Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
XI. Misc
>
Characters - The Usual or Something New?
I do get tired of those tropes, so I wrote a protagonist who doesn't follow them. They're everywhere in modern reads though, but I guess that's just the influence of writing.
I'm totally with you here.The genres I read are full of cliché female characters, too perfect characters, pure of heart, intelligent, selfless, but yet gorgeous of course! Oh and the male main character is one or more of; insanely rich, super young yet incredibly successful businessman, very talented musician/rockstar, insanely talented sportsman/fighter/soldier, or a vampire (a powerful special one though, not a regular run of the mill one).
Oh and there's the 'damaged girl' trope too. But it's all ok because she'll meet aforementioned alpha male who will fix all her issues just by the mere fact that he is heart stopping hot.
I don't mind reading some like this, like you say for a bit of mindless escapism. Actually, it just means that when you read books with real, flawed and interesting characters, they are all the more satisfying to read. It is pure joy to come across a change. This is why Rainbow Rowell is my author of the year :)
I guess what It is for me is: flawed characters are fascinating..do they move forward or do their flaws overwhelm them? When I read thrillers or romances a flawed hero or heroine is fine....but most people when they buy a romance expect a happy ever after. When they read thrillers they expect the world-shaking event/ evil guy/organization to be thwarted/stopped/diverted and everyone can take a deep breath knowing in many cases that something else will come up for the hero/heroine to fix, thwart etc. in the future. Or perhaps, there is some small thing they overlooked that will WHAM! Create a new problem down the line.
So you're right. There are expectations.
When those expectations are not met you'll get readers who will feel let down and others who will say all right! Good choice! A different spice!
I enjoy books who make little left turns and I think whoa...I didn't see that coming.
But I do read for relaxation or a thrill. When I need to read masters of my craft then I settle down with Willa Cather or a Mark Twain....someone with meat on their bones.
But I like variety
I like surprise and mystery to my heroines and heroes...but for me, there is nothing wrong with predictability either.
When you want an Oreo you don't bite into a carrot!
I suppose for me, I would say that I like predictability in tone and atmosphere but surprises in plot lines and characters. If a book is gothic horror, I will be expecting rain, shadows, graveyards, etc. But I don't want it to recycle characters and plots from previous Gothic horror books. I find the romance and action genres to be the most predictable, but those are the genres where readers are usually not expecting surprises. The market makes a demand and someone is going to supply the product. It's good business but increasingly uninspired entertainment.
Yeah, its pretty bad. Its laziness on both sides of the product. Conniving authors always seek the shortest path to a paycheck, of course. But really, readers and moviegoers usually get the type of books and movies they deserve. Authors can hardly be blamed for following the audience level. Audiences are at fault for failing to be demanding, discriminating, or scrupulous.
This is why good criticism and guidance is important. If people don't even realize that they can have better-quality products, then they don't know when they should be outraged; they don't know when they should reject what they're being offered. They don't know where else they can turn. They assume that the current way-of-things is the norm... and so things stay exactly the same, from year to year.
Not trying to be snotty....but it was ever thus....Ever read a Victorian novel not by a mainstream author? It will rot your socks right off..
Exactly what the market demands will be answered.
Some authors write for profit, some because they can and others because they have something they need to say....
I'm always looking for the unusual and will not read a book unless there is something that I think is unusual about it. If the characters are the usual for that genre, then the author had better be telling a story that I've never seen before, have an unusual perspective, or an unusual concept. For me, a character that lacks confidence isn't unusual enough. There are plenty of characters that have low self-esteem. If I'm reading a book for the characters, they have to be on the quirky side.
Arabella wrote: "Not trying to be snotty....but it was ever thus....Ever read a Victorian novel not by a mainstream author? It will rot your socks right off..
Exactly what the market demands will be answered.
Som..."
No, not really. It was never thus. This comment strikes me as slightly misleading. If we assumed this to be so, then we'd have to assume that nothing has ever changed in bookselling in over 150 years? Standards of quality were always as poor as they are today? Not possible. In Victorian times, Britain nor the USA could hardly be said to suffered anything like the same technology-based, advertising-driven, mass-media markets and fast-moving business environment we have today. Different eras always had different ratios of wheat-to-chaff in their creative products; and the ratio changes based on cultural progression/cultural stagnation. Not only were there were 'golden ages' and 'dark ages'; there's also a steady drying-up going on underneath. Like an ore being played out-- skills and craftsmanship replaced by tech. In today's world...where everything is recorded/preserved/recycled, its easy to see we're quickly running out of fresh or new ideas. Science fiction was pallid until Spielberg/Lucas arrived with space-operas; which boomed, briefly--but already they're flat and stale. Too many spoons in the soup. Over-saturation by too many products. Meanwhile, in the 1800s when horror as a genre was sparsely populated, gems were routinely produced.
That's true---but as to writing to what sells--to a general reading populace versus a discerning reading populace I think that has remained pretty much the same--though the numbers of readers and they way they read has changed
It all depends on how it's done. An archetypal character can hold appear in my eyes as long as the author has managed to make him/her come to life. The problem IMHO lies much more with how too many authors take such archetypes and use them in boring ways; as a result, as soon as you read more than just a few books in a given genre/with similar archetypes, all the characters end up looking like each other, everything's blurred, and the archetype becomes a mere (bad) cliché.Note that the contrary can be true as well. Sometimes, when we try too hard, we fail.
Agreed, although I think for the most part its in our nature to write about the obvious, cliche and sometimes corny characters. It's always a treat when we get to read about a character who is not only different and outside the box but demonstrates a new type of approach and really takes on a life of their own. I think in order to establish a good thought out unique character one has to right about the typicals for a while to at least get the rhythm down on a basis. As much as we like reading about characters as such, we always love when a character with different traits and doesn't go by a set of rules comes along.
ehhh. M'mmm. I've read whats considered 'bad' Victorian literature and still found its much better than the best romance ebook series I see produced in the modern day. I think one can say it was a better timeperiod for English prose, across-the-board. I'll go out on the limb here even though I wasn't an English lit major. Maybe some lit guru can weigh in...
In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a SPA, but the reviews I have received on Amazon are not paid for or manipulated in anyway.I love some of the things I have done with different characters in my books. I would like to think everyone would feel the same, but people are different have different tastes.
For example: Samantha Jackson is the focal of my first published book, SMALL VICTORIES. She is a determined, black women that wants make the streets where she grew up a better place by using the criminal justice system to targeting organized crime. NO love interest or super natural talents, just hard work and sense of duty.
Then there is Drew Singer, in BORN HUNTER, who is a monster hunter that feels he has to risk his life to protect everyone from including a confused good witch that the rest of his team would have killed on the spot.
Natalya Borisyuki is the focal of my third book, EYE OF THE BULLET, which should be out this month. Natalya is an orphaned girl who is tortured and abused. After she kills her tormentor, a corrupt police officer, she is recruited into the Russian version of the CIA. Her skill as an assassin develops into a super hero complex and she isn't killing people for Mother Russia, she goes around killing those that would hurt young women.
My favorite and darkest character is Marcos, who shows up in several of my books. Marcos is a wizard of old magic and is the first vampire. He looks at death as an experiment and is happiest when he is making someone suffer. Even after they die, he likes to torture the spirits of his victims. Underneath all of his evil and disregard for life, Marcos only wants to please his lord and would do anything just to get a little recognition for his loyalty.
I won't say my characters are traditional in anyway, but they are sure fun to write about. What do you think?
What often irks me is the effort put into making the character 'likable'. I don't give a rat's snotty effluence about likability.
I want my characters to be interesting. Now, you *can* have interesting and likable characters, but in most cases, the effort the author puts into making the character likable often makes the characters generic to appeal to the masses.
And the weird thing is: it's not necessary. My own characters are hardly 'likable', although many readers grow fond of them despite their sarcasm or cruelty.
I read an interview with an actor who was always cast as the villain and he said that truly enjoyed playing the evil character, because they were more 'interesting'. And with interesting, he mostly meant 'flawed' and 'realistic', while the protagonists were often these bland perfect creatures, or they are written in a way that we feel sympathy for them.
But we love our flawed characters. Ask people about the most memorable character from The Silence of the Lambs and 90% will choose Hannibal Lecter. Why? Because he's interesting. Not because he's likable, because he isn't, but Lecter is fascinating.
Now, Lecter is a difficult example, because--while we enjoy his brilliant cruelty--the sequels where he was made the protagonist pale in comparison to Silence of the Lambs.
So, if you write a character that has these negative traits, you can still bind readers to your stories just as well, and maybe better, than writing these perfect beings virtually no-one can identify with.
Martyn wrote: "What often irks me is the effort put into making the character 'likable'. I don't give a rat's snotty effluence about likability.
I want my characters to be interesting. Now, you *can* have int..."
I agree completely. Characters with flaws are just more realistic, even if the subject matter of the book is far from reality. Part of what makes good genre fiction is examining how real personalities would react to unbelievable circumstances. For example: how people band together, or more often, turn on each other, in zombie apocalypse scenarios. Flaws can be a great device for moving a plot forward. Perfect characters will solve every problem with little to no effort, and that takes the tension out of things. If you know beforehand that the hero will triumph over evil, get the girl, and ride off into the sunset unscathed, it can take a lot of the fun out of reading. I've always been fond of authors who demonstrate a willingness to let their protagonists fail now and then. Maybe they lose their best friend due to their own hubris, but learn from their mistakes. A character with no faults has no room to grow.
I have read reviews where people complain that a character "was not likeable" so I guess that is what some people appreciate. I prefer non-likeable ones, if they are not boring - that would count as a way of being unlikeable? (I do believe that is not what was meant by it.)Some of my favourite books - check, I think all of my favourite books have more or less awful main characters. Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov has some likeable characteristics but, erm, he is a murderer and quite an obnoxious snob a lot of the time. A lot of other characters in the book, and those that I most like, are also rather nasty. Song of Ice and Fire - "characters so venomous they could eat the Borgias" says the blurb at the back, om nom nom. The Butcher Boy, ah, that is a sick read and such a good book, looking at the world from inside a disturbed mind, as is The Wasp Factory. There is little to like about The Talented Mr. Ripley, but such is Highsmiths's skill that we the readers still want to see him succeed. The Third Policeman is also written from the murderer's point of view, though the pleasures of that book are not so much with the characters but all the incidental nonsense that takes place. What else... WALTARI MIKA's Sinuhe and Mikael Furfoot are sort of likeable, but more or less permanently lost, unlike a proper heroic hero types. I don't think the women in Margaret Atwood's books are necessarily likeable - even the protagonist of Cat's Eye that I especially like does not come across as really nice, and of course it is Cordelia, the villainess, that is the real focus a lot of the time.
Feliks wrote: "Science fiction was pallid until Spielberg/Lucas arrived with space-operas; which boomed, briefly--but already they're flat and stale ..."Maybe science-fiction films weren't all that great before Spielberg/Lucas, but science-fiction literature had seen some pretty darn good writers for decades. I think, in fact, there's been a tendency for the film industry to reduce complex characters from fiction to one and two dimensions. I also believe there are some interesting characters and worthwhile novels still being written. Yes, they are increasingly hard to find because so much is being self-published. But surely we have to keep making the effort. Beats watching the latest Thor movie or Batman vs. the Zombies, anyway.
I agree with David.I think Star wars and E.T. are flat and stale because not only has SF filmmaking moved on but because these films WERE the leaders in strong SF filmmaking. There was little behind them when they came out and they refreshed a hokey film genre into something unexpected and wonderful. We have seen these movies or bits of them a zillion times. I think SF filmmaking in particular HAS been remaking way too much and I love the genre. There's terrific SF out there. Like, The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula Le Guin or any of Kurt Vonnegut's SF material, or The Foundation series by Asimov.
But movies are almost always, especially by major studios, released to make money so if the last five six Batman movies made money, by God, so will the next six.
Well, I can see why you might think that ..lots of SF fans would assert the same, and in good faith. But remember, one reason 'Star Wars' hit so big was because for so long, SF previous to that breakthrough was gloomy, downbeat, and dystopic. From the steampunk era onward--even the 'big bug' flicks in the 1950s--science fiction was about scaring people. As for literature, sure--there were always a small smattering of talents who kept the field moving forward. However: for a long, long, time--even during the 'golden age of sci-fi'--the genre was looked upon in a very disparaging way, by almost the whole of society. It was considered such a lowly grade of material that most people never even saved science-fiction pulp stories in their homes. Not even libraries or colleges preserved science-fiction. You could hardly find a bookshelf stocked with it. That's why it was so remarkable when it was discovered that one queer hobbyist--a private devotee of SF--had gone ahead and saved every copy of every title he came across. He amassed a vast collection, all on his own and eventually bequeathed it to the University of California. Its called the Eaton Collection and is still there today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaton_co...
Today, we can look back on early SF and praise the Bradburys, Heinleins, and Asimovs. But the Eaton holdings do speak to the fact that the genre only came to be respected in a painfully slow manner; and some of that was due to movies and tv, probably. Those early Buster Crabbe serials turned out to be the means by which the genre was saved.
p.s. I fully agree that SF is miles better than all this superhero nonsense
There are a couple of opposing tendencies here, which have to be balanced by the writer. The old familiarity vs. novelty thing is at the root of it. You've heard of the audience that demands a new work, exactly like the old one? This is the impulse that forces romance novels into rigid formula. (There was a period of time when, if you got the guidelines from a romance publisher, they were amazingly precise: she had to meet him before page 12; they could get cozy but not have sex before page 100; she couldn't enjoy it until page 150, and so on.)Similarly, the likeable-unlikeable dichotomy. Nobody, real or fictional is completely likeable or unlikeable to everybody; at minimum we all have different tastes and like different things. The writer cannot please everybody.
I recently finished American Psycho, the protagonist of which being odious to the extreme and the story itself being nauseating at times. And it was darn near incredible. The book made me feel ill and I wanted to put it down but I couldn't. I felt compelled to keep reading despite how unsettled I felt. Books that do that to me stick with me far longer than well-written but unsurprising stories.A current example of this is the TV program Sons of Anarchy. It'd be so easy to make a pleasantly trashy show about a bunch of rough-and-tumble motorcycle rebels raising hell and living by their own rules. But instead we are given one of the most vile casts of characters ever assembled on TV (six seasons in, any woman that still finds Jax Teller appealing probably has serious daddy issues). And it's riveting. The show writers manage to walk the find line between contempt and sympathy, and America can't look away. Kind of like the "it hurts so good" feeling with getting tattooed. It hurts like hell but deep down inside, you don't want it to stop because the thrill is addictive. A good book can have the same effect.
@Geoffrey - I also had a reviewer say the characters of one of my books were unlikable and I thought, "well, one is a Satanist and the other is a cold-hearted assassin. I'd be questioning either my writing ability or your moral standards if you did find them endearing." :-P
Bah, some people do find Dexter endearing, which I never understood. ;)
@GG - the all-encompassing daddy issues again :-PI have a serious question for the ladies here, since it's no secret that women make up the lion's share of the fiction market and women often get more into the characters than men (why are The Hunger Games books so popular? It's not because of the ludicrous plot or the unoriginal dystopian world; it's because Katniss rocks). So here's my question: would you read an action story with a female protagonist that isn't the butt-kicking taking-care-of-business hero chick nor the damaged angel who finds that special someone who helps her realize how amazing she really is? The reason I ask is because I'm writing a dark sci-fi novel called Cyn and the main character is tough, lethal, and all kinds of messed up (family trauma, substance abuse, etc.). I don't know how much, if any resolution or redemption she is going to find but this is definitely not a "you go, girl!" kind of story. The main character is certainly sympathetic and tries to be good but there is going to be a lot of failure along the way, perhaps a fatal amount. Would female readers find that unappealing or intriguing? Guys, you could weigh in too.
@GG - the all-encompassing daddy issues again :-PI have a serious question for the ladies here, since it's no secret that women make up the lion's share of the fiction market and women often get more into the characters than men (why are The Hunger Games books so popular? It's not because of the ludicrous plot or the unoriginal dystopian world; it's because Katniss rocks). So here's my question: would you read an action story with a female protagonist that isn't the butt-kicking taking-care-of-business hero chick nor the damaged angel who finds that special someone who helps her realize how amazing she really is? The reason I ask is because I'm writing a dark sci-fi novel called Cyn and the main character is tough, lethal, and all kinds of messed up (family trauma, substance abuse, etc.). I don't know how much, if any resolution or redemption she is going to find but this is definitely not a "you go, girl!" kind of story. The main character is certainly sympathetic and tries to be good but there is going to be a lot of failure along the way, perhaps a fatal amount. Would female readers find that unappealing or intriguing? Guys, you could weigh in too.
To answer your question, Mark, yes I probably would, depending on the synopsis of course. But then again, I don't have the average taste either. To start, I prefer a book with a male protagonist, which is starting to be rare nowadays. Also, I haven't read The hunger game, or Twilight, or Harry Potter, or Vampires Diaries... although I kind of like VD's TV show. (I can't say I liked the other 3 movies). So I guess my opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt. :P
I don't mind a flawed heroine with a lot of baggage...as long as there is some purpose to her having all the baggage. Is she going to change her life? Change some one else's? Sink into despair and take a downward spiral?I'm wussy I admit it! I want some hope in my tale. Somewhere some how the seeds of some kind of positive change are made visible.....I guess because things in the real world seem pretty dark and grim...I want my reading to give me hope....
I have to agree with Felix, I am exhausted of the superhero movies, etc that have become blockbusters. I would love to see something other than that. I am also growing quiet tired of paranormal romance...I could just puke. I long for realistic stories that don't involve super natural powers. I will be so glad when this trend ends!
Good god yes, superheroes are such an embarrassment. I cringe every time I even glance at that pathetic tripe. There's some hope however, that is if we can put faith in what Spielberg/Lucas spoke of during this year's graduating class speeches, given to their old school. They said the whole thing is about ready to implode. I'm not sure what type of industry will survive such a collapse..did you read that article?
You know the huge issue with superheroes lately? They are constantly being re-done over and over and half the time they aren't any good. It's as if they have no wish or no desire or no material thought to make a new superhero or new agenda, just take an already famous one and re do it over and over.It's not to say we can't enjoy the classics or spice up a change in an old hero but lately it's getting to be too much. Does the hero always gotta save the girl? Wear a cape? Have an unhuman ability? Go by their usual storyline from the original with slight changes? I mean I enjoy superheroes don't get me wrong but you can only do the same thing sooo many times. Books, shows, movies whatever it is, heroes need some new life, new styles, new heroes.
Actually, I heard about that on GMA a few months back; about the movie industry falling apart.I suppose with all the pirating and such, the profits have decreased.
I have not pirated any movies myself but I suppose if the industry would put out something besides the 30th installment of Ironman, people would not mind paying the war price of a movie ticket.
Vanessa wrote: "Actually, I heard about that on GMA a few months back; about the movie industry falling apart.I suppose with all the pirating and such, the profits have decreased.
I have not pirated any movies ..."
The movie industry is going to have to evolve sooner or later and some of their tactics to avoid that haven't given them any favor.
The Dark Knight was on TV last night and it's easy to see why it was such a success, because it wasn't a clean, easy story that got wrapped up nice and tidy. The bad guys lost as should be expected, but lots of good guys died, and the hero crossed several lines. Someone like Superman is too goodie goodie, someone like the Punisher (who just goes into a room, blows away all the bad guys, then leaves) is too grim, and Batman struck a chord with audiences wanting something a bit meatier.I'm not a comic book fan or superhero movie fan but I'll check something out if it's decent, either in story or spectacle (The Avengers was short on the former but rocked the latter). And it seems now that books are getting in on the action. Comic books are still regarded by the general public as kid's stuff but I'm noticing more and more superhero novels popping up, and from big names too.
Maybe the times has something to do with it. I noticed right around the recession, ultra-macho shows like Spartacus started popping up, actors in movies and TV started wearing beards and just looked a bit more gruff overall, etc. the slick, metrosexual businessman look of more prosperous times was sidelined and more traditional heroic traits and appearances were resurrected. Grim, violent fantasy novels became commonplace, along with aggressive erotica for the ladies whose fantasies outpaced reality. I'm sure there have been studies in entertainment trends and how they correspond to socio-economic situations. I could be way off-base but I just call it like I see it. Perhaps heavily-flawed characters are a bit much to swallow in these turbulent times. Heroes just go down more smoothly.
@Denzel , I will be so glad when they do evolve...its been long overdue.
Did I mention zombies? I loath zombies!
Mark wrote: "The Dark Knight was on TV last night and it's easy to see why it was such a success, because it wasn't a clean, easy story that got wrapped up nice and tidy. The bad guys lost as should be expected..."I would like to combat that "Superman is too goody goody" remark with the fact that he's known to lobotomize his enemies through their eyes.
I am a huge Superman fan and he has his moments where he just wants to break down and kill everyone but he holds himself back. The problem is that DC doesn't know what to do with him.
@Denzel , I will be so glad when they do evolve...its been long overdue.
You said it, and the prices keep getting higher along with the whole 3D thing they won't stop pushing.
@Denzel, that probably wouldn't go down well with the movie crowd :-P from what limited exposure I have with comic books, I know that they are far more intense than most people realize, since their primary audience isn't kids but adult males. But the problem is that the movie audience is quite a bit younger and that's how people (like me) usually form their opinions.A hero doesn't have to give in to his dark side to be interesting, but that dark side should be more prominent in superhero stories. Normal humans can hardly restrain themselves when given a bit of power; the temptation to go off the rails for a superhero would be tremendous. The need for heroes/role models/parent figures is woven into our DNA but this isn't the 1950s anymore -audiences can handle a bit more intensity now. I think the heads of entertainment companies are realizing the vastness of the superhero universe (and the fanatical loyalty of its fans) but the majority of the product they put out is going to be fluff since that has the widest and safest appeal.
At the heart of every story is conflict, and to resolve conflict one needs power in some capacity. Not resolving conflict is what most people do anyway so that's not what they want to read about.
Mark wrote: "@Denzel, that probably wouldn't go down well with the movie crowd :-P from what limited exposure I have with comic books, I know that they are far more intense than most people realize, since their..."It's like when they adapt a book into a movie and remove everything that made the book great because 'it will appeal to audiences more'
It's somewhat like a slap to the face because they're scared to take risks, offend people (because comics talk about some pretty controversial stuff) etc. safety is money, but one day they're gonna have to give that up.
Re: likeable characters, to me there's a difference between the likeability of a character as a person, and his/her likeability as a character. Those aren't the same thing. I can "like" a bad boy / dark girl / psychopath / whathever, through their bad deeds and all, if they're deeper than that. And I've also read stories in which the heroes were so bland, so goody-two-shoes, so "nice/likeable as people" that, in the end, I wanted the enemy to succeed, because said enemy was flawed, morally discutable, and overall with more interesting choices to make.Mark wrote: "So here's my question: would you read an action story with a female protagonist that isn't the butt-kicking taking-care-of-business hero chick nor the damaged angel who finds that special someone who helps her realize how amazing she really is?"
Considering how many authors are actually able to turn originally kickass female protagonists into needs-to-find-her-special-someone-before-being-complete wusses (that's not a compliment, by the way)... Well, by all means, if your character's interesting, sure. There are plenty of shades to be explored in between. Characters who don't start as badass, but find their own form of survival/resistance/path later in the book, may actually grow more, and be more interesting overall. As always, it really depends on how you write your character and how she evolves within the story.
So, as a female reader: no, the prospect of not starting with the types of chars you described wouldn't deter me from the story. It's not my only criterion of choice.
I am excited about the new Hobbit movie comming out and I anticipate the next Star Trek movie...that may be contradictory to my earlier posts.
Denzel wrote: "I am a huge Superman fan and he has his moments where he just wants to break down and kill everyone but he holds himself back. The problem is that DC doesn't know what to do with him"I think the problem is something else besides DC and goody goodyness: he is too powerful. The well known quip is that Superman's powers are whatever the writers felt to give him that day - he has evolved to be stupidly invincible, so they have to find convoluted plot and silly supervillains to make some sort of conflict possible. Also, I at least am left wondering why he is just not declared god since he has all the powers of at least a trad. polytheistic god like Zeus and Thor (yes, I know, they appear in comics too.)
I also enjoyed Dark Knight, but I don't see really the point in "making superheroes realistic" when the idea is so unrealistic. Like devoting time making Carebears complex, tortured by inner demons -characters for some random reason. And there are waaaayyyy too many superhero movies - as well as comics. Why are all graphic novels published in English somehow always a "new take on superheroes"? French, Belgian and German comics are about all sorts of things. Italian comics are about all sorts of things with big boobs.
Tura wrote: "I have read reviews where people complain that a character "was not likeable" so I guess that is what some people appreciate. I prefer non-likeable ones, if they are not boring - that would count as a way of being unlikeable? (I do believe that is not what was meant by it.)"My protagonist is a female freelance assassin with an almost non-existent conscience, who is a remorseless killer for profit. Still, virtually every reviewer likes her, even if they 'didn't want to', for instance this reviewer:
"I really wanted not to like Katla/Loki. I really wanted to think that a story about an assassin, entirely amoral—yes, a reprobate in the truest sense of the word—would be so disquieting that it would leave me wanting no more. Instead, I found that Katla was likeable—not lovable—but, likeable and that though she lived by no code that would be readily recognized by most, she was able to—and indeed did—have her own vulnerabilities and feelings for others that helped to make her “human.” As I made my way through, I realized that not only was I enjoying Katla’s story, but that I would be interested in following Katla further."
Another example:
"This book surprised me. I actually accidentally signed up to read it for free for an honest review, because the idea of reading about a female assassin heroine was not something that interested me. I like my good guys to be good and I have never been the fan of the anti-hero. Yet, I found myself really liking Katla. Is she ruthless? Yes. Does she kill without remorse? Yes. But the character is so well drawn that you still like her and want her to succeed."
To me, that's a pure example of providing readers with an interesting character, rather than a 'likable' character. However, the main thing is that you make readers 'care' about what happens to your characters, and while Katla is not immediately likable, she is the protagonist, so the reader is stuck with her. And most female readers identify in some form or another with Katla's attitude, even if they cannot always agree with her actions....
^^ Definitely true. Liking a character and caring what happens to them are two very different things.
Mark, if I were you, I would write it. And then find an intelligent female beta reader, someone who is familiar with the genre you're working in and has a good awareness of feminist theory in literature. She will flag for you any time you run off the rails. There are too many pitfalls to enumerate here, and in fact we could start another thread solely to list and discuss them: the 'breasts attached to a woman' issue, the idiotic clothing question, the Bechtel test, and so on.My Muse frequently insists upon male protagonists, and I work hard to make my heroes real guys and not just chicks in jockstraps. The best way to ensure this is to hand the ms to my fave beta reader, my husband, who knows that it is his job to note every false note. I also do not hesitate to quiz him closely on points women do not consider: urinal etiquette, for instance, or whether you cross the street at night.
@Brenda - I'm already 2/3rds done with the first draft; I expect to have it finished next month. Would you be interested in beta reading it? Anyone else who'd be interested, male or female, can message me and I'll sign you up.
We talk a lot about unusual characters but let's not forget that the story is as important. In the end, it doesn't matter how different the characters are if you put them in the same rehashed stories.
Brenda wrote: "There are too many pitfalls to enumerate here, and in fact we could start another thread solely to list and discuss them: the 'breasts attached to a woman' issue, the idiotic clothing question, the Bechtel test, and so on."I think you mean a female protagonist that just 'a man with breasts'? Or do you mean a female protagonist whose main characteristic is to titillate male readers?
And the Bechdel test means, your fiction has two women in conversation on a topic other than a man.
Continuing from the superheroes discussion, next year their suppose to have Superman against Batman which should be interesting to say the least. I don't see how they cliche that and make it as we expect both characters to normally be, then again with Ben Affleck playing Batman perhaps thats the point right there..
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Hunger Games (other topics)Cyn (other topics)
The Hunger Games (other topics)
Cyn (other topics)
American Psycho (other topics)
More...
I know these archetypes are always going to be appealling, especially to readers who use books to escape the hum-drum real world. But do you find yourself getting tired of these protagonists who are always a few shades too good to be true? The opposite phenomenon often creeps up in the horror genre where characters can be unrealistically repugnant.
Now I'm not saying that art should mirror life. I love a bit of sensationalism in my entertainment. But I also like to be challenged. When I watch a Michael Bay movie, I know that I'm going to get a lot of explosions, hot chicks in skanky outfits, and corny dialogue. And his movies don't pretend to be anything except lowest common denominator entertainment. But I find the same thing in books that are just popcorn fluff but they strut around like they're the next Great Gatsby. We all want heroes that save the day but there don't seem to be too many flavors out there. Is it so hard to root for the good guy or gal when they look a bit frumpy or overweight? When they're emotionally volatile or get frazzled under pressure? When they get through things by the skin of their teeth or by sheer dumb luck?
I don't like feeling that the author is throwing candy to their readers just to keep their attention. The story or the characters don't have to be unpleasant but when the author starts pandering to readers' fragile self-esteem (since readers often envision themselves in place of the protagonist so the author goes easy on them for fear of scaring them away), I start to roll my eyes.
I'm putting out a challenge for authors to stop pouring so much sugar into the mix. Don't be afraid of scaring readers away with unlikable characters that fail and screw-up. Readers, tell your favorite authors to yank their precious little babies out of the playpens and let them test their mettle. There are plenty of escapist books out there; we don't need to keep adding to the pile.
My apologies for the diatribe, but this is a subject that I think is important to a lot, if not most readers and writers. A good book should be compelling and challenging, not Michael Bay bubblegum.
*For the record, I love Michael Bay movies as pure sensory overload blow-outs. I know I have to check my brain at the theater door. But a book should be more engaging and substantial.*