writerly ways

[cornerofmadness]

Reading a book recently (City of Dragons) got me thinking about two different writing issues and thought, all right, these could be interesting to talk about so I will (this week and next unless I forget). The two topics were ‘broken’ characters and the issues of historical writing.

In honesty, the abovementioned book impressed me with the wrong way to go about doing these things. I’ll talk about the broken characters since I have a strong interest in them. Obviously, there is a lot of mileage one can get out of writing a character that holds deep hurts in their heart. The heroine of City of Dragons had lost the love of her life and it sent her on such a tailspin that she went from nurse to escort and is now onto being a p.i. She sank low. She doesn’t have a high opinion of men. It’s 1940 so she has a hard row to hoe being a female PI. This could be so very interesting.

In the end, Miranda becomes a miserable character who is so loving her hair shirt that its very difficult (at least for me and from the reviews, many others on Goodreads) to like. That’s what got me thinking, how do you have a character who is broken, who isn’t the happiest camper and get people interested in them without turning them off. Let’s face it. There is enough misery in the world that a lot of people aren’t going to want to feast on it in the pages of their escapism of choice.

Usually, I try to give that character something to cling to, some small joy, some ray of hope. One of the biggest things I think I do is to not make the character treat everyone like garbage (one of my number one complaints of my example heroine). It gets very hard to like someone like that. Not every story needs a happy ending but in my experience a lot of people prefer them so long as they’re believable. Maybe the broken character isn’t completely healed by the end. Maybe they’re just taking baby steps toward it.

On the other hand, maybe they’re completely lost by the end. So what have you given them that will make the reader weep for them? How have you forged the bonds between broken character and reader? I think this scenario would be far tougher.

So how do you all do it? Have you even tried? Inquiring minds want to know (and inquiring minds are so senile they have forgotten what commercial that came from)

A week in writing

Yearly original fiction word count -

4756 / 125000 words. 4% done!

FMA Big Bang -

19154 / 21000 words. 91% done!

Saiyuki Big Bang -

9145 / 15000 words. 61% done!
Edited – nothing. Go me.

Comments

[raceulfson.livejournal.com]

Misery is very self centered, and thus eventually tedious and annoying for everyone who isn't the Miserable One.

All the damaged characters I like and enjoy reading about just don't dwell on it. A perfect example is FMA. I realize they are manga characters and not literary ones but Hiromu Arakawa gave them a lot of depth. Roy, Ed, Al, Riza, and Alex are all known to have had very traumatic things happen and yet they struggled on and rarely if ever referred to them. It was enough that the reader knew, and understood why
characters reacted to certain events the way they did. I think a character gets more sympathy that way, whereas the woe is me types grate on the nerves.

The only ways to make me want to read about an utterly broken character would be that I already knew and liked the character before he was broken and was hopeful of his recovery (classic hurt comfort) or if I really liked the caregiver of the broken character.

[anat-astarte.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with this :D

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

yes so do I

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

Misery is very self centered, and thus eventually tedious and annoying for everyone who isn't the Miserable One.

This is it. This is why i try to post other things other than how sick/how much i hurt i am. No one wants a steady diet of that. It wears you down.

Asking for solutions to a problem then getting irate over the advice is even worse.

damaged people that ARE nothing but walking misery are surely out there but they eventually drive off friends and I can't imagine wanting to waste 300 pages reading about them.

I agree withyou on the type of damaged c haracters and how to portray them

[raceulfson.livejournal.com]

"Asking for solutions to a problem then getting irate over the advice is even worse." What is worse than that is the person who dismisses any and suggestions to help and then complains that no one cares about his problems.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

no argument. Been seeing that a lot lately, in fiction and in the real world

[bob_fish.livejournal.com]

I very much agree with this. Misery isn't necessarily your own fault or blameable, but it can make you self-absorbed.

I'd add - though it's similar to what others have said - that it's difficult for me to read a totally passive protagonist. A passive POV character who's more of an observer/narrator of the action is doable, but a lead character who doesn't act or try is tough to stick with. It'd be easier for me to read about a character's passive crumbling at length if it was from someone else's perspective.

This doesn't mean endings have to be happy, of course. Teaching Oedipus Rex means it sprang to mind - although the audience knows Oedipus is doomed from the start, he's far from a passive plaything of fate. He barrels ahead for the whole play, speaking before he thinks and continuing to investigate even when it's obvious to all that he's going to wind up destroying himself. Plus, he's something of a dick. But his determination and forward momentum makes you sympathise with him.

I'd also say that I'm more interested in reading damaged characters than broken ones. Messes and what you do about them (good and bad) are interesting; 300 pages of despair isn't so interesting to me, partly because what's so different on p.300 than on p.1?

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

good points all. and maybe that's actually the key, I like writing/reading 'damaged' characters over broken

completely passive characters are also not that grand. some of mine are, or at least start that way but by the end they're moving

[bob_fish.livejournal.com]

Well, lots of good, interesting POV characters start out as passive before something gets them (and the story) moving. Even hyper-determined little Ed had his despairing post-DIY-mom phase until Mustang and Hawkeye's offer gave him that push to get moving and brought out his 'fire'. (although of course we meet him mid-story)

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

so very true and at least if they go from passive to active they're growing or something

[marlex.livejournal.com]

I will have to go with another manga example. Soichiro Arima in Kare Kano.

It's not the perfect analogy since he's not the POV character at the beginning. He keeps his misery to himself early on, but as we learn more about him through Yukino and later get to see things through his POV, we see just how screwed up his childhood is and why he is so miserable.

As the manga continued, he really got close to the edge on being too much self-pity, but again, we learned even more about his childhood to warrant it... to a point.

I guess what saved it is there were moments where we could see that he wanted to be a better person... and tried. So even if had failed in the end to overcome his problems, it would have added to the overall tragedy and let us mourn the character rather than hate him.

Not sure if any of that actually made sense. I tried.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

oh it made sense

I guess what saved it is there were moments where we could see that he wanted to be a better person... and tried. So even if had failed in the end to overcome his problems, it would have added to the overall tragedy and let us mourn the character rather than hate him.

this is what I'm talking about. he's trying, at least a little. He's not treating everyone like dirt and wallowing

Granted that DOES happen in the real world. More often than not but do we really want to keep these people as our friends? There is only so many times you can try to help before their nastiness drives you off and why in the world would you want to read about them

[evil-little-dog.livejournal.com]

I hope Domi and Tod and Sophie were engaging characters. Sophie kept her hurts buried, for the most part; Tod, of course, had more than one personality, and Domi, of course, HAS ISSUES. Lots of them.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

They are. Sophie and Tod (well SOphie) had friends, tried to help herself. Domi has Kisyl and Tarran whether he wants him or not. they don't sit around thinking i'm SO miserable all the time

[evil-little-dog.livejournal.com]

Tod liked Concetta?

No, none of them sat around thinking about being miserable.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

He did, didn't he? As I recall, he didn't call people up for help, act like a douche once he got it then threaten them with a gun for no reason (yes all of which happened in the novel I mentioned)

[evil-little-dog.livejournal.com]

No, he was too shy/broken to ask for help, even when he needed it.

[spiderling.livejournal.com]

When I was a teenager I LOVED angty miserable characters (you may remeber some of them :) ) But as I've gotten older I've gotten tired of totally miserable damaged characters. Raceulfson is right about misery being self centered. There is a certain point, in real life and in books where you just have to say, enough already. Either figure how to get unmiserable or just shut up.

There is NO talking to a miserable person. Nothing you say will be greated by anything other than nastyness and depression. It is in a lot of ways one-dimensional.

But the characters who fall, and fail, and are damaged but still manage to try for something are more interesting. This is a case where fiction is often better than real life. In real life people can and do stay mierable bitchs no matter what. But in fiction you can make them change.

In reallife anyone with any sense cuts these people off eventually and if fiction like the book you mentioned wanted to be true to life no one would talk to this woman! If she treats everyone like crap then how can she cultivate contact and informers?

BUT, personally I don't write entirely miserable people anymore. They don't interest me anymore unle they have something going for them, humor, or ambition, or just soemthing that doesn't make them entirely annoying.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

But the characters who fall, and fail, and are damaged but still manage to try for something are more interesting

Exactly. That is my thought as well.

If she treats everyone like crap then how can she cultivate contact and informers?

I think I asked something similar in my review of the book (which is up for numerous awards which leave me wondering WTF)

BUt i agree if all they are is a big ball of misery and have no interest in helping themselves, why should I want to read them or write about them.

I do a lot of broken characters and one of the interesting thing to me writing them is moving them past their injuries

[likeabulldozer.livejournal.com]

I love the broken characters. It's one of my 'things'. However I think with broken characters they have to be redeemable. You have to see bright moments where the possibility of this character being somewhat whole is there. Lost causes are rarely appealing. They also have to allow one person in, at least because through that one person the reader is allowed to be 'in' with the character.

At least that's my opinion on broken characters.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

i agree. I like them. I mean they're in practically everything I write

letting at least one person in, i think that might be the key

[likeabulldozer.livejournal.com]

I think it's really crucial to letting the reader like a character that's so broken. Sort of allowing them to stand in that person's shoes.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

i agree and if the reader can find nothign to like you're doomed