wherein I am angry
You know what drives me up the wall? Informed attributes. I'm sick of them.
But not just any informed attributes! After all, there's a time and a place for them, and painting them all as awful is...ridiculous hyperbole, as well as contrary to good writing sense. Technically, saying a character can 'run pretty fast' is an informed attribute. Saying a character is 'pretty smart' is an informed attribute. They're actually necessary for coherent writing; if you can't say who your character is, you don't have a character. When I personally describe X, I'm going to say X is someone composed of such and such traits.
So! Not inherently lazy writing at all, but--but. There's always the 'but', and here it is: you have to show your goddamn work.
That's the thing, about writing. It's not enough that you know who you want your character to be if you can't effectively show that is who they are, through writing actions and dialog appropriately. If you can't show me that your character is, in fact, brilliant--guess what? Repeating that Y is a genius over and over isn't going to change my mind. If you tell me Z is the most empathetic person alive, that no one has ever been more empathetic than Z, that Z is so empathetic it hurts, and Z acts like a sociopath, again, guess what? I don't believe it.
If I have to be told how my characters will react to someone else's characters in order for those characters to continue appearing to have the attributes that I am told they have, then the writing isn't effective. The other writer involved is not writing well, and it's not my responsibility, or anyone else's responsibility, to be their crutch. In fact, being that crutch? That'd be a disservice to them as a writer, if we're taking RP with even a modicum of seriousness, because it's supporting a bad habit that frequently descends into being an absolutely unbearable habit, the kind of thing that people rightfully laugh at.
Now, people obviously have differing character interpretations. It happens, especially with characters who are prone to being self-contained--look at any fandom on Earth, and you'll see people arguing points of characterization to death. However, you will usually find that there's a consensus, with a coherently constructed work. Most reasonable people will agree that such and such a character is such and such a person who behaves in such and such a manner. I'm not talking about things like debates over whether or not Jason Todd is mostly full of rage or completely full of rage; I'm talking about situations where a writer informs their audience (be it RP partners or a television audience or the readers of a novel, this applies to all mediums) that a character is someone who they demonstratably are not.
For example.
If we're told that Y is brilliant, educated in multiple disciplines, and a master of his profession, and then what we're shown is Y engaging in catastrophically stupid decisions--stupid well beyond the point that they can be excused by a lack of common sense or momentary lapses, consistently and overwhelming just straight up dumb choices, what do we believe? There's a reason authorial intent only goes so far, in critical analysis, and it's because what you mean to convey isn't always what you actually convey.
Frankly, meaning slip happens to the best writers.* It's nothing to be ashamed of. God knows it happens to me, in some ways I pick up on immediately and in others I only notice years down the line. It's the hazard of using an imperfect medium, especially when there's pressure to produce writing on a regular, rapid basis. But what bothers me, and what's actually a problem, is when it's not one or two points where what you meant =/= what's on the page, but when what you mean doesn't come across at all.
*minor meaning slip; if you are being actively offensive that is a whole other issue, you have to be TRYING to get it right in the first place and to do your homework.
Even this, though, is something that happens, and you can learn from it and move on. People screw up, and it's fine to screw up.
What kills me about informed attributes is when you end up with these dramatic contrasts between what I'm told and what I actually see, and when this is even gently pointed out to the writers in question, something happens that I hereby name 'BUT IF I'M LOUD ENOUGH I CAN'T HEAR YOU Syndrome'. It's where instead of changing this, instead of even so much as taking a step back and honestly evaluating their writing? They just. Keep. Repeating. Themselves. It's not their writing that's the issue, oh no; it's you, it's the literary canon, it's cultural dictates, it's unreasonable expectations, it's everything--except their writing.
And this is not an honest mistake; this is idiotic.
People can't have their cake and eat it too, and so there's a point where you have to decide if you want to be taken seriously as a writer (which doesn't preclude having fun, by the way, or being silly, because I'd like to think I can LOL it up pretty decently) or if you're writing purely as wish-fulfillment, and you need to be clear about what you're doing. For the record, I'm using 'wish-fulfillment' here in the sense that, while you may not wish you had your character's life (although in the case of BRILLIANT UBER AWESOME BEST AT EVERYTHING LAD you...probably do, at least sometimes, or in some ways), you do think that wishing for them to be seen and received in certain ways will somehow make that manifest. Magical thinking can feel good, but this is reality, and it doesn't work. Part of being a serious writer is acknowledging criticism. Even when you think it's spurious; even when you know it's spurious, when you know it's based out of grudges, because it takes two people to create a problem. Even if the person telling you that your character comes across as a monster when you think they're a saint is legitimately out of their mind and all you did to get their attention was talk to them, it's important to at least consider what they're saying, because only then can you honestly, with any integrity, discard their claim. As a writer, you're going to be read by people who you'll disagree with, people who may dislike, people who may fundamentally not get it, and if you don't care about those people? Fine. But don't cry about how they just don't understand if you refuse to acknowledge they may occasionally have a point, if you can't logically and clearly illustrate how they're wrong.
There's nothing wrong, fundamentally, with wish-fulfillment, but this is more than some writerly pet peeve on the same level as grammar quirks. This can be insidious. People who claim to be something they're not in real life are what we like to call 'liars', and sometimes this is just sad, but sometimes this is awful.
To reach for low-hanging but instantly identifiable and inarguable fruit of this, consider Twilight: Meyers tells her readers to the point of nausea how loving, how protective, how perfect Edward is, and it's pretty commonly accepted that this is her actual opinion of him. She really does believe he's the perfect boyfriend. However, it's also pretty commonly accepted that Edward's actions, how he really behaves, are the signs of an abusive, controlling, violent man. But he says he loves Bella. He loves her so much. He'd never hurt her, except for when he does; when he belittles her, when he pulls her around, when he invades her privacy, when he cuts her off from her family and friends. In fiction, there's distance, and a lot of people do take a writer's word as law. They believe Edward is sweet, because Meyers says he is, and after all, isn't he her character? Doesn't she control who he is? Why would she lie?
When a writer shows me a character behaving hideously, but expects me to believe they're behaving like (at least) a minimally moral person, I don't think they're Machiavellian masterminds out to fuck with me. I think they really do think this kind of behavior is good, and that makes me think in turn that they are pretty hideous people themselves. I come to believe they themselves lie about their own behavior. Maybe this is an unfair assumption! Maybe I'm a mean, mean person who doesn't understand it's just for fun.
Okay, then, fair enough, so I don't have to take your writing seriously and God knows I won't interact with it, because it strikes me as bizarre when it's not actively offensive--
Wait, what's that? But it's serious writing, you say? Meant to address real life issues and emotions and difficulties? You strive for some degree of realism?
Then you have to listen to some criticism, and you have to listen carefully. You have to accept that not everyone will love your writing, and that no one is obligated to love it, either. No one, even people who are your close friends, your writing partners, your touchstones. You have to show your work when you write your characters, and then, if you still don't receive the response you want, you either have to accept that you won't get that response or you have to go back and listen to some more criticism. And it's hard. This is hard work, and it's not always fun work, or even rewarding work, and you will get discouraged and your ego will be bruised and you will sometimes secretly - or not secretly! - hate it, but that's too fucking bad.
Meyers' wish-fulfillment should have stayed on her hard drive and never been published, and your wish-fulfillment should be friends-locked and heavily disclaimed as just that, so people won't read it and take away the idea that if you say something is true, it becomes so. And don't tell me that 'it's RP, it doesn't matter', because if that's what you really think then friends-locking all your entries to only the parties concerned wouldn't be a problem. Livejournal is a form of publishing, and leaving your entries open implies that you are also open to an audience. If you can't commit to a PSL you are inviting me to consider you a serious writer, a writer who wants their work to be even mildly meaningful - whether it means 'these two people are as cute as kittens' or explores the aftermath of abuse, seriousness of subject matter is not the qualification of seriousness as a writer - then you ask to be judged as a writer. You are communicating. Words always mean something, that's...what language is.
I'm tired of informed attributes used this way because they tend to come with the idea that actual writing doesn't matter. That the author's intent and desires supercede the words they put out there and expect to be read to the point where it literally doesn't matter what they write, as long as they tell you what they felt about writing it. Do not lie to your audience. If your fiction can't be internally honest and consistent, then do not cry to me or anyone else because I don't believe it, or you. It's the writer's responsibility to put together words, characters, and plot in such a way that what the audience ends up with reasonably approximates what they intended, and if you aren't doing that, you need to keep working.
Show, don't tell. It's cliche for a reason.
But not just any informed attributes! After all, there's a time and a place for them, and painting them all as awful is...ridiculous hyperbole, as well as contrary to good writing sense. Technically, saying a character can 'run pretty fast' is an informed attribute. Saying a character is 'pretty smart' is an informed attribute. They're actually necessary for coherent writing; if you can't say who your character is, you don't have a character. When I personally describe X, I'm going to say X is someone composed of such and such traits.
So! Not inherently lazy writing at all, but--but. There's always the 'but', and here it is: you have to show your goddamn work.
That's the thing, about writing. It's not enough that you know who you want your character to be if you can't effectively show that is who they are, through writing actions and dialog appropriately. If you can't show me that your character is, in fact, brilliant--guess what? Repeating that Y is a genius over and over isn't going to change my mind. If you tell me Z is the most empathetic person alive, that no one has ever been more empathetic than Z, that Z is so empathetic it hurts, and Z acts like a sociopath, again, guess what? I don't believe it.
If I have to be told how my characters will react to someone else's characters in order for those characters to continue appearing to have the attributes that I am told they have, then the writing isn't effective. The other writer involved is not writing well, and it's not my responsibility, or anyone else's responsibility, to be their crutch. In fact, being that crutch? That'd be a disservice to them as a writer, if we're taking RP with even a modicum of seriousness, because it's supporting a bad habit that frequently descends into being an absolutely unbearable habit, the kind of thing that people rightfully laugh at.
Now, people obviously have differing character interpretations. It happens, especially with characters who are prone to being self-contained--look at any fandom on Earth, and you'll see people arguing points of characterization to death. However, you will usually find that there's a consensus, with a coherently constructed work. Most reasonable people will agree that such and such a character is such and such a person who behaves in such and such a manner. I'm not talking about things like debates over whether or not Jason Todd is mostly full of rage or completely full of rage; I'm talking about situations where a writer informs their audience (be it RP partners or a television audience or the readers of a novel, this applies to all mediums) that a character is someone who they demonstratably are not.
For example.
If we're told that Y is brilliant, educated in multiple disciplines, and a master of his profession, and then what we're shown is Y engaging in catastrophically stupid decisions--stupid well beyond the point that they can be excused by a lack of common sense or momentary lapses, consistently and overwhelming just straight up dumb choices, what do we believe? There's a reason authorial intent only goes so far, in critical analysis, and it's because what you mean to convey isn't always what you actually convey.
Frankly, meaning slip happens to the best writers.* It's nothing to be ashamed of. God knows it happens to me, in some ways I pick up on immediately and in others I only notice years down the line. It's the hazard of using an imperfect medium, especially when there's pressure to produce writing on a regular, rapid basis. But what bothers me, and what's actually a problem, is when it's not one or two points where what you meant =/= what's on the page, but when what you mean doesn't come across at all.
*minor meaning slip; if you are being actively offensive that is a whole other issue, you have to be TRYING to get it right in the first place and to do your homework.
Even this, though, is something that happens, and you can learn from it and move on. People screw up, and it's fine to screw up.
What kills me about informed attributes is when you end up with these dramatic contrasts between what I'm told and what I actually see, and when this is even gently pointed out to the writers in question, something happens that I hereby name 'BUT IF I'M LOUD ENOUGH I CAN'T HEAR YOU Syndrome'. It's where instead of changing this, instead of even so much as taking a step back and honestly evaluating their writing? They just. Keep. Repeating. Themselves. It's not their writing that's the issue, oh no; it's you, it's the literary canon, it's cultural dictates, it's unreasonable expectations, it's everything--except their writing.
And this is not an honest mistake; this is idiotic.
People can't have their cake and eat it too, and so there's a point where you have to decide if you want to be taken seriously as a writer (which doesn't preclude having fun, by the way, or being silly, because I'd like to think I can LOL it up pretty decently) or if you're writing purely as wish-fulfillment, and you need to be clear about what you're doing. For the record, I'm using 'wish-fulfillment' here in the sense that, while you may not wish you had your character's life (although in the case of BRILLIANT UBER AWESOME BEST AT EVERYTHING LAD you...probably do, at least sometimes, or in some ways), you do think that wishing for them to be seen and received in certain ways will somehow make that manifest. Magical thinking can feel good, but this is reality, and it doesn't work. Part of being a serious writer is acknowledging criticism. Even when you think it's spurious; even when you know it's spurious, when you know it's based out of grudges, because it takes two people to create a problem. Even if the person telling you that your character comes across as a monster when you think they're a saint is legitimately out of their mind and all you did to get their attention was talk to them, it's important to at least consider what they're saying, because only then can you honestly, with any integrity, discard their claim. As a writer, you're going to be read by people who you'll disagree with, people who may dislike, people who may fundamentally not get it, and if you don't care about those people? Fine. But don't cry about how they just don't understand if you refuse to acknowledge they may occasionally have a point, if you can't logically and clearly illustrate how they're wrong.
There's nothing wrong, fundamentally, with wish-fulfillment, but this is more than some writerly pet peeve on the same level as grammar quirks. This can be insidious. People who claim to be something they're not in real life are what we like to call 'liars', and sometimes this is just sad, but sometimes this is awful.
To reach for low-hanging but instantly identifiable and inarguable fruit of this, consider Twilight: Meyers tells her readers to the point of nausea how loving, how protective, how perfect Edward is, and it's pretty commonly accepted that this is her actual opinion of him. She really does believe he's the perfect boyfriend. However, it's also pretty commonly accepted that Edward's actions, how he really behaves, are the signs of an abusive, controlling, violent man. But he says he loves Bella. He loves her so much. He'd never hurt her, except for when he does; when he belittles her, when he pulls her around, when he invades her privacy, when he cuts her off from her family and friends. In fiction, there's distance, and a lot of people do take a writer's word as law. They believe Edward is sweet, because Meyers says he is, and after all, isn't he her character? Doesn't she control who he is? Why would she lie?
When a writer shows me a character behaving hideously, but expects me to believe they're behaving like (at least) a minimally moral person, I don't think they're Machiavellian masterminds out to fuck with me. I think they really do think this kind of behavior is good, and that makes me think in turn that they are pretty hideous people themselves. I come to believe they themselves lie about their own behavior. Maybe this is an unfair assumption! Maybe I'm a mean, mean person who doesn't understand it's just for fun.
Okay, then, fair enough, so I don't have to take your writing seriously and God knows I won't interact with it, because it strikes me as bizarre when it's not actively offensive--
Wait, what's that? But it's serious writing, you say? Meant to address real life issues and emotions and difficulties? You strive for some degree of realism?
Then you have to listen to some criticism, and you have to listen carefully. You have to accept that not everyone will love your writing, and that no one is obligated to love it, either. No one, even people who are your close friends, your writing partners, your touchstones. You have to show your work when you write your characters, and then, if you still don't receive the response you want, you either have to accept that you won't get that response or you have to go back and listen to some more criticism. And it's hard. This is hard work, and it's not always fun work, or even rewarding work, and you will get discouraged and your ego will be bruised and you will sometimes secretly - or not secretly! - hate it, but that's too fucking bad.
Meyers' wish-fulfillment should have stayed on her hard drive and never been published, and your wish-fulfillment should be friends-locked and heavily disclaimed as just that, so people won't read it and take away the idea that if you say something is true, it becomes so. And don't tell me that 'it's RP, it doesn't matter', because if that's what you really think then friends-locking all your entries to only the parties concerned wouldn't be a problem. Livejournal is a form of publishing, and leaving your entries open implies that you are also open to an audience. If you can't commit to a PSL you are inviting me to consider you a serious writer, a writer who wants their work to be even mildly meaningful - whether it means 'these two people are as cute as kittens' or explores the aftermath of abuse, seriousness of subject matter is not the qualification of seriousness as a writer - then you ask to be judged as a writer. You are communicating. Words always mean something, that's...what language is.
I'm tired of informed attributes used this way because they tend to come with the idea that actual writing doesn't matter. That the author's intent and desires supercede the words they put out there and expect to be read to the point where it literally doesn't matter what they write, as long as they tell you what they felt about writing it. Do not lie to your audience. If your fiction can't be internally honest and consistent, then do not cry to me or anyone else because I don't believe it, or you. It's the writer's responsibility to put together words, characters, and plot in such a way that what the audience ends up with reasonably approximates what they intended, and if you aren't doing that, you need to keep working.
Show, don't tell. It's cliche for a reason.