Losing Control of Characters and the Brain

[The Big Peat]

Interesting article here that I think might interest a lot of people and get them thinking about how they're doing their writing:

How Do Some Authors “Lose Control” of Their Characters?

Many fiction writers say that their characters seem to have minds of their own. Writers sometimes report that they feel that the events in their novel, or even the words themselves, are being dicta…

lithub.com

Still processing how I feel about it but it does make sense what the writer is saying

 

[Steve Harrison]

That is very interesting. Thanks for posting.

I think as I progress as a writer, my subconscious does tend to 'disengage' from me more and more and occupy (or possess!) my characters, enabling them to interpret my intentions and come up with hopefully an even better solution. I am often surprised when characters do something I did not consciously intend, but I assume that some creative process is happening somewhere in the vast empty spaces of my head and directing these things while I have a cup of tea.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Interesting. I think I just develop a lot of empathy for whoever I’m writing and then they become more rounded and real and balanced choices become more logical.

 

[sknox]

Reading the article sparked a sideways thought. We often talk of characters taking on their own agency and affecting the story. Lots of discussions swirl around that proposition and those anecdotes.

No one ever talks of setting doing this. Or theme or plot. Yet, those are as much inventions as characters. And arguably each of those three elements grow and evolve over the course of a novel and are susceptible to the same phenomenon of "automization" or whatever that word was the article used.

Isn't that odd? Especially for fantasy and SF writers, setting surely would be a candidate. Do we only talk this way about characters because it feels silly to claim our setting came to us and had a conversation?

Not sure what to make of this. Just a sideways thought.

 

[-K2-]

Hmm... Thanks for this article. I often wondered if I'm crazy. Now I know I'm sane because my characters are my own creation and do exactly what I tell them to do--what's that? No, I'm talking about my characters. Give me a couple minutes, then I'll deal with you--Anywho...

No, I don't have this problem/advantage. And yes, I get it (or maybe I don't), this article is a bit of exaggerated fun with some solid points made. To me, some of it read essentially as, 'some writers let their imaginations get away from them,' or more true my guess, some authors would like for others to recognize (that's code for 'believe') their vivid imaginations. Most of my characters are me at some stage(s) of my life. Others, people I've known (though I don't carbon-copy the person. I just use them as a model in the back of my mind).

That said, I will let my characters run freely to some degree, though not like suggested in the article. By knowing their personality, how they'd respond to this or that and so on, I'll establish a basic scene plot and then let the character's traits fill in the details. However, instead of the scene/characters running astray, it tends to instead expand the scene toward points I hadn't considered and define details that otherwise might have been neglected.

Anyway, that's just my take on it--Huh? Yes, now we can all talk. It's the people it's the people--Tell the others to watch their language though.

SyBil
...err Nikki--no, Tom--uh, I mean K2... yeah, K2

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't think of it as losing control. When they start making their own decisions, when they insist on doing things their own way, they are doing what I expect them to do, what I created them to do.

 

[Star-child]

No one ever talks of setting doing this. Or theme or plot. Yet, those are as much inventions as characters.

Because we have been told that all stories are about the characters and that we should be embarrassed to think of storytelling as anything but a recital of the human condition. Thank heavens other artists have gotten over this compulsion to only celebrate humanity, or we would only have Mona Lisas and no haystacks or koi.


I think the article is something of a celebration of the delusion of the subconscious. We don't lose free will to imaginative processes; we ask our minds to perform a labor saving task so the part that feels like "I" can do something else more engaging. Just like allowing yourself to be hypnotized, you have to decide to let the empathic simulation of a fictional character assert control of the writing process. It is a decision you can and should be able to revoke when necessary - or admit that your creativity isn't an act of free will but a trained dream product that is neatly bounded enough to be written down lucidly. I don't think I could take pride in work that was handed off to a subroutine anymore than I could enjoy painting blindfolded - regardless of the final product.

Human beings are personality simulators. Most natural language is built around influencing, explaining or inquiring about the emotional states of others toward the people around them. This provided the glue to allow individual innovations to spread into communities, creating civilization. But we are hopelessly obsessed by what other people think, to the point that we can give an imaginary friend agency in the real world - and writing is a real world activity. But every thought or impulse of those fictional characters is a product of our intellects, and we could invent them consciously with the same resources the unconscious is using. The question is whether the best way to write is to let characters happen by simply following the rules we programed them with, or if better fiction would be the product of placing characters in time with processes different than simply their decision trees. Are we trying to write something true to life, or something that is groundbreaking yet authentic?

My sincere hope is that the various forms of genre writing provide an artistic workspace for something other than the mastabatory experience of merely simulating people. 100 billion actual humans have already existed - how important is it to add a few more fictional ones to that number? The puzzle box of plot; the crafty warp of prose; the outrageousness of a pure idea are worth celebrating because they only really exist in fiction, while being and pretending to be people is something we all do so easily.

 

[HareBrain]

Just like allowing yourself to be hypnotized, you have to decide to let the empathic simulation of a fictional character assert control of the writing process. It is a decision you can and should be able to revoke when necessary

I'm not sure many would argue otherwise. The phenomenon of a character "taking control" is just an instinctive recognition that something doesn't work, and the task is then to work out why. This might be carried out by "listening" to the character, or by some other process. (I must admit I've never had discussions with mine.) Much the same can happen with plot or structure.

Most creativity, I think, is subconscious in the first instance. But then you apply conscious control to that initial creation. I think most writers who ceded control completely to their characters would end up with a plotless mess.

The puzzle box of plot; the crafty warp of prose; the outrageousness of a pure idea are worth celebrating because they only really exist in fiction, while being and pretending to be people is something we all do so easily.

I agree, but for me the characters need to be true to life (or one's understanding of life) too, and of sufficient interest. All elements -- character, plot, ideas, prose -- have to reach a certain bar for the story to be worth reading.

There is perhaps a risk of authors thinking their characters are more interesting than they really are, like some parents with their children, and feeling that they can carry a story by themselves. There is also perhaps a danger that talking up the idea of characters being independent increases this.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don’t think anyone says - especially in the sf arena - that all stories have to be about the characters or we should be embarrassed that they’re about anything else. I think there is a trend towards character stories but that doesn’t preclude a fabulous world book (The Three Body Problem comes to mind as a book with weak characterisation and a rocking world).

What I do think is that it is useful if a writer becomes as nuanced as they can in each area. I hate description and couldn’t give a stuff about worldbuilding - but I do both because the reading experience is diminished without a believable world and a level of description that satisfies (also, as Teresa points out to me a lot - when worldbuilding is weak, the reader notices and is drawn out from the story, no matter how strong other aspects are)

Which means, conversely, when a writer is strong on the world and the plot they still need to create characters that feel real or the reader gets distracted.

Adrian Tchaikovsky’s Children of Time had relatively weak human characters in it (for my taste), and rocking spiders. In the sequel the humans were much more believable and sympathetic, the world building and plotting just as strong, and I felt it was a much stronger book (he’s getting my Hugo nom) for that.

So, yeah, write a book that’s about the world and idea but if characterisation is not considered and developed it’s not a fully formed book, any more than one with great characters is formed without world building and plot.

(All just my opinion, nothing more)

 

[The Bluestocking]

*Side-eyes my little kitsune*

 

[Robert Zwilling]

It seems like the creative process expressed by writing is no different than that of a painter or a musician, which could mean that the end result is based on doing what makes the artist pleased with the end result, drawing on personal preferences based on a common human perceptions of what works and what doesn't work for each situation. The notes coming out of the instrument, the colors coming off the brush, the words flowing from the mind are all coming from the same place. The end result is a personal success if the only one who relates to the finished work is the artist and a commercial success if the created material manages to strike a chord that many people can appreciate. And then there are the people who have every single detail set in place before they start, having first imagined everything to a satisfactory conclusion. Either way, both ways solve the problem of finishing what was started.

 

[tinkerdan]

When mine take over I just hand off the keyboard and say..
'Go ahead. Finish it.'

 

[Karn's Return]

This is something I know of from time to time. My latest was losing control of a druid character of mine...I'm just surprised she had turned into such a bitch in the piece. Of course, I may scrap the entire idea or at least very much look things over...

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I wonder how many times it is the case, when a character suddenly falls into a downward spiral, that the character has become a virtual representation of someone we are none too pleased with. It allows part of our 24/7 subconscious mind to utilize an outlet through a temporary projection of the conscious mind.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I’ve only once lost control of a character. A very minor character took on a life of his own, gave himself a name, a personality and an entire sub-plot that has since won high praise from beta readers! It’s not something I make a habit of, but on that occasion I recognised his determination and just let him get on with it.

 

[Toby Frost]

The phenomenon of a character "taking control" is just an instinctive recognition that something doesn't work, and the task is then to work out why.

There is perhaps a risk of authors thinking their characters are more interesting than they really are, like some parents with their children, and feeling that they can carry a story by themselves. There is also perhaps a danger that talking up the idea of characters being independent increases this.

I think these are both very true.

Personally, I find the whole "my characters surprise me" thing a little bit twee, as they're not real people and so, one way or another, what they do has to be the writer's decision. But in a way it's a convenient shorthand for "I didn't expect that I would come up with this idea". I suspect that, when you write a character, you're not just saying what they'll do in this particular story, but writing a set of rules by which they would function in any story ("if X is sufficiently wronged, he will seek revenge", etc). Some of these rules may not be consciously realised by the writer. So then, when the writer writes more about the character, making them comply with rules that he hasn't formally stated, it may come as a surprise.

I suppose there are moments when a character appears to act entirely contrary to their previous personality - a villain behaves well, a coward is heroic etc. But in that situation, there must be an element of the writer thinking (on some level) "This would be good for the story" or just "This feels like a cool thing to do" (two different things).

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I suppose there are moments when a character appears to act entirely contrary to their previous personality - a villain behaves well, a coward is heroic etc. But in that situation, there must be an element of the writer thinking (on some level) "This would be good for the story" or just "This feels like a cool thing to do" (two different things).

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. I agree with what you say: my un-named minor character just fitted a space for an enemy that spiced the story up in a slightly laboured section, and went on to twist the main plot with his little subterfuges throughout the rest of the novel. I think I liked one phrase of his and then it just snowballed.

 

[tinkerdan]

It seems that it is most likely that as we write the story of the MC we get acquainted with them and soon. as we get to know them better, we begin to know better what they would do and would not do.

This whole notion that the character takes over is nonsensical because what has happened is that the author realizes that they simply wouldn't be doing what the plot demanded of them at this point.

Both a plotter and a pantser can run into this; especially as a new writer. Both, as they gain a footing in their career, will find that they have fewer conflicts because they begin to understand the dynamics of their characters. And even so, when they do have something come up, it is more likely they will listen to the character(character arch and development)and seek to fix the problem rather than force the plot to bend a character to it's will.

 

[HareBrain]

On a related note about writing and the subconscious, Colin Wilson told a story about how he was given a script by Dino de Laurentiis and basically locked in a hotel room to rewrite it. After days of no progress, he delegated the task to a part of his mind he called George (I think), and then just wrote without paying any attention to what he was doing. After several hours he examined the result, and found it to be a surprisingly good basis on which he could work. (But it being a de Laurentiis film, the bar might have been pretty low.)

I imagine that if I did the same, it would result in utter balls, but there you go.

 

[Toby Frost]

Sorry, @Kerrybuchanan, that wasn't really aimed at anyone in particular: it was just general thoughts.

Colin Wilson wrote an article called "Fantasy and Faculty X" for a book about writing a long time ago. At the time, I found it very odd, but it covered similar territory to that anecdote, and might be worth a re-read. I remember it included a lot of thought about the hemispheres of the brain.