is filled.
I had some trouble with the character and flow of fate of the protagonist.
Now, after having decided it's my writing after all, I'm much better off.
I don't think just because someone MIGHT be called a ****, s/he should exactly behave like every other **** in the history of writing. If this deviation makes my protagonist a less-likely ****, than so shall it be.
The story should be right, no matter how the protagonist meets the requirements of being a ****.
I mean, if you were reading a story about a dog that never barks, would that upset you?
Considering that the story is otherwise acceptable/good.
How much does a **** have to behave like the one we find in stories about ****s?
This is for you, readers! What's your opinion?---
On a side note, I think I 'have' my chapters. I mean the title and a general answer to the question of 'what's in a particular chapter?' .
How cool is that.
I only have to fill in those empty pages...
Well, as I have learned somewhere, there should not be blank pages.
Blank pages block.
I keep writing into one single Word document file.
It adds up to 12 pages now, but it contains a lot of writer's monologue and other misc. items, which will NOT be included in the story.
I don't think it will come to 100 pages, though.
I would be very very much content with...like 40...?
We'll see.
I hope the protagonist will make me see.
I'll give her a chance and so I'll be given a chance too, in return.
11 comments:
nagyon nehéz úgy megcsinálni egy karaktert, hogy ne hasonlítson senkire, szóval a helyedben nem nagyon erőltetném, az abszolút új megalkotását. Mondjuk az egyik szereplődet Gaius Julius Caesarnak hívják, de te viszont másképp csinálod a karakterét, mint a történelmi Caesarét pl: nem bátor katona, szexmániás, satöbbi, de viszont akkor meg azt mondhatják, hogy a te Julius Caesarod Caligulára vagy nem tudom kire hasonlít.
Na igen. Ilyenkor a szerző még mindig mondhatja azt, hogy 'igaz hogy nem Julius Cézárról írtam',de igenin, ő volt a legfőbb inspiráció'.
Ha ez segít a művön.
Történelmi alakoknál szerintem ez elég kényes helyzet.
Lehet Cézárról mintázni, de ha nagyon eltér a Róla alkotott képünkről, akkor talán nem úgy kellene hívni.
Ki tudja...
nem vagyok történelmi író...
nem is nagyon olvasok olyan jellegű műveket :(
I think there are nearly infinite ways in which folks can act as ****s. Humans have a talent for it. So I wouldn't worry about having to hit certain tropes in order to have the reader get it.
You mean that if I think my character is a ****, I don't really have to care about the way s/he behaves, Charles?
If I believe her/him being a **** that's enough?
I meant, I think you have a lot of routes you could take to show it. You do have to give it thought and be consistent, but you don't have to be stereotypical. Maybe I'm not making any sense. Sometimes that happens to me.
engem érdekel a történelem ezért mondtam töris példát, plusz nem jutott eszembe jobb példa.
Charles, I think I got it now. I think I do :)
I think I'll just have my character somewhere along the lines of a ****, but just because the prot. is a **** is shall not mean that s/he is to behave like one in EVERY situtation.
One might always say:
this character is based on the ****s, and that is enough.
Ropi,
de, de jó volt a példa!!
Sze´sofa (I tried to find the right symbols, but if I do that I won't have time to comment)
I've been here once before, via Ropi's blog. Thanks for inviting me back. A couple of thoughts
1. You have lots of comments! I don't have too many comments at all. If you cut out the 2 or 3 regulars I would have almost none. But the number of comments doesn't mean no one is visiting.
2. If I understand this post right, I agree with Charles. I tend to think it is better to say that "someone acts like a s***" (I would spell it out on my blog, but I'll respect your protocol) than to say "someone is a s***.") Because I think everyone does things that are decent and things that aren't. We aren't one or the other, but complex combinations. I think this important so that when people meet someone who is 'nice' they don't preclude that 'nice' person might do something bad (like politicians or salespeople.) Also that we don't condemn someone as 'bad' completely for one bad act.
And as a writer you can simply describe what the person does rather than label it. Let the reader deal with what it means. Unless your theme is the question of why someone acts like a s***.
The 19th Century English novelists often talked directly to the readers about their characters and their motives. I kind of like that style because the writer engages the audience directly. Anthony Trollope did that in books like Barcherster Towers. Also Laurence Sterne in Tristram Shandy - though I think that may be older.
And I noticed there is already a Steve commenting on your blog, so I'll sign this in the post
Steve2
Hello Steve2,
I'm thankful for you to identify you with the number2 :)
There are two Steves here, appearently. The more the better I merrier :)
Re: number of visitors/comments:
Yes, I think you're right. I can't complain. People leave supprotvie comments and that's just great. I'm trying to follow them back to their blogs and leave my comments, too.
Re: **** in a story.
Well, here's a misunderstanding.
I was unclear.
Try RE-READING the entry, but for each **** think 'brownie'/'elf'/'zombie' or things like that.
Try to make his a**holery individual.
Make him an individual "jerk."
Thanks Bernita, that's what I will do.
Let him/her be what s/he is.
I don't care about categories.
It's the writing itself that should count, not the categories.
Post a Comment