I love your point about only reading books that deeply move you. Lonesome Dove is one such book were I could tell by page two that this guy is a writer, and I was right.
This is a topic that I would need to examine more, but I think I do agree with you. I don't want to be solely in a character's head, going over and over their inner struggles. I want to see competent people going out into the world to kick butt.
Right? For me, they don't even have to be competent. I love a good crash-and-burn. I don't need wish-fulfillment. I just want blood. And yeah, that means close POV writing and characters making important decisions that drive plot. But it all has to matter in a larger sense, for the city, for the people, for the world. There has to be something at stake other than self-actualization.
Yes!! It's often the unique world that really makes a story come to life - not just the characters (because, let's be honest, as you pointed out, characters come in only so many shapes and sizes). Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!
I haven't heard it said this way before, but you're so right. It's why I read... to feel so immersed the world around me falls away. Toni Morrison said something along the lines of "the best writing is not a performance, its quiet." It's true. Airport novels always sound so loud in my head, and so are many of the books being published today with 'quirky' characters. I really enjoyed reading your article, and I'm glad you listed examples of books that achieve this. I'm definitely checking them out.
Hi Ricardo, I'm glad the article spoke to you! That's a great way to put it, "quirky" characters. What about quiet characters, you know? Not literally quiet, but everyday hero types. That's more relatable, at least for me.
After four years of Creative Writing classes, I agree the mantra was all about the character. As a pantser, I don't plot every scene.
However I know my character's by now, so a prompt will place them in a situation and how they will react drives the story to some extent to the end point which I know.
I get it, you know? Character is probably the most difficult dimension. It's certainly essential. But for me, it's not enough. I want more. A grander stage, a sense of history and eschatology.
I really like this use of the term "gestalt" over simply "immersion" or "entertainment" or any other single attribute of a story. One, because "gestalt" is one of the coolest words. Two, because it gets to what really makes good art: each piece building towards a unified idea. Or perhaps the other way around: each piece an *expression of* that unified idea.
Characters are always a big draw for me in a story, but I also really dislike characters that suck the air out of the world. Tried the Red Rising series the other month on a friend's suggestion, and I really think that was one of the things made it hard for me to connect to the story (I mean, there were many things, but this part was distinct among those). That feeling that the weaving process was being put on hold frequently to give the POV MC time--or even some of the side characters--to have "big" emotions over what's happening.
Sometimes it was effective, but sometimes I just wanted him to move on or move aside and get going.
With that said, I actually love pushing through stories I *don't* like or don't connect with to learn from them. I think part of that is my engineering background and brain that learns from trial and error, but I think there's a lot of learning that can be done when you *aren't* sucked into the story and can see everything for what it is... Well, in moderation I like that. Eventually you do need to focus on what *does* work or you end up like the cynics who forget how to enter the illusion.
I know what you mean. Big emotions can get in the way. I think it's all about balance. You can show an emotional reaction in one line of dialog or interior monolog, then move on. Thinking this balance may be a big part of achieving gestalt immersion.
That's a good point about powering through a lackluster story. Sometimes I've done that with critical journaling to process my reading experience, trying to ensure I never make the same mistakes. It's not even meant as an objective value judgment, but just thinking through why I don't want to write something like this, you know?
I finished the article last night, and I think you make some good points. I agree that it's hard to define what gives a story that 'gestalt' feel. Perhaps a good way to say it is that the story as a whole needs to feel much larger than any single part (the definition of gestalt, I now realize). If you elevate the character, you do so at the expense of the world, and vice versa. Surely there are exceptions to this though.
That being said, I think a character can act as 'the world' in a story, just as much as the world itself can be a character. Perhaps what we're getting at here is the feeling of immersion, and ensuring we don't break it. Like pieces of a puzzle, the characters, setting, and plot need to fit together to form a larger, cohesive picture. A character that is disconnected from the world feels abrasive and unsatisfying. A world that remains unchanged by the character feels out of place and largely inconsequential. A plot that isn't properly woven between the two feels discordant, and so forth.
The way I’ve always viewed it is that the world is actually a character itself, a kind of living thing that the protagonist either works with or struggles against. Perhaps that’s the culture of individualism seeping into my understanding of craft. :) I completely agree that an immersive world is a driving force of story. Environment is a crucial shaping for us - so it definitely should be for characters!
I think we can't discount the influence of expressive individualism on our views. But I agree, the world can absolutely be a character. I think what I want is even beyond that definition of world. Another way to say it: I love watching Seinfeld or The Office because it feels like coming home. The thing experienced as "home" is far more than the "worldbuilt world," as usually understood.
One of the methods my wife and I have found helpful is to approach our world in the same way we are told to approach the character. Ask questions. Why is this town here? How do they make their living? What do they do for leisure? How do they interact with the villages/cities around them? What kinds of holidays do they celebrate and how? Is this kingdom thriving toward a golden age or going through decline? How does their culture differ from the nations/peoples around them? How do they work together or clash? How does that affect how they view each other?
When you ask the question, don't be afraid to follow the bunny trail to see where it might lead. For example, my wife had the thought of having two suns in our world. So I started thinking about how that would work. What kind of impact would that have on the climate? On the calendar? On the culture? What religions and holidays would rise from this arrangement? Then, with our world having Christians arriving from another planet in the past, how would they try to infuse Biblical stories and celebrations into this new world.
There's a whole gold mine of world building opportunities if you ask questions and deeply pursue them.
For sure! We have to explore all those things to develop a fully realized world "on paper." The next and much harder step, I think, is to weave all of those threads (including character) into a seamless gestalt whole that thoroughly immerses the reader. That's what I want to write, you know?
I like your take, Leo! I’m similar in that I’d rather read about a compelling world than a compelling person, but I’ve come far in appreciating the latter. My earliest stories were basically all worldbuilding exercises; I needed to learn to populate these worlds with an interesting, diverse array of characters. I think the BEST stories combine both.
And glad you mentioned Interstellar - what an amazing movie!
Right? I tend to think it's the world, the stakes, and the hardships that make a character compelling, not a character that makes a story compelling. For me, the most unforgettable reads almost have a quality of "thingness" to them. There's only one Lord of the Rings, and it has "thingness." There are a thousand knockoffs, and the thingness of each is diluted and undefined. I want to write stories with thingness.
I love your point about only reading books that deeply move you. Lonesome Dove is one such book were I could tell by page two that this guy is a writer, and I was right.
This is a topic that I would need to examine more, but I think I do agree with you. I don't want to be solely in a character's head, going over and over their inner struggles. I want to see competent people going out into the world to kick butt.
Right? For me, they don't even have to be competent. I love a good crash-and-burn. I don't need wish-fulfillment. I just want blood. And yeah, that means close POV writing and characters making important decisions that drive plot. But it all has to matter in a larger sense, for the city, for the people, for the world. There has to be something at stake other than self-actualization.
Yes!! It's often the unique world that really makes a story come to life - not just the characters (because, let's be honest, as you pointed out, characters come in only so many shapes and sizes). Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!
You're welcome! I'm glad the article spoke to you. I think I ultimately want balance and an immersive virtual reality. Only the small stuff, right? :P
That's right! It's the little things - details a lazy writer or reader might miss - that really bring a story to life. =D
Marshalling those details across 100,000 words is hard!
I haven't heard it said this way before, but you're so right. It's why I read... to feel so immersed the world around me falls away. Toni Morrison said something along the lines of "the best writing is not a performance, its quiet." It's true. Airport novels always sound so loud in my head, and so are many of the books being published today with 'quirky' characters. I really enjoyed reading your article, and I'm glad you listed examples of books that achieve this. I'm definitely checking them out.
Hi Ricardo, I'm glad the article spoke to you! That's a great way to put it, "quirky" characters. What about quiet characters, you know? Not literally quiet, but everyday hero types. That's more relatable, at least for me.
After four years of Creative Writing classes, I agree the mantra was all about the character. As a pantser, I don't plot every scene.
However I know my character's by now, so a prompt will place them in a situation and how they will react drives the story to some extent to the end point which I know.
I get it, you know? Character is probably the most difficult dimension. It's certainly essential. But for me, it's not enough. I want more. A grander stage, a sense of history and eschatology.
I really like this use of the term "gestalt" over simply "immersion" or "entertainment" or any other single attribute of a story. One, because "gestalt" is one of the coolest words. Two, because it gets to what really makes good art: each piece building towards a unified idea. Or perhaps the other way around: each piece an *expression of* that unified idea.
Characters are always a big draw for me in a story, but I also really dislike characters that suck the air out of the world. Tried the Red Rising series the other month on a friend's suggestion, and I really think that was one of the things made it hard for me to connect to the story (I mean, there were many things, but this part was distinct among those). That feeling that the weaving process was being put on hold frequently to give the POV MC time--or even some of the side characters--to have "big" emotions over what's happening.
Sometimes it was effective, but sometimes I just wanted him to move on or move aside and get going.
With that said, I actually love pushing through stories I *don't* like or don't connect with to learn from them. I think part of that is my engineering background and brain that learns from trial and error, but I think there's a lot of learning that can be done when you *aren't* sucked into the story and can see everything for what it is... Well, in moderation I like that. Eventually you do need to focus on what *does* work or you end up like the cynics who forget how to enter the illusion.
I know what you mean. Big emotions can get in the way. I think it's all about balance. You can show an emotional reaction in one line of dialog or interior monolog, then move on. Thinking this balance may be a big part of achieving gestalt immersion.
That's a good point about powering through a lackluster story. Sometimes I've done that with critical journaling to process my reading experience, trying to ensure I never make the same mistakes. It's not even meant as an objective value judgment, but just thinking through why I don't want to write something like this, you know?
Exactly. Always trying to figure out the "What do I like, and why?" and the "What do I not like, and why?"
Love it! I really think critical reading is the key to becoming a better writer.
I finished the article last night, and I think you make some good points. I agree that it's hard to define what gives a story that 'gestalt' feel. Perhaps a good way to say it is that the story as a whole needs to feel much larger than any single part (the definition of gestalt, I now realize). If you elevate the character, you do so at the expense of the world, and vice versa. Surely there are exceptions to this though.
That being said, I think a character can act as 'the world' in a story, just as much as the world itself can be a character. Perhaps what we're getting at here is the feeling of immersion, and ensuring we don't break it. Like pieces of a puzzle, the characters, setting, and plot need to fit together to form a larger, cohesive picture. A character that is disconnected from the world feels abrasive and unsatisfying. A world that remains unchanged by the character feels out of place and largely inconsequential. A plot that isn't properly woven between the two feels discordant, and so forth.
That's so well said. I don't think I can add to it! All I know is, I want more of those types of stories. They seem to be so rare.
The way I’ve always viewed it is that the world is actually a character itself, a kind of living thing that the protagonist either works with or struggles against. Perhaps that’s the culture of individualism seeping into my understanding of craft. :) I completely agree that an immersive world is a driving force of story. Environment is a crucial shaping for us - so it definitely should be for characters!
I think we can't discount the influence of expressive individualism on our views. But I agree, the world can absolutely be a character. I think what I want is even beyond that definition of world. Another way to say it: I love watching Seinfeld or The Office because it feels like coming home. The thing experienced as "home" is far more than the "worldbuilt world," as usually understood.
That’s a great example. I agree 100%!
One of the methods my wife and I have found helpful is to approach our world in the same way we are told to approach the character. Ask questions. Why is this town here? How do they make their living? What do they do for leisure? How do they interact with the villages/cities around them? What kinds of holidays do they celebrate and how? Is this kingdom thriving toward a golden age or going through decline? How does their culture differ from the nations/peoples around them? How do they work together or clash? How does that affect how they view each other?
When you ask the question, don't be afraid to follow the bunny trail to see where it might lead. For example, my wife had the thought of having two suns in our world. So I started thinking about how that would work. What kind of impact would that have on the climate? On the calendar? On the culture? What religions and holidays would rise from this arrangement? Then, with our world having Christians arriving from another planet in the past, how would they try to infuse Biblical stories and celebrations into this new world.
There's a whole gold mine of world building opportunities if you ask questions and deeply pursue them.
For sure! We have to explore all those things to develop a fully realized world "on paper." The next and much harder step, I think, is to weave all of those threads (including character) into a seamless gestalt whole that thoroughly immerses the reader. That's what I want to write, you know?
I like your take, Leo! I’m similar in that I’d rather read about a compelling world than a compelling person, but I’ve come far in appreciating the latter. My earliest stories were basically all worldbuilding exercises; I needed to learn to populate these worlds with an interesting, diverse array of characters. I think the BEST stories combine both.
And glad you mentioned Interstellar - what an amazing movie!
Right? I tend to think it's the world, the stakes, and the hardships that make a character compelling, not a character that makes a story compelling. For me, the most unforgettable reads almost have a quality of "thingness" to them. There's only one Lord of the Rings, and it has "thingness." There are a thousand knockoffs, and the thingness of each is diluted and undefined. I want to write stories with thingness.