http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2013/01/cory-doctorow-where-characters-come-from/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Really interesting article by Cory Doctorow on where characters come from. For me, it has that ring of truth about it; that he's hit on the nub of this issue. It ties in also with a recent article by the editor of Penumbra, in which she talks about how good Ray Bradbury was at endings, in that he didn't always draw a story to a final stop; he often left the final outcome open. Which fits with what Doctorow says about how fictional characters will (if they're written well enough) live on in the reader after the story ends.

Yes, fascinating stuff. Thanks for the link, Terry.

I really enjoyed reading the article. Only one character from a book has 'stayed with me' as if she was a living, breathing person. All the others have been fleeting, acquaintances that are gone from mind within a few days. But the character who stayed felt like a real person, even though her story was extremely unlikely.

Sharley, I think there is a lot in this subject. Why is it, for example, that most fictional characters don't stay with the reader? It could be to do with emotional exploration: that really good writers get right inside their characters and work outwards, so to speak, from their emotional core. By contrast, not so good writers always stay on the outside, manipulating their characters like chess pieces. And it could be that the key here is how a writer is in life, not just when writing. I really do feel that some people have natural empathy with others - not just in terms of sympathising, but in actually feeling they're inside someone else, feeling what they feel, thinking what they think. Others don't; and perhaps don't even realise they don't. After all, such empathy is an obstacle to many careers, like politics. But perhaps even to the career of a writer who wants to make a lot of money and be famous, rather than who wants to create real characters.

Essie posted this on Facebook earlier. Although different to Cory's piece, it does note that

The areas of the brain that light up during close reading are not just those associated with attention, but also those involved with movement and touch. It is as if the readers physically place themselves in the story when they analyse it more carefully.

http://doyoudothewritething.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/do-you-ever-lose-yourself-in-book.html?spref=fb

I really do feel that some people have natural empathy with others - not just in terms of sympathising, but in actually feeling they're inside someone else, feeling what they feel, thinking what they think. Others don't; and perhaps don't even realise they don't.

I agree. But this probably relates to readers as well, which may in some way explain why some people simply cannot enjoy books.

Or really like superficial, derivative, predictable books. Must be different food they seek: not to experience characters first hand but maybe more just to be taken on a temporary thrill-ride, like a theme park rollercoaster.

I remember talking to a work colleague once about Harry Potter. I said that one of the problems I had with it was that the imagery is often illogical or contradictory, and because I visualise what I'm reading, it irked me badly. She said, oh but I never picture anything when I read, I just sort of follow the story. Which stunned me at the time, since I couldn't imagine why anyone would take part in a story they can't actually see. But I suspect she's not alone. Curious, too, that the characters in Harry Potter are more like placards of type than human beings. Just my view of course.

Really enjoyed that, thanks Terry. Love the idea of the simulator...

I visualise what I'm reading, it irked me badly. She said, oh but I never picture anything when I read, I just sort of follow the story. Which stunned me at the time, since I couldn't imagine why anyone would take part in a story they can't actually see.

Me, too. I think this is one of the differences, broadly speaking, between those who like literary (depth) and those who prefer genre (width, I suppose). When the writing is good enough, I pretty much have a movie running in my head.

I think it's the same with, say, classical music - those of us who can see the trees, feel the wind, imagine the festival, watch the pretty girl dance, whatever it is, and those who see absolutely nothing. Even when Beethoven helpfully captions his music with stuff like 'cheerful feelings upon arrival in the countryside' and suchlike). It's a sort of emotional blindness and I feel sorry for them.

It's a sort of emotional blindness and I feel sorry for them.

Hmm, don't be sorry! I'm a musician and one of those who 'sees' absolutely nothing when playing or listening to music. But it's not a problem; it's just a different kind of experience.

It's a sort of emotional blindness and I feel sorry for them.

How do you know they don't have other, maybe enlightening, emotional, or spiritually rewarding experiences?

I listen to classical music every day, and don't seek or want anyone imposing their own perceptions on me.

And I don't need sympathy, but thanks for your concern.

I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone and I didn't say it's the only way to experience music that's worthwhile - I also experience the rewards you describe, depending on the piece of music - but you are missing out on a whole dimension of some classical music that is available to those that can access it.