I've Got a Theory: Character Pantsers

Generally speaking, we are each better at either plot, characters, or setting, right? (Click here to see a fun poll on whether plot, setting, or characters came first.) One of those three tends to come more easily to us. It's the thing that feels most real in the first draft. It's the thing that feels most clear to you as you're writing.

And although we're all somewhere in the middle, we each consider ourselves to be either a plotter or a pantser / discovery writer, right?

Here's where my theory comes into play. You ready?

Discovery writers (a.k.a. pantsers) tend to be strongest at writing characters.

I know that a lot of writers get a character (or characters) in mind, then plop them down somewhere in the middle of a situation and see what they'll do. Who wants to plot that? The fun is seeing how the character(s) react to the situation, and then see where it goes from there. It totally works!

On the other hand, you can't really plop a plot down amongst characters in a setting, and see what the plot does. You can't really plop a setting down amongst characters and a plot, and see what the setting does. Obviously both the plot and the setting is colored by everything and colors everything, but it's not the driving force.

So let's go about proving / disproving my theory, shall we? In the comments, tell me what you're strongest at (plot, setting, or character), and whether you're primarily a plotter or a pantser. (Or use whatever phrase you prefer to call it.) I'll start us out.

I'm a Setting / Plotter.

You?

Avengers and human vulnerabilities

This is probably going to come as a surprise, out of nowhere kind of thing, but I'm going to let the cat out of the bag anyway. I think Joss Whedon is a genius. And I don't know... I think it might just be possible that I'm not the only one who thinks that... When people ask who my Author Crush is, I've always been wishy-washy. Apparently I just needed to think beyond books. It's been Joss since before I started writing.

Anyway, to get to the point, I read an article on Huffington Post by Maureen Ryan called 'Avengers' Fans: Thank TV For That Awesome Movie. If you're a fan of Joss, click on that link and read the whole article. It'll make you feel good all over. (I have no idea who Maureen Ryan is, but anyone who starts out an article with "There's a cloud to the silver lining of "The Avengers'" record-smashing success: We've probably lost its screenwriter and director Joss Whedon to the movies forever" is pretty worth reading in my book.)

And wow. I still haven't gotten to the point. (I just saw Avengers last night, so I'm kind of on an Avengers high. I swear I'll make my brain stay focused.) There are several ways to make your character sympathetic, likeable and relateable to your readers. If you make a character that is perfect in every way, how is anyone going to be able to relate to that? No one is perfect! It's kind of hard to see yourself in the shoes of someone who is. We don't find ourselves rooting for the perfect characters. Yet one of the ways we can make a character likeable is to make them REALLY GOOD at something. We like characters who are just downright awesome at things. So how do we make them still likeable and relateable while keeping their awesomeness intact? In her article about the The Avengers' opening night success, Maureen Ryan gave a few incredible writing tips. So I'm going to let her take it away.

[Whedon] makes us relate to the specially chosen and the super-powered because he shows them experiencing self-doubt, self-loathing and fear. 

Yes, these men and women are exalted and special, but they're vulnerable too. That's what makes us love them, and Whedon has always understood that. 

It's their reluctance -- the kind of reluctance exhibited by every major Whedon character -- that makes their sacrifices all the more meaningful. It's easy to be on a character's side when we know what their choices have cost them, and what flaws they had to overcome to make a meaningful contribution to the Big Plan for Battling Evil. We can't relate to being indestructible or unspeakably powerful (though of course, these movies tap into those aspirations), but we all know what it's like to have doubts about our own abilities, to fear letting people down and to wonder whether we can trust other people (especially others who appear to be every bit as flawed as ourselves).

Well said, isn't it? So those characters that are hugely good at something become relateable to the reader when they also have very human vulnerabilities.

By raise of hands, who has seen The Avengers?

The Way We Are: Character Pics?

Okay, so I know that some of us use playlists for our manuscripts, some of us don't. Some of us know our characters' names immediately, some of us agonize over it for months. As far as outside-your-head inspiration goes, I have one more question.

Do you search for a picture of someone who looks like your character(s)?

Is it one of those things you have to have to start writing? Or do you go out and search when you hit a sagging part in your manuscript, to re-energize you and help you find the focus you're looking for? Or does it matter to you at all?

If you don't look for pictures, why not?

If you do, where do you usually go to find your images? And do you tend to find random people, or do you look for actors that you would love to see cast in the movie of your book?

My answer: I don't. Part of the reason is that I don't think I would ever find someone who not only had the same look, but who had the same look of / lack of confidence. The same amount of sweetness / gruffness. The same amount of innocence / guilt. You know-- all the little things that go beyond a person's features, but that also show who they are.

The other part of the reason is, beyond googling "faces" or searching through a billion photographers' sites, I never know where to look. (So if you've got suggestions, I'm dying to hear them!)

What about you?

The Way We Are: The First

Every single novel had a teeny little beginning. The initial spark of an idea. That thing that came very first that made your brain go crazy with the possibilities of where to take it.

Thinking of your WIP, what element came first for you? 
Plot, Character(s), or Setting?

If you had asked me this question and I had to spurt out an answer without giving it any thought first, I would have shouted, "Plot!" (Because you tend to shout when someone tells you to spurt an answer.) As I actually thought about it, though, it's so not plot for me. It's setting! In fact, when I look at every book I've written, it's been setting every single time. I'm not 100% sure why it is that way for me. Maybe because I like to travel, but don't get to often. Maybe it's because I love when a book takes me somewhere unique. And for the setting to truly effect every aspect of the story, it has to be in my mind from the very beginning.

So now it's your turn! And since a) we haven't done this for a while, b) I'm home writing today, and c) I love pictorial representations of random questions, I say we do this as a picture graph!

Several times during the day (and tomorrow, too), I'll update the graph based on your comments.

Ready, set, go!



P.S. Thanks so much to Colin D Smith for the Versatile Blogger Award, and to Kelley at Between the Bookends for the Two Thumbs Up From a Skunk Award! I feel honored, guys. Thanks!

Who knew we were playing with so much power?

Well, okay. Probably us. We know the power words have. I watched a youtube video months ago that showed the power words have in such a different way than I've ever thought, and it's fascinated me ever since. This video really spoke to the writer me.

It's eight minutes long. I know not everyone wants to watch a clip that long, so I'll paraphrase.

Basically, it says that the words you learn could have an impact on the colors you see. Fascinating already, right? They talk about tests they do on babies and toddlers to see how the brain processes color before language and after language, which is in itself interesting, but the part that really got me was about the Himba tribe in Northern Namibia.

The English language has eleven color categories. Reds, blues, greens, browns, yellows, etc. In the Himba tribe, they have FOUR.

Zoozu= dark colors, including red, some blues, some greens, and purple
Vapa= white and some yellows
Borou= some greens and blues
Dumbu= different greens, reds, and brown

Why is this weird? They did a test, showing participants a ring of squares where all but one of the colors were the same. When the colors were all green, with one very slightly different, English-speakers had a hard time figuring out which green was different. With the Namibia, the other green had a different NAME, so they picked it out instantly. When the ring of colors were all green with one blue, English-speakers picked it out the second it was put on the screen. Easy peasy, right? The two colors had the same name among the Himba, though, so they couldn't tell the difference.

So the words we use to categorize things really changes the way we SEE things. Isn't that fascinating? (If you want to just watch the Himba tribe part, skip to the 3 minute mark. I promise it's worth it.)



When I first saw this video, I thought, Wow! It would be so cool if someone wrote a fantasy using some of these elements! But then I realized that its implications are far greater. This talks about how we categorize colors. That by having categories to put them in, we quickly order what we see.

Characters and setting are the same way. When you read about someone or some place, your mind immediately categorizes them (not always in the right category, of course). The brain orders what it sees. And that, my friends, can be used to our advantage or our disadvantage. A reader WILL do it, whether we want them to or not. If we're aware of it when we first introduce a scene, it can be to our advantage. A few carefully chosen words can set a scene by placing it in a well-known category, which is especially helpful when it's a part you don't want bogged down by description. If we're aware of it when we're introducing a character, helping the reader put them into a category with the words we choose can get them thinking exactly what we want them to think about that character (whether it's a correct assumption on their part, or whether we want them to learn it's incorrect later).

Pretty powerful stuff, words. Kinda makes you feel like a superhero, doesn't it?

I've Got a Theory: That Spark is Your Super Strength

Okay, so you know how everyone has one method of learning that works better than others?  Seeing, hearing, or touching, right? You may learn best by, say, by seeing, but you can still learn by hearing or touch-- it's just takes a bit more work.

And you know how there's three basic elements to every story-- Plot (including conflict), Characters, and Setting?

Well, I have a theory that sort of combines the two concepts:

Out of the three main story elements, everyone has one area of super strength that they are a natural at.

About about your current work in progress, think back to the very, very beginnings of it when that first spark of an idea came to you. That thing you built the entire story around. Was it a character that inspired the story? A place where the story would happen? An idea for a general concept or a fabulous conflict? When you get a new story idea, that initial spark-- character, setting, or plot-- generally comes in the form of the thing out of those three you are best at.

So... if I'm a natural at writing characters that feel real, does that mean my plot and setting are going to stink?

No. It just means that you are going to have to try harder on your plot and setting than you had to do on characters. That those things probably aren't going to be strong enough in the first draft, and it will take a few rounds of revisions to get them up to the same level as the thing you've got super powers at.

Okay, so a few examples. I would dare say that Stephenie Meyer's and J.K. Rowling's strengths are in characters. Stephenie said that her characters came to her fully-formed (a huge hint that characters are her strength). And in both of those series, wasn't it amazing how real the characters-- even the minor ones-- felt? And I think than Dan Brown's, John Grisham's, and James Patterson's strengths lie in plot. And that pretty much every high fantasy book's strengths are in setting.

So what do you think? Do you have one area of super strength and other areas that you have to work really hard at to get to the same level?