Welcome to Gaia! ::

I believe I made a thread with this same title a looong time ago about how characters should be more than race, occupation, etc.

But there's more than that.

Every part of your story, or the major points of it, should not be dependent on WHAT each character is-- but rather who they are. Yes, this is my opinion, but I'll explain it.


What this applies to and why it makes for stronger stories:

1. People who hate your main character. Am I the only one who's tired of reading about poor little Ilse, hated and scorned by all her peers because she's Asian, or black, or Jewish? Somehow, I doubt not.

It's true that people are going to be racist and people are going to judge others based on what they are. You know what? That's perfectly valid. But when everyone in the whole story hates the main character for something she can't change, it gets a bit ridiculous.

Face it, all of you preteens who like to blame your social failings on others: You're not going to be popular with everyone and that's NOT because everyone is biased, everyone is stupid, everyone is stuck-up, or everyone is judgemental based on first appearances.

I'm speaking from experience. It's true I'm not the most popular of people- I've got my group of friends who are very dear to me and a few good acquaintances orbiting around the fringes, but the majority of people in my grade aren't going to pay any attention to me or care about my existance. Why is that? Okay, I'm not the most conventionally pretty person, I have short hair, I'm a bit geeky-- but that's not why. It's because I'm blunt, I have poor social skills, and I'm more than a bit judgemental myself.

Even if you're writing fantasy, it's ridiculous to expect that EVERYONE in the human village can't get past poor little Limalle's pointy ears and that she's not to blame at all- you know, because the reputation elves have of being snotty doesn't extend to Limalle because she's speshul.

Worse is the fact that with most of these scenes, the author seems to be forcing a message down our throats- "look at the poor victim of racism. See, racism is terrible." We know that, thank you, and can you keep it out of your story? The sense that the author is mocking people in her story- look at the idiots thinking race matters- is never a good one.

And this doesn't just apply to racism. This applies to any sort of stereotype you want to have in your story- whether it's the teenage cliques or the society based heavily on good looks (where poor little Madelleinne is actually very pretty, just in her own special way. ALWAYS.).

I might also add that this is, at it's worst, an attempt to get reader sympathy when the author can't garner it in any other way.

Please remember that intra-person dynamics are based around who the people are. And if Kaylee, who is African-American, is assumed to be stupid, when she talks in her oh-so-coherent way, that stereotype flies right out the window.

PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR OPINIONS. The little goth girl who comes to school on the first day and sits alone at lunch could be the most popular girl at the end of the year-- but it depends on her attitude.

Thank you. That gets the realism part out of the way.


2. Villains. If there's a villain, why does the villain want to get the hero?

All too often, it's because WHAT the hero is is threatening to the villain. The hero is the descendent of a master race, or the secret heir to the throne, or the result of a magical experiment that gave him uber powers.

But this is weak. It's not a conflict of people- it's a conflict of cardboard cutouts, where the most defining thing about each participant is their position and/or set of powers.

Of course, it happens, but it is very rare that the personality of the two does not come into the mix. A serial rapist doesn't particularly want a woman for who she is but rather for what she is- maybe someone weak who he can get control of easily. And yet when was the last time you read a good story about a serial rapist where he was no more defined than how he would be to his victims or police?

'Tis true that often the villain will want SOMETHING rather than someone. His goal isn't really to incapacitate the hero, it's to gain control of the kingdom. So how do you do this well? You play the villain as a person and have him see the others as people.

This is why I love the Gormenghast Trilogy by Mervyn Peake. There is good and bad, there are heroes and villains, but they are all players in the game based on their personalities.

Steerpike, the villain, is a lowly kitchen boy who wants more; he wants to control the ancestral dynasty of Gormenghast.

His first victims are the twins, the sisters of the Earl, who are part of his pool of targets-- but they are not chosen first because they are the sisters of the earl, for they are not all that important, but rather because they are easy to win over and easy to manipulate. And he does, wooing them with promises of power while he sows the seeds of paranoia and insanity in their heads.

Another way to do it is to have the hero, yes, your hero, be dangerous to the villain because of WHO he is. Peake pulls this off well in Titus Alone, wherein the villainess, Cheetah, despises Titus, heir to the throne of Gormenghast, for not caring for anything but her body. And that is why she wants him- because of who he is, a being of lust, strength, and even, sometimes, compassion and a young man over all else.

This may require stripping the hero of what he is. Rather than being a peasant boy who is the secret heir to the throne, he may just be a peasant boy with an uncanny gift for winning people over and an open personality. And as the heir to the throne is missing, perhaps he tries to win his way into the hearts of the King and Queen...


Which prompts a lot of talk about whether he is better than the Evil Advisor or not, as he is also attempting to get their attentions just as the Advisor is.

This may even tie back to the old stereotypes of how what the hero is controlls who he is-- which, yes, is sometimes true, but not nearly to the degree that it occurs in fantasy novels or others.

Would your villain truly want to assassinate the heir to the throne if he were a rather stupid lout, easily manipulated? No! Would he want to control the descendent of the ancient race if she can't control her own powers and is likely to blow herself up before she's twenty? Well, if she gains control of her powers as happens all too often in fantasy novels, probably-- but not if she's still clumsy and clueless (if this magic is SO DANGEROUS, show some danger beside a sleepiness after casting spells).

So maybe it's more about how the handsome heir is strong-- why do villains never try to eliminate the threat of the good qualities while leaving the bad? It's because it seems to always be about what they are, which you can't really change. But you can change who you are, especially what qualities you have.

So the main character is strong physically and he or she is a great fighter. Why doesn't the villain ever pay off a doctor to set their broken leg wrong, or send a disease like polio? What about, when the hero is at his or her mercy (using a careful decoy Overlord, of course), snipping their hamstrings?

That last, I must admit, is a blatant steal from Melvin Burgess's Blood Tide, wherein the villain snips the rather feisty main character's hamstrings so she can never walk again.

See, it opens up WORLDS of new conflict and plotline. heart

3. Compatriots.

"Where are you going?"

"Off to save the world, for I am the heir to the throne!"

"Oh, I'll go with you!"

After a day, they're the best of friends.

Or, in realistic fiction, an outsider is seen sitting on the fringes of the lunchroom and another outsider goes over to join her just because she thinks they can get along.

So why do these always work out perfectly? It's completely unrealistic. Do all of the white people you know get along with all of the other white people? What about african-americans? Or goths? Or people who aren't the most popular?

Sure, you can commiserate or identify with someone who is the same "what" that you are, but that doesn't mean you'll get along. In fact, I'd venture to say that the majority of relationships formed like this (hey, we're dressed the same, let's hang out together) don't actually work out. Why? Because someone's got qualities the other person won't like. And while friendships can potentially get over those, this is rarely exhibited.

An example, taken from real life.

I am a geek. I own two laptops, one of which is frowning at me because it wants more RAM (it will have linux on it soon), I play video games and/or browse online in my spare time, and I'll laugh more if you tell me that your computer is trying to run Windows XP with 256 megs of RAM than I will if you tell me about that really sweet football move.

But I don't get along with all the geeks at school. Sure, all my friends are to some degree geeky, but there are a whole lot of people who like computers that I would never go near. Because they creep me out. Or they take an innate dislike to me. Or I just don't like them because they're loud and obnoxious and obsessive.


For once, I'd like to see a story that's similar to real life in this instance, where you don't always make permanent friends based on what you are.




A little rant from my exploding sinuses. I hope it's coherent.

The end.

*monstrous applause* You said it in a way I never could!

whee I talked about that before, and I'd rather not sound like a broken record.

But yes, thank you.

I think that the desire for power, desire for anything is not in itself bad, but you need to show the justification behind it- which does lead to character flaws. Agreed about the dark past thing, but if someone was abused in childhood and now craves power, that means that that person is flawed because they never came to grips with that event. A lust for power can also be driven by fear, as well, or by a simple unrest and a desire for freedom (and a view that the only way to be free is to be out from anyone's foot).

Basically, I'm tired of villains who are bad just because they are, and their internal motivations, flaws, fears, and even past are never really provided.

We don't develop in a vacuum, although that would be a fascinating story.

Reading this kinda makes you want the semi-popular, decent-lived, rather dull peasant-servant to do something big.

3nodding yesyesyes, I agree. Good characters are the foundation of any story and what makes us interested in them. All of them must be well-developed, or you get something like the Evil Overlord (though I'd love to read a story about a finicky villain who wants to be a villain just to prove it can be done RIGHT... who has a copy of the Evil Overlord list on his wall and reads it to himself before he gets up to do some torturing).

Well, it's the heroic cycle. The key to the heroic cycle and all of the basic plotlines is to make sure they are human, compelling, and developed.

If you break anything down enough, it sounds totally cliched. There was a thread I made a while back that was all about "over-simplify your plots!". My current novel-in-progress was this: A doctor becomes obsessed with his power over life and death.

Of course, this discounts the fact that there are four other characters, deep motivations for the doctor, a bunch of inter-character conflicts, upheavals in society, and other lovely things. heart

Really, it's all in how you develop it and make it three-dimensional, rather than just a set of words.

Very well put 3nodding Though, I must admit, your "overly simplified plot" sounds very compelling anyway xd