Musing about muses
Feb. 3rd, 2011 12:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chieriiSo, I read through the RP Anon Comm post and noticed someone was a little...concerned about what we mean when we say things like "Character X is quiet".
It kind of makes me sad that this person, presumably a fellow RPer, has never internalized a voice before.
I'm gonna use a bad example but bear with me.
When Stephenie Meyer said her cast was like people living in her head, she was most certainly not telling the truth, but it was something a "good" writer should say. I'm certain she heard it somewhere and felt it could help her image. (Incidentally, I do believe her when she said Jacob was her first character that "came to life" for her. He felt real and believable in those segments, but more on that later, maybe.)
See, when we write for a character, we're basically predicting what they do in certain situations. If you do this enough with a single character, it becomes effortless ("enough" varies among characters and writers. Some come to life in a single day, others take years. Some never do.). We don't have to think about it consciously. So it feels like they're a separate entity, which is why we call this "coming to life".
At this point, it is still possible to be OOC. After all, you're still the one writing, and it's entirely possible to misunderstand the muse (or in more mundane terms, your intuition regarding the character), inadvertently "filter" what's happening, or, if the writer is particularly immature, plain not like where they're headed and deliberately derail them, even if this is just as unconscious as writing for the character has become. (As Meyer did with Jacob. He was becoming entirely too likable, and had too real a chemistry with Bella, and she didn't want anything in the way of her precious OTP.)
I understand that on the internet, a distinction must be made because there are crazies out there who actually think they're bonded to or are the "real" character on the astral plane or something (I wonder how they handle someone else playing the same character!), but nitpicking over our phrasing is not the way to make that distinction. I'm sure a person can tell for themselves if someone is crazy or not.
When we say a muse is quiet, it means that we are not inspired for them or that our subconscious hold on their voice is slipping and we're not putting forth the effort (not that making an extra effort usually helps in these situations because it's usually due to a lack of inspiration and "forcing" a voice can all too often end in suck).
When I say a muse "pings"...well. I don't know about the rest of you. But what I do when I RP - when I predict what they'll do - I do in real life. Constantly. I always have a muse or two "watching" me so I keep a feel for their voice fresh in my mind. So since I have muses constantly watching what I'm doing in meta, basically, they indicate that something will happen or that they are interested. Or, in practical terms, I predict that they predict they will be affected or interested. Confused yet? It's a bit confusing to relate.
In short, we writers may say they're like people living in our heads, but the operative word there is like. We may or may not omit that word, but it is always implied. We realize they're fictional, and treat them as such. All we mean by that is that we have gained an understanding of them to the point that we no longer have to consciously think about what they would want or do, so they seem autonomous.
It kind of makes me sad that this person, presumably a fellow RPer, has never internalized a voice before.
I'm gonna use a bad example but bear with me.
When Stephenie Meyer said her cast was like people living in her head, she was most certainly not telling the truth, but it was something a "good" writer should say. I'm certain she heard it somewhere and felt it could help her image. (Incidentally, I do believe her when she said Jacob was her first character that "came to life" for her. He felt real and believable in those segments, but more on that later, maybe.)
See, when we write for a character, we're basically predicting what they do in certain situations. If you do this enough with a single character, it becomes effortless ("enough" varies among characters and writers. Some come to life in a single day, others take years. Some never do.). We don't have to think about it consciously. So it feels like they're a separate entity, which is why we call this "coming to life".
At this point, it is still possible to be OOC. After all, you're still the one writing, and it's entirely possible to misunderstand the muse (or in more mundane terms, your intuition regarding the character), inadvertently "filter" what's happening, or, if the writer is particularly immature, plain not like where they're headed and deliberately derail them, even if this is just as unconscious as writing for the character has become. (As Meyer did with Jacob. He was becoming entirely too likable, and had too real a chemistry with Bella, and she didn't want anything in the way of her precious OTP.)
I understand that on the internet, a distinction must be made because there are crazies out there who actually think they're bonded to or are the "real" character on the astral plane or something (I wonder how they handle someone else playing the same character!), but nitpicking over our phrasing is not the way to make that distinction. I'm sure a person can tell for themselves if someone is crazy or not.
When we say a muse is quiet, it means that we are not inspired for them or that our subconscious hold on their voice is slipping and we're not putting forth the effort (not that making an extra effort usually helps in these situations because it's usually due to a lack of inspiration and "forcing" a voice can all too often end in suck).
When I say a muse "pings"...well. I don't know about the rest of you. But what I do when I RP - when I predict what they'll do - I do in real life. Constantly. I always have a muse or two "watching" me so I keep a feel for their voice fresh in my mind. So since I have muses constantly watching what I'm doing in meta, basically, they indicate that something will happen or that they are interested. Or, in practical terms, I predict that they predict they will be affected or interested. Confused yet? It's a bit confusing to relate.
In short, we writers may say they're like people living in our heads, but the operative word there is like. We may or may not omit that word, but it is always implied. We realize they're fictional, and treat them as such. All we mean by that is that we have gained an understanding of them to the point that we no longer have to consciously think about what they would want or do, so they seem autonomous.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-03 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-03 06:59 pm (UTC)Wank. A lot.
Great explanation. It's how I work too. I wish others aside from Shura would pipe up.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-04 12:50 pm (UTC)