PoB: Characters and Their Characteristics

[Andy]

Brian McClellan has said that he does not like creating perfect characters, or perfect heros. He wants his characters to have strengths and weaknesses.

I thought that it might be interesting to see what everyone thinks the blind spots are of the POV characters and what they bring to the story in terms of strengths and weaknesses. What do you think?

Lets avoid spoilers if at all possible as it is still very early in the month.

[John]

Well, Taniel's is obvious.

Tamas' biggest flaw is his temper, I think. He's smart, he's got heart, and he can be calculating... but when face-to-face with something, he can let his temper get the best of him. I'm specifically thinking of an event that occurs later into the book than most people probably are. Around the 1/3-half-way point.

Adamat's actually, I think, the most well-adjusted, even-tempered POV character in the book. His flaws aren't quite as clear, as his biggest challenges are external - debt, etc.

[Andy]

John wrote: "Well, Taniel's is obvious..."

Yeah, Taniel has a big chip on his shoulder, father issues. He does not obsess about his mother's death but is driven by it.

Taniel seems to be a great soldier, lacking some discipline and he does not respect the chain of command very much. An excellent shot, but an excellent person? Ka-poel is a blind spot for him, he does not understand her or her motivations at all.

[John]

I have a lot of sympathy for Taniel, actually. If you look at everything that's happened to him before the beginning of "Promise", regarding his mother and Vlora, you can understand his emotional problems, and see why he sort of retreats into his vice the way he does.

[Rob]

Adamant is a great example of how to write an interesting, well balanced character without any obvious hamartia. He's not a saint or a Mary Sue, but he's, personality wise, a fairly normal human being we're easily invested in.

What I love is how, more broadly, all of these characters are doing things that are immensely problematic but they're all still, in their own ways, virtuous/likable enough that we forgive them for it (at least forgive them enough to be generally in favor of their eventual success). I mean, we're following around Robespierre basically, and after he slaughters an entire class of people we're still rooting for him!

A couple months ago we were talking about the problems of grimdark novels. It feels like Promise of Blood succeeds in a lot of the areas those novels strive for (and seem to often fail to themselves achieve)

[John]

I'm reminded of that three scales of character that they discussed on Writing Excuses a little while back.

Sympathy
Competence
Proactiveness

Or something like that.

A character doesn't have to be too sympathetic or likeable in order to be entertaining, provided the other scales are high enough. Both Adamat and Tamas are somewhat sympathetic, but they both are very competent and proactive.

Taniel, on the other hand, is more sympathetic, and he's competent, but he's not quite as proactive. He has to be made to do things.

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

Rob wrote: "I mean, we're following around Robespierre basically, and after he slaughters an entire class of people we're still rooting for him!"

We are? I am only a little ways into the novel yet, but I've been viewing him, if you'll forgive the over-simplification, as the bad guy. I'm watching his actions and interested in his choices, but ultimately I'm waiting for someone to take him down. Taniel is a little more sympathetic particularly as, given his difficulty with his father he may be the man to do it, but he also killed his fiancee's lover, so he's pretty horrible too. Adamat thus far seems the only decent man of the three, as he is only involved in the coup on threat of death, and the first thing he did after becoming involved was to protect his family. I'll be interested in seeing if my views change after reading more

[John]

I haven't been reading Tamas as the villain at all... but I wouldn't be surprised if he dies at the end of the trilogy.

[Sky]

John wrote: "you can understand his emotional problems, and see why he sort of retreats into his vice the way he does"

Vice? What vice? He doesn't have a problem...He could quit any time I wants to! *lays a line of powder across the back of his hand*

[[deleted user]]

Anyone besides me have no idea who we should be rooting for? The entire situation's so shagged.

[Andy]

Rabindranauth wrote: "Anyone besides me have no idea who we should be rooting for? The entire situation's so shagged."

My one significant criticism of the book is that I was not clear on the NEED for the revolution/coup at the beginning of the book. Sure times are tough, and the Privileged are really uncool people who do terrible things. I think at the end of things I root for Taniel, Tamas, and Adamat. They are grey for sure, Taniel and Tamas have blood on their hands, but they want to do the right thing.

I am cheating a little and including my knowledge of the Crimson Campaign but without spoilers.

[Sky]

I am only up to chapter 15, but I thought there was an urgent need for the revolution because Man Hooch was about to sell Adro to the Kez to pay off his debts to them, forcing Adro into virtual slavery as a vassal state?

I'm having no problem rooting for any of the main characters, thus far.

[Andy]

Sky wrote: "I am only up to chapter 15, but I thought there was an urgent need for the revolution because Man Hooch was about to sell Adro to the Kez to pay off his debts to them, forcing Adro into virtual sla..."

Why did that not stick in my memory? I was really focused on the people of the revolution I guess.

[[deleted user]]

Andy wrote: "Rabindranauth wrote: "Anyone besides me have no idea who we should be rooting for? The entire situation's so shagged."

My one significant criticism of the book is that I was not clear on the NEED ..."

The King selling the country out seemed like a need enough for me, but when Adamat questioned the other council members; everyone had a purely selfish reason for supporting the coup. That sort of took some of the gravity out of that need indeed.

I like Tamas the most out of everyone, so I'm rooting for him. But overall? I don't know who has the "right" stand, lol. I love it! Only reason I'm not going straight into Crimson Campaign right now is because Prince of Fools was released the other day.

[John]

Because the book opens right after the coup, we don't - in this book, anyway - get to see the people suffering under Manhouch, so in that respect, it's hard to drum up sympathy, but we do get some pretty good logical reasons for it.

I recommend reading some of the novellas and short stories that McClellan released after Promise, as they're all prequels.

As for "who to root for"... why not reserve judgment and just relax, read? Has GRRM not taught you people anything?

[Andy]

Rabindranauth wrote: "The King selling the country out seemed like a need enough for me, but when Adamat questioned the other council members; everyone had a purely selfish reason for supporting the coup. That sort of took some of the gravity out of that need indeed."

Now that you say that I had that exact thought the other day. Everyone involved wanted something for themselves, I think only Tamas wanted the best for the country (besides revenge, man that guy wanted revenge).

The reeve got more power
The archbishop got more power
The mercenaries got money
The unions got a friendlier government towards them
...

[John]

I feel like Adamat's the easiest to root for, though.

[Sky]

Actually the only person I am having trouble rooting for is Nila. So far I don't find her very interesting. Maybe he'll pull (another) page from Mistborn and she'll snap and turn out to be a privileged.

[John]

I remember being very surprised to come across her the second time when I first read the book. I'd originally pegged her for a throwaway character, a POV to give us a setup for Olem.

[Andy]

Nila is a great example of the consequences of the coup. She is forced in the middle of a desperate situation to save a child and sees only the negative side of the revolution. Nila is a great counterpoint to the rest of the characters which are very pro-coup.

[John]

Yeah, and seeing her perspective as things go down really hammers home some of the realities of social upheavals and revolutions - that this sort of thing is rarely, if ever, black & white.

[Sky]

I'm all for seeing the darker side of the revolution and the plight of the common folk, but I find still find her character weak and uninspired, when compared to all of the other characters in the novel.

[Darren]

I'm only about halfway through the book, so I don't know, but is McClellan suggesting that Taniel is impotent, with his constant snorting of saltpeter-laced snuff, hence Vlora's infidelity (not a spoiler... that's first chapter, thank you very much), or am I reading too much into this?

[Ben]

Darren wrote: "I'm only about halfway through the book, so I don't know, but is McClellan suggesting that Taniel is impotent, with his constant snorting of saltpeter-laced snuff, hence Vlora's infidelity (not a s..."

I hadn't caught that at the time but interesting idea. Given some of Taniel's inner monologue at times later in the novel and into the Crimson Campaign, I would say probably not, though.

[Aeryn98]

Andy wrote: Nila is a great example of the consequences of the coup. She is forced in the middle of a desperate situation to save a child and sees only the negative side of the revolution

Nila is the one character I had trouble with. She's not exactly treated well in that system and she wasn't exactly happy in her work. Yet, when the coup comes, she goes to extreme lengths to defeat Tamas and go back to the way things were before. Just take the kid and run away.

[Sky]

Aeryn98 wrote: Nila is the one character I had trouble with. She's not exactly treated well in that system and she wasn't exactly happy in her work. Yet, when the coup comes, she goes to extreme lengths to defeat Tamas and go back to the way things were before. Just take the kid and run away."

My thoughts exactly. She was treated like crap before the rebellion, had multiple opportunities to flee with the kid, but still sticks it out with the people supporting the system that repressed her in the first place... I have trouble empathizing with that mentality.

[Rob]

Let's say tomorrow somebody rose up as a dictator in the US (temporarily,according to him) and immediately and indiscriminately put to death every single person who worked on Wall Street, and also everyone who would inherit that wealth, Ina very bloody manner. Some of those left alive, even if they'd been mistreated by those put to death, would probably react as if that slaughter was an evil thing.

I love the use of Nila because she reminds us that is isn't a black and white issue, when as dudes in the 21st century we're all inclined to go along with the "down with the monarchy!" ride.

[Sky]

I see what your saying, but I don't think this point is being made very effectively in the book (albeit I am only 50% through).

If I was a janitor in a banking firm on wall street, and was constantly abused by executives in the firm, beaten, subjected to racial and class jokes, perhaps molested, I doubt I'd launch a personal vendetta against the person who spearheaded the revolution and put those executives to the torch, even if I found the act itself despicable. I'd strip their corpses of all the platinum Montblanc cuff links I could find and split.

[John]

I'm also only about 50% through, but so far - like Sky - I'm having a hard time understanding why Nila doesn't just... leave. She has the money. There wasn't really anything for her here in the beginning... I have a hard time seeing someone like her deciding to stay. Sometimes her motivations seem off.

Take early on, the second time we see her. She's sitting there listening to the Privileged, and thinking, "She only wants me to stay so she can use me."

"I'll stay."

?????

[Aeryn98]

I don't know. They might react as if the slaughter was an evil thing, but would they necessarily take actions to restore the people who mistreated them to power? Unless, in time, if the new system turns out to be worse.
And I don't see Tamas as setting up to be a dictator. He is a power to the people kind of guy. And as such, in theory, his idea of government would only make the lives of the people better.

With Nila the disconnect came between her being the timid little laundress we meet at first, and (not to be too spoilery) the actions she takes later on. It was so totally out of character.

[Alan]

I feel like the Nila character has been almost back-engineered to be the weak link (or pivot point to put it more positively) in people's plans down the road. Since she's the only character whose loyalties aren't set before the book begins (whether we readers know those loyalties or not) she's the one whose choices can radically alter the plot in any direction without breaking character.

[Joanna Chaplin]

John wrote: "I'm reminded of that three scales of character that they discussed on Writing Excuses a little while back.

Sympathy
Competence
Proactiveness..."

That's a very helpful way of thinking about characters. Thank you!

[Joe Informatico]

Rob wrote: "Let's say tomorrow somebody rose up as a dictator in the US (temporarily,according to him) and immediately and indiscriminately put to death every single person who worked on Wall Street, and also everyone who would inherit that wealth, in a very bloody manner. Some of those left alive, even if they'd been mistreated by those put to death, would probably react as if that slaughter was an evil thing."

The book might not do a great job of illustrating this, and I haven't read the sequel or any of the novellas yet to see if they explain it better, so I'm projecting some of history onto this. But I think you have to take this analogy a step further: Tamas isn't just executing Wall Street bankers and redistributing their wealth while leaving the underlying system in place. He's poised to overturn the entire economic system.

That might mean you're not sure where your next paycheque is coming from. Or if you own your house or not. Or if your landlord has been replaced by someone eager to kick you out of your apartment without warning. Or if the currency you have socked away is still worth anything. Or, if you're an entrepreneur with customers or suppliers in other countries, you have to worry if your imports and exports will be allowed to enter and leave the country, or if they'll be subject to new tariffs and duties, or if they'll just be impounded by foreign governments who consider the new regime a rogue state. Now extend these uncertainties beyond economics to potentially every aspect of social and public life, and that's the kind of radical change Tamas is heralding.

So Nila may be the most downtrodden, put-upon drudge in a vile, oppressive system, but at least she knows where she stands. And given her place, that system might be all she knows. If she was a more worldly or educated person, it might occur to her to seek better opportunities in the uncertainty, but since she probably can't dream of alternatives that don't end in the bloody chaos she witnessed the night of the coup, she feels better off preserving the status quo she understands, where soldiers weren't invading her home in the middle of the night and killing everyone she knows.

[Sky]

Joe Informatico wrote: "Rob wrote: "Let's say tomorrow somebody rose up as a dictator in the US (temporarily,according to him) and immediately and indiscriminately put to death every single person who worked on Wall Stree..."

Again I agree with all the points being made, but I don't think Nila is the correct character to be exploring this with. For one, as far as I understand it, there is no middle class under the monarchy...It's created after Tomas's revolution. Nila owns no property. She is allowed to loot the house and comes away with more money than she's ever had in her life, so I don't think she needs to be worried about her next paycheck. Maybe Nila is poor and uneducated and doesn't know how to take the chance to seek better opportunities. But the whole vendetta against Tomas seemed a little forced and completely out of character for her.

[Conor]

Sky wrote: "I am only up to chapter 15, but I thought there was an urgent need for the revolution because Man Hooch was about to sell Adro to the Kez to pay off his debts to them, forcing Adro into virtual sla..."

I definitely agree that there were a lot of reasons to remove Manhouch (great name btw) from power. I haven't read the novellas or second book yet but from what we see in book 1 he was a terrible king who was about to sell his country as an overtaxed vassal to their greatest enemy. What I really didn't understand was the annihilation of the nobility and end of the monarchy. A weak, unpopular ruler being deposed by a powerful military commander happened a lot throughout history (pretty much how every other Roman and Byzantine emperor came to power, Cromwell in England) and there was plenty of reason for it in this series. However the French revolution was the only time the monarchy and nobility of a country were completely wiped out and had a lot of causes that led to it(American revolution, philosophers questioning the 'Divine right of kings'). Maybe we're just supposed to assume similar stuff is going on in the background of Adro in this series but I was disappointed that it was never explained why and how such an important part of the setting and plot took place.

[Skip]

Maybe it was that my son was doing the French Revolution this year in school, but I just read the reason for revolution to be the same as it was in France, an out of touch monarchy and nobility and a starving peasantry with nothing to lose.

I took Tomas to be a combination of Robespierre and Cromwell, well meaning and competent, but potentially doomed to fail.

As for the characters weakness, I kept hearing the theme to "Miami Vice" because the characters are all about their addictions. The powder/coke references are pretty obvious, Adamant seems to be a gambler (how much is he keeping from his family), Olem is a smoker. Even the cabals just seem like rival gangs fighting over territory, powder mages and Privileged could be Capulets and Montegues, or Crips and Bloods.

Of course this means Adamant has to be played by Danny Glover in any casting. :)

[Sean]

re: Nila

Am I the only one who remembers the kid? You know, the son of the family she works for? Who Tamas's soldiers came to the house to look for, and who she hid? Who is sort of like family to her? And is only six years old?

There's your reason for why she doesn't leave, and why she's so against Tamas - for most of the book, she believes that he's this horrible man who was perfectly willing to execute anyone of noble blood, including innocent children, all in the name of his revolution.

(And then chapter 31 came along and totally ruined that wonderful ambiguity, but I've already ranted about that.)

You guys are so focused on how this event messes with society and whatnot that you're totally missing the personal, worm's-eye view - which is what I thought the whole point of Nila was in the first place.

[AndPeggy]

Re: Nila

I also think it is important to remember what she was facing at the hand's of soldiers before Olem stepped in. Tamas even knew this would happen and basically sanctioned it as a necessary quenching of bloodlust. There would have been a lot of common people who were brutalized as a result of the regime change that was suppose to be in their best interest. She also has reason to believe that Tamas is having children executed. And at this point, no new elected government has been established so many people might see it as simply a regime change and a military dictatorship as opposed to the beginning of a democracy or democratic republic. I also think it might be worth mentioning that the military and police force (which I believe Tamas leaves mostly in place as is)were likely instrumental in enforcing the prior conditions.