I've used one or more of these things as major character motivations in several stories. In fact I have a character I've used a couple of times, a mage whose magic is tied to Light who has as a major life goal the desire to, like Light, travel into all corners of existence.
However, right now it seems that these things are not really seen as sufficient motivation for the protaganist of a short story. Especially when presented as on-going or open ended, but some times even when specific.
So, I guess I am motivated by curiosity to ask...who here has used these sorts of things as prime motivations for characters? Who feels they are sufficient, compelling motivations? And who feels that a character simply must have some larger reason than wanderlust or curiosity about some place or object to move them through a story?
In and of themselves, I don't see curiosity or wanderlust being more than initial dramatic motivations or causations as far as story is concerned. I believe there's underlying human needs involved. Mating strategy, for example. Upward social mobility being another that might have at its root mating strategy. Greed that might have at its root mating strategy. Losing oneself in the wilderness in order to find oneself, to test one's limits. Wanderlust as wanderjar for decompression and exploration of adult liberties and responsibilities that readily go awry.
Christopher Columbus was probably a fame and fortune seeker. That might have been his motivation to seek a western passage. If so, he certainly succeeded, though he failed in his express mission, yet enriched himself and his benefactors greatly.
I believe the frontiersmen of bygone eras sought both fame and fortune and cathartic isolation. Grey Owl was an explorer-adventurer who comes to mind that fits both.
Alchemists in the early ages of scientific inquiry sought fame and fortune through isolation and satisfying curiosity in the laboratory. Modern scientists too.
I've come to believe that theme and message establish encompassing unity for story's sake. Themes of curiosity are often idea oriented, wanderlust event oriented.
The adage about curiosity killed the cat strikes me as a theme foundation. Pandora's curiosity. Technology gone awry, society gone awry because of technology. On the other hand, curiosity expressed as human ingenuity being an ultimate savior in times of need. Messages galore.
Wanderlust as an expression of an "idle mind is the devil's workshop," theme. Wanderlust as a coming of age theme. Messages galore.
I encountered a generalized simplistic dramatic premise for story years ago. A native leaves home or a stranger comes to town. The stanger was a native somewhere. Either way, dramatic things happen. Wanderlust and curiosity are inherent in both.
quote:
I would have a hard time with a character who was motivated purely by curiosity or wanderlust. It seems a weak reason
Why, exactly? I'm just not sure I understand, given all the major things in real life that have been done essentially for these reasons. I mean, there wasn't much reason for anyone to climb Mount Everest, or go to the moon for that matter, beyond those things (and, I suppose, to claim the title of being the first one to do so.)
Mind also that I'm not necessarily talking about nothing else happening to the character. For example, I have a story involving the above mentioned Light mage character where he and a friend search for and find a thought-to-be lost or even mythical city and explore it...but encounter some other issues along the way. However, the reason for their going is curiosity, the desire for exploration, and the one characters goal of traveling into all of Creation (just as light does.) But a couple of people told me there "needs" to be some other reason for them being there. And quite frankly, I don't understand why (especially given that most of the story is about what happens and what they find there.)
I don't think that the fact that a character acts primarily out of curiosity is disabling in itself. But possibly something more than just going to see what's over the next hill has to happen. If it happens because of his curiosity, then I think you've got a story.
quote:
I don't think that the fact that a character acts primarily out of curiosity is disabling in itself. But possibly something more than just going to see what's over the next hill has to happen. If it happens because of his curiosity, then I think you've got a story.
See this makes sense to me. I can understand that many people aren't going to care for a story consisting entirely or even mostly of a character wandering around and seeing things (although personally if the things/people encountered were interesting enough it wouldn't bother me, but I realize the fact I don't require "conflict" to enjoy a story is in the minority.) However, I've also been running across more and more instances where I'm told, even in cases where plenty of other stuff happens, as you say, because of the curiosity, that the curiosity isn't enough of a motivation. For instance again with the city story I mentioned, a few have basically said they feel the need for some other reason for the characters to go to the city (searching for a specific magic item or spell, or something of that nature.)
I feel this is just an issue of personal taste, but the implication is often that "mere" curiosity just isn't a good enough motivator for character actions.
Some times it sounds as if some feel that in order for a character to act there MUST be a highly specific goal or reason, such as avoiding danger or seeking out a specific item, person, or piece of information. To me, it seems plenty of people in real life and in stories are motivated by a desire to see/know/explore a thing or place just for its own sake...
I agree that conflict resolution isn't the sole type of story. However, every story type I'm familiar with from Damon Knight's to Aristotle's, to Freidman's, whomever wherever has categorized story types, several principles are inherent to every fully realized story in my reading experience. Discovery and reversal or more specifically as they apply to story, anagnorisis and peripeteia.
Anagnorisis: the point in a plot at which a protagonist recognizes his or her or some other character's true identity or discovers the true nature of his or her own situation.
Peripeteia: an abrupt, unexpected reversal of circumstances or situation [typically resulting from knowledge gained from anagnorisis.] [definitions paraphrased from Webster's]
In a comedy drama, I believe high magnitude discovery and consequent reversal are essential attributes of a plot climax and resolution regardless of story type.
Two companionable characters go to explore a city. Something happens, something happens, something happens, some danger, they make a few low magnitude discoveries that don't put them in much serious jeopardy, not much in the way of insuperable personal struggles or consequent discoveries, not much in the way of appreciable obstacles to overcome, to not much meaningful personal discovery or reversal in the end.
"An action, in itself, is not dramatic. Passionate feeling, in itself, is not dramatic. Not the presentation of a passion for itself, but of a passion which leads to action is the business of dramatic art; not the presentation of an event for itself, but for its effect on a human soul is the dramatist's mission." Freytag's Technique of the Drama.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited August 11, 2009).]
I can think of a few reasons offhand that might make it harder to engage readers in a story with wanderlust and curiosity as the characters’ prime motivators:
1) Most people don’t act on feelings of wanderlust and aren’t motivated purely by undirected curiosity. It’s easier for readers to identify with characters with motivations they share and understand.
2) Curiosity and wanderlust can wane and at any point the characters can decide that they’ve seen and done enough; there is nothing that holds the characters in the story. Having something significant at risk beyond the problems of the moment increases reader involvement and identification with the characters.
3) If the characters are motivated purely by wanderlust and curiosity it’s hard to end a story in a satisfying way for the reader. There is nothing to resolve beyond the problems of the moment.
4) Some readers might not even buy that wanderlust and curiosity are primary motivations at all. “Why do they wander?” and “why are they curious about this?” are distracting questions for this reader. “Because it’s there” may be answer enough for some. Others may see this as a glib sound bite that leaves the most important questions about the characters' true motivations unanswered.
[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited August 11, 2009).]
It's been years since I read it, but I'm pretty sure Shane is depicted as a gunfighter troubled by his own past. As a gunfighter he would be expected to travel for work. If I remember right, putting some distance between himself and his past life is inferred in the story as well. I didn't get the impression he was wandering just for the joy of it.
If you make the reader curious, then curiosity as a motivation will work.
As a motivation factor however, I think curiosity applies only to a specific example, i.e. I wonder what happens if I ring this bell, I wonder what is inside this velvet bag, I wonder what...It can trigger a succesful story, by triggering actions and consequences which the curious hero will have to survive, or not. It can work for a moment, but I think your example of reaching the moon is different than just casual curiousity. I think there was a different underlying motivation for space travel: domination, a need to belong to something, spiritual hunger, a sense of accomplishment. Every person would have a different underlying need, oh, and yeah it satisfies their curiosity.
Curiosity is often just the face value for a stronger underlying motivation. Maybe it's not working, because you need to search for a deeper more meaningful motivation. Could your character being searching for something, or someone, and maybe not even know it? Then their needing to see every town, look under every rock, could show that they are missing something. Maybe as a child a brother or a parent disappeared or betrayed them, or... so many possibilities could work. Or you could flip it, maybe someone is looking for them, and he needs to know where they are so he can protect himself from them.
Or maybe it's not working for the reader, because it feels like the only reason for going to the city is so there can be a story. Maybe you need to have the character going somewhere else, actively moving in one direction, when poof! curiosity makes the character change directions. You will need to show a moment of wavering, making the desision, show the risks of not continuing on the path, generally give the decision its weight and show how curious the character is. But that, I think would work. Maybe you just need to spend more time making the decision at the beginning.
Either way, just find the truth. If it doesn't feel true to you, then it is not gonna feel true to us.
~Sheena
[This message has been edited by shimiqua (edited August 11, 2009).]
If you have a character with a bad temper, and she goes around making things uncomfortable for people, it is the clashes that create the plot, not the temper.
Vague curiosity or wanderlust or searching for something having no clue where it is or what to do when you get there (as in the TV show Kung Fu), doesn't make the story interesting. In fact a wandering person can be someone disconnected. It is that time when they find something that knocks them off their routine or interrupts their aimless quest that provides the interest.
Having a character wandering is a good device to get them to different places where different plots can develop... but catalysts aren't fun... reactions caused by the catalyts are.
I think it's perfectly possible to have a rootless character who can have curiosity as a motivation.
Perhaps he has no family left. Perhaps he had a serious argument with them and hasn't been back. Perhaps he has a past that might catch up with him. Maybe he just has to travel because of the nature of what he does. I'm not sure that this reason for being rootless has to appear in the story, especially a short story, although you, as the writer may need to know it to inform the character. This character may be looking for something without realizing it--until he finds it, or almost finds it and loses it again.
Another character that can be moved by curiosity is the youth or very young man (or woman). It's a natural time for curiosity and testing one's wings.
It's a lot easier for either of these characters to be moved by curiosity. "I wonder what's over the next hill." "I've heard stories about El Dorado. I think I'll try to find it." It's harder to believe of the family man with three kids.
The stories of this character's travels and what he discovers could be diverting. And sometimes what I want is just a diverting story. Not everything has to be about the meaning of life. That's why I pick up Terry Pratchett from time to time.
For a more satisfying story, it may be necessary for there to be some consequence. Something he's leaving behind or not exploring. Something he learns that changes his perception of himself or his world. Some trouble that his curiosity gets him into and getting himself out again teaches him something he didn't expect. Some new ability that could help people, but he'd have to go back home and face up to whatever.
If the story is about curiosity, then the end is about what's been learned. But that, in itself, could change the character, even slightly.
Isn't there a tradition in both Western and Eastern stories of the wandering do-gooder? The knight errant and the wu shia -- the wandering swordsman
Yes, I think there is such a tradition--and in fantasy, too. But I, personally, think that the character is enriched by some reason why they undertake such a life, even if the reader/viewer doesn't know it. A one-time character doing something out of the ordinary might not need that backstory. A slimmer reason would probably suffice. A continuing character, always moving on to see what's over there, probably does need some background. JMO
I don't remember Sugar Foot well enough to say whether he had some back story or not. But there were a lot of western of that era which featured an MC or cast that moved from place to place. Steve McQueen played a bounty hunter, I remember. There were a couple of them about gunfighters--Paladin, Yancy Derringer, Bat Masterson. There was Wagon Train and Rawhide (young Clint Eastwood).
I love to travel and I like to travel to places that are as different from home as possible. I usually travel alone with a guidebook in one hand and a decent plan of where I want to go though it is very flexible. I have been to Eritrea, Egypt, and Ghana solo. My boyfriend and I went to China for six weeks in 2007 and had a blast.
The things you plan, the rope bridge, the camel rides, the stilt villages, the safari hikes, the caves, the Walls and all are only part of the fun. Sometimes the big sights are a let down and it is some crazy little things like the wordless conversations with locals, the wild forms of transport and even the giant spider at the hotel that provide the best memories.
A lot of time with travel it is the in-between things that are really special. When I go I have a whole list of people to e-mail that love to get my updates while I'm gone. But this is a travelogue and not a story.
I will tell you what I have discovered to be the most significant reason that I travel and why I do it the way I do. It is because it is a challenge and when I come back I have learned new things about dealing with the world and I will have learned something about myself. And hopefully, I will be better prepared the next time a challenge comes my way because I will have a broader base of experiences to draw upon.
A character should face some challenges and experience growth to make the travel worthwhile. It's what will turn a travelogue into a story and make it memorable.
Hope these ramblings help.
All of them DID have a background purpose. Chiu Liao Xiang – he was a little less like that. People sort of came to him or he stumbled over wrongs that needed righting. Of course I haven’t read all those novels.
Along the way, they might solve problems, theirs or someone else's. I'm thinking of "Yojimbo," (and its American version, "A Fistful of Dollars,") where the Mysterious Samuari (or Gunslinger) comes into a town where two families are feuding, hires out to one side and then the other, and both sides "get it" from him in the end. I can't recall either version going into the why of the M- S- (or G- )'s wandering---they may have, but it wasn't important in the course of the story.
(I changed and rechanged the spelling of "samuari," but am still not sure what's right. Anybody who wants to enlighten me, please feel free to do so.)
It struck me as weird you would use "going to the moon" as an example of "wonderlust" or "pure curiousity". I've read and seen a lot of documentaries about the first moon mission and the motivations that lurk under the surface are some of the deepest I've come across.
quote:
Curiosity is often just the face value for a stronger underlying motivation.
This is the heart of the question for me. I might want to get married and that's my goal but I don't want to get married just because. My motivation might be to feel loved, to have control over someone. Why? Because I wasn't loved as a child or because my childhood was too chaotic and scarred me.
This are lame examples so don't take them as the real deal, so to speak.
In real life, like you said, I might act out of curiosity in particular situations (strange noise, amazing city, strange artifact) but I cannot imagine myself acting out of just curiosity all the time. Not all my actions can be attributed to naked curiosity, superficial and unexplained.
To me, there has to be an explanation.
A long time ago I wrote stories because I thought I was curious about how people thought, about the intricacies of the human mind and relationships. An intellectual thing.
If only.
Later I realized, I was also desperately trying to find a way to explain myself, why I felt so miserable, why people did the things they did. I needed to find some comfort in understanding human actions. I saw fiction as a way to see humanity condensed: take a horrible situation and see how a person would react and why.
But why?
Ultimately, I wanted to find peace. I wanted to feel okay about myself and not feel like a failure because I wasn't normal by society standards. I wanted to find my place in the world.
I guess I said all this to show that to me, simple curiosity is never simple.
Oh and I read somewhere, that for you to discover something about yourself, you need to chase the wrong rabbit, catch it and then feel how that rabbit is not the one you wanted.
You chase money because it equals happiness, so you marry a rich woman without knowing much about her, because money=happiness. Turns out she's a horrible person, clings to you, drives you crazy, is a bit homicidal, and so on and so forth, tries to feed you to a wood chipper.
So you find yourself wanting your old house, your old porch and a cold beer and money just doesn't seem so important anymore. There you usually have reached the end of the story, or movie and you learn to appreciate more what you have, but not before getting (vicariously) excited about the money, frightened by the wife and relieved by having escaped the wood chipper. I realize this works more for novels, though.
Anyway, my 2 pesos.
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited August 11, 2009).]
quote:
Some times it sounds as if some feel that in order for a character to act there MUST be a highly specific goal or reason, such as avoiding danger or seeking out a specific item, person, or piece of information. To me, it seems plenty of people in real life and in stories are motivated by a desire to see/know/explore a thing or place just for its own sake...
One of the basic definitions of a short story (this goes along with the unity idea--one character, one place, one problem, one time period, etc) is that a short story should be about the most life-changing thing that ever happened to the character, so mere curiosity or wanderlust would probably not be enough to generate such a story unless it led to something really powerful happening to the character. (By that definition, you can't really write a sequel to such a short story either.)
Stories about wanderers that have been suggested above fit into a slightly different approach to story-telling, one that might be called "episodic." (A lot of television used to be this way--before they got into "story arcs.")
"Episodic" stories are not really about the wanderer. Instead, they are about the people the wanderer encounters, and the situations that are explored and/or the problems that are resolved belong to those people and not to the wanderer. Part of the idea behind "episodic" stories is that the wanderer is not really changed by what happens. (Sherlock Holmes stories could fit into this category, even though he doesn't "wander" per se.)
Perhaps it all depends on whether you think stories should be about character growth/change or not.
That was him trying to find his brother, and escaping the emperor's minions.
Curiosity can be a reason for things to happen.
Your character is trying to find the answer, and, of course, the answer brings up other questions. and continues until the final answer.
What I am thinking though, is that the character will react differently than others. The curiosity will cause him to go into danger when others would run or make a stand. His curiosity will cause him to explore things that others would ignore.
Wonder lust would only be a minor point in the story. He might find an idyllic valley with perfect love. He instead, decides to not stay, to keep going. That would cause him to run into danger coming to the valley and save them, or he might be driven back from events elsewhere.
Generally though, Curiosity stories are Mysteries. Trying to find the answer.
It is no good just saying, "they are curious... because they are curious."
When we find yourselves saying something like that, we have encountered the frayed end of our understanding or ability to express something. As a writer, I believe we should reject that sort of tautological dead end.
It does not have to all be explicit in the text, it can be subtle. The character does not even have to recognise the deeper motivation, but the reader should sense it. If the writer does not understand it or denies it then he can't colour his writing with it. Reader's don't want to feel short-changed by being left to make up their own story rather than be told one.
Perhaps, by recognising when we engage in a kind of "because-I-said-so-ism", we can uncover important opportunities to engage with the target reader's pre-existing and powerful motivations.
Why are they reading your story anyway?
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 11, 2009).]
If he has wanderlust, then suggest why that is. I know someone who wandered the US for about twenty years. He enjoyed traveling, but there were many other reasons why he did this. He had grown up moving from place to place (his father was a traveling salesman); he went to Vietnam when he was 17 and suffered PTSD; he got in trouble with the law; he later got in trouble with some angry criminals; and he was afraid of certain responsibilities he had back in his home town. Maybe you need to figure out why your character has this wanderlust and present it in subtle ways.
What do your character's choices imply?
As per Arrikis post above:
Why does he buy new clothes when he could steal them?
Why does he bother to brush his teeth?
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 12, 2009).]
quote:
When his clothes get dirty, he just buys a new set.
Ah, but where does he get the money for it?
I'm reminded of a play (whose name and writer I forget---I never read the thing, just a comment on this very point). A British aristocrat goes broke, and is forced to become a gentleman robber. His getting a job and going to work was never suggested.
If the character chooses to give in to their wanderlust or curiosity, then we have a set up that could potentially lead to a situation where the character does have something at stake. However, then the wanderlust seems like just a device to get the character in the right place to start the story.
Not to say a character can't have wanderlust or curiosity. I think philocinemas has it right--what's at issue here is the depth of your character. A character who wanders because he's trying to escape his past, or because he feels like he doesn't belong anywhere is one with a deep motivation, and suddenly he has something at stake--if he doesn't travel, his ghosts might catch up to him.
Curiosity is a slightly different beast. A character can be curious because they can't help themselves (Pandora, the cat, etc). But then what needs to be at stake, in my opinion, is that they know better and do it anyway, or that they find out they need to learn to temper their curiosity with reason or common sense.
However, I'm not sure I'm expressing myself completely or accurately here so lets see if I can do better.
I'm not, necessarily, talking about undirected curiosity.
I'm not, necessarily, talking about rootless wanderer characters.
I'm not, necessarily, talking about curiosity or wanderlust as the sole and only motivations or circumstances presented in an entire story.
(However, I don't really see any problems with these things either, personally, but thats not particularly what I'm focusing on here.)
Let me give a couple more specific detailed examples. I'm using my own stories for right this second, but my point here also isn't to try and "defend" my stories or recieve commentary about them, but they are examples I'm obviously familiar with.
My character Lightmaster Aronos is a mage whose powers are connected with Light both physically and conceptually. Because of this connection he has a desire (a motivation) to travel widely, and explore prevesiouly and/or long unexplored places. He is motivated by a combination of wanderlust and curiosity/explorative spirit, due in large part to his desire to, as Master of Light, travel into all corners of existence, as light does.
In the story "The City of Night" he and another friend (also a mage) travel to the long-lost semi mythical City of Night, explore it, and learn why it was lost (and nearly get killed by monsters in the proccess.)
So, when a couple of people told me different versions of "They need another reason to be there apart from idle curiosity" it honestly struck me as odd for two main reasons. One, because to me curiosity and the desire for exploration seem like pretty obvious, common and powerful motivations (and Aronos is even given a sub-motivation for these desires) and two because why they are there isn't really all that important to the story (the story is mainly about the City itself and what took place there, why its lost etc)
This brings me to wanting to respond directly to your comments, Kathleen, as they hit a lot of what I'm talking about.
quote:
One of the basic definitions of a short story (this goes along with the unity idea--one character, one place, one problem, one time period, etc) is that a short story should be about the most life-changing thing that ever happened to the character, so mere curiosity or wanderlust would probably not be enough to generate such a story unless it led to something really powerful happening to the character. (By that definition, you can't really write a sequel to such a short story either.)
To me, this is just one type of story. Totally valid. I read and have written stories of this kind. I do, however, reject the notion that this is the only aproach or somehow the "best" aproach because as you say...
Stories about wanderers that have been suggested above fit into a slightly different approach to story-telling, one that might be called "episodic." (A lot of television used to be this way--before they got into "story arcs.")
quote:
Stories about wanderers that have been suggested above fit into a slightly different approach to story-telling, one that might be called "episodic." (A lot of television used to be this way--before they got into "story arcs.")"Episodic" stories are not really about the wanderer. Instead, they are about the people the wanderer encounters, and the situations that are explored and/or the problems that are resolved belong to those people and not to the wanderer. Part of the idea behind "episodic" stories is that the wanderer is not really changed by what happens. (Sherlock Holmes stories could fit into this category, even though he doesn't "wander" per se.)
A lot, not all, but a lot of my stories are more like this. And I will say I almost always write characters and settings with at least some thought to the idea that I may use them again. Indeed I have a number of characters (and settings) that I have used more than once (Aronos being one of them.)
Also, you bring up television series which is interesting because one example I was going to use of characters motivated overall by curiosity and exploration is Star Trek. The first two series in particular are "episodic" series about explorers. Each episode is about what they encounter along the way, but the overall motivation of the series is curiosity/exploration.
Also, I feel the need to say this. My...thoughts...about these comments I have recieved (and about several stories, CoN is just the most recent example) is also partially not just about the idea that curiosity/exploration are insuffcient character motivations, but the implication (or in some cases statement) of what is. Basically, that the motivations must be highly specific and usually tangible. The characters have to be AFFTER something (a specific object or person) or trying to escape, avoid, or bring about a specific event or set of circumstances.
Finding and exploring a lost city, or a mysterious storm-cauldron isn't enough? I guess I just don't get that.
quote:
Perhaps it all depends on whether you think stories should be about character growth/change or not.
Hmm. Does it really have to be one or the other? A story can have both, I think.
But, trying not to get too off topic, I do have similar issues with the idea that I also feel a lot lately, that all "enjoyable" stories must be about changes in a character and that thats what "readers" want.
Those types of stories certainly can be enjoyable, and are certainly wanted by some readers. But they aren't the only enjoyable stories and most readers I know like more than one kind. (I don't mean that to be smart, just a statement of my opinions and experiences.)
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited August 12, 2009).]
What I read reads like a companionable Great White Hunters on Safari story somewhat in the vein of later era Maugham short stories about expatriate Englishmen abroad. Some big game hunting, a dangerous archaelogical wonder destroyed, some events, not much passion, maybe a little social responsibility.
Only 999 000 to go. 
Television is still episodic today. Television is about building relationships with and between characters. If there had only been one episode of any popular show, it would not have had the impact or following that the series ended up having.
Your story also appears to be part of a series. For someone to care why your mage is traveling into the City of Night, they could possibly need to read all of your stories about this mage. I believe what Kathleen was saying was that a successful (published) short story, at least in todays market, needs to be about a single extraordinary event. I'm using extraordinary in a very broad way - this could mean life-changing, miraculous, world-changing, etc.
For this reason, I do not believe television shows are very good representatives of short stories.
quote:
...because why they are there isn't really all that important to the story (the story is mainly about the City itself and what took place there, why its lost etc)
Not to be too rude about it, but if it's not all that important that your characters be there, then why include them at all. Everything in a short story must be there for a specific reason, not just because you like the character, and/or need someone to stumble into the City.
It's your story so you write it the way you think best, but having a character in the story as nothing more than a prop seems to me inadequate for a short story written in this century.
quote:
Television is about building relationships with and between characters
It includes this yes. But I don't think its correct to say thats what its solely, completely, and always totally about. Stories (and to me, television, movies, visual arts, music etc are, at root, all different forms of telling stories) come in many forms and can be about many things and often are about more than one at once.
quote:
Your story also appears to be part of a series. For someone to care why your mage is traveling into the City of Night, they could possibly need to read all of your stories about this mage
Ok, first let me reiterate again that I'm not just talking about this story (or my stories) here, but rather the overall (and in my personal opinion...once again, in my personal opinion...) strange idea that certain motivations are somehow "weak" or "invalid".
That being said, the story I use an example isnt part of a series in the sense that there are other stories that are narratively connect to it. Rather, I was responding to what Kathleen said about how with "biggest even in the characters life" stories, you can't really write a "sequal" meaning basically any other story involving that character, because then that ceases to be the biggest event in their life...whereas with many (not all) of my stories I write them as being AN event in the characters life, with the idea that I may (and often do) write other stories involving other events that that character (or characters) deal with.
quote:
I believe what Kathleen was saying was that a successful (published) short story, at least in todays market, needs to be about a single extraordinary event.
I don't think that was exactly what she was saying right then (given that she gives an example of another type/stuctrure of story) however many DO seem to think this. And THAT kind of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about with the whole motivation thing as well, and some other issues besides.
That basically some people seem to have decided that only one or two modes of storytelling, motivations, types of stories etc are "enjoyable" or are going to be "successful" or constitute "strong" stories.
I disagree, however, for several reasons. One being that a lot of the fiction I personally enjoy doesn't necessarily fit those characteristics (one or more of them anyway.) Another being that all of those things are basically just a matter of taste and opinion (what may be a very "strong" story to you may be totally uinteresting to me, so who is "right?")
Thats part of my thing with the motivation deal as well. To me, what people are basically saying is "curiosity isn't really enough of a motivation in my opinion." even though they are stating it as objective and in some cases even saying specifically that its an opinion held by most or all "readers" in general and/or a facet of all "strong" stories. Lately I am attempting to work on sorting the totally opinion-based subjective content of peoples thoughts from the semi-objective aspects (the ones that are usually most useful/important when trying to fine tune a story) and so I started this thread to get more ideas on the subject.
quote:
Not to be too rude about it, but if it's not all that important that your characters be there
You'd be right about that, except I said that (to me at least) it doesn't seem terribly important WHY they are there. However, as I said, the story does give a reason why they are there (Aronos has a desire to travel into all corners of creation, just as Light does and also a desire to uncover secrets and lost things.) However a few people don't seem to feel such a motivation to be sufficient. That is, I believe more or less certainly now, just an opinion or a matter of taste.
However some seem to believe that some motivations (and types of stories, and modes of storytelling, and focuses for stories etc) are somehow objectively superior or inferior to others...a stance I reject and honestly have found very strange and surprising. I figured writers etc especially in the speculative ficition community would be very openminded about the many different forms stories take and the different ways they can be told, but I'm finding there are plenty who arent and it just kind of surprises me.
Example: We have two rules. 1) Avoid adverbs like the plague. 2) Avoid saidisms like the plague. Now, you have a piece of dialog that is meant to sound like a perfectly ordinary statement. If somebody read a transcript of the conversation, they wouldn't think anything of it. It's the way it's said that makes it creepy or threatening or seductive or whatever. You need to describe how it's said. Which rule do you break--adverbs or saidisms? Because that one particular piece of dialog (out of the whole story or novel) is going to fall flat unless you break one or the other.
Looking back at a couple of your stories that I have read, I'll make a couple of specific comments about curiosity as a motivation.
I totally bought the end of Prism Ship. The MC had lost his brother and then found out that the quest for vengeance he had dedicated the last several years of his life to was a lie. He was at a loss, with no sense of purpose. He picked up the boy's enthusiasm and went exploring, no particular destination. There was nothing to hold him back.
Isle of Storms was a little harder. The MC is so intrigued by this cauldron of storms that he ignores signals he should have picked up on that not everything may be on the up and up. He gets in a little trouble because of that (could probably have been more trouble, thinking about it now).
It sounds like the current story is similar. For the specific story, I may not care that the MC has this ambition to see all corners of creation. Something specific intrigues him about the City of Night. (Someplace without the light he loves and depends on?) His curiosity gets him into some trouble. He comes away having learned something--about the City, about himself, about light and it's absence, whatever. Put that way, I think it's a story.
For the moment, the issue of whether this is the only story this character will appear in is irrelevant. If this is not the most life-changing event of his entire life, perhaps it's the most life-changing until now.
Besides, I'm not really sure what "most life-changing" means. There are a lot of life events that change us in different ways--first love, marriage, divorce, birth of children, death of loved ones, going to war, near-death experiences. The list goes on. What makes one more life-changing than another?
[This message has been edited by Meredith (edited August 13, 2009).]
Exotic scenery, exotic natives, animals, plants, wonderous sights provide ambience and scene populating material for Maugham's stories that also goes to the core of the meaning of his stories.
Maugham's specialty contrasts showing the outwardly British stiff upper lip manners expected by British society with the internal ennui and angst of coerced or self-imposed exile abroad. Coping with exile's hardships is the meaning of his short stories. He portrays the raw but repressed emotions of existence in alien, alienating, and hostile societies.
Maugham was a bit of a misogynist. His female characters' natures show his hostility toward womankind, but in their character nature is profound meaning for his stories. "Rain" is one that has a female focal character that's unchanged by the story, but portrayed as a contrast to societal expectations of British manners, she's a sublimely potent focal character. "Rain" has a dramatic conflict but the story's more of a revelation type story.
From the Rose & Thorn, "Plot" Creating Short Fiction, 1985, by Damon Knight. http://www.theroseandthornezine.com/Article/33Plot.html
"Most plotted stories are built around some kind of conflict or competition whose outcome is in doubt. The beginning of the story sets forth the terms of the competition; the middle is the contest itself; the ending is the outcome. (Here's the bridge structure again.) If this were all there was to it, most plotted stories would be unbearably predictable. In practice, what usually happens is that the author uses the conflict structure to misdirect the reader--the real meaning of the story turns out to be something altogether different.
"Conflict can be just a way of exposing character--we learn things about people when they are under stress that we would never find out otherwise. Aside from this, conflict is a convenient and simple way of keeping the reader interested until you can lead her to whatever it is that you want to reveal."
. . .
"In other stories, there is no pretense of a dramatic conflict--the revelation is all there is. An example is Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery," about an ancient ritual performed every year in a New England village. Lots are drawn, first by families, then by households, then by individuals, until one person, a woman, has been selected. This process occupies the whole of the story until the last few paragraphs. Only then, when the villagers begin to stone the woman to death, do we find out what the lottery has been about.
"Notice that in this story, although there is no conflict at all in the usual sense, there is rising tension because the choice is continually being narrowed down, and also because we know that we are coming closer to the revelation of the meaning of the lottery. If you can create rising tension, it doesn't matter whether there's conflict or not."
. . .
"Common Plotting Faults and What to Do About Them
"1. Symptom: Story line wanders, never seems to go anywhere.
Diagnosis: Author has started writing the story without any clear idea of its direction.
Treatment: Give your central character a stronger motivation and make things more difficult for her. Rewrite without looking at the old version."
. . .
"3. Symptom: Plot structure looks complete, but the story seems curiously pointless.
Diagnosis: Author has forgotten that we must care about the chief characters and it must matter what happens to them. Stories like this are often written by young people (usually male) who believe they have to plot mechanically in order to be published. Even in most popular fiction, in categories where plot is very important, the characters are more important. If you don't believe in your own characters and feel deeply about them, nobody else will either.
Treatment: This is not a plot problem at all. Go back to characters and build from there."
. . .
"4. Symptom: Ending is disappointing.
Diagnosis: (1) Author has failed to misdirect the reader--the ending is disappointing because it is obvious; or (2) author has failed to plan ahead for the ending, hoping something would turn up, and in despair has tacked on a weak, irrelevant, or illogical ending.
Treatment: It is useless to treat the ending by itself; any tacked-on ending will look tacked-on. Go back to the opening situation and replot."
I assume a story offered for consideration of publication has a purpose. Seeking publication means to me seeking readers. Some conformance to readers' comfort zones is essential in order to gain readership. The meaning of a story is in the top five.
I also mostly agree with your comments about the stories you've read...in Isle of Storms the problems lay less in the nature of the MC's motivation, more in the oversights of the antagonist. I'm going to try and improve that one of these days.
You've also pretty much summed up a lot of how I feel about The City of Night...although for me, truthfully (and several of those who have read it) the City itself is really in many ways the "main attraction" of the story, but especially in the most recent version I've tried to deepen the characters a little for those who prefer that end of the spectrum.
extrinsic I apreciate your post (although some of it I don't really understand in the context of this discussion) and especially your bringing in some more "authoritative" voices on how yes, there are multiple types of "acceptable" stories, motivations, etc etc.
I'm not specifically familiar with the Maugham stories you mention, but I've seen that type of stuff and I think it (probably unconciously) did influence that particular story a bit. Similarly the dialogue in that story...when I was writing Zorthas and Aronos's interactions for some reason I heard them as those two ultra-polite woodchucks or whatever they are from Looney Tunes. It seemed to fit their relationship and since its medieveal setting a more "archaic" mode of speech seems apropriate.
quote:
I assume a story offered for consideration of publication has a purpose. Seeking publication means to me seeking readers. Some conformance to readers' comfort zones is essential in order to gain readership. The meaning of a story is in the top five.
This is what I dont quite follow, especially the last part. You've already done a nice job of showing that different readers have different comfort zones. Is the last sentence meant to mean you don't feel the story you read has a meaning? (its perfectly fine if it doesn't to you, of course. I'm very aware I can't touch, or even entertain, everyone.)
As far as that story goes...its not really intended to be "character driven." I seek (apparently unlike a lot of people) different things at different times from reading stories. Often, I'm not looking for anything in particular...I'm just going, and hoping I find something interesting. Anyway one of the things that I some times actively seek and always enjoy when I find in stories is the sense of looking into a place...experiencing amazing mental imagery and a sense of "atomosphere" or strong emotional state brought on often primarily by setting and place. For me, City of Night was meant to create that sort of effect...the City itself, and its story are really the focus.
But anyway, for me I guess getting back to the motivation topic, the idea that curiosity, the desire to explore and things of that nature are seen by some as "weak" motivations just honestly strikes me as strange. And the fact that some seem (note I say seem, I'm not going to speak to others intentions) to feel that because its a weak motivation for them, and leads to types of stories that they don't personally enjoy, means that that is the case in some broad sense, also strikes me as strange. (and theres several other issues, such as the whole notion of "character driven" stories and there apparent supposed superiority to other story types, that similarly strike me as odd.)
About a decade ago, I hit a plateau in my writing progress. Confronted with the death of my prospects, I entered the Kübler-Ross model of the Five Stages of Grief.
Denial; defensiveness about my writing and no one could tell me what to write.
Anger; that they were right, my writing wasn't worthy and I didn't know what to do about it.
Bargaining; wishful, prayerful negotiations with my conscience that all I needed was to find the right audience for my writing.
Depression; everyone else was right but me and there wasn't thing one I could do about it.
Acceptance: that it was up to me to fit the mold, not the mold to fit me.
Death of an ego. Rebirth of a writer.
quote:
The milieu might be the focus, but the human characters are the vehicles through which readers emotionally experience the milieu.
Thats partially true. But they also experience it through the actual story itself. The writers words. Description. Etc. Its all part of a whole.
I realize, however that for many people, what you say is more true than it is for me. I've never or at least rarely felt like I experience stories through the characters. I experience the STORY all of it characters, dialogue, millieu and all the rest, through what the writer has written. To me, its all part of the narrative. Of course thats not as true with first person stories or even the super-close perspective 3rd person ones. But even then, I'm still reading a story...I don't usually break it down into parts (especially before I started writing.)
Again the last part of your post doesn't entirely make sense to me, so I'm going to ask you if what I think your saying is what your saying.
quote:
Acceptance: that it was up to me to fit the mold, not the mold to fit me.
In other words, in order to get readers/be published, we should write to "fit the mold" of what is (or at least what we're told) is "acceptable" at the time, rather than writing what we want and try to find a place for it?
quote:
Death of an ego. Rebirth of a writer.
Meaning I should let go of all my annoyances with what people say, accept them as correct and myself and my views on writing and storytelling as wrong and, if I want to get anywhere with writing, start doing it according to the "formula" or whatever?
I may be totally off but as written, for me, what your sayinng about your experience doesn't really have any context in the discussion unless your saying I am/will be/should be going through the same thing and coming to the same conclusions.
Edit: I enjoy your posts and you have a lot of great things to say and a huge amount of knowledge, but some times I wish you would just state your own view/opinion/thoughts directly as yourself, rather than using models, systems, quotations and the like.
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited August 13, 2009).]
As a part of that depersonalized commentary, bringing all my resources to bear on a topic includes other views, external sources who more aptly say what I can only approximate, evidentiary contexts that demonstrate a consensus of some sort on any given side of any given topic, and so on.
My experiences with the five stages of grief as relates to writing are mine alone. I've discussed it with other writers who experienced similar progressions. Other writers see no connection with their growth as writers. I've experienced the five stages in other areas of my life. Too many involve death itself. For me, from previous grief progressions, realizing I was in denial opened up my seemingly insurmountable stalled progress.
The mold of writing is imitating life, human life in all its diversity. An essay about the metamorphosis of hornblende might have story characteristics, like plot progression, that appeal to geologists, but without appealing through human interest there's not much else that appeals other than scientific curiosity.
Let me try this again now that extrinsic has explained to me how to quote. Thanks, extrinsic.
You say the following:
quote:
As far as that story goes...its not really intended to be "character driven." I seek (apparently unlike a lot of people) different things at different times from reading stories. Often, I'm not looking for anything in particular...I'm just going, and hoping I find something interesting. Anyway one of the things that I some times actively seek and always enjoy when I find in stories is the sense of looking into a place...experiencing amazing mental imagery and a sense of "atomosphere" or strong emotional state brought on often primarily by setting and place. For me, City of Night was meant to create that sort of effect...the City itself, and its story are really the focus.
Earlier in this thread you mentioned that some people had issue with your characters' motivations. Do you think they understood that this wasn't a typical character-driven story? I have to confess I didn't so I answered your post as if you were writing a character-driven story. My bad.
I don't know how I'd let a reader know early on that I was deviating from 'formula' and that they shouldn't expect a typical character-driven story. How did you let the reader know that this story was going to be different?
Earlier in the thread you say:
quote:
However some seem to believe that some motivations (and types of stories, and modes of storytelling, and focuses for stories etc) are somehow objectively superior or inferior to others...a stance I reject and honestly have found very strange and surprising. I figured writers etc especially in the speculative ficition community would be very openminded about the many different forms stories take and the different ways they can be told, but I'm finding there are plenty who arent and it just kind of surprises me.
I've read back through the thread and I guess if you're basing your conclusion on responses here I respectfully disagree. Because the topic starter was about character motivation I assumed, and perhaps other did as well, that we were discussing a character-driven story. I think a lot of the responses were in context of the thread-starter (mine was).
[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited August 13, 2009).]
quote:
My chosen method for forum participation follows the casual parlimentary method. Address the floor, not individuals. Depersonalized commentary is a consequence. Practicing depersonalized commentary for its neutral emotional contexts has directly given me insight into writing powerful emotional contexts.
As a part of that depersonalized commentary, bringing all my resources to bear on a topic includes other views, external sources who more aptly say what I can only approximate, evidentiary contexts that demonstrate a consensus of some sort on any given side of any given topic, and so on.
Yeah and I suppose its really a safer aproach as well. But it makes it hard for me to respond to you properly. Its bad enough since a lot of times I'm not even sure I understand the content of your posts and/or their context...and then compiled with that I never feel like I really know what you're saying or what you really mean, since its just information put out there.
Even if you don't wanna come right out and say what you think maybe you could just add a little note so I know how what your saying is supposed to relate to the discussion? As a favor? :-) I mean your info is always great but a lot of times I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what it means relative to whats being discussed...
(which reminds me of why I think in many situations, when your writing be it fiction or communication "telling" can be a lot better than "showing" but thats another story.)
quote:
The mold of writing is imitating life, human life in all its diversity.
Well thats the thing. A lot of what I write does do this...but some of it doesnt. As in, its not meant to. I like to write about things that arent human. both physically and mentally. And the things about the human condition I write about the most are the ones that have the least to do with being "human" in the physical sense.
quote:
An essay about the metamorphosis of hornblende might have story characteristics, like plot progression, that appeal to geologists, but without appealing through human interest there's not much else that appeals other than scientific curiosity
Well like you said earlier, "human interest" is a pretty broad concept, since everyone is interested in different things. A great deal of the PUBLISHED ficition I enjoy very much would be downed completely by a lot of the people here and wouldn't interest them at all. But it does me, and others.
[quote]cited matter[/quote]
What I'm writing is a story. That story comes first. That story is composed of setting/milieu, characters, and plot. A great story probably has to have all three. It may be possible to have a good story with only two of the three. What serves the story is good, what hinders it is bad.
If, like extrinsic, you improve the story by analyzing the pieces, then that's good. For you. I find that I write more organically and that kind of analysis up front would kill my stories before they were ever born.
When getting feedback, I hope that people will let me know what works and what doesn't. If I'm lucky (and I've been very lucky here), they will also give me insight into why something worked or didn't--especially if it didn't. I appreciate it when they point out broken "rules", especially if I didn't realize that I had and didn't intend to. But I may not always decide that that's something that needs to be fixed in my story.
The thing we can't lose sight of is the story. And that's mostly what I got out of the blog about stages of writing. It's not the sentences. It's not the rules. It's the story.
The Warner Bros. "woodchucks" are "Goofy Gophers" Mac and Tosh. Their over-the-top polite discourse has at least a readily interpretable superficial subtext that has an entertainment purpose. Though there aren't many episodes of "Goofy Gophers," probably because what is most entertaining about them was difficult to sustain in depth, they only appear in two feature episodes as far as I know. The magpies Heckle and Jeckle, though, appear in many episodes.
Edit: I write, I analyze, I rewrite, revise, big picture and little picture. For me the big picture is a story as a whole in how its attributes interact: plot, character, setting, discourse, theme, tone, rhetoric, and resonance. Same in the little picture and all the way down to the white spaces between words and punctuation levels. But then, that's how I read too.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited August 13, 2009).]
My point about television is that it is episodic. Most individual episodes are largely dependent on the viewer having a prior knowledge of the characters. There are several popular Sci-Fi/Fantasy shows that I didn't get in on at the beginning, but instead toward the middle. Here's a list: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The X-Files, Battlestar Galactica, and Firefly. These were all good shows as best as I could tell, but I never developed a particular affinity for any of these. When I watched these shows, I didn't care what happened to the characters. I watched the episode where several of Buffy's friends got killed (I'm guessing permanently since I never saw them in other episodes), but I was unmoved. I saw when Mulder disappeared. I saw when one of the generals (I believe) in BG was discovered to be a cylon. In each case, it didn't affect me because the show had taken a period of many episodes to establish and cultivate characters.
There are episodes of TV shows that are great stand alone stories, but without prior knowledge of character they fall apart. Cartoons are, for some reason, the exception. I think it is because almost every cartoon starts as if it was the first episode. How many times did Bugs Bunny meet Elmer Fudd for the first time? - Dozens. Most cartoons have this form, even new ones. Test it and see. Cartoons do a great job of establishing character traits very early, maybe because they typically only have 2-3 characters in each one. I don't know if this actually makes me care about the characters, but I suspect I would have been greatly disappointed if Sylvester had eaten Tweety or Elmer had shot Bugs when I first saw these.
I enjoy millieu, idea, character, and event stories. However, I don't believe that any type of story is an island unto itself.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited August 14, 2009).]
Just do it so well that you settle all arguments.
Asimov wrote many stories with the characters Gregory Powell and Mike Donovan and was able to make each story very accessable with great characterization. TV also often has great characterization, but it also depends heavily on prior knowledge. Comparing a short story to a TV show is not a good comparison in my mind - unless the TV show is a cartoon. Then I would hope the story was funny.
quote:
Merlion, I agree with you more than you realize. I don't particularly find wanderlust or curiosity as poor motivations. But when these become the only motivation, I would think it would make the characters somewhat one dimensional (flat). I haven't read your story, so I'm only speculating. However, even in a Milieu or Event driven story, it is still important to have evolved characters. I'm not saying your character isn't evolved, but if wanderlust was his only personality trait, that would make him flat.
That isn't the case. However its also not the point. My issue here isn't about the depth of the characters, my issue is about the notion that curiosity is somehow an inherently weak motivation. And to a lesser extent the idea that in the case of that story, curiosity and the desire for exploration aren't enough reason for the characters to be...exploring.
quote:
My point about television is that it is episodic. Most individual episodes are largely dependent on the viewer having a prior knowledge of the characters. There are several popular Sci-Fi/Fantasy shows that I didn't get in on at the beginning, but instead toward the middle. Here's a list: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The X-Files, Battlestar Galactica, and Firefly. These were all good shows as best as I could tell, but I never developed a particular affinity for any of these. When I watched these shows, I didn't care what happened to the characters. I watched the episode where several of Buffy's friends got killed (I'm guessing permanently since I never saw them in other episodes), but I was unmoved. I saw when Mulder disappeared. I saw when one of the generals (I believe) in BG was discovered to be a cylon. In each case, it didn't affect me because the show had taken a period of many episodes to establish and cultivate characters.
I understand, to a point what your saying and agree somewhat. However, although I'm not familiar with BSG, I am very familiar with all the others, and they are, for the most part, not really that "episodic". Each season of BTVS has an over-reaching story arc, for example, and there is a lot of change in the characters (even the cast) as time goes on. I think BSG is much the same from what I understand.
XFiles on the other hand, does have sort of an underlying story arc, most of the episodes aren't directly linked to it. There are many, many XFiles episodes that one could watch without any special knowledge of the characters and not be at a loss.
I used Star Trek as an example of a story (to me, TV, movies, art, whatever...they pretty much all tell stories, just through different mediums) wherein the primary motivation of the characters, most of the time, is curiosity/exploration. Yes, its episodic. But so are many of my stories.
The "short story as greatest event in the characters life" approach is fine. But its not the only approach, and its one I don't personally use very often, mostly because it doesn't really work very well with the types of characters I create (they tend to be the type of people/things that are going to have a lot of very "major" events in their lives.) However most of those stories are episodic in nature and can be fully enjoyed by those unfamiliar with any of the characters other adventures.
The problem is when a character ignores warning signs or endangers himself/herself and/or others to satisfy their curiousity. There are people who would go to these extremes, but not everyone would. What makes one person more curious than others? What kind of person has an all consuming curiousity that drives him? Is it an intellectual, adrenaline junkie, or someone trying to prove himself? I don't think a reader would buy curiousity as a motivation unless curiousity is shown to be a primary personality trait.
quote:
I understand, to a point what your saying and agree somewhat. However, although I'm not familiar with BSG, I am very familiar with all the others, and they are, for the most part, not really that "episodic". Each season of BTVS has an over-reaching story arc, for example, and there is a lot of change in the characters (even the cast) as time goes on. I think BSG is much the same from what I understand.
I don't think that philocinemas was saying that the episodes of these shows didn't have a complete story arc, but that the shows required you to see more than one episode to truly understand the nature of the characters. The example he gave was not careing that a specific character died because the character was not fully fleshed out in the episode.
I completely agree with this. For example, in the first episode I watched of X-files the overall story was very satisfying, but I didn't really understand the characters, especially Skinner (Mulder and Scully's boss). My memory is a little fuzzy but I think at the end of the episode he stole a file or an artifact from Mulder discrediting him. Having only seen this one episode, I naturally thought that Skinner was a bad guy, but if I had seen more episodes I would have realized that this betrayal was really shocking since Skinner had proven again and again that he was on Mulder's side. But this one episode didn't flesh out Skinner's character enough for me to realize that without seeing any previous episodes.
Another example I have is from Sienfeld. The first episode I ever saw was the one where George's fiance died. I was shocked and disgusted with the morbidity of this episode. I couldn't believe that other people found Sienfeld to be so funny. I didn't understand the characters or the over the top humor of the show from that one episode. After watching several other episodes, I got it, and I now think that Sienfeld is one of the funniest shows ever.
But my point is that even if TV shows have a full story arc, they still rely on their audience watching previous episodes to understand and care about the characters. Not every character can be fully fleshed out in every episode.
I think that a writer who uses the same characters over and over in their stories has to be very careful with characterization. You may know your character so well that you fail to realize that you did not fully develop him/her in every story. You may focus on other aspects of your story since he/she has been fully characterized elswhere.
Not having read your story, I can't be sure if this is the case for you, but it may be something to consider.
But for the tone of the majority of this thread, I just can't agree.
Curiosity as sole and real motivation is weak and dull as dishwater.
It requires too much suspension of disbelief for this little black duck. To think someone just does something because they just do? How appallingy unsatisfying and lightweight. But I doubt whether I am the target market.
Of course this, like all the other posts, is just an opinion.
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 17, 2009).]
When all the efforts of the story culminates in a 'oh, okay... so now I know. Thanks and see you later.' then it hardly seems worth it.
In TV form, at least, you can build the humor with the character. You know, say, what'll happen if Tim-the-Tool-Man-Taylor starts to build or repair something, and knowing it makes it funnier. You know Lucy will do something, it'll get back to Ricky, who'll either get mad or con her con. You know Gilligan will mess up whatever the castaways are trying to do.
But you also know that, really, nothing serious is at stake. Ricky will forgive Lucy, whatever accident Tim-the-Tool-Man causes won't be serious, and the castaways won't kill Gilligan no matter what he does.
quote:
Curiosity as sole and real motivation is weak and dull as dishwater.
Really? When I was a grad student, I got to know a lot of academic professors who worked late every night and came in on weekends even though they weren't paid anymore for their time. Some were ambitious, but others really loved science and were driven purely by their desire to understand the world around them, which is curiousity. I guess because of this, I see curiousity in certain types of people as a strong motivator. Some people really have a pioneering spirit.
quote:
You know, I think, for me, it is because, when the motivation is pure curiosity, the answer doesn't really matter.
When all the efforts of the story culminates in a 'oh, okay... so now I know. Thanks and see you later.' then it hardly seems worth it.
I totally agree with this, but isn't this a problem with the plot and not the character's motivation?
For example: I can totally buy a character entering a cave just out of curiousity, but I would hope that something life threatening happens in the cave rather than just having the character enjoy an uneventful exploration.
If curiosity can be a sole motivator for a protagonist, can it also be a sole motivator for a villain? Why or why not?
The curious person hopes to gain something.
It might be something tangible like artefacts, the way great white explorers would bring home boatloads of 'curiosities' from the pacific,dark continent or far east.
Or it might be something intangible like notoriety, sense of self, knowlege that others have, knowlege that no one else possesses etc etc
The the desire to get this gain is the real motivator.
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 18, 2009).]
After the expedition returned, everybody had everybody else court-martialed, and several of the others pursued their hatred of Wilkes well beyond the end of it. Meanwhile, Wilkes, still looking for glory, found a measure of it in the Civil War, where in "the Trent affair," he seized two Confederate diplomats off a British mail ship and nearly provoked a war between Britain and the US.
quote:
If curiosity can be a sole motivator for a protagonist, can it also be a sole motivator for a villain? Why or why not?
A while ago I saw a Discovery Channel documentary about that doctor obssessed with cloning babies. He was very much driven by "can it be done?" feeling, in fact, it was so strong it disturbed me.
He claims to stop the process of cloning after a determined number of cells have appeared but I was left wondering if this man had it in him to stop. In a fictional scenario, he could be a villan, driven only by curiosity.
For some reason, I buy this. I think I've seen it before, I don't think it's wrong.
However, there are other ways to construct the character of a clone-crazed scientist that, to me, could enrich the story. Like his dead child he's trying to bring back to life, for example. Because using that as a motivator you're mirroring what's a stake in the real world and the villan becomes any father in the future (or present) with a dead child and the inability to accept death. Cloning becomes a gray area. I like this version more because I enjoy inner conflict.
Maybe there's two ways of doing it and both "sides" are right. Ultimately, I think it's beneficial to write the story and leave theory aside (most of this thread is theory and points of view) and let your story be your teacher.
Or keep going, maybe in 30 posts from now, we'll arrive at a conclusion.
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited August 18, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited August 19, 2009).]
I do not have a problem with a character being motivated by curiosity, but I believe it is not dramatic or interesting for most people because they aren't bent the same way I am. If your character's only motivation is curiosity, you are fighting a losing battle for market share. Most people will not understand the drive. You need to give your character additional motivation so a larger audience can identify with him.
[This message has been edited by NoTimeToThink (edited August 19, 2009).]
quote:
I do not have a problem with a character being motivated by curiosity, but I believe it is not dramatic or interesting for most people
Does a character's motivation have to be interesting for the story to be interesting? Doesn't it only have to be believable?
Think about the movie the Blair Witch Project. I know they were making a documentary, but really weren't they, or at least the girl, mostly curious about the folk lore surrounding the Blair Witch. Their motivation for going into the woods was only important to get them into the woods, but what was interesting was what happened once they got there.
And I think that everyone can relate to a curiousity surrounding a ghost story and understand the desire to investigate it.
Anyway, I agree with the previous poster. Let the story speak for itself. The Blair Witch Project worked for me, well, until the ending although it still is a creepy show.
Merlion and Map, I do not dispute curiosity or wanderlust as viable motivations, but that shouldn't be the character's only motivation. Maybe if Merlion could describe the other motivators of his character, I could understand where he's coming from with this question.
Why do I write? There is no one reason. Why do I do anything? If I thought really hard I could come up with at least 10 reasons why I do anything. If I tell you I like to write because I have a healthy imagination, I've only told you a very little piece of the reason I write - I've not told you anything significant about myself. Now if I add that I was always told by my teachers that I should become a writer, then I've given you two things to build an idea of who I am.
...Ahh, so he writes to affirm other's past belief in him. Why does he do this? Does he feel the need to be successful? Does he feel regret for not trying harder? Does he spend a lot of time imagining the what if's? How does his imagination play into what people used to say of him?
Add that I love movies, and there is more to build congectures with. Each piece of information, whether in narration or dialogue, adds to our understanding of a character.
Try to think of a character from literature, and ask yourself "Why does he/she do the things they do?" and you will find you know these characters better than you ever thought you did. When I used to teach, I would have the students in my class list as many things they knew about a character in a short story and tell me how they knew it. It is amazing the things one learns from even little comments or word uses.
quote:
Merlion and Map, I do not dispute curiosity or wanderlust as viable motivations...
I do dispute it.
The kind of 'curiosity' that can motivate a sustained effort is a not really curiosity at all but something else mis-identified.
'Curiosity' is an emotion, and like all emotions, it does not exist solely because of itself.
I am angry just because I am.
I am sad just because I am.
I am excited just because I am.
Are all examples of the same kind of limited thinking and lack of insight as:
I am curious, just because I am.
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 19, 2009).]
You are motivated to write because you enjoy it.
But why do you enjoy it? I am sure this list is long, and that to me is character depth.
Maybe I am wrong and they are not two different things or at least closely connected.
quote:
'Curiosity' is an emotion, and like all emotions, it does not exist solely because of itself.
Love is an emotion, and it is also a very strong motivation.
quote:
I am curious, just because I am.
I think this goes back to character development. I need to show why my character is a curious person, but I do think to some extent all humans are curious by nature.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited August 20, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited August 20, 2009).]
quote:
show why my character is a curious person
That's what I'm talking about, the why, why, WHY.
Not the is, is, IS.
Love is an excellletn example.
Like 'curious', the word 'love' is a generalised term for a range of emotions.
Use of the term, (like 'curiosity') usually denotes a lack of insight because it is used when we cannot express the exact nature of the feeling we are experiencing. So we opt for the easy, carry-all word.
It is one of those words that deceives the user into assuming they know themself, and their motivations.
Can 'love' (for want of a more insightful term) be a motivator?
Yep.
But what kind of love do you mean?
Romantic? Erotic? Platonic? Familial? Unrequited? Some other sort?
If you name it correctly, you will discover the REAL and POWERFUL motivator.
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 20, 2009).]
I think of motive like in crime.
Why did the woman shoot her husband?
Motive: He was having an affair.
But not any woman would shoot her husband because he cheated on her, so why did she?
Clearly she has some serious problems that contributed to her killing her husband, which would come from back story and she must have some psychological issues as well. Isn't this character development? Yes it contributes to why she killed her husband, but she would never have killed him if he hadn't cheated on her, so that is her real motive.
Is there no separation of motive and character development. I can't say Frodo's motive in taking the ring to Morador to save the world? Not anyone would take on that responsiblity. So do I have to describe his characteristics that lead him to that decision for his motive to be fleshed out?
For the most part I totally agree with you. I think we are just debating semantics. I can't just say my character is curious especaily if that character is doing something that most people would not do. I have to prove it to you why he is curious and why this particular thing is so intriguing to him.
The only bad motivation in a story is one that is unbelievable, and an unbelievable motive is usually a problem of character development.
I agree that with just about anything there is very rarely a single sole motivation for what someone does. Generally speaking we have multiple reasons for just about everything we do.
However 1) in a story I don't know that its always necessary, depending on the type of story, to try and explain a characters whole history and mix of motivations and experiences that lead to every action...going into every motivation and sub-motivation would take forever.
2) You don't seem willing to believe that anyone would ever want anything only for its own sake, but it happens. Some people do desire knowledge just to know whatever it is, or wish to go somewhere just to be there and see the place or whatever.
Now yeah a story where somebody just wants to know something, finds it and thats it would be boring. But as someone else said that isn't a motivation issue, its a plot issue. Thats why you put obstacles in their way, or have them find more than they were looking for.
I'm an INFJ by the Jungian model. Its supposed to be the rarest type.
posulliv: About the "character driven" thing. Different people use the term differently. I consider any story with characters that are in some way important to be "character driven" at least in part. However many (including many editors etc) seem to use the definition of it as a story where the character is all that matters, and the focus of the story is how what happens changes the character and that sort of thing. My story that I've been referencing is, to me, simply a story with characters, a setting and a plot all of which are important. Its not meant to be a totally character-centric story, but if you have characters i think their motives always matter at least a little
quote:
Merlion and Map, I do not dispute curiosity or wanderlust as viable motivations, but that shouldn't be the character's only motivation. Maybe if Merlion could describe the other motivators of his character, I could understand where he's coming from with this question.
My question isn't about a character. I've had a few people basically tell me they consider curiosity etc insufficient motivations basically for anything at all. In the case of "The City of Night" (not the only story this has come up in, but the most recent) I was told by one person that they needed a reason to be there beyond "idle curiosity." Basically saying that theres no way someone would want to explore a lost city just because they are curious about it.
I wanted to know if anyone besides me felt curiosity was a perfectly good motivator at least for some things and in some circumstances, and apparently some do.
I was irritated by these statements also as part of the very disturbing overall trend I see of people to label certain story types, motivations, writing styles etc as somehow inherently objectively "weak" and likewise to essentially try and speak for the worlds readers as a whole.
Thanks eevrybody by the way for the discussion so far, I think its gone/is going quite well.
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited August 20, 2009).]
To reflect my comments more accurately:
As to 1): I did not suggest anyone needed to do that. In fact I suggested subtlety. As MAP has pointed out, understanding this is done in character development. It is about YOU understanding the character.
As to 2): Your perception is interesting. I said emotions do not exist simply because of themselves. Do people ever do something simply for its own sake? Interesting question. People do the sort of things you describe because of what it makes them feel. Awe, wonder, accomplishment etc. Is that for its own sake?
BTW: "but it happens" is an assumption.
You seem to believe that the truth of that statement is self-evident. It is not. It is just your perception. Don't take it too seriously.
We don't all agree with that assumption.
Does it make you wrong? No, nor does it make you right.
It just means you may be assuming knowledge without the burden of understanding.
edit:
PS: INTs eat INFs for breakfast...
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 20, 2009).]
quote:
That is an assumption
No. Its an experience. I've done things out of curiosity just because I wanted to know/see/experiencing something for its own sake. I know other people who have done so.
quote:
It just means you are assuming knowledge without the burden of understanding.
No. I am, as I say above, taking knowledge from experience.
quote:
As to 1): I never suggested you needed to do that. In fact I suggested subtlety. As MAP has pointed out, understanding this is done in character development. It is about YOU understanding the character. As to 2): Your perception is false. I said emotions do not exist simply because of themselves. But you raise a good point, people do these things because of what it makes them feel. Awe, wonder, accomplishment etc.
I'm not really sure how this relates to what I said...I feel like we're talking more or less about different things. So let me rephrase.
You have said clearly that, for you, curiosity in itself is a poor motivation. Thats perfectly fine, as its basically just a matter of taste. I don't really relate to, say, career ambition as a motivator.
You also SEEM note I say SEEM to have been saying that people don't ever seek knowledge simply for its own sake ("out of curiosity" so to say) or, say, explore an unknown place just for the experience. Various of your posts, as near as I can tell, have more or less said that there must always be some other motivation be it greed, desire for fame, etc etc behind it, that these things would never solely be sought "out of curiosity" for their own sake.
As I say above, I myself have done this, as have other people I know. So, yes, it does happen.
quote:
Read more carefully before summarising someone else's comments.
I wasn't summarising I was responding. I've tried to do so in a basically polite manner, and apologize if I've failed for that. However, this last post is coming across to me as rather condescending (honestly, they seem to have started off slightly so and grown steadily more so). I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, summarise your opinions or tell you what to think. I'm telling you (and trying to do so in a civil manner) my own experiences, and responding to your statements or at least how I see them. I'd apreciated the same.
I'm enjoying this whole discussion and i think most are getting something useful out of it, so I don't really want it to degrade. Like I said in my last post, my main initial point was mostly just to see if other people see curiosity as a valid motivation. As expect, some do, some dont. Its a matter of taste.
Edit: Looked at one way, if you really want to strip it down, it could be said that there are only two root motivations: survival and pleasure/enjoyment. From the right angle, you could put just about any other motivation into one of these two catagories...things that maintain life, or things that give us pleasure. However, I don't really believe this and would add at least a third: self-expansion or self-improvement. Of course, you could say the real motivation from that would be enjoying being "better" than others or whatever. It seems to me that motivations are much like a Chinese puzzle box...one within another within another. And as has already been mentioned, most actions have several specific motivations going into them...thats why I find trying to downplay or dismiss any one, on any level other than that of taste, to be...strange.
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited August 20, 2009).]
I found it condescending too.
That's why I was actually editing it when you posted, I hope that doesn't stuff the thread up too much.
I apologise.
Cheers and
Good luck with your story.
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited August 21, 2009).]
quote:
Cheers and
Good luck with your story.
Thanks for that, but I guess it was probably a mistake to use one of my own stories as an example. This thread was never meant to be about a specific story, nor even about my stories in general, but rather general concepts.