Young Writers Society

carbonCore wrote:

What plot reason does making your character straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, or various other default serve?

What exactly do you mean by that? Romeo was straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, and overall an average dude, but I haven't heard much criticism about him being an uninteresting character. That said, there's not much description on how he actually looks. So I'm taking it that you're agreeing with Snoink's point that a boring/average description should be left out?

@carbonCore No, I am not saying that. I didn't say anything about description as a whole. I'm talking about the part in Snoink's post I quoted, which was in a broader context of writing disabled characters specifically. The way the post was worded, I took it as saying you couldn't just talk about a disability for the sake of having disabled characters; the disability had to have a point within the plot. My reply was turning the question on its head and asking people to justify why they make normative choices.

There's this idea you can't make characters different unless they serve a plot point (ie- don't have a gay character unless your story is focused on coming out, don't make a disabled character unless they have a superawesome skill, ect), so I asked what plot point making characters normative served. Why is it that marginalized groups have to justify their existence in a story by being a plot point, and the dominant group just gets to be included without question? Why can't you just have a disabled character because?

As for your example, I'd point out Romeo isn't exactly an average dude. The fact he's part of a family where a huge feud is going on is plot critical. The fact he's interested in women is also plot critical, considering the interest in Juliet is what drives the plot (although, not every academic considers Romeo straight). And finally, he's not necessarily white because there were indeed quite a few high ranking non-white families in Europe at the time it's set.

The way you assumed he's normative brings back my earlier point a few posts up, where I said if you want to include diversity you have to be explicit with it, otherwise people will assume the default.

Why is it that marginalized groups have to justify their existence in a story by being a plot point, and the dominant group just gets to be included without question? Why can't you just have a disabled character because?

Pretty much this. Choosing 'default' (white,cis,het,able) should be a conscious decision too. MOGAI*, non-white and disabled people aren't chekov's guns, they exist for as much or as little reason as anyone else.

If you're making a conscious decision to stay within 'default', well that's a different story- depending on what I am doing, I sometimes stay within what I know so I don't misrepresent out of ignorance. Just be aware that it is a decision, a choice you are making to not include MOGAI, non-white and disabled people.

*(Marginalized Orientations, Gender identities, and Intersex)

(also I am aware that snoink wasn't talking about race or MOGAI in her original post. It's just worth mentioning if your character is non-default, because sadly people will probably assume white, cis, het and able)


My controversial opinions about writing? It's not innate. You're going to have to work at it. (cries because deteriorated skills) You're not going to be naturally gifted- maybe quicker to pick it up, sure, but still. But I guess that's not so controversial here, since we're all here to learn.

Also poetry is straight-up voodoo. You poets are all magic and I have no idea how you lace words together like that.

Just be sure that, within your literary world, if you are attempting to be realistic, you don't assume that race, sexual identity, etc., is a moot point, or that it won't affect the plot or the characters within the plot to the point where it's necessary to point these aspects out.

Problems with racial, etc. discrimination are alive and well, and certain forms of literature need to continue to address the issues in order for progress to be made.

beans wrote:Oh boy. You asked for it.

1. I can always tell when a story is made up as it goes or is carefully outlined. How? Because if a story has at least SOME structural foundation, it gets updated regularly, whereas a improvised story tends to fall on the wayside when a writer loses steam. ALWAYS OUTLINE EVERYTHING, EVEN IF CERTAIN IDEAS NEVER SHOW UP IN YOUR STORY OUTRIGHT. Yeah, you could just yank your story out of your buttcrack, but it's not going to be very good. Some people CAN pull this off, and pull it off well, but if you have no experience in writing, play it safe and plan first.

I'd just like to say that you're pretty much disregarding the fact that second drafts exist. Maybe planning allows a little more consistency in your first draft, but the truth is, either way you're going to have to go back and edit, because a first draft's never going to be as good as something that's been edited. So what if the first draft feels like it's been done on the spot? It's a first draft. People write in different ways, and it's pretty naff to assume that only one particular way works. If you like to plan, that's great, but don't just dismiss more spontaneous writing because it doesn't work for you.

I'll pretty gladly admit that I've let a lot of stories fall by the wayside, but that had nothing to do with whether or not I planned or not. In fact, I'll say I got further with the ones I only had a vague idea about where I was going were the ones that lasted the longest - the only writing projects that I've finished (both short stories and a novella length project) are ones that I've gone into with only a vague idea. They weren't perfect, sure, but as I said above, whether I'd planned them or not, I'd be editing, and therefore resolving any inconsistencies in them. And I don't think whether or not you have 'experience in writing' has anything to do with whether or not you should plan. Outlining isn't the be all and end all of a good writing, but persistence (among a few other things) is, and that's something that you have to deal with whether you plan or not. It's not only on the fly stories that are able to fall by the wayside, and to assume having a detailed plan alone is enough to stave off writer's block (or just plain ol' procrastination) then writing must be a much easier process for you than it is for me.

Rosendorn wrote:@Snoink

But, you can't just say things for the sake of saying things. Unless you want to use it as part of the story somehow and integrate it with everything else, leave it out.

What plot reason does making your character straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, or various other default serve?

@Rosendorn: Uh... plot reasons? Sometimes, there are no reasons, related to plot, why these descriptions should exist.

But, plot is not the only part of the story. You need to describe character description for character development, imagery, symbolism, setting, and so on. This is cool. Anybody who says that plot is the only reason why something should exist in a story is being silly. Or... uh... really likes commercial fiction in which one character can be swapped out with another.

My main point, you need to realize that this has to be an integration in the story, not a one time info dump. Make it matter. And don't just be repetitive in your description style either. You don't have to say, "She looked in his piercing blue eyes" over and over again, but with slight changes of words. ("This time, I am using the word "periwinkle" to describe his eyes!") Add some character development or imagery or something to make it more meaningful. In Brothers Karamazov, for instance, Alexey is constantly described as wearing monk's robes in the beginning. But, each time the description happens, something about the context changes, and as the story continues and more Karamazov passions bare themselves it seems more and more ridiculous that he is wearing such robes at all. So, it becomes a way in which his character development is highlighted. In The Man Who Was Thursday the anarchist poet is described with red hair constantly in the beginning. But, at first it is because he seems to be blending into the magnificent and strangely sinister sunset that is first described, and then as the story continues, his hair almost seems to represent a torch in which he is going to set the whole world ablaze. And so his hair seems to deepen the story in an awesome way and the constant descriptions make it even better.

I haven't read this in a decade or so, so please forgive my memory on this (yes... the reason why I used the aforementioned examples above is because I am rereading those books now), but Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man was (imo) fantastic in its description and imagery of black culture. I loved how he twisted the WASP culture and turned it around its head, twisting everything from the bible to materialism and pretty much everything else. I loved his nameless main character. I loved how he used symbolism to make the color white into this awful, twisted thing and black this wonderful color. I think that the ability to add such description and weave it into the story is great storytelling, frankly. I tried to imitate a lot of his style in FREAK, I'll admit it. That's one reason I haven't read it in a while... I admired it so much, I didn't want to out-rightly steal it. XD

The main point is, when you want to describe something, make sure it impacts the story and deepens it and makes it more powerful. Description and character development is a huge component of storytelling and they shouldn't be ignored or glossed over in favor of the plot. The plot is very important too, but the description and character development are what turn the plot from just an outline to something better. When you write a good story, you need to integrate the plot, characters, and description seamlessly into each other.

Also: I don't really like introducing characters unless they are somehow important, no matter who they are. That's why I've generally written novels with very small ensembles of characters. That way, every character can become important, somehow. Any character who can't justify their existence in being in the story is out.

With that said, I am wary of misrepresentation. The more I live in Japan, the more I realize that my preconceived ideas about the Japanese are not necessarily true and their ideas about me, as an American, are not necessarily true. Such preconceived ideas that I have on other groups of people are probably equally wrong. I think there is a lot of danger of misrepresenting a character if you do not know what is going on in their lives.

This is just some thoughts I have in response to some of the opinions I see in this thread, I haven't read them all. I am speaking mostly as a reader here, not a writer, but perhaps that is exactly what everyone is doing and looking for anyway.

On the topic of eye color and character descriptions. I don't think there is a problem with descriptive details, but some description can take away from the writing and I think the difference is how well it is justified. Whatever is noticed at a glance I think is noticed for a reason, it has connections, you are describing the mind of the onlooker as much as (or more than) the person being viewed. Why does this onlooker notice these details and what does it signify to him/her in terms of the world s/he lives in, or comes from. For example, the onloooker might be trying to discern where a person is from, and in which case, if this is a fictional universe you might have an opportunity to drop a detail about how people from such and such part of your universe look because of a feature this character has. You can then also convey some prejudices or preconceptions or attitudes that the onlooker has. The external features of one character are the internal features of another.

You don't necessarily have to be fully explicit about these details, but at least have them in mind or in notes and be consistent with them. I don't necessarily advocate this implicit style, but I suspect it might help one who wishes to effectively employ what Hemmingway called 'Iceburg Theory'.

On the topic of normative or non-normative characters and justifying character features using plot. I think characters are so important to good writing, that you might just have them completely defined based on some inspirations, people you have actually known etc, regardless entirely of the plot. They really should be little pieces of your self too, in otherwords, you have to put some part of yourself in their situation etc. Who is your audience though? I think it is nice if the normative or default character is someone they can relate to, or there is some character in the story for them to relate to. After all, the characters ideally become some part of your reader as well.

TriSARAHtops wrote:I'd just like to say that you're pretty much disregarding the fact that second drafts exist. Maybe planning allows a little more consistency in your first draft, but the truth is, either way you're going to have to go back and edit, because a first draft's never going to be as good as something that's been edited. So what if the first draft feels like it's been done on the spot? It's a first draft. People write in different ways, and it's pretty naff to assume that only one particular way works. If you like to plan, that's great, but don't just dismiss more spontaneous writing because it doesn't work for you.

I'll pretty gladly admit that I've let a lot of stories fall by the wayside, but that had nothing to do with whether or not I planned or not. In fact, I'll say I got further with the ones I only had a vague idea about where I was going were the ones that lasted the longest - the only writing projects that I've finished (both short stories and a novella length project) are ones that I've gone into with only a vague idea. They weren't perfect, sure, but as I said above, whether I'd planned them or not, I'd be editing, and therefore resolving any inconsistencies in them. And I don't think whether or not you have 'experience in writing' has anything to do with whether or not you should plan. Outlining isn't the be all and end all of a good writing, but persistence (among a few other things) is, and that's something that you have to deal with whether you plan or not. It's not only on the fly stories that are able to fall by the wayside, and to assume having a detailed plan alone is enough to stave off writer's block (or just plain ol' procrastination) then writing must be a much easier process for you than it is for me.

All this, and not to mention the fact that the story that you planned for 12 years grew into another story altogether. Speaking from experience, of course.

So much for outlining. The details in the story will change, plan or not. Writer's block doesn't just magically go away in the realms of subjective and malleable art, and outlines aren't a one-way street to the completion of your book. Writing a book would take you through an entire branch of writer's blocks and obstacles, if anything.

[quote=jcywsOn the topic of normative or non-normative characters and justifying character features using plot. I think characters are so important to good writing, that you might just have them completely defined based on some inspirations, people you have actually known etc, regardless entirely of the plot. They really should be little pieces of your self too, in otherwords, you have to put some part of yourself in their situation etc. Who is your audience though? I think it is nice if the normative or default character is someone they can relate to, or there is some character in the story for them to relate to. After all, the characters ideally become some part of your reader as well.[/quote]

I am going to disagree on this point. If you simply take a person in your world and make them a character in your book you risk not having enough freedom to make the character distinct. The main reason I like writing is to escape reality and work with something new. There aren't any rules in place for whether or not you should take things from real life and put them in your story, but I don't think it is wise.

If you have to create a new character from people in your life I would suggest that you take one or two things (and they don't have to be major things) from their life and put them in the story.

Finally you do not want to put yourself in the story!! If you do that you risk making characters that alla sound the same and you risk becoming too attached to your book and characters. This will make your books all seem the same and you will never be able to sell it because your skin will be too thing when it comes to characters. You never put yourself in your stories if you plan on selling or sharing any of them.

@r4p17 You do have a good argument but let me ask you this... I have one story that is based off of a real event that happened in my life. To convey this idea I have three characters in there of which two of them are based off real people, and the main character is based off of myself. She primarily has my same personality (with a few characteristics changed) and she has a name similar to mine. Do you think there is anything wrong with that? In a way, that character *is* me but in another way she isn't.
So my question is: is that a bad thing? Basing characters off of yourself for the purpose of re-telling something that happened to you? (Of course, I do not intend to publish this story. It's more of a personal thing that I might post here, though.)

@AttackOfTheFlash- I think that it's totally OK to model a character after yourself especially it's thing that relates to you in real life. I tell this to ask the writers I know, wiring is an emotional outlet, and it really helps you if you write the story out. Your simply feel better! Model your character after yourself, but then it's more sensitive and it's really hard for a reviewer to evaluate your character without offending you personally, even though they didn't mean to. See what I mean?

I also usually when I model a character after myself, I write her different than me just a little bit to experiment, you know? That's always fun to do! Anyways hope this answers your question!

FaulknerCannes wrote:

TriSARAHtops wrote:I'd just like to say that you're pretty much disregarding the fact that second drafts exist. Maybe planning allows a little more consistency in your first draft, but the truth is, either way you're going to have to go back and edit, because a first draft's never going to be as good as something that's been edited. So what if the first draft feels like it's been done on the spot? It's a first draft. People write in different ways, and it's pretty naff to assume that only one particular way works. If you like to plan, that's great, but don't just dismiss more spontaneous writing because it doesn't work for you.

I'll pretty gladly admit that I've let a lot of stories fall by the wayside, but that had nothing to do with whether or not I planned or not. In fact, I'll say I got further with the ones I only had a vague idea about where I was going were the ones that lasted the longest - the only writing projects that I've finished (both short stories and a novella length project) are ones that I've gone into with only a vague idea. They weren't perfect, sure, but as I said above, whether I'd planned them or not, I'd be editing, and therefore resolving any inconsistencies in them. And I don't think whether or not you have 'experience in writing' has anything to do with whether or not you should plan. Outlining isn't the be all and end all of a good writing, but persistence (among a few other things) is, and that's something that you have to deal with whether you plan or not. It's not only on the fly stories that are able to fall by the wayside, and to assume having a detailed plan alone is enough to stave off writer's block (or just plain ol' procrastination) then writing must be a much easier process for you than it is for me.

All this, and not to mention the fact that the story that you planned for 12 years grew into another story altogether. Speaking from experience, of course.

So much for outlining. The details in the story will change, plan or not. Writer's block doesn't just magically go away in the realms of subjective and malleable art, and outlines aren't a one-way street to the completion of your book. Writing a book would take you through an entire branch of writer's blocks and obstacles, if anything.

These are valid points, but note that I did not mention a second draft! A second draft will indeed bridge the gaps in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell who wrote it procedurally or who wrote it on the fly.

However, outlining DOES make things a ton easier, even if you don't "skeleton" your work from front to back. Even something as simple as a relationship flowchart between your characters gives you a good idea of who hates who, who thinks who would be better suited for a certain task, who would likely screw another person over... THAT is an outline. A map that you drew is an outline, regardless of what direction you later take it. Writing a placeholder sentence in the spot where you'll later write a chapter (by the way, it's much more efficient to write in an external program than straight to YWS, as there's no guarantee that ANY site will be around forever, though I'm sure most people reading this already know) is a sufficient outline. When im planning to write a chapter, I'll often just write "Character X does some sh*t. Heated discussion between X and Y. Character Z lights his pants on fire." Almost too simple, but there is plenty of room for elaboration, flair, and what you would call "flying by the seat of your pants."

Planning ahead is beneficial to your life in general, but we don't always have 20/20 foresight. You make the mold first, then you fill it with whatever it needs.

Not to mention, if you've ever taken a college level writing class, a la screenwriting, outlining is in fact a must. Whether you agree with the practice or not, you still have to do it anyway. Hence where I got my method from, I suppose.

If there's anything that you take from this post, know that both methods of writing have their place, but you need a proper balance. Too much of one over the other means nothing gets done. Know when to plan. Know when to go with the flow. But for God's sake, if you're trying to finish something, plan it.

Rosendorn wrote:

carbonCore wrote:

What plot reason does making your character straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, or various other default serve?

What exactly do you mean by that? Romeo was straight, white, able bodied, neurotypical, and overall an average dude, but I haven't heard much criticism about him being an uninteresting character. That said, there's not much description on how he actually looks. So I'm taking it that you're agreeing with Snoink's point that a boring/average description should be left out?

@carbonCore No, I am not saying that. I didn't say anything about description as a whole. I'm talking about the part in Snoink's post I quoted, which was in a broader context of writing disabled characters specifically. The way the post was worded, I took it as saying you couldn't just talk about a disability for the sake of having disabled characters; the disability had to have a point within the plot. My reply was turning the question on its head and asking people to justify why they make normative choices.

There's this idea you can't make characters different unless they serve a plot point (ie- don't have a gay character unless your story is focused on coming out, don't make a disabled character unless they have a superawesome skill, ect), so I asked what plot point making characters normative served. Why is it that marginalized groups have to justify their existence in a story by being a plot point, and the dominant group just gets to be included without question? Why can't you just have a disabled character because?

As for your example, I'd point out Romeo isn't exactly an average dude. The fact he's part of a family where a huge feud is going on is plot critical. The fact he's interested in women is also plot critical, considering the interest in Juliet is what drives the plot (although, not every academic considers Romeo straight). And finally, he's not necessarily white because there were indeed quite a few high ranking non-white families in Europe at the time it's set.

The way you assumed he's normative brings back my earlier point a few posts up, where I said if you want to include diversity you have to be explicit with it, otherwise people will assume the default.

I'm of the mind that marginalised groups simply are, same goes with cis white characters. I don't have to explain away why those characters exist or why they are the way they are, they simply are. Representation is indeed important, but I might be falling short in that I don't give any particular group special treatment. In my story, Delis Engham is a gay black man, but at no point have I gone out of the way to highlight that he's dark skinned other than the odd descriptor here and there, and the fact that he's gay never really comes up other than through the occasional dialogue snippet, a la "There are quite a few handsome gentlemen here tonight." He's not special because he's black or gay, he's special because he is a knight of the Queen, an ace mech pilot, a shrewd leader, and smarter than the average bear. His ethnicity and his orientation serve no plot purpose whatsoever.

My controversial opinion is opposite to one held by some here: that no matter how diverse your novel, there are always going to be people who believe that you don't represent characters properly, or that you stereotype, or that you misrepresent them. A few friends have dubbed it 'the Tumblr fear' - the fear that if the story you're working on gets published, it will be slammed by tumblr for not being diverse enough, or if it is diverse, for not presenting non-"default" characters (which I find an odd term but whatever) in an interesting or sensitive enough way. Does my novel have a ton of LGBT, non-white, disabled characters? Well, for a novel set in essentially 16th century Germany, yes. But out of the six girls in the novel, the flirty, vaguely promiscuous one also happens to be the black one. That's just what developed as the story went on. Am I making a statement about black women? Not in the slightest. But I am terrified that if this novel is published, that's the backlash I'll receive. Is Astrid's sister with Down Syndrome involved in the main conflict? No. Is that ableist of me? Does Rudy Black's quest to find romance make his only storyline about his sexuality? I don't think so, as he's involved in three or four other storylines/major events. But someone out there will think so.

Basically, diversity and representation are headaches for me. You will never ever make everybody happy. So is it worth the effort? I love my characters and it didn't take me much energy to create them - but would it be worth shoe-horning diverse characters in just for the sake of diversity? No. I don't think so.

Also, I don't believe in outlines of first drafts. First drafts are vomit,vomit, vomit. Anybody who tries to plan their novel before vomiting it out and seeing what shape it naturally takes is a silly-billy imho.

I once wrote a spectacular piece of prose that I really liked back in the day. It certainly could use a lot of editing and toning down on the pretentiousness, but god, I would never trade that piece of writing for any 'structured' or 'planned' writing any day. Writing like that comes from the soul and from the heart; no amount of planning will ever achieve that fateful moment of spilling your heart out.

StellaThomas wrote:My controversial opinion is opposite to one held by some here: that no matter how diverse your novel, there are always going to be people who believe that you don't represent characters properly, or that you stereotype, or that you misrepresent them. A few friends have dubbed it 'the Tumblr fear' - the fear that if the story you're working on gets published, it will be slammed by tumblr for not being diverse enough, or if it is diverse, for not presenting non-"default" characters (which I find an odd term but whatever) in an interesting or sensitive enough way. Does my novel have a ton of LGBT, non-white, disabled characters? Well, for a novel set in essentially 16th century Germany, yes. But out of the six girls in the novel, the flirty, vaguely promiscuous one also happens to be the black one. That's just what developed as the story went on. Am I making a statement about black women? Not in the slightest. But I am terrified that if this novel is published, that's the backlash I'll receive. Is Astrid's sister with Down Syndrome involved in the main conflict? No. Is that ableist of me? Does Rudy Black's quest to find romance make his only storyline about his sexuality? I don't think so, as he's involved in three or four other storylines/major events. But someone out there will think so.

Basically, diversity and representation are headaches for me. You will never ever make everybody happy. So is it worth the effort? I love my characters and it didn't take me much energy to create them - but would it be worth shoe-horning diverse characters in just for the sake of diversity? No. I don't think so.

Also, I don't believe in outlines of first drafts. First drafts are vomit,vomit, vomit. Anybody who tries to plan their novel before vomiting it out and seeing what shape it naturally takes is a silly-billy imho.

No you're a silly billy

But I know what you mean, somewhere, somehow, someone is going gripe about what you do... and a lot of them are going to be irrational, oversensitive people who are always carrying a torch no one asked then to carry. For example, take Frozen. I've seen people actually play the race card on Frozen, a story that takes place in 19th century Denmark. Obviously they were racist, or are furthering their racist agenda. No representation in Disney whatsoever. Mulan, Pocahontas, Tiana, Esmerelda don't count because... reasons.

So yeah. This is tumblr we're talking about. Don't worry about it. They'll probably rag on your story, then they'll move on to Iggy Azalea or whatever irrelevancy they want to squabble over next.

I friggin love Tumblr, it's a great platform, but some of these goofballs need a friggin' hobby.