Now I'm a beginner, so for me my insight may be old hat to many of you. But recently, it hit me that what makes a story are the characters. Foolish of me to think otherwise, you might say. But in my chosen creative field--namely, speculative fiction--a heavy hand is laid on ideas and world-building. Stanley Schmidt, the editor of Analog, defines the science fiction story as a story that wouldn't be without the science. The same is true for both fantasy and horror.

And when writers talk about their work, they talk about the development of ideas. Stephen King talks about the "What if..." question. "What if vampires invaded a small New England town?" And so he wrote Salem's Lot. But what about the characters, Steve, what about Ben? Where did he come from?

So I spent a lot of time thinking about ideas, and when I began writing I would give up about 10% into the story. I have six unfinished novels that barely made it past the 15,000-word marker. And I couldn't figure out why, until recently. Over the past two months, I have read a number of hard-core SF stories that I absolutely despised. I asked myself why this was so. And then the light went off -- I didn't care a flip about the characters.

I stared looking back on some of my favorite books, and I discovered that it was the characters that intrigued me, not the idea, not the background. For example, Ender's Game would be a boring story if it was only about developing a child genius into a military genius. But that's only the situation. The story's about a person, Ender, whose only desire is for friendship, acceptance, and love. It's about his fear of becoming the one person he hates the most, Peter, and about his craving for Peter to love him.

Another example is The Silence of the Lambs. The situation is about a serial killer who is about to murder a senator's daughter. But the real story--the main course, if you will--is Clarice and Lector's relationship. It about Clarice's deep feelings of guilt due to a childhood incident. It's about her coming to terms with herself. And it's about Lector, about this macabre yet strangely sophisticated individual that you both hate and admire.

So storytelling is about the characters, who they are, what they do, how and why they act the way they do, how they respond to events around them, and how that makes them feel. I have read OSC's book, Character and Viewpoint twice before this insight came. I knew the theory. It made sense; it was logical. But I never understood the rationale of characterization intuitively. Now I do. And it's great.

I have pulled out one of those unfinished novels and have spent all my creative energy on the characters. The story is now about 200% better than before, because they characters are fat and round, not thin and transparent. And I know I will finish it, because I know the characters.

So, what is that one writing insight that has totally changed the way you think about storytelling? I know I can learn a lot from you all.

I absolutely agree with your assertion that a plot can be great and the concept might be exceptional, but if you don't care about the characters NO ONE is going to read (or at least finish) your novel. In everything I enjoy-- books, TV, movies-- it's the characters that grip you. In the end, everything else is really just scenery. (That is not to say that if the rest of it is bad, it'll be a good book, but....)

Two 'insights' that have helped me the most recently are 1) read and 2) research before you ever put pen to paper. I used to be an avid reader, but then felt that I should spend more time writing and I cut out a whole lot of reading. Big mistake. It absolutely does fuel your creativity and whether you are aware of it or not, shows you what to do and what not to do. Read voraciously, and I recommend branching out to read books that you might not ordinarily think of. In writing my fantasy novel (65,000+ words so far), reading "Ghost Soldiers" and "An Archer's Tale" helped give me additional insight that I might not have otherwise gotten by reading my usual dose of Koontz, Card, Gemmell, etc.

#2 Research. I found an incredibly useful site that recommended new authors thoroughly 'research' their world and gave a boat load of questions that you should answer before beginning to craft your novel. These questions helped you to understand the nuances of your world's society, culture, history, etc. It's really just background stuff-- and it may never appear directly in your novel-- but by fleshing out your world so that you have an intimate knowledge of it, you will be not only help prevent narrative inconsistencies, but will have more believable characters. Who you are as a person is based in no small part on your environment. Although I had some general ideas about my characters, fleshing out my world FIRST made it infinitely easier to flesh out my characters and give them real substance in light of what I'd discovered about the world I had created.

a few years ago i was beginning a second draft for a novel i'm still picking at. i knew there was something i didn't like about the way it was written. the plot itself was fine, the characters, the development of the plot, etc. there wasn't any reason i could think of; i just wasn't being drawn into the story.

it took a while to figure it out. like Sili said above, reading is vitally important. i was reading OSC, actually, when i figured it out. i was getting really into this book and suddenly i asked myself why. it was like my subconcious (my concious was too busy reading) self whopped me on the head and said "hey! what the heck makes this book worth the time?"

and you know what my concious said? it said, "shhh! let me finish this part... i have to find out what happens after..."

that's when it dawned on me. the problem with my book was with its "flow", if you will. the books that keep my attention constantly have something going on. or something big you know will happen just around the corner. or is it page? anyway, i went back to my book and noticed there were brief periods that didn't contain any riveting minor conflicts. the only real suspence was in the main plot, and that wouldn't be resolved until the end of the book. they were only brief periods, most no more than a page, but it was enough.

what did that mean for me? i had to go back, pull my book apart, and add a whole bunch of background issues that didn't need to be worked on constantly, but added suspense to my gaps. they tied in later on and kept my readers (alright, i don't have many readers, mainly friends and family, but hey,) curious as to what would happen next.

does that help you at all? it's one of those duh things, i know, but then, so is interesting characters

just my two cents

TTFN & lol

Cosmi

Okay, first, I must disagree with some of what y'all said. I DON'T demand good characterization. If I have the choice between a well-characterized and a poorly-characterized book, all other things being equal, OF COURSE I'll read the well-characterized one. If all other things AREN'T equal, however...

All I DEMAND is original, accurate scienctific speculation. Original AND accurate -- reprising a scienctific idea Heinlein did in the 50's doesn't count, no matter how accurate (unless you EXPAND it). Just making something up doesn't count, either; work the math!

Similarly, this is why I don't read fantasy. Tolkein knew history, mythology and linguistics, which made his writing the best in the genre. He also invented, perfected, and beat to death, the quasi-mideval Europe setting. Everyone else is stuck in his shadow. I wish more people would set their fantsy in non-European settings. Conan the Barbarian was a great movie because it was set in a prehistoric (pre-mideval!) Europe and Asia, which we haven't seen a million times before. If I had any inclination toward fantasy (I don't, but if I did) I'd learn about ancient micronesia and the Pacific islands. HOW MANY good stories could be set amonst the island chains of the south Pacific? Every island is its own world!

But, it's healthy for different people to have different tastes. The free market will serve us all.

Rant over. Sorry. Feel free to flame me, I earned it.

ANYway... back to insights.

I've got two insights that I think other people might find interesting.

1) You don't need to think of very many ideas; there are plenty out there to steal.

Yes, you heard me. I spend most of my non-writing free time reading science and engineering books, magazines, journals and websites. Every now and then, I find a great scientific idea that I haven't seen turned into a SF story yet.

Those ideas that lead to a full story are kind of rare, but they are out there.

The best reason to read science books, etc., is to get the kind of background details that make a story seem more real.

For example, my current project requires that the spaceship loose much of its air reserve; the characters are living under low atmospheric pressure.

These means sounds don't carry well; you have to yell to be heard. That's perhaps just one sentance in the story, but that's the kind of detail that makes the reader -- me, anyway -- feel like they're there.

You can steal other ideas, too. I read military history, to get a glimpse of the mind of my characters in the service, for example. (When I treid to join ROTC in college, they turned me down [eyesight]. I've often regretted that I didn't serve. Since the Black September War started, I've felt like a worm.)

I've been predicting for YEARS that terrorism will be the bane of the 21st century. (I'm sorry to have been proven right.) I'm reading about the troubles in Northern Ireland. This can give some interesting insights into mindsets on both sides of the law.

Note: you can't read about something you aren't interested in. If your bent is fantasy, read history, or whatever. Browse the library and pick whatever strikes your fancy.

2) Often, my characters are attempting to solve their problem, then they come to a sudden stop, and say, "Well, what next?"

I lean back in my chair and reply, "I don't know!"

That means I haven't thought out my background enough. Typically, I sketch a map of the city, calculate (in greater detail) the orbital mechanics of the spaceship, or whatever; basically, if I just think more about the setting, I can normally see what they might try next.

Treat all aspects of your composition equally. Do not just focus on character, or on plot, or on grammar, or what have you. Treat them all as if each is the single most inportant part of your story. Study, practice and apply.

The reason for this is that recently I have been involved with an online workshop and also have had a piece critted by another experienced writer. Both of these, as well as most of my other work has been judged "powerful", "intense", and "hard hitting imagery". Yet all have been rejected over and over again. And that is because even though these qualities are great in a story, the VEHICLE of the story was weak. It is like putting the engine of a Mercedes into the body of a Yugo. It just doesn't run right.

By the way, how the heck did you guys add the formatting?

Will.

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/

and from that site, you'll find tons of useful info, tips, etc. by 'the big boys.'

The specific site (from the above link) that has the world building questions is

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding1.htm

I've done about 75-80% of these questions totalling about 30 pages (yes, you read right) of world-building notes. You'll find questions like:

- How far back are there records or tales of historical events? How widely known are these stories?
- Which peoples/etc. are considered the most civilized and why?
- What are the rules of magic?
- What customs surround a birth and the introduction of a new child to the family? For the death of a family member?
- Are there classes of people/beings who are never introduced to other classes of people/beings?
- How has the presence of magic and magicians affected law and government?
- What is the basic style of government?
- What type of military present? How is it organized?
- What industries (ie mining, farming, etc.) are important, and in which areas?
- What do people generally look like? Would a blonde (redhead, brunette) stand out in a crowd? Someone 5' 10" tall?

Patricia C. Wrede is the author of this absolutely insightful tool, and I have to give her many kudos for helping to 'arm' me for the battle I was to face when I began writing my novel.

Hope those links helped!

For answers to your question about formatting, go to the following page.
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/ubbcode.html

It instructs you how add hyperlinks, make words bold and italics, how to use the (most obnoxious) quote separator, etc.

Hope this is what you're looking for.

For any of you who have read even one of my messages, you may have realized that tying my shoes is a revelation. However, a writing revelation is a much different thing.

Of these, I have had few. ;P

I have found, through much hardship, that it IS the characters that make the story, and, often, the little pricks can change it quite suddenly, without your consent or even your knowledge.

Poof...it's changed.

I recently started reading Tad Williams Otherland series. On the first two pages he is describing a WWI battle field. Some of the images he uses are rather grim:

-- "muddy ground cratered and desolate as the moon"
-- "torn earth and skeletal trees"
-- "red fog, gray earth, sky the color of old bones"

I was struck by the power of the images. I re-read the passages again and again, trying to figure out what Williams was doing. And then it hit me. Desolation means there can be no skeletal trees. And I've never seen red fog, and I don't even know what old bones look like. Are they beige, gray, or black? Then I realized that he wasn't describing a photo as much as he was painting a picture, attempting to evoke in me a sense of horror and despair (which he does very well, I think). And then I realized what was so pitiful about my own descriptions. I want them to be accurate and factual instead of poetic and emotional. There is a hugh emotional difference between crooked trees and skeletal trees, and I would have talked about the crooked trees and my readers would have found me boring.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this with you all. And thanks for all of your responses. I don't know if I agree with them all, but you all have made me think about storytelling in a different way.

I also agree, Augustine, about characters. I think many writing insights may come from looking at how we ourselves read, and I have noticed that if I don't care much about the characters, the story had better have other really cool stuff going for it or I won't keep reading. (Really cool science can be cool enough to make up for poor characters, but the longer the book the cooler the science has to be.)

An insight I'd like to offer--not to fully explain it, but to get you thinking about it--is that it can make a very big difference who the author selects as the point-of-view character (or characters). I've talked about this before, and I consider it "advanced point of view." I recommend going to some of the books you've enjoyed and looking at the characters you've liked. What would the story have been like if the author had told it from the point of view of a different character?

I agree with you.

My point was, if a writer or publisher wants my money, he had better have his science right. I said nothing about anyone elses buying habits.

Similarly, the hard-science genre is what I enjoy writing; and why else would I write, when I could just play video games or whatnot, if not for enjoyment? (And perhaps, eventually, cash?)

I do enjoy well-characterized hard science the MOST (Niven, Heinlein, Bear, etc.), and endevor to write it.

I wasn't implying EVERY writer should do so. Like I said -- the free market will decide who is a good writer and who is not.

OSC's science, for example, irritates me, but his extraordinary skill as a fiction craftsman is more than sufficient to overcome that irritation, so I read him.

Of course, changing viewpoint adds whole new dimensions to a novel. I remember when I was reading Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. The main viewpoint character is young Simon. But throughout the epic, Williams would switch viewpoints and we'd get a chance to see Simon through another pair of eyes. So when Simon thought he was being silly or foolish, others thought he was being mature or wise. It added a completely different feel to the hero story.

I also wanted to comment on what you said about characters. If the character's are weak, then the situation (you said science, but I'm going to expand it to also include fantasy and horror) better be really strong. But the reverse is also true. If the situation is weak or cliche, then the characters better be really strong. That is so true in the field of epic fantasy, since ever epic fantasy had exactly the same plot. Again, we see in Ender's Game the cliche that the game is not really a game. But Ender is so powerful of a character, that we forget that OSC employed a cliche.

This also helps me understand the power of, say, Stephen King (perhaps my biggest influence). In his best stuff, he not only has strong situations, but also strong characters.

Thanks for such a powerful seed. I think it has produced good fruit.

Augustine, there's more to choosing who the point of view character should be than whether or not you've got the main character or not. With strong, believable characters, you can argue that each is the main character in his or her own story--whether that's the STORY the author is telling may be another question, of course.

Another example, from fantasy: consider how Tolkien selects his point of view characters. It isn't just a matter of main or not-main characters. In many cases, you could say the point of view character in a particular scene is the main character in that scene, but in other scenes you couldn't say that.

If there's only one main character, then why did Tolkien select the point of view character he did if he didn't choose the main character--he usually had several to choose from?

I submit that he selected the character in the scene who was closest to being an Everyman character. At one point, when we're with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, Aragorn is the only human, and the closest to Everyman for human readers, so he's the point of view character. At another point, when the scene is described by Gimli, it's because he is closest to the Everyman character. Legolas has a bit to say about that scene, but he doesn't say much.

When Aragorn takes the Orthanc palantir, he finds his resolve and knows what he must do, and he is no longer unsure of himself (or qualified to be an Everyman point of view), and Tolkien never puts us into his head again.

I submit that if you want to create a sense of awe about certain characters, whether they are elves or returning kings or Victorian detectives, you stay out of their heads and pick point of view characters as close to those of ordinary readers as you can.

First off, I'd say that if you noticed it, and it bothered you, then it didn't work.

Thank you for the explanation. The concept of telling a scene from the "Everyman POV" gives me a lot to think about. I understood why Doyle choose Watson instead of Holmes -- namely, to create an aura around Holes. But it also explains the power of my favorite novel--To Kill a Mockingbird. Without going into a lot of analysis, Scout Finch is definitely the Everyman character in that story, and the story would simply loose its power if told from Atticus or Jem's POV.

However, shouldn't one consider more than the Everyman character when choosing a POV? For example, Book One of the Lord of the Rings is told predominately from Frodo's viewpoint. It seems to me that Tolkien chose Frodo's POV because he's the one with the One Ring -- not primarily because he's the Everyman character, nor because Tolkien wanted to create an aura around Gandalf.

Or what about OSC's Ender's Game? It seems to me that if any character had the potential NOT to be an Everyman character, Ender did. However, Card choose to focus on those things that we all feel -- loneliness, desire for friendship, longing for acceptance -- thereby making him the Everyman character. Couldn't have Card told the story from another POV and created an mystic around Ender?

I guess my point (or question) is that when considering POV, we have to consider whose story we want to tell. Is that a fair assumption, or should we be looking for the Everyman character and telling it from his or her POV?

Augustine, I apologize for being unclear. I was not arguing that we should all use an Everyman point of view in telling our stories.

I merely wanted to point out how that kind of point of view choice works and what it does to and for readers.

There are plenty of other choices, and ENDER'S GAME, as you point out, is a good example. You may have noticed that OSC has taken the opportunity to tell the same story from different points of view, and has made that same story interesting all over again in the process.

I'll have to think about the One Revelation. Maybe I haven't had it yet.

But I have to protest the idea that the characters make the story. I think that for some people, the characters make the story, and that for most people, the characters are important to the story and you have to have something really special if they're just cardboard figures being pushed around with a stick. But ultimately I think it's the story as a whole that makes the story, which sounds dumb and redundant, but I'll try to elaborate:

Something is happening in the story: A person is changing, the world is being saved (or lost), a mystery is being solved, etc. There may be a bunch of things like this, things that stretch through the story and keep you reading. Any one of them, if really well conceived and delivered, can carry a story for some readers -- probably not all readers, but some. So a mystery story with a really wild setting and a compelling puzzle to be solved will carry some people through without the character being of any interest.

That said, I bore myself when I write stories that don't do a lot with the characters, so for me, I had better pay a lot of attention to them.

Anyway, the insight was in watching the movie Speed. Whatever my reservations about it, I found it riveting: I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. After it was over, I asked myself, how are they doing this? And it turned out that it was little arcs within arcs.

First the big arc: They put out one situation that wouldn't be resolved until the end of the movie, the terrorist guy. Who is he? How can he be defeated? Whenever there wasn't something else to draw our attention, they always brought us back to that question and we said, "Oh yeah, I'm still worried about that!"

Then within that they drew smaller arcs of suspense. The major one within that grouping was the bus. Oh no, the bus will blow up if they slow down! How will they survive?

Then within *that* they had scene-by-scene arcs of suspense. Will Keanu Reeve's character get killed as he reels in under the bus? How will they survive that gap in the freeway? Etc.

I guess that's the whole insight: If you want to create suspense, start with a big thing that can be sustained through the whole story, but then within that make smaller suspenseful situations that bear the brunt of attention for a while, and maybe even make smaller situations within those. Don't rely on the single main item of suspense to carry you, and don't rely on one suspenseful item after another if each resolves before the other starts, because then you have dead space when one is wound down and the next is picking up.

The original poster (Augustine) strikes a chord with me when he mentions that
Characters draw me to a book, the plot-line is desert.

Possibly this is why "Goodbye, Mr Chips" is one of my favorite stories. James Herriot
proved that a fortune can be made selling to character lovers. This is why Mrs.
Pumphrey and Tricki-Woo could never die. The little Peekinese was pushing 30 in the
last book.

But what makes the character interesting? and why?

I love a character because he is either like my image of myself or someone I love or
wish that I could love.

Adults recognize Bean and Ender's genius like they should have recognized mine at a
similar age. (yes I am being a little facetious)

Sister Carlotta has my mother's compassion, unwavering faith and willingness to
cheerfully fight for their beliefs. The fact that my Pentecostal mother and the Catholic
Nun would unhesitatingly consign each other to Hell is beside the point.