Which seems to be a very good idea.

But it's perhaps also a good idea to have an inkling of where things are heading - I don't believe King's ever written anything particularly complex. With a serious fantasy/sci-fi novel that requires a well-crafted world and sense of reality, you need to be able to define that situation in the first place before running it.

Personally I would disagree with OSC though, and suggest that it takes years of preparation - at least, for each world concept.

Just my usual opinionated opinion

One difference I do see is that with a science fiction/fantasy setting, you have to establish at least some of the rules and locations before you start, or you don’t have anything to work with. A setting like New England, especially if you already live there, is already established. So that would just leave the vampires, in the case you used, to flesh out with fantasy (And I’m thinking, and this opinion is based solely on watching the movie version (a poor source at best I’ve heard from those who have read the book) a long time ago, that King didn’t run to far from standard vampire mythos so there wasn’t a lot to buildup there either. That statement though, may be entirely rubbish, based on the limited facts I’m using to make it.). So that may be how some of the planning differences factor in.

quote:

---

What he's simply suggesting is that you should let characters drive the plot as much as possible, and be careful not to compromise the reality of your characters, simply to force plot progression in a pre-determined way.

Which seems to be a very good idea. – Chronicles of Empire

---

I’m with you on not forcing the characters to do things out of character, and having the plot go unnatural directions just because you wanted it to. Some ideas, when seeing a new light of day, have no business staying in the story.

So I hear this phase about letting the characters come alive and that they take over. (Which I don’t think is exactly what was meant above, but it brings this to mind and is vaguely related to the starting post).

Okay, fine and dandy if that works for you. I always wonder how that doesn’t turn into a train wreck (at least sometimes).

Here’s the thing. You’re the one writing the story. These characters are your creations. If when left to their own devices they start acting like complete twits, I think somebody (that would be the writer) needs to jerk them back in line. Especially at the beginning, where everybody is still getting to know each other (characters and writer). Characters sometimes need tweaking so they’ve got their heads on straight and don’t go wondering off into La-La land for no appreciable reason (unless that was their purpose all along).
Seems like if you kept a bit of a leash on them in the first place, you’d avoid the twit behavior and a great deal of editing.

What works for one writer may not work for another. What works for one story may not work for another, even for the same writer.

My second thought is that when someone gives you advice, you should go ahead and try it, but you should be aware that it might not work for you (at least not on the story you are trying it with--it may work with another story at some other time).

You have to find the way to write that works for you, and reading how other writers do it and how they recommend you do it is one way to find out the different ways you can try in order to help you find out what works for you.

What Stephen King does works for him, and so, of course, he would recommend it.

What Orson Scott Card does works for him, and, again, he would recommend it.

Either way may work for you, depending on the story, or you may find a way that is in between their two ways, or one that is completely different from either.

Heard Robert Jordan in a couple of online chats & book signings and I can't remember where he said this, but somebody asked if his characters ever just take on a life of their own. His response was something to the effect of "No, they're my characters. I made the story, and they do what I decide for them to do." That kind of sums up my approach to writing. I have to decide what my characters do BEFORE I write.

But that's just me. My 8th grade English teacher couldn't tell or write a decent story unless he was making it up off the top of his head. He was an amazing storyteller, but when he wasn't winging it, or flying by the seat of his pants, his stories were ALWAYS missing something. I still don't know how he does it, but I've always admired that ability in a "Shudder-shudder-gasp-retch" sort of way.

My current novel (like I have 20 published already ) I started with two characters and a fairly loose concept. Two characters turned into three, but even though I was writing I had no idea where it was going. It's no secret that fantasy follows a loose formula. Young man is the unwitting answer to anceint prophecy which sets him out on a quest of some sort. I had my characters a very few sketchy plot notes but that's it. I then combined an idea (the whole prologue actually) from an unfinsihed story and I had a quest. I continued to allow my characters to write for me but it was't long before I had to open a "notes" file and actually wrote a few pages that wouldn't be used for some time.

Maybe it's a combination of both. Though, characters are still the most important thing.

Sidenote: Robert Jordan's comment totally bites my ass. The fact that he considers his charaters his own shows in his writing. While I enjoyed the first book of Wheel of Time I thought the characterization was more than a bit thin. Think about it (using only The Eye of the World) the characters pretty much blend together. Not for nothing but my characters are as much like real people and they don't do what I want them to do but what they would do in a paticular situation.

I'm a little better now, but not by much. At least not with fiction. I've gotten better with advance thoughts for nonfiction, but that's only because I have a pool of outside information to organize.

I can think and think and think about fiction I want to write, but until I put pen to paper or fingers to keys, not much happens.

Just got back from three days in a near-by state during which time of driving all over I thought I'd get some ideas for specifics for the ending of a book I'm working on, and came back with next to nothing. Yet, in the past eight months, by simply sitting and typing, I have over 80,000 words, none of which had been aimed anywhere--other than a few touchstone pieces of dialogue and one scene I knew I'd have somewhere.

'Course, I realize it remains to be seen if it's any good, but the fact is, I couldn't thinkit done, I had to write it done.

Re: Characters
This is not meant to be a spooky thing, but a testament to the subconscious. In another book I was working on, I had a scene where a character was supposed to play the guitar and make some sarcastic comments.

As I wrote, he wouldn't look up, just kept his head down and played beautifully. It turned out adding a dimension to his character that was unexpected and quite perfect.

On Cards note of a book taking weeks to plot: The plus for that is it keeps me on track. I may have many subplots that the characters formed for me (like King's notation).

Thus I have found a healthy compromise of the two work best for me.

I can have a complex outline...
But I start cold turkey so to speak, and develop my characters spontaneously. So they take on a life of their own and sometimes draw out stories I didn't know existed within me. I try (emphasis on try) to make these sub-plots and then get back on track to where I wanted the story to go.

quote:

---

Not for nothing but my characters are as much like real peopl and they don't do what I want them to do but what they would do in a paticular situation. – JOHN

---

But don’t you want them to do what they would logically do given their particular personalities, beliefs, etc. when faced by a particular situation.

Books where the characters act inconsistently drive me mad. I fumed for about a week and a half about Kushiel's Chosen recently where one of the characters (Joscelin) does a somewhat unwarranted about-face in his actions. It killed a whole line of character development in what seemed like little more than the snap of the writer’s fingers. She had a gold mine there of interaction and problems because here was a character in pain (much more than the POV character), and really could have had a better story had she explored it more instead of almost ignoring it and adding a tired set of scenes with pirates.

quote:

---

But don’t you want them to do what they would logically do given their particular personalities, beliefs, etc. when faced by a particular situation.

---

That was my point exactly. Characters are not plot device but plot is character device. What it sounded like Jordan was saying is that he just uses the characters to move along the plot and this shows in his writing. The characterization is so vague you don't know what a character would do in a certain situation to be tru to him or herself.

Maybe I just suffer from Gepeto (spelling) disease.

quote:

---

What it sounded like Jordan was saying is that he just uses the characters to move along the plot and this shows in his writing.

---

Well, I think that's true, but that wasn't quite what I got from his comment.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love the WoT series, but I don't think RJ's infallible. I've read the series 8 times, and I still keep finding little nuances in there that I missed the first 7 times around. But I can't get interested in the characters any more, really. I can't even read the first 3 books anymore, they just drive me nuts, 'cause it's all character development, and the characters are too shallow . . . I already know everything about them. There's nothing more to discover.

But that's okay, because WoT is not a Character story . . . not in the least. It's an event story primarily . . . a milieu story next . . . that's why so much description, and then a plethora of idea/event subplots thrown in on the way. It's great . . . I love it, and I DEFINITELY wouldn't use the books as a model for characterization.

But the man does know how to write what he's good at. His subtlety (in places) just astonishes me. The way he writes scenes with grey men, so that you don't notice them any more than the character does just makes my jaw drop every time. And finding hints of thoughts of details buried in every chapter of every book that I didn't notice the first 8 times through is just exciting.

But don't ever let me hear anybody say he writes non-stereotypical-or-even-slightly-interesting characterizations. Ugh! Gag me.

As for characters being plot device or vice versa . . . it all depends on the kind of story you're writing.

quote:

---

As for characters being plot device or vice versa . . . it all depends on the kind of story you're writing.

---

I guess that’s true, but I can’t EVER write or really get into a story that is all about the event. I used to be an avid comic book fan and as some of you might remember there was a big ado about “The Death of Superman” like some ten years ago. Well, the comic sold phenomenally and publishers started to run around and find new events to boost sagging sales. Green Lantern went crazy and destroyed his home city, we found out that Peter Parker was not Spider-Man but a clone created in a story from the ‘70s, Wolverine had his metal skeleton stripped by Magneto and his claws were only bone, etc. People quickly lost interest. The characters were being ignored and the powers that be were going for the next big event. Publishers soon realized that the reason these books survived for 30-50 years is because of the characters and not the plot as the very nature of comics call for them to be far-fetched.

I know comics and novels are apples and oranges but my point is the same. I enjoyed what little of WoT I’ve read, but imagine if Jordan would’ve had great character as well the books would’ve been flawless (aside from his pension for “literary masturbation”) Real people aren’t magically controlled by some outside force dragging them around by a lease, but the have reasons for their actions. I always thought at least ONE of the goals of writing was to create realistic characters. If any one of those characters died could you honestly say you would give a shit?

This is only my opinion and doesn’t really count for much, but in my eyes Jordan and authors who subscribe to his theory are lacking as writers because of this.

JOHN!

quote:

---

I am now reading Stephen King's On Writing and he said that plot is
evil. never plan it, or take notes on characters. Just take a situation and
run with it.

---

Thank you! I have always loved King's work, but I could never figure out why
the endings to most of his stories were so incredibly stupid. Have you read
'The Stand'? One of my favorite books, right up until the point where the
Hand Of God smites Randall Flagg. Or tries to anyway, the book ends
differently than the mini-series.

In "Characters and Viewpoint" OSC discusses Plot, Milieu and
Characterization. He made a point that I interpreted as, 'you can't have a
story that does not have all three elements.' Who you are defines what you
do. Where you are limits what you can do. Your environment shapes you. All
three are intertwined.

I personally do not enjoy the Travel channel. I also don't like to
people-watch. So, logically, I don't place as much emphasis on developing
the milieu and characters in my story. As a result, some of my early
attempts were more like recipes than stories. (Go here. Then go here. Then
do this. And this happens. Cool.) And by the way, I do like cooking shows.
"Iron Chef" rocks!

Falken writes:

quote:

---

It's like a big puzzle I'm trying to put together in my head, and the
actual writing/words is the picture it makes when the puzzle's
completed.

---

1) Beginning and Ending. Every story (with a few notable exceptions) have
both. The end is easier for me, the criminal is caught, the problem is
solved, the goal is achieved. The beginning, is a lot harder. I now use a
technique that I read here in OSC's discussion about Bean (Ender's Shadow).
He applied the idea to finding the voice of the story, but I found it helps
finding the beginning as well. Essentially, just write the first five pages
or so in as many different ways as you can come up with. Be silly, do stupid
things, emulate others. I find that during this process, at some point a
thought will hit, and the one will rise to the surface.

2) Work Backwards. If I need to end here, what needs to happen immediately
before that? I just keep a list.

1. Villain Caught
2. Villain's Location Discovered
3. Evidence Leading To Villains Location Found
4. Clue to possible location of evidence that might lead to villains
   location found...
   

3) Branch Out. Once I have this main trunk, I then create branches off of it
for subplots and other scenes I use for characterization and milieu.

When I'm done with this plot tree, the tree acts as the scenes or chapters I
need to write. I refine the tree so that every node ends up between two
paragraphs and five pages of finished story.

It is very 'anal' and detailed (and long, whew!) but this is how I do it. I
expect that five or ten years from now I'll look back and see how naive I
was, but this process got me over the most important hurdle so far. How the
hell do I get started!

quote:

---

If you are a genius like Mr. King and have as many books on the racks as he does, you may be able to get by with not plotting.

---

quote:

---

I am now reading Stephen King's On Writing and he said that plot is evil. never plan it, or take notes on characters.

---

quote:

---

A strong enough situation renders the whole question of plot moot, which is fine with me.

---

The problem I have with King's suggestion is that he glosses over the fact that creating a decent story requires the creation of believable characters. He glosses over that fact because it's something he does without thinking. That's sometimes the problem with advice from the super-talented ... they don't understand that what's easy and obvious to them is difficult for others. Sure, he eventually gets around to writing about creating characters, but he does not make the connection at the time he suggests that plotting is moot when the story is strong. The Jaws story works because Benchley created the right characters to tell his story: a heroic police chief, a brainy marine biologist, a salty fisherman, and a devious mayor. Without those characters, it’s just a big fish story.

King describes the process of finding the story as one of discovery, like finding ‘…fossils in the ground…’. He claims his job as a writer is to put his characters in a predicament, and then ‘…to watch what happens and then write it down.’ Like it’s frigging magic or something. I don’t doubt that’s how it happens for him, as it sometimes does for all of us. But it’s not about magic, it’s about creating characters. King gets us going with his suggestion, but then leaves us alone with our story idea, staring at a blank page, and waiting for Chief Brody to magically appear so we can start writing.