Getting inside the MC's head. Is it essential for a good story?

[Bramblethorn]

I would characterize almost everything by Isaac Asimov this way. I'm in awe of his imagination and superhuman productivity as a writer, but not as a drawer of characters.

Agreed. Clarke sometimes goes that way as well; I enjoyed Rendezvous with Rama enough to read it several times as a kid, but can't remember a single character from it.

I don't think we ever get inside Gandalf's head in LOTR. We get a sense of him, but that isn't what I mean by "inside his head".

Not for Gandalf, but we do for Frodo and Sam.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Not for Gandalf, but we do for Frodo and Sam.

And Pippin. The hobbits were definitely Tolkien's "identification characters", fairly ordinary people thrust into these weird and world-shaping events.

-Annie

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think we ever get inside Gandalf's head in LOTR. We get a sense of him, but that isn't what I mean by "inside his head".

-Annie

If I recall, the point of view characters in LOTR are the four hobbits, Aragorn, and, at times, Gimli. Gandalf isn't a point of view character, but there are plenty of scenes where he reveals his thinking in dialogue, so he's almost a POV character, and we certainly get to know his thoughts and motivations.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Nice turn of phrase. Is it yours, or just something I've happened to miss over the years?

That metaphorical "load-bearing" isn't original to me, but I don't recall who I pinched it from.

 

[Rob_Royale]

My questions is, do all stories sink or swim depending on the degree to which the reader can get inside the head of the MC? I wasn't able to think of examples where that wasn't an important element. Do you have some?

I would say, yes. If the story is about race car driving, you might not need to get deeper with the MC than "I want to be the best." But what we do is about sex, which is closely tied to lust and love, which are intensely complex emotions. So getting into the MCs thoughts and needs adds a level of authenticity and makes the characters relatable. And those are always the best stories.

 

[StillStunned]

For a more recent example: it's been a few years since I read them, but I'm pretty sure that the narrator doesn't get too deep inside Locke's mind in The Lies of Locke Lamora and its sequels.

 

[AG31]

I think this is an insightful comment about McCarthy. He's a superbly descriptive author, but many of his characters come across as inscrutable.

Precisely why I stopped reading him after the 1st 50 pages of the first book I read. I'm glad to hear from you and @madelinemasoch that I wasn't just being obtuse.

 

[AG31]

I don't think we ever get inside Gandalf's head in LOTR. We get a sense of him, but that isn't what I mean by "inside his head".

-Annie

Right. This is a helpful insight I'm getting out of this thread. If I don't get inside a character's head, I at least want them to be interesting to watch.

And Pippin. The hobbits were definitely Tolkien's "identification characters", fairly ordinary people thrust into these weird and world-shaping events.

-Annie

Is "identification character" a technical term among serious writers? Does it mean "the character with whom the reader is meant to identify?

 

[SimonDoom]

Precisely why I stopped reading him after the 1st 50 pages of the first book I read. I'm glad to hear from you and @madelinemasoch that I wasn't just being obtuse.

A strong contrast is the author Larry McMurtry, who also wrote sprawling stories set in the American West with lots and lots of violence (the best one being Lonesome Dove). McMurtry had an extraordinary gift of introducing you to his characters right away so you immediately felt you knew them. You knew their histories, their failed hopes, their dreams, the things that motivated them. Even if you didn't always like them you felt for them. You felt like you were reading about real people you could relate to.

 

[AG31]

A strong contrast is the author Larry McMurtry, who also wrote sprawling stories set in the American West with lots and lots of violence (the best one being Lonesome Dove). McMurtry had an extraordinary gift of introducing you to his characters right away so you immediately felt you knew them. You knew their histories, their failed hopes, their dreams, the things that motivated them. Even if you didn't always like them you felt for them. You felt like you were reading about real people you could relate to.

Interesting. I tried McMurty a few years ago. Lonesome Dove had been recommended to me. For some reason I put it down. I'm going to try it again.

 

[SimonDoom]

Interesting. I tried McMurty a few years ago. Lonesome Dove had been recommended to me. For some reason I put it down. I'm going to try it again.

I recommend it. It's long, but it's relentlessly entertaining, filled with adventure and pathos but also comedy. The thing about McMurtry stories is that he gets you deeply invested in characters and nobody ends up getting what they want. So you have to be prepared for sadness. But it's moving and his prose is great, and there's plenty of amusement along the way. I think Lonesome Dove is one of the greatest examples of "yarn as high art" I've ever read.

 

[THBGato]

My questions is, do all stories sink or swim depending on the degree to which the reader can get inside the head of the MC? I wasn't able to think of examples where that wasn't an important element. Do you have some?

My answer is yes.

In terms of stories where we don't... well, the only story that jumps to mind is Hemmingway's "hills like white elephants" which only really works because it's so short. I doubt that level of detachment would be sustainable or desirable over a longer form.

 

[AG31]

I recommend it. It's long, but it's relentlessly entertaining, filled with adventure and pathos but also comedy. The thing about McMurtry stories is that he gets you deeply invested in characters and nobody ends up getting what they want. So you have to be prepared for sadness. But it's moving and his prose is great, and there's plenty of amusement along the way. I think Lonesome Dove is one of the greatest examples of "yarn as high art" I've ever read.

I'll let you know my reaction.

 

[AG31]

My answer is yes.

In terms of stories where we don't... well, the only story that jumps to mind is Hemmingway's "hills like white elephants" which only really works because it's so short. I doubt that level of detachment would be sustainable or desirable over a longer form.

I assume you've read some Agatha Christie? Did you feel like you'd gotten into Marple's or Poirot's heads?

 

[THBGato]

I'm not sure I have, you know. The only one I can recall reading was a Tommy and Tuppence one where she is undercover in a hotel.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Is "identification character" a technical term among serious writers? Does it mean "the character with whom the reader is meant to identify?

I haven't seen that exact phrase, but the concept of a character for the reader to identify with is pretty common. That's the origin of the "kid sidekick" in super-hero stories. Robin and the rest were inserted because the writers thought the comics were read only by kids, so they needed a kid character to identify with.

-Annie

 

[cadeauxxx]

I've done this from the start of my time writing stories. I learned how to write based on roleplay based writing with characters. I would RP out fictional characters from movies, TV shows and games, then went on to creating my own.

When writing in roleplay scenarios, you're in the shoes of your character or multiple characters, so you're in control of everything to do with them; characteristics, personality, motivations, etc. I normally can get a feel of my characters this way, since it's how I figured out how to write. It's easy to detail out their motivations and write from their personality if you have a connection with the character. This is true not just for main characters, but any character in the story.

I liken it to method acting. There's so many great examples of actors who do crazy things to get into character and push that extra gear in them to put in an amazing performance that you remember forever. I imagine the same has happened over the course of history with stage acting and plays.

Is it essential to a good story? The answer to that question is entirely subjective. It depends on how you feel about your characters and what you think makes a good story. If you can get into the head of your characters, then your writing will likely feel more personal to you. In my case, I tend to judge the quality of my story, if I can feel something out of it. I know I did a good job if I come out feeling like it was an experience with the characters, and the times I fail are when I don't get that feeling.