What I find interesting is the concept of the lens not being the same shape for everyone. Those with extreme views on a subject are more likely to have that view show up in their characters. Even if they try to hide it, they'll slowly create a pattern with their characters and subject matter, thanks to their skewed Lens of Worldview.
I think that's it. Mostly, if I read a book where a character thinks X, I assume it's the character. Sometimes, often over the course of several books, it becomes apparent that either the writer writes a lot of characters who think the the same - telling in itself - or that the lens is making a very grouped pattern that becomes obvious.
I think the thing is that although you're worried about skewing the image of all your characters
Not worried. Thinking about it, esp with regard to other convos. When I get interested in something I get REALLY interested.
The character who thinks all women are inferior is probably going to be less of an issue than the author (lens) who thinks all women are inferior.
This (well, apart from my Old Man's input. Git) was what started me thinking. The difference between a
character who thinks X is inferior and an
author who makes all X characters weak/stupid/lazy etc. Sometimes the author's lens really leaps out at you. Other times, it's obvious, through tone and subtle means, that it is just the character. I was trying to work out how to show what I was meaning in that there is a difference.
Like Psycho's examples - say a writer's lens on Love will bleed through into how they treat a love story - make the exact same plot tragic or uplifting or bloody annoying.
Two writers writing about a overly patriarchal society may end up with a story involving women who are in the background, but real people, or just make all the women scenery.
In the other thread, I mentioned that some authors can write the first, and it's not a problem (their lens allows them to show women as inferior
in the society but it's clear that's just what it is, in that society), but an author writing the second - their lens is showing like a beacon. Or possibly they are just lazy lol.
Or is that just my own lens in action? I'd have less trouble with a character who thinks all women are inferior but actually what we see is women not being inferior, than I would with a character who thinks women are capable of being equal but actually what we see is that all the female characters in the story are inferior. The first makes me think that the character hasn't really analysed their thoughts - they're one of those people who'll make some blanket statement but even in their own mind they didn't intend it to apply to everyone, only the people it should apply to. The second would wind the hell out of me and make me cross with the author.
It's probably my lens.
It could be. If so, it's my lens too
Basically I was just trying to find a way to explain how sometimes, not often, a book or author will give me a niggle. Or occasionally make me throw it across the room, whereas another writer could write about the same subject and I'll love it.
Or occasionally make me think 'Man, I'd love to meet this guy. We'd have a blast.'
What, exactly, was the difference? It's like I keep saying to my son - 'It's not always what you say that makes it rude. It's how you say it too.'
It's not
what we write, I don't think, so much as
how we write things, the angle we approach it from, where we put the mirror to reflect what we are trying to show, and that is where the lens becomes obvious.
