People aren't "characters," and their lives aren't "stories"

Calling a real person a character is weird, but I have no problem with true stories, life stories etc. And narrative is a word i hear used in relation to non-fiction all time.

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)'

I don't have a problem with calling a person in a book a "character"--even if that person is real. I wouldn't call said person a "character" in real life...unless of course he/she is one.

But stories are our gift as writers. If we're given lemons, we've got an easy way to make lemonade: we write about it. The world as we see it and the world in our minds may or may not be congruent. The world according to our minds is story. The world as we see it...well, who's to say?

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

I would suggest it is the nature of a narrative or memoir to cause the person who writes it, or is being written about, to be seen as a character as compared to who the person is in their real life. It seems to me a book on someone will never be able to do that person justice, compared to how they are, and as a result the written form will always be a characterization of the real person.

I think those terms are legit strictly as it relates to the pages between the covers, but I'm not a fan when applied to the larger context of a person's life.

There's a movement of conferences and books and such to help people "live a better story," or, "live your best story." Sure, we can dream bigger dreams, take more risks, try to reach beyond what we think our limitations are, but I don't like the visual that I'm the author of my life and if I don't like the way it's "reading," I can take my red pen, strike out situations or "characters" and re-work it into something else.

As much as I love stories, my life (and yours) is bigger than any story. Labeling it such minimizes it, IMO.

JournoWriter said:

This interview - and the two quotes above - brought one of my pet peeves about nonfiction writers to the forefront: When we refer to people as "characters" and their lives as "stories" and "narratives."

I know that's how we talk, just a kind of shorthand. But I still wince every time I see or hear it, because it sounds so cold and callous, like we're more focused on writing than on the reality underneath. I hate it, even though I've done it myself.

Thoughts? Discussion? Is it a big deal or not? Am I too sensitive and touchy-feely? Are there other terms we can use?

Click to expand...

Well, to me... I guess it acknowledges that you don't have everything right.

Unless you're writing an Autobiography, or an approved biography with the subject's consent and help, you're still making assumptions about the person you're writing about it.

It's one thing to say that Historical Person X thought this and said this when you are writing a "story" about him using anything other than actual quotes, and you can't say for certain what he thought without him telling you.

So to me, calling them "characters" works, because it acknowledges that you are making assumptions to at least some extent.

As a person writing her autobiography, I don't like when people refer to me as a "character" or my life as a "plot". I agree it comes across as cold.

JournoWriter said:

When we refer to people as "characters" and their lives as "stories" and "narratives."

I know that's how we talk, just a kind of shorthand. But I still wince every time I see or hear it, because it sounds so cold and callous, like we're more focused on writing than on the reality underneath. I hate it, even though I've done it myself.

Thoughts? Discussion? Is it a big deal or not? Am I too sensitive and touchy-feely? Are there other terms we can use?

Click to expand...

veinglory said:

Calling a real person a character is weird, but I have no problem with true stories, life stories etc. And narrative is a word i hear used in relation to non-fiction all time.

Click to expand...

Calling a person in a supposedly true story, autobiography, or memoir a 'character' strikes me as odd. It suggests that you've doctored the story, or the person, to fit your outcome. Where is the line between real and made-up.

On the other hand, a 'character' can fill a need in nonfiction: a composite of various people, or a made-up character to illustrate a point or process.

I just prefer to know which is which.

CAWriter said:

I think those terms are legit strictly as it relates to the pages between the covers, but I'm not a fan when applied to the larger context of a person's life.

There's a movement of conferences and books and such to help people "live a better story," or, "live your best story." Sure, we can dream bigger dreams, take more risks, try to reach beyond what we think our limitations are, but I don't like the visual that I'm the author of my life and if I don't like the way it's "reading," I can take my red pen, strike out situations or "characters" and re-work it into something else.

As much as I love stories, my life (and yours) is bigger than any story. Labeling it such minimizes it, IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree totally. It implies that sweeping changes are easily made, and that life can be 'edited'.

WriterTrek said:

Well, to me... I guess it acknowledges that you don't have everything right.

Unless you're writing an Autobiography, or an approved biography with the subject's consent and help, you're still making assumptions about the person you're writing about it.

It's one thing to say that Historical Person X thought this and said this when you are writing a "story" about him using anything other than actual quotes, and you can't say for certain what he thought without him telling you.

So to me, calling them "characters" works, because it acknowledges that you are making assumptions to at least some extent.

Click to expand...

That seems an excellent use of the term 'character' in non-fiction. The more you make stuff up, and fill in the gaps, the more the person becomes your character.

I think it's more appropriate for a biographer or historian to use the term "subject" rather than "character", but I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

If I discovered that the biographer or historian misused or fabricated sources, plagiarized passages from another work, or "blew it" it one way or another, yeah...I'd make a big deal about it. (In a polite way, of course).

vickinicole said:

As a person writing her autobiography, I don't like when people refer to me as a "character" or my life as a "plot". I agree it comes across as cold.

Click to expand...

Well you are the main character in your life, aren't you? If they refer to you as this while you are in the room though, that is a different story.

I do however agree with people referring to someone's life as a "plot" though, calling it so would indicate that it was all envisioned from the start and is wrong in my opinion.

Calling people characters or their lives stories though, I don't think that's terribly far fetched or wrong!

Using terms like "the character," "the story," or others besides "you" and "your life," seems to me about trying to focus on the book, as they've asked me to do, while not invading their personal boundaries. So, I actually read it as a kindness.

Fruitbat said:

This is interesting. I don't think I've heard it mentioned before. I have a somewhat different take on it, from critiquing memoirs. To me, it's just a way to put a bit more appropriate and comfortable distance between the critiquer (or editor, or other people discussing the book), and the subject's personal business.

Critiquing a memoir can get more personal than I feel like I have any business being. It gets awkward when the content is not fiction but the writer's life and things they may hold dear or dread. I don't want to act like their mother or therapist and "correct" their perceptions or other things in the content. Yet, helping them polish the book includes giving my thoughts on the book's content. Just as with fiction, to help them polish the book, I need to tell them where I think it gets cringey, boring, and where I feel unsympathetic to them because they are imo coming across differently than they probably believe they are or intend. Awkward.

Using terms like "the character," "the story," or others besides "you" and "your life," seems to me about trying to focus on the book, as they've asked me to do, while not invading their "personal" boundaries. So, I actually read it as a kindness.

Click to expand...

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Yep.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

There's a movement of conferences and books and such to help people "live a better story," or, "live your best story." Sure, we can dream bigger dreams, take more risks, try to reach beyond what we think our limitations are, but I don't like the visual that I'm the author of my life and if I don't like the way it's "reading," I can take my red pen, strike out situations or "characters" and re-work it into something else.

As much as I love stories, my life (and yours) is bigger than any story. Labeling it such minimizes it, IMO.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Our lives are pretty meaningless unless we try to put them in some kind of overarching narrative. We're born. Stuff happens to us. We die. The universe goes on. While that's all true, it doesn't mean anything. I find life is alot more interesting if I imagine I'm the hero of my own story. Maybe that's just me, though.

As far as calling people in non-fiction books "characters", I think it depends on exactly what type of book it is. A straight history textbook, then yea, it's a little strange. Anything with any kind of embellishment (and I would argue that any kind of memoir or popular history book is going to have to be embellished or twisted to give it a narrative direction), then you could rightly refer to the work's protagonist as a "character" because it isn't a strictly true interpretation of them.

JournoWriter said:

..snip.. one of my pet peeves about nonfiction writers...: When we refer to people as "characters" and their lives as "stories" and "narratives."

I know that's how we talk, just a kind of shorthand. But I still wince every time I see or hear it, because it sounds so cold and callous, like we're more focused on writing than on the reality underneath. I hate it, even though I've done it myself.

Thoughts? Discussion? Is it a big deal or not? Am I too sensitive and touchy-feely? Are there other terms we can use?

Click to expand...

I can't tell from this one peeve whether you're "too sensitive or touchy feely," but I do disagree with the sentiment. What you write--even if it is non-fiction--is never (I know, that word is dangerous territory already) the absolute unbiased truth--especially if you're describing thoughts, motivation, or attitudes of another person. Incidentally, if you're writing an autobiography and including anecdotes from, say, twenty years ago, you are writing about another person. Unless you've spent the past two decades in a coma, you are not the some person you wee twenty years go. Even simple matters of dialogue are almost always (unless you or someone you're writing about has superhuman eidetic recall) reconstructed and fictionalized. My wife and I can rarely agree on exactly who said what in a discussion from an hour ago.

To cite (and probably make a complete mess of) Gabriel Garcia Marquez, all writing is signification. As such, all writing--from immediate direct news reportage to the wildest fantasy adventures--is of a type. It shares elements which usually include plot, theme, mood, character, setting, background. Take police procedural mystery stories, for example. The bestselling works of this ilk include as much realistic detail as possible: details usually drawn from numerous real crimes. Thus, the "true" story of an assassination drawn from police and eye witnesss interview, medical examiner's files, the victim's diary, and all the other usual resources, differs from a crime fiction novel only in the closeness of the details to an actual event. Even when the writer tries to be absolutely objective, the interviewees rarely will do likewise.

I'm not citing anybody. You write a biography, or autobiography, and it has to have some kind of story there. It can't just be arbritrary stuff that happens. That would get old quick. My opinion now: we are geared for stories. We want to get involved in a good, meaty story with a beginning, middle, and end. We want the characters of the story to be interesting in some way, shape or form.

I don't care if the characters are real or imagined. I don't care if the story is rooted in truth, or made up. I want to be moved in some way. I want to be entertained. I want to feel like I've been on a journey that started over there, and ended over here and when all is said and done I want to be glad I went along for that ride.

Even if it's a ride on Ozzie Osborn's crazy train. Or Elvis's. Or any number of sports figures, historical figures, Good Ol' Sal from the corner store, who cares?

Speaking of authors of bios or autobiographical stuff now, the writer must have a design in mind, a plan, a blueprint, an idea as to the direction her own personal story, or that person she's writing about, is going to go. It can't be willy-milly, hodge-podge material, page after page. The reader NEEDS a road. And a destination. A reason for climbing aboard, and staying there to the end.

I don't care what you call it.

JournoWriter said:

Are there other terms we can use?

Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, "subject" might be a good substitute for "character". For "story", these terms might do the trick: account, report, chronicle.

I recommend avoiding these words: tale, yarn, fable, canard, scuttlebutt.

StephanieZie said:

Our lives are pretty meaningless unless we try to put them in some kind of overarching narrative. We're born. Stuff happens to us. We die. The universe goes on. While that's all true, it doesn't mean anything. I find life is alot more interesting if I imagine I'm the hero of my own story. Maybe that's just me, though.

Click to expand...

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Good way to put it.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

To quote Shakespeare, "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,..."

So I disagree with the OP. People are characters in their own stories, because memory is a reconstructive process where you try and understand what has happened to you to give your life meaning. YMMV, T&CA, E&OE.

Nice to see I'm not alone!
My latest pet peeve is having been asked to add dialog to my non-fiction essays which are mostly memoir interlaced with how-to. Yes, I know that's hard to picture, but bear with me. My point is that I had to explain that there was no one else present, hence no dialog, and the editor (who, by the way, is actually lovely to work with) didn't seem to be able to leave that alone. She said the "characters" in the book would have more life to them if there was more dialog. The "characters" are animals. I gave them as much dialog as I could without sounding (more) like a lunatic. Heaved a big sigh and did what I could, but this will irritate me for a while to come.

Joanne
http://www.joannemfriedman.blogspot.com

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

No, I don't think animals should be treated like human characters, fictional or not. (Except for fantasy.)

And I'm with you on the mix of memoir and how to; my yoga book is that way.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

I've taken several memoir writing classes (hoping with each one I'd get a memoir written and I didn't). Each one said to start in a point in time, with an event that draws the reader in and to sprinkle in dialog and descriptions etc. to maintain the readers' interest. Although memoir is about you, your readers' experience is about them. And yes, you are a bit of a character in your own story as even your perception of you is not quite correct and the events become a story to be told...otherwise, why write it?

Hi, JournoWriter

I can understand your objection to the terms. We all have pet peeves, valid or not. But consider this: when it's a character in a book, it's not a person; it's an incomplete word depiction of something about that person. I think 'character' is a valid term.

I think the same holds true for the terms 'stories' and 'narratives'. The writer abstracts certain elements from a person's life -- actually, not necessarily true elements, rather the writer's interpretation of the elements. It's not a real life; it's a story.

In my book, the characters don't even have the names of the real people. The people are real; the characters are not.

Does that make sense?

I look at it like this:

When you walk up to someone and talk to them- that is a person. When you talk about them in your book - that is a character. There are some very important distinctions. A character is not a person - it is the literary "shadow" of a person. People are infinitely complex, whereas characters cannot afford to be.

When using a character to represent a real person, the writer must make some really difficult decisions about what to omit and what to focus on. In the story, we only get to develop the character to the degree to which it supports a good story.

Similarly, a story is just that - it is the literary shadow of a series of events. And, whereas real life is infinitely complex, stories cannot afford to be.

People and characters and two different things. Same with stories and lives.

Calling a person a character would feel unnatural to me.

However, life as stories? I think that's a good thing, or could be a good thing.

A lot of people spend their lives thinking, they're life is just a series of days randomly stuck together. Life being spent just going nowhere, serving no purpose, making no difference, just filling up time until you die.

Calling life a story is saying there is a plot. There is a direction and a meaning to those days. Like if I looked at my life right now, I'd say I'm basically a loser who does little better than a burger flipper. But if I step back and get a moment of finite clarity, I can see prayers I've said in the past that come to fruition in the present. I can see small choices in the past that lead to where I am. I see a plot. I can't tell you the end, but I can catch a glimpse of purpose.

So a lot of people I think are longing to see that their own life is a story, it's not random, there is a story being told (even if non-fic can only tell one aspect of that story).

as someone who had a relative writing a memoir, I can tell you that the way some people filter "reality" isn't that far off from fiction.

Almost nobody is objective about their lives or the people around, nor do I think they really can be. When writing any story events have to be limited and things omitted to a degree. People often assume things about others that might be plain wrong or they project their own traits onto others. Sometimes I suspect the distinction between fiction and "non-fiction" is a blurry one.