Welcome to Gaia! ::

Because no one's made a new topic here in quite awhile, aside from birthdays and the like, I decided to do something reflective and s**t.
This was all originally posted on DA, but I thought it'd make an interesting topic.
I don't expect you guys to read all of it, but I know a few of you will humor me with insight and opinions on anything under Lit. Dev. & App.

--Progression of Continuity & Plot--
-This is a bit long, so if you don't read it, it's fine-

The Topic of Continuity always pops up here and there when I'm skimming over my story and character connections.
With multiple, separate stories, there's always the possibility that some could share the same 'universe'.
As such, I was beginning to think, what do people in general like?

I personally love individual ' pockets', unrelated stories and characters that have nothing to do with previous works, but I also like the feeling of a fleshed out world with branching, clashing, crisscrossing stories.
Vice's world, the central Hub that is Rain City, allows for many many stories
(some of which have already turned into mini-plots and created small casts)
To many, this would seem like a no brainer.
Make a world, make a cast, all so you can work off material pre-established and make it 'new'.
This bugs me though, as I see it's a common (and tired) formula demonstrated by multiple industries who's job has to do with anything pertaining to 'story telling'.

I find the beauty of Ninja's story to be that though I create a world and add on to it each day, it never looses sight of its main characters.
Villains, side characters, everyone becomes a topic of interest to the player or reader, but they are never delved too far into
(save for small written bios & interests)

Unlike Vice's world, I've never truly planned any spin offs for Ninja, or even a true 'sequel'.
Solidifying the main story itself seems hard enough, so this may be the reason for that...but I have a strong feeling this will stick even to the day I finalize it all.
Ninja's plot is very open, but at its core it's completely linear.
The beauty of storytelling is not to see how much you can cram into one plot, or allusions to other goings-on, but to be able to present the plot in a straightforward way, orchestrate tension, self reflection.

--Character Depth & Development--
On a character viewpoint, I honestly despise 'character evolution'.
For what's worth, it only allows the reader to see the admirable traits or struggle...it's like having a ******** light bulb held up to your eye and having someone ask:
"'Is it too dark in here?"

Apparently it's a standard, though? To flesh out your character so that they 'grow up' throughout the story?
What ever happened to a person being a person and living by their ideals?
Villains do this constantly, rarely 'maturing'.
They have their own logic, their own ideas and they stick to them
(more often than not)
This is far more human than most heroes ever can hope to be.

What is a hero? Someone who sticks to their guns? But why?
Heroes are unbelievable (most the time), villains are (if done right).
It is the antagonistic standing of others throughout our lives that makes us believe more heavily that there are villains among us, and not heroes.
Heroes themselves should be shown for what they are,
Antagonists to the Villains.
So a hero must change to accommodate for the qualities they lack in the presence of opposition?
Is not what you have sufficient enough? Use it!
A hero can be just as determined and intelligent as their antagonist, as they themselves are ALSO antagonists on a different tier.
Change does not relate naturally to humans.
Rarely do people change outright today, and I find it unlikely we as a species have changed much in the past couple thousand years.
(Or am I the only one not ignorant of that septic & stagnant odor?)
The introduction of a tragic character or someone who changes for the better/worse does not a good story make.
It's a tired and old formula that I've come to resent.

An example of ignoring this cliche is the character Clayton Riddell of 'Cell' by Stephen King.
The guy's a guy. Average, has a job, strives to get better at it and is suddenly thrown into the apocalypse an hour after scoring his dream job for Darkhorse Comics. The character remains the same throughout the book, constantly struggling with his ' panic rat'.
The piece of him that gnaws its way to the surface when he's under extreme pressure.
This trait is not NEW to the character, it's one he has had his entire life and never outright gets rid of it, even to the end.
He learns to deal with it.
That's evolution, but on such a minute scale it'd be like a small piece of yourself
(which we do for ourselves here and there, regardless if we know or not)
There is no evolution, he remains the same but 'changed' under a slew of new situational content.
-
Ninja and Lindus are both to this point, albeit in their own individual ways.
They evolve as a characters, not changing their ways, methods or becoming 'enlightened', but like any normal person they come to refine their beliefs and develop very mish-mashed opinions on the world.
This is more human than pinpoint opinion.
Rarely do people in life ever truly, confidently cement themselves to one belief, and if in the case they do, they are ignorant and have welcomed stupidity into their daily lives.
Devout adherence to any one religion is an example of this.
(No, not the only example, but it's one that's very easy to point out)
Retardation on a highest functioning level is what this limitation brings.
It isn't a NATURAL thing to apply to characters in any written, acted or animated medium .
To stick to one line of sight when viewing the universe is blinding, there are other directions you can take.
-
This all seems to be rambling, and I know it is...
but sometimes I love to just sit down and type up reflection of topics such as these.
It helps me think, de-smog the head for a few hours.

Of course this isn't all I believe, and if anything it's a very restricted blurb from myself.
Yes change can be believable, and I honestly support it in some cases, but to generalize the regurgitated industry standard was what I aimed to do for the time being.

I may come back and refine some points made in this at a later time...
Reading over it now, I know I'll probably have to flesh out what I mean if others become confused.
Just remember, what you read, what you interpret is not namely what I intended.

Remember folks, I'm an appreciator of fine stories and all that encompass them, but by no means am I a writer or ever hope to be a reputable one. I try with what I have, and I have my opinions like the rest of you.
So what say you? Agree with some of the points illustrated or disagree? Both? Neither? Tell me if you want.

I appreciate you even reading it!
Haha
It's fine disagreeing with me, and I can totally see why.
For the record, I totally think I didn't explain myself clearly, and as such I actually agree some with what you say.
Maybe I came off too strong XD

I have to agree with Vice, on both points. Very few three dimensional characters can stick to just one single motive or ideal- almost all good characters I've seen change their ideals in accordance to some event- for example, someone working under people he trusts, only to discover that they're just using him and manipulating his ideals, and so he splits off and decides to pursue his own, now-vastly-altered, goals. Most real people have, perhaps, a basic set of ideals that they stick to, but there's a far more substantial amount of belief that changes all the time based on things that we experience.

For the second point, I agree completely. A character or story does not need to be fully fleshed out in any medium- therefore it is not necessarily an immediate/natural reaction to record these ideas. A character can be just as good if it's never been drawn or written about as any other character that has. It's all a matter of whether or not it comes as a natural thing to flesh the character out in a more slated way.

Man, the more I think about realistic motives, the more difficult it is to keep characters the way I intended... I suppose my character would fall more into a pawn-type cliche, if any. The basic idea is that he gets thrown from team to team, and everything he finds out redefines who his enemies and allies really are. But thinking about it now, it seems too... basic. And I want to create a separate cycle for the antagonist, a kind of parallel hero cycle, so that protagonist and antagonist meet back at a common point of interest, but on opposite sides, each affirmed in their own motives. I want to avoid any kind of flashbacks- I want any of their motives to, if at all, evolve simultaneously. Both should be uneasy about the changing circumstances.
The majority of my characters are far from fully established, they're mostly just outlines at this point, but I need to work on their motives. And just like Ini said, I could avoid fleshing them out, but I think it'd feel better if they were, but that the fleshed out parts remained concealed, to maintain the mystery of the character.

I also can't help but feel that I can't just write a character out- I have to sort of let the character create itself. It's kinda hard to explain, but I guess the easiest way to put it is that I'm kind of channeling the ideas, but I'm not even fully sure what the ideas themselves really are.