|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Having read and reviewed a number of stories posted so far, I've come across a recurring problem. The characters are well drawn, but then they do things I just don't believe. An extreme example is what you always see in grade B movies where despite a number of folks having been killed by some unknown person of thing, someone just decides to go for a walk in the dark forest, by themselves, without a weapon...and you know what happens next. In another example we get the six shooter that never runs out of bullets. Whenever I come across this problem (and in many cases it can be a lot more subtle than the glaring examples I've given), I just lose interest in the story. In fiction we try to create a bubble of reality and get the reader to believe. When the bubble bursts...well it's gone. So first off, am I being too critical; and second, when you work through your manuscript how do you avoid having characters do things that (may be cool, but...) don't make sense?
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
There's a bit of a Zen balance to be maintained here.
On one hand, you must avoid wall-banger logic; things that are SO bad that you throw the book at the wall in disgust.
On the other hand, you must abide by the Rule of Cool, because without that cool factor, you might as well be reading a dictionary.
With those things in mind, I think you need to establish early on what the reader's expectations should be. At that point, if you break those expectations, you should expect the reader to say "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, ?!" If you haven't built up a sufficient store of good will by that point, the novel will hit the wall.
I don't think you're being too critical. As a reader, you should expect characters to be true to themselves. Some characters will surprise you. Some characters are mysterious, and their motives are opaque to the reader. Others are capricious, with motives that are whimsical. Still others grow through the story, and by the end do things that they wouldn't consider at the beginning.
In general, though, characters should remain true to themselves. That still leaves a HUGE range for interpretation and expression. The militant character, for example, unless they have a moment of satori and throw down their weapons, ought not be the first to recommend a non-violent solution. The *military* character, on the other hand, is a professional purveyors of violence, but may not be violent by nature. Much like a lawyer might recommend not going to court, a soldier might recommend diplomacy, because the violent options are bad ones.
All those are storytelling things. When you add in the writing aspect, you get one more layer, and I think you may be seeing a failure on that last layer - *telling the audience*. In person, a storyteller can tell if the audience caught the implications, and spell them out if not. On the page, you *must* make sure the implications strike home, whether by blatancy or repetition.
OK, I'm in a terrible rush, 'cause this is the hottest room in the unconditioned building, and it's time to go home, but hopefully my points weren't completely garbled by my baked brain.
On another note, I'd actually like to hear your opinion regarding character motivations in XLI (posted under Space Opera).
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
I know what you mean. I particularly find it a common amateur problem to have characters interpret their own actions in ways belied by those actions--the simple gal who does remarkably heroic things and never grows into a heroic sense of self but keeps being simpler than she ought to be after all she's been through, for example.
Another similar issue is the deus ex machina in which the conflict evaporates because all of a sudden the character has a change of heart that is unearned by the action of the story.
My short (well, longish, but not a novel) story up here ("Liaison," SF) has two characters with opposing natures, coming together. They don't come to agreement--they come to respectful live-and-let live agreement to disagree, because that becomes obviously more valuable than just "winning."
It has been tricky--and I've rewritten a lot, over and over, to (try to) make this work in a believable way.
Personally, I draw on my own experience when it comes to these things. I've never written an even remotely autobiographical character, but all of my characters go through internal experiences that I understand first hand. How they express and respond to those experiences is more varied, and based on people I've known who share their characteristics.
It's my version of write what you know--or who you know, as the case may be.
I am a little bit afraid of doing certain things in a story because I fear readers won't believe it. But when I think about my favorite books, I know I let writers get away with murder telling me all kinds of crazy nonsense, which I gladly accept.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately and what it is that makes the crazy nonsense believable. It has to do with at least two things, for me, one is internal coherence--does it make sense within the logic of the story? The other is whether or not it's worth it to suspend disbelief because the story is just plain fun--so fun I don't care whether it's plausible or not.
I just put XLI in my reading cue, Robert, I'll give it a peek soon!
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Robert and Lily, good points. I think "Rule of Cool" and "suspending disbelief because the story is fun" are pretty much the same thing. The question seems to be how much you can get away with. For instance I hated Jurassic Park (the book) because of the T. rex chasing the hero and the kids through the entire book. From my point of view it was like having a starving man chase a stale tostito through a fully stocked grocery store - it made no sense. Obviously, I was in a minority with that one. On the other hand, I fully understand internal consistancy - I love Terry pratchett's Disk World books no matter how silly they might be mainly because of his characters - they are great.
I guess the question I'm driving at is what causes these character problems? I mean having a character do something stupid? There's nothing wrong with your character screwing up because he/she/it had a "mind-belch" - that happens to people all the time and can actually make a character more believeable. I mean just stupid plotting. I wonder if it's an attempt at really quick pace - taking shortcuts. I've been trying to think of a good example and the only one I can come up with is this:
If you remember the scene in the first Lord of the Rings book where the hobbits have gotten to Bree and are in the common room of the inn. Frodo has a couple of ales, starts to feel comfortable and ends up singing a song and dancing on a table. He falls off, panics and the ring slips onto his finger, giving him away. The way JRRT did it was totally believeable. You've got a scared, naieve character who starts to feel comfortable and screws up. JRRT takes his time and builds up to it. What if JRRT had done the following: Frodo sat at the bar sipping his ale. The place reminded him of his favorite Inn in the shire, and he began to relax. "What's on the string Little Master?" asked the barman. Frodo pulled out the ring and showed it to him. "Oh, just an old magic ring my uncle brought back from the Misty Mountains," he said. "Excuse me," whispered the talk, black-robed wraith, gholding a Morgul knife to Frodo's throat, "but I believe that's mine."
Moves fast, but of course at this point you won't trust Frodo to be smart emnough to find his way to the Little Hobbits Room, let alone Mordor - he's a dope. I don't think Gandalf would have intrusted this guy with the above mentioned tostito, let alone the ring. Unfortunately, I've come across equivalent stuff.
My question, have you ever found yourself doing stuff like this, and how do you avoid it. I take a lot of notes and try to cross reference between chapters. What do you do.
Also, I've added your books to my list, will try to get to them soon. I'd also appreciate your taking a look at mine - it's listed in dystopia.
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
I trust my beta readers--one viciously critical one in particular--to draw my attention to these things. In the first draft of my second novel I think I had a lot of problems of this sort and what it amounted to was my character going through all kinds of interesting experiences over the course of six years and never growing at all. She was the same on page 200 as she had been in the opening scene.
My friend said "is she just stupid? why hasn't she figured X, Y or Z out yet?"
I rewrote and I think I fixed it. But it was a good exercise.
Refecting on it, I think the reason I wrote her the same all the way through was that I got attached to her at a certain point in her development. She was a naive rural girl suddenly in the big city and I LOVED her in those early scenes. Once she starts bopping around turn of the century Paris and becoming a famous portrait painter, though, it's time to let her grow up a little.
So for me it was getting too attached to one version of a character.
Perhaps that's another issue for others--besides speed and cutting corners.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@Tom - You inadvertently hit the one thing I don't like about the LotR books - Frodo. Mostly *because* he seems so... er... mentally challenged. When I reread it, I can hear Gandalf thinking "Sauron and Saruman will *never* believe we gave it to *this* guy! They'll spend all their time chasing those *other* two, who act like a pair of used pony salesmen! I'm brilliant!"
'Course, YMMV.
Also, the trope you're looking to avoid is "The Idiot Ball". He who holds the Idiot Ball will make decisions so idiotic the readers will want to burn the book just to remove the taint of the Idiot Ball from their mind.
This is where It does help to occasionally have a bit of introspection. If your characters explain why they did what they did, if only to themselves, it can clarify to the reader whether this is an intelligent person who had a cranial flatulence event, or is actually a nimrod who appears occasionally to be brilliant due to random fate.
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
Tolkien was being all starry-eyed about the innocent simplicity of the English people who beat the evil Hitler in WWII. But let's face it--what a crock. The innocent, simple English people had been heading up a huge international empire for a generation or two at that point. Nothing innocent about them.
National myth=Frodo the dufus saves the world.
Not unlike the perpetually clueless but heroic little white boys in U.S. thrillers and adventure stories.
I like LOTR, but like everything else it comes out of a highly subjective context.
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Well, first off Marilyn - how do you make sure your characters are consistent? I can see reading books by Physicists (I'm currently trying to find the time to work my way through Brian Greene's books), but you can't read books about accurate characters. That's the writter's job. And Robert, you've hit the nail on the head with "The Idiot Ball," that's what I'm talking about. I started this discussion because I see so many beginning writers do just that. Hence, my question as to whether it's the mad quest for "fast-paced" writing that causes it. Maybe it's really a non-question that just boils down to hard work and revision, revision, revision.
But let's turn to Frodo for a moment. I didn't intend this to move in the direction of a critique of LOTR, I only wanted to illustrate the difference between good and bad writing. But consider the context of time or culture. Robert says Frodo is intellectually challenged, and Lily calls him a dufus. I think he's a 19th Century British Country Squire. He owns property and has inherited enough money to keep him happy without the need to work. JRRT knew a number of pampered chaps like that who then went off to war for King and Country and got their asses blown off. Frodo's not stupid, he's scared. By the time he gets to rivendel he knows that if he doesn't turn around and hightail it for the Shire he'll probably end up dead - but he's got to try! King and Country! On the other hand there's Sam - dirt poor, but the one thing he's got going for him is his pride - pride in loyalty to his master and to his place. His place! If we look at Sam now we think he's a smuck! A lifer! Sam could probably survive by his wits without a lot of difficulty, but Frodo wouldn't make it without Sam. The underclass carries the upperclass! And yet, taken in the context of the times (and the story) they are both absolutely true and believeable, because that's how the system worked (I'm not endorsing it, just making an observation). How that's changed! My favorite example is the punchline from the Lone Ranger joke where Tonto says, "What you mean we, white man?" Can you see Sam saying, "What you mean we, rich boy?" as he hands Frodo over to the first Nazgul that happens by? Wouldn't have made much of a story. Then again, Sam as leader of a Pipeweed cartel? Hmmm....
Oh well, enough of this rambling. I guess the point I want to make is that in SF we need to try to make sure that our characters are also believeable in the context of the culture and times and worlds we create. I think JRRT did that very well.
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
I suppose for me, "English country squire" and "dufus" are overlapping, though perhaps not entirely synonymous terms...
I agree LOTR works well for its context. And for the fantasy versions of that context we've been spinning ever since which is why people still love it, however flawed or troubling certain of its elements (rooted as they are in a flawed and troubling context like any other) might be.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
See, I don't have a *problem* with Sam. I root for Sam. I *like* Sam. I just... Frodo is...
*sigh* I suppose you're right, but Frodo still annoys me. It just seems like he doesn't *grow* through the book. Lots of reasons why, I suppose, but where all the others become something, change somehow, the only way Frodo seems to change is the loss of a digit.
You've got a point, though. Frodo *IS* what he was written to be. Doesn't mean I have to like him. 
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Lily, you are absolutely right. But my point is that in understanding (or trying to) different cultural points of view, we, as writers, can build more convincing characters in the most god-aweful situations. For instance, I hate the concept of 2nd class citizens (by race, gender, sexual orientation, anything), yet if I am going to write a story about a world I might have to get into the heads of people who see nothing wrong with it. It's a little known fact that during the Civil War a number of women passed as men to join the Union or Confederate armies and fought at the front. In writing a story about someone like that I have to get into her head. She is violating all the norms of her world! I remember years ago talking to the wife of a colleague at a party. She told me to try to imagine a world where every police officer, judge, college professor, boss, etc., etc., etc., was female. For me, sad to say, it was an ephiphany - I've never forgotten it. Normal is very often not good for a large number of people, but for many it is unquestioned. So Robert, I also love Sam as a character, but at the same time the idea of Frodo living in the nice house, but taking care of loyal Sam in his dirt-floored shack is somewhat appalling.
Finally, Frodo. In some ways you are right Robert. He doesn't grow the way Merry or Pippin, or even Sam, do. But he develops the ability to take more and more abuse. His growth is through his understanding of what must be done, and his willingness to do it - a moral courage. It's more subtle, maybe more mythic than the others (there are even some writers who think Frodo is a Christ figure [I personally think Winnie the Pooh is a Christ figure but I see a Psychiartrist about that}. The Frodo who tries to go off by himself at the Falls of the Rauros is not the same as the one who left the Shire. In the end he gives up a lot more than anyone else - he gives up his life. Not literally, but he comes back a burnt out shell in a lot of ways and has no life. I'm probably way off on this but I think Frodo represents those that came back from the war shell-shocked, crippled, etc. JRRT's point was that you can't go home again, there is always a cost.
Sorry if I'm arguing with you, but I'd even give up the ring that I stole from the hairless, wiry guy who lived under the Misty Mountains if I could write like JRRT.
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
Yea! You know about those Civil War women. You know, the government was well aware of them too, as were early feminists. In her memoirs, Elizabeth Cady Stanton just rolls them out with other women who gave a lot in the Civil War, like everybody knows and gets it. But in the years since, a good cover-up has buried them. (The Library of Congress now has a great exhibit about them too--you can check it out online as well.)
All of my historical fiction takes place in the U.S. in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and includes women who cross-dress and live as men. My issue has been not so much "would my characters do X,Y and Z" but how to make my readers believe that indeed they would. Because they WOULD do the things I'm having them do. But the sexism and homophobia of mainstream history has so covered up the stories of women who did such things (not to mention they themselves had to hide in their own day, so that doesn't help) that contemporary readers sometimes find it incredible.
Also, readers tend to have a hard time believing cross-dressing women didn't get "caught" more often. Or they believe the only women who cross-dressed were the ones who did get caught. But the fact is, back in that time, clothing signaled gender in such a strong binary way that no one even considered the possibility that a person wearing trousers might be a woman.
Heck, in these days of androgynous clothing design, my partner--who wears only clothing from the men's department and has a men's haircut--is called sir on a regular basis.
But while it is obvious to me that a short-haired, trouser-wearing woman in 1880 could easily "pass," readers are more skeptical. I find it frustrating that when I do so much work to tell a clear truth, I am doubted because people are so used to believing lies.
Ya know?
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
@Lily - It's interesting. I've been doing research on cross dressing women in the American Civil War / Wild West period for the third and fourth installments of my Iron Angel series. One of the main characters is a female Civil War veteran who cross-dressed as a man, and has been in a convent since the close of the war, wracked with guilt over her actions.
What I'm really working on portraying is the fact that she's not in any way guilty over posing as a man, or taking on 'manly' tasks; she's got a touch of survivor guilt and a load of guilt over being really good at being a soldier, specifically the 'killing and maiming her fellow human beings' part of being a soldier. That's something both men and women who live through combat often deal with, but I don't see it very written from a female POV very often.
@Tom - no need to be sorry over arguing. We all have our idols; I'd like to worldbuild like JRRT, but when it comes to the prose writing, I'd prefer Pratchett.
The talk of living in a female dominated world is a little amusing to me. Of all the editors, authors, promotional people, and assorted others at my publisher, a total of maybe fifty people, I'm one of *two* men. Three if you count one of the authors who lists her husband as a co-writer. It's an amusing experience, as was RT2011, where I felt like a complete schlub because the only other men in the room were male cover models. Definitely got a taste of the 'average girl in a room full of bikini models' vibe there.
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
In the 19th century, 80% of popular fiction was written by women. You would never know that to take a 19th century lit course, though!
It was either Henry James or William Dean Howells--I forget which--who referred to them as "scribbling women." A bit of insecure masculinity about doing "women's work" going on there!
Meanwhile, I have adopted daughter who are both African American and we have always tried to make sure they have women--especially women of color--in leadership roles in their lives. Our current primary care physician is a little old Indian (S. Asian) grandmother who wears pink satin rather than a white lab coat in the examining room. She's also Muslim and wears a scarf over her hair. So when my girls play doctor, they throw baby blankets over their heads.
I love this.
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
You are absolutely right, Lily, about dress standards in the 19th Century. Dover publishes a few books on fashion which use old photos as examples. The only androgynous situation was very young children - all wore dresses, but even then you can tell them apart because (if I remember correctly) the little boys always had their hair parted on the side, while the little girls all had hair parted in the center. The problem is the "common knowledge" often imparted by the media. Anyone who's ever seen a tv western knows that if frontier women wore pants, they were skin tight jeans, and their blouses were tight too, so it would be hard to miss their gender! The thought of a woman hiding in plain sight by wearing baggy pants and shirts is totally foreign to most people.
BTW are there any known autobiographies, or memoirs by such women? The ability to buck cultural standards is incredible and i would really like to know how someone like that thinks.
BTW2 Liliy, it is amazing how unaccepting people are of things outside their realms of experience. I don't know if you ever saw the movie "Doubt" starring Meryl Streep. It takes place in a Catholic elementary school in The Bronx run by nuns. I read a couple of reviews which stated that Streep's "over the top" performance was not believeable and hurt the film. Having survived such a school, my only comment was that they obviously had never shared my experience. Streep's performance was spot on!
BTW3 Robert, I'd love to be able to write like Pratchett also. I love many of his characters.
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
I went to Catholic school post Vatican II and had a really different experience, but I thought Doubt was quite brilliant. Left me wondering for weeks. Meryl Streep WAS spot-on.
I don't know of any first-hand accounts of cross-dressed women--they were hiding, after all. I have heard of coded diaries of some British lesbians in the late nineteenth or early 20th centuries, but not cross-dressing and living as men. There is a fascinating case of a man named Murray Hall, though, who switched genders (from female to male) at age 12 (probably) and immigrated to the U.S. and was a big figure in Taminy Hall politics in NYC until his death of breast cancer, after which his body was discovered to be female, anatomically. He left two former common-law wives and an adopted adult daughter who defended him as a "him" in court after his death when they told her to say "she" in reference to the man she had always known as her father.
I wrote a bit about it here:
http://shannonlccate.com/2011/02/05/when-transgendertranscitizen/
|
|
Joined: 5/25/2011
Posts: 121
|
Thanks Lily. I'll check your post ASAP. Also I just posted a review of your new draft of Liaison. Just wanted to mention that I read through the previous review and your discussion. Personally, I think your characterization made it perfectly clear that the relationship between Tiria and Eva was nothing unusual in their world, and the reactions of the other characters were exactly what I would expect in such a situation.
|
|
Joined: 5/12/2011
Posts: 240
|
Glad you thought so. I wasn't sure about that myself. Nice to get another data point.
I'm eager/worried about what you're going to say about my prequel. You're a tough crowd! (Which is a very good thing.)
|
|
|
|