If you're writing fantasy, then read up on mediaeval history.

For sf/f - look at sf/f art and imagine yourself around them. Explore the landscapes with your mind and see what you start thinking of. Place yourself there, and people you know.

Also listen to other people about thyeir life experiences - anecdotes are a great resource for any writer. Read autobiographies not just for the anecdotes, but also to see how real people deal with real adversity, and overcome it.

EDIT: These are different ways that I am immediately inspired.

Also - for fantasy writing, go to some historical ruins/events/shows. Even though you don;t have mediaeval castles in the USA, I hear you have a good tradition of Renaissance Fayres over there - go and be inspired by walking the world.

I find this style worked well for me.

I also really like Kathleen's astrology idea. That sounds fun.

Hmm. One could also find a copy of the DSM IV, which lists all the psychological disorders, etc. What would a person with obsessive compulsive disorder do in this situation? Someone with multiple personalities? There are actually many fantasy novels where the protagonist is going insane, or thinks he/she is.

Or, you could look at the characters you have, and try to do a psychological analysis of them. Have a dialogue between your evil genius and his or her therapist.

"Well, Sauron, what I hear you saying is..."

"How did that make you feel, Gollum, when Bilbo stole your ring? Why don't you tell HIM how you feel?"

Sorry to get silly, but I am now thinking I need to take a look in that book.

Read the DSM-IV with care!(and with a good deal of bravery, because it isn't all that exciting a read!)

Sometimes it goes somewhere--sometimes it doesn't.

It's also the only Clark I have read, but I'm a three strikes and you're out kinda guy. I have THE FOUNTAINS OF PARADISE in a box somewhere, and I've heard CHILDHOOD'S END is pretty good. After those two and he'll official be on my list of authors that I will only read for money.

He's much better at ideas than he is at characters, and if you prefer characters to ideas, you probably won't like him.

If Clarke's human characters are a bit thin, consider that it might be intentional. Clarke makes characters out of non-human things. In Rendezvous with Rama, the only important character was Rama. Bold, memorable human characters would have detracted from Rama's spotlight. Clarke also wrote Dolphin Island a classic in which the most memorable characters are dolphins. Not many writers can pull that off!

Fiction is about people. Period. It's not about ideas, or science, or magic, or religion, or theme, or anything else. It's about people. There are no people in RWR, just a bunch of super-flat characters wandering around an alien spacecraft. I realize that RWR is hard SF and therefore--given the nature of the beast--it isn't going to have a bunch of Hamlets and Macbeths running around. But I think my biggest issue with the novel is there is no central character I can follow (instead of all the bouncing around he does). What I would have liked is a more developed Norton who reacts to Rama, who is affected by Rama. Again, I'm not expecting something on the level of Sam's reaction to Mordor, but I want a rounded character--I want a human being is literally going through a life-changing experience, and I want to read about that.

There's no central antagonist, no one I look at and say, "Gotta watch out for that jerk." I didn't get to the missile part, but off the top of my head, it would have been a much better novel if the antagonist was the dude who set the missile off and that from the beginning of the novel his mind is bent on the destruction of Rama. This is what we talked about on the suspense thread that Doc Brown started. If you tell your readers who is doing what, you got them--they're going to stay hooked because they want to see who's going to win and who's going to loose.

Because there is no protagonist to root for and no antagonist to root against, there is no conflict in RWR. The only conflict is between the expedition party and Rama (man vs. nature) and that's it. Sure, perhaps man vs man is implicit with the launch of the missile--but that's weak. Why? Because there is no one I really care about on Rama that I want to see survive.

I think Doc Brown is right--Clark wanted to write about Rama, and that's what he did. Rama is the most important part of that story. Since I like characters, and since RWR doesn't have any characters worth caring about, I suppose I'll never like that book.

BUT like I said, I'm a three strikes and you're out kinda guy, so I'll give him two more chances. Probably THE FOUNTAINS OF PARADISE and CHILDHOOD'S END. At then I can say I read Clark's biggies.

quote:

---

Fiction is about people.

---

I have to disagree with that statement, Balthasar. Fiction should be about people, but it doesn't have to be. "Lord of the Rings" is about Middle Earth not about individual people in it. I'm sure you can come up with other examples on your own.

I do agree with everything else you said. I hate flat characters. I want to care something about the characters. If it looks like they might die during the book, I want to be worried about it. They don't have to Pulitzer prize winning characters, just don't put in cardboard cutouts and put names on them.

As to flat characters---all of them sounding the same---I hate critiques that try to tell you that all your character's should sound the same.

quote:

---

I hate critiques that try to tell you that all your character's should sound the same.

---

Thus, I submit that any story that succeeds in which the time and place--the atmosphere, if you will--is essential to that story succeeds because the characters are rounded characters and organic to the time and place. Think of A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT, or HUCKLEBERRY FINN, or HYPERION. Each has memorable characters that are organic to the setting and are affected by the setting. And consequently, the setting becomes more alive than when you have a great setting with super-flat characters.

So I repeat, good fiction is about people. Period. And as I mentioned above, it's wrong to ask too much of your genera; it's wrong to expect to see Hamlet in hard SF.

And I concede, I'm a reader who likes deep, compelling characters more often than not. People who read hard SF read it, I suppose, because they love science and they want to read a story where science is just as important as the characters. Fine. But when the science takes over the story--when the science becomes so important that the only way you can tell the story is by populating it with flat characters--I don't think you have a good story. Rubbish is more like it.

Have I misunderstood you?

I believe that the roundness (and depth) of characters is a function of the writer's craft. It is independent of genre or sub genre. You can have flat characters in a romance novel, mystery, or fantasy just as easily as hard sci-fi.

quote:

---

I'm more and more confused by your point, Balthasar. While I suppose it's possible to have flat characters in hard sci-fi, your rant seems to say that it's impossible to have round characters in hard sci-fi.
Have I misunderstood you?

---

You can have the huge plot, a large conflict that needs to be resolved, and then a ton of paper characters that do resolve it, and you may be satisfied with that story...

Or, you could have several characters, each with their own internal conflicts.

Now, this is how I think would be a way to write the story. You have several characters each with internal conflicts, and then the large plot. The story is the resolution of each of thsoe internal conflicts through the resolution of the plot. Perhaps some internal conflicts are resolved by contributing to the plots' predicament, whereas others are taken together to completely resolve it.