Character Matters: An MRKS Dialogue
The Inimitable LaT started it all with the following post:
From: Latonya
To: MRKS@egroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 10:31 AM
Subject: [MRKS] More character queries
[Apologies to those of you already confronted with this question]
Characterization seems to be the topic du jour on almost every list
I'm on these days, and that makes me think of the whole issue of
frames of reference (believe me, when it takes you two-and-a-half
months to write a review of SiB, you'll have the notion of frames of
reference on the brain) and, as a result of a couple of different off-
list conversations about character and characterization (the two not
being synonymous) I find myself wondering the following with regard
to fiction: Is it really, at bottom, "anything goes" because we
don't all see the characters in exactly the same way? I mean, I say
all the time that my Frasers and Rays aren't necessarily the same
from story to story, and any Fraser or Ray I write isn't going to be
the same as any Fraser or Ray written by, say, Virdian or
Crys.
So, at the end of the Yukon day, does it really
just come down to how well someone writes? That if someone is
skilled enough with turns of phrase or lines of dialogue, that they
really can have the characters do *whatever* they want and that's
valid as an interpretation of the dueSouth characters? If the answer
is yes, does that, to some degree, render the whole notion of
canon irrelevant? I know what I think, but I'd like to hear other
takes on it.
LaT
Responses follow, in date/time order.
From: Crysothemis
To: MRKS@egroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [MRKS] More character queries
--- Latonya wrote:
> So, at the end of the Yukon day, does it really
> just come down to how well someone writes? That if someone is
> skilled enough with turns of phrase or lines of dialogue, that they
> really can have the characters do *whatever* they want and that's
> valid as an interpretation of the dueSouth characters? If the answer
> is yes, does that, to some degree, render the whole notion of
> canon irrelevant? I know what I think, but I'd like to hear other
> takes on it.
Well, I was raised to be a good little deconstructionist, but in the end, I
have to say that canon does matter. Yes, different interpretations are
possible, and LaT's Frasers and Rays won't be exactly the same as mine. But
just because there is some room for interpretation, it doesn't mean that *any*
interpretation goes. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Fraser and Ray are both well-defined, complex, coherent characters in canon.
That's why I love them so. They aren't "Everymen" -- they're their own unique,
oddball selves. So if a story I'm reading violates character canon without a
darn good explanation, I'll simply stop reading. It matters that much to me.
If, for example, I read a story about Fraser drinking tequila from Ray's belly
button . . . well, it won't do a thing for me, because the Fraser I know simply
wouldn't do it (unless the story was *about* Fraser changing his attitudes
toward alcohol -- but I doubt I'd find that theme plausible unless the writer
were *very* good).
When I'm jolted out of frame by something like that, and I start to feel like
these are just generic bodies acting out a fantasy. If I wanted that, I
wouldn't be reading fanfic.
In fact, I have to say that I read primarily for character -- for
interpretations that make sense, that make me see the characters deeply, or in
a new light, or that simply feel right. The further from canon the writer
strays, the more likely they are to lose me along the way. Which isn't to say
I don't like interesting interpretations, because I often do. It's just that
the more extreme the interpretation, the more risk I won't buy it.
My $.02 Canadian,
Crys
=====
crysothemis@yahoo.com http://adult.dencity.com/crys/
"Ignorance killed the cat, sir; curiosity was framed." -- C. J. Cherryh
From: kelingtyn
To: MRKS@egroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [MRKS] More character queries
>to fiction: Is it really, at bottom, "anything goes" because we
>don't all see the characters in exactly the same way?
That if someone is
>skilled enough with turns of phrase or lines of dialogue, that they
>really can have the characters do *whatever* they want and that's
>valid as an interpretation of the dueSouth characters? If the answer
>is yes, does that, to some degree, render the whole notion of
>canon irrelevant? I know what I think, but I'd like to hear other
>takes on it.
>
>LaT
You know, I had a professor in graduate school once who would make the most
inappropriate comments in class...references to groups of people based on
ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation...and he would always follow up
his outrageous statements by smiling and saying it was just a joke. That
supposedly made it okay.
For some reason that example popped into my head when I read LaT's
questions...probably because the foundation underneath that story is
similar to the one underneath the debate about making the characters do
whatever they want to. Just as his "it was just a joke" was his way to
absolve himself of his outrageous behavior, so too the idea of "this is how
I see it" absolves certain writers from any responsibility to portray the
reality of the characters. It's an easy out. (Can fictional characters
actually exist in a reality? Probably a question for another time...) I
think interpretation has to be based in canon because if it's not, then the
writer has no foundation upon which to either interpret or "further" the
characterization and, consequently, no way to *defend* how they see it.
Canon informs interpretation; it doesn't necessarily dictate it. But to
write without the canon (the theoretical background, if you will), is
writing "formula" where you can simply insert the name and face of any
character from any show who happens to catch your fancy.
At least that's my opinion after spending three hours editing my
dissertation for things like commas, quotations marks, and parentheses.
Kel
From: gearbox@earthling.net
To: MRKS@egroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [MRKS] More character queries
Kel said:
> the idea of "this is how
> I see it" absolves certain writers from any responsibility to portray the
> reality of the characters. It's an easy out. (Can fictional characters
> actually exist in a reality? Probably a question for another time...) I
> think interpretation has to be based in canon because if it's not, then the
> writer has no foundation upon which to either interpret or "further" the
> characterization and, consequently, no way to *defend* how they see it.
> Canon informs interpretation; it doesn't necessarily dictate it. But to
> write without the canon (the theoretical background, if you will), is
> writing "formula" where you can simply insert the name and face of any
> character from any show who happens to catch your fancy.
For some reason, Kel's comments made me think about
how characters are treated in folklore. Given that
fanfic has been described as modern folklore, it
seems a reasonable jump.
If you want
to tell a story about some subject, you pick a
stock character -- and the story won't make
any sense if you choose the wrong character. If you
want to, say, tell a story about creating a
good government out of chaos, then King Arthur
makes a handy tool. You wouldn't choose Robin Hood.
Or. . . the Knights of the Round Table can be heroes
(like the whole Holy Grail thing), or subject to human
failings (like Lancelot's love for Guinevere), or
arrogant asses, like Sir Gawain in his encounter with the Green Knight.
The characterization is a tool, but it stays within
acceptable envelopes. If you can't tell the difference
between Robin Hood and King Arthur, then why in the world do you want to use those names?
Gearbox
"This is the age of misinformation.
Misinformation is simpler and more stable
than information." -- Chip Delaney
From: Kat Allison
To: MRKS@egroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [MRKS] More character queries
So, at the end of the Yukon day, does it really
>just come down to how well someone writes? That if someone is
>skilled enough with turns of phrase or lines of dialogue, that they
>really can have the characters do *whatever* they want and that's
>valid as an interpretation of the dueSouth characters? If the answer
>is yes, does that, to some degree, render the whole notion of
>canon irrelevant? I know what I think, but I'd like to hear other
>takes on it.
During a recent discussion of this topic on the FCA list, Rachael Sabotini
made some points which I'm going to hijack here because I agree with them
so fully.
In essence, she said it *is* a matter of quality of writing, but not in the
sense of well-turned phrases or prose style. Rather, it's a matter of
having thought carefully and thoroughly enough about the characters, who
they are at core and what might plausibly motivate them to behave in
certain ways, and then having the skill to make clear the motivation for
whatever you have them doing in your story. In canon, the characters
behave as they do for a reason; in your story, you also need to provide a
reason for what you have them do, *and* that core motivation has to jibe
with the motivations that we see underlying the on-screen behavior. If you
can do that, then you can convincingly show them doing things quite at
variance with what we actually see them doing in canon.
This makes sense to me because, after all, none of us behaves with complete
consistency at all times. Rather, we're capable of acting in a lot of
different (and mutually contradictory) ways, depending on a whole host of
contextual variables. There are certain core traits--what I think of as
the "bones" of personality or character--that tend to be consistent. But
how those play out in our actions is subject to change. If, as a writer,
you really get those bones right, and pay consistent attention to them,
then they'll dictate the limits of how far you can change the morphology of
the flesh you mold onto them.
Now some characters are much more loose-jointed than others (pushing this
metaphor to ridiculous lengths), partly because their motives are
relatively obscure and open to speculation. Krycek, for example, or
Methos. Ray and Fraser, by contrast, are pretty tightly written, as TV
characters go, and act pretty consistently from a well-defined set of
motivations. Thus we have somewhat fewer degrees of freedom in writing
them, and as Gearbox points out, trying to write Fraser as Krycek isn't a
workable proposition, although I think it's possible (tricky, but possible)
to write Krycek as operating essentially from a Fraseresque passion for
higher justice, with the ultimate goal of saving the planet. (He is, to be
such, rather more casual about *means* than Fraser would be. ;-})
The important question in assessing the plausibility of characterization, I
think, isn't "Would character X ever do thus-and-such?"--which tends to
produce a fairly simple yes/no black/white answer--and instead is "Under
what circumstances and for what reasons would X do that?" If the answer to
that question, as laid out in the story, doesn't violate the basic
structural elements of the character and is adequately set up and
explicated by the writer, then I think it'll carry emotional conviction to
the reader, even if it leads to actions that diverge considerably from what
we see in canon.
Kat
From: Kat Allison
To: MRKS@egroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MRKS] More character queries
Re: male pregnancy stories--
Actually and seriously, when I sit down and try to read these stories
(which I only did once, to try to figure out what the HELL was going
through these people's minds), the sense I get isn't so much revenge, or
hostility to the characters--it's more like little girls playing with
dolls. It has the same kind of pre-cerebral, almost pre-verbal working-out
of very basic fantasies, in an almost ritualistic, formulaic way, enacting
roles that are so standardized, so stereotyped that individual
characteristics like, oh, let's say, maybe actual *gender*, just get
bulldozed by the compulsive need to play out the fantasy.
I don't get it, but then there's a lot I don't get...
Kat
(who's apparently decided today's the day to haul ass out of the pit of
lurkerdom)
From: Latonya
To: MRKS@egroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [MRKS] More character queries
Kat, in response to Rowan, wrote:
> >[Rowan] Um, can somebody please explain the pregnancy thing to
> >me? I mean talk about something I do not get *at all*.
>
> [Kat] My favorite, and certainly the most succinct, of the explanations I've seen
> advanced was posted to some list during a similar discussion by a list
> member who'd just had a baby herself:
>
> "Revenge."
That's quite good, and I like it quite a bit as an explanation. I
think there could be something else going on as well. As I told
Viridian in an off-list discussion on this very topic, I think the
phenomenon of pregnant Fraser stories (and I'm talking just about
Fraser here, because, for some reason, I've only ever come across
Pregnant!Ben stories in dS, with the exception of the laughably
appalling "How Could You!" by the one and only maria jackson, which
was Pregnant!Ray) may also stem from the following desire: The
author wants to see Fraser -- who is, canonically, not really given
to excessive emotional outbursts or sentiment -- go all soft and
sentimental, but is too lazy, too afraid or too unskilled, to place
him in a plausible scenario with Ray (or whomever) to get him to that
point. I mean, what quicker, easier way to get Fraser all weepy than
to have him succumb to the rapid mood swings that accompany the
raging hormonal shifts of pregnancy? I view Pregnant!Fraser stories
as an easy way for someone to posit a weepy, highly emotional and
perhaps even irrational Ben -- "Well, he's *pregnant*! Of course,
he's going to throw a fit if Ray can't come home for dinner."
Because, you know, fit-throwing over the lack of a suitable dinner
companion actually *isn't* something I think a regular, non-pregnant
Fraser would do without some damn fine explanation on the part of the
author.
I'll admit that I am fascinated by the idea of what it would take to
have Fraser completely lose his much-vaunted control, what would make
him snap? Is he capable of snapping and if so, how strong an impetus
would it take to get him there? What would be the outcome and
aftermath? These are questions that I think are worth asking, and
I'm still, I think, waiting for a story that satisfactorily provides
me with the answer (although there are a number that come spookily,
eerily close). But I think that to achieve something like that in a
written work takes time and thought and a careful laying of emotional
and mental groundwork. A writer can't plunk me down in the middle of
the breaking point and give me nothing to go on with regard to the
question of how Fraser *got there*. Nor is it sufficient to, as one
author recently did, simply tell me in the Notes that she's exploring
the Fraser we see in a given episode without bothering to write the
story in such a way that it *showed* me how and why he got to that
point.
This idea of laying groundwork dovetails into some of the excellent
points made by people -- Gear and Kat in particular -- in response to
my initial question on this thread. I, too, think that canon
matters. It has to, to some degree, be the template for *any*
direction in which an author chooses to take the characters, and when
any author seeks to explore how or why the characters might find
themselves in a given scenario, and how or why they react the way
they do, there has to be some aspect of looking to canon as the
starting reference point.
Like Rowan, I've discovered that I'm fairly squick-proof in terms of
what I can read about Fraser and Kowalski doing for, to and with each
other. If someone wants to explore the darker recesses of their
psyches, I'm ready for the ride as long as I'm provided with
substantive and plausible explanations for how and why they got
there. And I don't think it necessarily turns on the question of
length; there are some writers who are good enough and skilled enough
and have clearly put such thought into what they're doing -- thought
that comes across in the written word -- that they *can* provide a
novel's worth of backstory in four or five paragraphs (for example
and at the risk of embarrassing her, I think Viridian falls into this
camp). There are other writers, however, whose level of ability will
necessitate them using more words and space to set up any given
scenario that could constitute 'outside the norm' (and this is *not*
to say that I think anyone's untalented just because they 'write
long'; it's just to say that some people who might attempt a complex
subject matter or complex level of interaction between the characters
may not be able to successfully address said complexity utilizing a
sparse framework; in other words, everyone isn't torch). But whatever
any single author's skill and talent level, the point is that if
they've got Fraser and Kowalski doing anything substantive, and
particularly doing something substantive and seemingly outre (and the
question of 'edginess' for 'edginess'' sake is a topic for another
day), underpinnings for said behavior/interactions need to be
utilized. In my opinion, the *source* of those underpinnings should
be, *has* to be, the characters' behavior and personality traits as
said traits and behavior are presented on the show.
So.
If, for example, people want to write Fraser-as-Marquis de Sade, go
for it -- and by "Fraser-as-Marquis de Sade," I don't mean Fraser as
kinky; I mean Fraser as mean, twisted, bordering-on-if-not-crossing-
the-line-sociopathic fuck, okay?; there is, in my world, a
difference between those two things. But if you expect me to believe
it, or, at the least, consider it to be a plausible facet of his
behavior and personality -- particularly if he's directing that
behavior at someone whom canon suggests to me he feels a great deal
of affection -- then you've got to deal, somehow in your story, with
the fact that, as he's presented in canon, Fraser doesn't seem to
have a bent towards hurting people just because he can (and simply
referencing, in your notes, his behavior on the ledge in Odds, for
example, isn't going to cut it; you've got to make me see it, which
means that you, as an author, have to do some mental legwork to get
there).
To wrap this up, I think that an "anything goes" mentality to writing
fanfiction, employed without giving sufficient thought to the how or
why of the characters being in a given situation, and behaving in a
given way, and supported by the argument "oh well, we all see the
characters differently *anyway*," kind of defeats the whole idea of
writing fiction based on a TV show and its characters. If one isn't
going to bother to ask the questions of whether or not Fraser or
Kowalski or Vecchio or whomever would do "such a thing" and, if so,
*why* they would do it and is there anything in what one sees of them
on the show that suggests they could do it, then why is one bothering
to write fiction allegedly based on dueSouth atall? If one is going
to treat the characters as though their basic characteristics and
personality traits *only* exist as they do in one's mind, without a
reference to what we're shown of them on the show, then why not just
write original characters?
And those are reciprocal questions, Fraser. - Don't you mean 'rhetorical,' Ray? That's what I said. - Right you are.
LaT
Back to Essays Page