Writing Shadowrun stories - Dumpshock Forums

Writing Shadowrun stories, Any tips?

Options

Ed Simons

Dec 10 2004, 03:51 AM

Post #51

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 29-September 02
Member No.: 3,348

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

My argument is that the most important thing is how cool and appealing the main character is rather than whether or not the character is fallible.

Let us compare two old favorites...Jane Eyre by Bronte, and The Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas.

Let us note that this is rather like comparing apples and rutabagas. Other than the approximate time they were written, the novels are radically different in tone, scope, and power level of the protagonist.

But while the Count is vastly more powerful, he has to work to achieve his goals. It takes years to set his plans up properly. And he is definitely fallible. The innocent suffer as well as the guilty because of his actions - impoverishment, disgrace, and even death. He has great abilities, but he cannot use that incredible pistol skill when it would destroy the first woman he loved. He has great knowledge, but it cannot bring back the innocent child who dies. And in the end, when Edmund Dantes sees his own fallibility, when he sees the unintended damage his actions have caused, he seeks to atone for what he can and to find what he lost when he became the Count of Monte Cristo.

Guest_Doggbert_*	Jan 2 2005, 04:14 AM Post #52
Guests	Can't say I've ever written anything. At least not anything of value. What I have done though is read stuff. The discussion so far seems to have established that there are several ways to write 'good' characters. By good in this context I mean that they are interesting and that they fit in the story's setting and scope. Epic characters going around in an epic setting facing epic problems might work. An epic character facing (or wading through, as it were) low-level gangers in the streets of redmond probably won't. (Unless it's a short passage just to establish the 'epicness' of the characters.) Sherlock Holmes (the little I've actually read) is a typical super-human or near super-human character. He's portrayed as almost absurdly intelligent and extremely educated. The story still works (if barely in my opinion), because every time Holmes solves a puzzle, the solution is described in detail. The puzzle and solution is the interesting part, not the character. Holmes would probably not hold up if the story was more character-driven. My point being that the story in some ways can make up for lacks in the characters, and that works the other way around as well. It all depends on what kind of story it is... As for giving characters both likeable and not-so-likeable traits, I recommend reading 'The Chronicles of Tomas Covenant' or 'The Gap'-series by Stephen R. Donaldson. He excels at portraying that kind of characters. You know the ones you utterly hate, but still find yourself rooting for...?

John Campbell

Jan 3 2005, 08:00 AM

Post #53

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 9-November 02
From: The Republic of Vermont
Member No.: 3,581

QUOTE (Doggbert)

As for giving characters both likeable and not-so-likeable traits, I recommend reading 'The Chronicles of Tomas Covenant' or 'The Gap'-series by Stephen R. Donaldson. He excels at portraying that kind of characters. You know the ones you utterly hate, but still find yourself rooting for...?

Though you might, perhaps, want to go a little easier on the not-likable traits than Donaldson. The Thomas Covenant books (well, I only read the first one... I wouldn't put myself through the rest after that) failed for me because I hated Covenant with such depth and passion and for such a variety of reasons that there was no rooting for him anyway. I wanted the self-centered, self-absorbed, arrogant, obnoxious, whiny rapist shithead to die, even though that meant the end of the world.

Fortune View Member Profile	Jan 3 2005, 08:46 AM Post #54
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	You and me both, although I forced my way through the rest of the series thinking it might get better. Man, was I wrong! :please:

Birdy

Jan 3 2005, 01:19 PM

Post #55

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 637
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,528

QUOTE (Doggbert)

Can't say I've ever written anything. At least not anything of value. What I have done though is read stuff.

The discussion so far seems to have established that there are several ways to write 'good' characters. By good in this context I mean that they are interesting and that they fit in the story's setting and scope. Epic characters going around in an epic setting facing epic problems might work. An epic character facing (or wading through, as it were) low-level gangers in the streets of redmond probably won't. (Unless it's a short passage just to establish the 'epicness' of the characters.)

Sherlock Holmes (the little I've actually read) is a typical super-human or near super-human character. He's portrayed as almost absurdly intelligent and extremely educated. The story still works (if barely in my opinion), because every time Holmes solves a puzzle, the solution is described in detail. The puzzle and solution is the interesting part, not the character. Holmes would probably not hold up if the story was more character-driven. My point being that the story in some ways can make up for lacks in the characters, and that works the other way around as well. It all depends on what kind of story it is...

As for giving characters both likeable and not-so-likeable traits, I recommend reading 'The Chronicles of Tomas Covenant' or 'The Gap'-series by Stephen R. Donaldson. He excels at portraying that kind of characters. You know the ones you utterly hate, but still find yourself rooting for...?

Actually the Holmes stories do have a lot of personality. They work on the fact that we don't "see" everything that Holmes sees. The author deliberatly does not! describe certain facts so that Holmes can finally point them out to bumbly but faithful Watson. That is what makes doing a good Holmes movie so difficult.

As for epic characters read Conan (not the Novel for the film, the series by Robert E Howard, L. Spraque de Camp(sp?), Carter) or even Kenneth Bulmer/Alan Burt Akrens Kregen. Again it works because the threat level matches (as you rightly assumed) the hero. Minor goons are finished of in one sentence.

As for the "unlikable but still heroic" character, I doubt that such a thing exists. There are "bad guys with a honor codex" (i.e Bester from B5, the bad guy in Oceans-12) that one can respect for following their codex even if they suffer for it. But an "endpoint of digestive trackt" can't be likeable IMHO. Faults in a character and uncouth behaviour are something different (Think "Rooster Cockburn" or Holmes) they make him a "complete" person. Nothing is more dislikeable than a "true Vulkan/Elf" with no faults/errors/feelings.

Birdy

Reaver

Jan 3 2005, 03:15 PM

Post #56

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 518
Joined: 24-February 03
From: Tucson
Member No.: 4,153

QUOTE (Fortune @ Dec 4 2004, 07:16 PM)

You might want to cruise by the Shadowrun Writers' Forum. There are quite a few people well-versed in exactly the type of things you are looking for.

I agree with Fortune. The Writer's forum is extremely helpful. It certainly has been as I've developed my SR writing. We'd be happy to see ya there and help out. :)

Guest_Doggbert_*

Jan 3 2005, 05:54 PM

Post #57

Guests

QUOTE (John Campbell)

Though you might, perhaps, want to go a little easier on the not-likable traits than Donaldson. The Thomas Covenant books (well, I only read the first one... I wouldn't put myself through the rest after that) failed for me because I hated Covenant with such depth and passion and for such a variety of reasons that there was no rooting for him anyway. I wanted the self-centered, self-absorbed, arrogant, obnoxious, whiny rapist shithead to die, even though that meant the end of the world.

Even though i gave it as a tip I didn't like the covenant books myself either, for the reasons stated above among others. But the Gap-series is one of my top five reads. And I don't know why, since the main character in that series is even more 'evil' and despicable than Covenant. Might be because I was older when I read the Gap, I don't know. Or that I've come to like other things in a story.

QUOTE (Birdy)

Actually the Holmes stories do have a lot of personality. They work on the fact that we don't "see" everything that Holmes sees. The author deliberatly does not! describe certain facts so that Holmes can finally point them out to bumbly but faithful Watson. That is what makes doing a good Holmes movie so difficult.

Yes, the stories might have 'personality' but holmes does not (in my opinion). He just goes around solving everything. What's interesting about it is the solutions he gives to the puzzles. Holmes as he is giving those solutions is still not an interesting character. The story - through the puzzles and solutions - is interesting. My point is that this still works, because the story does not rely on interesting characters...

Keep in mind that these are my personal opinions. Feel free to disagree. If you can give a compelling argument, so much the better.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »