HOME | DD

Description
body div#devskin0 hr { }

Beginner's work tends to be highly character-oriented.

This isn't a bad thing, but interesting. Why do beginners gravitate toward characters? Is it for the same reason some experienced authors might? Or can some reasons be more or less mature than others? Does it matter?

Reasons matter when they affect the way we write something. Here I want to talk about why beginners focus on characters more but also the WAY they do so that follows.

The most notable trait in a beginner's character-centered story is the balance between interaction and reaction. Beginners favor reaction (the way characters respond to actual actions) noticeably often. There is an obvious greater emphasis on things like head-shaking, eye-rolling and "only you would do that" type humor.

This goes for a majority of YA work as well which seems to have turned into a contest about how impressed we can be about characters for their own sake. Whether we're supposed to think they're cute, classy, witty, tough, deep or dark the most "memorable" quotes featured online are mainly banter consisting of friends being impressed with each other, heavy handedly reinstating a specific image the author wants us to get excited about (not always in a justified or fair way).

Example:

"That's such a Kyle thing to do."

"Tell me again you're not a child in an old lady's body."

"I can't even think of a word to describe you. You are a new definition of weird."

"You are a mystery, Mabel."

It's overanalyitcal and unrealistic. It's gotten to the point that some characters exist for the sole purpose of looking at the main character with a half smile and their eyes half closed (Zack from Milo Murphy's Law, the mom from Phineas and Ferb). This results in very boring and very awkward characters. It's a biased and cheap thing to do.

Here is why I believe we do it. We do it for the same reason we make Mary Sues, narcisstic self-inserts and post memes about how cute we are on Facebook and Tumblr. Because we love glory, we love being impressed with ourselves or a certain image we invented for our character. It's not about expressing a deeper message like Tolstoy with his characters or Tolkien who didn't even need characters outside archetypes to tell a meaningful story. It's about something superficial and easy to do. That's why beginners tend to do it. They haven't realized the point of characters yet and use them as an end in themselves.

You might say this is okay as far as a cartoon or story "just for fun" goes. However, I think it affects the little things even in these. If you're characters are always reminiscing and patting each other on the back you should have to earn it. Otherwise these things turn into shortcuts and cheats for emotional highs. You're not making a story, you're making a sap-fest. Interaction has to come before reaction. It has to be earned. We have very self-satisfied books and cartoons today, and it's getting old fast.

Description
body div#devskin0 hr { }

Beginner's work tends to be highly character-oriented.

This isn't a bad thing, but interesting. Why do beginners gravitate toward characters? Is it for the same reason some experienced authors might? Or can some reasons be more or less mature than others? Does it matter?

Reasons matter when they affect the way we write something. Here I want to talk about why beginners focus on characters more but also the WAY they do so that follows.

The most notable trait in a beginner's character-centered story is the balance between interaction and reaction. Beginners favor reaction (the way characters respond to actual actions) noticeably often. There is an obvious greater emphasis on things like head-shaking, eye-rolling and "only you would do that" type humor.

This goes for a majority of YA work as well which seems to have turned into a contest about how impressed we can be about characters for their own sake. Whether we're supposed to think they're cute, classy, witty, tough, deep or dark the most "memorable" quotes featured online are mainly banter consisting of friends being impressed with each other, heavy handedly reinstating a specific image the author wants us to get excited about (not always in a justified or fair way).

Example:

"That's such a Kyle thing to do."

"Tell me again you're not a child in an old lady's body."

"I can't even think of a word to describe you. You are a new definition of weird."

"You are a mystery, Mabel."

It's overanalyitcal and unrealistic. It's gotten to the point that some characters exist for the sole purpose of looking at the main character with a half smile and their eyes half closed (Zack from Milo Murphy's Law, the mom from Phineas and Ferb). This results in very boring and very awkward characters. It's a biased and cheap thing to do.

Here is why I believe we do it. We do it for the same reason we make Mary Sues, narcisstic self-inserts and post memes about how cute we are on Facebook and Tumblr. Because we love glory, we love being impressed with ourselves or a certain image we invented for our character. It's not about expressing a deeper message like Tolstoy with his characters or Tolkien who didn't even need characters outside archetypes to tell a meaningful story. It's about something superficial and easy to do. That's why beginners tend to do it. They haven't realized the point of characters yet and use them as an end in themselves.

You might say this is okay as far as a cartoon or story "just for fun" goes. However, I think it affects the little things even in these. If you're characters are always reminiscing and patting each other on the back you should have to earn it. Otherwise these things turn into shortcuts and cheats for emotional highs. You're not making a story, you're making a sap-fest. Interaction has to come before reaction. It has to be earned. We have very self-satisfied books and cartoons today, and it's getting old fast.