So Good Their Bad

[manyeyedhydra]

I've never killed a character. I think I should.

I kill too many of mine. Poor bastards.

There is something very satisfying about creating an asshole in the knowledge they're going to come to a very bad end.

 

[Darkniciad]

Most of my character deaths have been antagonists, usually in horrific ways, two of whom I've ressurected through magic and cloning. Several supporting/peripheral cast members have passed away "off camera". I've had one peripheral cast member just drift off peacefully to a final sleep. The only central protagonist I've actually had die was Clint from my first Laresa chapter, but he won't be the last.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Um... I hate to be the Grinch but... shouldn't the title be "So Good They're Bad?"

 

[3113]

Not so much faith in the readers as an understanding of how people tick

Funny, that's why I have no faith in readers. My understanding of how they tick. I go to four or five conventions a year where I do nothing but hear and talk to readers. And I disagree. 90% of them will pick a story with a Ken or Barbie doll who has LESS character than one who has more.

I remember one discussion I had with a roomful of rabid fans about a certain character. They gushed for an hour about how this character was like this or that, felt this or that, thought this or that. I'd read the book as well. I asked them to provide me with evidence, any evidence, that the character was this or that, thought this or that, felt this or that. They couldn't. Know why? Because not a single piece of evidence existed that the character was, thought or felt any of that. Not even in the character's actions. These readers, one and all, had picked a blank, a character on which they could, like little kids with dolls, impose their own desired feelings, thoughts and reasons for doing things.

This, alas, is not atypical. HOWEVER as I said in my FIRST post, this all this very much depends on the type of story that is being written and to what audience. Reading, sadly, isn't something that most people like to do. They'd rather watch television or play video games. So voracious readers are likely to be more discerning and pick stories with characters that have character. But the light readers--who vastly out number the voracious readers--bring that cipher sensibility to their choices.

So if you're describing readers as those who love to read, then how they tick may lean them toward more character than cipher. But if you're describing people in general and the type of characters they love, then I'll stand by my assertion; ciphers (aka: Ken doll heroes who are purely good fighting some big, purely evil villain) will win out even in a blind taste-test. Picking between two Ken dolls, these readers will go for the cipher over the one with character, because, ironically they've given the cipher all sorts of character that he doesn't have. That they can do this with the more character-less Ken doll is why he's more popular.

 

[Guest]

...........

 

[Stella_Omega]

Probably. I need a forum-post editor.
Besides, you can't go back and edit thread titles. :-/

We could change the topic;

"So good, their bad"

What's the best dastardly deed you've ever given a villain in your work?

 

[Guest]

...........

 

[neonlyte]

We could change the topic;

"So good, their bad"

What's the best dastardly deed you've ever given a villain in your work?

I have a mother who attempts to trade her daughter (sex) - Bluebell described her as one of the best villains she'd come across - she is. Unfortunately, I can't publish the relevant chapter on Lit, which is why it's on STORY. The first three posted chapters give a pretty good idea of Catherine-Sophia, though read the revised chapter one down the thread.

 

[Darkniciad]

We could change the topic;

"So good, their bad"

What's the best dastardly deed you've ever given a villain in your work?

Hmmm -- let's see... Zoraster linked Danica's mind to a clone body, forcing her to experience everything through the clone without her knowledge, and did the same with one of the few friends Danica had in her enslavement. He gave her a false mission to undertake, which eventually resulted in Danica having to watch Andrea get sucked dry by a vampire while she lay helpless to prevent it. She then endured the same, Zoraster only breaking his spell as the clone's heart stopped, triggering a magic that disintegrated the clone and the vampire. Offing the vampire was more or less peripheral, because the real purpose was simply a reminder to Danica of her place. She'd gone over the line with independant thinking in recent days.

He also slowly crushed his stepmother to death with magic against a stone wall, giggling and laughing as ever larger bones snapped under the pressure and her breath wheezed out of her lungs.

My years of still vividly remembered nightmares as a teen are fertile ground for a sadistic, insane Archmage.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oooh, you guys are MEAN!

I can't think of things like that--

The worst I have is an antihero protagonist who willingly smuggles priceless artifacts out of their proper places in history. She fucks whomever she wants, without caring about, for instance, their SO's. She engineers to set up a woman to be raped-- although she endures rape at the same time. She also demands to have the subsequent embryo removed from her body-- it gets placed in suspension, but not because she cares.

(such girly bad deeds!)

 

[Darkniciad]

Pretty much every nasty death or maiming I write is one of a multitude from the nightmares I still can't shake out of my head any time I come across something that's a memory trigger.

The box crushers at work bring up that stepmother smashing every time I go past them. That dream was me having to watch one of my buds get slowly compacted in one. The burned in my brain sounds of bones snapping and breath wheezing out into a little squeak still makes my hair stand on end.

Thank heavens I don't see cars on fire very often, because the image of a blackened toddler stumbling around zombie-like from that dream screws me up for hours. I used the edges of that dream in Ebon Genesis too, to describe the injuries from the protective rings his stepmother and half-sister wore.

 

[Weird Harold]

I remember one discussion I had with a roomful of rabid fans about a certain character. They gushed for an hour about how this character was like this or that, felt this or that, thought this or that. I'd read the book as well. I asked them to provide me with evidence, any evidence, that the character was this or that, thought this or that, felt this or that. They couldn't. Know why? Because not a single piece of evidence existed that the character was, thought or felt any of that. Not even in the character's actions. These readers, one and all, had picked a blank, a character on which they could, like little kids with dolls, impose their own desired feelings, thoughts and reasons for doing things.

I think we're just looking at different levels of reader motivations. I'm not sure that "rabid fans" can be used as a model for all readers -- or even those fans who will spend the bucks to attend a convention.

Unfortunately, "Hollywood" and "Madisaon Avenue" have managed to dumb down the average reader with mindless drivel tot he point where it is "fashionable" to watch/read stories that consist of a series of gratutitous explosions.

But on a deeper level -- the level of cavemen gathered around the fire to listen to the clan storyteller or medieval peasants gathered to hear a traveling minstrel -- those "elements a good story must have," plot, characterization, conflict, etc, are still applicable to every audience -- no matter how much they try to rationalize away or distort those basic principles.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I remember one discussion I had with a roomful of rabid fans about a certain character. They gushed for an hour about how this character was like this or that, felt this or that, thought this or that. I'd read the book as well. I asked them to provide me with evidence, any evidence, that the character was this or that, thought this or that, felt this or that. They couldn't. Know why? Because not a single piece of evidence existed that the character was, thought or felt any of that. Not even in the character's actions. These readers, one and all, had picked a blank, a character on which they could, like little kids with dolls, impose their own desired feelings, thoughts and reasons for doing things.

This is where the motivation for fanfic comes from, yanno.

 

[Equinoxe]

Unfortunately, "Hollywood" and "Madisaon Avenue" have managed to dumb down the average reader with mindless drivel tot he point where it is "fashionable" to watch/read stories that consist of a series of gratutitous explosions.

But on a deeper level -- the level of cavemen gathered around the fire to listen to the clan storyteller or medieval peasants gathered to hear a traveling minstrel -- those "elements a good story must have," plot, characterization, conflict, etc, are still applicable to every audience -- no matter how much they try to rationalize away or distort those basic principles.

Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the representation of character: character comes in as subsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy; and the end is the chief thing of all. Again, without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character. The tragedies of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of character; and of poets in general this is often true.

Characterisation shares the same position in most people's minds that it has since the dawn of time. People want action and movement, and the players are mostly important inasmuch as they serve the action and, in a limited, visceral sense, appeal to the reader—at least to the average person.

We can see this in ancient poem and prose, even the greatest work of Greek and Latin authors. Achilles's only real personality trait is his rage. Odysseus's only real personality trait is his cleverness. Aeneas's only real personality trait is his loyalty to the will of the Gods.

It is hardly new and I don't think Hollywood is to blame—indeed, the conventions of Hollywood and genre fiction are probably the most true to the conventions of the ancients of any in contemporary storytelling. The characterisation heavy, psychologically driven novel is largely a product of late 19th century literary art and a fairly new concept which has never completely filtered down into popular writing.

 

[Weird Harold]

We can see this in ancient poem and prose, even the greatest work of Greek and Latin authors. Achilles's only real personality trait is his rage. Odysseus's only real personality trait is his cleverness. Aeneas's only real personality trait is his loyalty to the will of the Gods.

It is hardly new and I don't think Hollywood is to blame—indeed, the conventions of Hollywood and genre fiction are probably the most true to the conventions of the ancients of any in contemporary storytelling.

Characterization might not be the paramount element of epic fiction in the style of the ancient greek tragedies, but there was SOME characterization if only the exagerated personality stereotyping of Achilles, Odysseus and Aeaneas.

The characterisation heavy, psychologically driven novel is largely a product of late 19th century literary art and a fairly new concept which has never completely filtered down into popular writing.

I think it's probably a good thing that the 19th century concept hasn't filtered down into popular writing -- especially the Russian "War and Peace" and "Dr. Zhivago" style.

The thing is that the balance between the various necessary elements might change with "fashion" but all of the elements need to be present in some degree.

 

[bluebell]

I have a mother who attempts to trade her daughter (sex) - Bluebell described her as one of the best villains she'd come across - she is. Unfortunately, I can't publish the relevant chapter on Lit, which is why it's on STORY. The first three posted chapters give a pretty good idea of Catherine-Sophia, though read the revised chapter one down the thread.

You shameless plug-hussy.

Catherine-Sophia is one wicked, coldly calculatin', nasty-lovin'-copulatin' kinda babe.
She rides with spurs, folks.

 

[Equinoxe]

Characterization might not be the paramount element of epic fiction in the style of the ancient greek tragedies, but there was SOME characterization if only the exagerated personality stereotyping of Achilles, Odysseus and Aeaneas.



I think it's probably a good thing that the 19th century concept hasn't filtered down into popular writing -- especially the Russian "War and Peace" and "Dr. Zhivago" style.

The thing is that the balance between the various necessary elements might change with "fashion" but all of the elements need to be present in some degree.

Perhaps. I think it depends on what we mean by characterisation, though.

There are two sorts of characterisation, what we might call internal characterisation and external characterisation, or psychological characterisation and action-oriented characterisation. The average person does not usually want, much less require any sort of internal characterisation, in my observation, but external characterisation is partly unavoidable if there is any sort of plot and so I think people are drawn to that.

Psychological characterisation—depth of character, thought, feeling, and motivation—is relatively rare, even in many great works of literature throughout history. As I said, I don't think the average person generally cares to know the thoughts and feelings of a character. By contrast, some sort of characterisation will necessarily follow from action: if a character says or does something, they are something, but it follows from the external and not the internal.

That is the sort of characterisation that I think people in general respond to and I think it has something to do with being able to put themselves in a story. If you have a fully-fledged character, with motivations and thoughts and feelings of their own, it is difficult to be them: you, the reader, are a voyeur into someone's private mind. However, if you have someone saying and doing clever things and engaged in interesting adventures, anyone can imagine themselves in that role without feeling that it conflicts with their sense of self—they can imagine themselves being wittier, or more popular, or whatever, but they can't really imagine themselves thinking or feeling differently than they do. The character then is basically a more interesting version of themselves.

ETA: There is perhaps the essence of the distinction between entertainment and art: entertainment is escape, art is voyeurism.

 

[Weird Harold]

Perhaps. I think it depends on what we mean by characterisation, though.

There are two sorts of characterisation, what we might call internal characterisation and external characterisation, or psychological characterisation and action-oriented characterisation. The average person does not usually want, much less require any sort of internal characterisation, in my observation, but external characterisation is partly unavoidable if there is any sort of plot and so I think people are drawn to that.

As I said earlier, I don't think the author necessarily needs to explicitly tell the reader about the charactrer's (villian's) motivations and thoughts, but if they present at some point, to some degree, I think the readers will respond to the character more.

It probably is a difference of definitions, though.

Serials have always been popular with the masses because no matter how two-dimensional the characters are they they become "familiar and predictible," like old friends. But serials where the characters are too predictible or too generic aren't as popular as popular as serials with distinctive characters.

But my whole point here is that no matter what people say they want to read, but there are factors that work below the conscious level that attract or repel readers.

Many time I've seen people here in the AH say things like, "I don't read first person stories; well except for this one story that was realy good even if it was in firstperson POV," or "I normally don't like that category, but this one story was really, really good."

To me, those are examples of people's subconscious picking out the subliminal story elements that overcome learned prejudices/

In a sense, this is a nurture vs nature disagreement -- I believe that there are story and story-telling elements/factors that work on inherent and subsconsious level over and above the "learned" preferences; Things that don't require either the author or reader to be consciously aware of the presence or lack, but things that the reader will react to in somewhat predictible ways if an author can do them deliberately.

 

[elsol]

Are your protagonists/antagonists like that? Do you give your good guys flaws in their character or in their appearance? And what about bad guys are there some redeeming qualities? Opinions?

I believe in anti-heroes and the self-centered.

There are no bad guys or good guys, just people who want diametrically opposed things... sure, each side has their justifications, but at the end of the day if you pile bodies at the temple of your faith, does it really matter if it's God or money that you worship?

And I do so love to pile bodies at temples.