The Influence of Fiction
May. 9th, 2012 02:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithThis article talks about how fictional characters can influence the decisions that readers make in their own lives. This is unsurprising; people can learn from the mistakes or insights of others. What's really interesting is a couple points the study turned up:
1) The process works better in first-person than in third-person voice. Reading "I" seems to forge a stronger connection between the reader's mind and the character's experiences.
2) It also works better when the character shares common ground with the reader, such as coming from the same place. Presumably that laps over into other major identity facets such as sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, profession, age, and so forth. Notice that some of those already define pools of literature; and that many consumers express a desire for characters who are "like them" across multiple forms of entertainment.
These are reasons why I write some of the stuff I do, the way I do. I put ideas in people's heads. I put boots on the ground in some very strange places. I fill in gaps. I look for situations that not only show something interesting, but ideally, contain little nuggets of wisdom or warning that folks can keep for future use. Characters make good decisions and bad ones, practice systems that work and ones that don't, and you get to watch all of that. Somewhere in the stuff I've written, there is probably at least one character who is "like you" -- and if there isn't, you can ask me for one. If you want characters who aren't like you, the diversity is high enough to meet that too.
Just a quick skim through some of my poetic series ...
The Clockwork War -- species survival, mechanical problem-solving, handicapped heroes, determination
Fiorenza the Wisewoman -- life in a rural village, intuitive problem-solving, tolerance for annoying but useful neighbors
Hart's Farm -- people skills in intentional community, healthy relationships in all flavors of sex and romance, tolerance of pretty much anything that does no harm
Kung Fu Robots -- discovery of self and talents, the balance between violence and nonviolence
Monster House -- life in a shared household of very mixed people, family skills, cultural differences, coping with unsympathetic outsiders, being 'other'
The Ocracies -- diverse political systems and worldviews, philosophical problem-solving, diplomacy
The Origami Mage -- rivalry and reconciliation, magical problem-solving, enlightenment
Path of the Paladins -- devotion, service, faith, practicality, gender, nonsexual relationships, spiritual problem-solving, trauma and recovery, never giving up
The Steamsmith -- ethnicity, genderqueer, class, scientific problem-solving, social evolution, cultural differences, bending rules, dealing with overt and covert prejudices
If you look at those, you can see some common threads: different versions of interpersonal skills, multiple flavors of community, assorted sex and gender dynamics, blended or crossed cultures, and all kinds of problem-solving approaches. I like focusing on a specific time and place. I like mixing unexpected characters or situations. Because life will throw all kinds of shit at you, and it helps to see some of the ways that people can deal with that, well or poorly.
All of these storylines have themes. There are big ideas in there. Some of them have a clearly defined plot while others don't. Sometimes a specific plot is implied at the beginning, other times it develops in progress, occasionally one never does; and that's all fine. Some of these series have a moral, or morals; but even those with a very strong one don't put that at top visibility, it's hidden like the core of an apple. These are almost all about people. You folks tend to latch on to characters. I've only got one series that's primarily about place (The Ocracies) and one that's primarily about idea (Lacquerwork). Most are the story of one particular person, or a group of people, told in pretty intimate terms whether first-person or third-person. I write to pull readers into a world, most of the time; and often what pulls me there in the first place is a person. So that's how it goes.
I did notice that, while it's not rare for me to write first-person poems, almost all of the series are written in third-person. I think Monster House is the only one that's consistently first-person. That's interesting. Given the study's suggestion that first-person increases influence, I'm inclined to try more of that.
I do wonder, though, whether the third-person sample was personal or impersonal -- it's possible to write very intimately in third person and really sink readers into a character's head that way; or to write quite impersonally and as objectively as is possible. I suspect that intimate third-person would have more influence than objective third-person. I also wonder if the similarity factor gets stronger or weaker based on how often it triggers. That is, a reader who sees many reflections of self in characters everywhere might well care less about any given one, contrasted with a reader who rarely sees such a reflection and thus cherishes each one with deeper thought. Oh, and they seem to have skipped second-person altogether, which is rare, but even more intimate than first-person. Botch. More studies would be intriguing.
Looping back to my idea of trying more first-person writing: Do you have a preference between first-person and third-person, or do you like both? Do you have a preference between characters very similar to you and very different from you, or do you like both? What kinds of things make you relate to a character more or less? Do you feel that you learn things from reading, or is it just idle entertainment for you?
1) The process works better in first-person than in third-person voice. Reading "I" seems to forge a stronger connection between the reader's mind and the character's experiences.
2) It also works better when the character shares common ground with the reader, such as coming from the same place. Presumably that laps over into other major identity facets such as sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, profession, age, and so forth. Notice that some of those already define pools of literature; and that many consumers express a desire for characters who are "like them" across multiple forms of entertainment.
These are reasons why I write some of the stuff I do, the way I do. I put ideas in people's heads. I put boots on the ground in some very strange places. I fill in gaps. I look for situations that not only show something interesting, but ideally, contain little nuggets of wisdom or warning that folks can keep for future use. Characters make good decisions and bad ones, practice systems that work and ones that don't, and you get to watch all of that. Somewhere in the stuff I've written, there is probably at least one character who is "like you" -- and if there isn't, you can ask me for one. If you want characters who aren't like you, the diversity is high enough to meet that too.
Just a quick skim through some of my poetic series ...
The Clockwork War -- species survival, mechanical problem-solving, handicapped heroes, determination
Fiorenza the Wisewoman -- life in a rural village, intuitive problem-solving, tolerance for annoying but useful neighbors
Hart's Farm -- people skills in intentional community, healthy relationships in all flavors of sex and romance, tolerance of pretty much anything that does no harm
Kung Fu Robots -- discovery of self and talents, the balance between violence and nonviolence
Monster House -- life in a shared household of very mixed people, family skills, cultural differences, coping with unsympathetic outsiders, being 'other'
The Ocracies -- diverse political systems and worldviews, philosophical problem-solving, diplomacy
The Origami Mage -- rivalry and reconciliation, magical problem-solving, enlightenment
Path of the Paladins -- devotion, service, faith, practicality, gender, nonsexual relationships, spiritual problem-solving, trauma and recovery, never giving up
The Steamsmith -- ethnicity, genderqueer, class, scientific problem-solving, social evolution, cultural differences, bending rules, dealing with overt and covert prejudices
If you look at those, you can see some common threads: different versions of interpersonal skills, multiple flavors of community, assorted sex and gender dynamics, blended or crossed cultures, and all kinds of problem-solving approaches. I like focusing on a specific time and place. I like mixing unexpected characters or situations. Because life will throw all kinds of shit at you, and it helps to see some of the ways that people can deal with that, well or poorly.
All of these storylines have themes. There are big ideas in there. Some of them have a clearly defined plot while others don't. Sometimes a specific plot is implied at the beginning, other times it develops in progress, occasionally one never does; and that's all fine. Some of these series have a moral, or morals; but even those with a very strong one don't put that at top visibility, it's hidden like the core of an apple. These are almost all about people. You folks tend to latch on to characters. I've only got one series that's primarily about place (The Ocracies) and one that's primarily about idea (Lacquerwork). Most are the story of one particular person, or a group of people, told in pretty intimate terms whether first-person or third-person. I write to pull readers into a world, most of the time; and often what pulls me there in the first place is a person. So that's how it goes.
I did notice that, while it's not rare for me to write first-person poems, almost all of the series are written in third-person. I think Monster House is the only one that's consistently first-person. That's interesting. Given the study's suggestion that first-person increases influence, I'm inclined to try more of that.
I do wonder, though, whether the third-person sample was personal or impersonal -- it's possible to write very intimately in third person and really sink readers into a character's head that way; or to write quite impersonally and as objectively as is possible. I suspect that intimate third-person would have more influence than objective third-person. I also wonder if the similarity factor gets stronger or weaker based on how often it triggers. That is, a reader who sees many reflections of self in characters everywhere might well care less about any given one, contrasted with a reader who rarely sees such a reflection and thus cherishes each one with deeper thought. Oh, and they seem to have skipped second-person altogether, which is rare, but even more intimate than first-person. Botch. More studies would be intriguing.
Looping back to my idea of trying more first-person writing: Do you have a preference between first-person and third-person, or do you like both? Do you have a preference between characters very similar to you and very different from you, or do you like both? What kinds of things make you relate to a character more or less? Do you feel that you learn things from reading, or is it just idle entertainment for you?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-09 03:53 pm (UTC)I do prefer characters similar to me, in general. Though what qualifies a character as "similar" can vary widely. I connect with Spock and with Data from Star Trek, two nearly opposite characters, for instance.
I'm not really sure what makes me relate to a particular character, but in most cases it's there almost from page one.
And I definitely learn things from reading. The best example of this that I can think of is a book that my father bought me when I was 13. It was a fantasy book he got from a used book store, he'd never read it and didn't know what was in it, he just knew that I liked fantasy. The book was Magic's Pawn by Mercedes Lackey. That book, and its sequels, helped me come to terms with my own budding bisexuality. It was genuinely the first time I'd encountered a homosexual character in fiction, or even the idea that a loving partnership between two people of the same sex was possible. It really helped me come to terms with the fact that I already had crushes on some male classmates, one of them going back to the first day of fifth grade. And, just for the record, it was written in third person. ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-09 03:57 pm (UTC)Thoughts
Date: 2012-05-10 02:45 am (UTC)Usually true, but I've seen some accounts (mostly epistolaries) that broke off at sudden death.
>>I do prefer characters similar to me, in general. Though what qualifies a character as "similar" can vary widely. I connect with Spock and with Data from Star Trek, two nearly opposite characters, for instance.<<
This has popped up in other conversations too. Sometimes it's not an obvious physical or social trait. It can be a particular facet of worldview, or problem-solving approach, or something else subtle.
>>The book was Magic's Pawn by Mercedes Lackey. That book, and its sequels, helped me come to terms with my own budding bisexuality. <<
Yes, it's a major gateway book.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-09 09:00 am (UTC)Yes...
Date: 2012-05-09 07:42 pm (UTC)Re: Yes...
Date: 2012-05-09 09:14 pm (UTC)Re: Yes...
Date: 2012-07-05 01:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-09 09:12 am (UTC)I loathe second person, because it feels like the text is trying to dictate what I personally would do and feel in a given situation, and other people trying to dictate what I am allowed to think is a hot button for me. A possible exception is if it comes across as someone using the general you, but that I've only encountered in short passages in works written in first or third person. Then it may even help with the "conversational" tone I like.
I think in general I have a preference for characters who are more like me. There are also different reasons why I might like a character. "I want to be them (for a while)", "I'd like to meet them" and "I'd hate to get near them, but watching them do their thing is entertaining".
Thoughts
Date: 2012-05-09 07:50 pm (UTC)I've seen some good renditions of that approach.
>>I loathe second person, because it feels like the text is trying to dictate what I personally would do and feel in a given situation, and other people trying to dictate what I am allowed to think is a hot button for me.<<
Yeah, that can be a problem.
>> A possible exception is if it comes across as someone using the general you, but that I've only encountered in short passages in works written in first or third person. Then it may even help with the "conversational" tone I like.<<
I've seen this done well.
I often write with the generic "you" in articles, and thus, have occasionally used it in poems that have a how-to flavor.
I like choose-your-own-adventure stories, if they're well done.
One other thing I've done with second-person, I haven't seen elsewhere. The original poem for "Goldenthread" used it. There were two unusual aspects: it was unidirectional, with one character delivering a short speech and the other listening without responding yet; and it dealt with a twist on familiar characters, so was more about showing the reader a hero's-eye view than about "being" another person. I think that tends to avoid some of the drawbacks of second-person. Useful in situations where it can apply, but won't work everywhere.
>>I think in general I have a preference for characters who are more like me.<<
Any particular facet(s) I haven't covered yet?
>> There are also different reasons why I might like a character. "I want to be them (for a while)", "I'd like to meet them" and "I'd hate to get near them, but watching them do their thing is entertaining".<<
*laugh* Yeah, some scenes are best enjoyed from the safe distance of several universes away.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2012-05-10 01:17 pm (UTC)I don't really think so, but since you ask, I think it loops back to your point of learning from writing. In the "characters I'd like to be like" category, the ones I'm drawn to most are similar enough to me to feel a certain kinship, but, for example, more capable or more confident or both. Sometimes it goes towards wish fulfillment fantasies, other times it feels closer to "I can do that, too".
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2012-05-10 09:22 pm (UTC)My characters are not like me -- they aren't even like each other -- but most of them have at least one primary trait in common with me. I often shift the degree up or down. So for instance, Rai has my same visual handicap, but at a higher level; it's easy for me to extrapolate his experience of the world that way. But he's exquisitely fluent with red tape in a way I'm not. The Monster House family all share the experience of living in a home where quirky things happen routinely; but they're different as individuals.
I like it when my characters inspire my readers, too. I write dark things occasionally, but more often, the overall trajectory is uplifting.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-09 12:26 pm (UTC)I've always been an avid reader (and as 'always' I mean from age 3, when I learned), in school I had trouble with my class-mates (sort of more mobbing that bullying)because I was the different one (came from the city, could not speak the dialect, had no relatives in town, the usual things)so I found my friends in books, books that were generally seen as 'for boys': Jules Verne was my absolute favorite, I had no trouble at all relating or identifying with his characters, no matter that they were by and at large adult males living in a different country (well maybe more than identifying *with* them I felt we were together in the story).
My real role-model though, was mr. Spock, first through television and later through the novels, that often expanded on his story, background and worldview: always in-between, highly competent, able to carve a place for himself and to build a few strong friendships, to find respect and contentment...
I couldn't wish for a better 'mind-friend', and what we had in common was nothing as readily apparent as gender, age or ethnicity.
Thoughts
Date: 2012-05-09 08:06 pm (UTC)That's okay!
>> I found my friends in books, books that were generally seen as 'for boys': Jules Verne was my absolute favorite, I had no trouble at all relating or identifying with his characters, no matter that they were by and at large adult males living in a different country (well maybe more than identifying *with* them I felt we were together in the story).<<
Well, there are more points of identification than the obvious ones I listed. Personality, problem-solving style, a sense of wonder or adventure -- those can be compelling too.
I rarely liked books with girl protagonists, for the precise reason that those characters tended to do things I considered dumb or boring or both. They thought and acted in ways that bounced me out of the story. I can deal with characters who think very differently if there's enough foundation included to justify it; but not when "this is the right way" is an assumption. So more of the stories I liked were those with male leads and some forward momentum. I did eventually find stuff with female leads worth reading, but it took some digging.
>>My real role-model though, was mr. Spock, first through television and later through the novels, that often expanded on his story, background and worldview: always in-between, highly competent, able to carve a place for himself and to build a few strong friendships, to find respect and contentment...
I couldn't wish for a better 'mind-friend', and what we had in common was nothing as readily apparent as gender, age or ethnicity.<<
I think that's part of why I like fish-out-of-water stories so much: I'm never only one thing, always partly out of place. It's something I can relate to, even if the protagonist is otherwise quite different from me.
*ponder* Maybe an important point of connection is what a given reader considers to be a key experience or trait for them? Like some of my queer friends are all about queer identity and that's the first section they'll aim for in a bookstore; while others don't think it's a big deal and will focus on something else. And those can be subtle, non-obvious things sometimes.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-09 09:47 pm (UTC)Even when the characters are clearly explained as fictional, students look to them as role models. (Rainsford in "Most Dangerous Game" is one often cited by the guys for his chant to himself "Nerve! Nerve! Nerve!" in a crisis.)
Thoughts
Date: 2012-05-10 12:25 am (UTC)Yes, that works.
I used to do it in the prison classes for which I designed coursework, and the guys seemed to like comparison/contrast assignments. It was easy to get them talking about their own experiences, and on a good day, they'd think about things and start noticing patterns. I tried to make sure they had some characters they could relate to, so along with the usual canon it included a lot of stuff by black and Chicano writers.
A favorite was a science fiction story about an alien device found by a park maintenance guy. Pretty much everybody who read that story talked about what he would've done in that situation. It was really engaging.
>>Even when the characters are clearly explained as fictional, students look to them as role models. (Rainsford in "Most Dangerous Game" is one often cited by the guys for his chant to himself "Nerve! Nerve! Nerve!" in a crisis.)<<
That's a good point to remember. Some characters are really good role models, while others were there as bad examples.
Something I loved about the original Sesame Street was that it featured a complete neighborhood. There were characters with positive traits and others with negative traits, and the interactions showed which were advisable to follow. But nobody ever got left out. Oscar the Grouch was a horrible person, but he didn't get evicted or ignored. The other characters modeled different ways of dealing with rude people. Cookie Monster was horribly greedy and messy. Other characters didn't approve. But nobody tried to starve him or shut him out. I think cutting those out of the modern version -- and they're even censored out of some releases of older episodes -- makes for a much less useful presentation.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-10 12:52 am (UTC)First-Person vs. Third Person: Depends on the Character. If there's a good reason why the Character would be telling this Story, First Person can work very well indeed. Many of HP Lovecraft's stories come to mind, with protagonists who are compulsive journalists or correspondents. The Dresden Files* work in first person because Harry Dresden is totally the kind of guy who loves nothing more than telling stories about himself.
Paksennarion or Conan, on the other hand, aren't nearly as fond of talk or writing. If you set their stories down in first person, they'd be incredibly short, and lacking in much of the detail that brings them alive in third person. Paksennarion in particular is someone who I identify with closely, and think I would have a great deal more difficulty doing so if her story were told in first person.
Who I identify with is another interesting point. One of the things that lead me to identify as Genderqueer** is that fact that I usually identify much more closely with Female Viewpoint Characters than Male, and the Male Characters I do identify with are mostly written by women.
* First person seems to work really well for Detective Fiction for some reason. I haven't dug much into why, but I've definitely noticed the trend.
**And think of transitioning, back before I learned of Genderqueer and realized it fit much better with what I'd been feeling all my life.