(no subject)

This week has felt a bit like herding cats. Very frustrated.

1. Having managed to write 129 pages of my new novel, I got stuck at page 129. The characters just stopped talking to me for some reason. I don't believe in writer's blocks, just story blocks - which happen when the characters stop talking to you.

2. While I've stated on various occasions that I love the idea of doing the worst thing possible to a character to see what they will do, this doesn't always work. Or it works better in theory than in practice. And it has to be done carefully and only if it works within the story thread and in a way that is interesting and pushes both story and characters forward. If you do it? You have to live with the consequences. Too often writers, particularly television, soap opera, and comic book writers will do it -- then go, whoops, ret-con!! Or oh, we did that. Now lets forget we did and move on. Or they end up writing themselves in a corner and are stuck.

For example?

In Buffy, Whedon did this a lot. He even states that he believes in doing the worst thing possible to his characters - to explore them. Keep in mind - Joss Whedon is a HORROR writer and that's how HORROR writers think. He is NOT a science fiction or fantasy writer - they think in world-building terms.
Nor a romance writer -- who thinks in terms of the romantic relationship and how to make it work.
Nor a mystery writer who thinks - how do we solve the puzzle and how does it affect the characters.
The HORROR writer is interested in how horrible things, nightmarish things effect us and how we survive them. They like to torture characters. If this isn't your thing? Don't watch horror. (Honestly? It's not really mine, I don't tend to like horror that much. After a bit, it's exhausting.
And you start to wonder if the frigging writer is a sadist. And if you're one too for watching, reading along.)

Comic books also do it a lot. They also do a lot ret-conning. As too do soap operas. I have to admit to enjoying it too a degree -- I like what-if scenarios, and have a weakness for emotional upheaval in drama.

That said? I don't think it is always a good idea. Any more than I think gimmicks or hair-pin plot twists are. They have to come organically from the characters. You can't superimpose it on them. You're characters should have some semblance of free will, not appear to be puppets on a string that you the author are manipulating to your whim.

When I was writing Doing Time on Planet Earth - there was a point in the story, where one of my female protagonists had to confront the antagonist of the story and convince him to do something he didn't want to do. My initial impulse was to have him rape or sexually assault or come one to her. She was meeting him in his hotel room, and he was a bit of a womanizer. Also it would be the worst thing that I could to the female protagonist, the male protagonist, and the antagonist (who was the male protagonist's brother). But it was also cliche and would go against the antagonist's character.
(He argued strongly against it in my head. )

ME: I think I'll have you rape Caddy.
Carlos: I don't think so. First? She's not my type. Second? I don't rape people. Not honorable.
Me: You kill people.
Carlos: No I don't. Or I try really hard not to.
Me: But...
Carlos: No. Figure something else out.

You have to stay true to your character. And if you change them, you have to be willing to justify it.
Each character must be complex and a hero in their own head. People don't think of themselves as villains or antagonists. We're all the protagonist and hero in our own play. That's the problem.
We think we're the lead. When in reality, we're just supporting players.

That's not to say doing the worst thing won't work. Sometimes it does. I thought it did work with Spike on Buffy. The split between me and a good portion of the Spike and/or Spuffy fandom, is I really no problem with Spike getting a soul. I found the fact that he sought one out fascinating and in character. It revealed bits of his relationship with Angel, which was in some respects snarky hero-worship or a desire to emulate, however reluctantly and he would never ever admit it. The thing to remember about Spike is over half of what he tells you about himself is a lie. Oh he believes the lie - but it is a lie. He's formed a second persona or false persona, which he plays to the hilt.
Pretending not to care about people that he clearly cares greatly about. The character is the consummate actor.

Now, you could say getting a soul for Spike wouldn't amount to much. And perhaps not. I mean he already appears to show remorse and care about others. But it depends on how you think the world that Spike lives within defines a soul. And how getting one changes Spike as a character within that world and more importantly affects the other characters in that world. The worst thing they could do to Angel and Buffy was to have Spike of all people seek out a soul for his love of Buffy. Why? Because it shines a spotlight on what was wrong with the Buffy/Angel romance and why Angel can't really be redeemed. It makes you as a viewer question that relationship. But more importantly, it makes Angel and Buffy question what they know about vampires. It also makes Giles question what he knows about vampires in that world. In short, from a world-building and mythology standpoint - it changes things a bit, without changing them too much.

The other thing it did - is it explored on a metaphysical and psychological level - the question of guilt. And how people deal with it. How it can drive you insane. And how to deal with the dark side of yourself - do you wall it up and push it away from you? (Which both Spike and Buffy and Willow attempt to do at different points, not quite succeeding). Do you go hog wild and just give in to it, revel in it? (They also all do that, without good results). Or do you find a way of making it work for you...accepting the anima, but not letting it take you over? Making peace with your dragon so to speak?

Giving Spike a soul in the manner that they did enabled the writers to explore various angles or things in ways they couldn't or rather felt they couldn't do within the rules of their made-up universe. Now, you may disagree with that. But really that's like me quibbling with choices you made in your fic. We tell the story that is organic to us. And we relate to the story that is organic to us. We don't think the same. And some stories just won't work for us. But that doesn't mean they don't work for someone else.

For me, giving him a soul worked better than not. I've read a lot of fanfics where Spike wasn't given a soul - and I have to say, they didn't work for me. There was always something lacking. I felt the character was somehow flatter in those stories. Lacked something. While the stories that followed canon and explored the soul or even made him human, worked better.

But I'm looking for something different in the story than many of the people who felt he should have not gotten a soul were looking for. Or at least that's what I think. I just know, that the soulless Spike fics always felt off to me. The character just...lacked a dimension. He was the cool snarky dude - dangerous and edgy like out of some noir novel, but it felt as if the writer was afraid of making him vulnerable, weak, or at war with himself, afraid of losing that coolness. So he felt flat to me. I emphasize to me, here, because, mileage varies.

Anyhow it's late...long day tomorrow with my parents, and then the family dinner at the posh restaurant on the East River overlooking Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan skyline. A little nervous about it. I hate planning and coordinating things. Makes me edgy.