The Characters in Our Lives

Characters, according to lectures I’ve observed on creative writing, are evocative yet simple. Real human beings however demonstrate a complexity that is impossible to record in the written word. Writing can approximate this level of detail through techniques like “stream-of-consciousness,” but what is presented is, ultimately, supplemented by our own imaginations. That’s why two people can read something and have disparate takeaways.

                So, occasionally, I daydream and try to come up with stock characters. Typically, a good stock character is modular. I can take a shell (scoundrel, hero, novice, adept, anti-hero, tyrant, outcast, etc) and fill it out with contextual details that fit with whatever I am writing. For instance, I can use the scoundrel character and add to the framework characteristics like “auto mechanic,” “drunkard,” “self-conscious,” “experienced,” and “socially flawed,” letting the reader fill in the gaps and create a mental picture in their mind of a complete individual beyond anything that I could have designed. Life experiences will affect this visualization, creating this tangible person that wasn’t there before. So even though the character I created has no history or extant context at the beginning of the story, their totality is fleshed out before they even speak their first word of dialogue.

                This can be applied to life in general. People everywhere are strangers to us. Just imagine when, driving on the freeway, there are at least a thousand people driving along at the same time, yet we know nothing about them. The truth is that each driver has a lifetime of experiences and stories, but we, and they, are pushed back by the fear of unfamiliarity. Technology, didn’t promote dissociative tendencies in people. The truth is that we must attenuate our communities deliberately, otherwise the world would be too much for us to handle. So, we identify shells, then apply details to create a narrative that suits our perspectives; also known as stereotyping, identifying the Other, and, by proximity, casual racism.

                I enjoy reading partly because I like to take pause and wonder how derivative the character is based on the experiences of the writer. There are details to be extracted and beliefs to be mined from the stories we read, and how obvious/obscured they are demonstrates the talent of the writer. My personal pet peeve is writing that is utilitarian, specifically in shows like Family Guy where each episode is a thinly veiled treatment of the writer’s personal opinions. I think this violates the autonomy of the characters in the story. Good fiction ought to organically prompt discourse and debate, but what you see in Family Guy and similar programs, like Futurama and the Simpsons, are one sided debates with no countering equivalent. On the other hand, South Park once had an episode about Mormonism where Stan is dumbfounded why his father is taken by a religion conceivably founded on fabricated beliefs. Ultimately the clash occurs at the end of the episode when Stan is confronted by Gary, his Mormon counterpart, where the alternative perspective is offered: that despite believing in something incredulous, Gary lives a happy life with a loving family and is surrounded by a community of people that support each other. Tit for tat, an argument is made, a counter is offered, and it’s not cynical. The interaction preserves the autonomy of the character and the topical discourse is received by the viewer as genuine.

                Something to consider, then?

***

Per usual, work on my third book continues. Life continues. I'm studying for an exam on IT Network+, an introductory course on IT management techniques. #DayJobThings... My daughter has been walking for a little while now and loves to listen to progressive metal.

Sorry, I realized that I hadn't given anyone an update in a while. I hope your lives continue swimmingly!

Best,

Stuart