@NekoMizuHow goes? Got cheese?
@shylarahI want to give myself more time to answer you on the 'literary fiction' discussion, since I'm way too dizzy and sore to properly elaborate on what I'm thinking of with that yet, but I figured I'd at least get the other stuff out of the way.
Hm, in writing, sometimes hiding details can add more to the story. If a character is angry, and there's no obvious reason, then this adds tension to the scene, instead of coming out and saying how this and that happened to them in the past and it affects the way they see things. That part will come out later, when the issue is resolved, or at least discussed. It's possible to create tension by giving that information and showing the reaction, but which way I personally would go with generally depends on which character is the dominant perspective. If the perspective character is aware, then I'd include it. If they're baffled, then I won't.
This is why I've already made a point a few times that I'll always explain everything in my work
eventually, but it might not be given
immediately. I'll use plenty of foreshadowing and misdirection, but - when all is said and done - the truth and details will be revealed eventually. From my perspective, failing to eventually get back to give those details is half-arsing things and leaving the story incomplete, unless the purpose is to leave things open to interpretation (which requires the story deliberately miss details and be incomplete) -- I personally despise doing this though for the most part, at least once the story is 100% finished.
As for the concept of the 'dominant perspective', I technically have two. The main character I've mentioned a few times now is one of them, and they're very enigmatic in some senses and know far more about the setting and lore than a lot of the other characters -- they don't reveal everything immediately for a variety of complicated reasons. The other focus point character is one of
@Ailyn Evensen's characters, and she's a more down to earth or 'relatable' character. While the former character is the actual 'hero' of the story, the latter is the audience's eyes to an extent. Several other characters take the main perspective at times too.
Hamilton is the Broadway musical about Alexander Hamilton and Revolutionary era America. It's got some pretty awesome songs, and the language is clever. Check it out if you have a chance.
If I remember, I will -- my tab of things to remember doing keeps growing exponentially.
Characters don't exist in a vacuum. To understand why they interact with the world nd even other chars as they do, you need to know about the world. In fact, the world is essentially a very complicated character, at least to my mind. Possibly even more important.
I agree with everything here except the notion that the world could be more important than the characters -- from my perspective, the quality of a story is almost always dependant on how well done the characterization is and the interactions between the characters and between them and their setting. With that said, having a well-thought-out world definitely enriches how those characters are portrayed since it gives you more ways to characterize them. I definitely think having a good set of concepts and lore is important, but not as much as having fleshed out characters.
On the other hand, your comment about the world being a very complicated character amused me... for reasons that are a bit difficult to say without spoiling some things. I suppose I'll leave it at saying I have a very
literal example of what you just said in my work.
