A wild and an untamed thing - how literature refuses gaming

[Matt Snyder]

So when such authors are asked, "Hey, what's the point, what's the experience, what's it like to do it, how do you feel when you do it, how do you do it," and so on, they always answer in terms of aesthetic experience, not in terms of what the necessary priorities are. Those priorities are so overwhelmingly present in the person's mind already, that he or she simply feels no need to express them separately from doing the work in the first place (and may well cannot).

This is why I favor Egri's treatment of the topic, rather than multiple others'. He's one of the few who step out of the personal, interior experience of writing to look at what it's composed of, regardless of what a given individual actually feels and experiences while doing it.

This is exactly what I have been trying to get at with my comments about LeGuin. As ever, Ron does a much better job than I can at putting the ideas into words. LeGuin can't help herself from waxing poetic about the process. She turns describing work into telling art! That's not especially helpful to those of us who aren't in her shoes, have never written successful novels, and can't identify with her metaphorical language. What if her isn't aren't ours? Then it is utterly useless to us as instruction. Boy, it sure sounds good. And we might feel good about her words, even identify with them in the sense that we hope our creations will be similarly poetic and noble endeavors. But we don't really have any good grasp at all on how to fucking do it.

If we did, we'd be arguing with our editors at Random House, rather than typing furiously on the Forge.

Me? I sleep better knowing that, even if I never get to be that author I always dreamed of being, at least I designed role-playing games worth playing. And I certainly played games worth playing, in the literary sense.

[Valamir]

Hey Matt

I'd agree with you that Le Guin's words don't represent the literal truth of the process.  I didn't choose the Nabakov quote by accident and "trite little whimsy" seems an accurate summary of the position.  But if you look at Ralph's original:

I could be wrong, but I have trouble envisioning any quality writer asking "what would the character do next" and feeling obligated to abide by it.

I'm guessing that people are conflating what you wrote with Ralph's original point, which original point I think is clearly contradicted by the evidence presented so far -- irrespective of what the underlying motives of why they are doing what Ralph described having difficulty imagining, clearly they do it.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with Ian.

I did not say that authors never think about "what would the character do next".  What I said was that they don't feel obligated to abide by the answer.

In other words "what would the character do next" is always tempered by "what will make this story worth reading".  That leads to the revised turn of phrase of "what could the character do next that is both believable and:  Interesting/dramatic/makes sharp social commentary".  However loudly the character "speaks" its always within the context of what's required to make the novel work.  The parts where a writer lets their focus narrow too far on a character are typically the parts that the editor (starting from the big picture perspective) will take the axe to.

Traditional, highly immersive Sim play is quite different.  The goal of play is to limit ones focus to exactly what the character would do next with as little pre-consideration to the bigger picture as possible.  

In narrativist play, however, the big picture: the character's place in it, and the effects of the character's actions on it, are always in the back of the mind.  The player is aware of these things and takes them into account when choosing their characters actions just like an author is aware of these things and takes them into account when choosing the actions for the character in the novel.

As for authors who like to couch the creative process in terms of "letting the character speak" or "the characters took on a life of their own" thats all just a different way of describing what a professional athlete would call being "in the zone".

If you're an athlete, how do you describe what happens to you when everything you do on the field just works to perfection?  You can't really.  Its an experience that transcends description which is why they simply call it being "in the zone".  This happens to authors too (and game writers I can attest).  Some authors prefer to describe being in "the zone" more poetically and that's where we get flowery metaphors like le Guin's quote above.

[Ben Lehman]

This is exactly what I have been trying to get at with my comments about LeGuin. As ever, Ron does a much better job than I can at putting the ideas into words. LeGuin can't help herself from waxing poetic about the process. She turns describing work into telling art! That's not especially helpful to those of us who aren't in her shoes, have never written successful novels, and can't identify with her metaphorical language.

BL>  Pardon me, but who are you and Ron to say that she is speaking in metaphorical language?  Most authors I know treat that sort of thing as quite literal indeed.  The characters really do feel like they are making decisions, etc.

As someone who is not a writer with a differing view of creativity, one can look at this and say "Well, that's interesting, someone has a creative process different than I would expect," or one can say "that does not match my theoretical constructs, hence must be metaphor / misguided cloudy-headedness / wrong."

As someone who is a writer, one can look at this and say, "Well, that's different than my creative process.  I guess that creative processes are diverse."  Or one can say, "That does not match my creative process / theoretical construct, and so..."

I'd also like to raise a point:  Isn't it a load of claptrap to use Creative Agenda talk in discussing some other form of art?  Writing isn't even social -- there isn't even a Social Contract -- so why the hell are we talking about CA?

What if her isn't aren't ours? Then it is utterly useless to us as instruction. Boy, it sure sounds good. And we might feel good about her words, even identify with them in the sense that we hope our creations will be similarly poetic and noble endeavors. But we don't really have any good grasp at all on how to fucking do it.

If we did, we'd be arguing with our editors at Random House, rather than typing furiously on the Forge.

BL>  Please do not assume that all gamers are frustrated writers, or even that all game designers are frustrated writers.  I find the fields sufficiently differentiated that I can pursue both without contradiction.  Many do likewise.  Of course, I am also at a point in my life where taking 2-3 artforms seriously is something that I actually have the time to do, and even participate in theoretical discussion for one of them.  This may change in the future, at which point I imagine one will become more frustrated.

But I think it is a grave error to say that "If we did {understand}, we'd be arguing with our editors at Random House."

yrs--
--Ben

[TonyLB]

I will back Ben up to the point of making myself a specific example.  I design and play games.  I take that very seriously.  I have no ambition to write literature.

[Matt Snyder]

Ben, if she is not speaking metaphorically, then would you agree she's speaking literally? If so, I have doubts about people's grasp of reality when they believe that fictional characters really do make them do things, rather than understanding that they have simply created a device in their minds to help themselves make decisions. Characters can't do anything at all. Human minds can.

I'm not saying she has not right to speak or think or do things this way. I'm saying that taking her words literally is, frankly, crazy.

In fact, my creative process has some similarities to hers. But I'm not stupid enough to suggest that the denizens of Nine Worlds actually make me do things without my total say so or control.

Also, I don't assume gamers are frustrated writers. I was being hyperbolic. Obviously, one can type on the Forge and be a novelist. I don't think it's an error, I think it's a humorous point to demonstrate that not everyone knows how to write like Ursula LeGuin.

[neelk]

Neel, I understand what you are getting at, but those analogies aren't exact.

I don't think they are analogies. I think they are identities. More below --

First, those things you've described occupy no imaginary space. They are not fiction. I think that stretches the analogy to the extreme. The State of Arizona doesn't physically exist, but it is not fictional. THere are clear cut rules, down to the inch, on what Arizona is, where it is, and what happens to people who live there. Similarly, are you saying that characters are exact as a mathematical construct? God, I hope not! We can prove, and everyone can agree, about sides and hypotenuses. Anyone who disagrees with the numbers is an idiot.

But that neverminds the point that it's the author who decides, ultimately, what happens. Sure, others might influence -- like an editor. But, the author determines the choices the character makes. Not the other way 'round, which is my point. The character has no will, no soul, no actual, non-fictional choices to make. Only the human beings directing and writing the story do.

Saying that the character makes those choices "inevitable" also neverminds the fact the the human beings are the ones who set that character up in the first place. So, again, the character didn't do a damn thing. The humans who created him did. They said, "Look, Jack is like this, not like that. So, later, when we have to make a choice about him, it's nobody's fault but ours. Jack is just an idea; he has nothing to do with the choices we make about him because we made him like that!"

See, these things absolutely occupy imaginary space. That's all they are! Arizona, as a political concept, is a fiction that people care enough about to kill and imprison one another over. So are Allah, Rama, and Jesus. (Even if you are a theist, unlike me, it's hard to grant concrete physical reality to more than two members of that list!) And I'm not saying that characters are as exact as math; I'm saying that mathematics is a social process too. The Pythagorean theorem isn't true if you don't adopt all of Euclid's axioms -- and the axioms people use to do mathematics are a matter of human social convention practical human needs rather than absolute Platonic necessity. (I speak as a mathematician who belongs to a tradition that doesn't accept all the axioms of mainstream mathematics, so this isn't just a purely philosophical point for me.)

In precisely the same way, we can come up with some cluster of ideas that form a character, and we can name them "Hamlet" or "Oedipus" or "Aragorn". I think it's a totally well-formed idea to say that a character is real -- they have their own internal logic and structure to them, and they are real. The author of a fiction can't make a character do "anything", because there are plenty of things that are not consistent with the idea-structure of the character. It's just like how I cannot be in New York and Arizona at the same time, even though both are purely political, imaginary constructions.

When I, as a storyteller, say that "the only thing the character could have done was X", I can really mean it. No lie! Ideas aren't concrete physical objects, but they are real in their own way and they have their own integrity. Now, as an author, I certainly have the power to change the character into a different one that would do something different, but now I have a genuinely different character. Whether doing so is a good or bad idea depends on my goals, social and artistic, but I don't find it helpful to claim that this activity doesn't exist.

[Matt Snyder]

Neel, where on earth have I suggested this activity does not exist? Were I to do so, it would be synonymous with saying writing itself does not exist.

Of course this process exists. My point is that it exists only in the minds of the human beings who are doing the creating. Saying that it literally exists "outside" the author (say, in the "mind" of character he created) is factually untrue. Indeed, it exists ONLY "within" the author's mind, and later in the reader's mind. The character has no mind at all, no will. The author who created him does.

We're really not disagreeing. I have only and ever been raising concerns about the language used to describe this process, not the process itself. Why are others not recognizing that in this thread?

[Ben Lehman]

Ben, if she is not speaking metaphorically, then would you agree she's speaking literally? If so, I have doubts about people's grasp of reality when they believe that fictional characters really do make them do things, rather than understanding that they have simply created a device in their minds to help themselves make decisions. Characters can't do anything at all. Human minds can.

BL>  My point is this -- I would really like it if everyone would stop telling writers their business.  Who am I to say that she is not visited by spirits?  Who am I to say that her psychological state when she writes is not one where she percieves individuals controlling her writing?  Who I am to say that those characters are not reified as true people inside the confines of her study, and she interviews them?

When people here make incorrect analogies to physics, I try to correct them, simply because I think it's important to clear up some of the misconceptions about physics.  Most people shurg, maybe say "thanks," maybe laugh at the somewhat anal scientist, and move on.

When people here make incorrect analogies to writing, I also try to correct them, beceause there are a lot of misconceptions about writing as well.  Yet, it turns into a giant pissing match.  I cannot for the life of me figure out why.

I don't think to talk about the process via which a long-distance trucker drives his truck.  I don't imagine that I could talk about how an anthropologist does research.  I have no clue about how a painter goes about his business.  But yet, people everywhere seem to think that they know what writers do, and how they do it.  And it cheezes me off.

I'd like to offer up a suggestion as to what people are tripping over:  Narrativist play feels something like reading a good book.  Since it feels like reading a good book, and we all created it, then "hey, this must be what writing a good book is like."

In fact, it is not at all similar.  To use yet more analogies, one doesn't imagine that eating a gourmet meal is anything like cooking it.

This is not an argument particular to you, and I do not mean to unload on you for the sins of many.  But these misconceptions are really quite troublesome.

yrs--
--Ben

[ethan_greer]

But I'm not stupid enough to suggest that the denizens of Nine Worlds actually make me do things without my total say so or control.

I can't help but smile about this. See, the thing is, Matt, you can't be completely certain beyond all doubt that that isn't exactly what's happening. For all we know, we are puppets of our creations. If we were, and the string-pullers didn't want us to know, we wouldn't.

Hopefully, that made some sense. To put it another way: Claiming that fictional characters aren't real is no more or less ludicrous than claiming that they are real.

To put it a third way: I don't think the argument that you and Ben (primarily) seem to be engaged in has any possible conclusion. I don't think either side is going to have any success convincing the other.

But as long as we don't lose sight of that realization, a sharing of viewpoints can be a good thing.

Edit: And, just to be clear, I'm not smiling in amusement at Matt's claim, rather I'm smiling in pleasure at the realization that Nine World's denizen's really could be running Chimera Creative. I don't believe that, but I can't in good conscience deny the possibility.

[Matt Snyder]

Ben, we can definitely agree on one thing: Neither of us understands why this is a pissing match. And, worse, I think this thread has lost site of its original intent. We've focused so much attention on this silly issue of the reality of fictional characters that I'm having trouble bringing it back around to the point involving Harrison.

I've said my piece, probably too often. Thus, I'm comfortable with my thoughts here. Hopefully, someone can bring it back around to the discussion better than I have.

EDIT, FOR CROSS POST

But I'm not stupid enough to suggest that the denizens of Nine Worlds actually make me do things without my total say so or control.

I can't help but smile about this. See, the thing is, Matt, you can't be completely certain beyond all doubt that that isn't exactly what's happening. For all we know, we are puppets of our creations. If we were, and the string-pullers didn't want us to know, we wouldn't.

Hopefully, that made some sense. To put it another way: Claiming that fictional characters aren't real is no more or less ludicrous than claiming that they are real.

Oh, cripes. Look, if we can't agree that this idea is supernatural nonsense, then I'm not interested in discussing it. You're digging into matters of belief. I really don't think that position is supportable in any way, shape or form. I do "believe" the position that I'm tauting IS supportable with evidence, nevermind common sense. I'm not interested that discussion. There is no evidence to suggest this nonsensical idea. It's poetic, wishful thinking of an unhealthy sort, I think.

LAST EDIT:

Ethan, for the record, I am absolutely certain, beyond all doubt. I'd literally stake my life on it.

[John Kim]

Of course this process exists. My point is that it exists only in the minds of the human beings who are doing the creating. Saying that it literally exists "outside" the author (say, in the "mind" of character he created) is factually untrue. Indeed, it exists ONLY "within" the author's mind, and later in the reader's mind. The character has no mind at all, no will. The author who created him does.

We're really not disagreeing. I have only and ever been raising concerns about the language used to describe this process, not the process itself.

Hold on.  There is zero disagreement about the objective facts of the situation.  As far as neurons firing, muscles moving, and pen changing -- Le Guin's description is 100% accurate.  Her hand moves and writes out the story.  She describes quite plainly that the character is only a mental construct within her head.  It is not supernatural in the least.  It is psychological.  

What you're apparently trying to do is gussy up a subjective description and pretend that it is fact.  You're trying to say that her description of her internal process is wrong.  But you have no leg to stand on.  There is no objective proof of free will or autonomous identity.  Rather, you're simply trying to impose your social and/or philosophical norms.

[Ian Charvill]

Hey Ralph

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with Ian.

Specifically, I'm saying that there are writers who plainly say they would feel obligated to abide by the answer.  That Forster, for example, has said that his characters are in charge, not him, at certain points in the writing process.  LeGuin isn't a poster child for this: the quotes John gave clearly describe her as overriding her character's "wishes".

I have to say the whole LeGuin literal/metaphorical thing strikes me as something of a red herring.  I don't think it addresses the issue of why some writers look down on RPGs and whether that would be affected by them being more familiar with certain RPGs.

I think the idea that writers look down on RPGs because some players look at their characters and vocalise their reasons for doing X or Y as 'that is what the character would do' is misguided because so many eminent writers are making the exact same statements.

I'm going to assume for the next paragraph that the whole Egrian address of premise thing is correct.  If writers, writing, addressing premise, can speak in terms of "my character made me do it" couldn't narrativists, playing, addressing premise, speak in those same terms?  If narrativists wouldn't speak in those terms, how can writers, unless they are engaged in a fundamentally different activity?

[lumpley]

For what it's worth, Ian, I for one have no problem saying that Narrativist play can happen on "my character made me do it" terms.

-Vincent

[ethan_greer]

Shrug. Whether or not you stake your life on it, it's still a belief, and you could still be wrong.

In any case, Matt, my comments were well meant. I think I can tell when someone's told me to fuck off. Which, in this case, I have no problem doing.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Tempers have flared. I suggest that this thread is in danger of spiralling into competing polemics, rather than the meeting of minds.

We've been here before, back in the "do characters exist" discussions that crop up now and again. And again, people are mis-reading various points, finding unreasonable ways in which to interpret them, and then arguing against those.

This forum does not exist to prove or to protect any statements about the authors of fiction and their experiences, although our various thoughts on these issues are welcome. As soon as people start defending those statements (and by extension themselves, as authors), then the thread goes awry.

John, in particular, I think you are assigning certain claims to others that they have not made. Ben, in particular, I think you are posting defensively and from a sense of personal mission regarding authorship. Matt, in particular, I think that a value judgment on your part ("baloney") has become your point, rather than anything anyone else can assess, which provokes defensiveness. I'm naming you three because I expect you all are capable of backing off on those points and returning to the actual thread topic when I ask you to.

It's been an excellent and difficult thread. Let's all keep it that way.

Best,
Ron