Writing The Human Stories: An IWSG Post

The IWSG was founded by Alex J. Cavanaugh and co-hosted this month by Alex, Tyrean Martinson, and Jamie Gibbs.

About:

It's time for another group posting of the Insecure Writer's Support Group! Time to release our fears to the world – or offer encouragement to those who are feeling neurotic.

I'll tell you right now, I'm not that good at characterization; my strength, I think, lies in plot while setting falls somewhere in between. Whenever I consider something I've written I usually think "Gosh, those characters are melodramatic drama queens", or "Gee whiz, they're robots for people", or "Heck, is that main character supposed to be bipolar?", or "Dagnabbit, I didn't mean for the poor sod to be that simplistic."

And so on. Granted, a writer can do very well on plot alone, so long as the characters have the right motivations and the main character isn't going "Huzzah!" when, say, the love interest falls into the Pit of Doom and Despair--but I really think it's a demonstration of a writer's skill when there's great emotional conflict and the battlefield involves making decisions that can change or hurt or improve people's lives, not just the fate of a galactic empire or something (though I love high-stakes stories).

I have trouble pulling off the human element. Making sure my characters are realistic human beings with believable thoughts is one of the things I have to work on; making sure they react to and behave as though things are actually happening with them, not only to them.

I guess I've got a goal for 2013!

Do you have trouble with human stories? What's your writing strong point: Characterization, plot, setting, something else? What's your weak point and how do you try making it stronger?


-----The Golden Eagle

What's Your Favorite Villainous Trait?

Partly because of last week's post Is There A Certain Type Of Character You Like To Write About?, I'm wondering about the other side of the equation: Villains.

A few characteristics seem to repeat themselves throughout fiction, with physical deformities being one that comes quickly to mind. There's usually a scarred, one-eyed, wheezy, or otherwise imperfect (occasionally just ugly) antagonist to be found, which I guess is supposed to be a reflection of the his or her inner qualities. On the other hand, of course, there are the perfect, attractive antagonists who achieved their beauty through nefarious means.

Then there is personality. Most villains are as smart if not smarter than the protagonist; some are relatively balanced except for a major destructive flaw; some have a rough history; some tried to do good and turned bad; some were inclined toward crime/violence/etc. at the onset.

What do you like to see in a villain? Are there any traits that you think are always cliches, regardless of the story? What is your antagonist like?


-----The Golden Eagle

Is There A Certain Type Of Character You Like To Write About?

By Jonathan Joseph Bondhus, CC-BY-SA-3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Or read about?

You see, I was thinking about the protagonists of the novels I've written.

A majority of them are introverted, very intelligent (either academically or socially or both), and are capable fighters. Those are also the types of characters I like to read about, though my reading tastes are wider than my writing tastes and I tend to branch out more in books than in my own fiction.

Do you have a favorite sort of character? Do you write about the same characters you enjoy reading about the most?


-----The Golden Eagle

Does It Bother You If The Author Brings A Dead Character Back To Life?

Say the protagonist watches the love of their life fall off a cliff.

(Lewis Clark, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic)

Or, perhaps you read along as the antagonist stabbed one of the main characters through the heart with a sword. Maybe someone got poisoned or bitten. Maybe they disappeared under terrible circumstances.

Whatever happens, there seems to be a trend where the character will (surprise!) re-emerge later on in the book as not only alive, but thriving. I can see why authors would use this as a plot twist. There's nothing like finding out someone you thought was dead is actually alive and has been for a while.

However, I find that I begin to lose faith in the author after that. Particularly if a character's death was described--s/he stopped breathing or was wounded--and the living character(s) witnessed it, I can't help but feel like nothing that happens afterwords can be trusted. And while uncertainty is great for suspense and tension, if there's too much of it, then the story turns into a jumbled mess.

There are exceptions to being "alive", of course--vampires are dead to begin with and a lot of other Paranormal/Fantasy creatures are similar in that regard--but even those characters are usually subject to being killed permanently, and in many cases it sure sounds like the treatment they got was fatal.

Basically, after a certain point, it gets ridiculous. If you killed your character, they should stay dead. Unless there is a really, really good reason that goes beyond plot twists and emotional punches, you shouldn't bring someone back. (Some would argue that this is impossible in any context, furthermore, which is another issue--the characters' perceptions and beliefs on death and dying cannot suddenly change to accommodate another character's reappearance.)

What do you think? For you, how far can an author go in resurrecting characters before you lose faith in the story?


-----The Golden Eagle

More Answers To Reader Questions . . .

Jake Henegan, after the last Q&A post, wanted to know more of the specifics about the answers I gave to his first set of questions. So, here's the second set:

Care to elaborate on what qualities of your novel's character makes her/him like you?
And name a few books on your bookshelf?

Question 1: The MC of my current WIP and I share a similar sense of dislike toward hypocrisy, absolute power, and we're both solitary in nature--to a point. She seems to take on much of my darker, more cynical side; one of her characteristics is her tendency to come up with snarky, sometimes cutting remarks, aimed at whoever happens to be speaking to her at that moment. Which I sometimes do when I'm irritated, angry, or frustrated.


Question 2: The Looking Glass Wars by Frank Beddor, Incarceron and Sapphique by Catherine Fisher, Deeper by Roderick Gordon and Brian Williams, the First and Second Omni books, And Another Thing . . . by Eoin Colfer, and The Sword of Shannara Trilogy by Terry Brooks are a few of them.

**********

Is there anything else you readers would like to know? :)


-----The Golden Eagle

Terry Pratchett Month: Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism definition (from The Free Dictionary):

Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

The most famous representation of natural phenomena from Terry Pratchett's  Discworld being, naturally, DEATH. Who speaks in SMALL CAPS (they are so exclusive that Blogger even refuses to let me use them), carries a scythe, and according to some sounds like the slamming lids of coffins, despite having no vocal cords.


DEATH is not the only character made out of something abstract. There are many gods and goddesses, such as the goddess of Things That Stick in Drawers, the god Fate, the god of Avalanches, and The Goddess Who Must Not Be Named (also known as Lady Luck), to name a few of the many that exist in Discworld.

(SOURCE)

Many other authors have made characters out of the abstract. For example, Markus Zusak's The Book Thief was told through the perspective of death. Tamora Pierce's novels, set in the Tortall universe, often have the characters dealing directly with gods and goddesses who represent different aspects of life.


Have you ever created a character out of something like death or another natural (or unnatural) phenomenon in your own stories? Do you think it has an important effect on the culture or feelings of the characters in a story if they believe in such gods/goddesses?


What is your favorite personification, from Discworld or another series/novel?


Other Terry Pratchett Month Posts:

Book Review: The Color of Magic

Book Review: The Light Fantastic

Discussion Post: On Humorous and Parodic Stories
Book Review: Nation




-----The Golden Eagle

On The Death Of Important Characters: How Do You Feel About It?

You pick up a book.

You read for a while.

A major character dies.

(SOURCE)

It always bothers me when a character (particularly when it's the main character) dies in the end. And not only when the character's someone I'm fond of. Most of the time, I have to wonder: what is so great about their death? What spurred the author to kill off an influential person in the story?

Even if they do succeed in their goal, it often just seems too abrupt, violent, and saddening. Unless the death is handled well--when it comes to the main character--it's even come off as annoying, when it's there just for the sake of itself. There are many instances where I thought the book/story would've been improved without that plot twist.

What do you think? Can you think of any books where you thought the MC's death was a good thing for the story? Does it matter if it's one of the main supporting characters, rather than the main character who dies? Have you ever written the death of your MC in one of your novels? If not, would you ever consider it?


-----The Golden Eagle

I Pick Up A Book. The Main Event Mentioned In The Blurb Comes Around 200+ Pages Into The Story.

(SOURCE)

I don't like waiting around for things to happen in the books I read. There has to be a hook, and then there has to be some event that catapults the main character(s) into the central conflict the story is built on. So that's why I sometimes skip blurbs altogether, if I like the reviews and the cover of a book.

They can take away the tension. If you ask me, a story should pull the reader in blurb or no, and hold them there on its own. But I've read several books whose back cover, inside flap, or summary (depending on the format) has told me all I need to know to guess at least some of the plot--and not only that, I have to sit around waiting for the main character(s) to catch on to what's happening, sometimes so slowly it's painful to watch them stumble about trying to get the hang of the situation.

Of course, it can go in the opposite direction, too. If there's just some dramatic, broad statement on the inside of the cover, that can deter me from reading the book if I think there's a chance it's going to follow an unoriginal plot, or there just simply isn't enough information about the characters and the rest of the story.

Have you ever skipped a blurb? How much do you think they help--or hinder? How much should a blurb give away about the plot and characters, before it says too much?


-----The Golden Eagle

Do You Have To Like The Plot To Enjoy A Book?

In the past two weeks I posted "Do You Have To Like The Main Character To Enjoy A Book?" and "Do You Have To Like The Setting To Enjoy A Book?" and now we come to the third and final question.

Which is about plot.

(SOURCE)

I consider plot to be the No. 1 most important thing when it comes to a book, in any genre, above both character and setting. It is the glue that holds things together: characters must do things to drive the story, or things must happen to them that cause them to act. Both must be realistic, or at the very least possible.

Some plots are complex, with several storylines that all intertwine and affect each other. Other plots are more like adventure stories, where the small group of characters try to overcome obstacles as they either literally or figuratively travel from A to B.

Some plots cover a long stretch of time, even hundreds of years, while others cover less than a single day. Other plots go back in time, weaving in things that happened before the beginning of story.

Some plots focus on the characters. Other plots focus more on the story itself, and what happens to those characters.

(SOURCE)

And so on. There are also major plot issues that come up again and again--holes, loose ends, deus ex machina endings, (I utterly despise it when things get resolved just because the story had been set up in a way for it to be an ugly situation otherwise) twists for shock factor, repetitiveness, stories that have been told many times before, etc.

So. How important is plot to you? Do you think it is more or less important than characters or setting?

What kind of plot do you prefer? Do you like complex stories, with lots of characters? Do you prefer stories that focus on the characters, or ones that are driven by the plot itself? What are plot issues that really bother you in a story?


-----The Golden Eagle

Do You Have To Like The Setting To Enjoy A Book?

Relating to last week's post "Do You Have To Like The Main Character To Enjoy A Book?", this time I'm asking about setting.

(An example of a setting I want to live in. Now. SOURCE)

For me, Lockdown by Alexander Gordon Smith would be a good example of setting. I really liked the main character. Smith's writing style just drew me straight into the scene, right with the character, so I couldn't help but run with him, laugh with him, fight off the bad guys and struggle to survive.

But. The setting was not only sad and cruel, but there were so many times where I felt like closing the book on the violence and gore. It was the setting that really stopped me from fully enjoying it. The detail was there, the description was there, the execution was good--it was the general idea I didn't like. It's happened before, where I liked the characters, thought the plot was solid, but didn't enjoy the setting.

For another kind of example, there's J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. He describes it in so much detail it's amazing--the world is amazing. In the volume I have in front of me, with all three books, there are 7 appendices and 4 indexes for all kinds of things, relating to the world of LOTR. History, language, calendar methods, alphabets, you name it, it's there. Now that's dedication to a story. (I have to say, though, I've never actually read those 110+ pages systematically. Just referred to them when I had to. I'm not that geek. ;)

(SOURCE)

Which brings me to another aspect to setting. How detailed must it be? Some series are based on a single world alone, with stories taking up different parts of the world's history, even causing one thing to happen in a future book or vice versa. The Discworld Series by Terry Pratchett all takes place in--you guessed it--Discworld, for example, with a total of 38 books, according to Wikipedia. And there are many other examples of a series taking place in the same world: Tamora Pierce (Tortall), Kristin Cashore (Seven Kingdoms), Isaac Asimov (Foundation), etc.

So, do you have to like the setting to enjoy a book? How much detail must there be for you to fully see the setting in your mind's eye, and have you ever come across a book with too much detail? Can you think of any examples of a book that you would have liked more with a better setting?


-----The Golden Eagle

Do You Have To Like The Main Character To Enjoy A Book?

I've come across novels where I really didn't like the main character, or just felt indifferent toward her/him--but whose plot and setting I enjoyed.

(SOURCE. Do ignore the URL. It's safe. :P)

For example, The Cup of the World by John Dickinson. The main character, Phaedra of Trant, did some things that were naive (and a bit stupid), which just seemed to attest again and again that she was a very strange person. But I read the other two books in the trilogy and liked them as well, for the world the story was set it was amazing (full of its twists and turns and personality, if a world can have personality) and the plot was so complex. The other two books also had characters I didn't like--however, I still felt like that The Widow and the King and The Fatal Child, were definitely worth the read for the other aspects to them.

I felt the same way about books such as The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, the first book in The Genius Wars series by Catherine Jinks, and others. I just didn't like the characters, but I did like the plot and setting of the books. A lot, enough to give them at least a 4-star rating (for those of you who haven't read my book reviews, I go to within a tenth of a decimal point) even if they weren't particular favorites.

(SOURCE)

Which brings up the question:

How much do you have to like the main character(s) to enjoy a book? How much can you stand from a character before it really affects your opinion of a story? Can you think of any examples where you would have liked a book more if the main character(s) had been more appealing to you?


-----The Golden Eagle

I Found A Good Name For My Character. I Googled It. I Found Out It's A High Blood Pressure Drug.

Teveten, also known as Eprosartan, "is used alone or in combination with other medications to treat high blood pressure", according to PubMed Health.

What are the chances I came up with it for my main character?

(SOURCE)

You see, I was looking at surnames that start with "T" on Most Common Surnames in the United States (excellent site for character names with all sorts of ways to search for just the right one. Seriously, go check it out!) and found "Tveten". I liked it. And since I thought it would be easier to read/pronounce with another "e", I changed it to Teveten.

And, just on the slim chance it might already be a name, I looked it up.

Discovered it's a drug.

Phooey.

Back to the drawing board.

Again.

Has this sort of thing ever happened to you?


-----The Golden Eagle

Elements of A Good Plot

A story has to keep the reader's attention. It's what a reader expects when they pick up a book--something that will suck them into a new place and hold them there, as the characters go on quests, fall in love, fight the villains, do things that the reader wishes they could, all following a complex and page-turning plot.

As a writer, it's only a matter of knowing how to create a page-turning plot.

Here are some suggestions:


1. Mess with the reader's head (it's always the writer's job to mess with the reader's head).

Surprise the reader with secrets, (about the characters, about their world, about anything important) events, (coincidences, occurrences, attacks) and ramp up the tension as the character(s) head for the goal. Hinting at one of the surprises can help--little mention of something strange here, a name wrong, a move that seems odd in some way. The good ol' plot twist can go far in keeping the reader hooked on the story.

For the writer, plot twists have the benefit of taking up that no-mans-land of space between The Beginning and The End, called The Middle. They can also take up story-time whenever the plot's slow or not moving the way you want it to.

2. Keep the reader glued to their chair (or seat, or steps, or . . . wherever they may be reading).

Once you've gotten the surprises in there, plus the anxiety-inducing hints, never let that tension release. Don't allow interludes--anything beyond a short, tired collapse by the oasis, so to speak--to appear. Have the character(s) run into more problems as they strain for that ultimate goal; send someone/thing into their death throes, if necessary, but don't let up!

Don't let that tension continue on forever, either. If it does, then the reader will get exasperated, and bored--make sure that what's going to happen, happens soon enough, but not so fast that the plot ends up whipping back and forth. Pace it so it flows like a river, not a thundering, crashing waterfall or a gentle, burbling creek--a river! Get a raft, if necessary.

3. Never allow your plot to resemble Swiss Cheese (no matter how good the stuff tastes).

Sew up every hole. Bring things together. Create something that goes from the onset to the conclusion, resolving the issues (unless it's a series, in which case you should leave the reader wondering about some things) and reaching an end that involves the goal the character(s) set out to complete. Don't allow the character(s) to do unrealistic things just to get to some point in the story, or a to a certain place--keep it tight, true to the character(s) and their environment. Don't cut corners.

Don't let the reader see holes, or allow them to see through badly-patched holes, either; make sure that your plot is strong throughout, and feel for every possible weakness in an event here, a twist there. If a reader can sense what's to happen with certainty and without feeling that the other possibilities are in any way likely, (and they're right about what's to happen) then the rest of the book isn't gripping--it's just an add-on.


Condensed:

1. Surprise the reader.
2. Maintain the tension.
3. Have a tight, hole-free plot.
4. Throw in a gryphon.*

*(Just for fun, of course.)


-----The Golden Eagle

Ease or Throw the Reader?

Some books put the reader straight into the setting the story is based on. Others try to ease you into it, through discoveries made by the main character.

I prefer the kind of book that puts you straight into the setting without preamble, another reason SF/F are my favorite genres most of the time. There's no preamble, and things are usually described in the first chapter or so, as you get used to the character's surroundings. Or they're just stated, and the reader is shown how the world works.

Easing the reader into the story--sucking them in, even though there are just clues as to something bigger that may or may not be around the corner--can be hard, and it's easy to bungle. A lot of authors pull it off well, but some do not. I find this especially with books where the protagonist is finding out something about another character, who typically has some sort of secret behind his/her existence, or when the secret's about the MC him/herself.

One problem I find with simply putting the reader into the story is because some things just don't make sense at first. I can occasionally get lost in Science Fiction with the technology--the books appeal to my geek side, but sometimes it's hard to understand the jargon, especially when it comes to things like gaming. (I know little about gaming.) And sometimes the terms are completely made up, and you have to guess what they're talking about, which can be annoying.

But easing the reader into the story can be jagged and feel wrong. The discovery has to be smooth and not terribly obvious, so that the reader has something to actually guess at. Otherwise, that part of the magic is lost. It can work if the reader already knows what's behind whatever's happening in the story, but if the character is unrealistically reacting to things and saying something that fit their character (or general common sense) then it doesn't. And when the MC finds out the secret . . . well, they can't be all "ooooh, goody!" or "I still trust you besides the fact you can kill me and I know practically nothing about you!" because in good ol' Real Life people don't do that. They freak out and tell their friends the person's insane.

Hopefully, anyway.

I could be being too literal with this . . . it's just fiction. But if the world isn't presented right, or if there's something I don't understand, it bugs me. I like my books wrapped up tight, and if they're not, then I tend to get frustrated.


What do you think? Ease, or throw the reader into the story? Do you prefer either? Does it affect your opinion of a book if the beginning events aren't explained completely, or if the protagonist is reacting in a way that's not true to life?


-----The Golden Eagle

Antagonists: Do You See (AKA Write) Through Their Eyes?

I was reading a post over HERE at The Rainy Day Wanderer, and looking at some of the comments, and it got me thinking.

Reading something through the antagonist's perspective has its downside, of course. You don't want to force the reader to experience the (usually horrific) thoughts of the "evil" in a story, or the book as whole can deteriorate, even if there's a strong protagonist.

But sometimes, using the evil person's perspective can be very helpful for pushing the plot forward, helping the reader to understand something, showing some sort of insight into the story, etc. So presenting something with the antagonist's voice can be a good thing--but how much is too much, and how evil is too evil?

Descriptive writing (something I really should work on myself) can work wonders on a story. However, it seems that you wouldn't want to describe in such full detail, and such . . . eh, illuminating language the home or the surroundings of someone the reader is supposed to hate.

So there has to be a balance between the good and the evil, if you use the thoughts of the antagonist in your writing. It can't be too much of the latter, or it just wouldn't be as satisfying a read.

But I also noticed not a majority of books even have chapters or sections devoted to the antagonist's perspective. Most books, in fact, are entirely through the protagonist's view or through the view of someone close to them. Some books are more detached when they are presenting something as the antagonist sees it--they don't look as deeply into the evil as they do the good. Or they describe what is happening as if from a distance, in the third person as opposed to the first or something more intimate.

(The only book I can think of that's written in the perspective of someone that could be called the bad guy is The Book Thief. And even then it's not that horrible. I actually got a little fond of Death.)

In my own book, there are a lot of varied characters, including some pretty bad people. Drug lords. Ethnic cleansing terrorists. You know, the lot of 'em. I write in the perspective of all the above, and some other not-so-nice people. I occasionally let them spew their--what I would call--filth and vile talk, while trekking through their inner thoughts. Many of them could be called "evil", even.

Do you think that letting the reader see something through the antagonist's perspective is a good thing, for the reader? Do you think that a book can, effectively, present both the good and the bad sides through the protagonist's and the antagonist's respective thoughts? Do you enjoy/dislike books that have a blend of the two?

Do you write through the perspective of someone who is "evil", or do you stay away from writing that way, keeping to the mind of your protagonist? Do you consider the kind of writing style that includes the antagonist's views shudder-worthy, or beneficial for a story?


-----The Golden Eagle

Random Things

Quinn at Seeing, Dreaming . . . Writing awarded me! Thank you so much, Quinn!

It is the Versatile Blogger Award, and the rules are to list 7 things about yourself and pass it on to 7 other bloggers.

Now, I've already received this award before and answered the questions, but I've decided to list another 7 things about myself as the Random Things from the title. Hopefully I won't bore you to death.

1. I don't write emotions fluidly. At least, I don't when it comes to the characters I'm currently working with. The emotions that I type out just don't feel right now of the time . . . or they're too important or they seem false. (Do you have this problem?)

2. NaNoWriMo, I am going to get you! I passed the 10,000 mark yesterday, but I know compared to some you that's not much! I've seen numbers in the 20,000-40,000+ range. Wow. Those are a lot of words, people! Keep it going!

And for a bonus, this is me right now:

(Meter HERE)

3. You know that post, "How To: Beaming Someone Up Into A Spaceship"? I've got something like that planned for tomorrow, too; I'm interested in seeing how it's going to go over.

4. Don't forget to switch your clocks this Saturday night! Daylight Savings Time. I don't like DST much. Too much hassle, and not all countries observe it. (If you want a really good site that tells you all about DST, go HERE. I love those nodes.)

5. So the Republicans took over the House of Representatives. I'm ecstatic, everyone. Extremely happy with the direction the government is taking.

*sighs* I can't really say I'd be ecstatic with the Democrats, either. No one really wants bipartisanship where they're not trying to destroy the other's agenda and no one really wants to collaborate. At least, they seem pretty darn stubborn to make things as difficult as possible.

6. I have 180 Followers! 180! That's . . . awesome, everyone. Thank you, all of you, for following! :)

7. I'll be sure to check out you fellow Crusaders soon! I signed up for the Writer's Platform-Building Crusade yesterday, (see below post) and I have to get started on that list. :)


So. Now that all is said and done: Thank you for awarding me once again, Quinn! (You really should go check out his blog. Go on. *nudges* Come back once you've followed.)

Now, for those I am going to award . . . I'm going to do what the lovely Jules (you should go check out her blog as well, everyone) decided to do, and award the followers in the first 5 rows on the Follower gadget. (If you see yourself there and get shoved back by newer followers when you come back later . . . well, consider yourself awarded anyway. :))

Have a great Friday, everyone!


-----The Golden Eagle

What People Say

It's always interesting to see what sort of conversations come up when people have trouble thinking of something to say.

There's the weather, of course, which can lead to talks about past experiences with floods, snow, hail, ice, and other naturally-occurring phenomenon. It can lead to talks about their relatives, and their experiences with weather.

There's how boring it is to be standing in line, or waiting in the car, or sitting in the bus. That can lead to even further discussion about waiting experiences, what vehicles the people have missed, when others didn't manage to meet them somewhere.

There's chatting about some random person you or they saw somewhere, that made them go "whoa!" or "huh?" or made them wonder about that person. It can lead to conversations about other people you might have seen in the past, or about when people were looking at you strangely. (You have to have some guts to do that, though. :P)

There's talking about the weekend, the past week, the past month, the past year. Asking how it was. Congratulating the person when they say it was good, or sympathizing with them when it was bad. Telling them about your own trip, or lack of trip.

There's laughing over (even a mildly-) funny experience that you've recently had, that made you laugh or snort or giggle. Amusement can lead to a whole host of possible branches of conversation: older, fun things you've done, by yourself, with another person.


I suppose you have surmised by now that I was having trouble thinking of something to say. I've conquered that though, as you can see, by talking about what people talk about when they're going through this sort of thing.

This could even relate to writing. People really do hold talks like these--sometimes they're the most interesting ones out there--so if you're writing something like realistic fiction, thinking about what people say could be helpful. If you want your characters to be believable, they probably should have these conversations, even just occasionally, since practically everyone does. It can also serve as an information source--very handy if your character happens to be a spy or someone who needs the intelligence. ;)

Have a great Sunday, everyone!


-----The Golden Eagle

Character Flaws--What They Are (Or Should Be)

I noticed that for almost all the posts for How to Write Compelling Characters there was something about character flaws. I called it "3-Dimensionality". (I just had to say that word again.)

And I agree.

The only question is--what counts as a flaw and under what context are they flaws?

For example, let's take an example of a character (I realize this is cliched--I'm using this for demonstrative purposes only): male, tall, handsome, glittery. (Maybe cut the glitter if you like.) Now, if I was going to give this person a flaw there are a range of things I could do to make him 3-Dimensional. Only, some things people might see as flaws are things other people don't see as flaws.

I, personally, am skeptical of male, tall, handsome, glittery (MTHG) characters. However, it seems quite apparent that a lot of people think that such people are pluses for society and quickly fall in love. Unless it's some subconscious need to bind yourself to the weird-y and strange, it's obviously not a "flaw" per se.

Another example is if I made this MTHG dude a fan of science and math. Now, some (me in particular--hehe) would see that as a big positive and simply contribute to the flawless side, while a lot of other people would see that as a drawback AKA flaw. (Geek alert!) Same if I made him a fan of P.E.; some people would be happy about this, others would not. (Jock alert!

(Note that these are stereotyped flaws--be sure to stay away from that!)

So here comes the first question: what are more "universal" flaws that people can relate with? To appeal to an audience (I am assuming that this is the idea when it comes to creating characters) then there has to be something that most people would say is a flaw.

For example, a crabby, snappy attitude in the morning. I think most people would agree that being super-grouchy in the morning is a flaw. Or a nervous habit of talking a lot when under stress and babbling when scared. Or jumping around when things are tense and jiggling and not staying still when things are bordering on really serious. Or having a constant fear of combat and backing off when pressured.

Those would be flaws more people could relate to than meeting a MTHG dude who loves studying molecules.

That sort of flaw-tackling strategy is important, in my opinion. When creating a character, be sure that the flaws of your character are people others can relate to and that they are significant enough to really matter. A lot of characters (MTHG dude was partly based on Edward from The Twilight Saga, Damen from The Immortals, and from other influences I've forgotten by now plus some stuff from off the top of my head) in new fiction don't have enough substance; they're handsome, but that's about it. They aren't real.

Another thing is that a character should have more than one flaw. They could be jittery, and that's a good flaw, but they should also have something else, maybe a smaller flaw, something not quite as important to the overall appearance of the character; for example, an iced-tea obsession. It's not as important, but it adds another facet to the character, another, smaller dimension.

The same goes the other way: too many flaws and the character is going to seem hopeless to the reader.


So all of you were right--flaws are important!


What do you think a "flaw" should be? Do you agree with this analysis? Disagree? Have a point to make?

-----The Golden Eagle

How To Create Compelling Characters

This is a post I wrote about (as is obvious in the title) How To Write Compelling Characters as part of Elana Johnson, Alex Cavanaugh, and Jennifer Daiker's Great Blogging Experiment.

There is a lot more than the following information if you really want to cross-section the process of creating compelling characters, but that would mean an incredibly long post and lots of text. Therefore, I've narrowed it down to what I think are the most important things you should (and should not) do to create compelling characters.

What Is the Conflict?

What sort of conflict is the character going through? What sort of challenges face him/her? Strife is a good way of making the reader bond with the character, to feel something for the events that happen to your character. It can be physical, it can be psychological, it can be any sort of conflict, but there has to be some sort of predicament that the character has to face. If nothing is happening there's really no reason for the reader to stick around--the reader isn't compelled to find out what happens.

I would like to mention here a good example of this sort of thing: Incarceron by Catherine Fisher. Some people said that it was slow and dull, while others adored it. I'm in the "adored" category, because there is conflict in the start of the book. Finn is about to get run over, and afterwards the world in which he lives is revealed; the place is violent politically and is a dangerous world to exist in. It throws you straight into the action and into the lives of the people and there isn't any dilly-dallying over insignificant details.

Every Person Wants Something

It's true. Almost all of us want something out of life, whether it's freedom, true love, liberation, self-discovery, or any such thing as that. What does your character want? Make the reader discover it--but there are different ways of doing that. It can be said in the first chapter with a statement made by the character. Or you can draw out the moment that the reader learns the full scope of his/her desires through a sequence of events or by conversation with another character.

Make the want real. Make it realistic and believable. For example, if there's a man living in Chicago who has a desk job and pores over documents for a living, a realistic desire would be moving away and getting a better job doing something he enjoys. If your character is, say, the President of some country, (I actually do have a character who is the President of a planet) a believable want would be the health and prosperity of his/her people or achieving political goals.

3-Dimensionality

Everyone has their secrets. It's true. I know you do. You might say that one character has this want/need--but, underneath it all, does he/she really believe that's what they want? Withdraw from the character's thoughts for a moment and focus on their external appearances. A person's actions and body language can say a whole lot more than their words can. Do they shift here when someone mentions such-and-such? Do they cough or close their eyes when that person brings up a certain subject? What's really behind his/her attitude should be revealed to the reader and/or to the other characters around them in twists and turns of the plot.

Don't Overuse Ideas

There are a lot of characters out there that are built on the same idea, especially in series. Characters that, while in a different setting, have similar attitudes toward their experiences and follow the same paths as so many other characters before them. Therefore, one major thing you shouldn't do is repeat what others have already repeated. Be original! Take the initiative and build a new, different world with original characters. Keeping things fresh will draw the reader in and keep the interest, whereas if the plot and/or the characters resembles something else, there goes one of the major draws since the reader will be able to guess what's going to happen.

What's the Point?

What is the point of your main character(s)? Are they another facet to a bigger picture, and they're there to show different personalities? Do they add something to the diversity of the setting that your story takes place in? Do they affect others around them in significant ways? Do they have something that makes them stand out and make the reader actually feel something for the character? Love? Hate? Disgust? Adulation?

The character should say "Pay attention!" in some way. Whether it be to make the reader experience what the character is experiencing, to make the reader understand something, to get a point across, or to simply present the world and its different perspectives, you need to make sure that the particular character has a point to their existence. The role they play (for it to be worthwhile to read and write about) has to be influential enough on either the reader or the other character.


To me, those points are the main reasons I find a character compelling. Let's condense:

1. Your character must be going through some sort of significant conflict.
2. The character must want something. Money. Power. Freedom. Love. Security. Even (although this case has been a little overused in my opinion) normalcy. Something that relates to their situation believably.
3. 3-Dimensionality AKA what your character(s) is/are hiding.
4. Be original. Don't emulate, copy, or repeat.
5. Make sure that the character has a purpose in the grand scheme of things.


There you have it! Do you have anything to add? Comment on? Disagree with? Did you write your own post for this Blogging Experiment?

-----The Golden Eagle

Soap and Education Are Not as Sudden as a Massacre But are More Deadly in the Long Run*

I really don't like starting off posts that are more personal than book reviews and/or posts with a theme. Like, what do I start off the darned thing with--me, writing, stuff I'm doing 'round the blogosphere, or just some random fact? I usually go with the random fact option . . . but today I'm going to start off with the fact that my characters just turned a year old today!

You're probably thinking: HUH? but you see, I started writing my current story exactly a year ago. I think it was a year ago; for some reason this date reminds me of something. I know I started it in September sometime. Not all of my characters have reached a year yet; I only introduced some a few months ago when I was rewriting.

But Combat Chief Neodvisni (I didn't know his last name at the outset--I should have since that's what everyone calls him) and Esperanza, (no last name anyway), the two main characters in the story have been in my mind almost every day for the past year.

Question here: how often do YOU think about your characters? I do a lot. Like daily.

*****

Guess what? I signed up for Alex J. Cavanaugh's Top Ten TV Shows Blogfest set for September 20th. I don't watch any TV beyond PBS (I'm not kidding!) but I since I love a bunch that they show I decided to put my name up there. I only have tomorrow to write it though since I put it off--panic attack! I'm going to have to make up that list pretty fast. :P But I don't mind--go sign up yourself!

I'm also participating in Alex, Jennifer Daiker, and Elana Johnson's Great Blogging Experiment. I love that title. I'm really going to hit the blogging world on September 24th to see what everyone thinks is the best way to write compelling characters. Again--SIGN UP.

Watch out for my posts, too! :)

*****

The trees are starting to change here. They're turning orange, yellow, red, fading to brown . . . it's pretty, but it's also getting colder to point where I need a jacket. I don't like wearing jackets--anything bulky just gets on my nerves. The temperatures are dropping at night and in the day, 80s are unlikely and 60s are common, it's been in the 40s . . . but I love fall. It's my favorite season.

*****

I know I was going to say something else but I can't remember it now . . . hrrrmm. What was it? Eh. Never mind. I'll think of it tomorrow and probably forget it again . . . you know, it seems like whenever I start writing my posts the thoughts I had fly out the window. It's same with my story--the computer seems to dash everything I had in mind.

Ah well. I usually wing it successfully enough. Don't you think?

Here's a random fact I just noticed: I have a total of 458 tags.

458!? I don't use that many very often! I'm glad I don't have one of the lists of all the tags I have. It would take up the whole sidebar. I have such things as "Angels and Demons" "American Experience" "iPod" "Kenneth Feinberg" and all sorts of miscellany. Including "Zippidy-do-dah".

*****

Oh, hey, I just realized PBS is showing Victor Borge.

VICTOR BORGE. THAT GUY IS HILARIOUS. It's too bad he died. It's the Falling Leaves one--ever seen it? LOL.

*****

*Mark Twain quotation

-----The Golden Eagle