A Thread for Writers to talk about Writing

[Crocket]

Just now, Andem said:

So, just a very general question, but how do you guys portray someone who has truly gone mad?

Usually just a bunch of quiet voices in their head/one loud one, odd tics, stuttering, etc.

[Andem]

7 minutes ago, Crocket said:

Usually just a bunch of quiet voices in their head/one loud one, odd tics, stuttering, etc.

I take it that fits the bill? 

[KSK]

It's maybe not a very helpful answer but - define madness. Once you've done that, try and write that definition down and describe it.

Me, I'd define complete madness as not knowing who or what you are. Losing yourself completely, becoming totally detached from the world. How that manifests itself in your character is up to you. 

I'd also distinguish (possibly incorrectly) between madness and insanity. An insane character will do entirely irrational things - from the point of view of what everybody else in your setting considers normal - but they will be behaving according to some internal rules and motivations. Just broken ones. Thompberry in Jim's Emiko Station story is a good example. Now there's a character who's most definitely a couple of cans short of a six pack. In fact ol' Thompberry is down to his last can - and he's lost the wiggly plastic thing that held them all together as well. But there is a twisted logic and motivation for the stuff he does. He's insane but not completely mad.

One of my characters was starting down the path to complete madness but (fortunately) didn't get irretrievably far down it.

He had the bad luck to be in telepathic contact with another personality in the midst of tearing itself to pieces. That's pretty much how I described it: shards, chunks of fractured memories tumbling in the void. For a good while my character was the only thing holding those shards together, and they were starting to melt, overlapping with his own memories and experiences to the point where he was starting to lose track of which was which. He couldn't sleep - every dream he had was full of echoes of similar dreams. Eventually, his own personality would have become just another shard amongst many, all tumbling alone in his skull, with no connections between them or links to the outside world.

Yeah - this is in my KSP fanfic - why do you ask?

 

 

 

 

[Andem]

Spoilers in the Spoiler! 

Spoiler

Enfurt (at least right now) has three problems:

He remembers enough of his past to miss it, and has forgotten enough of it to make him desperate.

He knows that his world is fake.

He knows things that he never learned, like another language.

 

Enfurt has cracked open three of the beverages, and tried to drink them, but they were shaken up and exploded in his face.

[Just Jim]

On 8/17/2016 at 4:34 PM, KSK said:

I'd also distinguish (possibly incorrectly) between madness and insanity. An insane character will do entirely irrational things - from the point of view of what everybody else in your setting considers normal - but they will be behaving according to some internal rules and motivations. Just broken ones. Thompberry in Jim's Emiko Station story is a good example. Now there's a character who's most definitely a couple of cans short of a six pack. In fact ol' Thompberry is down to his last can - and he's lost the wiggly plastic thing that held them all together as well. But there is a twisted logic and motivation for the stuff he does. He's insane but not completely mad.

Wow, you really nailed Thompberry!  He's definitely lost the wiggly plastic thing!  

But I agree he's not totally mad. Despite everything that has happened to him, he's super intelligent, and has always kept some sort of identity. Something else about him I've explored in the last couple chapters, and will delve into even more in the next one, is that in many ways Thompberry started out a victim of circumstance. I think this adds a lot more depth to him than just saying "He was always a little crazy..."

This would be my advice if someone wants to add an insane or mad character. Really think out how and why they're insane. When you look back, most insane super-villains had something really tragic happen to them first. Even the Joker. He may have been bad all along, but it took falling into a vat of nasty chemicals to really put him over the top and turn into the laughing clown we all love to hate. And Thompberry, well, he completely lost it when he had his brain put into a pod, which is the point in my story where everyone seemed to really start loving to hate him as well. 

So if you're going to add an insane character, try and come up with something really sad and brutal, and hopefully unique, to eventually explain how he/she ended up the way they are.

[KSK]

Hmm, put like that, Thompberry reminds me a little of Vader (except that brain-inna-jar is much more retro-cool than an ugly black mask  ). The first time I watched Revenge of the Sith, I kinda felt sorry for Anakin. For the most part he was doing the wrong things for the right reason, driven by fear of a future without Padme. The second time through, I needed a side of mustard to go with the ham but that's another matter.

Anyhow, the novel Dark Lord was quite an interesting look at the early days of Anakin/Vader and for the most part, it was the suit that drove him over the edge. Which figures - stuck in a black armour case, completely dependent on it for everything, including all the messy aspects of being a living being, unable to see, hear or breathe without assistance. Not to mention putting up with bits of dead flesh falling off you on a regular basis and having to be cleaned out.

Not sure which is worse - suit or jar. Either way, it's no surprise that the being inhabiting either of them went to the dark.

[Just Jim]

30 minutes ago, KSK said:

Hmm, put like that, Thompberry reminds me a little of Vader (except that brain-inna-jar is much more retro-cool than an ugly black mask  ). The first time I watched Revenge of the Sith, I kinda felt sorry for Anakin. For the most part he was doing the wrong things for the right reason, driven by fear of a future without Padme. The second time through, I needed a side of mustard to go with the ham but that's another matter.

Anyhow, the novel Dark Lord was quite an interesting look at the early days of Anakin/Vader and for the most part, it was the suit that drove him over the edge. Which figures - stuck in a black armour case, completely dependent on it for everything, including all the messy aspects of being a living being, unable to see, hear or breathe without assistance. Not to mention putting up with bits of dead flesh falling off you on a regular basis and having to be cleaned out.

Not sure which is worse - suit or jar. Either way, it's no surprise that the being inhabiting either of them went to the dark.

I hadn't really considered Vadar, but you're right, there are a lot of similarities. I loved the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, and felt really sorry for him after Revenge. Like you said, he wasn't really evil at first, just driven by his love and fear for Padme, and then manipulated horribly by Senator Palpatine. 

And like the Joker falling into a vat of chemicals, it was being burned nearly to death and put into that suit that really took him over the edge... Oh, and that horribly evil lie Palpatine told the newly awakened Vadar about accidentally killing Padme himself...that was so awful... but brilliant from a writing POV.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Just Jim

[CatastrophicFailure]

6 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I hadn't really considered Vadar, but you're right, there are a lot of similarities. I loved the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, and felt really sorry for him after Revenge. Like you said, he wasn't really evil at first, just driven by his love and fear for Padme, and then manipulated horribly by Senator Palpatine. 

 

Despite all the flack this flick gets, I thought the portrayal of Anakin as a whiney, petulant kid in over his head was actually very well done (not to be confused with well acted), and not at all what I had expected from info from the original trilogy. Since the topic swung this way, it's a good literary model of one way a good person can turn to the darkness, even when they think they're doing the right thing. 

[Just Jim]

6 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Since the topic swung this way, it's a good literary model of one way a good person can turn to the darkness, even when they think they're doing the right thing. 

yup, that was exactly the point I was trying to make as well.  

Edited August 23, 2016 by Just Jim

[adsii1970]

6 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Despite all the flack this flick gets, I thought the portrayal of Anakin as a whiney, petulant kid in over his head was actually very well done (not to be confused with well acted), and not at all what I had expected from info from the original trilogy. Since the topic swung this way, it's a good literary model of one way a good person can turn to the darkness, even when they think they're doing the right thing. 

We also see something similar out of Luke Skywalker - he courted the dark side in Return of the Jedi. In none of the original trilogy or in the prequels do you see a Jedi using the choke hold. You only see that happening by those who are Sith. As both Darth Sideious and Yoda said, his friends and the devotion to them were his undoing. This story line was not held to because Lucas wanted to keep VI kid-friendly and lighter than Episode V.

I have said for the longest time that with the story line presented in Episodes IV and V, VI (Return of the Jedi) really makes no sense. Luke left his Jedi training early - and if his father was indeed the one of the Jedi prophecy, and could not resist the lure of the dark side, then Luke, a lesser-force gifted brat should have been more drawn to the dark side. He's already wearing black instead of the brown traditional robes. He's using elements of the dark side in Jabba's palace...

Anakin followed a natural development of a character flaw as @Just Jim and @CatastrophicFailure have pointed to. It is what makes him a great character to study. However, Luke is a great lesson in how not to treat a character...

[Mister Dilsby]

6 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Despite all the flack this flick gets, I thought the portrayal of Anakin as a whiney, petulant kid in over his head was actually very well done (not to be confused with well acted), and not at all what I had expected from info from the original trilogy. Since the topic swung this way, it's a good literary model of one way a good person can turn to the darkness, even when they think they're doing the right thing. 

Agreed--but where I think the prequel trilogy went horribly, horribly wrong was in letting Anakin go beyond the boundaries of acceptable fictional darkness. The idea was to tell a new story of Vader's seduction and fall, thus recasting the story of episodes IV-VI the story of his redemption. But marching into the Jedi Temple at the head of the 501st Legion and personally murdering thirty children put Vader beyond redemption, for me.

Yes, of course millions of children died on Alderaan, and likely billions more suffered and died horribly throughout the galaxy as Vader consolidated his power. But the audience wasn't actually confronted with those deaths. We can deal with those in the abstract, or as a piece of "fridge logic" (e.g. the realization of just how many innocent people and Ewoks were killed when the Rebels destroyed the Death Stars) the same way we don't consider a dead Stormtrooper any kind of moral problem. (there's a reason we don't see their faces, or any blood, until we do see both in Episode VII) So, your mileage may vary, but for me that beautiful moment where a dying Anakin Skywalker says to his son, "You were right... tell your sister... you were right..." is ruined if I have to consider this to be the same man who went into a school and cut down a roomful of scared little kids. 

Tying it in to our stories here--Thompberry threatens children in @Just Jim's Emiko story, but never actually does the horrible things hinted at. So, his redemption works. And of course there are lines even my Kerbulans won't cross--for example, despite their extreme paranoid xeno-hatred and the similarities between their history and that of mid-20th century Earth... well, for the sake of Rule 2.2e let's just say I didn't go there and never will.

[adsii1970]

2 minutes ago, Kuzzter said:

Agreed--but where I think the prequel trilogy went horribly, horribly wrong was in letting Anakin go beyond the boundaries of acceptable fictional darkness. The idea was to tell a new story of Vader's seduction and fall, thus recasting the story of episodes IV-VI the story of his redemption. But marching into the Jedi Temple at the head of the 501st Legion and personally murdering thirty children put Vader beyond redemption, for me.

@Just JimSo, your mileage may vary, but for me that beautiful moment where a dying Anakin Skywalker says to his son, "You were right... tell your sister... you were right..." is ruined if I have to consider this to be the same man who went into a school and cut down a roomful of scared little kids.

[edited by adsii1970 for relevant content]

No, not necessarily beyond redemption. But it would not have been that quick or that easy... If I had been Lucas, I would have waited and "redeemed" Vader in Episode VII (at the earliest) or maybe even Episode IX. In Episode V, Vader was immovable when confronted by his son. He even offered to rule the galaxy as father and son if Luke would just join the dark side. No way would his conversion been that quick. Again, Return of the Jedi is the worst, wait, I take that back... I am tied between Episodes I, II, and VII being the worst along with the Return of the Jedi...

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, Kuzzter said:

Yes, of course millions of children died on Alderaan, and likely billions more suffered and died horribly throughout the galaxy as Vader consolidated his power. But the audience wasn't actually confronted with those deaths. We can deal with those in the abstract, or as a piece of "fridge logic" (e.g. the realization of just how many innocent people and Ewoks were killed when the Rebels destroyed the Death Stars) the same way we don't consider a dead Stormtrooper any kind of moral problem. (there's a reason we don't see their faces, or any blood, until we do see both in Episode VII) So, your mileage may vary, but for me that beautiful moment where a dying Anakin Skywalker says to his son, "You were right... tell your sister... you were right..." is ruined if I have to consider this to be the same man who went into a school and cut down a roomful of scared little kids. 

I think that rapidity and totality of change is really the point. It's a sentiment echoed in Robert Jordan's work, and arguably the core belief of some (most?) spiritual philosophies: "no man can walk so long in the Shadow that he cannot come again to the Light." Spiritually the concept is called "Metanoia," or a "complete change of heart." It's often there specifically to challenge the reader and their justifiably outraged sense of justice.  

[Mister Dilsby]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

No, not necessarily beyond redemption. But it would not have been that quick or that easy... If I had been Lucas, I would have waited and "redeemed" Vader in Episode VII (at the earliest) or maybe even Episode IX. In Episode V, Vader was immovable when confronted by his son. 

Just now, CatastrophicFailure said:

I think that rapidity and totality of change is really the point. It's a sentiment echoed in Robert Jordan's work, and arguably the core belief of some (most?) spiritual philosophies: "no man can walk so long in the Shadow that he cannot come again to the Light." Spiritually the concept is called "Metanoia," or a "complete change of heart." It's often there specifically to challenge the reader and their justifiably outraged sense of justice.  

Oh, sure, the total and rapid change can work, and it's central to many philosophies and genres. But I believe it does not work in a big damn fantasy space-opera scored by John Williams. This was a story about corridors filled with smoke and blaster fire, ships following rule-of-cool over physics, swinging across a chasm on a rope and "yahoo, you're all clear kid!" The viewer is not to be confronted or challenged in such an escapist work: we have Luis Buñuel for that kind of thing  

 

[Just Jim]

2 hours ago, Kuzzter said:

But marching into the Jedi Temple at the head of the 501st Legion and personally murdering thirty children put Vader beyond redemption, for me.

I thought this scene was way over the top myself, and I wouldn't have gone there.

Plus, later down the road in Star Wars: Rebels, there are "inquisitors" working for Vadar that are trying to find and kidnap any children with signs of the force, and turn them to the dark side. Now Rebels may or may not be canon, but it's a direct contradiction with the temple slaughter.

2 hours ago, Kuzzter said:

Thompberry threatens children in @Just Jim's Emiko story, but never actually does the horrible things hinted at. So, his redemption works. And of course there are lines even my Kerbulans won't cross--for example, despite their extreme paranoid xeno-hatred and the similarities between their history and that of mid-20th century Earth... well, for the sake of Rule 2.2e let's just say I didn't go there and never will.

I think it's safe to say at this point in my story that Thompberry just doesn't seem to have it in him to be truly evil.  Oh, he tries, but he's mostly talk and bluster right now.  And before anyone asks, I haven't really decided yet how he'll end up.... good or bad.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Just Jim

[Andem]

17 hours ago, Just Jim said:

And like the Joker falling into a vat of chemicals, it was being burned nearly to death and put into that suit that really took him over the edge...

It's funny you should mention the joker, because the killing joke has actually been a huge influence on how I portray madness and how I get my character from point A to point B.

 

3 hours ago, Kuzzter said:

Agreed--but where I think the prequel trilogy went horribly, horribly wrong was in letting Anakin go beyond the boundaries of acceptable fictional darkness. The idea was to tell a new story of Vader's seduction and fall, thus recasting the story of episodes IV-VI the story of his redemption. But marching into the Jedi Temple at the head of the 501st Legion and personally murdering thirty children put Vader beyond redemption, for me.

Yes, of course millions of children died on Alderaan, and likely billions more suffered and died horribly throughout the galaxy as Vader consolidated his power. But the audience wasn't actually confronted with those deaths. We can deal with those in the abstract, or as a piece of "fridge logic" (e.g. the realization of just how many innocent people and Ewoks were killed when the Rebels destroyed the Death Stars) the same way we don't consider a dead Stormtrooper any kind of moral problem. (there's a reason we don't see their faces, or any blood, until we do see both in Episode VII) So, your mileage may vary, but for me that beautiful moment where a dying Anakin Skywalker says to his son, "You were right... tell your sister... you were right..." is ruined if I have to consider this to be the same man who went into a school and cut down a roomful of scared little kids. 

It's funny, I've just been reading Paul of Dune again and a similar situation arises.

Spoiler

Paul is faced with a plot to destroy Caladan, his homeworld, and responds by sterilizing the home planets of all those involved. He ensures that these planets will never be capable of supporting life ever again, and yet Paul is more guilty about the rest of his Jihad.

 

2 hours ago, Kuzzter said:

Oh, sure, the total and rapid change can work, and it's central to many philosophies and genres. But I believe it does not work in a big damn fantasy space-opera scored by John Williams. This was a story about corridors filled with smoke and blaster fire, ships following rule-of-cool over physics, swinging across a chasm on a rope and "yahoo, you're all clear kid!" The viewer is not to be confronted or challenged in such an escapist work: we have Luis Buñuel for that kind of thing  

 

It's funny, because I'm a huge trek fan myself, but I always found it funny how the writers clearly try to ask a provocative question (usually), starting off with the crew's morals, and then they wind up setting their morals aside or the sake of the plot, and never learn anything from these moral challenges.

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, Andem said:

It's funny, I've just been reading Paul of Dune again and a similar situation arises.

Paul Atreides... now there's an interesting character. He seemed good enough, and had much better morals than many of the other major characters in Dune. But then he unleashes, or at least allows to be unleashed, one of the most horribly brutal jihads ever across the entire universe.

And Leto II, the God-emperor... wow! What a complicated piece of work he was.

I am in awe of Frank Herbert's characters, and do my best to try and emulate him.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Just Jim

[steuben]

TVtropes has an answer on how to write a mad character, So You Want To Write A Cloudcuckoolander. Those that have a logic, however broken.

The broader set of tropes can be found here Madness Tropes. Once you know the flavour of madness you are after you can write towards it better.

It is Tvtropes. Abandon all time, ye who enter there.

[KSK]

4 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I thought this scene was way over the top myself, and I wouldn't have gone there.

Yeah me too. It's the one scene that felt badly out of place. I get why it was in there, as a clear cut signal that Anakin Has Turned to the Dark Side, but it was a lazy way of doing it.

[Andem]

26 minutes ago, steuben said:

TVtropes has an answer on how to write a mad character, So You Want To Write A Cloudcuckoolander. Those that have a logic, however broken.

The broader set of tropes can be found here Madness Tropes. Once you know the flavour of madness you are after you can write towards it better.

It is Tvtropes. Abandon all time, ye who enter there.

I'll be back. In about a year.

[Just Jim]

2 hours ago, KSK said:

Yeah me too. It's the one scene that felt badly out of place. I get why it was in there, as a clear cut signal that Anakin Has Turned to the Dark Side, but it was a lazy way of doing it.

I agree... lazy.  Or cheaper.

I think it would have worked just as well, or perhaps better, if Anakin were carving his way thru a stream of adult Jedi that were fighting back. I mean seriously, there were no adults home at the time???  Anyway, I think it would have made a really awesome fight scene, and gotten the message across just as well.

At least that's how I would have written it

Edited August 23, 2016 by Just Jim

[Just Jim]

Let's switch over to a different topic for a moment...

Have any of you ever gotten a chapter finished, but then got really stuck thinking of a good name for the title?  

[0111narwhalz]

Every time I finish a chapter of Warped Stars.

[CatastrophicFailure]

49 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

Let's switch over to a different topic for a moment...

Have any of you ever gotten a chapter finished, but then got really stuck thinking of a good name for the title?  

All. The freakin'. Time.  So I end up just using my working title which is usually some obscure bit that no one will get like "McQueen, she ain't."

[Just Jim]

2 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Every time I finish a chapter of Warped Stars.

 

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

All. The freakin'. Time.  So I end up just using my working title which is usually some obscure bit that no one will get like "McQueen, she ain't."

Ahhh, then it's not just me. This is where I'm at... the next chapter is all worked out in my head, and should be a good one. But I'm really stuck what to call it...