Ellie Lieberman's Blog: Dusty Shelves - Posts Tagged "ellie-lieberman"
How Much Can You Change About Your Characters
How much can you change about your characters and still stay true to them?
A common exercise suggested to writers is to take their character and drop them into a different setting. This exercise is said to give a writer a better understanding for their character. If you know your characters well enough outside their story, how they would react and what they would say and do to something completely different then what they would normally encounter, it will help you write them in the setting they belong. But, how much of their environment affects who the characters are?
What if you changed their back story? And, how much of their back story would change them? Take for instance, Barbara Lieberman’s Ellen Price from Message on the Wind. If you change her wealth, you still have Ellen Price. She would still stick her nose in other people’s business and run into situations without looking. Compare this to her male counterpart, Alexander McEwen. If you changed, for instance, his culture and heritage, the fact he’s Native American, you change a huge aspect of the character as a whole. Why? Because, this is such a huge part of who he is, how he sees the world and himself, and effects even the smaller details, such as how he wears his hair.
Or is it? This brings up the whole nature versus nurture debate. How much of the characteristics of your characters are innate, would never change and are simply part of who they are regardless. And how much is dependent on the world around them, including their families, upbringing, and etc.
In Society's Foundlings, how much would be different if one thing changed? If Math and Sampson’s mother was still in the picture? If Clem came from money? If Carver went to college or invited Math to live with him instead of Sampson? Some might argue very little, while others would suggest a lot.
And how much is open to interpretation? How much could be open to debate?
How much can you change about your characters and still stay true to them?
A common exercise suggested to writers is to take their character and drop them into a different setting. This exercise is said to give a writer a better understanding for their character. If you know your characters well enough outside their story, how they would react and what they would say and do to something completely different then what they would normally encounter, it will help you write them in the setting they belong. But, how much of their environment affects who the characters are?
What if you changed their back story? And, how much of their back story would change them? Take for instance, Barbara Lieberman’s Ellen Price from Message on the Wind. If you change her wealth, you still have Ellen Price. She would still stick her nose in other people’s business and run into situations without looking. Compare this to her male counterpart, Alexander McEwen. If you changed, for instance, his culture and heritage, the fact he’s Native American, you change a huge aspect of the character as a whole. Why? Because, this is such a huge part of who he is, how he sees the world and himself, and effects even the smaller details, such as how he wears his hair.
Or is it? This brings up the whole nature versus nurture debate. How much of the characteristics of your characters are innate, would never change and are simply part of who they are regardless. And how much is dependent on the world around them, including their families, upbringing, and etc.
In Society's Foundlings, how much would be different if one thing changed? If Math and Sampson’s mother was still in the picture? If Clem came from money? If Carver went to college or invited Math to live with him instead of Sampson? Some might argue very little, while others would suggest a lot.
And how much is open to interpretation? How much could be open to debate?
How much can you change about your characters and still stay true to them?
Popcorn: More Than Just a Minor Detail
A couple days ago was National Popcorn Day. So, of course, what came to mind for some of my readers as well as myself was Society's Foundlings, since the main item of food consumed within the 90 pages is overly buttered, stale, movie theater popcorn. While this is but a simple detail, it got me thinking about what that popcorn represented to each of the characters.The popcorn is a very minor detail. It is used to illustrate the lack of food, finances, and resources offered to the character. Yet, despite this simple view of food, it has a larger meaning to Sampson, Carver, and Math in particular,
Sampson sees it as a divide between himself and others, such as Nicole Brennerman. He wonders how she could possibly understand comparing past cheap food that created a regular diet (plain spaghetti and minute rice) to the assumption of richer, more expensive foods she grew up eating (lobster). This is not only used as a dividing line, but to illustrate and represent the feeling of being an outsider.
For Carver, it remains solely a representation of things he cannot have. Lack of resources, lack of security, lack of the 'more' he's constantly searching for. It remains a barrier in not only what he can provide for himself, but what he can provide for the people he cares about, seen when he questions what else the three other main characters had to eat that day.
Math views popcorn as the complete opposite. For him, it is belonging and security. He includes it in his descriptions of Sampson and Carver's place, which in and of itself is a sanctuary. It is a sure and constant thing for him in a world that is slowly falling apart around him.
Each of these representations become even deeper when the reader recognizes nobody else would necessarily think of or even know they eat mostly popcorn. It illustrates an internal struggle, and how they view themselves and their situations.
Character's Choice
Perhaps you've heard an author joke about their character's having a mind of their own. Anyone who is a writer knows there is a truth to this. They do what they want to do. We're merely there to write it.
Barbara Lieberman has mentioned many times how she tried to soften Bridget from To Reap a Whirlwind. Every time she would come close, this character would just dash any chance at redemption.
For me and my writing, it's even when the creations themselves are faced with the situations they are thrown into. That is to say, my books tend to have characters exercising free will more than being pushed into a fate.
They make decisions and these choices lead to consequences. The characters in Society's Foundlings feel abandoned by each other and society, not because it is fate, but because of their own choices, as well as the choices of those around them. Garrett makes a choice at the end of Solving for X, same as Jenna, and these decisions are made based on their experiences. In one of my WIPs, a character decides his own fate, as well, in a pivotal moment: "This, here, was the moment of truth. Before him laid two options, and while one stung, more from the man who suggested it than the suggestion itself, the other was one with which he could not live."
Though there may be literary techniques utilized, such as foreshadowing, whether purposeful or merely unintentional (and don't you just love when that happens?), the decision still remains solely in the hands of the characters. Think of it also as looking back on your own personal story. Was there not foreshadowing in your own life that you missed at the time, whether it be "hindsight is 20/20" or just weird coincidences?
My characters have always been a driving force in writing the story, but they have always been the "masters of their fate" within their stories, as well.
Barbara Lieberman has mentioned many times how she tried to soften Bridget from To Reap a Whirlwind. Every time she would come close, this character would just dash any chance at redemption.
For me and my writing, it's even when the creations themselves are faced with the situations they are thrown into. That is to say, my books tend to have characters exercising free will more than being pushed into a fate.
They make decisions and these choices lead to consequences. The characters in Society's Foundlings feel abandoned by each other and society, not because it is fate, but because of their own choices, as well as the choices of those around them. Garrett makes a choice at the end of Solving for X, same as Jenna, and these decisions are made based on their experiences. In one of my WIPs, a character decides his own fate, as well, in a pivotal moment: "This, here, was the moment of truth. Before him laid two options, and while one stung, more from the man who suggested it than the suggestion itself, the other was one with which he could not live."
Though there may be literary techniques utilized, such as foreshadowing, whether purposeful or merely unintentional (and don't you just love when that happens?), the decision still remains solely in the hands of the characters. Think of it also as looking back on your own personal story. Was there not foreshadowing in your own life that you missed at the time, whether it be "hindsight is 20/20" or just weird coincidences?
My characters have always been a driving force in writing the story, but they have always been the "masters of their fate" within their stories, as well.
