I am not She and She is not Me

[lagilman]

Poking at some thoughts here. Less an essay or even any kind of answer-to-question than a ramble out loud while I'm working other stuff in the foreground...
-----------------------------------------------------------
There have been people -- including people who really should know better -- who insist that Wren is me, that she speaks in my voice. Actually, Wren speaks with Jackie's voice, and someday, if Jackie ever reads these books and figures it out, I'm a dead woman. But that's beside the point.

Wren isn't me, and I am not her. Sorry, anyone who thinks they can get to know me through my characters. You can't even get to know anyone I know through my characters. Yes, I am a magpie-mind when it comes to quirks and tones, mannerisms and mental pathways. I love to learn things, even the ugly or unfortunate things, and tuck them away like Ms. Magpie does shiny trinkets, to use to decorate and elaborate my characters. Yes, I used specific quirks and tones and bits of a handful of people I know to create Wren's particular personality, but those bits have all merged through the alchemy of character development into a new and hopefully unique individual. Same with Sergei. Same with every major novel-character I've ever written (secondary characters tend to be written around one or two major quirks and left to develop on their own).

I am thinking these thoughts now, as I wave 'hasta la scribe' to Wren and Sergei, and am getting to know Bonnie and the crew, because doubtless someone will read HARD MAGIC and think that Bonnie is me.

She isn't. She's not even me when I was her age.

And yet, this time, I wonder: do they have a case? Not wholesale or intentionally, but because I'm more comfortable now with who I am, and who I was. Is that comfort allowing me to use elements of myself the way I've always used elements of other people, as I observed them?

And is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just A Thing?

Maybe. In writing Bonnie, in discovering what she can and can't, will and won't do under certain circumstances, it's -- as always -- like meeting a new friend... and then she'll turn around and say or think something, and it's something the me at 21 might have said, too.

So maybe there is a little bit of me in Bonnie. A part of me I've finally understood enough to split off and use, like any other aspect of my craft, the way I have always observed and adapted from other people.

In writing that, there's both comfort and caution. Comfort, because that sort of understanding is a good thing, and allows me to use elments I might have shied away from, before. Caution, because Bonnie isn't me. As writer, I have to allow -- and encourage -- the alchemy to take place, and turn her into Herself.

So far, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Her choices and decisions have baffled and bemused me, and I've already hit the perfect moment in characterization, when the writer looks down upon what her characters have done and go "WTF, character, are you insane?" because hello, not something I consider reasonable, smart, or even justified...but makes perfect sense to the character in question, in their own reality-context.

So, I guess, like any parent, I can just sit back and say, with a mixture of pride and resignation, "yeah, she has my chin...but she picked her own nose."

Comments

[girasole.livejournal.com]

I do not write fiction. But I do write. I know a lot of people who write fiction. As Suri so eloquently describes, a good writer has a magpie mind, and bits and pieces and shards of the writer's own self, and everyone she's ever met, are fodder for the story that unfolds on the page.

There are actors who play the same characters in every movie. That works for some of them. Writers do it, too, but that is usually less successful if not always.

It does a disservice to a writer to say, oh, that character is you. It smacks to me of condescension, implying that the writer didn't have to do much work but put herself on the page (As if that weren't hard enough!) Of course I seen some of Suri in Wren, just as I see Rupert Giles in Sergei, but it is a hint of inspiration and a taste. They are who they are, and they live in a different world from this one.

A friend of mine, who writes but is unpublished, told me in a moment of candor that she used my hands, my gestures, and timbre of my voice for a character in one of her stories. It felt odd, but true. She has a write/right to do that, for the world is the palette for a writer, and she must find what colors work for her.

[nick-kaufmann.livejournal.com]

I think we always use a little bit of ourselves in our characters. Our own experiences are usually the first that come to mind when we're crafting how a character will react to something. So Bonnie isn't you, but I think you're right when you say there's a little bit of you in her.

[lagilman]

just as I see Rupert Giles in Sergei

Ironically, it was not Rupert Giles (or even Tony Head) who inspired Sergei initially, but Mitch Pileggi as Walter S. Skinner. His mix of pragmatism and intense protectiveness was the core of what I wanted for my male lead, with a touch of too-tough-for-bullshit in it as well.

So now you know where the name "Sergei" came from, in homage...

[debg.livejournal.com]

See, the two of yours that I've read with Wren? She barely echoed the you I know. Certain reactions, maybe, but if I put my head into it and think "okay, picture this character", the character I see is nothing like you.

And I never realised how hard-programmed I was to keep as much of myself as possible out of my protagonists (female AND male) until I deliberately put myself as I was into the Kinkaids, in the person of Bree Godwin. Even there, she has reactions and feelings that are nowhere near mine, because when the characters take the long breath and become themselves, there's simply no arguing with it.

[neutronjockey.livejournal.com]

So Bonnie isn't you, but I think you're right when you say there's a little bit of you in her.

With the exception of the small number of our population that can psychologically disassociate themselves this is absolutely true.

It takes an emotional investment to write a novel...or IMHO (and I rarely have humble opinions) it should involve an emotional investment. Especially when creating a great novel.

Anyway, hopefully it's the positive characteristics they're trying to ascribe ... ;)

[lagilman]

I would disagree to a certain extent, in that you're conflating Character with Story.

There's a metric load of Me in every story I write. The plot, the pacing, the players, the world itself -- I'm sure you could do an entire thesis, should anyone be so hard-up for one, on my emotional and intellectual makeup based on the world of the Cosa Nostradamus.

But saying (if I understand correctly) that X of me has gone into any particular character, or the story isn't an emotional investment? Not buying that one so much.

[bigferret.livejournal.com]

I guess I never assumed that Wren was you. I wonder what the says about me?

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

Having met Wren & Sergei very early in the proceedings, and you at the same time, about, I never assumed Sergei was anyone you knew (since I knew where he got his name from) and Wren-- well, a stand-in, maybe, given the fun they were having, but not *you*. She didn't sound like you. She had a very different attitude from you. But assuming Wren was you would've been like assuming Caprice was me, and shyeah, right.

Do people even pay attention when writers write? Sigh.

[klingonguy.livejournal.com]

So, when you play the game of casting for the movie version of Staying Dead, do you cast Pileggi as Sergei, or has it evolved into someone new for you?

[neutronjockey.livejournal.com]

But saying (if I understand correctly) that X of me has gone into any particular character, or the story isn't an emotional investment?

No. Not at all.

What I'm saying is (or attempting to say) is that given a fleshed-out character --- you and I (for example) would write them very differently. One would be very LAG, and one would be very JKR. LAG's character is backed by LAG's life experiences, LAG's perception of emotions and social interactions, LAG's ability to relate to the character in a given situation. While the character in whole may not be you, the character (the novel itself) comes with your goggles... again, given the rare exception of a person able to disassociate completely, emotionally from writing --- which I can't imagine would be very engaging to read.

(This theory can also easily be trashed by arguing POV stance, especially through use of an unreliable narrator...)

I am possibly confusing voice, style and tone with characterization. I am not a publishing industry professional though I sometimes play one on the interwebz.

It takes an emotional investment to write a novel...or IMHO (and I rarely have humble opinions) it should involve an emotional investment. Especially when creating a great novel.

I suppose to clarify here what I was trying to say is that writing an engaging novel is an emotional investment by the author themselves.

I am clear as mud today.

(To save myself, Liz is the living area reading Retrievers #2 and laughing out loud... :D)

[lagilman]

I have never been able to 'cast' these books -- the characters are too completely themselves. But if you imagined Mitch younger, with hair, and a little less muscle-bulk, then yeah, That's Sergei to me. I have no idea what he looks like to other people, though.

[lagilman]

OKay, I think I understand where you're coming from, and yeah, we may be crossing wires a little -- I'm talking specifically about character-creation -- quirks and tones, physical and emotional attributes, etc, not how they're developed/presented. Which may be sort of like slicing a quarter, but it's my LJ and if I want to discuss one side of the quarter at a time then by god those are the rules! *grin*

[lagilman]

That you read for entertainment and pleasure, not critical analysis? (and bless you for it!)

[shui-long.livejournal.com]

I had never thought that Wren was you; she's quite clearly her own woman.

But when you posted the odd snippet of PUPI, it did occur to me that Bonnie had a turn of phrase somewhat similar to the Suricata of LJ. Maybe it's just common use of New York language - I wouldn't know, living the other side of the pond.

[lagilman]

I suspect, as the first book is revised, and we move forward, her voice will become less like me and more like herself. That's the goal, anyway...

[shadowfay.livejournal.com]

I never thought you were Wren or Sergi even when I met you at WorldCon in LA. I just enjoy your wonderful ability to create interesting alternative world full of amazing people.
P.S. Hard Magic does not mean no more Wren and Sergi books. :(
P.S.S. I have Burning Bridges on my bookshelves waiting to be read but alas real life (aka work, masters classes, and kids) has slowed my leisure reading down to "summer only" and in rare moments that I am not enjoying my kiddos.

[lagilman]

P.S. Hard Magic does not mean no more Wren and Sergi books. :(

My editor and I have already discussed the possibility of a 7th book, and I even know sort of what it's about, so... we'll see what the market looks like, after I've given the Pups their outing.