Story versus Character
Apr. 25th, 2003 01:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerOver in his journal, Budgie talks about characters taking on a life of their own:
A while back, there was a minor (given the history of the two of them) dispute between John Byrne and Peter David about what characters in a story. As I recall, Peter David said that in Atlantis Chronicles, he originally had no plans for a character to do xxxxxxx, but that the character 'told him' what she was going to do, leading him to the point where it became apparent as to how the character would react in a given situation, despite that part of the story originally being conceived in a different way. Byrne fervently and vehemently disagreed, maintaining that the characters are creations and as such, the writer is supreme, deciding how a character behaves and acts.
My response to this was:
It's a case, to me, of realism. Or more accurately, of cohesiveness. If a character is defined with a particular personality, acts in certain ways and has recognisable traits, then not following those character traits when you get to a particular scene will cause cognitive dissonance in both the writer and the reader and remove suspension of disbelief.
If James Bond gets punch in the face and then collapses crying on the floor begging not to be hit again, the audience will instantly think "But James would never do that!" despite the fact that James is a character and will do anything the writer says he will.
Stories in some way fool the brain into accepting them as semi-real. People _care_ about the characters. Not as much as they care about real people (generally), but the feelings and relationships we have with them are real. If you break our expectations of them you'd better have a damn good reason for doing so, or you'll lose your readership.
This, to me, was the basis of numerous arguments with Joe about gaming. He wanted to tell stories - I didn't want to do anything that made characters act in an 'unrealistic' way. I was happy, in advance, to create characters that would be more suited to a kind of game, I felt that characters were far too fluid and unpredictable (in advance) to be used for the purpouse of telling a specific story without losing that suspension of disbelief.
I suspect a fair bit of that approach also comes from the fact that in real life I only see characters - the only way to see stories is in retrospect, when you can carve away all the bits that no longer seem important and get to the core of what now looks like it was a story. Doing it the other way round removes all the sense of wonder I have - of seeing how things will turn out for these people that I care about.
A while back, there was a minor (given the history of the two of them) dispute between John Byrne and Peter David about what characters in a story. As I recall, Peter David said that in Atlantis Chronicles, he originally had no plans for a character to do xxxxxxx, but that the character 'told him' what she was going to do, leading him to the point where it became apparent as to how the character would react in a given situation, despite that part of the story originally being conceived in a different way. Byrne fervently and vehemently disagreed, maintaining that the characters are creations and as such, the writer is supreme, deciding how a character behaves and acts.
My response to this was:
It's a case, to me, of realism. Or more accurately, of cohesiveness. If a character is defined with a particular personality, acts in certain ways and has recognisable traits, then not following those character traits when you get to a particular scene will cause cognitive dissonance in both the writer and the reader and remove suspension of disbelief.
If James Bond gets punch in the face and then collapses crying on the floor begging not to be hit again, the audience will instantly think "But James would never do that!" despite the fact that James is a character and will do anything the writer says he will.
Stories in some way fool the brain into accepting them as semi-real. People _care_ about the characters. Not as much as they care about real people (generally), but the feelings and relationships we have with them are real. If you break our expectations of them you'd better have a damn good reason for doing so, or you'll lose your readership.
This, to me, was the basis of numerous arguments with Joe about gaming. He wanted to tell stories - I didn't want to do anything that made characters act in an 'unrealistic' way. I was happy, in advance, to create characters that would be more suited to a kind of game, I felt that characters were far too fluid and unpredictable (in advance) to be used for the purpouse of telling a specific story without losing that suspension of disbelief.
I suspect a fair bit of that approach also comes from the fact that in real life I only see characters - the only way to see stories is in retrospect, when you can carve away all the bits that no longer seem important and get to the core of what now looks like it was a story. Doing it the other way round removes all the sense of wonder I have - of seeing how things will turn out for these people that I care about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 05:58 am (UTC)Of course there are myth/parable/allegory/fable type stories where the characters may have to be outside this reasonable parameter.
A good writer can handle it either way - plot very tightly in advance or plot loosely and let their concept of the character's personality direct the plot more. If writing is anything like software (and I'm not saying that it is or isn't just that it might be) then the second option is probaby more workable for most books/most authors/most audiences.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 10:43 am (UTC)Whee, this conversation. =)
I absolutely see your point.
Think of something like a movie, though. Say 'Lilo and Stitch'. At every point in the movie, the characters act appropriately, yup? They also grow and develop appropriately, yup?
Also, the story works. Monster finds friendship and meaning - it's Frankenstein all over again.
So the point of some rare kinds of gaming is to start with a character (Stitch) and have an idea of how his story will play out - say you want to explore hat it means for a monster to find friends. Or for a monster to become hunted (Predator 2). Or for a monster to find worse monsters (Aliens vs Predator, perhaps). You then express/play the character appropriately... and also make the story happen. Simultaneous thing.
People do care about characters. They also care about story.
I admit it seems a bit like magic in roleplaying, but it happens all the time in movies. The pace of Jurassic Park is satisfying, and the moral makes sense (whether you like it or not). Equally, all the characters act appropriately.
And I don't believe in suspension of disbelief - or do you really believe Stitch exists?
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 11:26 am (UTC)It's not suspension of disbelief - it's about buy-in. You're given a world, with rules, and you accept them. This doesn't just apply to gaming, this applies to movies, books, anything. It's not about believing Stitch exists. It's about believing the story, and accepting the characters actions. It's Disney, so right off the bat you know that even though the only thing Stitch should do is eat Lilo, he/it won't. But then, blah blah Disney blah blah, they become friends. So far, so fine. If, all of a sudden and out of character, Stitch then ate Lilo, we couldn't buy it. It doesn't work.
I agree totally with Peter David. If your character takes an unplanned or unfortunate turn, in character, then you shouldn't wrest them away from it just to suit your story-telling plans. That ruins then story, because you lose buy-in. The moment someone is saying "But they'd never do that" then you know something is wrong. It doesn't just apply to characters either - the rules (physics, physiology, whatever) of a world are just as important. Once you establish the rules of a book, film, game or whatever 'world', you can't then ignore them when it suits you. You lose buy-in, which is ultimately the most important ingredient when trying to make any story-telling device a success.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 11:52 am (UTC)You're absolutely right. The paragraphs that follow may or may not disagree with you. I'm thinkin' out loud.
Threads like this one got me to think about how moviegoers and readers involve themselves in the imaginary process. I find it fascinating how a DNA analysis scene in a movie doesn't bother me, but the microbiologist sitting beside me starts his teeth a-grinding.
And yup, in a movie like Lilo and Stitch, we gain a sense of the style of the movie, and what's likely to happen, and what seems out of bounds.
Part of my post was referring to previous conversations Andy and I have had about immersion in gaming. And as far as 'deliberate story creation' gaming goes, in order to deliberately create a story, one _cannot_ solely think as a character. One has to think as an author, and depending on the game, one could make decisions the character has no control over, in order to create a better story (eg: "And just then, Fred's uncle comes in and addresses my character, Fred...").
Furthermore, a character could make a choice that seems wrong... but who are we to say it isn't in character? If the cool, collected cop shoots a gangbanger in the face... and we later find out the cop's wife was killed by a gangbanger, it makes sense _after the fact_. The audience needs to stick around.
Equally, in a roleplaying game, you might have a character make a seemingly irrational (to the 'audience') choice, and later explain it away in a satisfying manner.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 11:43 am (UTC)The one thing I think that Movies have over roleplaying when it comes to story is that if they get 2/3 through the script and it's not working, they can go back and rewrite it from scratch so that the character developed in a different way. With games, when you get to a plot point that's not going to work with the current character, the character is already somewhat defined. You can futz it a certain amount ("Bob could do the plot-destroying action or the plot-advancing action. In order to make the game better I'll advance the plot.") but only up to a point before the character doesn't hold together any more.
I can't remember what the game is where you can re-run fights that went wrong - but if there was an RPG where you could replay previous scenes so that the current scene worked, that'd make this fit perfectly. "Damn, I want to kill her, but my character showed that he'd never kill an unarmed woman back in scene 76. Lets replay that scene again so that I can take the other choice!"
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 11:54 am (UTC)Hmm. Interesting that people don't replay gaming sessions. I wonder...
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 02:29 pm (UTC)And I just realized I've already ranted on this topic.
"If it's actually a good character, one with three dimensions and reasonable motivations and all that, then there is probably a way to justify not taking a given action. People are complex, contrary, flexible, and frequently indecisive. There are very few situations that exist in life, I think, that compel only one reaction. Barring those situations, those certain psychological triggers, cropping up in the game, there are almost always several options that are valid and 'in character' for that character. There's almost always a good justification for taking an action that is conducive to group enjoyment, and, conversely, not taking an action that is inconducive to such."
From here.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-25 04:14 pm (UTC)Whenever I GM something I always start with the characters. I remember running Kult - I chatted to each player in turn about their character, got an idea of backgrounds and personalities and then found common points to build a story around. A good GM should be doing something like this - creating a pathway that the characters would naturally follow.