is seeing something that is normally considered one of the character's better traits come back to bite them, or seeing something that is usually a flaw work to their advantage. In fact, most of the traits that we think of as classic hero traits (bravery, impulsiveness, loyalty, a strong moral compass) can be "flaws" under the right circumstances -- someone who is very upright and moral might run into problems with his marriage because his wife feels that he holds her to an unrealistic moral standard, or someone who always throws herself into danger for other people could actually be the cause of the entire party being endangered if she misjudges the situation. There was a writing-meta post a little while back that really stuck with me, about how a lot of fantasy writers give their character a background as a runaway or a child thief in order to give them cool thief skills and underworld contacts, but don't also deal with it as a realistic lifestyle including the down side of having been raised that way (emotional problems, trouble relating to other people, etc).

I think that in a lot of cases, what makes the difference between a caricature of a hero, and a well-rounded character, is simply the writer recognizing that any of the protagonist's qualities, "good" or "bad", can have good or bad consequences depending on the circumstances, and putting him or her in situations that bring both the good and bad aspects to the forefront.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

I agree that the best flaws are those which are linked to the strengths of a character. Because every good thing has some kind of a dark site.

But I also think that it's less the flaws which are necessary, but that you allow your characters to fail. It doesn't matter how many flaws they have, if they never make mistakes nevertheless, they are not really flaws, just quirks. And yes, they should fail, because it's realistical for them to fail. It's also important that sometimes what seems to be a right decision turns out to be the wrong one (or the other way around). Because that's life.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

Actually, one of the original stories I have in "to write list" is basically about someone going to a magic school. But should I delve into this, I'm not too worried about the parallels to Harry Potter, simply because my world is totally different, my protagonist is not some kind of chosen one and has in fact still both of his parents and a brother, there is no war going on and the whole theme of story is totally different.

The thing is, you can't really avoid parallels to earlier works - there will be always something which is similiar to something somebody else did.

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

I don't think I can get sick of any active discussion. I was brought up to discuss things to get the broader picture.

From a readers perspective I have to say that I find it hard to define "Original fiction" because storytelling relies on tropes and convention for it to work properly. When it boils down to it, its all in the excecution of the story telling. I find that writers who have any instinct for what they do are able to recognise when it is getting cliche and so can then spin a new angle makign it new and unique. But still in teh spirit of teh story trope.

Take Harry P as a good example. The idea of a boy/man, who lives with extended family but has largely unknown parentage but has powers he is largely or vaguely unaware of and an epic destiny is nothing new.. see Star wars and nearly all mythic Hero epics.. The fact that he is in school is a new excecution of the idea making the trope new and more interesting. Which in turn keeps us readers interested:D.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

And the school setting itself is hardly original either...not even that fact that it's a magical school. It has been done before. But not in as detailed and not in this way.

I think you can sell your readers nearly everything, as long as it's well written. It's not the basic story idea which has to be creative, it's the execution which makes everything interesting. Disney has demonstrated this for years, by rewriting known stories for their own purpose.