Can An Author Ever Truly Own Her Characters?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007Posted in: you read ok? book talk
Lori Devoti has an interesting column up at RTB.
She’s talking about authors, and whether they actually own the characters they create.
She cites J.K. Rowling as an example of somebody who’s created popular characters that people all over the world know and love. Devoti states that she wasn’t too happy about Rowling’s revelation that Dumbledore was gay. (Not because of any moral or political judgements btw, so no need for twisted knickers) She felt it was unfair to reveal this piece of information when, A, it wasn’t even hinted at in any of the HP books, and B, when there’s no possibility of closure, seeing as she’s done with the series.
Devoti writes:
“That all said, she is the author, and thus she has the “right” to say her characters are whatever she wants. Or does she? Do you as a reader buy all this? If an author suddenly begins to twist a character into something you don’t like, do you buy it? Or does your brain shut down? Do you refuse to believe?”
My answer is that although the author creates the characters, I don’t think she solely owns them. Of course she can do with them what she wants, she has the pen after all, but I think she does owe some consideration to the fans.
Now I’m not saying she should write to please her readers because that would just be crazy talk, but I do think she has a duty of care to the people who buy her books, to ensure that she doesn’t irreparably damage her characters, or totally change who they are. (In terms of how they are perceived by her readers at least.)
For instance, I love Nora’s In Death books, and I love, love, love Roarke and Eve. With a passion. Now if Nora were to kill off either of them, I’d never read another one of her books again . Seriously. Also if she wrote a book where Roarke had an extra-marital affair, that would be another deal-breaker for me.
Of course Nora wouldn’t do either of the above (one would hope) because I think she understands that the readers would probably go berserk feel betrayed.
As the people who are familiar with Karin Slaughter’s Grant County series will know, in her last book, she killed off one of the main characters just because she could. I will not be spending another penny on her again.
I feel very strongly that Slaughter totally gave her readers the finger, by doing what she did. As a result, some of her fans (Read: me) will be voting with their money, the next time she releases a book.
So waddaya think? Does an author owe a duty of care to her fans or not? Also, does the author solely own the characters she creates, or do they mainly belong to her readers?
Teddy Pig
November 6
8:00 pm
I am a big big stickler on continuity. Character continuity is just as important as believable world building in the series I read.
If you start the series with the deal being they have no paper and then in the tenth book mention someone writing on paper. Well that book starts to fall into non-canon territory for that series. Like some temporal hallucination that got published.
I have had tons of debate about Anne McCaffrey and her Dragon Riders series concerning this. Her later books create severe continuity problems.
Same is true for characters in my opinion. I hate when a secondary character introduced to us as a certain type of personality in the series suddenly takes a whole other persona when they get their turn at romance in a sequel.
I think continuity complaints are valid and many authors show a weakness in this area when not keeping track or making damn sure they review notes on what they wrote before. What really kills me is when they get defensive from the start simply because they changed their mind about following their own rules. If that is the case admit it and go on. What can you say when the author says nuts to you guys, that’s just the way I want to write it.
To me the argument is not so much about ownership but paying attention to detail.
Gail
November 6
8:08 pm
Once a book is published the author has surrendered a huge part of her ownership to public. In buying her book, readers are investing in the world living in that book. Respecting the readership’s investment is key but does not mean the author should abandon her original commitment as the creator of this world. She still has to write it.
As so clearly stated by Teddy, pay attention and respect the investment readers have made, but at the same time, don’t write the same thing over and over.
Um…I think I gave myself a head ache. sigh..
M.
November 6
8:10 pm
Well, the only examples I can give are Anne Rice and Anne McCaffrey. In my eyes, the Dragonriders of Pern series ended with The Masterharper of Pern. I read the one after that … and at that point decided not to continue reading the series. The same happened with Anne Rice. Her Vampire Chronicles was 100% derailed by the author. I don’t read anything by Anne Rice anymore either.
Personally, I dislike series with recurring characters and avoid getting hooked on any. I go for series in which is book is a stand-alone rather than a follow up on previous titles. I just don’t trust that the author is going to keep the series focused and truth be told, the longer a series with recurrent characters runs, the higher the potential for it to be derailed. Case in point: Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series.
azteclady
November 6
8:42 pm
I agree with a lot of what TeddyPig said earlier, regarding characterization, continuity in world building, etc.
Now, on the actual “character ownership” thing, I’m not sure that “ownership” is the right term–even if we readers/fans often feel we own what we love/like/enjoy. And more so when we plunk down hard earned cash (or long-suffering plastic), to continue following an author’s works in a series.
At any rate, when an author breaks faith with me as a reader–by changing the rules mid game, so to speak–that’s pretty much the end of that author for me. By breaking faith I would mean things like Karen’s example of K. Slaughter’s killing of one of the two protagonists in her series.
Another would be when Maggie Shayne suddenly decided that evil beyond redemption what’s-her-name was not so bad after all, and gave her a love story. (Really, people–why spend six or seven books showing you how off the wall evil batshit crazy this female is, if you are going to turn around and say, “Oh, but she’s not all bad, she’s just traumatized/scarred/misunderstood”?)
*ahem*
So, no, I don’t feel I own the characters, and I’m not sure I would go as far as using the word “betrayal”–but I was for sure pissed off, and consequently turned off by the author herself.
Not that I know anything but methinks that a writer who wants to make writing a career (as opposed to a hobby) probably doesn’t want to turn too many of his/her readers off by being careless about readers’ expectations–be these about continuity, characterization, world building, etc.
Jackie
November 6
8:46 pm
I think it belongs to the author — just like television shows belong to those writers/producers…BUT all writers should be mindful and respectful of their readers/audience. And that means if they’re going to blast away reader/audience expectations, they should do it in a way that best serves the story.
As for series with recurring characters, it’s one thing for such a series to be open-ended, and another when there’s a series arc and a finite number of stories planned.
M.: Losing Robert Jordan before he finished THE WHEEL OF TIME was heartbreaking for many reasons. Yes, I think he lost sight of the main story in the later books, but I still hoped to see overall resolution (and Tarmon Gaidon, damn it). And now…well, the wheel turns.
Robin
November 6
9:17 pm
IMO an author creates her characters and, as creator, has original possession of them. But as it is for any creator, once those characters move into a space beyond the author’s mind, things change, adaptation occurs, interpretation happens.
I can see how authors might feel frustrated or even offended at how their characters are perceived, interpreted, or even translated by others via fan fiction or parody. But it seems to me that authors put their work into the public realm because they want to share it. And when you share, you bring others into the mix and no longer can exert total control over what is said or done relative to your work (assuming you are exerting full control when you’re creating them).
As for readers responding to different things, like the Rowling revelation or the Slaughter controversy, it seems to me those are reflections of the way books and characters can personally move readers. In fact, it seems that’s the thing that *sells* books and gains reader loyalty. So if an author encourages readers to be personally engaged with his or her books, I think s/he has to deal with some negative reactions depending on how the reader experiences those books. Because let’s face it: these issues don’t pop up unless there are negative reactions to books and/or characters or creative adaptation via fan fiction. When readers are gushing their praise, no one raises these concerns.
Shiloh Walker
November 6
9:41 pm
Yeah, I think authors owe some consideration to readers.
It can be a tricky road to walk, though, because sometimes a book takes an unexpected turn. I’m not talking about characters acting out of character… like Roarke messing around on Eve… that would be WAY out of character, and nobody would believe it anyway. All because of the way we’ve gotten to know the characters.
If there’s going to be some big shocker in a series, I’d say the writer needs to drop some hints or clues along the way, something to prepare the reader.
Certain things within a book or a series are deal breakers.
Characters suddenly behaving like somebody we don’t know, with no explanation or insight into why. Main characters getting killed off~ or in some authors’ cases, basically emasculated so somebody new can take center stage… these are the kind of things readers hate to see. I sure as hell do.
If there’s going to be some big wrench thrown in the story, if the author doesn’t prepare the reader for it, in some way, they need to be prepared for unhappy readers. And even if you do try to soften the blow before the hammer drops, a writer still risks losing readers over some issues.
I can’t comment about the HP issue, because I haven’t ever read the books. They just don’t appeal to me. But throwing something out of left field, with no possibility of it ever being resolved? Regardless of what it is, it doesn’t seem like a very nice thing to do to the readers.
Robin
November 6
10:50 pm
Characters suddenly behaving like somebody we don’t know, with no explanation or insight into why. Main characters getting killed off~ or in some authors’ cases, basically emasculated so somebody new can take center stage… these are the kind of things readers hate to see. I sure as hell do.
I do think there are certain objective craft issues that come into play when characters behave in ways that contradict their previous characterization (and I’m not at all persuaded by the argument that people behave inexplicably in real life, because fictional books *aren’t* real life).
Beyond that, I think there are different experiences of a book’s reality (the fictional world the author creates) and sometimes there can be a conflict in interpretation, even as between the author and readers, that cannot and shouldn’t be resolved. An author, for example, can stand strong in her right to kill off a main character, and readers can stand strong in their feeling of dismay and desire never to read that author’s books again. Two separate realities that each have their own integrity, IMO.
Teddy Pig
November 6
11:04 pm
I think there are different experiences of a book’s reality (the fictional world the author creates) and sometimes there can be a conflict in interpretation, even as between the author and readers, that cannot and shouldn’t be resolved.
If there’s going to be some big wrench thrown in the story, if the author doesn’t prepare the reader for it, in some way, they need to be prepared for unhappy readers.
I think both these clarify what I wanted to say about general continuity in a series. If you change a rule or a character then you have to explain why.
Sudden changes without point or explanation are seen as sloppy and that is not a reader interpretation that is common sense.
Emily Veinglory
November 7
12:14 am
What exists, really, is the book. Anyone can say anything they want but the book stands on it’s own and says only what it says. That’s why what JK said doesn’t really matter any more than the work of those naughty ficcers she likes to serve with cease and desist letters.
shelia
November 7
2:29 am
Good post. The characters belong to the author/publisher but after reading your comments, it does give me something to think about.
Dee Tenorio
November 7
3:13 am
I got one thing to say on this: George Lucas.
There was that whole debate on if he really had the right to go back and rerelease a newly edited Star Wars trilogy when decades of nerds had built their lives around the original. (Trust me, us nerds were in an uproar. It was nearly damn cataclysmic.) The general consensus was, “That bastard screwed us!!”
Personally, I didn’t care. But I’m more a Trekkie. (Don’t get me started on what Generations did to the designer of the warp drive. I still weep.)
So when Rowling did this, I just thought…why? What’s the point of bringing that out? If it served a purpose other than to get her more attention, I’d be less annoyed. This way just seems…dumb.
As for owning chars, lol. I think we have to accept they belong to the readers once we let them out into the world. Or at least hope they do. 🙂
Dee
Kristie (J)
November 7
3:24 am
Interesting question! And I’m not exactly sure what to say so I will figure it out while I type, along with the effects of the two beers I downed tonight (and it’s not even hot).
I think authors ‘own’ their characters and do have a right to do with what they will. But after they release the book, the author shares these characters with her readers and while not obligated per say, to do what readers want, I think said author should be mindful that if well-written, the characters can almost take on a life of their own. We readers are a loyal lot, but if an author isn’t conscious of what we readers invest in them, she can do a lot of damage and leave the reader feeling betrayed – such as the case with Karen Slaughter (although I haven’t read her books)
I think that’s why I’m leery of long continuing series – there is always that worry in the back of my mind, that the characters who have almost become real after a certain length of time, might have something tragic and unrepairable happen to them.
JD Robb – aka Nora Roberts is an exception of course. I trust her implicitly in the matter of Eve, Roarke and company.
As is Stephanie Plum – cause she’s just damn funny. Although there is a risk in that one since the Joe camp is huge as is the Ranger camp and if Stephanie ever chooses, one side will be ticked that ‘they’ didn’t win.
avidbookreader
November 7
4:20 am
Once the author has penned his/her masterpiece and releases it to the world, it is to be consumed by the public and not always the way the author intended, but that’s life.
Keishon
Pepper E
November 7
4:36 am
I think Jeff Tweedy sums up my feelings for me with the following lyrics for What Light:
And if the whole world’s singing your songs
And all of your paintings have been hung
Just remember what was yours is everyone’s from now on
And that’s not wrong or right
But you can struggle with it all you like
You’ll only get uptight
sallahdog
November 7
4:47 am
bottom line, an author can write whatever they want and do stupid crap with their characters if they wish… but I don’t have to like it and can and will refuse to buy any more of it…
LKH screwed the pooch with her Anita books, and I no longer buy them (she was hanging on from a thread with her Merry books, I still read them, but I borrow them from a friend these days.)
So authors, do it if you want, but tread lightly, or be prepared for the inevitable crap storm when you decide to change the rules..
Ann Bruce
November 7
5:45 am
Authors own the characters, but the readers have the option of not buying the books. It’s a delicate balance.
Ann Bruce
November 7
5:47 am
There was that whole debate on if he really had the right to go back and rerelease a newly edited Star Wars trilogy when decades of nerds had built their lives around the original.
Three words: Han shot first.
December/Stacia
November 7
10:44 am
Testify, Ann!
I was waiting for George Lucas to be mentioned as well. Thppt. Can you believe he had the nerve to wear a “Han Shot First?” t-shirt on the set of Indiana Jones 4? Like that particular travesty had nothing to do with him? Groan.
Yes, the characters belong to the writer. But it’s frankly lousy to ignore any responsibility to the readers.
Since I’ve been all about the Whedon the last few days, we can use that as an example. When, for example, Doyle died in the sixth or seventh episode of Angel, we were stunned, but not surprised. Because people die all the time on those shows, characters we know and care about (Jenny Calender, Joyce, etc.) So we know in that world we could lose anyone.
But to suddenly introduce a death like that, in world where main characters don’t die…not good.
And yeah, I hate it when characters change. “Anybody Out There?” by Marian Keyes was a lovely book and made me cry like a baby, but I was disappointed by how much the MC had changed from her character in all the other books.
Sarah McCarty
November 7
12:38 pm
Hmm, I had to think about this. I think I pretty much came to the conclusion of the majority. They are “Mine, mine, Mine!” right up until I release them into the world, but once I send my characters out into the world, that changes based on the reason I send them out into the world. The reason I send them out into the world is to form relationships with readers. Once that relationship is formed I’m in a menage a trois with my readers and my characters.
For that relationship to work there has to be a certain amount of give and take on all sides, but that give and take can only occur if there’s an underlying understanding. A trust that I will stay true to the personalities and expectations I created. With that trust my muse continues to talk to me and the readers continue to read. It’s a tricky balance but the relationship depends on it.
Nora Roberts
November 7
1:10 pm
Authors own the characters, but readers invest in them–financially and emotionally if the author’s lucky. One should always, always respect her investors. And if a writer doesn’t respect her character enough to be mindful of that continuity, that personality, she’s not going to do a good job for the character, for herself or for her investors.
Characters may evolve–and should, I think, over a long-running series. They can make mistakes that some readers won’t agree with, but they MUST be consistent and their actions MUST be logical within the framework of the series.
Kill off a main character, or have characters suddenly behaving contrary to the framework built along the way? The way that drew the reader in, caused them to invest financially and emotionally? The writer is free to do so. And the investers are free to pull out their interest and invest elsewhere.
December/Stacia
November 7
1:31 pm
Oops, I had one too many question marks in my post. There shouldn’t be one after “Han Shot First”.
Hey, Nora…thought you might want to see this site. Apparently you must be a copright holder to report piracy.
Ann Aguirre
November 7
1:33 pm
“Since I’ve been all about the Whedon the last few days, we can use that as an example. When, for example, Doyle died in the sixth or seventh episode of Angel, we were stunned, but not surprised. Because people die all the time on those shows, characters we know and care about (Jenny Calender, Joyce, etc.) So we know in that world we could lose anyone.
But to suddenly introduce a death like that, in world where main characters don’t die…not good.”
Uhm. I’m gonna assume you don’t know this, but that wasn’t a random writer death. The actor who played Doyle, Glenn Quinn, died of a heroin overdose on December 3, 2002. He was extremely close to David Boreanaz, Christian Kane, and Charisma Carpenter, so they weren’t gonna let the writers do a Darren switch on him. The actor died, so the character had to as well. I’m pretty sure they did the best they could under difficult circumstances.
December/Stacia
November 7
2:28 pm
Uhm. I’m gonna assume you don’t know this, but that wasn’t a random writer death. The actor who played Doyle, Glenn Quinn, died of a heroin overdose on December 3, 2002. He was extremely close to David Boreanaz, Christian Kane, and Charisma Carpenter, so they weren’t gonna let the writers do a Darren switch on him. The actor died, so the character had to as well. I’m pretty sure they did the best they could under difficult circumstances.
Nope, definitely knew Glenn Quinn died, but the episode in which Doyle died, “Hero”, originally aired in November 1999. Rumors have it Quinn’s heroin use was behind it, as it was becoming a problem on set, but Doyle’s death wasn’t precipitated by Quinn’s. Quinn did some other work after Angel, too.
heather (errantdreams)
November 7
2:47 pm
Rather than feeling the writer has an obligation to the fans or readers, I tend to feel the writer has an obligation to the work. E.g., you don’t kill off a character ‘just because you can,’ because that isn’t being true to the work. You don’t have the characters act out of character because that isn’t being true to the work.
I don’t think the writer ‘owns’ the characters, but I’m thinking in a slightly different way than perhaps that implies. Each reader brings his or her own impressions to a work—his own interpretations, visualizations, nuances, etc. To my mind, by the time they’re done reading the book, what they’ve experienced isn’t exactly what the author thought they were putting on paper—it’s more of a jointly-created entity that the author could never entirely predict or shape. And that’s where things get tricky.
I wouldn’t mind Rowling clarifying that Dumbledore was gay if the issue came up, for example, as a possible interpretation of material she’d written, but I just don’t see any point in ‘announcing’ it—it isn’t part of the work in that way.
If that makes sense.
heather (errantdreams)
November 7
2:58 pm
Oh, I have to add one more thing. I’m particularly put off by Rowling’s doing this by ‘announcing’ it rather than, say, writing it into a story that explores Dumbledore’s background. After all, if we were going to be expected to believe such a character revelation in a story, we’d need all the proper buildup and such, yeah? Basically what she’s done is remove a character revelation from the necessary surround of details that makes us suspend disbelief, and asked us to take her word for it. That would be like handing us a two-page synopsis of the events in a Harry Potter book and saying, ‘okay, that’s the story. Enjoy.’ I can’t even imagine what led her to think that was a good idea!
Ann Aguirre
November 7
3:37 pm
Wow, I bet his friends feel even worse. If it was a problem as early as 1999, and nobody managed to reach him in that three years, that would weigh on a person. You can’t make someone want to quit or to make rehab stick, unless they want it too, but that’s painful.
I watched Angel on DVD, didn’t catch it when it first came on, so I didn’t realize there was a gap in dates. I remember being irked when they killed Doyle off, so I looked it up, and saw he had passed away. I guessed that was why — it didn’t occur to me that the series had actually come out much earlier.
As for Dumbledore, as I understand it, Rowling clarified his sexuality as a result of the screenwriters wanting to put a female love interest in his past for the next movie. And then the press got wind of it, so she had a press conference to address it. I’m not sure why this was news, however, but that’s another issue.
azteclady
November 7
3:42 pm
Heather, at first I was inclined towards your position, mainly because I hadn’t caught any hints to Dumbledore’s leanings in the books themselves (thought of course, I wasn’t looking either), but following the original thread at Romancing the Blog, I found a link to the full text of the interview, as well as some very well reasoned and articulated speculations as to why and how this “revelation” occurred. It changed the light in which I, for one, view the whole thing.
azteclady
November 7
3:43 pm
*blink* and that was a very looooooooooong sentence. Sorry.
Robin
November 7
4:56 pm
It changed the light in which I, for one, view the whole thing.
Then you might be interested in this discussion, too:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/10/is-dumbledore-g.html
heather (errantdreams)
November 7
5:47 pm
As for Dumbledore, as I understand it, Rowling clarified his sexuality as a result of the screenwriters wanting to put a female love interest in his past for the next movie. And then the press got wind of it, so she had a press conference to address it. I’m not sure why this was news, however, but that’s another issue.
Ahh. Thank you. That makes more sense. I have to agree, however with the ‘so, why was this news?’ I guess in that case it wasn’t her fault, and she was just trying to keep the work true to itself—it’s the media that took it out of context.
Sigh… the peril of your books being so widely sought-out I guess; the media will do anything to get ‘news’ on you.
Anonymous
November 8
1:43 am
The only series that I remembered being distinctly annoyed about rather than shrugging and going on was X-Files. I heard that the second movie was ready to shoot and my first thought was that I wished Chris Carter would just pretend that seasons 5 thru 9 had never happened.
Jennifer McKenzie
November 8
2:57 pm
I vote with my wallet. And authors own the characters. They can kill them if they want as long as they are prepared for the backlash.
Ali
November 11
3:55 am
A little clarification on the Dumbledore revelation: Rowling was holding a question and answer session during a booksigning while on a short (four cities) book tour of the United States. One of the questions she was asked was if Dumbledore, the man who believed so much in the power of love, had ever been in love himself. Her response was that Dumbledore was gay and the love of his life was Gellert Grindlewald, the Dark Wizard whom Dumbledore famously defeated in a duel, bringing an end to Grindlewald’s reign of terror. She said that Dumbledore was massively disappointed by the relationship, and that it was the true tragedy of his life. She added that she had told Steve Kloves, the screenwriter for the sixth movie, that Dumbledore was gay while going over the screenplay for the movie earlier this year because Kloves had added a scene in which Dumbledore reminisces to Harry about past (female) loves.
This was far from being the only thing that she revealed during the q & a. Among other things she revealed that Neville Longbottom married Hannah Abbott, who became the proprietress of The Leaky Cauldron, and that they live above the pub, which impresses Neville’s students. She also revealed that James and Lily “helped” Remus by giving him money during his periods of unemployment, and that they themselves never had paying jobs, because they were employed full-time in the Order of the Phoenix. The media simply took the whole thing out of context and made it into a huge deal that it was never meant to be. The result is that a huge number of people for some reason think that she did it either a)for attention, which doesn’t make any sense considering how famously reclusive and private she is, or b)to drive up sales so that she can make more money, which doesn’t make sense either considering how wealthy she is, that the HP series is the best selling book series of all time, and how famously generous she is with donating huge amounts of money to charity (which includes writing 2 companion HP books whose profits (100%) went the charity ComicRelief, which provides food for poor people in developing nations). Rowling did, however, seem to realize that it would be treated as a big deal in the fanfic world, because she made a joke about the fanfics that would start popping up following the revelation. (And for the person that said something about her sending cease and desist letters to fanfic writers, Rowling is actually a big supporter of fanfiction. Critical analyses, essays, and speculations on what would happen in so-and-so future book are fine, too. What she doesn’t like is people infringing on her copyrights for profit, and if someone insists upon doing so, even after multiple appeals, she will, and has, sued. Fanfiction doesn’t fit into that “for profit” category. She has never sent any cease and desist letters to any fanfiction writers or websites.)
As for the question in your post, Karen, IMO the writer has the right to do what they want, the reader has the right to hate it, but ultimately, the writer owns the characters, not the reader. In general, the person who writes the stories is not just the writer, he/she is the CREATOR. This is especially true in the case of a series like the HP series, where the writer has spent years creating detailed backgrounds for even the most minor of characters that never made it into the books (some of which Rowling has also revealed, but none of which got any media attention). The fact that the greater majority of those details didn’t make it into the stories themselves simply means that the writer didn’t feel that they were necessary to further the plot, not that they weren’t important. I would love to say that I, as a reader, have as much of a right to the characters as the writer does, but in my opinion, I simply don’t.
(For the record, personally I don’t see how anyone who has read the seventh book could see that relationship as anything else. If you compare the tone of Dumbledore’s letter to Grindlewald, and the tone of Lily’s letter to Sirius, the tone of Dumbledore’s letter is considerably more intimate. If you consider that Lily’s letter was written to a man that she thought of as a brother and who was her child’s godfather, while Dumbledore’s was just to a “friend”, the more intimate tone of Dumbledore’s letter should be an immediate tipoff. Because of that letter I was not at all surprised at the revelation.)
Merlin, that was a long post! Sorry for the ramble!