Now, I don't claim to be a master storyteller, but I do know things that work when you're telling any story in any medium. No, this guide isn't strictly for writing, and many of the tips I give can even be applied in a webcomic!



1: Make the characters believable. By this, I don't mean that your hero/heroine can't be a magical cat-girl or some other thing (so long as they fit within the world they're in), but to make their personality into something your readers/viewers can identify with. In short, don't make Mary-Sues or Gary-Stus that know how to do everything and can beat up monsters like nobody's business, always get their love interest, etc... The same applies for your villains. Don't make them just out to rule the world or destroy humanity, give them personalities and motivations! Some people are more prone to liking a believable villain, and you can use this to your advantage.

2: Make the world believable. Again, I don't mean that you can't have magic or furries or what-not, but you should have solid rules for how the world your characters live in and interact with runs. If you have a furry story, then why are there furries instead of (or living alongside with) humans? Is it a natural evolution, or were furries created by humans trying to play God? Even if you never tell your audience the hows or whys, at least infer that the hows and whys exist, instead of making it seem like you just came up with them on a whim.

3: Create reasonable suspense. I've seen people use both too little and too much suspense, and it ruins their story. (Cliffhangers are best used sparingly!) Now, I think that creating the proper amount and type of suspense as an art, not a science, so I can't really tell you some kind of magic formula on where to put something in. This is something that you have to experiment with yourself.

4: Learn how to pace your story. Even I have trouble with this one, and it's another one of those "experiment with it for yourself" things. If you make the story move too quickly, you might leave out important details or confuse your audience. If you move too slowly, you simply bore people.

5: Learn to be serious and funny. If you have a serious plot, and things are getting really heavy, don't be afraid to have the main character slip up on something and add a little humor. Likewise, if you've got a largely humorous story, it's okay to have the occasional serious moment. Breaking the mood every so often is good, and just shows that you do know how to be funny (if it's a serious plot) or serious (if it's a funny plot).



By no means is this a complete guide, but it should prove useful to all of you out there that have a story to tell. They're also things that many amateur storytellers have problems with, so they're a good thing to start improving on. If anyone else has more tips, feel free to add them and I'll go ahead and put them in the first post for quick and easy reference! =D

Rimbaum
make their personality into something your readers/viewers can identify with. In short, don't make Mary-Sues or Gary-Stus that know how to do everything and can beat up monsters like nobody's business, always get their love interest, etc...

My main character is a homosexual alien girl who likes killing things and is near invincible. And yet people absolutely love her. Clearly the 'able to beat the fuck out of everyone with no problem' thing is not important.

My other characters are a cyborg alien soldier who is a total wuss, a synthetic lifeform that is addicted to sex, and a butch insect/human lesbian who likes shooting things and watching sports. And yet most of my characters are reasonably well liked.

So the whole making a character that can easily be related to is not important. If fact, it says a lot when you can force people to relate to and sympathize with people who they have absolutely NOTHING in common with.

Rich

Rimbaum
make their personality into something your readers/viewers can identify with. In short, don't make Mary-Sues or Gary-Stus that know how to do everything and can beat up monsters like nobody's business, always get their love interest, etc...

My main character is a homosexual alien girl who likes killing things and is near invincible. And yet people absolutely love her. Clearly the 'able to beat the fuck out of everyone with no problem' thing is not important.

My other characters are a cyborg alien soldier who is a total wuss, a synthetic lifeform that is addicted to sex, and a butch insect/human lesbian who likes shooting things and watching sports. And yet most of my characters are reasonably well liked.

So the whole making a character that can easily be related to is not important. If fact, it says a lot when you can force people to relate to and sympathize with people who they have absolutely NOTHING in common with.

That is a generalization that I've made based on years of enduring horrible fanfictions, but so long as your character has believable feelings (meaning: they change in a manner that is at least SOMEWHAT predictable) you should be okay. Besides, I've really only noticed that major problem in writing. There are the exceptions, of course (read: your characters, Harry Potter, a few others...), and those are the ones that aren't truly stereotypical Mary-Sues/Gary-Stus. There's something uniquely different about them that people like instead of hate.


And then there's just the fact that your characters sound weird, funny, and fairly well-likeable. :P

What I like to do when story-telling is to do it in a non-chronological order. It gives effect, doesn't go with the predictible sequence, and show opportunities for character building.

I think that another important point would be to make the relationships believable. I mean, don't make a girl and a guy fall in love the second they meet. She may be attracted to him, but don't do the Yu Watase thing and make them fall in love the second they meet, and become inseperable within five minutes. Please make them realistic! This goes for friendships, too.

Shippo_no_Neko
I think that another important point would be to make the relationships believable

Let me add another thing onto this. Having characters violate previously established sexual orientation for no apparent reason is another storytelling don't.

I disagree on that one actually, close relationships and extreme circumstances (which often occur in comics) can lead to all sorts of bizzare things, however it is correct to say a character who is GENERALLY straight shouldn't go around kissing boys willy nilly.

As I said, people shouldn't do it for no apparent reason. If there is a reason, it's understandable.

Rich

Rimbaum
make their personality into something your readers/viewers can identify with. In short, don't make Mary-Sues or Gary-Stus that know how to do everything and can beat up monsters like nobody's business, always get their love interest, etc...

My main character is a homosexual alien girl who likes killing things and is near invincible. And yet people absolutely love her. Clearly the 'able to beat the fuck out of everyone with no problem' thing is not important.

My other characters are a cyborg alien soldier who is a total wuss, a synthetic lifeform that is addicted to sex, and a butch insect/human lesbian who likes shooting things and watching sports. And yet most of my characters are reasonably well liked.

So the whole making a character that can easily be related to is not important. If fact, it says a lot when you can force people to relate to and sympathize with people who they have absolutely NOTHING in common with.

If I didn't know better I'd think your comic was a porno

I would also add: Make your characters develop and evolve through the story- meaning, enter it as one type or person and come out of it enhanced, changed, or in some way different than what they started as. So that the plot is like life in the sense that it forges personalities and cements beliefs and convictions.

That can never happen with a Mary Sue or a Gary Stu. So by ensuring that element alone one can be mostly safe from that literary oddity seen in fanfiction...

I think that the most important thing in that original list is the first point: believable characters. In story comics, the characters are intrinsically linked with the plot; if you have poor, stereotypical characters, odds are, you're going to have a poor, stereotypical plot. For me, the biggest draw (pun intended... ;)) for a story comic is seeing how the characters grow, change, and interact with each other, dragging the tale along with them.

Oh! As for the "cliffhanger" point, there's an interesting tutorial that was posted on Comixpedia a little while ago on that subject...

http://comixpedia.com/whats_wrong_with_serious_webcomics

Here we go. I lifted this from General Discussions.

Bill Watterson on his "Calvin & Hobbes":

Their personalities expanded easily, and that takes a good 75 percent of the work out of it. If you have the personalities down, you understand them and identify with them; you can stick them in any situation and have a pretty good idea of how they're going to respond. Then it's just a matter of sanding and polishing up...

I think a lot of this commentary depends on whether you're writing a comic strip, or a comic story. A story is, by it's very definition, a long and complete thing based around one particular main theme. A strip tends to be more fragmented, and can contain multiple different ideas, themes, even short story lines - as long as it contains the same (likeable) characters, it makes sense as a whole.

For a complete story - and whether this is in comic form, novel form, movie script, or however else you want to present your story - it's most important to have a driving theme, a notion on which the story is based. Stories are always about people, and most stories express something about what it is to be human - whether they are love stories, horror stories, action adventures, whatever. The author has something they wish to say, some emotion or idea they want to express, and during the course of the story they say it - beginning with the event that triggers the story itself, through the middle which details conflict and counter-arguments, and ending with the climax - the final word, in which the author convinces his audience of the truth of his message.

A lot of writers seem to make things backwards, and I've noticed this particularly in comic art. They write characters that they think will be fun first, and try to shoehorn them into a story second. This probably has a lot to do with being artists first, and wanted to draw cool-looking people... and storytellers second. Characters are drawn on a whim, through chance, given personality, developed. And then eventually you want to tell a story about them. But it doesn't matter how likeable, believable or real your characters are - how well-developed they are - if they have no purpose or story to fit into. If they're just going to be kicking about doing nothing much, with no purpose or ending in sight, and no real goals or drive of their own that makes any sense to a cohesive whole. A character is (let's not forget) a storytelling device designed to further the story itself. Concept first, characters second. Any other way madness lies, and poor storytelling too.

Rimbaum
Now, I don't claim to be a master storyteller, but I do know things that work when you're telling any story in any medium. No, this guide isn't strictly for writing, and many of the tips I give can even be applied in a webcomic!



1: Make the characters believable. By this, I don't mean that your hero/heroine can't be a magical cat-girl or some other thing (so long as they fit within the world they're in), but to make their personality into something your readers/viewers can identify with. In short, don't make Mary-Sues or Gary-Stus that know how to do everything and can beat up monsters like nobody's business, always get their love interest, etc... The same applies for your villains. Don't make them just out to rule the world or destroy humanity, give them personalities and motivations! Some people are more prone to liking a believable villain, and you can use this to your advantage.

2: Make the world believable. Again, I don't mean that you can't have magic or furries or what-not, but you should have solid rules for how the world your characters live in and interact with runs. If you have a furry story, then why are there furries instead of (or living alongside with) humans? Is it a natural evolution, or were furries created by humans trying to play God? Even if you never tell your audience the hows or whys, at least infer that the hows and whys exist, instead of making it seem like you just came up with them on a whim.

3: Create reasonable suspense. I've seen people use both too little and too much suspense, and it ruins their story. (Cliffhangers are best used sparingly!) Now, I think that creating the proper amount and type of suspense as an art, not a science, so I can't really tell you some kind of magic formula on where to put something in. This is something that you have to experiment with yourself.

4: Learn how to pace your story. Even I have trouble with this one, and it's another one of those "experiment with it for yourself" things. If you make the story move too quickly, you might leave out important details or confuse your audience. If you move too slowly, you simply bore people.

5: Learn to be serious and funny. If you have a serious plot, and things are getting really heavy, don't be afraid to have the main character slip up on something and add a little humor. Likewise, if you've got a largely humorous story, it's okay to have the occasional serious moment. Breaking the mood every so often is good, and just shows that you do know how to be funny (if it's a serious plot) or serious (if it's a funny plot).



By no means is this a complete guide, but it should prove useful to all of you out there that have a story to tell. They're also things that many amateur storytellers have problems with, so they're a good thing to start improving on. If anyone else has more tips, feel free to add them and I'll go ahead and put them in the first post for quick and easy reference! =D

I have trouble with a lot of these. It'd be nice to have an outsider tell me how they think it's going with Nadya. The main character seems believable, but I do want people to be able to relate to her to some degree.

Pixie
I think a lot of this commentary depends on whether you're writing a comic strip, or a comic story....
For a complete story - and whether this is in comic form, novel form, movie script, or however else you want to present your story - it's most important to have a driving theme, a notion on which the story is based....
A lot of writers seem to make things backwards, and I've noticed this particularly in comic art. They write characters that they think will be fun first, and try to shoehorn them into a story second....

I'm not sure how much I can agree with this. Perhaps it's situational.

I'm not sure what your exact definition of theme is, but I don't think a theme is what drives the story. In the end, it's the characters driving the theme which are memorable after you close the book. When you're done with Romeo & Juliet, you're not saying to yourself "Now I understand... love conquers all hur hur." You're saying to yourself, "Wow that guy and that girl, what a pair of ."

It's tough to organize my thoughts on this nebulous subject. I can only use examples from my own stories...

(1)Old story: There's a fantasy sword girl character I really liked. Her past is never explained, so I decided I'm going to draw her childhood life as a story. Because of her character, I figured her past must have been tragic. I drew a sketch of her as a child, riding on the shoulders of a young swordsman with kind sad eyes. My entire story on her (and him) started with a character sketch, and the story itself ballooned out from there like the Big Bang, ending not in AD&D fantasy, but a meticulously researched historical fiction which actually shaped my life - I became a big history buff in that subject, starting from knowing jack all about it.

(2)Fight 1: Was on DD during its early years. Me and Ed started with no story, no theme. We simply rounded up characters first. "He'll be cool." "How about him?" "Him? Aren't we tilting the group dynamics too much into 1 end of the spectrum if we add him?" "No it'll work! See, if we do this and this with him..." The main theme of the story, which was expositioned on the first page, wasn't there until we revisited that page months later to add it.

(3)Fight 2: Another fantasy sword girl I really liked. Decided I'd add her as a cameo in Fight 1. Scripted out the cameo scene, started from 1 piece of dialog I thought was cool. The entire cameo scene is expanded from that 1 cool spoken sentence. Then the cameo scene expanded in my head like the Big Bang until it became an entire story. I had no idea where the story was going, and what the theme was, as I frantically typed away on the script, over the course of 3-4 nights, like one possessed. The characters were clear and alive in my head, and so the story wrote itself. Like Watterson said.

Pixie
But it doesn't matter how likeable, believable or real your characters are - how well-developed they are - if they have no purpose or story to fit into. If they're just going to be kicking about doing nothing much, with no purpose or ending in sight, and no real goals or drive of their own that makes any sense to a cohesive whole. A character is (let's not forget) a storytelling device designed to further the story itself. Concept first, characters second. Any other way madness lies, and poor storytelling too.

If this is indeed what happens with some story creators (be they comic authors or other) it probably implies they are somehow inexperienced. You see, in my experience and that of other authors, if you have created an interesting, well developed character, then you already have that character's story. The character is the one who will tell you the story- note, by 'story' I don't mean 'setting' or 'world background', but actual plot and circumstance and human nature.

In essence, if you really do sit down and create a well rounded, 3D character whom you know well, from motivations to pet hates, then you know that character's story as well. For example, a character who has nightmares and as a result is an insomniac, probably had something nasty happen to him/her in their past which is unresolved or which they are afraid of. The insomnia will affect their work and everyday lives, depending on their age. If it's a school age character, their grades will have problems, or their interaction with peers. From there, other characters will interact. Usually, troublesome situations are what characters try to solve- resolving the reason for the nightmares is this character's goal.

There's your story ;) Of course, it may be just a partial story, not your main plot, but when you group many characters together with a common motive/target, then you have your grand plot. And all the while, you have been designing the characters instead of focusing overtly on the story.

Trying to shoehorn, as you said, a character into a story, means that you are trying to have him/her tell another character's story rather than their own. That is a mistake that many of us have fallen into, but it is not an error in method, it's an error in realisation of how a character works within a story. :)

When I write a story, I always start with developing interesting and realistic characters and let the plot develop from that. It's the way I work and the type of stories I personally enjoy reading. I've not found it to be any different in regards to my preferences in comics. An endearing and interesting cast will make for a great story in any setting. Characters make or break all stories for me (comics, novels, movies, TV, or whatever).

Yay, Tantz has put into words what I could not.

Now that I think on it, I think it's erroneous to use the approach of "theme first, character as vehicles."

Perhaps if you're trying to tell stories with epic settings... Maus for example. I've never read Maus but I can imagine how the grand events of history can overshadow the bevy of individuals they affect. In that story, I think the thought process would be "I'm going to make a Holocaust story!" rather than "Hey I just created Joe Furry and his cute rat family and neighbors... Joe likes Swiss cheese but his wife Jane only makes goat cheese ha ha ha... what to do now... I know, Holocaust!"

But for most stories, the "theme 1st" approach doesn't apply. It smacks way too much of "Hey I got a great concept LOL!" As in "Hey I have a great story about a dystopian future where DNA is controlled, and the theme will be humanity is greater than the sum of their DNA! Ain't it cool?! Can somebody draw it for me??"

How many themes are available out there? Finite. How many hasn't been done before? None. It's not about the theme or the setting. It's about the characters that tell it.

Of course, you end Romeo and Juliet by considering the characters involved, but because they are so appropriate and perfectly designed for their setting, and for the idea Shakespeare wished to create. He asks you to get emotionally involved in his characters in order to tell a story which, at it's essence, is not about the two characters at all but about love and adversity. Of course, he does it so perfectly and in such a well-judged manner that you leave thinking about the characters and what they did for their 'theme', but the story is not about them. They, in a different context, would be no story at all. The story is about the conflict that surrounds them and how they react to that.

Make no mistake, theme is not necessarily an outside thing, a world-encompassing idea. It can be played out entirely in the head of one character - but that doesn't prevent the story from having a message, or from having a theme. And it should begin with both an idea, and a theme, from the author's point of view. Making your character first and then simply telling their life story is not a story at all - it's a biography. Oh, what happens to them might be quite interesting and unusual - particularly if you throw in a lot of magic, action, otherworldly beings, and other such unusual items. That doesn't mean it's a good story though - it's just a series of events with no real meaning whatsoever. Where will it end? And will that ending be anything other than a halt to pages and story, or will it leave the audience with a sense of satisfaction of a good story well concluded?

Characters are story-making tools and nothing more. This doesn't mean they can't be likeable, thorough, three-dimensional or drive the story - in fact, it insists on all of these things. And nor does it say that characters can't be the inspiration for a story - that the very nature of a character might inspire a complete work purely because the author finds them so interesting and inspiring! But writing a story purely because you have a character to put in it is not going to create a good story. It's a complicated dance, a tricky balance to get, but the story is the thing. The character is merely a thing that exists within the story as a whole, and is there to do exactly that - exist; react, act, drive the story forward, live. The character is the focus of the reader, but he's not the story itself.

I think you misunderstand me. Theme and idea do not really have anything to do with labels such as science fiction or fantasy - they have pretty much bugger all to do with setting, as well. Epic settings are beside the point. The idea or theme could be something that occurs entirely within the protagonist's head - a change that occurs within him over time. Does this need a character? Sure. Should I write him first? Hell no - I should decide what I want to write about first, and write the guy to best tell it second.

Theme and idea are about asking a question, and seeing it through to its logical and most extreme conclusion, the point at which nothing else beyond the story is possible. Yes, this requires a character to tell it - but should I write him first and decide how the story ends second? No, that would be idiotic. It's like saying, "I have these building materials handy - just bought the ones I fancied the look of, of course - now how to go about building my dream house?".... no, you should be saying, "Here are the plans for my dream house, now which materials do I need in order to build it properly?"

mlai
Yay, Tantz has put into words what I could not.

Now that I think on it, I think it's erroneous to use the approach of "theme first, character as vehicles."

Perhaps if you're trying to tell stories with epic settings... Maus for example. I've never read Maus but I can imagine how the grand events of history can overshadow the bevy of individuals they affect. In that story, I think the thought process would be "I'm going to make a Holocaust story!" rather than "Hey I just created Joe Furry and his cute rat family and neighbors... Joe likes Swiss cheese but his wife Jane only makes goat cheese ha ha ha... what to do now... I know, Holocaust!"

But for most stories, the "theme 1st" approach doesn't apply. It smacks way too much of "Hey I got a great concept LOL!" As in "Hey I have a great story about a dystopian future where DNA is controlled, and the theme will be humanity is greater than the sum of their DNA! Ain't it cool?! Can somebody draw it for me??"

How many themes are available out there? Finite. How many hasn't been done before? None. It's not about the theme or the setting. It's about the characters that tell it.

The characters in Maus are real people. The theme followed the characters. You should read Maus. Its very sad what happened to Art Speigelmans(sp?) father/family.

I think what you are saying is true though. Heres why: You have to know how people will react when you put them in certain situations.

my current story has a lesbian woman and a grecian muse fall in love. The Theme of the story is spiritual exploration and acceptance of those who are different. None of this really came around until after I had abandoned the original theme of "In Los Angeles you cant see the stars" and the character had was sitting there bored with nothing to do. I threw things in her way and gave her a little brother but it wasnt until I said to myself, I want Polyhymnia in my story. BAM. Everything fit so well. A character I hadnt planned to be gay was suddenly so, her personality fit so much better this way, and it gave me an antagonist in her brother. JOY!

Pixie
Of course, you end Romeo and Juliet by considering the characters involved, but because they are so appropriate and perfectly designed for their setting, and for the idea Shakespeare wished to create. He asks you to get emotionally involved in his characters in order to tell a story which, at it's essence, is not about the two characters at all but about love and adversity. Of course, he does it so perfectly and in such a well-judged manner that you leave thinking about the characters and what they did for their 'theme', but the story is not about them. They, in a different context, would be no story at all. The story is about the conflict that surrounds them and how they react to that.
...............................................

I cant speak for ol' will, but I wonder, how do you know he came up with the theme before the people? When I write, first I see people. I might have an idea to theme, but usually the people end up overpowering any plans I had. Once I put them down on paper with personalities, I try my damnedest to think like they would and that almost always changes the theme of any story I have.

While "two teenagers in love" is a theme, its a rather boring one with out the characters of Romeo and Juliet. How do you know he planned to make it this huge and powerful story? He may have sat there with their death in mind, but that doesnt mean really he had this whole thing planned out from the very begining, does it? He could have very well heard a boy say, "Though I've just met you, I would die for you." and took it one step further. As you say, that isn't really the theme, so how can sit there and assume that he didnt start by thinking up who the two people were and WHY the boy was saying such nonsense and then made it real. after he has these two kids together, in love to be sure, and tragic stories are great so he works them in too, and then POW he realizes what is coming up next and gets excited.

I doubt he sat there and said, "I'm going to write a timeless tale about starcrossed lovers which will go on and be the definitive story of love that ever was."

Furthermore, could you imagine him writing A Mid Summer Nights Dream with out the characters? Did he write the story first and then go, hahaha I know, Im going to make this guy who is an ass, into an ass! I know, I'll create the flamingly homosexual PUCK, and work him in around the details of the plot. yes. thats it.

Yay, agrees with Rob.

See, it doesn't apply to only me. Theme vs characters is not analogous to house vs bricks. The theme of a story can change midstream, owing to the raw force of the characters that were created. The potency of vivid characters also inspire the theme that eventually becomes the framework of a story.

Often, it is the characters who are created first, then the story. Because often the best stories are those written from the author being inspired by vivid characters. I think that's how the human brain works.

Which is the best way to write a story? lol!

You silly people... There are lots of ways to approach it! :)
Like when you do a painting of a vase of flowers; there are a thousand ways to start! More! None is "right", they're just different.

So what's this here, Characters VS theme? Why is that even an issue????? Some people start one way, some the other, and some in different ways entirely! It's like a debate about whether you should start drawing a figure with the eyes or a stick figure of the pose, and not even realising that some people prefer just to block in the whole pose as a rough bloby shape, and still others will turn elements into polygons, etc. Writing stories is the same sort of thing: many ways to do it. ;)

Pixie has a very good method there though. Eminently suitable for writing "great" works.

Thanks Oz. I was rather surprised to be argued against so vehemently for simply sharing my point of view. Thought this was a tips and tricks thread, not a debate thread. ;P

I agree with you, however. There is no one way to begin writing - nor any one way to continue. I was simply offering my advice, given my personal experience. Writing characters first was how I began - now I write stories first, and use characters as devices to drive them. It is what I have learned over time, and I find it works better to create complete stories. For me, at least. People are welcome to disagree with me - some people work differently, and that's no business of mine. ;)

Honestly, the best advice I have right now is to read Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the principles of screenwriting - by Robert McKee. It's written from a screenwriter's point of view, but comics are movies are closer than any other two storytelling media, as far as I can see. Comics are a still form, without sound - or movies are one step more removed from literature. Whichever way, I have found it one of the most helpful and inspiring works of non-fiction I have ever read, and I highly recommend it to anyone who ever intends to write great stories. Really great, inspiring, rip-out-your-heart and change-your-life stories. The kind that make you wish you could touch one person like that, just once in your life... just for a moment.

I apologise. It's probably the latent novelist in me that's so keen to talk story. I never had any intention to cause argument, or say 'this is how it ought to be done' - merely to offer my own hard-won point of view. As a friend of mine recently said of me: "Don't worry, you're not crazy. You're just a writer. It's not so much a hobby as an incurable disease." ;)

I just think its funny that you presume to know HOW someone else, someone whose been dead for ages, someone who wrote the STRONGEST characters ever, wrties. And to suggest that he does it by creating the theme first, rather than the notable characters. That seems odd.

Also, I come off a lot stronger than I am. I use a lot of sarcasm and cuss a lot. Its just who I am. I should include a disclaimer in my sig. Don't take me as seriously as I come off, because I dont.

and then you run off telling people that were doing it backwards as if there is some sort of problem with knowing who the people are first. You even imply that it is because we are less of story tellers than you, when in fact, I am not even an artist but a writer.

as for good books about writing:

Alan Moores writing for comics
Stephen Kings On Writing
Octavia E Butlers essay Positive Obsession
Scott Mcclouds books Understanding Comics, Making comics

That's funny, Robert - don't think I was, at any point, trying to attack you. Think I was just trying to defend my own stance and reading of the writing process. In fact, if I can't tell how a long-dead writer managed to create works, then I don't believe you can either. On the other hand I can, through conjecture, through my own experience and knowledge, from my own point of view, draw my own conclusions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, I don't think. :)

As I said in my previous post, people are welcome to disagree with me - some people work differently, and that's no business of mine. Offering my own advice on the writing process is not a personal attack of you, however you might see it. Yes, I believe writing characters first and story second is writing a story backwards - yes, I believe that technique is flawed in many ways and it's not the way I choose to write. Yes, I believe there are better, more appropriate ways of doing it.

Note the important word - you are a writer, so you can't have missed it. Believe. This is all a matter of opinion, and just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. In fact, it doesn't mean you're wrong either. It's a subjective matter of opinion. And I think I'm just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, without being attacked. I'm not the only writer in the world who thinks as I do.

Hell, some people in the world believe in god, and some don't. Who are you to say who is right or wrong? Can you prove either is correct? Would you take it as a personal attack if someone from the opposing party believed (and claimed!) differently to you, and illustrated their own beliefs with arguments?

Now, I thought this was a tips and advice thread. I was trying to voice my advice. Rather than attempt to fight me, please merely accept that I have a different way of working than you... and I'm not alone in this way of working... and let's get on with offering writers advice, shall we? Thanks! :)

Like I said, I'm less aggressive and hostile than I sound. I just have a natural "fuck you" kind of way of talking. In your first post you claimed it was backwards blahblahblah so I defended my own practice. You'll notice I hadn't said that you were writing backwards, or that you were wrong for what you were doing. I also said specifically that I can't speak for will shakespeare, but that I find it rather hard to beleive he would work in the fashion that you claim to know he did.

I think characters are the most important bit. I couldn't imagine sitting there and saying to myself, after I have a story mostly written and concieved, OKAY NOW I NEED TO PUT PEOPLE IN THE STORY. That seems backwards to me. It seems like the way people like DAN BROWN or R A SALVATORE would right. It seems like boring, unoriginal, plot driven, crapola. I'd rather read a kurt vonnegut story where the characters seem to be the only real thing that matters. Hell, some of his(Vonnegut) stories don't even have really seem to have a plot or theme. I tried to read one of them R A Salvatore books and it was all plot, all theme, all idea, no people. The characters were so plain, boring, unoriginal, generic and otherwise worthless. Writers who write like this are little more than children playing make believe.

See, that seems kinda mean, doesnt it? Yet its no different than the way you posted the first time.

A Character focused approach could also be looked upon as a soap opera style of writing, so any style can have its negative connotations :)

Kiss and make up

ozoneocean
A Character focused approach could also be looked upon as a soap opera style of writing, so any style can have its negative connotations :)

Kiss and make up

I think soap operas are plot driven, not character driven. All the people are the same on a soap opera.

It should be noted that when we talk about creating a character for the story, we do not mean:

He's a hardcore punk rocker who sips watered down cola between sets so people think hes drinking a mixed drink. She's a groupie who has slept with every punk bands lead vocalist that has played in her favorite club in the past 2 months.

When I create a character its more like:

Her name is Elya and shes 16, she's shy because of insecurities. Since she lives in a post apocolyptic world she cant read very well. Education is minimal and her ideas about the world are very basic. Although she is shy, she has a terrible hunger to be noticed so she dresses in flashy clothes. Shes got a younger brother but he is more of a grown up than she is. She has an exciting thirst for knowledge and she loves to explore the world. She's very liberal.

Osiris is 14, he's very xenophobic and doesn't like people other than his older sister so he dresses very drab and hes extremely conservative. He has a hunger to be safe so the idea of community is encouraging even though he distrusts people. he's extremely serious and has a ton of confidence in his ability to be a man. He isnt the egyptian god, hes just named after him.

Polyhymnia is the grecian muse of sacred poetry so shes very spiritual but not religious. She has a natural way of inspiring people to think spiritually. She loves to walk around in places where she can disconnect herself from her body(figuratively) and feel closer to the world.

RobertTidwell
I think soap operas are plot driven, not character driven. All the people are the same on a soap opera.

By god, what an epiphany. I never realized that before (seriously). My family, watching soaps of our language, always curse at the TV "Why are they always so goddamn stupid!? So frustrating!?" Key word is always.

It doesn't matter what happens, the characters are all the same - always stupid, always irritating, always frustrating. And boy, do all kinds of out-there **** happen on soaps.

There are rare good soaps. Great soaps. Those are character driven. With characters I'll always remember. The same **** happens... this chara dies, that chara dies, this family loses its fortune, that hero makes a comeback, whatever. But the characters, when strong (by virtue of good writer), are remembered.

I've never seen a good soap. My mother used to watch them all and I realized that although the names of the people and these huge story lines are so interwoven, they're all so basic and simple. She loves him but he doesnt love her, his sister pretended to kill her husband because her husband wanted to collect a ton of money from the insurance salesmen, but then it comes out that he has an identical twin brother who really does kill him and lives on married to his wife.