![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Writing Yourself Into A Trap
Aug. 4th, 2014 01:03 pmThere must be something in the publishing industry (or at least the romance novel publishing industry) encouraging writers to domino effect characters, that is to say a secondary or tertiary character in one book may turn up as a lead in a later book. I run across this a lot and wonder... do writers plan this out in any way? Is it intentional? Accidental? Publisher-encouraged? Do they have a plan for this character when they introduce them? Or is it that they created a character that intrigued them and so they later develop a full story for that character?
Is it somewhere in between?
What about when...erm... it doesn't work to their advantage?
Courtney Milan re-released a few of her old books on Kindle recently with "expanded content", the "expanded content" turned out to be her writing a few things about how she developed the novel. Since I had never read the stories in question, I read the "expanded content" versions. In one she admitted that when she wrote the book over a decade ago she hadn't noticed the 'cosent issues' in it. Since the story functioned on her witholding content from the reader (that makes consent clear) it simply never crossed her mind. She had been looking at something else when writing it. But, having been asked about the consent issues she wrote that she absolutely 'got' where that question came from and that if she were writing the story today, she would handle it differently.
In another of the 'expanded versions,' she straight-up admitted that it was her least favorite novel that she had written and that, in her opinion, the novel did not work very well (at which point, I was glad I got it for only .99).
What was interesting was her discussion of how she had written herself into a trap. The main characters had appeared in a previous novel, so the conflict had already been established in a previous work. She couldn't 'undo' what had been published. She could only try to write herself out of the trap that she had created and, quite frankly, she just didn't think it worked.
I recently read a similar duo of novels by a different writer and found myself wondering whether that author also found that she had also written herself into a trap. A character who was quite the douchenozzle in the first book was to be given a more sympathetic redemption in the second novel and, to be frank, for this reader it did not work.
The author did a fairly good job of redeeming the male lead in the first novel. He too was quite a douchenozzle at first, and I was prepared to dislike the book (and would've had I stopped reading in the first few chapters). However, the male lead evolved through the story, was never perfect but definitely evolved and redeemed himself in my eyes. In the end, I liked the book, liked the changes in the lead, and even with the story's flaws, came to like it overall so I picked up the next one that was following the male lead's brother.
Days later, the second book still frustrates me.
Despite the entire second novel explaining his POV and motivations, I'm still angry with the character for what he did in the FIRST novel. Perhaps, had I read the second novel only, I could've gotten over it (though he was still such a hateful asshat to his sister-in-law in his own book that I'm not sure about that), but having read the previous novel... there was seriously a greater need for humility and evolution than the character experienced in order for him to become a character that I could root for.
I wonder...
Did the writer discover in the second book that it was basically impossible to excuse the character's actions in the first book? Were his character traits too established to allow the full turn around that was needed? Or did she just not execute well enough to 'redeem him' (I kept waiting for remorse in him that never actually came, and it was what left me resenting him.)
Did this writer also write herself into a trap?
The character worked in the first book because he was an antagonist who caused problems for the lead but was not in fact 'evil', just careless, egotistic, and somewhat selfish. That sort of character made an interesting quasi-villain because he wasn't evil. Despite all the problems he created, he was not an evil guy... just an asshat.
That was interesting for a quasi-villain...but when it came time to expand him in his own novel he didn't work as a hero or even an anti-hero for me. He was STILL too selfish to 'get it' even by the end, and 'getting it' was pivotal to my rooting for him. I mean, it's realistic character development for his being defensive and unable to fully perceive the damage he had done, but it left me with an even more bitter feeling for the character that I was now supposed to root for him, but he not only never apologized to the person he wronged in the first book, but never once in his own head in the SECOND book did he ever recoginize .that he seriously owed apologies. He was NOT the wronged party. Not at all. His resentments were unfounded. I enjoyed him as a not-evil villain. Such blind spots work for a not-evil villain, but I resented the heck out of him when he was supposedly to become 'hero' because for him to become the hero, he needed enough empathy to get over his whining to recognize the damage he had caused. (In his early 20s, he slept with a 16 year old girl, and when it blew up in his face, he skedattled as fast as he could, leaving her with the consequences alone, and even years later continued to claim that she was more at fault in the situation than he had been. SHE WAS SIXTEEN YEARS OLD AND FROM AN ABUSIVE HOME, YOU COLLOSAL ASSHAT! Yes, all it took was some handsome guy being nice to her for five minutes for her to develop fantasies of being 'in love' and 'rescued'. This is why twenty-something men should stay the hell away from needy young girls!)
So I wonder, did this author, like Milan, belatedly realize that she had created a trap for herself in the first book?
She couldn't 'undo' the first book. There was only so much finessing of the set-up that could be done because it was already published. Was it just too great of a lift to pull off? Was this character well suited for his role as not-evil antogonist but NOT well suited to being slotted in as hero...?
Hmm.
Just a thought.
I wonder, if pressed, whether many authors would admit to having occasionally written themselves into a corner (I remember reading Stephen King discussing "The Stand" and admitting that he'd been stuck midway though that book for MONTHS. He said that if he hadn't already been 1000 pages into the story, he would've shelved the darn thing. And in the end, he ended up killing half the characters in an explosion in order to make it possible for him to finish the the book because he had written himself into an impossible situation.)
Sometimes initially bright ideas can be Admiral Ackbar's cry:
"It's a trap!"
Is it somewhere in between?
What about when...erm... it doesn't work to their advantage?
Courtney Milan re-released a few of her old books on Kindle recently with "expanded content", the "expanded content" turned out to be her writing a few things about how she developed the novel. Since I had never read the stories in question, I read the "expanded content" versions. In one she admitted that when she wrote the book over a decade ago she hadn't noticed the 'cosent issues' in it. Since the story functioned on her witholding content from the reader (that makes consent clear) it simply never crossed her mind. She had been looking at something else when writing it. But, having been asked about the consent issues she wrote that she absolutely 'got' where that question came from and that if she were writing the story today, she would handle it differently.
In another of the 'expanded versions,' she straight-up admitted that it was her least favorite novel that she had written and that, in her opinion, the novel did not work very well (at which point, I was glad I got it for only .99).
What was interesting was her discussion of how she had written herself into a trap. The main characters had appeared in a previous novel, so the conflict had already been established in a previous work. She couldn't 'undo' what had been published. She could only try to write herself out of the trap that she had created and, quite frankly, she just didn't think it worked.
I recently read a similar duo of novels by a different writer and found myself wondering whether that author also found that she had also written herself into a trap. A character who was quite the douchenozzle in the first book was to be given a more sympathetic redemption in the second novel and, to be frank, for this reader it did not work.
The author did a fairly good job of redeeming the male lead in the first novel. He too was quite a douchenozzle at first, and I was prepared to dislike the book (and would've had I stopped reading in the first few chapters). However, the male lead evolved through the story, was never perfect but definitely evolved and redeemed himself in my eyes. In the end, I liked the book, liked the changes in the lead, and even with the story's flaws, came to like it overall so I picked up the next one that was following the male lead's brother.
Days later, the second book still frustrates me.
Despite the entire second novel explaining his POV and motivations, I'm still angry with the character for what he did in the FIRST novel. Perhaps, had I read the second novel only, I could've gotten over it (though he was still such a hateful asshat to his sister-in-law in his own book that I'm not sure about that), but having read the previous novel... there was seriously a greater need for humility and evolution than the character experienced in order for him to become a character that I could root for.
I wonder...
Did the writer discover in the second book that it was basically impossible to excuse the character's actions in the first book? Were his character traits too established to allow the full turn around that was needed? Or did she just not execute well enough to 'redeem him' (I kept waiting for remorse in him that never actually came, and it was what left me resenting him.)
Did this writer also write herself into a trap?
The character worked in the first book because he was an antagonist who caused problems for the lead but was not in fact 'evil', just careless, egotistic, and somewhat selfish. That sort of character made an interesting quasi-villain because he wasn't evil. Despite all the problems he created, he was not an evil guy... just an asshat.
That was interesting for a quasi-villain...but when it came time to expand him in his own novel he didn't work as a hero or even an anti-hero for me. He was STILL too selfish to 'get it' even by the end, and 'getting it' was pivotal to my rooting for him. I mean, it's realistic character development for his being defensive and unable to fully perceive the damage he had done, but it left me with an even more bitter feeling for the character that I was now supposed to root for him, but he not only never apologized to the person he wronged in the first book, but never once in his own head in the SECOND book did he ever recoginize .that he seriously owed apologies. He was NOT the wronged party. Not at all. His resentments were unfounded. I enjoyed him as a not-evil villain. Such blind spots work for a not-evil villain, but I resented the heck out of him when he was supposedly to become 'hero' because for him to become the hero, he needed enough empathy to get over his whining to recognize the damage he had caused. (In his early 20s, he slept with a 16 year old girl, and when it blew up in his face, he skedattled as fast as he could, leaving her with the consequences alone, and even years later continued to claim that she was more at fault in the situation than he had been. SHE WAS SIXTEEN YEARS OLD AND FROM AN ABUSIVE HOME, YOU COLLOSAL ASSHAT! Yes, all it took was some handsome guy being nice to her for five minutes for her to develop fantasies of being 'in love' and 'rescued'. This is why twenty-something men should stay the hell away from needy young girls!)
So I wonder, did this author, like Milan, belatedly realize that she had created a trap for herself in the first book?
She couldn't 'undo' the first book. There was only so much finessing of the set-up that could be done because it was already published. Was it just too great of a lift to pull off? Was this character well suited for his role as not-evil antogonist but NOT well suited to being slotted in as hero...?
Hmm.
Just a thought.
I wonder, if pressed, whether many authors would admit to having occasionally written themselves into a corner (I remember reading Stephen King discussing "The Stand" and admitting that he'd been stuck midway though that book for MONTHS. He said that if he hadn't already been 1000 pages into the story, he would've shelved the darn thing. And in the end, he ended up killing half the characters in an explosion in order to make it possible for him to finish the the book because he had written himself into an impossible situation.)
Sometimes initially bright ideas can be Admiral Ackbar's cry:
"It's a trap!"
