Is the ability to get inside characters’ heads essential for good fiction writing?

I can't imagine this happenng. I write a short biography of my main characters so I understand them better. Anything that happens in the plot I know what that sort of person would do. As far as I know, that is getting inside their heads. Inventing their motives is not hard after doing that. So, if I can do it that way, I can't see how any other person can't do the same.

If one can't see the story world through the characters' eyes I can't see how the characters' reactions to any given situation can be fully and convincingly shown, which would suggest flat one-dimensional characters.

If a story with such characters is successful (depends what one regards as successful) then the answer to your question will be 'yes'....but the converse holds true, too.

I can understand if someone who lacks empathy cannot get into their character's head, but that's it. Like Mumut said, create a short bio. Also understand that not everyone has the same beliefs as you, and when you give respects to those different beliefs, voila, you have different, realistic characters.

Since stories are about people, so yes, I think you need to get inside the heads to create an effective story, and without it, the stories will be lacking that personal connection a reader needs to care enough to keep reading. Motivation is what drives people and that creates situations readers want to see unfold. Without being inside, it's like reading a script. All action and dialog, no soul. Actors bring the characters to life and give a script its soul, and characters bring a book to life in the same way.

But this is something you can learn. It can be hard, but if you study point of view and really learn how to handle it, you can do it. Also study how to write internalization and how to characterize. Those will give you the basic tools for getting inside a character's head.

If a writer can't get inside another person's head (whether that person is real or fictional), they must have some real problems cultivating relationships in the real world. A complete lack of empathy must be very isolating.

The Backward OX said:

What about a “writer” who sees characters only as pictures in his/her imagination, and doesn’t have the ability to get inside the characters' heads, can’t see the world through their eyes? Can such a person write successful fiction?

NB The question wasn't "doesn't get inside their heads" but "doesn't have the ability to get inside their heads."

Click to expand...

It's gotta be something of a hindrance, but I wouldn't say it's an essential ability to start with, just something that helps you along.

Then again I'm probably saying that because I am that writer. When I write.

-Derek

Yes, as someone who's lived on her own for twelve years I do know that.

Being a loner does not necessarily make one completely unable to get inside someone else's head.

If you have no idea how other people think or why they act the way they do...that is what I'm talking about and what I thought this thread referred to.

I know why people act the way they do. I just don't care most of the time, with the people around me in real life.

It is essential for a writer to be able to empathise and understand their characters; a character must act and react realistically and the writer needs the ability to judge that.

So where is the line between empathy/understanding and really 'getting inside their heads'? I'm not sure.

I would say that the ability can probably be learned through writing exercises, perhaps meditation (imagining yourself as someone else), and through practice.

I'd also say that a writer who really struggles with this may be more suited to scriptwriting.

Hope that helps.

Characters biography

I'm a newbie so please bear with me. I am writing a book, ala Clancy and Brown, and have found that to do it requires me to know my characters, in some cases over a number of years. This requires me create their history's, covering both their personal lives but also as their history relates to the plot and premise of the book.

To do this also requires me to know the culture they were brought up in, any personal biases or idiosynracies they might have developed and, to add insult to creativity, what might drive them. Sometimes doing this requires me to get into some pretty scary headthinking. If you ever wonder why some writers in this genre look so different in their book jacket photo's after writing 2 or 3, think of the psychological places we have to go and work in.

Good luck

[email protected]

The Backward OX said:

What about a “writer” who sees characters only as pictures in his/her imagination, and doesn’t have the ability to get inside the characters' heads, can’t see the world through their eyes? Can such a person write successful fiction?

NB The question wasn't "doesn't get inside their heads" but "doesn't have the ability to get inside their heads."

Click to expand...

This seems like a situation where the narrator is observing (usually first or second person I think) and is a separate entity who can't read thoughts.

You might be able to write some uber-limited third where the characters' thoughts aren't revealed, though ultimately it will probably appear as a first-person narrator (like a Gatsby thing).

EDIT: for clarification purposes, I know there are scenes of books and short stories with no thoughts revealed. But I think we're talking about some deeper understanding of characters as well; how they feel, why they do what they do and why the react how they react. Usually a narrator is privy to those things as well, and from what I understand the OP is asking if it's okay to observe as a writer without all of that, which, there are exceptions but I can't see it working well for third-person.

You can get inside people's heads. All it requires is a little bit of risk-taking. Open up inside yourself. Ask YOURSELF how YOU would react in the situation your character is in. And go with that.

Maybe others really do construct characters completely independently of their own emotions and experiences, but my characters are all Libbie. I just give them different bodies and different motivations and different histories. I can get inside their heads, because inside their heads is the same as inside my head. Sometimes it's direct experience, and sometimes it's imagination, pretending like I'm in that situation and wondering what I'd do if I had a similar history to my character, or similar tendencies.

You can get inside your own head. You're already there. Now give yourself permission to take some emotional risks and FEEL what you'd feel if you were there.

"Lacks the ability" doesn't exist in this context; sorry. You have the ability to connect with us enough to communicate your question in a clear way. Therefore you have enough empathy to imagine yourself in our shoes, trying to understand what you're saying.

There's no magic gene that makes some people able to imagine and others totally incapable. Take a risk.

Self-knowledge is the first step, our true touchstone. The deeper and more complete it is, the better we can understand others. So look inward as well as outward.

What about a “writer” who sees characters only as pictures in his/her imagination, and doesn’t have the ability to get inside the characters' heads, can’t see the world through their eyes?

Click to expand...

Taking a different direction, maybe your writing style fits in omniscient viewpoint. It's an all-seeing narrator who views the scene essentially like a camera. In that viewpoint, we don't see the story through the character's eyes, though we do see it through the narrator's. Depending on the story, the narrator can range from being very objective or following the characters very closely. It is distancing, because the scenes aren't shown in the more personal way, but there are stories and writers who benefit from this.

A few months ago, I read Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. It's done in omniscient viewpoint and is about a man who doesn't relate to the rest of the human race--he relates to scents. He eventually turns into a serial killer, killing girls to get their scents. The book nearly entirely follows him, and I was glad it was in omniscient. I would not have wanted to truly see the world through his eyes.

And it might also depend on the type of the story. Sometimes there's a tendency to try a once size fits all to stories. A character-driven novel about Chinese women growing up is not going to be the same thing as a plot-driven military thriller about preventing a terrorist attack. The stories have different needs.

The Backward OX said:

What about a “writer” who sees characters only as pictures in his/her imagination, and doesn’t have the ability to get inside the characters' heads, can’t see the world through their eyes? Can such a person write successful fiction?

Click to expand...

My first instinct is to say, "No." But I'd love to be proven wrong.

I recall you mentioning you have Asperger's, correct? Perhaps some of the other members with similar obstacles will come forward and offer some of their methods of getting inside their characters' heads.

Linda had an excellent point, although I think omni also takes a certain amount of empathy. Otherwise you're just shifting your characters like chess pieces.

I'd probably concentrate on plot-driven stories, I think. I've read many stories where the amount of character introspection, etc. is actually pretty small because the plot is just so center-stage.

Yes, the characters still need to be 3 dimensional, but that'll just take practice and study, I guess. A killer plot is no small thing, though

scarletpeaches said:

If a writer can't get inside another person's head (whether that person is real or fictional), they must have some real problems cultivating relationships in the real world. A complete lack of empathy must be very isolating.

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely.

And if I wasn't all alone in this world I'd get someone to back me up.

If you were writing absurdism, broad humor, or something with a mythic/operatic style (or superheros, which is also strongly archetypal), these genres tend to lack introspection and well-developed personalities, so you could probably create them even if you had an inability to understand what was going on in characters' heads. But, you could never write romance or psychodrama... it would be pretty limiting.

sunandshadow said:

If you were writing absurdism, broad humor, or something with a mythic/operatic style (or superheros, which is also strongly archetypal), these genres tend to lack introspection and well-developed personalities, so you could probably create them even if you had an inability to understand what was going on in characters' heads. But, you could never write romance or psychodrama... it would be pretty limiting.

Click to expand...

Good point. Those would be great genres for somebody who had a more difficult time than average with understanding motivations.

The Backward OX said:

I like this answer, because all of the first bit more or less typifies much of what my work-in-progress entails, and so restores my confidence. Thank you.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. One other thing to consider, no writer is good at everything, we all should find beta readers who are strong in our weak areas and get them to help strengthen a manuscript in the editing phase. So when you get to that point just make sure you find a beta reader or two who is good at character psychology and ask them to read your manuscript with an eye to character motivation, consistency, and that sort of thing. (I suck at plotting and external conflict myself, so I'm always asking for help with that - actually I have to do it in the design phase rather than the editing phase because I kind of have to know the plot before writing the story. But characterization seems like it would be okay to not worry too much about until the editing phase.)

If you do want to study character psychology yourself though, it probably wouldn't hurt. It can be particularly easy if you are writing archetypal characters, because you can just look at how other authors have written the same characters. You could for example hilight places in a book where a character's motivation was mentioned. Or you could make a little chart with three similar characters and compare them. You may find, for example, that 3 villains similar to yours were all motivated by unrequited love, so you could add a few sentences about your villain's unrequited love to deepen his characterization. Or you can put a twist on it and make a joke about how villains are always motivated by unrequited love.

You might also want to glance at this little comic book. The comic book is sort of an extended ad for Dramatica writer's aid software, but it's relevant because it's about a writer who has a story that's all bang and no heart and his journey to understand the problem and fix it. It presents some theory about the relationship between plot and character development. Not intending to particularly promote Dramatica here, if you're doing okay writing your WIP that's a better use of your time than getting distracted studying a big theory like Dramatica, but the comic book just came to mind as relevant.
http://www.dramatica.com/downloads/Dramatica_Comic_Book_2004.pdf

The Backward OX said:

What about a “writer” who sees characters only as pictures in his/her imagination, and doesn’t have the ability to get inside the characters' heads, can’t see the world through their eyes? Can such a person write successful fiction?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think such a person can definitely write successful stories. Just depends on the kind of stories you are attempting. Not all fiction calls for deep introspection. Sometimes, they difficulty of discovering a character's true nature can translate to a similar experience for a reader, making it a pleasant challenge, not a poorly written problem. Just a matter of how you approach it.