posted
I would disagree with you, Andrew. I am not saying that my idea is bigger than his. I feel that all parties actually involved in this discussion are being very respectful to one another. Just because Merlion and I are not seeing this the same way does not mean we don't respect each other's opinion. I have not read his story, so I am only able to base my discussion on what he has said of the criticism and on the synopsis he has submitted.
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.
posted
I believe that curiosity is a very valid motivation. We are all curious creatures, who doesn't enjoy a little gossip or slow down when passing a car accident.
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.
posted
MAP: I think what you are saying is very much worth considering.
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).]
posted
"Seinfeld"'s humor was a mystery to me, too...maybe out of every joke I thought was funny, there were six jokes that just lay there.
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.
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).]
posted
I read a non-fiction book awhile back by Nathaniel Phillbrick whose title escapes me at the moment. Motivations played a central role in the narrative. The book concerned an American round-the-world exploratory expedition in the 1840s. The commander, one Charles Wilkes, was motivated, it would seem, by a desire for fame and glory. But the mission personnel, who served under Charles Wilkes, soon and pretty-much-unanimously came to be motivated by something else---extreme and intense hatred of Charles Wilkes.
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).]
posted
Merlion-Emrys, I am curious about something. Have you ever taken any sort of personality profile? I have recently taken 2 profiles: StrengthsFinder, which identifies my 5 strengths as Strategic, Intellection, Learner, Ideation, Analytical (basically, I tend to analyze everything). Myers-Briggs, which identifies me as INTP (also labeled as The Architect - analyzing everything). INTP's only amount to 1% of the population.
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.
posted
Nicole, thanks for the "See IF It Could Be Done" villain; that's a good example. I was writing a novel, which has been on hold for a while now, that has a character similar to this; he wants to cure death. However, I have other motivations as well with this character - his wife died; he now has a relationship with a coworker that is failing; he is feeling the pressures of time (his age and his need for success); he has a feeling of superiority; he has certain altruistic beliefs; and he has a willingness to break "rules" to get what he thinks is best for humankind.
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.
posted
Good point Philocinemas. There isn't a sole reason we really do anything. What we do and why we do it goes to the core of who we are. Since I am a person who is by nature very curious, it struck me as odd that everyone disputed curiousity as a believable motivation. I guess I saw depth of character and motivation as two different things.
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.
posted
Okay double post, sorry Andrew posted while I was posting.
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).]
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).]
posted
I guess I don't understand the difference between character development and motive. I am probably being too literal. I have that problem.
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).]
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).]
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).]
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
