Bittercon: Limits and Stereotypes - Do they stifle, or spur creativity?

[pameladlloyd]

My eldest son and I were talking this afternoon and he brought up the issue of limits, such as censorship, which can sometimes have the effect of increasing creativity, rather than decreasing it, as writers (and other artists) find creative ways around and through the censorship. He commented that he sometimes wondered if such concepts as stereotypes, or archetypal characters, might not opperate in much the same way, by spurring us to find new ways to make "old" characters "new." It was such a wonderful, thoughtful comment, that I decided to add it to Bittercon if there were no similar topics. Finding none, I will host this one.

What are your thoughts?

Can we see stereotypes or archetypes as limits? And, if we do, do those limits hem us in, making writing more difficult, or do they push our creative buttons?

Comments

[rosaleeluann.livejournal.com]

I don't speak from experience (I have plenty of stories in my head, but I'm too scared that they'll come out awful to actually put them on paper) but I think that it probably has a lot to do with attitude. You can either see the stereotype as a problem, or a challenge. They're very similar... but different as well.

[marycatelli]

You have a million bad words in you. If you write them all out, you will be able to get at the good words under them.

There, now you have an excuse for writing badly.

0:)

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

A million bad words sounds pretty scary, to me. But, you're right, that all of us must start out as beginning writers and it is only by writing that we can grow and improve as writers.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

The cool thing about putting words on paper is that you don't have to show them to anyone until you want to. You don't even have to let anyone know you're writing, until or unless you want to. I know professional authors who write wonderful stories who have admitted that their first drafts always come out so bad they won't even show them to their spousal unit or best friend, and that it may take many, many drafts before they are ready to be shared.

Nobody here wants to force you to do something you don't want to do, but if you want to write, don't let fear stop you.

As for your point about how you see the stereotype, "as a problem, or a challenge," I think you make a very good point.

limits or creative buttons?

[marycatelli]

Anything that catches the muse's fancy can push creative buttons in my experience.

And once or twice I have decided that a colorless character needed a personality trait -- only one, to keep him in the background. Whereupon that trait insisted on his acting differently and even appearing in new scenes.

Re: limits or creative buttons?

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Pesky characters, thinking they have lives of their own. ;>

[satimaflavell.livejournal.com]

Pema, this Bittercon thing seems to be full of good ideas. Can you tell me more about it, please?

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Hi, Satima. bittercon is an online convention being held for those who can't make it to WorldCon. I learned from another friend that sartorias (Sherwood Smith) sometimes initiates one, then the next thing I knew, sartorias posted this (http://sartorias.livejournal.com/283012.html). Come on in and join the party. Bring all your friends. Host a topic or two, as I'm doing, or just drop in on someone else's. There's always room for more on the Internet. 8)

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

BTW, the topic Forgotten Treasures (http://intertext.livejournal.com/169410.html), over on intertext's journal is already going strong, as we discover the children's fantasy and sf that we grew up with, as well as the books we missed, but our LJ friends loved.

[satimaflavell.livejournal.com]

Thanks for both responses, Pema. I'll certainly check out some of the discussions!

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

You're very welcome.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

That discussion seems to be left over from the last Bittercon, though I would certainly be interested in joining in if people want to rescusitate it!

Interestngly two that are mentioned there are ones I did read only as an adult, through what she calls the "Harry Potter Effect": the Swallows and Amazons books and Elizabeth Goudge's The Little White Horse and Swallows and Amazons.

And then there's E. Nesbit's Harding's Luck which I read as an adult because I only learned it existed when I came across the Gutengerg version... though I've loved its companion book House of Arden since I was about ten.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I finally realized that, but not until after I'd posted in response to a couple of other posts or comments. I don't know if it was just me, being muddle-headed, or the fact I'd broken my glasses earlier and couldn't see the screen clearly. I'm feeling a bit embarrassed about jumping into the con early, and possibly drawing others in which me, but the LiveJournal writing crowd seems to be a kind and forgiving bunch, so I'm hoping no one will be too upset with me.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I think humans tend to be more creative when given limits, whether imposed or voluntary - when we can do anything at all too often we get overwhelmed by choices and don't do anything. You can't even start writing a story until you put some limits on it - set in *this* culture, with *that* POV and *those* natural laws applying.

Sonnets.

"Nuns fret not at their convents' narrow room."

etc.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Oh. Hello again. Weren't you just here a second ago, wearing a mask? ;->

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Yes, sorry. (And sorry again if this reply double-posted also - I'm on a loaner computer so it's not auto-logging me into LJ.) Could you please delete the original(s)?

Thanks. And good topic.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Not a problem. I had similar issues just this afternoon when I logged on from my sons' house. :)

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

You make some very interesting and pertinent points.

[jmeadows.livejournal.com]

I think I agree. When you can do *anything*, it's very overwhelming. But when you say "do something within the limits of this setting," you think about the limits of the setting, what it has to offer, and all the extra weird stuff that still works in the setting. And then you can do it!

[time-freak.livejournal.com]

Hi, you added me. From the bittercon list? Just wondered.

Nice to meet you.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Hi, yes, from bittercon. Then realized I was responding to very old posts and backed out, but I'm re-friending you. I got a bit confused last night and I'm feeling a bit embarrassed. Not an unusual feeling for me, I'm afraid.

Nice to meet you, too.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

This is such a good question. I was pondering it as I chomped through my stale cereal this morning (must type fast and get the dogs walked as it's almost six thirty and soon will be too hot to be outside)

Some random thoughts, therefore.

One, many writers don't recognize that a stereotype is a stereotype. I don't mean just character (wizards just have to be tall, with white beards) but places, and even attitudes. They write it because that's the way things are in stories...an attitude which often gets mapped onto the world.

The writer who causes the reader to 'see' the stereotype is a special one indeed. That doesn't just mean writing against stereotype (the wizard is short, round, with curly black hair) but defining the stereotype in such a way that readers hitherto oblivious can go ahhh! Wow, I never thought of that before!

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Ah. So, the author who lampoons the stereotype, isn't just poking fun, but may also be bringing to our attention something that was running under our radar, so to speak. Or, the author whose scientist character isn't absent minded, or who is not white, or who doesn't wear tweed jackets with leather elbow patches, reminds us that real human beings, be they scientist or not, come in all the different varieties that human beings do. Or this can happen when an author shows us a character who deliberately uses a stereotype, as a way of fitting in, or of hiding in plain site.

[cucumberseed.livejournal.com]

So here's a great big can o worms to throw into the discussion: I decided (and made a promise to that effect) to have every thing I write of over 10000 words to adhere strictly to Bechdel's Law, that is to say:

2 Female characters talking to one another.
Not about a man.

Is this a limitation? In a sense it has one of the benefits of a limitation; it does change my focus a bit and narrow it somewhat. It certainly requires me to have at least two female characters with something to say and a stake in the action. This is no problem in most of my stories, but in shorter ones, it might be more difficult, or in a longer story I am planning, where three of the four principles are male (though, now that I think of it, only two of them truly need to be male...)

I mean, does this count as a limitation? I tend not to write stories about interstellar travel, or St. Louis, or set in Narnia. None of these things ever occurred to me as things I wanted to write about.

Where do you draw the line for limitation? Is it something you just don't write, or something that you would write but choose to deny yourself.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I think this counts as a limitation. We impose self-made limitations on ourselves all the time. We may do this in ways that prevent us from being creative, as when we say "I've never been good at this, so I won't even try," or we may use limitations to help us be creative, as I believe you're doing.

You noticed a limitation in fiction, which others have also observed, in which certain characters act in ways that feel stereotypical to you. So, you placed on yourself the restriction that you wouldn't allow those types of characters to act in that way within your own fiction. This forces you to find new, different ways for them to behave.

I mean, does this count as a limitation? I tend not to write stories about interstellar travel, or St. Louis, or set in Narnia. None of these things ever occurred to me as things I wanted to write about.

Yes, and no. We all have limited interests, partly because there's only so much that we can focus on at any given time. But, you still have an infinite universe to draw on, so your choice to write about those things that do interest you doesn't really restrict your writing. (My opinion; your mileage may vary.)

Where do you draw the line for limitation? Is it something you just don't write, or something that you would write but choose to deny yourself.

I"m not sure there are any easy answers here. I think each person's answer to that will be different. But, I think it's important to at least consider, once in a while, what our limitations are, and whether they are self-imposed, or not, and whether we want those limitations, or would prefer to find some way over, under, around, or through them.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

I only became aware of that law within the last seven days or so, and I had to mull it over in my head to see what it was implying by its correction.

[cedunkley.livejournal.com]

Stereotypes or archetypes can be useful sometimes, in they are familiar and comfortable. These days it seems characters and events need to be much harder edged.

It can be fun to take a stereotype or archetype character and just twist him or her a little bit to add that harshness that might not be there.

Tolkien's Fellowship set a standard that has since turned into the stereotype: the companion quest novel. I think David Eddings took this and ran with it in his Belgariad books.

I'm interested in taking tropes and trying to find a way to use them differently. In one of my stories I have the typical wise elderly wizard who sets things in motion. I know the reader is going to expect that his actions, his decisions, will have a way of working out in the favor of the various protagonists. What the reader doesn't learn until near the end is this wizard isn't as wise as he believed himself to be and his actions and decisions have terrible ramifications.

So, it is possible to tweak a stereotype and make is seem freshly done and it is also possible to make the reader think this is a stereotype to essentially lull the reader into not expecting the consequences that would not arise with such a stereotype. I think the surrounding cast would need to be sufficiently different lest the reader think the story itself will also be stereotypical.

Its a balancing act.

As for censorship, that seems a common enough event in Fantasy books. There is often an oppressive tyrant causing the good guys to slink around in the early going. Somehow the good guys go from slinking around just to stay alive to overthrowing the tyrant, and often in a very short period of time. There seems to always be this one great weakness just hanging out waiting to be unearthed that will spell the tyrant's doom.

Personally, I'd like to see a villain who is smart enough to dispose of all red-bladed axes if there is a prophecy where a red-bladed axe will do him in.

Sometimes I think the antagonist can be the toughest character to avoid the stereotypes and/or archetypes.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in taking tropes and trying to find a way to use them differently.

Hopefully, any time any of us uses a trope, that's what we're doing. :)

I wonder about your choice to hide from the reader the real nature of the wizard. It's one thing for the wizard himself and the others around him,to be unaware of the consequences of his actions (I think that's a very good aspect of building his character and theirs) but if you don't give the reader a few hints, you may run the risk that they get frustrated with what feels like yet another stereotype.

Sometimes I think the antagonist can be the toughest character to avoid the stereotypes and/or archetypes.

Yes. I agree that it's just as important to apply our characterization skills to villains, as to heroes.

[larryhammer]

An observation: when it comes to poetry, I'm much more creative when I'm working within limitations such as formal rules. Too many of them tangles up the muse, but I've yet to, for example, write an even decent free verse peom.

I strongly believe that constraints cause creativity in other art forms.

---L.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I'm no expert when it comes to poetry, but from talking with Karl about what he does: even when it's free verse, I think there are still limitations. I know that rhythm, meter, cadence, all factor into the word choice and where line breaks, if there are any, occur, but I'm not sure how much of it is related to formal rules, and how much to a more intuitive process. But, I know he also likes to work within the framework of existing poetic structures, especially as an exercise intended to improve his grasp of poetry.

Do we have any more poets around to comment? *looks around quizzically*

[crinklequirk.livejournal.com]

Two things (ah, finally getting a moment to write them down!):

First thing is what came into mind regarding your conversation with your son, that of David Eddings most excellent Belgariad series.

Second thing is that usually what is written is stereotypical - and it's hard to break from that A, in the first place and B, to be creative either _with_ the stereotypes _or_ without the stereotypes.

In other words, much of what is written is stereotypical, and not particularly creative. Much that is creative is not particularly stereotypical. Some is somewhat creative, whether or not it uses stereotypes.

And sometimes, just sometimes, you get someone like Eddings who can take those stereotypes, and make them as fresh and creative and beloved as Le Guin's Earthsea novels (the original/real three, anyway).

I had much the realization that he was using the stereotypes - and I wasn't getting bored by having to read another ya-ya-yawn re-yarn-gathering of the exact same types of archetypal characters! In fact, I loved them, was very fond of them, and really enjoyed the entire series, all the way through.

And thus came to realize Edding's genius, that he could take the stereotypical, archetypal characters and make them anew, into something different and worth loving and reading.

It is easier (note, NOT necessarily easy) to be creative when creating what is all new. It is much more difficult to do what Eddings did, and make stereotypes archetypically stereotypical and also new and different.

I really like your question. :)

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'm glad you like the question. As soon as my son brought it up, I knew it was something that should be part of bittercon.

I have to admit, though, that I'm not particularly enamored of Eddings. I enjoyed the first couple of books, then began to feel that the story was repetitive. Just my personal opinion and not intended to denigrate anyone else's. I haven't tried any of his more recent stuff, so I don't know if I would fall in love with it.

[crinklequirk.livejournal.com]

I don't actually know if I like Edding's other stuff - but I've very fond memories of this particular series.

Part may be due to my age at reading (late college), and so my very idealistic outlook at that point. ;)

But I think it is what I viewed him as doing, the "take the stereotypical, archetypal characters and make them anew, into something different and worth loving and reading" bit, that made me look anew at many of my old favourites a bit differently.

It is a matter of skill and experience, I suspect - harder to manipulate archetypes if you don't have much experience in seeing or working with them. Thus I would anticipate seeing more folk having the abilities and skillsets to be creative in this way, than those of a younger set. Not impossible, or necessarily even improbable, just not as likely.

This, for me, would re-open the question about certain things happening in stories being the result of an author's particular skillsets level at the time of writing the story.

And I'm not sure if that's a good thing, limitations-wise, to bind oneself by, or not. I guess it would be up to the individual.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Well, I definitely enjoyed the first couple of books. I seem to remember them as one very long walk, though. ;>

It is a matter of skill and experience, I suspect - harder to manipulate archetypes if you don't have much experience in seeing or working with them. Thus I would anticipate seeing more folk having the abilities and skillsets to be creative in this way, than those of a younger set. Not impossible, or necessarily even improbable, just not as likely.

This, for me, would re-open the question about certain things happening in stories being the result of an author's particular skillsets level at the time of writing the story.

And I'm not sure if that's a good thing, limitations-wise, to bind oneself by, or not. I guess it would be up to the individual.

The only way we develop skill and experience, of course, is to work at them. Unlike many skills, we can't just practice writing, and expect to get better at it. We have to read, as well. Otherwise, it would be like trying to learn to sing, without ever listening to anyone else sing. If you've never heard a truly wonderful voice, you have nothing to compare yourself to.

The limitations imposed upon us by our ability and skills will change, as we develop as writers. Even the limitations to our ability and skills that we aren't aware we have, though harder to work on, often come to light just through the process of working on those we do know about.

The limitations imposed upon us by our culture may be very difficult to recognize, which is one reason that writers are often encouraged to travel, if they can. (But, even if you can't afford to leave town, you can still seek out people who are different from yourself. Even volunteering at a nearby rest home would do that. There are as many ways to approach this, as there are writers; and I don't just mean published ones.)

But, when it comes to the limitations of stereotype, and whether we break out of it, or find ways to subvert it from within, I think the most important thing is to try to learn to recognize it, in others' works, as well as your own. Kinda like the old adage of needing to learn the rules, before you break them.

[marycatelli]

I read Eddings in college and rather liked it, though it's not one of my favorites.

Though one thing he hit bang on the head: a college friend read me a passage of dialogue with all the attributions removed, and not surprisingly, I could put a name to every bit of ti. He had his voice down pat.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Some things that people describe as stereotypes I can accept in certain stories--for example, the wizard with the long white beard that sartorias described. I'd be fine with a wizard described differently, but if a story contains a wizard who conforms to the wizard stereotype, it doesn't necessarily bother me, any more than having apples ripen in the fall bothers me. Apples do ripen in the fall, and I can let myself enter a world in which wizards have long white beards if that's the way the author sets up the world. But I'm happy, too, to be given a world in which wizards are different.

That makes me wonder about the notion sartorias brought up about the stereotyped (or clichéd) situation. I think I'm *less* cool with that. It begins to approach the situation some comedian described, in which a family tells the same jokes so often that they don't, in the end, even bother telling them--they just refer to them by number. When clichéd scenes pop up in a story, i feel as if the author might as well just give me the number (insert plot scene no. 17 here).

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Yes. Reading your first paragraph got me thinking about some of Barbara Hambly's work. She's had both kinds of wizards and made them all work. :)

I think, for me, the reason that stereotypes don't work is that they are lacking in dimensionality. It's not just whether the wizard has a long white beard, but whether he's just like every other wizard with a long white beard. If you put him in jeans and suspenders, suddenly he's new and different. Then, you're telling me that you're aware of the stereotype and playing with it a bit. It has to go farther than that, of course. The wizard in jeans and suspenders might get my attention, but it's only when he sits down at his computer and pulls up his favorite opera songs while he browses the internet for spell ingredients that I begin to be certain that he's going to take on flesh and be an interesting character.

I'm not so sure about your second point, because I think that in the right hands, the clichéd can become fresh again; a corollary, if you will, to the old adage that there's nothing new under the sun. But, it's certainly very hard to do and not something most beginners will handle well. And, I may be totally off course, here, because my mind is a complete blank when I try to come up with a good example of this.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

I want to meet that magician you describe--he sounds fun.

I think if you were to make a clichéd situation fresh, it wouldn't feel like a cliché anymore, right? Certainly I don't mind situations that are fresh takes on old themes!

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I had fun coming up with him for that post. I'm not sure what his story is, just yet (although I'm beginning to get inklings of where he lives), or even if I'm going to write it at all, but, well, yes. I had fun with him. :)

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do hope you end up writing something with him in it! I know a world with him in it will be an interesting world. I already know I like how you put magic in a modern setting :-)

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

*blush* Thank you.