Writing Essentials: Characters Part Four: Protagonists Part 2

So I came up with a second part.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on writing. I am not a published author, don't have any sort of English or writing degree, have never taught English or writing and, in fact, do something entirely different for a living. I am simply stating my opinion and caution any reader to assume that every statement described as if it were incontrovertible be assumed to include an "in my opinion" on it. This series is my own opinion as an aspiring writer to describe things I work to do in my own writing and what I look for when I read.

Aside from what a main character should be, there are certain things a main character needs to do during the course of story or book.

In my opinion, one of them is grow. Of all the things that leave me cold at the end of a book, few beat a stagnant main character (and this is why perfect characters rarely work - where they gonna grow?). They have to learn something, challenge themselves, find out things about themselves, their world, the people around them or, even better, all the above. Why?

Because a book or story should be a journey, not just for the reader, but for the characters involved. If not, why bother? That also argues that the main character should be actively involved, not sitting to the side while everyone else does the good stuff.

Characters should also reveal something of themselves. As characters are, as the are for me, the entree into the story, it's important to provide enough insight into them that the audience can get involved, can at least empathize with the decisions and choices the character makes. If this fails to catch a reader, the reader often becomes more and more frustrated and isolated from the character and, by extension, the story, if they ever get involved at all.

Characters need to be consistent to themselves (which may mean being completely unpredictable it that's their character). They need to interact with other characters in believable ways.

But, there are many limitations main characters don't have: gender, race, species, appearance, age, height, religion/belief system, etc. In other words, you can hitch a ride on anyone or anything as long as you have something for the readers to latch on to so they can enjoy the ride.

You don't have to tell the reader everything about your characters, but you should know about your characters, understand them, know their motivations for what they do. If you don't, it will be almost impossible for it not to be muddy for the reader.

In my opinion.

Read more...

Writing Essentials: Characters Part Four: Protagonists

For those of you space junkies freaking over the latest budget proposal by Obama, calm down. It'll all work out. If you want, I'll tell you why I think so when I'm finished talking up characters.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on writing. I am not a published author, don't have any sort of English or writing degree, have never taught English or writing and, in fact, do something entirely different for a living. I am simply stating my opinion and caution any reader to assume that every statement described as if it were incontrovertible be assumed to include an "in my opinion" on it. This series is my own opinion as an aspiring writer to describe things I work to do in my own writing and what I look for when I read.

Having talked "bad guys" nearly to death, it's time to move on to other characters. Now, to my way of thinking, there are three primary kinds of remaining characters.

Protagonists - those characters (often described as "good guys") who are at the center of the story, often providing point of view and/or a sypathetic aspect to entice the reader into caring what happens. I mean, if you don't like the main characters, why would you care what happens to them? There can be one or two protagonists or there can be host of them (as in an ensemble piece). They don't have to be "good," noble, understanding, pleasant, polite, etc - they can even be a villain per se, but, if they are too ignoble, they can alienate the audience. Most protagonists, even the "anti-heroes" have some measure of redeeming qualities. The best ones, in my opinion, have a bit of the not-to-good aspects as well, but we'll go into that later in this same post.

There are also the secondary characters, or side characters. Some might support the bad guy; some might support the main characters. It is challenging to write a book about only one or two characters and not have any secondary characters and have it still appeal. Can be done. Has been done, but, unless we're stranded on a desert island, it can come off as contrived feeling. Side characters are wonderful. They flesh out the world, can add humor, provide opportunities to make the protagonists seem more human, can add depth, can provide an expository opportunity and did I mention adding humor. I love side characters.

Then there are the bit players, the tertiary characters. Often available in only a scene or two or such a side dish for another character they have none of their own, they are rarely deep or meaningful. The secretary who lets your protagonist into the villain's office might be one. Or the person who brought the mail. However, the way they act and behave, the little bits of description or reaction to what the bigger playing actors do can really add life to a scene, can set the stage as it were. I doubt I'll write a whole post on these kinds of characters, though. I'll probably just include a quick paragraph in the secondary characters' post(s).

Today, though, I'm going to focus on main characters. Now, as a character-focused writer type, I've talked about characters and character types I liked, main and on the pro side of secondary: stupid but pure, cool and cutting, happy-go-lucky, stoic, diamond-in-the-rough, hard-ass, deceptively sweet, and flamboyant and kind. Reading through them (if you did or you want to), you'll see certain things in common.

Now, I can't tell you what you have to do with your protagonists, but I'll tell you what I do and what I look for.

First of all, for me, the characters are the key to the story. When I was a kid, I'd read anything. Now that I'm old and have many demands on my time, I'm less likely to sit through a book that doesn't interest me, doesn't grab me, doesn't make me want finish it. Number one way to get me interested? Give me a character I want to know more about, one I identify with, one I like. Once I like someone, really like someone, I'll put up with crappy plots and weak settings, I'll walk through fire with them. Not everyone is so patient, but the popularity of some of the most hackneyed plots in history (romance, for instance) argues good characters can do much to make a book appealing, even if there's nothing else going for it.

By that same token, weak or unappealing characters can turn someone off a very clever premise, a brilliant plot, a vivid venue. The challenge, of course, is that not everyone looks for the same things in a character. People, I think, tend to want to see something that reminds them of something in themselves without duplicating them.

When I'm reading/writing, this is what I look for/strive for:

1. Not truly stupid. In other words, capable of logic (even if it's a bit off kilter), creative or otherwise savvy. Not necessarily book smart but quite effective in his or her own way. I personally have soft spot for people who appear not-quite-so-bright only to be far more clever than one first suspected when you get to know them. Those that are overtly and even obnoxiously bright work for me, too. People, however, who are genuinely stupid or require someone to tell them what to do, who are unable to break away from traditional thinking generally don't appeal to me personally.

2. Not deliberately unkind. I live by the golden rule and, even if one of the characters is callous or thoughtless, he can't be sadistic or needlessly vicious. If he is, I'm not going to like him. I'm not talking about being sarcastic or grumpy. I'm talking about bullying or treating people harshly just because one can.

3. Not amoral. Flexible morals I can deal with. Nontraditional morals work just fine with me. Even traditional morals. But she has to live by them, whatever they are.

4. Minimal moralizing/judging. There is a huge difference between having morals one actually lives by and moralizing. Characters who don't know this difference don't impress me. Nor do the characters who don't know the difference between evaluating people by who they are rather than what they are. It's amazing how often the two traits (which would seem to be unrelated) go together. Ironically, it's even more amazing how often moralizing and having morals one lives by are mutually exclusive.

OK, these are more things I don't want to see in my characters, but there are things I like, too.

5. Critical thinking. Everyone has situations where he reacts irrationally, but it needs to be the exception and not the rule. The character must be able to think on his own, make his own mind up, weigh information on his own or it's unlikely I'll have much respect for him.

6. Sense of humor. Admittedly, this isn't a have to have, but it's much easier to like a character who can laugh, particularly at herself. I love this in side characters, too. Books with characters that make me laugh, I read over and over and over again.

7. Imperfect. People without flaw, dark sides, neuroses, issues or bad habits are irritating to be around. Why bother to read a book about them. Those quirks and failings not only make the characters more real, it makes them far less frustrating to read. If you can identify with "perfection," you don't sound like anyone I know.

8. Capability. No one can do everything, but everyone can accomplish something. If I run into a character who seems immune to that notion, who doesn't do whatever it is he can, it is unlikely to appeal to me. Passivity doesn't interest me.

9. Honor or selflessness (to at least a degree). Books about characters who are focused only on their own needs, own wants, own goals and to hell with everyone else - not what I'm looking for in a protagonist (unless they outgrow it). I can live with it in a side character, but I won't walk through fire with someone unless she can see beyond herself and cares about others in the world around her.

10. Interesting. If I want to be bored, I have plenty of fodder for that at work. I want something interesting to happen. I'm OK with interesting events making an otherwise boring person come into his own, but it helps if they're good company even before that.

Well, that ought to do, I think. If I think of more, I'll add it tomorrow. Right now, I'm going to bed. It's been a frightening night.

Read more...

Characters I Don't Like

I’ve spent a great deal of time telling you all about the characters I love. But, what kind of characters do I hate? What kind of protagonists (because, of course, one shouldn’t be too sympathetic for the antagonists) don’t appeal to me?

Before I go into the characters I hate, let me point out that many “characters” I read or see on screen don’t work for me not because I really like them or not but because they don’t make sense. Often they are contradictory, which exist in reality, but becomes irksome if the author has gone to the trouble to describe/establish a characteristic that senselessly is negated elsewhere. It’s hard to swallow that someone is empathetic or kind when they perform acts of random cruelty for no apparent reason. It’s hard to accept that someone is desperately intelligent if they never do anything wise, logical or even thoughtful. Just as bad are the characters, often described as having certain characteristics, but limp and lifeless in word and deed.

Building a good character is more than knowing what you want the character to be, it’s building dialog that fits that character, even reveals that character (which is much better than the “narrator” telling the reader what to think, it’s making their actions simpatico with that character, even if it might not immediately make sense. I tell my husband, and sometimes he tell me, the reader might not know why my character did X, but I sure as heck should and it better makes sense with regards to that character.

However, one can draw a character masterfully and still have it be a character I despise. Some, of course, are obvious. Some, like rapists, you’d think would be obviously not protagonist material and yet they frequently are. Here are some examples:

Rapists: If you’ve read my blog before, this should be no surprise. Although I can think of any number of good reasons to kill someone, I have never heard an argument to justify rape that I’ve bought. Ever. I don’t care if she really loves you but was scared and needed force to be pushed over, if you were driven mad with desire and/or Hyde potion, whatever. A protagonist that rapes someone else is not a protagonist and I will (and have) shut the book. Unlike almost everything else on this list, once is enough, is irredeemable to me.

True Sadists: Good people can do bad things. They can deliberately cause pain because of immeasurable stress (torture their daughter’s rapist, for instance), maim, kill, whatever, if they are pushed too far. I can have characters do things I think are wrong and still forgive them (with some limits). However, people who take pleasure in hurting others, who go out of their way to cause death and destruction, they aren't people I’m going to enjoy spending time with.

Senseless Killers: As I said, there are many types of people who might kill that I can respect, like soldiers or police or even the right kind of vigilante. I can forgive a gentle soul who killed at the end of his or her rope. It does make a difference who you kill and why. But, if a character does it without cause (or a cause I can buy), for fun, or for his own convenience, thoughtlessly, again this isn't a character I'm going to enjoy. I'm pretty tolerant of violence (in fiction), but senseless violence doesn't do anything for me.

Damsel in Distress: Surely we’ve grown up enough that the old time Faye Wray character who’s main line is “Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!” and won’t lift a finger to save herself should sit wrong with us. Admittedly, many people, in a crisis, sit still and wait to be rescued, but why would I have the slightest interest in knowing them better? Since she has no role but to shriek artistically on the train tracks or facing the old saw blade while waiting for her hero to show up (and to bat her eyelashes when she does), she is of zero interest to me. It should be noticed, however, that one needn’t beat up the kidnapper or bad guy to get my interest. Organizing, calming hostages, for instances, is something useful, or providing first aid in a siege situation – both of those work for me. Anything that says, “I’m not just giving up.” Kicking the kidnapper (or other villain’s) butt, however, can work for me, too.

The Doormat: Characters that are repeatedly stepped on who put up with it (for no apparent reason) – there is a difference between someone being used as a puppet because his daughter has been kidnapped and someone who lets her boyfriend slap her around every night, but bails him out when the cops pull him over for DUI. I know people exist who have no interest in saving themselves, but they are not the kind of protagonists I care to follow.

The Sheep: Quiet, perhaps unhappy or dissatisfied person who goes along with an ugly situation because they feel helpless to protest. A character isn’t automatically Joseph Mengele just because he pretends Auschwitz isn’t just over the hill, but he’s unlikely to be a character I want to know more about. Whether this character is dragged along by mob mentality, refuses to do the right thing out of fear, or let’s apathy rule his actions, I find these characters distasteful and am unlikely to follow them.

The Truly Selfish: Everyone has some selfishness in them and it’s perfectly reasonable to have that be part of a character. However, if a character is never able to look past their own (and only their own) interests, they will not engage mine. Unrelenting self-interest, whether it translates to not putting himself out to save others or active self-promotion, is not appealing for me. Rampant greed or avarice with no regard (ever) for anyone else gets old quick and the only way this character can work for me is that they learn it (soon enough I don’t give up on them).

Motivated by Hate: You may think this is just a way to say some of the early characters, but it's more than that. Whether one's hate leads to violence or whether it just dominates every aspect of a person's life, it's not appealing for me. I don't see how one can steep oneself in hatred all the time without becoming a monster, letting it leech away your life and your happiness. I know terrible things can happen and know people are entitled to hatred when they've been misused. I'm sympathetic when a character has what matters most destroyed and gets all interested in vengeance - to a point. Past that point, they've lost all their love stood for. There is beauty out there. Find it.

Bigot: In this case, I define bigot by this. If someone is more worried about "what" you are than "who" you are, she's a bigot. I don't like them and prefer not to have one as my protagonist. I can forgive a character who started out that way but grew, but it's best if it's a side character.

Down-to-the-core Stupid People: I have to deal with stupidity every day just like everyone else. I can't speak for anyone else, but my life's too busy to waste it reading or watching stupid people. Seriously.

I could go on, but I bet you get the picture. What do you know, Lord Byron *fits* here.

Read more...

My Favorite Characters 7: Deceptively Sweet

Just because I enjoy a hard-talking, say-it-like-it-is female character, does not mean I’m blind to the merits of the perennial apparently-shy-and-sweet but tougher than you think on the inside character. Just as many of my favorite character types are traditionally male (but not all, thank goodness!), this has been the quintessential role for strong female characters back when literature just didn’t have strong female characters, when strong characters (like the volatile Catherine Earnshaw and the sarcastic Elizabeth Bennett) were still the very much the exception.

Being shy or quiet or sweet-natured does not preclude strength by any means and it’s perfectly reasonable to have characters who look like they’re delicate but have an iron core. Now, some people think the damsel in distress might fit this mold. Um, no. This character might come across as a damsel under normal circumstances or be in distress at some point, but, when in trouble, this character shows her true character, whether it’s braving the fire to rescue orphans, or shouldering her husband’s dead musket when they’re under attack or simply refusing to be broken when faced with hardships no one could survive.

These characters are sharp, sometimes manipulative, and often supremely stubborn. They are frequently soft-spoken or quiet, but woe be the character who confuses that gentleness for weakness. They tend to show their strength only when necessary and go happily through the rest of their lives being underestimated. Arguing with such characters is usually a lost cause. By not engaging, they often succeed in getting what they want without the other understanding how it happened.

And, here’s a trick, they’re not always female. Some of my all time favorite renditions of this character are male who seem to be working selflessly for others with the greatest good will, more than willing to go with the flow, only, when all is said and done, to have quietly and imperceptible herded everyone into doing what he wanted. I have one of these in my very first (badly in need of a rewrite) novel and he’s still a favorite.

Quigley, from Quigley Down Under, was one of these.

Update: I can't believe I failed to mention one of my favorite all-time favorite incarnations of this character: Tohru Honda from Fruits Basket.

Read more...

My Favorite Characters Part 6: Hard Ass

I am a straightforward person. I don't brood or bitch behind people's backs. If I have a problem, I'll tell you straight out. I don't try to hurt anyone's feelings, but better that than lying to them.

Given that, it should be no surprise that one of my favorite characters is the "hard ass". Now, there are a lot of similarities between the hard ass and the diamond in the rough and some might not be able to tell them apart. But, whereas the diamond in the rough is general a sweetheart who talks tough, often because he never learned any better, the hard ass is pretty much just what you see. Sometimes old, sometimes young, no pulling punches or pussyfooting around the truth. They are often an expert in something and don't suffer fools worth a damn.

They tend to not to be terribly sensitive, not because they haven't known pain or trauma, but because they've chosen not to be owned by it. People hate 'em or love 'em. They are the consummate professionals, no ambition, just want to do a good job and, as long as you're not obstructing them (and can stand to hear the truth), you'll get along fine. If you have something to hide, are incompetent or oversensitive, you won't get along at all.

Traditionally, these have, again, been male characters, but I have to admit, I have a soft for females in this mold because it's a damn fine description of me. So, many of the most abrasive females out there are favorites of mine and, yes, I've written quite a few, including the title character in Curse of the Jenri. V.I Warshawski, Eve Dallas...yep, they're favorites.

Read more...

My Favorite Characters Part 5: Diamond in the Rough

Another oldie but goodie, who doesn't love the character who talks tough, acts rough, but is true blue inside? Gruff, apparently unfriendly, often physical and prone to violence, they tend to be uneducated, raised on some sort of street, or are the product of a traumatic upbringing. And yet, with patience, other characters (and the reader/watcher as well) get to learn that they are good people, true people inside. The examples abound on this one from Han Solo to Wolverine and, of course, it's not limited to men, though male versions of this character are more prevalent - but Eve Dallas is one of many female incarnations. There are the crusty scary old people who turned out to be sweet and the dork you let tag along because you had not choice who turned out to be a hero. I have a few of these myself.

It occurs to me that many of my favorite characters, when I describe them come across as charicatures. But I don't think that's why I like them. I think one reason I like them in my fiction and like to write them is because they are rarely a pure form of any character, but a mixture of different aspects of these different characters to make a unique whole.

The other reason why I think these (and other characters) work is because they really exist in real life. Who doesn't know someone who, at first meeting, seemed one way and then turned out to be someone you treasured in hindsight. I think this is why so many of these characters just never fall out of style because you "meet" them in fiction and they bring back memories of people you knew or people you always dreamed you'd meet.

I love a good character. Makes me want to write some more. And I'm not even done with my list of favorites.

Read more...

My Favorite Characters Part 4: Stoic Type

Oh, you thought I was done? No such luck. Turns out I have MANY favorite characters. Now, although many of incarnations of MFC 1-3 tend to be "heroes" or male characters, the stoic type can be either gender. I can think of half a dozen favorite novel characters like this (such as Val Con Yos'Phelium and Jela--as well as Jela's tree--from the Liaden series - although it was applicable to many of the Liaden characters), heroines and heroes from Georgette Heyer novels, my heroine (Layla) from Curse of the Jenri, and my hero, Xander from Beast Within. Even Horton hatching his egg fits. Actually, you can make an argument that Edward from the Twilight series is more a stoic than a cool and cutting. In the movies, they're everywhere. Van Helsing, McConnell from the Mummy series, Spok...I literally could be here forever.

Clearly, I'm not alone in finding this kind of quiet, patient individual appealing. Being quiet isn't enough, though, for him/her to be a favorite. They must be smart enough and knowledgeable enough to understand the trials they choose to face or their stoicism doesn't have the same cache. Often a side character (though I've noted many who aren't), they are often the right hand man/woman to a charismatic or volatile main character. Sometimes straight men, sometimes the characters that take the "dreams" of the main character and make them reality (as it were in fiction), they are completely dependable and 100% trustworthy.

In many ways, they are like the MFC#1 (stupid but pure) only minus the potential for stupid. Whereas you may not be sure if MFC#1 really knows what they're getting into, with the stoic, you know they understand the risks, the implecations, the challenges and even the pain and choose to do so anyway.

They are devoted, selfless, not overtly passionate but quietly and implacably so nonetheless. Ironically, they are also usually very logical, organized, and practical, often, again, in contrast with those around them. They are not swayed by dogma or beliefs as a general rule, but either led by people they admire absolutely or stoic because they are intactable when it comes to "what's right."

Do I love 'em? You bet. I'm not sure but I think everyone does.

Read more...

My Favorite Characters Part 3: Happy-Go-Lucky

Oh, I like this character. I have several of them in my own work and I almost have more fun with this kind of character than any other.

This kind of character appears to be a care for nobody, often handling every situation with a joke. They frequently manage to keep their equilibrium no matter what nasty situation they face. They're flip and cocky, usually talented and well aware of their skills, but they lack ambition. They don't want to be rich or have power. They just want to do what they do best without a care in the world.

Of course, life isn't like that and they usually end up caring about people and getting responsibilities they didn't bargain for, but they handle it like all the other trials that come their way. Hawkeye Pierce from M*A*S*H is an example of this sort of person, with perhaps an emphasis on the caring, but there are others.

I not only love reading about characters like this--they almost always make the story more entertaining if not hilarious. My hero in my first finished novel is like that and I have one of these characters as a side or a lead in nearly every long novel I write. Here's a bit of Tander:

Layla stared at the still twitching corpse with suddenly terrified eyes. Without a word, she turned to the approaching Jenri, relaying an order in a hissing whisper. Tander couldn’t hear her words, but he heard unhappy mutterings. “Now!” she hissed. “Send them!”

“Send who?” Tander asked.

“You and the other men must return. Whoever we hunt can kill the husbands, instantly. I knew but I didn’t appreciate until now how powerless we are to protect you. You must go.”

Tander glanced behind him as if to see whom she was addressing. “To whom are you speaking?”

“Tander, this is not funny.”

“You’re damned right, it’s not.”

“You have to go. For your own protection.”

Tander raised an eyebrow at this wife, his jaw jutting stubbornly. “Be damned if I do. I’m staying.”

“You can’t!”

“Just who do you think you’re talking to? I’m not a water boy, no squire to be sent from harm’s way. I’m Tander, damn it, a warrior, and I don’t make a habit of running out on my wife when danger comes calling.”

“This is not the time for pride.”

“By Bastor’s black heart, it’s precisely the time for pride.”

“Tander, please!”

“No.”

“Tander, do not argue with me on this. I could not bear to see you as I see Carent.”

“I am no familiar to take orders either, Layla. I promised Glendana that I would watch your back. I cannot see it from the camp.”

“This is no time for amusement. You could be killed!”

And familiars do not take orders, one of Tander’s stowaways reminded gently.

“I am not amused. I will not go back to watch and worry. If you move forward, I go with you.”

“Other men return. You must join them.”

Tander glanced at the other clustered Jenri. Of the forty odd men who’d come, fourteen other men stood undaunted with woodenly stubborn expressions on their faces. Tander nodded to them. “Perhaps their wives are not carrying their seed. You will not go forward without me.”

Layla’s eyes reflected her fear but they couldn’t hide her pride. She turned and moved into the tiny clearing, her glistening sword held high in one hand, a throwing dagger in the other. Tander, his sword also ready, followed easily. Behind them, nearly eighty Jenri and mates lost themselves in the trees. An ambush can be reversed.

Read more...

So, What Kind of Protagonists Do I Write?

I told you all I liked imperfect characters (and noted that I'm not alone feeling that way), so it seems reasonable to ask me to put my money where my mouth is and find out what I do when I'm writing my characters.

Ah. Well, when it comes to protagonists (not the bad guys) there are two different types. There are the main characters, and there are often a small group of them. Depending on the scope of the project, some might not be equally prominent or even key players in each book. One thing about all "my" main characters: they begin with me.

Why me? Well, because I'm complex and because I know me like most people don't. None of them are me, though. Usually, I take one or two of my features, put it in someone and add some complementary aspects I don't have. I try to make it something I like about myself coupled with something that's less appealing. Like Layla who is terribly efficient and capable, but is also abrasive and caustic. Or Tander, who has a wonderful sense of humor, but is also a bit cavalier when it comes to responsibility. Then, it's just a matter of putting them in the right environment. Other characters have other traits of mine and other marked differences. It's like being a multiple personality, like playing what if not only as myself but as I might have been if I were, say, athletic or magical or could change shape, or had been spoiled as a child or... The list goes on.

However, there are rules for my "main" characters. First of all, there are no rapists among my protagonists (even the small characters). Never. My characters are always basically honest because it's a character trait I cherish. My characters are rarely popular because I know nothing about that (though they are, at times, respected for their abilities). And smart. It's not in me to make a stupid main character. I mean, I could make one, but I'd keep rolling my eyes.

With side characters, though, I'm often looking for good ensemble characters, people who remind me of people I know. I usually work them for teamwork and humor, but I also have capturing some aspect of someone I really enjoyed. However, unlike my main characters, these characters don't have to honest or smart, they can be popular or ignorant or even teenagery.

Sometimes a side character grows into a main character. Once in a while, my husband inspires a character, sometimes a main character, sometimes a side, and his characters also don't necessarily fit my honest/smart mode.

The big thing, and I try to make this true of all my characters, is to leave them room to grow. A stagnant character, like a perfect one, soon becomes a dead bore - not just for a reader, but for me.

Read more...