Q&A (and brownies) with J.J. Murray discussion

About one-quarter of the people in my books are based on people I know ... and I have a waiting list of people I know who want to be be in my books. I've met a few more this week. A sample conversation:

Me: You want to be in my book? What if I portray you as a whiny loser?

Person on Waiting List (PWL): You think I'm a whiny loser?

Me: No. I'm just saying that I might make your character into a--

PWL: Is that what you think of me?

Me: Well, no, of course not, but you have to give me some kind of poetic license. I am, after all, the author and--

PWL: I can't believe you think I'm whiny.

Me: I didn't say you were whiny. I said, "What if I made you into a--

PWL: I don't want to be in your book.

At least I shortened the waiting list by one.

We all run into wonderful characters every day, and it's hard not to be affected by them--or to feel the need to use them as secondary or tertiary characters. I have had no less than ten people tell me: "You should write my life story."

My questions:

1) Do you use them whether they want to be used or not?

2) Do you ever tell them, "I based this character on you," or do you never tell them?

3) Do you portray them in the best possible light so they'll still talk to you?

4) Do you embellish on their good (or bad) character traits--or do you present them "as-is," warts and all?

One reason I'm curious: Amy and I have been together since 1989, married for going on 17 years. She is so much a part of me that she gets into every one of my novels in the mind, voice, mannerisms, and physical appearance (somewhat) of each of my heroines. This does not mean, however, that she is that character, yet women look at her devilishly with eyebrows high--"So you're the freaky-deaky woman in that book."

Most times she says, "I don't know who that woman is." Once she told an old biddy: "Yes, I am that woman."

The old biddy nearly had a heart attack.

My answer:

Yes. Write them. People you know or meet can serve as some of the best inspiration...why waste that?

I am working on something I have to finish first, but I just wrote out the outline for a story I want to work on next. In it, I ended up using a combination of people I know for the heroine. Ex: Mom's mannerisms and favorite sayings, cousin's age, other cousin's marriage situation, best friend's career, brother's college background, and my father's nationality and family background all made up one character--along with a few things I just threw in there for fun. I didn't do it on purpose, but it's done and I like it. That character is camaflouging the fact that I am essentially writing about a sequence of events that happened to me...

1)Use them anyway. They may say not to, but then will get upset if it sells and you didn't.

2)I wouldn't necessarily tell them, let them figure it out, but I wouldn't lie if they asked.

3)Portray them truthfully...of course take caution with physical descriptions. I am learning fast that people care more about how you describe their looks than how you describe their personalities

4)Describe them as is, but only as much as necessary...don't want folks feeling 'shamed.

I have also learned recently that when you write, the people you know who read the work will spend a lot of time "hunting" for themselves in the work...so you might as well let the work speak for itself.

Personally I am not a writer of people I know, however I like to fictionalize situations.
For those who can write a real person into their stories go for it by all means; the only way a person will know it is them is if you tell them. Truth is, we don't analyze ourselves well. So if the person is whiny, they will never see themselves in the book. We don't look for our bad qualities only the good.

I like to compare it to everyone that goes to a "medium" to find out their past lives; they are always rich, powerful and royalty.

It's more of a subconscious thing if I write someone I know into a story. It might be a trait of a person, or the emotional canvas of someone. That's as close as I come.

I just remembered that several years ago, our writing professor told a student that he was lazy because his main character was based on his sister. Does anyone else believe that using real life people in one's story is "lazy writing?"

It can go either way for me. Sometimes, I don't even realize I'm drawing on real life people until I read it back. Sometimes, it is a conscious decision. Of course I make up characters that are not based on anyone I know. However, the people I do know are such a part of me...and can be so larger than life, that they emerge within my characters, even if that isn't the original plan. The women in my family,and some friends, for example, are so hilarious, unique, strong, set in their ways...that I want to portray them somehow in stories--for better or for worse.

I don't think it's lazy writing. I just don't feel right about including cyphers of people in my stories. I'd rather take the emotions and the situations that are common and real, and incorporate those into a fictional story, using characters that are completely fictional in most other ways.

I don't believe it is lazy either. As writers we do leave something of ourselves and others in our work. I stated this before, I don't like basing characters on people I know. I probably do use traits of people though.

So how do your characters often develop?

I write out a character profile and I also do character interviews. It also depends on the type of story I am I writing. If I am writing about a couple, I explore how they met, if they have kids etc. etc.

If I am writing a story about two individuals meeting and solving a problem; I try to figure out why they are that way. I read somewhere that perfect people are boring and I agree, there always has to be a conflict, with the person or their environment.

I hope this makes sense.

And yet, Jo, many readers of so-called "sweet" romance want the perfect man for the perfect woman without all the baggage and truth of real relationships. "I just want to escape," a reader once wrote to me. "I don't want to read about someone I might actually meet. That would be boring."

Ya just can't win sometimes, ya know?

I usually get a flash of a story idea and a character, and what their fundamental struggle is. And I go from there. Personally, I tend to agree with Jo about perfection being boring. I try to give my characters a flaw. But I am no good at writing loud, obnoxious heroines. I can't stand them, so I usually can't bring myself to write one.

That is true, readers are fickle creatures.
I will also say in a "sweet romance" there is still imperfection b/c the hero or heroine don't have someone to love.
You know what they write at the back of the romance books Ms.X had everything (dream job, killer body,long hair and nice parents) except a man to hold her at night.Mr.X won't trust anyone until Ms.X dropped into his life rolled up in a carpet.

Okay they don't say that exactly but you know where I am heading.

As a reader, I think I am a glutton. I want it all. I want to escape, it doesn't have to be real it has to be believable.

I like escapist reading. That's pretty much all I read, but there needs to be some real life to make it palatable.

And what is real life? What's true for you in your world is often false in other folks' worlds. I mean, reality TV is about as false as anything the Republicans say ...

:)

I guess I like both types personally. "Escapist" reading is good as long as the characters are not too perfect. I need to see something that makes them human. I don't like to see the characters with the smoothest-of-the-smooth dialogue, perfect job, body, seduction skills, wardrobe, etc. I think it can still be a good romance if the characters make a slight mistake once in a while, as long as the conflict is resolved and there is a happy ending.


On the other hand, in my opinion, the "sweet" romance is the "real" romance. I like when the not-so-perfect characters go through things and still make it out alright in the end. I want to connect with those characters in some way. When the imperfect characters go through something and fight for their relationship, I find that the romance is "sweeter" because they have the victory.

I can escape into either type because either way, it's not my own life.

Real life to me is characters who struggle with things, whether it's inside or outside. They aren't flawless, and they make mistakes. So I basically need to see the flaws in them. Too much perfection is a turn-off for me, generally. Especially physical and personality-wise. I think Vacirca said it well for me.

Real life is my life and everything else is fiction. Yes I know that sound very coceited but I thought even when some one tells you about something and it is the truth. It is still skewed b/c it is another person's experience.

For me the definition of "sweet romance" is the connection between the characters and myself the reader. The flawed and the perfect (did I mention before that perfection is also a flaw); I feel their feelings and experience everything else in the story.

I also feel everyone's definition is valid. Because we are intelligent and diverse.

I agree with Jo. Whether the romance is "sweet" or "real," I also need to connect to the characters. If it is a good novel, I will feel their feelings and experience what the characters experience right along with them. I just finished a romance that was definitely real because the characters went through some mess...I cried so many times reading that book then laughed when I supposed to laugh. I didn't need or want the characters to be too perfect. They do triumph in the end but I appreciated the raw, conflicted, imperfect qualities of both the characters and the messy way they handled the events they experienced. It felt great to see those two messy characters fight and win.

As I read my previous post, I guess I am being redundant. Oops.