Discussion topic: Does "God" Exist?

[leethet]

Because this always gets unwieldy in comms so I think I should rightly rant/discuss here where it won't get in others' way.

This is a writing discussion/question, not a religious one, and it should go without saying that it's my position, not anyone else's.
"When I write, I am God playing Humans." This is true. For all that, in fanfic, we are using someone else's characters, in my stories, for the length of the tale, they're mine. I "created" them (that is, these fannish versions of them). I know what they ate for breakfast (which I didn't put in the story). I know their parentage (which I didn't put in the story). I know their fears (the ones they'll admit and the ones they won't).
And I know their sexual orientation, even if I don't explicitly state it in the story. When I write gen, it's gen. NS and IK are heterosexual men who love one another as brothers and would never, in that particular universe, ever want to have sex with each other. When I write slash, NS and IK are bisexual or homosexual men who have a physical attraction to one another in addition to their love. 
The question/discussion part is here: Writers - do you know your characters and your writing (whether you've articulated it or written it down or plan to include it in the story or not)? Do you sometimes not know your character(s) insides, their motivations, their history, their sexuality, whatever, as you're writing or even when you're done with the story? This is not an accusation or an "if so you're wrong" question. I'm asking in genuine curiosity because I know everyone's process differs. I freely admit (like it's a secret) that I'm offended by readers telling me "yes you did!" after I state explicitly that I did not. I am God in my story universe; the reader is a viewer, looking in from the outside. I am as much a reader as a writer - I fully believe in, and defend, a reader's right to see a story in any way they like, and discuss it and argue it as their interpretation. I do not believe a reader's interpretation is fact (although I actually do also believe that a reader has the total right to believe their interpretation is fact). A reader can argue "This story reads like X" all they want. But if I say "It's Y," although they have the absolute right to say "Shit, still reads like X to me, man. To me, it'll always be X," they do not have the right to tell me, the creator, "You're wrong. You don't know what you wrote, but I do." This distinction, to me, matters (probably because it's happened to me and it's offensive). Because of this, I'm curious - have you had readers contradict you - not interpret a scene differently from the way you'd intended, not point out something you hadn't been consciously aware of, not be puzzled or missed your story point - actually contradict your statement of fact regarding your story by saying "No you didn't"?

Now, it seems that there are writers out there who aren't sure what they're putting in, and I'm interested in hearing examples of discussions they've had with readers regarding interpretation. Do their comments open a window to subconscious things you're doing in a story? Are you resistant to readers' interpretations, even when you yourself aren't certain about them? Or do you deliberately (as it were) write in such a way that all (or at least many) interpretations are equally possible and viable for the characters (that is, the characters remain a bit of a blank, or partly blank, slate)?

As ever, all sorts of comments, including disagreement or anon comments, are welcome here.
 

Comments

[azdak.livejournal.com]

Do you sometimes not know your character(s) insides, their motivations, their history, their sexuality, whatever, as you're writing or even when you're done with the story?

Totally! I find out most things about my characters while I'm writing. I'm lucky if have so much as a name when I start :-) And I definitely like to leave some things opaque, even to me. I think people often don't have any very clear insight into their own identity and motivations, and since I "live" my stories very much through my characters, a lot of things that are unclear to them are also unclear to me. Of course, I have a better chance of figuring things out with hindsight than they do!

[leethet.livejournal.com]

I think people often don't have any very clear insight into their own identity and motivations

I agree, and I find it really interesting that you live your stories with your characters - it makes sense to me. Do you plot stuff out (you've probably already answered this in the past, but of course I plead senility) or go more organic with your writing? I ask wondering if it would be an outgrowth of learning the character as you go (I do think I do that to some extent as I write, though probably not the way you do) - learning who the characters are might generate a plot as you go, or change the plot as you develop them.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

I plot when I have to, but I'm not one of these people who outlines in great detail, because just knowing an outline doesn't really help me to figure out how to tell that story. I usually know enough to make a start on writing, and then jump all over the shop as scenes occur to me, and then have to link everything up in a way that makes sense. That's the point when I usually start to work on the plot as something separate from the actual writing process, because otherwise I can't make the individual sections join up!

And it's definitely the case that the characters develop the story as they develop, by doing unexpected things, or revealing unexpected secrets, which in turn affects how events unfurl.

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

I'm definitely "God" when it comes to my stories. I pretty much write them as I see them, which means they don't change too much from story to story. Actually, I have to take that back. I've noticed that the longer I write in a fandom, the more cemented my take on the characters become. So where I might be open to different interpretations at the beginning, as time goes by that becomes less true.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

Actually, I have to take that back. I've noticed that the longer I write in a fandom, the more cemented my take on the characters become.

I do that too, and I'm not sure that I'm happy about it. :-) I like to think I'd be more open to, you know, varying interpretations of a fandom character - even some contradictory ones, for the sake of being a flexible writer, if nothing else. But no - I stick to a pretty narrow set of variables. I wonder if everyone does.

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

It's been my experience that they do. At least, it seems that after a point it's easy to spot certain writers' stories. And it's not because of a certain style, since I'm crap at picking that up. It's that the characters almost always react a certain way.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

It's that the characters almost always react a certain way.

I was thinking more about this and realizing that my attitude about that - that I wish I could vary my characterization more - only applies to fanfic. In original fic, like if you're writing a series, it's universally considered right and proper to solidify (expand and deepen, sure, but along in-character lines) your character as you go and not dart off into sudden OOC areas. But for some reason, I would at least like to go beyond my comfort zone with my fanfic characters, you know, and do something quite different. I don't know why I feel like that.

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

Me, either. ;-) Seriously, it could be because I sometimes get the feeling it's almost expected. Why that should be the case, when it's not in original fic, is beyond me. Especially since you're talking about established characters, you would think the reverse would be true, that it was expected that you keep as true to the characters as you can (whatever you imagine that to be.) If writing is a "craft," and you're expected to exercise your skills by pushing the boundaries, "stretching" the characters into new and different forms, why wouldn't it be just as true in original fic?

[leethet.livejournal.com]

If writing is a "craft," and you're expected to exercise your skills by pushing the boundaries, "stretching" the characters into new and different forms, why wouldn't it be just as true in original fic?

I suppose it's because (and I'm totally theorizing here) there already IS a canon Napoleon Solo (for instance) so maybe that means the "art" is in varying extrapolations of him, rather than hewing to a narrow line? Whereas in your own fiction, if you write character A one way in one book, and another way in the sequel, people will go "Sheesh, doesn't the writer even know her own character?"

I'm not sure that's logical or anything ... but of course so many things are OK in fanfic that you couldn't get away with in published work.

[st-crispins.livejournal.com]

Man, this is really a complicated set of questions. I could probably go on for several comment screens anwering them.

RE: the Writer is God.

I've often used this analogy myself. Like God, I can step back and know everything that has happened/is happening/will happen to my characters. I exist outside of their time line. I can look down on it and see everything from beginning to end and beyond. I know stuff they don't know.

That said, I don't believe that God or a god is all powerful. Acc to Scripture, remember, God endowed us with free will. He didn't want puppets (what fun is that?)

So, my characters have free will too. Sometimes, they don't necessarily do what's good for them. I know this because I know the consequences of their actions when they don't. Sometimes, they surprise me. Sometimes, I let them do what they will. Sometimes, I intervene to serve the story.

Do I know everything about them? No. I would imagine if you know every single thing about a character, then they would bore you. I might know the parameters of a scene, chapter or plotline, but what happens within those parameters often surprise me. I don't know everything that will be done or said. And while I may know how things are likely to transpire, it doesn't mean they always do as I expect. I may know a destination but not precisely how we all will get there.

There is even far more serendipity or chance involved when I write interactively, which I have done with four separate individuals. Then, I am a collaborative deity, not an all-powerful one. I do not/cannot control everything and this process, while less certain and controlled, is far more addicting.

RE: readers and writer's interpretations. I am a constructionist philosophically, and in writing I don't believe in ultimate truth, only many truths. What something 'means' is up to debate and I'm not willing to take as solid and strident a position as you do. I don't always know everything that's going on in a story although I am very good with plot.

Case in point: there's a drug-induced dream sequence in The Sleeping Beauty Affair in which Solo sees Allyson as a little girl but then she begins to bleed and her dress is eventually saturated with blood. When I wrote it, I assumed this was symbolic of Solo's fear that he had put his daughter in danger. However, others have pointed out that it might be symbolic of menstuation and that he may also fear her growing up.

That interpretation did not occur to me at the time but I think it's certainly valid and very possibly something Solo *may* fear even though I didn't see it myself. So, I'm not going to say the reader was wrong. Indeed, they are probably right. But I'm not 'wrong' either. What the absolute truth is, I don't know. Probably a combination with multiple answers. Someday, someone else may come along with yet another interpretation and that may be just as valid.

Sometimes, folks have asked me questions about why a character did something or if he knew something or whether something was deliberate and I often respond, "I don't know." Because I don't. It's up to interpretation and sometimes, the truth is multiple.

On the other hand, I have heard interpretations of other stories and situations I've written that I think are way off base, but it may be that both the reader and I are interpreting within our own cultural and psychological frameworks.

I do agree that it's annoying and even bullying to be told what you as the writer were thinking when you wrote something. What *you* meant ---no, thank you, I know what I meant.

But that's different from interpretation which, I believe, is something that is negotiated and exists outside of the individual writer and readers ---it's not something embedded within a text but something that occurs in the encounter between writer, reader and text.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

I entirely agree with you that one might well write a character and not know, you know, the color of their favorite pencil (or teacher!) in childhood (although a writer might). That level of detail, I entirely agree, might or might not fit into the purview of what the author thinks about.

And oh yes, your example of the dream Napoleon has about his daughter - that's a wonderful example of a reader taking a scene and adding their own interpretation in a way that somehow enriches the story! That's always very interesting when that happens, and I enjoy a dialogue with readers who have a view of a scene that I never imagined for a moment - but that, once they mention it, I go "That makes total sense!"

So absolutely, I agree with you - interpretation is a very different thing from telling the writer what he/she is or was thinking or intending, and I totally defend, as you do, a reader's right to pull out of any story of mine whatever makes sense to that reader - and it would be an entirely valid view, even if it was the absolute opposite of what I intended. We can't possibly inflict our interpretation of our work on readers, and ... I don't think I'd want to if I could. As a reader, I love interacting with a text; I assume all engaged readers enjoy that too. It's not passive by any means, and I feel like it shouldn't be passive. If I could enforce my interpretation and view regarding my stories on readers ... it's almost as if there's no reason for them to read it then, you know?

So yes - I absolutely see where you're coming from and I agree. There is never a "wrong" interpretation from a reader, any more than it can be wrong for a diner to like, not like, or be indifferent to green beans. It says nothing about the green beans, really, and everything about the interaction between the diner and the food in question - and there are no wrong answers there.

[tgabrielle.livejournal.com]

Once a story is out there I don't think the author's intent matters all that much. Having said this, in fanfic, there should be civility in discussions between the reader and writer. Still, the reader's interpretation has an equal validity. She can draw her own conclusions and if they do not coincide with what the writer meant, so be it. Neither is God, even if the writer is cocksure of her meaning or not so much. Particularly in fanfic, the reader brings all sorts of preconceived ideas to her reading; the characters are not entirely the writer's creation.

You mention YOU KNOW what the characters ate for breakfast even if unstated. The reader might have some ideas of their food preferences as well. But I don't think your question is about eggs vs. pancakes. It's about you as the author being right no matter what. I just don't agree. We bring our own layers and meaning into what we write (including the subconscious) and also do the same when we read. No one is God.

My own experience with my first foray into MFU fanfic involved a reader who thought my Napoleon was mean, in fact said (on a list yet) that I had written a character assassination of him. It was not my intent to be sure. Certainly I could argue my case but if that's what this reader took from my story--well-- her interpretation must have made sense for her. It really made no difference what I meant. The story stands alone like a bird pushed from its nest.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

It's about you as the author being right no matter what.

It's actually not, not if you mean I think the reader's interpretation is invalid. People always misunderstand me when I say the reader's not allowed to tell me what I was thinking - that's not the same thing as "the reader's not allowed to interpret my story however he/she likes."

See, I'm a reader too. I don't at all think a reader's interpretation of the story is invalid because it differs from my intent. A reader contradicting me when I say "This is what I wrote and this is my backstory and this is how these characters exist in my head as I write" is invalid, and rude, and readers like that can kiss my a**. But that's a very different thing.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

For example (I'm probably beating, not a dead horse, but a horse that has already gone "I get it!"):

Reader: I sense all kinds of sexual attraction subtext in this gen story.
Me: I didn't put any in. These men are entirely heterosexual in this universe.
Perfectly OK answer: Well, boy, I'm sure sensing it!
WRONG and offensive answer: Yes you did.

See what I mean? :-)

[tgabrielle.livejournal.com]

See what I mean? :-)

Of course I do. You seem to be talking about a specific instance (or even more than one) and I, too, urge civility in discussion. A reader should not tell you what you were thinking when you wrote. I thought you meant in your initial post that the writer is the ultimate authority and I don't agree with that. But neither do I think a reader should badger you and insist on questioning your motivations. That's rude and dismissive.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

I thought you meant in your initial post that the writer is the ultimate authority and I don't agree with that.

Yeah, I don't mean that. I'm not sure there's any "authority" in art (I hate calling my stuff or fanfic in general art, but you know what I mean) or in anything that is created then shared, you know (I'm one of those who also doesn't think the educated art critic has a "better" opinion than any random Joe, or more right to have an opinion)? That is, yes, I don't stop existing as a human being just because I'm an author - I can have a viewpoint too - but the thing about art is, as you describe in your original response, once it's out there it "belongs" to its audience (well, hell, it belongs to its audience even when it isn't "out there" - when the audience is just the author/creator!). But when art's out in the world, it's out in the world. I wouldn't have it any other way - in fact, I've gain a few online "enemies" (strong word, but sort of accurate) by basically saying that when your stuff's out there, it's out there for better or worse and you don't get to direct how people react to it, whether you like their reaction or not - and people who want to silence reactions they don't like should keep their friggin' art to themselves, because that's censorship, and I'm anti.

So I think we basically agree.