Interesting thing about stories….

I’ve been cross-posting my Trick Molloy stories over on MySpace, where some readers have graciously offered comments. One, concerning part three, was interesting. Anne said she was enjoying the story but could have done without the shot at Republicans.

One of the things that teachers often mention is that every character is really an aspect of the author. This coincides with the admonition to writers that they should “write what they know.” So, it’s really easy to attribute to me the remark that Trick Molloy made which disparaged Republicans.

The fact is, the idea that characters are all aspects of a writer is pure nonsense—at least as far as all writers are concerned. There are plenty of writers who are either starting out, or just decide not to work hard, who do make every character just an aspect of themselves. But think about it in the context of these stories. If a writer can only produce characters who are aspects of himself, apparently I can work magick when I drink Irish Whiskey.

“Write what you know” doesn’t just refer to personal experience. It includes research. In my case that includes reading biographies, news articles, talking to people, reading histories and pretty much anything else I can get my hands on. And then, you let all that material percolate or mature or ferment in your brain, filter it through your imagination and produce a story with interesting characters who often surprise me with how they act and react. (Having characters who surprise you is one of the joys of writing.)

Writers—good writers—work really hard to create real characters who live and breath and can operate on their own. Writers will talk about having characters tell them stories. This isn’t because we’re all psychotic, but it’s because we do a good enough job in creating them, and we understand them so well, that decisions we have to make about how they would act don’t require thought. We already know because there really is no other way for the character to react.

Specifically looking at the Republican remark, however, it’s in keeping with Trick’s background and general attitude. Trick’s an Irish-American raised in a lower/lower middle-class family, with occasional trips to his mother’s home, where things were rather opulent. But his rich step-father and his mother really had no use for him. He could watch them smile and be nice to some folks, and then nasty to him, so he came to revile them and their hypocrisy. And given that his father’s family were undoubtedly dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. So, the remark is perfectly natural for him.

Second, and far more important to the story, Trick makes the political statement in part three, approximately a thousand words before his half-brother shows up. So I’ve established a hostile attitude to a group of people into which his half-brother clearly fits. That’s part of structuring a story so things make sense.

It’s also fun to note that in the previous tale, Trick said things that were far more nasty about white supremists, but no one saw fit to complain. (And no crosses got burned on my lawn!)

Finally, in the story I did for J. C. Hutchins for his Obsidian project; the main character was an equal-opportunity hater. He cast aspersions on the rich, the poor, those who consider themselves eco-friendly, the morally upright, those full of arrogance about their intelligence and anyone else who gets in his way. That character is no more me than Corran Horn is or Trick Molloy is. They’re all just figments of my imagination, and opinions expressed by them is not the opinion of management!