Fantasy Book Club discussion
Archived threads
>
TOPIC IN FOCUS #3 - How do you like your characters?
date
newest »
newest »
Well, on the "what makes or breaks them" one of my pet peeves is the often overdone device of character A doesn't tell character B something they should and dire consequences result. I can handle a bit of it as it is everywhere. But, for some gets to the point where the character is not believeable or the reader (me) just wants to smack them. Don't read books to be aggravated. I understand some mistrust/protection/unability to share feelings can help define a character. The last few books I've read have sooooo overdone this. It seems simplistic - lazy writing/character development to me. Finished Jim Butcher Fool Moon last night, both Harry and Murphy went over and beyond on idiotic "not telling the other'. I'd drop the series now if I hadn't paid for the 3rd book, which I'm in no rush to read. The same device was what swore me off the last author/series I'd picked up (haven't been having good selection luck lately).
Maggie wrote: " (haven't been having good selection luck lately)."I can help you with that. My characters talk to each other, without keeping stupid secrets.
Maggie wrote: "Well, on the "what makes or breaks them" one of my pet peeves is the often overdone device of character A doesn't tell character B something they should and dire consequences result. I can handle a..."Maggie, I totally agree with you. It bugs me to no end when so much conflict and angst and misunderstanding can be cleared up if the characters simply talked to each other. I don't know how many times I've wanted to reach inside a book and smack somebody upside the head to smarten them up!
Maggie wrote: "Well, on the "what makes or breaks them" one of my pet peeves is the often overdone device of character A doesn't tell character B something they should and dire consequences result. I can handle a..."I agree completely!
I mean, I know in real life sometimes people don't talk about things, for one reason or another, so I know it does happen, but it happens so often in books, and to such a ridiculous extent sometimes, that I can't help but roll my eyes and get seriously annoyed at the characters - which always dampens my enjoyment of a story.
If it's any consolation, Maggie, Dresden and Murphy get much better as the series progresses. I used to hate Murphy in the beginning, but she really developed as a character.
Marc - it's funny that you mentioned Tolkien's method of keeping point-of-view on the groups, because I hated it. I remember reading it, and going through the whole thing from Sam & Frodo's perspective, and then getting to everyone else's perspectives, and I was like "Seriously? This is all from the same time-line?" And I kept trying to figure out where one group was when the other group was at one place, and it drove me crazy.
I was so happy when the movies integrated the multiple perspectives and kept them in the proper timeline.
I do know what you mean about how a shift in perspective can make you connect less with characters. There have been books where I've definitely enjoyed some perspectives more than others, and I feel like I'm struggling through the ones I don't like just to get back to the ones I do like.
But I've read other books that shift perspectives, and have enjoyed the more varied experience of it.
I think a lot of it depends on how well the author manages it and how much I like/relate to/am interested in the characters.
As a side point of curiosity - does your constant mentioning of your books in every thread possible, and holding them up as an example of "doing it right" garner you many new readers?
Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: " does your constant mentioning of your books in every thread possible, and holding them up as an example of "doing it right" garner you many new readers?"Every thread possible? Not likely. Most of the threads I see in the digests lately are praising a relatively small group of authors. I post on a relative handful of threads when the subject interests me. I mention my books when the subject allows it, but many times it doesn't and I don't. Generally if the only reason I have for posting a comment is to mention my stories I don't bother posting, especially if it involves repeating myself. Since the person I was talking to is someone I haven't spoken to before, mentioning my books in a context that allowed it seemed a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Besides, most of the time the only examples I have are my own.
As to whether it gathers me any new readers, I don't know. I do my feeble best to let people know I exist, one lone voice in the crashing din. But it also depends on what you're looking for. I'm a bookseller on the side and I have no trouble at all recommending other people's books over mine, and I usually do. I don't do epic, or Urban, and there are lots of well-known and not-so-well-known authors out there that I'm glad to talk about.
Since this thread is about characters, how about Lawrence Watt-Evans, whose every book it seems is about ordinary folk getting caught up in extraordinary events? The first book of his I read was The Misenchanted Sword, about an ordinary soldier stuck with a magic sword, whose great goal in life is to be a peaceful innkeeper.
Or C. Dale Brittain's Yurt series, one of the few in fantasy that has a wizard and a priest be the best of friends. Bujold, Huff, Hoffman, McKillip. You like character-driven stories, those are the authors to read.
Two characters stand out for me as being complete although their stories did not have traditional happy endings. Fitz of the Farseer Trilogy told me his story in first person which is not my favorite perspective but it worked well. I loved the fact that the story was organized and paced in such a way that I understood his development. My second favorite is Kilar from Way of Shadows for pretty much the same reason although Brent Weeks told Kilar's story from third person (which I prefered). What I liked most about both trilogies was the fact that Kilar and Fitz were very damaged men sorrounded by corruption and misery yet. Both character's story was made complete by the supporting characters. The people around them pulled things from their personalities that neither knew existed. There are other well executed books but these 2 stand out because both characters start out as children and grow into their adulthood the hard way in unforgiving environments. They have nothing to fall back on and simply had to keep moving forward. There is one other character that is beautifully written, Firethorn. That series is not done yet so I can't say it's a favorite but it looks like it's going that way. Firethorn is a woman who lives in a society where she can be nothing but a lover for a powerful man. She has no other value but somehow she survives unbelievable trials and grows into a character I respect.Firethorn
Assassin's Apprentice
The Way of Shadows
I think it best to "dribble" in the characters one or two at a time, and have the ensemble pull together after an unspecified number of chapters. In the Iron Tower, I think I ended up with a really large cast, but most of my readers choose that book as their favorite (in fact, most of my books end up with a cast of thousands ... not really, but quite large casts). One can't always dribble in the characters (Caverns of Socrates comes to mind) but even when there are a large number of characters in the beginning, still, the lead protagonists and/or antagonists should easily be discerned. One trick is to fill the large cast with quite distinct characters, different in voice and actions and physical characteristics.
I think it best to "dribble" in the characters one or two at a time, and have the ensemble pull together after an unspecified number of chapters. In the Iron Tower, I think I ended up with a really large cast, but most of my readers choose that book as their favorite (in fact, most of my books end up with a cast of thousands ... not really, but quite large casts). One can't always dribble in the characters (Caverns of Socrates comes to mind) but even when there are a large number of characters in the beginning, still, the lead protagonists and/or antagonists should easily be discerned. One trick is to fill the large cast with quite distinct characters, different in voice and actions and physical characteristics.
Tracy wrote: "Trying to decribe/define why I like/love various characters is like trying to define why I love my friends...I've never been able to say "THIS" is why I want or need "you" in my life. It all com..."
I meant to reply to this earlier, because I feel generally the same way. I can't always say why I connected with one person and not with another, or why I dislike some people without even knowing them that well. It just happens.
Of course, like with friends, I tend to be drawn to people who have traits that are similar to my own or that I admire. I am intrigued by people who are a bit beyond the norm, am drawn to broken and damaged people, and appreciate and enjoy sarcasm and wit. Thus the characters I like tend to have the same qualities that I like in anyone.
At the end of the day, I like my characters realistic, consistent (i.e. don't have someone act out of character for the sake of a plot device), and, well, not boring.
@Marc - I acknowledge that you do also recommend other books, and that the "every thread possible" was a bit hyperbolic. It would probably be more correct to say "every thread where the opportunity presents itself".
Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, let me be frank. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one for whom it seems your self promotion is night constant, and for whom it grates. I know people who have sworn they will never read anything by you because of it. You have gone beyond being a feeble voice in the din and become, to some, a source of irritation.
Of course the benefits may outweight the cost. For those who have sworn off your works, you may have broght just as many, or more, into the fold, as it were. So, while the question was admittedly facetious - it is also a point of honest curiosity.
But, since you don't know the answer, I suppose I'll just have to go on not knowing. I shan't speak of it again.
Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: "@Marc - I acknowledge that you do also recommend other books, and that the "every thread possible" was a bit hyperbolic. It would probably be more correct to say "every thread where the opportunity presents itself"..."Well stated :)
Dawn wrote: "Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: "@Marc - I acknowledge that you do also recommend other books, and that the "every thread possible" was a bit hyperbolic. It would probably be more correct to say "every..."Yes. Well said, Colleen.
Self-promotion aside, this is an interesting thread. Two points: First, multiple people complained about the irritation of characters not talking to each other and disaster resulting. Is this a common trope in romance novels? I have not read enough to be certain, but I suspect that much of the conflict between the two lovers could be resolved by talking, though one or both might be too angry to talk civilly. To me, these seems understandable and a reasonable thing to write about, and perhaps you were referring to other things like not telling someone you become a werewolf at midnight, etc.Secondly, it's important to remember that although Tolkien is a badass, he wasn't trained in novel writing. He likely could have done better alternating the chapters between the disparate adventuring groups, rather than having them in huge blocks. As a rule, though, I prefer it when the separate characters stay in the same area and interact with each other.
Yes, two characters not talking and therefore spinning out the book for another 200 pages is common in romance novels. Romance readers label this as The Big Mis (Mis being short for misunderstanding) and it drives an awful lot of them crazy.I think one of the best examples of how to do this right is the story "Kaeleer's Heart" in Dreams Made Flesh by Anne Bishop. The story is set up to work as a classic big misunderstanding where the villain relies on the hero and heroine not talking to each other in order to get her revenge. The story progresses in suitably dire directions only (view spoiler). It's a brilliant story and part of the reason I love it so much is exactly because of this.
Please, please have your characters actually TALK to each other about the important stuff.
I was reading something recently (I can't remember what, but it might have been DarkShip Thieves) which was first person POV and the narrator kept cutting people off when they began to explain something, saying they could talk about it later. I'm sure it added at least 100 pages to the book where the character was flailing around making a mess of stuff because she refused to listen.
Kerry wrote: "Please, please have your characters actually TALK to each other about the important stuff."I've seen this done to death too. Sometimes the solution is so obvious that it's the only way to keep the story going. The Logical Magician had the main character attacked every time he started to talk about it. In my current WIP I'm planning to have the hero actually stay in the car, because it's the sensible thing to do at that point.
I've done some thinking and reading, about this. Now I know at least some points to tell why I (dis)like characters.
Though I'm not very good at explaining why, I will try.
For me characters have to be realistic in what they do and why they act like that.
Even though they don't get it themselves.
Then there's the point of not being overly predictable in what they do.
And please don't let them tel me over and over again that they feel this or that.
I like heroes to be not the typical 6 feet tall, well muscled, handsome man, or the very hot, sexy lady with the fiery red hair.
As I can deduce from the characters listed below, i like them with flaws,
reasonably smart, a strong will, and (somewhat) mischievous.
Some characters I liked very much:
From Discworld:
Cohen the Barbarian
Rincewind
Death
Granny weatherwax
Nanny Ogg
Agnes Nitt
From A song of ice and fire:
Tyrion Lannister
Jon Snow
Arya Stark
From WOT:
Egwene al'Vere
Min Farshaw
Mat Cauthon
I'm not altogether sure what I like in a character. I guess I would have to agree with the previous writers who said they like their characters flawed. I suppose that's why I like Erikson so much - in his cast of thousands, there is not one who who isn't broken in some way. Some of my favourite characters from fantasy fiction are
Coltain - Deadhouse Gates by Steven Erikson
Glotka - First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie
Tyrion Lannister - A Song of Ice and Fire by George RR Martin
These characters are, definitely, not pretty, happy people.
I love when a character is flawed in a way (melancholic, unsure of himself, too chauvinistic) but consistent in their actions and written to be entertaining and not there simply to provide protagonists or antagonists.Characters in Dune novels are one example. Mu'addib Usul Paul Atreides always sulk deep within but he faces challenges with calculated moves. Jessica is kinda aloof but always there for her children. Other examples probably Nest Freemark (unsure about her attractiveness but maintain her bravery in the face of demons), Padishar Creel (narcissist rogue but always ready to lend a helping hand).
I prefer my characters flawed. I know I don't want squeaky clean heroes.Glokta from The Blade Itself and Tyrion from A Game of Thrones are both excellent characters.
Colin wrote: "I prefer my characters flawed. I know I don't want squeaky clean heroes.Glokta from The Blade Itself and Tyrion from A Game of Thrones are both excellent characters."
Me, too. I mean I like them flawed.
I prefer my characters competent. It's the reason I'll always pick Hermione over Ron, not that I think he's a bad person or anything, but bright and studious makes me a happy reader. If the main character is too stupid to live, then I'm out of that book real, real fast.I prefer them able to focus on what is important to them, and to the story at large. Having the hero rescue kittens while the planet is on the verge of destruction and the timer is running down may add to the tension, but it just annoys me. Not to say I don't like subplots, I do. It's just that sometimes it seems like the hero gets so wrapped up in the tiny details that he forgets the big picture.
I like them emotionally adult enough to be able to deal with complex feelings and situations without running away or alienating anyone who ever cared for them. This one I'll make an exception for if the hero is a teen/child. Part of the reason I couldn't stay with Twilight was that Edward was still emotionally a child. I can forgive Bella for being a whiny twit, she's seventeen. Edward has no excuse.
And I like them bad sometimes, really, really bad. Give me a good anti-hero, especially a competent, focused, emotionally stable one, and I'll be a devoted fan for life. It's been over twenty years and I still love Raistlin. I loved Snape until JKR destroyed him in Deathly Hallows. And (though he's not fantasy) Hannibal Lecter is probably one of the best written anti-heroes ever.
And above, beyond, and through all that, I like them to be playful and have at least a little joy in their souls. I spent what felt like ten million years being forced to read sad, sorry, miserable characters in lit classes for college. That was more than enough time in misery. These days I want my characters happy.
Keryl wrote: " I spent what felt like ten million years being forced to read sad, sorry, miserable characters in lit classes for college. That was more than enough time in misery. These days I want my characters happy."How about if they start out unhappy and become happy in the course of the book? I can see not wanting to read about depressed and depressing people staggering through their weary lot in life, but what about normally strong and vibrant people, at a low ebb or laboring under a curse and striving to break free?
I know what you mean about reading lit. in class; so often gloomy, miserable and ultimately seemingly pointless.
Marc wrote: How about if they start out unhappy and become happy in the course of the book? I can see not wanting to read about depressed and depressing people staggering through their weary lot in life, but what about normally strong and vibrant people, at a low ebb or laboring under a curse and striving to break free?Depends on how it's done. I've read versions of that I've enjoyed immensely. And I've seen versions where the happy ending was tacked on with Elmer's rather than woven seamlessly into the tale.
Here's a fairly concrete example: I prefer Spike to Angel. It's not that I dislike Angel, I think his story was a well done version of pain to something approaching happy. But, if I've got a choice between sad to happy or playful and fun, I'll go for playful and fun. (And, as with Spike, I'm find with some seriously dark aspects of a character and his arc, but I still want to see that spark of joy.)
Colin wrote: "I know what you mean about reading lit. in class; so often gloomy, miserable and ultimately seemingly pointless."The idea that life was pointless and filled with misery was the working theory of the English department where I went to school. We didn't read uplifting on joyous work. Which is why I became a Religious Studies major.
I'm sorry I am late to this discussion, since this is so interesting. And I'm amazed by how many books and authors I don't know. I was glad that in the last few comments, a Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin was mentioned. I was so surprised when I gradually saw my loathing of Jaime Lannister change into grudging admiration. Sansa also is fascinating, given her growth.
And I think growth of a character over the course of a novel lends that character strength.
I would also point at the Lifeship Trader trilogy by Robin Hobb for an example of several excellent characters who show growth.
It's never too late, Dave. Welcome to the discussion. And I agree that growth is what lends a character and a novel strength.
While I do see this topic's been a number of months since the last posting, I thought I might throw my two cents in anyhow, being a new fellow around the block.Personally, I enjoy characters in whom I can see growth. Whether for the better or the worse, I want characters that breathe, that change, that are not static figures in worlds so often facing crisis and change. Something more than just "a personality" - I want people. Game of Thrones and the larger Song of Ice and Fire series are great examples of this. You have such a broad range of characters therein, all changing (with an exception, I suppose, in the wry snark of dear Tyrion - and I certainly wouldn't give that up!) with the chaotic world around them. Terribly enthralling.
Happy or depressed matters little to me - as long as there's some depth underneath the smiles or frowns, you'll snare me. I *want* emotion! It's part of what makes us human. But then - I also don't want the emotional capacity of "tweeny heartbreaking" - see my "static" character statement previously. Competence is a big deal, though - I would concur with Keryl that a character who is "too stupid to live" is a real put off. Too often we see that as a sort of comic relief inside of a larger work - and it grates like no tomorrow.
Give me flaws! Give me scars! Give me depth!
I agree regardig Jaimie Lannister. Someone told me I'd come to love him and I could hardly believe my ears, but she was so so right!Without growth and change and a character learning and reacting to what is happening a book is incredibly boring.
I also hate characters who are 'above it all' and are too powerful to let anything change their outlook or intent or emotions.
Jean wrote: "I agree regardig Jaimie Lannister. Someone told me I'd come to love him and I could hardly believe my ears, but she was so so right!Without growth and change and a character learning and reacting..."
I completely agree! A character that has transcended to that level of power just becomes a bit droll...though even in such situations, I do believe there's ways one could tease out changes and emotions in them still. Regardless, yes - that level of arrogance or self-assurance in character is an unsettling buzz kill. Though I'm not a terribly big fan of the "strip a powerful character of all magic/abilities/skills at a given point for drama" effect, either. Usually very poorly rendered, and just utilized as a form of escapism for the author to rely on.
Cheryl wrote: "Maggie wrote: "Well, on the "what makes or breaks them" one of my pet peeves is the often overdone device of character A doesn't tell character B something they should and dire consequences result...."Tonight, mine won't shut up and let me write...
I actually like a cocky, arrogant character, as long as he's got the skills to back it up.A good character arc is one of the finest treats of a good book.
One of my great disappointments in the Harry Potter series was that Harry seemed to be nicely developing away until about book five and suddenly he just stopped. So frustrating.
I think that my most favorite characters are the ones I don't know what they're going to do next or how they're going to react at a certain event, character that are too predictable aren't my thing.Also, strong characters that do no give up or that really grow trough the story, but then again ,if it's too obvious I don't like it.
A writer should keep interesting trying to balance a defined personality and at the same time being able to surprise us readers with the character actions.
This can either be the easiest question to answer or the hardest. Short answer, interesting characters. My favorite characters are a career soldier, an effeminate male sage, a lost king, a brutal barbarian, an anti social cursed mage and a dwarf. There is no common thread to let me see what catches my interest.
I like tortured characters. I like charaters that come off the page and connect with my imagination while not insulting my common sense. I don't like characters that evolve too slowly while the people around them, especially, the antagonist, grow in skill and dimension. A great example of this would be Ed Stark in Game of Thrones. He was too slow to fully appreciate what was going on around him. It cost him his life. Another one is Fitz from Farseer. I loved the character but was frequently annoyed when he didn't understand the obvious.
I like my characters to have some joy in their lives. Bad, horrible things can happen to them, but if it's all grim and pain, I lose interest quickly. There has to be some balancing snark or fun otherwise I'm off to the next book.
JD, I think I like tortured characters too.
I like a character who is a deep thinker and tries to do what is right (even if it's the harder thing to do). For example, Ned Stark from the "Fire an Ice" by George Martin, knew by claiming treason would result in his death, but the safety for his children came before him or his family's honor. His children came first. The character can deviate from being good, there can be a deep-seeded villain who does right even though that person is truly evil. Like ,Elphala form "Wicked, the Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the East". She was a animal rights activist and believed firmly in equality, treating everyone unbiased. But, in the end regardless of her better judgement, her evil side won over her.
Two media two characters for me:In movies I like my characters/heros to be strong and in control, I totally dislike it when the "hero" gets beaten to pulp and is being squashed by giants just to come back to save the day.
In books: I like characters who have some personal issues that they have to overcome, they are slightly vulnerable but find the strength within themselves to be successful. I agree with Keryl that my characters need to have some fun and not being confronted with impossible problems; and I agree with jD that the character has to develop quickly without being to easy to figure out and being too predeictable.
Noor wrote: "Flawed."I love it. Brief and to the point.
Oliver wrote: I like characters who have some personal issues that they have to overcome, they are slightly vulnerable but find the strength within themselves to be successful. I agree with Keryl that my characters need to have some fun and not being confronted with impossible problems; and I agree with jD that the character has to develop quickly without being to easy to figure out and being too predeictable.It's not so much that I don't like impossible situations (though there generally is a point where I will give up because the odds are too firmly stacked on one side and I can't make myself believe the MC can overcome... but I digress) it's more that I need characters that have some joy in their souls and are able to keep some level of gallows humor until the last.
That's one of the things I love about Harry Dresden. Terrible things keep happening to and around him, but that spark of humor is still there. It keeps things from being suicidally grim.
i like a series where at the end of the first book or so you really done know a whole lot about the character, sort of like getting to know a best friend you know you like them but you sill want to find out more about their life
Maggie wrote: "Well, on the "what makes or breaks them" one of my pet peeves is the often overdone device of character A doesn't tell character B something they should and dire consequences result. I can handle a..."O yes.. i really don't like overuse of this. I like several characters of the wheel of time series, but if they had better talks with each other i wouldn't feel like chewing on the books so much ;-)
(New here, hi all!)
I like well-thought-out characters that are multi-faceted. I don't like it when one attribute of a character overshadows everything they do. For example, all characters are a certain age, but they also have basic temperament traits unique to them, a history of experiences, and in fantasy stories they might even have a unique biology. I like it when all of this stuff is explored by the author... it really gives the characters depth.
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Blade Itself (other topics)A Game of Thrones (other topics)
The Blade Itself (other topics)
A Game of Thrones (other topics)
Dreams Made Flesh (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
George R.R. Martin (other topics)Robin Hobb (other topics)
David Eddings (other topics)
Dennis L. McKiernan (other topics)
William F. Nolan (other topics)
More...
For me, if a story gets split between groups I lose the thread of each when it shifts. Tolkien had two groups but limited the shifting to once per book, so each group had maximum coherence. I did an ensemble story in A Warrior Made (Flame in the Bowl Book Two), but as each separate group got more face time, their stories started interleafing (since various characters in all the sections had some sort of mystical tie to characters in other sections), so that events in one group's section carried over into the next group's section. I didn't want the reader to feel like storyline A was coming to a screeching halt so I could do some work on storyline B.