Hmm. The kind of stuff I'm talking about now would probably be more at home in Great Write than here, but the discussion is here, so....

I'm still experimenting to find the best balance of structure and freedom in my own writing. I have a knee-jerk rebellion against "musts," whether it's "you must determine your theme before writing," "you must outline first," or "you must do detailed character biographies first." My gut instinct is to just sail in and write by the seat of my pants, and as a result I have a certain natural fondness for writers that I know (e.g. Diana Gabaldon) or suspect (e.g. Jacqueline Carey) of doing the same thing. Yeah, it gets sloppy at times, but there's a certain creative exuberance there that resonates with me.

That said, if I'd planned my first novel better beforehand, I might not have had to rewrite it three times. So I'm trying to find the right balance (at first I typed "write balance") of just enough structure to keep the stories in control, but not so much that it takes all the joy from the process. Because if I did all the things you're "supposed" to do with pre-determining themes, making a detailed outline, building my characters and structuring my plot around the protagonists' and villains' goals, motivation, and conflict, etc., I'd feel like I was writing about automatons rather than human beings.

That said, I know very well that my characters are purely figments of my imagination. I'm too practical to really buy into any mystic ideas about the characters having lives of their own and taking over the story. But I write better if I pretend that's true, and it's more fun to carry on mental conversations (and occasionally shouting matches) with my characters than to painstakingly build them around themes and laws of writing.

I know several published writers who say that they only realize what the book is about after they finish the first draft.

With regard to theme versus plot and/or character, I know for me, it's definitely a character in a situation that first comes to me when I write. As I write, I find myself figuring out *why* I wanted to write the story, whether it's a theme of freedom or risk or penguin-worshipping or whatever. There's usually (hopefully) a little *ping* when I understand why a certain character appealed to me.

My problem with putting Theme first, is that stories written that way (or ones I suspect were written that way) feel forced to me. Manipulating the characters to make a theme work almost always, to me, makes the story feel artificial. It might just be my own superstition, and like Susan I don't truly believe characters have a "life" of their own, but if you regard them as real, and let their actions flow a little more naturally from the way that kind of person would behave, the story always seems to ring more truly to me.

re: theme from character.

Bob winds up in trouble, then the writer should think, "OK, why is Bob is this mess? OK, he's got problems with gambling with money he doesn't have. So he's fond of risk. Why? OK, how about he doesn't feel he's got anything to live for, so why not take stupid chances with mobsters? So now we've got to figure out how to a) save him from Tony the Shark and b) get his mind untangled to keep him from doing this again."

I'd read it.

My problem with putting Theme first, is that stories written that way (or ones I suspect were written that way) feel forced to me.

I guess the issue I have with this line of thinking is that it assumes you can know the author's thought process from reading the finished product. Why not just say, "I don't like writing that feels forced"?

Why not just say, "I don't like writing that feels forced"?

Oh, that's true, definitely. I was thinking more about authors like Hawthorne, and The Scarlet Letter. Which works as a novel, but is pretty anvilicious, in my opinion.

And yeah, I don't like writing that feels forced. ::sheepish smile::

Jane E. told me that working with Joss, the choices were always guided by metaphor (which is a way of playing with theme). When the writers were tossing around story ideas, he would say "That's a cool idea, but it contradicts high school as hell" or whatever they were exploring that season or that episode. She found it disheartening to work on another (unamed) series, where story choices were made based on whether they were cool or dramatic only. I think this is analogous to the SECOND draft of a novel, becayse TV writers already know the characters and the setting and the tone, and that's the time when theme can really be explored without it draining the story of depth and life.

Jane E. told me that working with Joss, the choices were always guided by metaphor (which is a way of playing with theme).

And I just watched the commentary for "Selfless," during which Drew Goddard says it was really good to know the theme of the episode and have each scene (with the exception of random troll nonsense) push that theme. Joss says something similar in the "Hush" commentary (incidentally, one of my favorites).

As far as how this applies to writing...well, maybe I'm not the person to ask. Because I think I'm frequently idea-driven. But it's not like I think of an idea and then come up with things to support it, it's just that I have it in the back of my mind and it subconsciously drives the story. Sometimes it's an idea, or the feeling evoked from a scene, or a very key line of dialogue...you've got to have something. But I disagree that it's necessary. Like many of you, I think the real theme will develop organically if you just write a proper story. Hell, the best themes...the best everything seems to happen when you let the story tell itself to you.

Dropping in with a couple of links:

• I read this and thought "Susan W must see this!"
• apparently, that author's story of Patriot Act investigation may not have been true. Which makes me incredibly angry since (if it's so) the first person who really gets screwed over by the Act will be met with disbelief.

Dani, I've bookmarked that music link for future reference at some point when I'm not running out of town for a week--thanks!

Fiction of ideas without a plot can't win me over, but I do find that a fiction of plot without any ideas behind it is rarely substantial enough to be satisfying.

I'm with Nutty on this point, although I think the process by which a fiction incorporates ideas into its plot can vary widely. Despite my love of Buffy & its central metaphor, I find I tend to like it better when the theme gradually emerges along the story, instead of being broadcasted from chapter one à la Ayn Rand.

BTW, I actually dropped by to ask questions about the Vorkosigan saga, which I've just started to read a week ago. It's got its hooks on me but good. I've read "Shards of Honor" and "Barrayar", and I don't think I even *breathed* reading the last 50 pages of "Barrayar". Sweet mother of Moses, how I love Cordelia. (And "Warrior's Apprentice" just arrived in mail today! Eeeeee!)

Anyway, on to the questions;

1. Is Bujold's universe supposed to be compatible with our own timeline, i.e., not some fantastical AU, but a plausible future from the Earth now? It appears so, since there have been several mentions of ideas, personages and philosophy from the history as we know it. If so, how far along from now is it supposed to be?

2. Barrayar is clearly modelled on Imperial Russia, what with all the real and quasi-Russian names and all. Is its Russian heritage ever overtly acknowledged?

3. Whenever I fall for a fictional universe, I have this nasty habit of immediately starting to cast the movie adaptation in my head. Micole, while discussing this on Shaye's LJ, mentioned that Victor Garber must play Aral, which has struck me as so perfect that I've started to read the novels with VG in mind in the role already. But what about Cordelia? I've been going nuts, trying to think of someone kickass enough to play her on screen. (Someone mentioned Sigourney Weaver, but I think she may be too old now to play Cordelia in the first book.)