?

Log in

No account? Create an account

JUMP BACK | BE FORWARD

And now it’s time for another exciting installment of LEONARD GIVES ADVICE TO WRITERS EVEN THOUGH HE IS TERRIBLE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the biggest problems in writing fiction is giving a character attributes that you, as a writer, do not possess.  “Write what you know”, they say, and if, for example, you don’t know how to have a vagina, you’re probably going to struggle writing female characters.  (Counter-example:  Patricia Highsmith.)  White authors frequently embarrass themselves when trying to write black characters; writers from privileged backgrounds are often unable to capture the perspective of the working class; heterosexuals often craft gay characters that are pure stereotypes.

All these, however, are largely problems of perspective and exposure.  They can be cured, or at least alleviated, by research, exposure, and immersion in the works of more ‘genuine’ voices, or a combination of the three.  Much more problematic — and, sadly, much more common — is when writers try to give their characters qualities that they, the writers, do not have, and are completely unable to emulate.  The foremost of these are intelligence, a sense of humor, and the quality of being a good writer.

The first of these is the most common, but it is also, happily, the easiest to correct.  An actor who is is smart can play dumb, but ask an actor who is dumb to play smart, and see what you get.   I’ll tell you what:  you get Keanu Reeves.  By the same token, a smart writer can create a convincing dumb character (see Flowers for Algernon), but a dumb writer cannot fake being smart, and his smart characters will end up sounding as dumb as he is (see The Genius Club).  Since most fiction in which it seems necessary to emphasize a character’s superior intelligence is genre fiction, though, there’s an easy way around this.  Keep the character quiet most of the time, have other people establish her genius by referring to some vaguely defined brilliant plan or world-changing invention, and don’t make her the main character — in other words, choke off as many opportunities as possible for her to say things that make it clear that she is not, in fact, very smart at all.

The second is the most deadly, and the hardest to correct.  (For a shiver-inducing example, refer to Lisa Pliscou’s 1989 novel Higher Education, in which we are constantly told how clever and funny the main character, Miranda, is, despite the complete lack of evidence for this in the text*.)  Nobody likes to think they’re not funny, but being funny is one of God’s rarest of gifts, and if you aren’t packing the goods, it’s going to become painfully clear soon enough.  Even more so than a dumb person can’t write a believable depiction of a smart person, a dull person can’t write a believable depiction of a funny person.  It’s simply not in them.  They end up sounding even worse than when Father Andrew Greeley tries to write a sex scene.  And the real fucker of it all is that you can’t fake it, but you also can’t avoid it; the only way not to betray the fact that you, the creator of a reputedly ‘funny’ character, are not capable of being funny is to have that character never say anything or do anything funny.  But that doesn’t work either, because then the reader will just get frustrated and angry, wondering why the hell everyone says how hilarious this guy is so where’s the goddamn jokes?  It’s truly a no-win situation.

The most depressing, though, is the case of the fictional “great writer”.  Writers, for various and insalubrious reasons, are absolutely addicted to making characters who are also writers.  Even Stephen King, who has sold more books than God and Og Mandino put together, is like a helpless junkie when it comes to populating his books with brilliant best-selling writer characters.  That this is every bit as trite and silly as an ex-NFL player writing a cheeseball mystery novel where the main character is a former superstar running back should go without saying, but weak as it is, it need not be fatal.  Just for Christ’s sake don’t give any examples of the character’s work.  If you’re a shitty writer, you’ll never convince the reader that you’re not; but you can get away with making your Mary Sue the greatest thing since sliced Kafka as long as you just have the other characters talk about what a towering genius he is, and never succumb to the temptation to prove it.  This is an instance where it is of powerful importance to go against conventional wisdom:  tell, don’t show.

*:  Another convenient rule of thumb in fiction is this.  At least half the time, when a character from a working-class background is referred to — usually by a girlfriend, a mother, or a mother figure — as smart and talented and great, and is told that they are “too good for this place”, the character is in fact a pretentious, ungrateful, patronizing shit, and deserves to die slowly in whatever rat hole all the poor dumb schnooks he has to hang around with are forever praying he is able to escape.

Mirrored from LEONARD PIERCE DOT COM.

Comments

( 8 SHOTS LICKED — LICK A SHOT )
zmarlowe
Aug. 6th, 2011 09:05 pm (UTC)
In King's defense...
Most of the writer characters in his books are actually struggling with the fact that they aren't as brilliant as they want to be. The only true literary lion I can think of in his work is Johnny Marrinville from Desperation. And the only one he quoted from frequently was Paul Sheldon's work, and Sheldon's big thing was his ability to hook readers, which I think King is good at.

(Great post, btw.)
ludickid
Aug. 6th, 2011 09:20 pm (UTC)
Re: In King's defense...
Yeah, I'm irritated by King's constant insertion of writer characters, but I'll give him credit for having the good sense to avoid the tendency to quote them.

I have one novel where the writer protagonist is visited by the spirit of his most famous creation, who talks him out of a bad case of writer's block. That's hokey enough, but the author actually excerpts passages from the supposedly brilliant novel in which the creation appears, and it's just so boring and un-brilliant. It totally gives the game away. You can't write better than you are, and I don't know why so many mediocre writers try to create characters who are great writers. It's like a short actor thinking that if he plays a great basketball player in a movie, he will actually be capable of dunking a ball.
(Deleted comment)
ludickid
Aug. 6th, 2011 09:21 pm (UTC)
Exactly. Especially when the 'great' columns are largely warmed-over second-rate Hunter S. Thompson.
flying_blind
Aug. 7th, 2011 12:26 am (UTC)
This is useful advice, as far as it goes, but the advice I most need is not included. How do I convince sane and rational readers that my fictional characters are also sane and rational people?
lunchcat
Aug. 7th, 2011 12:28 am (UTC)
If only Aaron Sorkin had read your last point before foisting Studio 60 on the world....
adam_0oo
Aug. 8th, 2011 01:02 am (UTC)
I was just thinking this. The way 30 Rock got around having to write two different layers of funny was by firmly establishing that the Girly Show was not funny and nobody thought it was.
adam_0oo
Aug. 8th, 2011 01:05 am (UTC)
Card did a good job with the first one in Ender's Game was by setting up problems that he had already though of the answer to and that would not seem so obvious to us, ie how to act in zero gravity.
thaitea
Aug. 9th, 2011 05:04 am (UTC)
but..but you're NOT terrible! You're awesome!
( 8 SHOTS LICKED — LICK A SHOT )

Profile

flavored with age
ludickid
Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator
Ludic Log

PROPRIETOR

Leonard Pierce is a freelance writer wandering around Texas with no sleep or sense of direction. If you give him money he will write something for you. If you are nice to him he may come to your house and get drunk.

Latest Month

December 2016
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow