Liz Williams: journal

I think of them as real within their own context, for sure. But then, their context is not mine whereas in the case cited, the author lives in the same area as her characters (IIRC) even if it's a more magical version of it in her novels.

From:

Gotta say, though, I would never say in public that any character was sacrosanct.

Every single one of my guys knows they can die at any moment.

Makes 'em work harder. *g*

From:

I am looking forward to finding out how hard. B&I arrived this morning.

From:

woot!

From:

I have conversations with my characters, but only when it's funny. ^_^

From:

LOL!

From:

On a more serious note (reading the rest of the comments on the thread), I am still totally a neophyte (read: not published yet), but I can definitely see where authors come from when they talk about characters taking on lives of their own. I've seen authors talk about their characters hijacking control of the plot, and I've heard other authors firmly assert that if this happens, it's because you broke something earlier on and need to go back and fix it.

I think I fall somewhere in the middle, weighted towards the former end of the spectrum rather than the latter. Possibly because I come out of a background of spending years roleplaying characters online--so I'm very used to trying to think and react as the characters would.

From:

I've seen authors talk about their characters hijacking control of the plot, and I've heard other authors firmly assert that if this happens, it's because you broke something earlier on and need to go back and fix it.

It's just different ways of talking about the same thing. I've sometimes said that my characters won't do what I tell them to. I'm perfectly well aware that what's happened is that I've written (or am about to write) myself into a corner and need to go back and figure out where it all went wrong. At the moment I discover the problem I'm having trouble finding the right dialog/emotion/motivation for my characters to realistically be doing whatever it is I thought I needed to have them do. So I blame it on my characters. ;-)

Truly believing that fictional characters have control over one's life edges into a mental health issue.

(One of the people who live in my head want me to add that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem? :-)

From: (Anonymous)

You've nailed it for me exactly--rationally being aware that something is broken in the plot, yet on another level entirely feeling like the character is acting up. Similarly to how I frequently joke that writing about them is the only way I can get the various people in my head to SHUT UP. ;)

Meanwhile, might I add that your icon is gorgeous?

From:

Whoops, that last was me! Forgot I wasn't logged in on this computer. *^_^*

From:

Doncha hate it when that happens?

I love the icon. Wish I could take credit for it, but I just stumbled on it. ;-) Still seeking a summer one.

From:

I do!

I've seen some very nice seasonal icons scattered around LJ Land, but more autumnal, as near as I can remember. Good luck in your search!

From:

*g* and here you have the problem with generalizing. Because my characters do unexpected things all the time, and when they do, it's a sign that something is going *right,* not wrong. It means that they've gelled, and taken on a life of their own, and they're no longer one-dimensional and predictable.

I love that. I long for it. It is the best thing ever.

From:

liminalia.livejournal.com

Perhaps it has to do with the amount of time one has spent with the characters living in one's head? The author in question is working on book 15, after all, and has been writing these people since at least 1993. That's longer than most r/l friendships or relationships.

I'm not sure one way is "better" than another. The question is, does it get you good results?

From:

It may well do. I know writers who have very close connections with their characters and as you say, this is a long-running series. Ultimately, I'm very wary of being prescriptive, because obviously, what works for one person, does not work for another.

From:

heleninwales.livejournal.com

has been writing these people since at least 1993

Um, yes, well... I began the very very first version of the novel I'm currently working on when I was still at school, which means that some of the characters have been hanging around in my head for 40 years. It's one of the reasons why I'm determined to finish their story this time, even if it's totally unsalable. I just want it all wrapped up so they'll leave me alone.

Except then they'll no doubt keep bugging me until I write the final volume. *g*

But seriously... As long as the method works and as long as the writer doesn't genuinely believe that they could buy a present and actually give it to one of their characters, then it's fine.

As someone else said higher up the thread, saying that characters are "taking over" is really just a shorthand way of saying that the story generating part of the unconscious is working overtime.

From:

alfreda89.livejournal.com

which means that some of the characters have been hanging around in my head for 40 years. It's one of the reasons why I'm determined to finish their story this time, even if it's totally unsalable. I just want it all wrapped up so they'll leave me alone.

Except then they'll no doubt keep bugging me until I write the final volume. *g*

Lord and Lady, do I know that feeling... But that's not what I can write now!

From:

haikujaguar.livejournal.com

Most of the time I think the people in my head are more real than the walls of my house. But it entertains and pleases me, and my world would be far grayer without it being so, and that's how I write.

As for that author, I don't at all understand why people bother with the negative feedback; if they don't like the work anymore, they shouldn't read it. One might even wonder if they're having a knee-jerk reaction to her stunning popularity (if I am guessing correctly who said author is). I have seen all too often how people get very angry at things that used to be "theirs" that suddenly become "everyone's" and therefore not as cool.

From:

I think there's a lot of truth in the 'reaction to popularity' issue. Also in the author's comment about 'anti-fans'...

However. In this particular case I enjoyed the first few books, but because they had reasonably good plots, not because they were cool. I stopped some time ago, because I felt that the series had just become too dire to be born, both in terms of prose and in terms of plot (as in: what plot?). I'm afraid I did have to bite my lip at some of the defences offered (the later one I read didn't exactly 'push my boundaries', it just bored the hell out of me. And I suspect some of the readers' frustrations might be more at authorial self-indulgence than because they're over-challenged).

From:

haikujaguar.livejournal.com

Ah, well, yes, her response was... perhaps unnecessary. I would not have done it--such things always sound good when recited in one's head, but look awful when put on paper or said aloud in defense of one's art.

Art should not need defense, and if it does, it should come from other viewers, not from the author/maker. Otherwise, it just looks... well, it invites unseemly things. Every artist I've met is hiding a secret (or sometimes not so secret) towering ego, the thing that helps keep us going when we are confronted with the many obstacles to the creation of what we must create... but it's rarely good to remind one's audience of it. :)

From:

Oddly enough, for me, characters possess a fairly strong life of their own (including sometimes keeping secrets from me or begging for particular articles of clothing, and I always get a gin-and-tonic jones when writing Abby Irene, even though I hate gin) but I'm also always aware that they are fictional people and they have no objective reality.

Really well-controlled disassociative identity disorder, that's what I have. Or maybe method writing.

From:

Writing is nothing more than lightly controlled psychosis.

I'm okay with that.

From:

'lightly,' you say. Also 'controlled.'

I think this might be where I've been going wrong. ;-)

From:

Chalk it up to regional differences. ;-) Y'all can't be nearly as inherently nuts as we are. ;-)

From: (Anonymous)

I've not read the series in question in great detail (mostly because I think, "You know, I should read..." followed by "oh crap, HOW MANY books are there now?!"), although I've dabbled in some of her other work. But everyone I know who reads the series in question has the same reaction as you: It started out great, and then mutated into something different that's, in their mind, inferior. Not because of content or "something offensive," but because they're not interesting anymore.

I think it's a fine line to walk as a writer. You have to write what moves you, what you're interested in, what compells you to sit down at the computer every damn day. But at the same time, you also have to have some level of awareness of the business, of sales, of trends, of strengths and weaknesses. A midlist author wouldn't still be selling books if s/he were having the drop in sales that the author being discussed is having.
(Looking at percentages, not books sold--and I'm guessing either way.)

There are also, I think, two types of readers. One type reads only in their genre, refusing to consider anything else. The other will follow an author into another genrel because they like the author's writing, and will read across genres if the writing's good. (FWIW, I fall into that category. I would never have picked up a mystery series about a black man in post-Civil War New Orleans, but when I saw Barbara Hambly's name on the cover, there was no question. And I would have missed out if I hadn't picked up the first one, because they're great.)

Good writing should trump all. But this is still a business. And if, as has been mentioned in other comments, the author in question's quality of writing has gone down...

Cheers, Dayle

From:

southernfront.livejournal.com

I don't know. Mine talk to me all the time.

Course, that might explain two things.

1. No story sales yet.
2. Perhaps some "other problem."

But I don't see that it affects your fiction at all.

I lurk a lot but I never know what to say about the housekeeping entries other than they are interesting.

Respects,
S. F. Murphy
Flyover Country, US

From:

You are most welcome to lurk. I'm never sure if the housekeeping is of interest or not!

From:

southernfront.livejournal.com

Lots of bloggers, established writer or otherwise, do what I call "housekeeping entries" which are just daily things they did. I find them interesting to read, but one never knows what to say, especially if things are going well for them. Which, I might add, things usually seem to be going well at Liz Williams' blog.

I do a lot of housekeeping entries and they don't get a lot of comments either. Usually it is the rants, the entries where you ponder something, and maybe the review ever so often that generates the moment comments.

Respects,
S. F. Murphy
Flyover Country, US

From:

katfeete.livejournal.com

I read that response. I haven't read the series, but I did snort a bit over the "my books are not comfortable" bit. Seeing as that's exactly the opposite reputation I gather they have. And overall it struck me as rather immature to rant quite that long in public about the behavior of one's readers.

Character-wise... enh. I wonder if this isn't a question less of the reality (or lack thereof) of the characters to the writer, and the writer's perceived relationship to the characters. I mean, my characters are quite real to me. I have to watch myself in gossip sessions, lest I swap from gossiping about my husband/co-workers/friends to gossiping about the imaginary people in my head, and I did once nearly walk out of a store with a map before realizing it was my character who wanted it and not me (tough titties, honey. You're still lost in the desert.)

But if the story needs them to die, they die. If the story needs them to hurt, they hurt. I'd never consider buying presents for them. My characters are not my friends.

There is a difference between empathizing with someone and sympathizing with them, between considering them to be real and wanting them to like you. I'm not (entirely) crazy. I know the people I write about aren't real, and I expect the author in question knows this too. I tend to treat them as if they're real, and I suspect she does as well. And this is not necessarily a bad thing.

But I am not their friend. I'm their storyteller. I can feel what they feel, but once I start meddling and trying to "help" them, I'm not doing my job any more. I'm not telling the real story any more.

Not at all sure this makes sense, but hey, I tried. *wry grin*

From:

It makes a lot of sense. I think you have to do your utmost to get inside someone else's head, but I don't have any problem with putting characters through hell (er, literally, in the case of the Chen books).

From:

muneraven.livejournal.com

I'm with you; I suppose all my characters are are really avatars for aspects of me, generated mostly by my subconscious mind and shaped by my conscious, writerly mind.

I do, however, sometimes treat them like real people. I have even apologized to them out loud, lol. But then I have been known to talk to the household appliances, so that doesn't mean much.

I don't think I could write if my characters didn't seem real to me and if the story didn't feel like it was being told to me by someone else. Writing wouldn't be entertaining enough to bother with if it were otherwise. For me the joy of it is being told a story. Love stories, even the ones I tell myself and then write down.

A Bear chased me over here, by the way, with a link in her blog.

From: