Plot to Punctuation Logo

How settings make or break your characters

You want to know how powerful a well established setting is? It’s so powerful that when badly done, it can break the reader’s belief in the actions of your characters. Ultimately a weakly developed setting can destroy the reader’s suspension of disbelief in the whole novel. But when well done, a setting supports the believability of even the most unusual behaviors of your characters.

This article applies mainly to novels with unusual settings, ones that alter the bedrock truths about life here in the 21st century that we all take for granted. That’s what I mean by an unusual setting. This can happen in any genre, although it is most often a factor in fantasy and science fiction.

And fair warning: this article may seem less about character development than my usual fare. This is only because it’s impossible to untangle characters from the settings that are the foundation on which the character’s whole life rests. Almost nothing has as much influence on how your characters behave as the setting. If that seems like a strong statement, read on.

Settings have rules

Since all of this ultimately relates to suspension of disbelief, let’s take a second to talk about the non-character-related ways to break the reader’s belief in an unusual setting. For purposes of this article, let’s take our setting as something very different from our own day-to-day world: A sci-fi Mars colony, 25 years after the colony has been established, but based on the technology we have today. I’m purposely choosing an extreme setting to show how far authors can—and should—take the business of settings.

Settings have rules, which have to make sense in and of themselves with respect to the reader’s general knowledge, intuition, and common sense. For instance, here’s a rule that is true for Mars: “Mars is an astonishingly dry place.” With today’s technology, colonists certainly won’t have been able to change the Martian climate in only 25 years, so consequently you would be unwise to stick this in your novel:

McCann opened his eyes to a gray, rainy day. “Oh, fabulous,” he muttered as he rubbed the sleep out of his eyes.

“Quit griping,” said his billet-mate Shariz. “At least it’ll wash the dust off the hab.”

You can’t get away with this because you made it rain on mars. You violated the rules readers will assume a reasonable Mars colony setting ought to have to follow. If you stick this scene in your novel, the reader’s going to think “This joker doesn’t know the first thing about Mars!” and will lose faith in you to tell a believable story. Although if I’m to believe what I wrote back in January (and I suppose I should), even this is kind of character-related too.

Settings affect characters

If I had to sum up this whole article in three words, that would be it. Settings affect characters. Seems obvious, right? Well, it is, but that doesn’t stop writers from forgetting it all the time. Or rather, I suspect what happens is that the author forgets what his setting is from time to time. I know that sounds impossible—how could you forget your setting?—but it does happen.

Settings may be quite outlandish, but the characters in them are still just people. They’re still driven by the same fundamental emotions, impulses, and desires as those of us who live right here on Earth in the 21st century. My suspicion is that authors get caught up in the familiarity of ordinary people, and lose sight of how their particular ordinary people—the ones in their books—are supposed to be affected by the setting. As a result, they end up with characters who think and act in ways that are perfectly normal and believable here on Earth, today, but which violate the expectations one would have for characters in a different setting.

When you hear people talk about books or movies where “the setting is like a character in its own right,” this is what they’re trying to put into words: that the setting has indeed affected the actual characters in accordance with whatever rules go along with that setting. Characters thus have a relationship with the setting as much as they do with other characters.

How to get it right

When you elect to use an unusual setting, you’re taking on some extra up-front work compared with normal-world novelists. You have to borrow a page out of Einstein’s book and do a “thought experiment” about life in your setting. You need to spend some time to figure out what all the explicit and implicit rules of your setting are, and from them, deduce what makes sense for how your characters would live, what they would eat, how they would govern themselves, et cetera.

A good place to start is by making a list of how your setting differs from our real life setting. “It’s like here, but gravity is weaker, there’s barely any air or water, all you have is what you brought from Earth, and instead of six billion people on the planet there are only 54, and they all live together.” If you feel it’s necessary, you might make a list of what’s the same, too. If any of your items relate to people, make them about people generally, not about the specific characters you may have in mind for your story. It’s not time to think about the story yet, not before you’ve got the setting firmly fixed in your mind.

Once you’ve got a handle on what’s the same and what’s different, you’re ready to do the thought experiment. Let’s take those Mars colonists as an example, and let’s offer the further twist that our colonists have been completely cut off from Earth; perhaps a super-virus spread on Earth after the colony was established, wiping out Earth civilization, meaning there will be no future supply ships or new colonists.

Consider the mundane

On some level food, water, and shelter are boring, but you can’t skip them. In fact, you should start your thought experiment with these essentials because if these are missing, it totally re-focuses people’s attention on the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy. In the case of Mars, air can’t be taken for granted either. Still, people don’t like spending their days obsessing over how they’re going to meet these basic needs, and as a result, people tend to organize their lives so as to make this as easy as possible.

You need to consider, within the parameters of your setting, how people are going to keep the bottom of the hierarchy satisfied. Our Mars colonists are going to have to grow their own food. They’re going to have to be fanatical about recycling water and, well, let’s just call it “organic matter.” They will have brought some shelter with them, whatever kind of prefab habitats came on the colony ship, but that’s about it.

Even stuff like the reality of clothes and garbage within this setting, entirely mundane to be sure, have enormous impact on your characters. The colonists will have brought clothes with them, and certainly some quantity of replacements, but that’s it. They can’t just make more at the drop of a hat, nor can they pop ‘round to The Gap to pick up some new khakis. So, taking care of one’s clothes becomes much more important than it is here on Earth. Mundane, yes, but it sure raises the stakes when somebody spills coffee on somebody else’s shirt.

Mars colonists probably wouldn’t even have the concept of garbage. If all you have is what you brought with you from Earth, even a ripped up, coffee stained, sweat pitted old shirt is still going to be a resource. Somebody, somewhere, is going to find a use for it. In a Mars colony, nothing gets thrown away.

Consider social norms

These physical realities around the necessities of life, clothes, garbage, and so forth all shape social behaviors. Those realities dictate how the society within which your characters live conceives of what is acceptable, normal, and even right or wrong.

Our Mars colonists, by necessity, will be hard core recyclers. If somebody dies, the funeral will end with putting the person’s body into the compost heap to be spread around in the gardens, or maybe pureed to be put into the colony’s hydroponics system. To you and me this may seem disrespectful of the dead, or even ghoulish, but to them it’s simply a necessity. Besides, it’s not like they have anywhere else to put the body.

The lack of ready access to new clothes, on the one hand, might mean people would be super paranoid about caring for their clothes. Certainly in the initial years after a colony’s establishment, when social norms from Earth are still engrained in people’s minds, that would be true. But on the other hand, the colony’s dome city or whatever is bound to be 100% climate controlled, kept at a balmy late spring temperature with perfect humidity all the time. That being the case, it’s not like the colonists really need to wear clothes. And as the years go by and clothes wear out, well, maybe it would just be easier to go around naked all the time.

But, on the other-other hand, other forces might oppose casual nudity: The fact that the colonists have extremely limited food, water, air, and space means that they can’t just go around having babies willy-nilly (no pun intended). Procreation would, again by necessity, have to be severely governed. China has a “one child per family” policy; Mars colonists might have a “one child per funeral” policy—nobody gets to be pregnant unless someone else dies to make room. Severe restraints on procreation could lead to highly regulated interactions between men and women. They might even start enforcing gender segregation within the colony to limit the interactions between men and women, and thus, the chances for unapproved pregnancies.

Or take it further: if the colonists know there won’t be any more settlers from Earth because of the super-virus, then it becomes critically important for these colonists to preserve their genetic diversity. This means that when the opportunity for somebody to get pregnant does come up, there will probably be an official colony geneticist whose job it is to decide who the parents will be.

Perhaps, in a society where these are the realities of life, the notion of love and marriage, of loving partnership, would become entirely divorced from the notion of parenthood: You wouldn’t get married because you wanted to have a family with someone. You wouldn’t even expect necessarily to have a family with that person. But you would expect that, at some point, you or your spouse might get a visit from the geneticist saying “I need you go to inseminate (or be inseminated by) so-and-so.” And whether you liked so-and-so or hated their guts would have no bearing on the situation.

Setting equals society

It goes on and on. The more different your setting is from real life, the more that setting changes the way society itself operates. For instance, what do you do if somebody commits a crime? If you have a murder within the colony (hardly unexpected, with the same people cooped up in close quarters year after year), what do you do? How do you punish the killer when there’s no prison to send them to, and you can’t execute them since you need everyone working for the colony’s survival.

That’s what setting does. It determines a great, great deal of the way societies are forced to act. Maybe your setting isn’t so extreme, but I guarantee you, whatever it is about your setting that makes it different from the setting in which you live your own life, that difference will shape the society in which your characters live.

I should note, this thought-experiment process for identifying the ramifications of an unusual setting in fantasy and sci-fi is not all that different from what many writers in other genres do. In novels set in historical time periods novels or in contemporary but exotic parts of the world, the realities of those settings shaped their societies just like a sci-fi Mars colony setting shapes its society. The only difference is that writers whose settings really do or did exist on Earth can do research to learn how the setting actually did shape a society, while fantasy and sci-fi writers have to think it through themselves.

That’s the bottom line. Whether you do it by research or by imagination, you must somehow arrive at a clear mental picture of a society grounded in the immutable factors of human psychology and behavior, but which is also perfectly attuned to the realities of its physical setting. It is this society in which your characters live, so you better know how it works.

Where writers fall down

What I’ve seen in client manuscripts (and the occasional published novel) is writers who haven’t done the necessary work to put this clear mental picture into their own heads before they figure out their plot and before they start writing down what their characters are doing and how they’re reacting.

This is why careful character development is so critical. You have to know how all of your characters think and act—this is the controlled multiple-personalities of writers—but never forget that how your characters think and act is equally determined by their personalities as by the society they live in. And as we just saw, society is a function of setting.

Get it right, and your characters’ non-Earthlike behaviors are not only completely believable but also support the reality of the setting itself. Get it wrong, and behaviors that would be totally believable here on Earth become suddenly nonsensical and collapse the reader’s suspension of disbelief in the setting too.

It doesn’t work to let your characters act like you or I would, based on the rules of modern Earth culture, while living in a setting that is dramatically unlike our modern world. It just falls flat. As a reader, it’s impossible to maintain my suspension of disbelief about the story as a whole when the characters don’t act in ways that are congruous with the explicit and implicit rules of their settings.

Pit your characters against the setting’s rules

So if you want to write a sci-fi romance set on Mars, go for it! But make sure everyone’s behavior is in keeping with the behaviors that make sense—that are necessary—given the realities of the setting. It may mean that the plot you had in mind doesn’t actually work. It may be that the plot you intended turns out to be grounded in modern Earth behaviors that wouldn’t make sense on Mars. Chances are, this will initially come as a disappointment to you.

But trust me, it’s actually a good thing, because it means you’re discovering what Donald Maass calls inherent conflict in your premise: maybe your star-crossed lovers can’t hook up because the very non-Earthlike rules around love and romance in that colony don’t allow it. If that’s what you discover, don’t fight it. Work with it! Readers will love watching your characters explore the tension between their emotional drive to be together and the colony’s overall greater good of keeping the population in check.

When they’re well done—when the characterization lives up to the explicit and implicit rules of the setting—stories that pit characters against the settings they live in can be fascinating both for the plots they contain as well as for their ability to explore human behavior in inventive new situations.

June 29, 2010 20:15 UTC

Tags: character, setting, society, inherent conflict, Donald Maass, suspension of disbelief

Permalink Permalink | Tweet this! Tweet this!

9 Comments:

Posted by angela @ The Bookshelf MUse on June 29, 2010 21:17 UTC

Great post on Setting. The setting should always evoke an emotional response from the character and what the writers chooses to describe must reflect that. :)

Angela @ The Bookshelf Muse

Posted by Livia King Blackburne on June 29, 2010 22:01 UTC

Nice article. Have you read Orson Scott Card’s “How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy?” He has some good tips along those lines too. BTW, you should put a retweet or share button on your blog so it’s easier for people to link to your article.

Posted by Jason Black on June 29, 2010 22:32 UTC

@Livia: Actually, I haven’t read Card’s book. I’ve heard more than one person say good things about it but alas, there are so many excellent writing craft books out there, and only so many hours in the day.

@Angela: Yes, characters should react emotionally to their settings, I just don’t want people to get the impression that this goes no further than putting a character on top of a mountain and having them weep at the beauty of the vista spread before them, or whatever you might have. What I want is for writers to see that setting affects characters on a much, much deeper level than this.

You know that old saw about how there’s basically four categories of information:

  1. What you know you know (knowledge you’re aware of having: I know that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius)

  2. What you know you don’t know (knowledge you’re aware of lacking: I have no idea at what temperature water spontaneously decomposes back into hydrogen and oxygen)

  3. What you don’t know that you don’t know (knowledge you don’t have, and that further, you aren’t even aware is something you could know. This is stuff that doesn’t have a place in your conception of the world: a stone-age hunter gatherer wouldn’t know that he doesn’t know that there is a temperature at which water breaks down into basic elements)

  4. What you don’t know that you know (knowledge you possess, but are largely unaware of having. This is “things we take for granted.")

It is this last category that this article most relates to. I want writers to understand that they themselves have a whole body of knowledge about how people act that they’re largely unaware of: the full set of social norms, rules of conduct, guidelines for normal and acceptable behavior that derive from the realities of this world that we all live in.

It’s important especially for writers to bring this knowledge out of category 4 and into category 1, because if you aren’t even aware that setting is a thing that governs how society works, you won’t have the mental framework to understand that you should change how the societies in your novels work when you make fundamental changes to the setting.

If you’re not aware that setting is society, you’re much more likely to interpret the particular ways people in the real world behave for fundamental behaviors of human beings, when in reality those particular behaviors are simply the result of our real world setting.

Posted by dirtywhitecandy on July 01, 2010 22:51 UTC

Excellent post, with thorough examples. I know exactly what you mean - I also see novels where the writer hasn’t thought deeply enough about what the setting will do to the characters. It’s as important a part of the conceptualising process as the individual characters’ anxieties and desires.

Posted by e.lee on July 02, 2010 18:17 UTC

I like the first part of this post, which could also be called How To Do An Infodump well

Posted by Jason Black on July 02, 2010 18:35 UTC

@dirtywhitecandy, @e.lee — Glad you enjoyed it! Although I have to admit, e.lee, I’m not quite sure I see what you’re saying about infodumps.

I’m personally kind of fanatical about stomping infodumps into oblivion. My view is that the peculiarities of the setting—those differences between the setting and real life that you want to make sure the reader understands—should be so deeply baked into every character’s actions and dialogue that as the book progresses readers can figure out what those differences are.

It’s always tough, though. As writers, we spend all this time creating a mental image for ourselves of what the setting and its resulting society are like, that we just want to dump it all on the reader. We want to tell the reader “Here, get the following mental picture into your head. Got it? Cool. Now we can really start the story.”

The temptation to directly share our mental image through infodump can indeed be very strong, but it must be resisted. Our job as writers is to allow the reader to build their own mental picture through what we show in the text, rather than forcing our own mental image upon them.

Posted by Jessica Meats on July 19, 2010 08:01 UTC

You should defeinitely read Card’s book. It’s probably the best book on writing I’ve read, certainly the best that focuses on speculative fiction.

Another book I’ve found valuable is World Building by Stephen Gillett. It’s a book of physics for writers. It’s aimed at people who are creating science fiction settings so that they can get the basic facts of their planets/space stations/ships right.

All this doesn’t just apply to sci-fi. I think it was Terry Pratchett who said that when building a fantasy city, the first thing you need to think about is where they get their water from.

Posted by Jason Black on July 20, 2010 03:47 UTC

@Jessica Meats:

I’m a big fan of “hard” sci-fi which treats physics with the respect it demands. Maybe because that was my best subject in high school, I dunno. :) Regardless, it’s certainly more challenging to write a good story with difficult-yet-solveable problems for the protagonists when you can’t just hand-wave it all away with advanced technology and willful ignorance of the laws of physics. Perhaps that’s why my favorite sci-fi was always the stuff that actually could exist—Niven, Pournelle, Asimov’s robot stories, and the like.

As for Terry Pratchett: Wise, wise man. Except perhaps he could have generalized it to sci-fi by making it “first figure out where they get their air from.” :)

Posted by Susan Kaye Quinn on October 08, 2010 17:32 UTC

Another fantastic post! Setting is so crucial and fully exploring it is truly a lot of up-front work.

Post a comment:

(will not be shown)

(optional)