Post History
It depends on the kind of story you're trying to tell, and the experience you want the reader to have. I think that in your case, since you are creating characters which are meant to be read as a...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-13T12:00:24Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12721 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T03:42:25Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12721 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
It depends on the kind of story you're trying to tell, and the experience you want the reader to have. I think that in your case, since you are creating characters which are meant to be read as archetypes rather than rounded people, you're fine with the Doylist (meta) approach. If you do include metacharacters, then the metacharacters are the ones who are "experiencing" the story, and the reader is watching _their_ story unfold (which is what happens in a non-meta book; the reader comes to the work to watch someone's story happen). Essentially, is your book a movie or a role-playing game? Is your reader passively absorbing your story, or participating in it? If it's an RPG, go for it. I think it sounds fascinating as an experiment. I also think it's going to be an acquired taste (as your friend's objection illustrates).
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2014-08-27T09:53:20Z (about 10 years ago)
Original score: 2