Rosemary Threetail-LaCroix (threetails) wrote in furry_thinkers,
Rosemary Threetail-LaCroix
threetails
furry_thinkers

  • Mood:

To Soapbox or Not To Soapbox

It seems to be a common thread, many thinkers are also fiction writers.  Fiction is probably the best way to explore a hypothetical "what if," test it out, and see how plausible it sounds.  That said, fiction also is something of a vacuum in which you can make just about any idea work.

Anyway, my biggest question is about personal preferences.  To those who write fiction, how much of your own thoughts about issues do you inject?  Do you make an effort not to become too wrapped up in declaring your stance on everything?  Do you just casually let the chips fall where they may?  Or maybe you are very open and blatant about what you put into your fictional stories.

I tend to try to keep a certain distance between a lot of my ideas and the stories I write.  I do have some stories that usually have themes related to my ideas, but I try to make that secondary to telling a good story and making the chemistry between the characters believable.   My characters may go through the same inner monologues I do, but usually come to vastly different conclusions about how to handle things.  They're products of their own time and place, and I sort of let the story write itself that way.

Of course, I've read works by some authors who were able to write decent work without even going into the nuances of their characters' thought processes, and those whose every story embodies their values to the point of being unreadable.  How do you write yours? 
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 3 comments
the worst thing you can do to any story is put in a mary sue (or a mary stu) or a gratuitous author insert (sorry, I forget the exact name of the trope).

The dumbest mistake a reader can make is to assume a character is the author (that's not to say it doesn't happen, but in books you pay for it really shouldn't).

Also; show, don't tell.
A Mary Sue can work if it's done right, but only the most talented writers can do it well.

That said, I've found that by exaggerating certain traits both of myself and people I know, I can create decidedly unique characters. The best approach to that I've found is, for example, to find a real person who's actually a very pleasant person and turn their smallest iota of meanness into the dominant trait.
This is quite an interesting question as I'm recently applying some of my works into literary form in a manner to challenge the ideas and underpinning of different schools of thought. Typically in my writing I don't include myself directly into any of the characters, if anything the plethora of characters is in part the summation of myself you can argue, through interpellation or reflective consciousness.

The depth of the characters in this particular piece I'm writing is quite crucial, not necessarily to include every particular detail within the story, but to know them myself first hand. The interaction between the characters is perhaps the more integral part to understanding the characters in this sense, the reflective existence of them in situ.

It's odd, one character who's role as my main protagonist within the story as an existentialist whom I could normally understand I find both loveable and loathsome in equal portion. Normally I'd be inclined to agree with such a role within life, but the context of the story challenges many aspects of life.

Alas I'm still writing it, slowly but surely. Hope this equates to an alright response to an interesting question :3