on writing

Writing a story is always invigorating, but it's really not as easy as people think, especially when you know your story, if followed through, will span somewhere around 3000 pages. Half the bear is character development and plotting; and once you get that somewhat figured out, you've still got to actually write it and write it well. The last couple weeks have been spent writing and rewriting, adding and deleting. I wrote 150 pages, winnowed it down to 100, and then wrote another 50 pages (which I'm actually mostly content with). The story is, on the surface, about zombies; but, delving deeper into the characters, the whole zombie thing almost becomes peripheral to the "real issues" at stake here. The story's not so much about zombies as it is about the characters, and even more-so, it's not about the characters (plural) as it is about the main character (singular), and the way that his perception of the world is inevitably changed by the events and how this works itself out in his life. Not surprisingly, the tension between Cynicism & Hope isn't untouched. At this point in my life, such tension will sprinkle, if not douse, anything I write. 

When I wrote the first act months and months ago, I didn't like the main character. I didn't like the way he operated, I didn't like his worldview, I didn't like who he was. And, really, that's a success for me: I constructed him in such a way that he's a complete dick, a manipulative asshole, a guy who uses and wants to be used by girls. It felt so surface-level, like a cardboard character, and I knew I couldn't keep running with him as is because, to put it quite simply, I didn't like writing a first-person narration from the point-of-view of a douche bag. So I scratched it all, completely deleted it, and then regretted it. Why?

(1) The character was well-done. The fact that I hated him is a testament not only to how we're total opposites when it comes to these things but also a testament to how well I portrayed him as he is. Part of creating characters--and, hell, writing in general--is not being afraid of the tough stuff, not shying away from a character simply because the character's modus operandi makes you sick to your stomach. The reality is that people are like this character. 

(2) Characters are never--or, in my opinion, shouldn't be--static. Characters must continue changing, evolving, adapting, reacting to the circumstances as the circumstances influence their worldviews. And when we're talking about something as worldview-shifting as a zombie pandemic, there's a lot of room for character development. I found the document in my email (when I had formerly sent it to myself) and looked through it all again, realizing that with the advent of zombies, the potential for radical character-development in so many different directions skyrocketed with this character. 

(3) On top of that, I knew it'd be fun to figure out why the character is the way he is and utilize that in the story. There's always more to why we are the way we are, and even douche bags can have pretty damned good stories. Most people who are jerks weren't born that way; they became that way because of something, and exploring these things and fleshing them out in the story offers not just future character development but also a past-tense character development that, like we find in real life, influences and affects the way the character swallows all that's happening and let's that change him. 

So I've re:opened the document and continued the story. Of course I went back through the document and tweaked it significantly in light of the direction I want to take the character, but most of the things that made me uncomfortable are kept intact. Fifty pages later, I've enjoyed taking these bits and pieces of the character and investigating them fuller. Reading Act I, we come out of it with a certain preconception of the character's nature. And then, in Act 2, we begin seeing that things aren't always as they seem, and though we hate this character, we can understand why he is the way he is, and even sympathize with him. I like the idea that the protagonists are never completely good and the antagonists are never completely evil (just like life), and I've really been enjoying redoing the story and fleshing-out this character. I think it's going somewhere good, but we'll see.

Of course, as an addendum, there's fear, and let me tell you why: when we pick up a novel from the library or buy a book from the bookstore, and when we get lost in it, we don't let the story--which is fiction--affect our perception of the author. We're not reading the story wondering what this tells us (or doesn't tell us) about who wrote it. We simply enjoy the story. But when we read a story that someone we know writes, without even realizing it, we let the story affect our perception of the writer. We make judgments about the author based upon the story, as if we've forgotten that it's fiction. This is why, for instance, Stephen King never let his kids read anything he wrote until they were much older: he knew that, because he was their dad, they'd start making judgments about him based on his stories. Because this story is told first-person, people who know me can very easily read it and start making judgments, and that's something that scares me. But the number one rule in writing is to "not worry what mother thinks" (i.e. don't let your writing be dictated by what you want, or don't want, your friends to think about you). So though I'm plunging forward with this character, there's a bit of trepidation thrown in there: I don't want people reading this story and then thinking I'm actually the main character, and that it's a sort of autobiography. 


A risk? Definitely. 
A worthwhile risk? For this story, yes (I hope).