fayanora tipped me to the essay "I Don't Gotta Like You to Love You" by seanan_mcguire.  Among the premises mentioned therein are...


1) You don't necessarily have to like all your characters in order to write about them.

This is true, but variable.  It is more true of some characters than others.  It's true for villains, who are commonly disliked.  However, that's a subtle limitation: the best  villains are complex as well as vivid, with plausible if warped motivations for their behavior, the kind of villains that people love to hate and hate to love.  Furthermore, most writers find it difficult or impossible to do justice to a viewpoint character they dislike -- and most readers prefer a sympathetic protagonist to an unsympathetic one.  There is also a fine line between giving a protagonist enough flaws to seem realistic and to heighten tension, but not so much as to make the audience stop rooting for them.


2) Some readers will think you agree with what your characters are doing.

This is true, but malleable.  A certain number of readers have that bad mental habit regardless of the story content.  Most readers, however, rely on subtle clues in the story to tell them which things are "good" or "bad."  Fairy tales, for instance, customarily include both positive and negative role models, and the plot is distinguished by a series of tests which reveal virtues (such as patience) and vices (such as laziness).  Most fiction will hint rather than hammer those points.  So a villain with a nasty temper throughout the story might needlessly spur a horse and get thrown from the saddle, demonstrating a vice with its own natural consequence.  The better job a writer does in showing how characters shape their own experiences, the more accurate a picture the readers tend to get of character principles vs. author principles.  Thus, a writer should consider which character traits and behaviors are laudable and which aren't, then look for ways to show that in the story.  This not only enables the reader to understand both author and character better, it also strengthens the story. 

A more advanced trick, challenging for writer and reader alike, is to clue not the author's own personal  set of ethics but that of the fictional setting.  In this case, the supporting clues reveal what works and doesn't work, what is praised or condemned, within the natural laws and cultural mores in which the story takes place.  Sometimes this is clear just from reading the story, especially if there is internal dialog to explain it -- but it's also a good idea to include an author's note highlighting this technique, for maximum clarity.  Further consider the possibility of shear between what characters believe and what really is.  A custom may be practiced which is widely agreed and praised, yet which still has some negative consequences on a practical  level if it isn't the best course of action objectively.  More complicated still, things may play out differently in a fictional world than they would in our world, if the natural laws point in a different direction.  Frex, my Penumbra setting does not have our world's tendency for evil to be a "fatal flaw" but rather applies that undertow to good: more than a little bit of good will ram a character into obstacles, but quite a bit of evil can exist before it becomes crippling.  So you should always pay attention to the different layers of belief and truth, cause and effect, as they play out in a story.


3) Some readers will conflate the author with one or more of that author's fictional characters.

This is true, but it is both variable and malleable.  Some authors do tend to favor a particular type of character, and that type may have a lot in common with the author.  As long as the stories are entertaining, there isn't actually anything wrong with that.  On the other hoof, some authors tend to write about an extremely diverse range of characters, casually or purposely.   When done on purpose, varying the characters will tend to discourage readers from thinking that the author is "really" like any particular one of them.  On the third hoof, most writers -- and readers -- find it easier to connect with characters who share something in common with them.  A character who is totally unfamiliar can be too much of a stretch, although some people like that effect too.

Using my work as an example, most of my main characters have something in common with me, but not always the same thing.  There will be a few traits or skills that overlap, and then the character has a lot of stuff that's different.  Same if you compare two of my characters with each other; they may have several areas of overlap, but they'll be wildly different in other areas.  I also fiddle with the proportions, so that something I do at a moderate level is epic in a character, or one of my best skills is a minor advantage in a character.  That common ground allows me to include concrete details that make the character and setting seem more real, which means I don't need to make up as much of that from scratch in areas that are less familiar.  Bit characters and antagonists are the most likely to have little or nothing in common with me, which can make them more of a challenge to write; the protagonists usually have some kind of overlap with me, though it can be pretty obscure. 

For instance, in Torn World, Fala shares my love of the wilderness, but she's far more physically fit and socially fluent; she's also crap at some crafts I handle just fine.  Rai has an exaggerated version of my vision problems and a corresponding interest in textures and smells, but he's a lot better at music and even painting and I have nothing like his knack for red tape.  They have enough in common with each other to make a good pair, but enough differences to throw extreme sparks.  With some challenges, they respond the way I would -- other times not.  They're close enough to be understandable and different enough to be interesting.  And that's actually the same thing I tend to look for in friends; I want at least one common interest and at least one intriguing difference.

  
When you write, think about what you're doing, what your characters are doing, and what kind of message it sends.  That doesn't necessarily mean you have to aim in a particular direction, just that you should be aware.  When you read, think about the layers: what you believe, what your culture believes, what the character actions and dialog imply the character believes, what the story describes the character's culture believing, and what those things suggest about what the author might believe.  And understand that you could be wrong on any of those points, but that it's still worthwhile to compare them.  Some stories are just for fun, but others will really make you think and will stick in your mind long term.  Some stories are all about answering questions and solving puzzles; others exist to raise questions that aren't -- or even can't be -- answered completely.  Read widely.  Think deeply.

Tags: discussion, how to, networking, writing
Current Mood: busy