=MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Legends and Lore] >> Writers of Lore >> [The Workshop] >> Craft Discussion



Message

Ganden -> =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/10/2010 1:56:11)

I was thinking about this today, and it's actually occurred to me on a couple occasions, but it seemed like something the L&L crew would be interested in noshing on.

For my main work, I actually openly state in the foreword that I am less writing it, and more transcribing it. I say this because the characters, especially the main ones, do honestly seem to me like their own people. They have their own desires and personalities, and they exist in their world as themselves. That world just happens to be in my head, and I happen to have the privilege of being able to watch them and talk to them. I would call this approach to characters personification--essentially treating the character as their own person, and "listening" to what they say and "watching" their world, and writing about it.

I am aware that others, and actually myself as well with a new project I'm working on, take a bit more of a mechanical, or as I said in the title, objectified view of characters. That is, you treat the character as an object, and mold them to fit what you need them to be, or how you need them to act. Almost, to some degree, like they're puppets and you're the puppeteer--You have more immediate control over what's going on.

In reality, myself, I think no one can say they use exclusively one way here. Even myself on my main project, while I do chiefly take a personified road, have from time to time had to alter things, or determine traits by a more objectified manner.

But I'm curious what you all think. Do you treat most of your characters one way or another? Do you think one way is better than the other? Is the idea of having people inside your head just creepy to you? :P Have fun. And post! I am interested to see what other writers think on this.

-Ganden



alexmacf -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/10/2010 3:27:26)

I see my characters in my main work as people. They exist in their universe, and react the way they would react. I just do the horrible things to them that an author has to do. ;D
However, in my short stories, they're my puppets. I don't dwell on them too much, more on their strings and on the plot. Even when I'm exploring how things affect the psyche, I mold and shape to make the point I want to make.



Postmaster General -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/10/2010 3:47:55)

In my AE Fanfic, MQ Mystery, I portray myself as Chief Duncan and travel through the world of Lore, interacting with those characters who are previously created by AE, so their reactions are already somewhat predetermined. I merely insert myself and certain situations for them to interact with, kind of like putting a pinball in the pinball machine, only to be knocked around by the existing obstacles. This method has the downside of some major characteristics being lost in the pursuit of authenticity, though this is true of most areas of Fanfiction.

In other works, I try to create realistic characters. Character depth is of major importance to me, and so I like to have realistic characters. For this purpose, I actually use this method of having a world inside my head, although I had never quite described it as you just have. This method has many benefits because it creates a more realistic setting, allowing for real-world characters to take part in real-world situations.



superjars -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/10/2010 9:24:37)

When a character is created, they exist as a function of my mind. I have created them, I control them and they formulate themselves based upon my good pleasure. And everything was good. The people were quite happy with their personalities and functions within the story. But then I read about them, their stories and lives, and I was displeased by the lack of growth and depth I found in their characters. I wept about their predicament from on high and for years, their worlds were covered with darkness and despair.

Then, a single ray of light beamed through the clouds, pushing away the gloom, the night, the darkness. While visiting the world of a friend, I had seen the wild chance they had taken with their creations: to have open communication with them, allow them to grow and develop on their own and then to join them in the world, an observer, a lover, a friend. To walk amongst them and see their joys and pains, triumphs and failures, good days and bad, was the purpose to which I came down, hidden in flesh and blood beside them. But as I watched them, as I lived beside them and watched the choices they made, there was an underbelly of corruption: something was in amongst them, poisoning them towards their creator, causing them to become twisted and mean.

Where previously my great sadness was directed at their lack of development and growth as people, now it found it's place in their corruption and evil. And thus, I ascended to ponder the problem, leaving the world to its own devices. When I returned, the world was consumed by great evil. And at that point, I realized that I could neither completely control these people, but nor could I give them complete freedom to live and breathe on their own, as there were powerful evil forces out in the world which needed to be held in check. And so I decided to guide and suggest, prod and poke, hoping that I would find those amongst my creations who would rise to meet the challenge. These beings, guided by my will, granted my power, would move against the evil and free my creations from their bondage. And then, in a synergy of order and freedom, we would create a lasting kingdom together, full of rich and meaningful people, but kept safe from the forces of darkness within their world.

*** If you, for some reason, do not understand my response:
spoiler:

Essentially, I started out writing with a very objective style, but it ended up that my characters felt one-dimensional and weak as characters. Then, credits going to jerenda and Eukara Vox, I was introduced to conversing with my characters. However, when left to their own devices, some tended to become corrupt and unusable. Therefore, I found that I need to strike a balance between objectifying and personifying my characters. If I don't communicate with them, I miss opportunities to really plunge deep into their characters, but if I leave them too much to their own devices, they struggle to stay on plot. And so I write with a steady hand, but giving them lots of leeway to be themselves.
That is all! :D ***



Cow Face -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/10/2010 10:18:46)

I find that the more I like a character, the more I personify them. If I'm using a character as merely a means to tell a story- usually in a derogatory manner- I tend to objectify them. But I'm better at giving examples than just explaining, so here-a we go.

Objectification in my works: Sin, Retribution, Redemption is an example where I largely objectify the characters. None of them are particularly nice people; the main character, in particular, is rather disgusting. As I have very little sympathy for the character, except perhaps at the very end, I view him as a tool by which to tell a story. The story is of a man who has ruined his life, and the lives of others, and who pays the price for having done so. The remorse he feels is "too little, too late," and I tend to be ruthless to that kind of character.

Personification in my works: Abstinence of the Observer is a story that got away from me. Originally, I had one idea for it: it was to be the tale of someone who appears to be an alien, or perhaps spiritual being, and has been captured by humans. He observes the world around him, and then reveals himself in the end to be an ordinary person. However- and this is a spoiler, so I'll put it in appropriate tags- the story instead became like this:
spoiler:

It is the tale of someone who is unfamiliar with emotion, and is writing a brief essay about it, to kill time in his glass prison. It becomes an impassioned plea to be set free; in the end, it is revealed that the prisoner is the Heart of Man.

This does actually have to do with personification, for me. The reason I changed the story was because, as Ganden put it, I felt like I was merely transcribing the story. I couldn't write it the way I was going to, because that wasn't who the character was. To me, he took over the writing, showing me what was true in the story. That probably sounds really perverse, but it's the best way I can describe it.

Objectification and personification combined in my works: In a story which I have not posted here (I'm trying to get it published first), at first everything is objectified. However, near the end, the only important non-living being became personified- I let it give a very emotional speech to the people. Said people, however, remained objects; they had no dialogue, and were only partially the subject of the story. It was their reaction, or rather, lack thereof, that is the most telling bit of the plot. No sympathy for them; therefore, no personification.



Reaper Sigma -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/10/2010 20:29:57)

It depends on how long I have been working on a story. Something like a short story would mean that my characters, unless one is one that I've worked with for a long time, are all objectified. I simply use them to tell the story.

Things like longer, more indepth stories usually starts out with personified characters. For example, in a novel I am working on, All the major characters and even some minors characters all seem like actual people to me. I know how they think and do accordingly. I may tweak the story to my view every now and again, but other than that, my characters shape the plot.



Firefly -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/12/2010 0:26:23)

I mainly personify characters. A plot stamps itself into my head, and characters arrive along with the package. That's why I almost never find it hard to have an idea, or write an outline--it's pretty much pre-packaged. Writing the actual story, on the other hand...

The way I see it, on the first draft, characters are almost always predominantly personified. If the characters do not come alive in the author's mind, it's highly doubtful they'd live in the mind of a reader. And--as I've experienced--characters can often rebel against the author. The duty of the author is to tell the story as it should be, which means giving in to characters (for the most part).

When the second draft rolls along, that's when I start objectifying characters more. I go back over what they did in the first draft to make sure everything makes sense, and to make sure they mesh together with the plot. Whether it's changing characters for plot or theme, or the latter two for character, that's when I lessen the "but that's the way it should be!" mentality and approach everything more analytically. This sometimes entails rewrites since the characters and plot don't match up.

However, even then, too much objectification will ruin a story. Excess amounts of scruntinizing the work and altering it can make it lose the flare that originally made it work.



mastin2 -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (6/29/2010 6:25:33)

To me, it sounds like this is just another way of saying Character-based story versus Plot-based. (I used to specialize in the latter, but around Disease, I started to gradually shift the other way...and it first became fully personified in Hunters Slain.)

However, I can see the slight difference. A Character-based story can have characters with just as much life as you or I do, but whose setting is extremely lacking. To me, it sounds like a Personified Character would be everything a character-based story would be...only definitely with the setting flushed out as well. Delving into history spanning not just as far back as the character's life, but the world's life as well.

...This tends to be my approach. With the novel I just finished, for example, there's a very rich history (I'm planning a prequel for a reason!). Heck, I have enough for a prequel on the main character's life before the story, alone! Interactions were that real. (Too bad I haven't fully captured it in the writing, yet. It brings me to tears, and I got one other person who read part of it to think that it was sad, but most people when they see it go "so, what?" because they don't realize that this person is REAL. Perhaps not to us, but to himself. He has a full life of experiences, and they're all important to him.) They live in their own world. They have their own lives, living full days, full weeks, months, years, decades, experiencing everything we do in their environment. I can't really call them fake, or unreal. Perhaps they're fiction to us, but they have enough of a unique life that there is not a chance they'd ever call themselves even remotely fictional.

After all--at least, for me--every character in my stories is a small part of me. Some moreso than others (quite some bit, actually), but never a complete duplicate. Nor are any two characters in different stories the same. There are always microscopic differences which set them apart. Because they are so different, so...unique...what right do I have to call them simply a character? (Well, I still do, because it's convenient. Stop prying for answers to my rhetorical questions! :P) They're people, real individuals in a real world...which happens to be told as if it were a story to us. We see the highlights of their life...but they have far more than that to give, if we wanted to see them.

However, I think that I still have elements of the Plot/Object-based approach, in that often-times, my characters will have inconsistent personalities. I figure it's just part of human nature. (We're rather hypocritcal that way. [;)]) I mean, it applies to real life. One month, we might react one way to a situation. A month later in a similar situation, we oftentimes will have a completely different reaction. I figure the same also applies to fiction. The characters might have an overall personality, but every circumstance is remotely different, just enough to give the variety necessary for a possibly abnormal reaction.

In other words, I think we'll always have elements of both. You pretty much have to. Pure character? That's not a story! That's just life! Pure object? Just an ink mark on paper. Nothing more. Something there to tell the story. The balance? (Well, for me, anyway...) Characters, who've lived rich, complex lives, giving us, the readers, some of the highlights involved, which make a good read, a story to tell which we are eager to listen to. ;)

-Mastin.



Fleur Du Mal -> RE: =MECH/CHAR= Objectified Versus Personified Characters (7/1/2010 14:13:27)

I think I treat my characters as a bit of both. I like to have both characters that are more personified than objectified and characters that are treated the other way around within the premises of the same story. For example, to ensure that even the most personified characters will 'stay in line', I can use almost totally objectified characters to treat them and encounter them in a certain way and then just record what the persona does. Evil. =P

Usually, I like to tell a story or dwell into a certain emotion. Rarely my characters themselves are interesting enough, so that just allowing them to roam my head at free will, and then recording what they do, would end up in something worthwhile to read. For short stories it could be different, given that the characters would be in the middle of suitable events. However, for longer stories, they might be so stubborn they'd act themselves out of the purposes of telling it the first place. And leaving me with a story that's going nowhere. (This might've been plaguing me recently...) Thus to avoid this, they end up receiving some nudging or me starting to puppeteer them.

I don't think that having characters acting like they want to in my head is creepy: that means at least something's going on in there, while having nothing happening there would be far more creepier. =P





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.09375