Showing posts with label Characters. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2015
Bad Emotions Made Good
When writing a story you may find that the good guy has access to a limited range of emotions compared to the bad guy.
Basic emotions (happy, sad, angry, etc.) are easy enough to evoke, but more complex or darker feelings tend to be more difficult to justify.
For example, if the hero�s best friend wins the lottery, a good guy would react how? If he�s a decent human being, probably by being pleased for his friend.
If a friend of the villain�usually a not so wholesome individual�wins the lottery, then the response can be more varied. Pleased (because he plans to �share� in the wealth), jealousy, resentment, maybe even plans to steal the money. These darker thoughts are often more interesting and offer more ideas for where to take a story.
While making your main character evil but still likeable is a very hard thing to achieve, that doesn't mean you can�t give them (and the reader) the chance to experience the darker side of their personality.
The main character in a story has to appeal to the reader. They�re going to be stuck with them for quite a long time so making the despicable probably isn�t going to do you any favours.
But we all do questionable things and show poor judgement at times. Part of being human is making mistakes, often hurting others in the process. Exploring that side of person is a big part of fiction, and if handled well can be very satisfying.
The truth is though that readers often respond better to characters who do nothing bad, are never in the wrong and behave honourably. They might find themselves in trouble or accused of wrongdoing, but through no fault of their own.
It�s part of human nature to consider one�s own feelings of being unfairly treated as entirely justified, while other people�s are childish and petty. And in fiction we can easily relate to people who are suffering in similar unfair fashion.
Should you, however, wish to delve into the dark side of your characters a little more there are ways of keeping them likeable. These techniques can, like any, be abused. Used to their extreme they can even allow characters to do horrible things while seemingly still being on the side of good, but if used sparingly they can allow you to add depth to both your characters and your stories.
First and foremost it helps to make characters aware of their own shortcomings. That doesn�t mean they get to avoid them, but when they do behave less than perfectly, simply acknowledging that what they did wasn�t all that great can make them more human.
So, for example, if our hero whose friend wins the lottery feels envious and pissed off that he�s sitting in his studio apartment eating noodles (again) while his buddy is out having the time of his life, then addressing this emotion, maybe by talking to someone about it, makes him less of a bad friend and more of a regular human being struggling with feelings we all struggle with.
In effect he becomes two people, both a bad guy and a good guy, in the same person. The conflict between these two creates tension and drama, and it gives the reader someone to root for.
In addition to this, it also helps to raise the stakes to help justify those feelings. If our hero needed money badly, but it was his friend who got the windfall, you can understand his disappointment. Taken to it�s extreme, though, this can also allow you to take a character into very murky waters.
If a terrorist has planted a bomb that will kill thousands, is it okay to torture him? And to feel no remorse while doing so? This is a common trope in thrillers where it�s almost seen as the duty of a character to act inhumanely if the stakes are high enough, even to revel in it.
And readers will more often than not buy into this logic because a writer has the advantage of getting to show the methods used actually working�the disaster is averted, the kidnap victim is found�and out leave out any of the collateral damage.
At this point I'd like to take a moment's silence for the all those construction workers and janitorial staff who died on the Death Star and Death Star 2. Never forget.
Another method is relativism. If the hero is surrounded by people who are much worse than him, then his behaviour can seem quite honourable.
A bank robber who plans to steal a lot of money may not seem the likeliest of heroes, but if he is in a gang of vicious thugs and he tries to prevent them from hurting people then he becomes more likeable by comparison.
This is, of course, a very dubious line of thinking. If a man is a professional thief chances are he isn�t all that pleasant, but in fiction you can present characters in a flattering light even when they�re doing terrible things.
In cases like this it also helps to give them a good reason to behave badly. If the money is for grandma�s operation, the bank thief is seen as someone doing what he�s got to do, rather than just a greedy a-hole who can't hold down a job.
Again, it also helps if he is aware that he�s doing something bad and regrets it. You often see this through the �one last job� trope. The more reluctant he is, the less we blame him for breaking multiple laws and biblical commandments.
It�s very easy to end up in very clich�d territory here, as every character who is meant to be sympathetic has an excellent reason for doing what he�s doing, usually involving a dying relative. But there are other reasons out there. Probably.
You can also have a character have a change of heart. If someone who does bad things decides to change his ways and even uses his nefarious skills against his own kind, that is seen as a respectable pursuit.
The classic example of this is the hitman who refuses to follow orders and kill his target (usually a child or a woman) and then goes on the run, killing those trying to kill him and his new best friend. He�s still a psychotic murderer, but now he�s using his talent for shooting people in the face for good. Hooray!
But the dynamic works for less extreme scenarios. A character who decides to fix whatever problems they caused (even by questionable methods) can be quite appealing, especially if they have to become an outcast to do so.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Tertiary Characters Have Their Own Issues
In the last post I talked about contentious issues and how they can be used to grab a reader�s attention. But sometimes issues can sneak into a story without the writer being aware of them, and in a way that can reflect very badly on the story and on the writer.
The main character is usually well defined, as are the core set of supporting characters, but there are a whole host of other smaller parts, from the neighbour with the occasional line of dialogue to the girl at the coffee shop who never says a word, that populate a fictional world and give it a life beyond the two or three people that really matter to the story.
And it is these small, seemingly insignificant roles, that can lead readers to infer things about the writer�s view of the world that the writer never intended and doesn�t think.
A black mugger, a flamboyantly gay waiter, a housewife�racist, homophobic, sexist. If a character makes only a short appearance and has traits that are considered stereotypical or clich�d, or maybe even offensive, the typical reaction is to think the writer is expressing his personal prejudices. But this is rarely the case.
When you write a minor character you don�t have the space or time to create a fully-rounded backstory and in-depth characterisation. But you still want the character to be more than a beige lampshade that does its job without really being notices. And often the quickest and easiest way to add a little colour to your tertiary characters is to make them an archetype.
The reader can visualise them more easily, they make more of an impact, and their interactions become more memorable.
In some cases that character comes from real life. Sometimes people behave in clich�d ways, and since it�s a writer�s job to observe the world and incorporate it into their fiction, they end up portraying them in what they consider a truthful way. If you were mugged by a guy who happened to be black and you wrote it into a story, does that mean you�re a racist?
The easiest way to stop an archetype turning into a stereotype is to explore their viewpoint a little more�whenever you look inside someone�s head and see why they act the way they do and what they really hope will come of it, you go beyond clich� and start dealing with real people�but it would be weird if the guy delivering the package got to make a two page speech about his reasons for wolf whistling at girls on the street.
You can of course come up with characters who are not stereotypical, but when you have only a limited amount of words to give a character some life, and then he�s never heard from again, it can seem a waste of energy to spend too much time crafting a unique and fascinating individual. And even if you do it can become a distraction�the flamboyantly gay waiter who�s also incredibly racist is not something you see every day. But at the same time if he�s too unusual the reader might be more interested in him what made him that way and lose track of the main narrative.
There are a number of ways to avoid this situation. First, good dialogue is very helpful. Even the most basic and utilitarian of characters can come alive if they have something interesting to say or an interesting way of saying it.
The flamboyantly gay waiter who delivers his orders with a side-serving of heavy sarcasm can win over the most sensitive of readers, if his lines are scathing enough.
The wife who seems to never leave the house and whose only role is to cook and clean for the hero can take on an extra dimension if she curses like a sailor no matter how innocuous the conversation.
It also helps to acknowledge a character�s questionable behaviour. If the guy making sandwiches makes a casual anti-semitic remark and someone comments on it, that can be enough to prevent the reader thinking the writer hates Jews. People who hold a prejudicial opinion rarely think of themselves as prejudiced, so simply addressing it makes it clear the writer is aware of how the character is behaving.
Having more than one of any particular group can make it less offensive too, although if you only have two black guys in your story, and one�s a mugger and the other�s a drug addict it probably won�t have a very positive effect. As blatant and obvious as it might be, simply making the judge a black guy can neutralise any suspicions. Mind you, this trick is often used by writer�s with unsavoury views to get away with all sorts of unpleasantness.
And then there�s always the most popular approach, which is to ignore what other people may or may not think and just make the main storyline so interesting and exciting that even those who find the most to object about can�t help but keep reading. Anyone who�s read one of the big blockbusters of the last few years will recognise this approach as very common and not at all a hindrance to making a shed-load of money.
If you found this post useful please give it a retweet. Cheers.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Repost: Let Characters Be Wrong
Nobody likes a perfect character. Someone who is super good at everything and gets everything right is annoying.
Even the most suave secret agents of indestructible superheroes need to make mistakes in order to make the story interesting.
There are two parts to using wrongness in a story. There�s the actual mistake (which sometimes isn�t known to be a mistake at the time), and there�s the consequences of the mistake, usually forcing the character to deal with powerful feeling of guilt or regret.
The mistake the character makes is more impactful on the reader if we see it happen. In some stories a character may be dealing with something that happened a long time a go. A cop who shot the wrong guy is now a washed up private eye. That sort of backstory is fine, but it won't have real meaning for readers if they don't see it happen.
A mistake in and of itself won�t automatically be fascinating. Like any element of a story, it needs to be interesting. If the guy mentioned above was chasing a thief and shot and missed, killing an innocent bystander, that�s perfectly plausible, but it�s also perfectly dull.
There are many reasons for a mistake beyond an accident, and the more intentional and purposeful it is, i.e. the more the character is responsible for his own actions, the better.
Stupidity
Some characters are just dumb. The useless guy in a gang of robbers or in an army unit. The girl who�s dancing with headphones on while a killer runs round the house stabbing everyone. The kid who never knows what�s going on. These sorts of characters can be very annoying, which is probably why they don�t make for good lead characters (and usually end up dying first).
It can often feel reasonable to attribute a character�s actions to their dumbness, certainly it happens in real life all the time, but you have to be careful not to use it as a convenient excuse for unlikely events. Characters like this are okay in small doses or for comic relief, but nobody wants to follow an idiot around for 300 pages.
Wrong Belief
Sometimes a character can have strongly held but completely mistaken beliefs. It can be a belief in someone or something. The thing about belief is you don�t need proof. Whether it�s a religion or a best friend, you take it for granted that what you believe is true.
While it�s hard to show that, what you can show is how the character acts because of his or her beliefs. Showing that belief being tested and how the character stands up for their beliefs establishes their position so that when they do make their mistake later on, we can see their reasons.
Wrong Conclusion
Unlike beliefs, some character have facts at their disposal that lead them to do terrible things. Taking clear, incontrovertible information and then logically coming to a mistaken conclusion is something that happens all the time. However, in order for the reader to be able to follow why the character does what he does, the writer needs to show that logical progression.
This can lead to long, boring exposition, or it can become very convoluted and hard to follow. But when done properly (and hopefully concisely), it can be very effective.
Misled
Sometimes a character can intentionally be given misleading information. Being manipulated by others is a powerful narrative device because it gives the character a definite next step and somewhere for them to focus their anger.
You do have to be careful that you give the misleaders a proper reason for wanting to mislead our hero. Just because they�re the bad guys isn�t going to be enough, they have to have a goal of their own.
Discovery
Once the mistake has been made, at some point the character will need to realise their error. The way they find out can obviously be many and varied, but the important thing is for it to happen in front of the reader. It also helps if other characters are there to witness it, or maybe even profit by it.
The realisation that they were wrong really needs to be the focus. How a character reacts emotionally to this knowledge, whether guilt, remorse , anger or even denial, will set you up for the next stage of the story.
It can be difficult for a writer to put a favourite character through that kind of experience, but it�s the ideal time to really get the boot in. As long as you keep in mind that they will emerge from the ashes stronger than before, you should be able to convince yourself it�s worth the agony you�re putting them through.
Reaction
It�s not enough to realise the error of your ways, you have to then decide what to do about it. Whatever mistakes the character made, there should be consequences and repercussions, and the character responsible shouldn't shy away from dealing with them.
Running away and hiding from the world may seem like a reasonable reaction, and it may even suit the personality of your character, but it rarely serves the story. The whole point of putting a character in this position is to show what they do about it and how it changes them.
A change of heart where we can see the process from beginning to end, why the character thinks one way and what makes them change their mind, is an incredibly powerful narrative device in fiction, and one that requires things to get worse before they get better. But the character that emerges after facing the mistakes they made will be all the more interesting for it.
If you found this post interesting please give it a retweet. If you're not on twitter just mention it to someone in the street and tell them to pass it on. Cheers.
*
This post first appeared January 2013. Mooderino is on break. New posts in the New Year. Monday, May 19, 2014
Uncontriving Characters
In writing a story you want to limit the number of characters you use. Instead of your main character having one friend to commiserate with over a drink and another friend drive him to the airport, they might as well be the same person.
Sometimes it can be obvious which jobs should go to which characters, but other times it can take a while to realise you can meld two into one. As well as making things more manageable, there are a number of useful consequences of doing this.
Fewer characters are easier to remember and makes the story easier to follow. Giving a character more than one thing to do gives them depth and complexity and generally makes them more interesting. And having familiar characters turn up in different parts of a story is something readers like.
However, simply conflating a bunch of characters into one person can come across as contrived.
If our hero gets into an argument at the gym with some aggressive meathead, and then later he gets taken hostage in a bank robbery and the lead robber turns out to be the guy from the gym, then that�s going to feel like a huge coincidence.
Having said that, even a blatantly forced series of events like the one I just described can work. Readers are so used to this sort of inter-weaving of storylines in a book that they would rather a clunky combining of character than totally separate encounters between unrelated people.
There�s nothing wrong with our hero getting into an argument with a guy in the gym, which puts him in a particular frame of mind so that when he runs foul of the (different) guy in the bank it�s his annoyed and mouthy reaction that results in him being taken as hostage.
But if the man behind the mask does turn out to be Jimbo from the gym, then even though there may be a moment of eye-rolling at the sheer implausibility, what you get immediately after that is a sense of curiosity and a wish to see the outcome of Round Two of this match up.
It�s a deep-seated desire in people to want to see relationships develop rather than a series of one-off interactions. But I�m giving you the most crude kind of approach here. You can get away with it, but it�s by no means ideal to do it this way.
Here are two techniques when using the same character in different parts of a story without leaving it up to fate: predetermination and proximity.
Consider a woman who gets coffee from a guy who has a coffee cart outside her offices. It�s good coffee, they make small talk. Later her aunt dies and she goes to the reading of the will, and who�s also there but coffee man. Turns out he knew the aunt from way back.
Wait, he just happened to place his coffee cart outside our heroine�s workplace? Why not? Stranger things have happened. And if the story goes into interesting places the contrivance of the set up will be quickly overlooked. But it is a contrivance.
If, however, you show that what appeared to be coincidence was a deliberate act on someone�s part, it will make for a more satisfying reading experience and it will add depth to the character.
In this case, maybe the coffee guy is really our heroine�s father. He put his cart outside her offices specifically to be able to see her without interfering in her life or imposing himself. After all she�s a big shot businesswoman and he�s Java Joe.
Allowing a character self-determination, even though we may not be aware of it initially, removes the contrivance from the situation.
Here�s another example. Our heroine meets her best-friend�s new boyfriend and they don�t get on. Yes, he�s good looking and witty, but he�s also arrogant and dismissive. Later at work she�s introduced to the new head of her department, guess who?
This could go any number of ways. Romance, dark comedy, espionage thriller, whatever. But if tall, dark and irritating isn�t merely a product of serendipity, if he has a reason to date her best-friend and to work at the same place as her, then that�s going to make a more satisfying read; you just have to figure out what that reason is.
He could be from a rival firm and dating the best-friend was a way to get info on our heroine because she has a big client he wants to poach.
Or the best-friend told him about the job at our heroine�s place that would be ideal for him; in fact it�s the best-friend who�s pushing him up the corporate ladder in true lady Macbeth style. She�s the one making the decisions.
Maybe having a best-friend and a boyfriend is too much clutter and it works better as one person. Our heroine tells her best-friend about an opportunity at work she wants to apply for and the best-friend gets the job instead. Rivalry and unhealthy competitiveness ensue.
As long as there is a conscious choice being made by someone you can use that to position characters anywhere you want. You can reveal that choice up front or as a big reveal at the end, all you have to do is make the character aware of the situation and wanting an explanation, and that will tell the reader that answers will be forthcoming (at some point).
The other approach is to consider how close characters are to each other. I mean physically, as in geographical location.
In the Java Joe example, if the dead aunt also worked at those offices (maybe she was a senior partner and our heroine was working her way up), then she would have encountered JJ just as our heroine did. We might not know what their relationship was or why he got left the house, the money and the villa in Spain, but the reader will be happy to wait to find out because we�ve started with a premise that gives the reader an initial connection.
Similarly, if the gym was next door to the bank, and Jimbo and his mates were actually digging a tunnel from the sauna into the bank vault, then when our hero pops in to cash a cheque after his workout and the bank robbers start screaming for everyone to hit the floor, it�s not a surprise the same guy is in both scenarios.
Even if you start off with locations miles apart, it�s worth considering if you can move people closer together. Often it isn�t that hard to do and it can make an unlikely appearance completely plausible.
If you found this post useful please give it a retweet. Cheers.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Status as Character Calling Card
The main character in a story will tend to have something about them that marks them out. They need to be distinct from everyone else just as a matter of practicality. It might be a special skill or ability�they�re the best at what they do�but it could also be a behavioural or psychological thing. A character who�s good-hearted or brave or willing to sacrifice or whatever.
While their job or social standing will give the reader a rough idea of the kind of person the story will be about, it�s this unique quality, this thing that marks them out, that gives them their true status. It is also what makes them appealing to read about.
However, while you as the writer may have a very clear idea of what�s so great about the character, the reader doesn�t. And letting them in on it halfway through the book is not going to do you any favours. You have to win them over in the first few pages. So how do you do that?
If the main character is a cop who always gets his man, then you already have a pretty good idea of the kind of character I�m talking about, and yet it�s also a pretty broad and non-specific introduction.
If I think about what makes him so good at his job�maybe his speciality is in the interrogation room�then I might decide it�s his ability to tell when someone's lying that gives him his edge. This is his true status. He�s the guy within policing who holds this place in the hierarchy: the lie detector.
Now, I could demonstrate that in the opening of the story by having him interrogate a suspect. That will show the reader his ability. But there is a danger of it all becoming a bit too repetitive as he interviews one criminal after another. You really want to save your big set pieces for later in the story.
So instead I could put him in a non-police situation (say, buying a new car) and show him using his ability there. You still get to see what he can do but you don�t spoil the specifics of the plot.
That�s an example where you have a very clear way of identifying a character�s status; he�s good at something, I show the reader what it is. Here�s an example that�s a little less straightforward.
Let�s say this story is about a shy, ungainly schoolgirl who has a talent for art which will eventually get discovered and how she deals with sudden fame, popularity and a new level of hatred from her fellow students. How do I introduce that in the first chapter? It�s her art that gives her status, but I certainly don�t want her showing off her painting skills right off the bat when the story is about how she�s discovered and at the start her status is very low.
Just showing her having a bad time at school would establish what her life is like but it won�t make the character particularly appealing to read about (which is the primary goal of an opening).
What you can do though is split the information that the reader knows and what the other characters in the story know. So, if our nerdy heroine is helping out with stage dressing for the school play but pretty much being ignored and left to do the menial stuff while the cool kids paint the backdrops and so on, we can quickly establish the crappiness of her school life.
But if after everyone leaves (forgetting our heroine is even there) she picks up a brush and makes the scenery look good, then we also establish what she can do. The next day the drama teacher is full of praise for the kids in charge of set design. Everything looks great and the kids are only too happy to take credit.
Our girl considers telling them it was her, but she knows it would only make them hate her more for stealing their thunder so she keeps her mouth shut.
So we�ve established her status, her special ability and why it does her no good.
But what if the character doesn�t learn their ability until well into the story? How do you show their ability if they don�t have it yet?
Let�s take the same nerdy girl as above, still an outsider at school, but this time she has no special ability (by the way, if you�re writing a screenplay all this is irrelevant since the girl will be played by a beautiful actress in thick glasses and a kooky hat and the real mystery will be how someone so gorgeous is so unpopular. Aaaanyway...) In this story she will find a magic stone and it will enable her to sing like an angel and find fame and fortune and so on and so forth. Obviously in the opening pages she has no stone and no singing skills.
Here you have to look a little deeper to find the character�s status. In fact you may not be fully aware of it until after the first draft, but I�ll just make something up for the sake of an example. Let�s say her fame and fortune will put her in a position to be as nasty to people as they are to her now and her struggle is to be the same person she was when she was a nobody.
Since this is about morality and being true to yourself, my opening scene would demonstrate this. Let�s say our heroine is bullied by the cool kids, but later when she comes across one of the bullies in the school restroom being horribly ill she helps her out and cleans her up. The bully is confused, �I thought you hated me.� And she does hate her, but she doesn�t want to become what she hates.
Here the status comes from her beliefs. As the writer I know where the story is headed. The character�s strengths, even though they will be sorely tested, will endure. And knowing that means I can show those strengths, in a limited way, early on before circumstances change (or magic stones turn up) and turn her world upside down. But in the end her status, her true status, will be defined by those beliefs she always had.
This ability to know a character�s status and what gives them that status is a huge advantage the writer has over the reader. Mostly it comes from knowing where the character ends up when you�re writing the opening. Their true status, the quality that enables them to be the hero of a story, is also their most appealing attribute. Working these qualities into the opening of the story and giving an idea of what the character is capable of, sometimes directly, sometimes less so, is a great way to introduce the character to the reader in a way that will keep them reading.
If you found this post useful please give it a retweet. Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
