Creative writing

[Palman]

Many argue that the Jedi Order is the closest thing the Star Wars universe has to a wide spread religion, due to it's strong philosophical basis, the prohibition of family attachments resembling the ban of marriage for Catholic priests, the solitary monastic structure of Jedi temple and the black and white good/evil dichotomy of the force.

Aerso mentioned earlier Anathem, which focuses on 'fras' an academic position, not so different from a monk, hidden away in their 'cloisters' and there are of course the various religious sects in the setting, looked down upon by the fras as unwilling to listen to reason.

In some settings magic is a religion, or a ruler may use a myth of being a God incarnate to wield power (see Aztecs/Egyptians/et cetera) or by declaring divine right/mandate of heaven to the throne, not claiming divine power vested in an individual, but that a deity wants them to be monarch and anyone opposing their claim to the throne is opposing that deity.

And a setting can be agnostic or atheist in nature: it could be a commonly understood fact that there is not God or Gods. This actually open an interesting door to play on historical religions in the setting which are no longer practiced, or even with a villain who does believe in a world that doesn't and thinks his action will gain him the grace of God.

If you have a comic book shop nearby, or a good way to get new comics online, you might want to take a look at a new Dark Horse series called S.H.O.O.T. First. Nothing from religion is real, but there are creatures of pure psychic energy that can take the form of that which people believe in. So angels don't exist, but there are things that can slip into our world from another dimension that can take on the appearance of an angel.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

I love everything about Star Wars. Even Jar Jar Binks in some twisted way. Watching the movies as a four and five-year-old cemented my love for science fiction and philosophy forever. Nowadays I've immersed myself in Vonnegut, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Deleuze & Guattari, Arthur C. Clarke, etc. The sort of agnostic nature of many of these books really speaks to me. I love a book where I can identify with the main character(s)

[Palman]

It seems we've exhausted thoughts on religion for the time being, so what else plays into setting? Aerso brought up geography and culture/customs and Ducky mentioned the ruling class/government. We've discussed religion. I can think of three more big aspects of a setting. Any ideas?

[Duckyian Empire]

*thinks of something*

*black smoke comes out of head*

How about agriculture?

[Palman]

You could say agriculture, but that falls under either culture or geography, in my opinion. Here's a another way of looking at what we have thus far:

Geography: where people are
Culture/customs: how people act
Government: how groups of people act
Religion: what people believe (or don't believe)

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

That's wonderful. I think that even though we don't think it, it's phrased in such a way so that it's almost instinctual within a good writer. I know that when I write, I don't even think about that. I just.... do things.

[Palman]

Okay, I'll lead us into the next one then. How about demographics? In a fantasy setting we see humans along side elves and dwarves, in scifi we sometimes see a plethora of alien races. Sometimes there are mutants with strange powers or an uneven balance of genders. What other factors of demographics should we establish for a setting?

[Duckyian Empire]

Lemme think.

I think I got socioeconomic status has to do with it.

[Palman]

That's a great one, Ducky, I hadn't actually thought of SES. In this case we are speaking both of the societal levels which exist within the world and that of individual characters. This can be a bit of a cross over from the culture category. Does anyone else want to add to demographics or offer another topic in world building?

[Aersoldorf]

The time period - ancient, medieval, modern, futuristic, etc.

[Palman]

Some of that is cultural, but you could also use it as a comment on the technology level of a setting. Technology is one of the other things I was thinking of. There is one more.

[Aersoldorf]

Politics?

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Demographics... hmmm. Ducky took the words out of my mouth with socioeconomic status. That's a big one, because a lot of the story depends on how the characters stand in society. A great example would be Batman. He's able to fight crime so well and so silently due in large part to his inventory and status. He has all the technology the billionaire owner of a multinational corporation could buy.

[Palman]

Oh my! Sorry guys, I totally thought I posted this yesterday!

The last topic I was thinking of was anything supernatural be it magic, psychic powers, mythical creatures, mutant abilities or anything else which someone can do in your world, that they couldn't in ours, but isn't made possible by their technology.

Does anyone have anything else they want to talk about in regards to setting before we shift or discussion to characters? I get the feeling you guys are tired of this topic, and I'm sorry, it ran about 3-4 days longer than I had intended.

[Duckyian Empire]

No, that's fine. I do think it has been delayed, however.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Yeah, I agree with Ducky.

[Palman]

Hey guys, sorry it took me a couple days to get back to this, I spent all day yesterday trying to get the editors for my blog to work together.

Anyways when it comes to characters there are a number of aspects that are important. We must consider the perspective of the writing (first person or third person), are we following one person or many (Harry Potter vs. Animorphs), and how do they fit into the world we've created. Any others? Any comments on preferred approaches to those aspects I listed above?

[Aersoldorf]

I like first person approaches best because it's easier to 'get inside' the character. 3rd person is more like 'watching them'.

[Palman]

Even opposed to third person omniscient, where you are outside the character but are somehow able to comment on what they're thinking? Not challenging, just curious.

[Aersoldorf]

Well, I sort of view first person as an easy way for a single person to tell a story. Rarely does action take place apart from that person, so it's like you become that character and follow the story from their point of view. Third person allows the story to expand and show happenings to multiple characters. In that situation it's not uncommon for an explanation to be given of what that person is thinking or reasoning.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

I agree with Aerso here. I like to focus within the story itself, and it really provides an insight into the story from one point of view. It immerses you in the action, despite only seeing one point of view. In some stories I will grant that third person is necessary. I was a huge Animorphs junkie in elementary school. I read every single one of the 54 books at least three times. Those are a great example of how different perspectives and third person is used quite well. With third person, I like having the different viewpoints of the action be going on separately, then joined together at the climax.

For stories that I write, I generally use first person because it allows me to feel a personal connection with the story. It allows me to put myself and my ideals and beliefs into writing.

[Duckyian Empire]

I have not written a story in the longest of time, so my opinions might be a bit rusty.

I used to favour first person, because it allows the reader to see the story through the protagonist's eyes. However, I have come to realise that third person is better. The narrator provides 'better' information about the events in the book.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Ah, I don't know so much about what's "better" or "worse" in this case, it's just what feels right for that particular story. I've written in both styles and both are good for a different thing. I like third person for being able to run multiple threads at the same time, joining and separating them at key points throughout the story. First person really gives an in-depth view to one side of it, and if there's really one main character, why not show it through their eyes?

[Palman]

So it sounds like there's also a general consensus on a preference for a single main character? What benefits does that offer over an ensemble cast?

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Well, once again I'm not always sure that a single main character is a good idea. I mean, in a lot of places it is, but it's all about how the story is developed. A lot of times I will start writing a story with one main character, realize it doesn't work the way I want it to, then go back and write another version with a more... well, ensemble cast, as you put it. I can see either one working in different scenarios.

[Aersoldorf]

Reading a first person account is more personal. It allows you to 'be' the character, whereas a larger cast gives you more perspectives and is like watching a movie in your mind. There are pros and cons for both approaches.

[Duckyian Empire]

A one person story can work for both first and third perspectives. One can be the character or simply follow said character. An ensemble of people can sometimes make a story confusing and many a tangent can occur.

[Palman]

I actually want to pick your brains regarding a discussion I had with a friend the other day. We were talking about how to introduce a main character at the start of a novel and came up with a number of ways to do so. Obviously, it comes down to personal preference, but I was wondering where your personal preferences lay: through dialog (starting with them talking to someone), a straight out description (more useful in a third person perspective, perhaps as a prologue, or if someone is introducing them to another character), or starting in medias res (let their actions speak for themselves, usually by starting them in the middle of something).

Just a curiosity, and I figured it's related to our discussion of characters anyways.

[Duckyian Empire]

I guess I like medias res the best; I like to see the main character in action. Then, I like to see a description of themselves. Dialogue comes last; I don't like it when a conversation occurs by two characters if I had no idea who they were or how they revelant to the main story line.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

I just like in medias res with some dialogue. I like to get a sense of how they act to best set up the plot early. I've been reading Brave New World lately, and I love it but what bugs me is that the plot doesn't really move forward until almost halfway through the novel. I like to introduce characters early, without too much of a long setup unless it's completely necessary.