I haven't had this particular situation happen to me, but I do know that at times, my characters do not want to be in the scenes I write for them. They fight and struggle and generally refuse to cooperate. That tells me that the scene is wrong or that it's not time plot-wise for the scene to be written. I could imagine that it could happen with a character in a certain world. If you are writing a character who happens to take on his own identity, he might grow in different directions than your universe would allow him to be
( ... )
I am much more inspired and attached to character than I am to plot or story. And I have had a few characters that have jumped to another story or whose story has changed radically enough for me to think of is a whole new universe.
Usually a character comes to me with some kind of purpose or journey in mind. Unfortunately for me, a character's story is not the same as plot. And I struggle with storyline in that sense.
So while I have a character and arc for them that are tied, plot or story is separate in many ways.
It was big moment for me too when I realized that was my problem writing. I had characters who had arcs, journeys but nothing to do. It's how I came to be writing a murder mystery because that was a ready made plot. I felt almost uncomfortable about using a formula, but having something external to react to has ended up giving me better characters because I'm not just thinking about their story but the story.
I've heard people say that Javert is too well-rounded a character for Les Misérables and deserved something less morally hamhanded. Note, no need to agree with this assessment of the novel! I just mean there's precedent for this thinking. I also think radical restaging of Shakespeare can be a way of keeping the characters and seeing how they play together in a different story -- or vice versa. I bet it would be very fun indeed to isolate your character a moment and think what story would bring him out in the most interesting way.
I've heard people say that Javert is too well-rounded a character for Les Misérables and deserved something less morally hamhanded.
Actually, I think the whole novel would fall apart of Javert weren't the most well-rounded character.
Re-setting Shakespeare is a great example because there are plays that arguably better removed from their Elizabethan/Jacobean confines. Or in the very least make more sense to a modern audience without the traditional trappings.
Julius Caesar is one that works great in a modern setting; I don't think people really get the threat of Caesar becoming king in an ancient or Elizabethan setting because hey, he's Julius Caesar, plus the Empire phase of Rome was kind of fun from a distance. When Caesar is a dictator in camo with a machine gun, though, absolutely everything changes (thinking of the Royal Shakespeare Company's recent adaptation -- viewable on youtube, so so good, Cassius becomes a much more readily sympathetic character). I'd love to hear what play/s you have in mind.
Regarding Les Misérables, well, right, the people I'm thinking of wouldn't have minded if the novel fell apart without him, because they thought little of it (excepting him). Hard to imagine Javert without his setting, though.
A couple summers ago I saw a production of Titus Andronicus set in 1970's motorcycles gangs that was very effective for being removed from Elizabethan trappings.
This actually happens to me with a decent amount of frequency - it doesn't happen a lot, but it doesn't happen rarely, either. For me, it's usually with what's intended to be a minor character, a sidekick or someone with only a few scenes. I'll be working to make this person interesting for the brief time they're on the page, and then suddenly they have lines and a backstory. And suddenly I have a character who's meant to be a shepherd for one story and a protagonist/antagonist in another, and it ends up that s/he gets cut from the original.
it's usually with what's intended to be a minor character, a sidekick
This is true for me too. Also frequently a character who is very well-developed but at the same time not quite right to the center of a story. Although with one in particular, I think making her a more main character is what's missing from her story.
This happens to me a lot. But I don't look at it as a bad thing because to me unknown territory is fertile ground. How will this character react to a new situation? What will we learn about them? How can I integrate this reaction or situation into the story? If it surprises you (in a good way) why wouldn't the reader feel that way as well?
Comments 16
Reply
woot! I can't wait to see what develops!
Reply
Usually a character comes to me with some kind of purpose or journey in mind. Unfortunately for me, a character's story is not the same as plot. And I struggle with storyline in that sense.
So while I have a character and arc for them that are tied, plot or story is separate in many ways.
Reply
Whoah, this was a lightbulb moment of agreement for me.
Reply
Reply
#revelations #letsnotwasteitnow
Reply
Reply
Actually, I think the whole novel would fall apart of Javert weren't the most well-rounded character.
Re-setting Shakespeare is a great example because there are plays that arguably better removed from their Elizabethan/Jacobean confines. Or in the very least make more sense to a modern audience without the traditional trappings.
Reply
Regarding Les Misérables, well, right, the people I'm thinking of wouldn't have minded if the novel fell apart without him, because they thought little of it (excepting him). Hard to imagine Javert without his setting, though.
Reply
Reply
Reply
This is true for me too. Also frequently a character who is very well-developed but at the same time not quite right to the center of a story. Although with one in particular, I think making her a more main character is what's missing from her story.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment