Ellie Lieberman's Blog: Dusty Shelves - Posts Tagged "nature-vs-nurture"
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?
