![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
100 Things #013: I want to write awesome girls.
For the record, Sansa made me think about this topic, but it's actually something a commenter said via PM that reminded me of this little problem of mine.
Awhile ago I took a look at my original stories and realized that a lot of my protagonists were character types I hated. While writing them I was very sympathetic and totally into it, and thought they were great characters because I could relate to them so much! (That should've been warning sign #1.) And then, of course, I would take a look at them at the end of their respective stories and miss the problem with this, because I was too invested in them. These characters were useless: they never did anything to change their lives or fix their problems if they could whine about them instead, and they only acted when circumstances or other cast members pushed them so hard they had no choice but to react. They were, in short, whiny damsels in distress with no agency whatsoever.
I hate that when I read it in books or stories written by others. I will put a book down if the main character angsts too much, never mind being completely useless. Why would I write so many characters like this? Most of the cases I was looking at were old - one was written when I was seventeen - but I can't comfort myself with that because, when looking at a more recent story, I realized I was doing the same thing, and was just slightly better at hiding it.
I would say I wrote that character type over and over again because it was in my experience. I was like that. I let things happen to me and thought I was a victim, and let depression and inertia keep me from doing anything about it until someone grabbed me by the arm and threw an opportunity in my face. I hate that kind of character because I hate that I did that to myself, and I hate that I still have to fight the urge to sit in a corner and curl up until someone fixes things for me. But unlike a real experience of that sort, in which you or I may not be able to see the situation from the outside and come up with better decisions, a novel allows us a better view of what's happening. A character like this appears to be wasting their opportunities, being stubborn, stupid, being whiny. Who wants to read about a character angsting for thirty chapters when the solution is right there, in reach? Besides, characters are supposed to do things.
Now... this happens, of course, and I myself am an example in full living color. People behave like this, and I don't want to say it's stupid or annoying to be depressed or exhibit this behavior for some other reason. I know people who are doing this right now (and wow, is it frustrating!). And realistically, you can't always just do something about yoru situation, or fix it, or suck it up and deal with it. It's fair that characters exist who will not or cannot do those things. An article on characterization might even admit that characters who do nothing are also making a valid choice. Characters change-- unless the point is that they don't. But should every character be like that? I'm thinking... probably not.
I mentioned Sansa because she's another character type that annoys me, and I think the same reasons apply to a point. Near her age I was a lot like that. It bothers me, because reality was driven home pretty harshly at around that time, and it's sad to look back at myself when I was nine and realize how naive I was about how people work. It's only natural-- I was a child. Fictional Sansa was also a child. You can't blame a child for not understanding that a lot of people are assholes under their smiling faces, but Sansa frustrated me terribly because I wished she'd figure it out.
(Now it's Catelyn that frustrates me, and for different reasons. I would so NOT do that, my god. *head in hands*)
I'd really love to write a badass. Can I write a Toph or a Lin Beifong? I know the answer is 'yes.' Write what you want to read, and all that. How is it I ended up writing what I didn't want to read? >_>
Awhile ago I took a look at my original stories and realized that a lot of my protagonists were character types I hated. While writing them I was very sympathetic and totally into it, and thought they were great characters because I could relate to them so much! (That should've been warning sign #1.) And then, of course, I would take a look at them at the end of their respective stories and miss the problem with this, because I was too invested in them. These characters were useless: they never did anything to change their lives or fix their problems if they could whine about them instead, and they only acted when circumstances or other cast members pushed them so hard they had no choice but to react. They were, in short, whiny damsels in distress with no agency whatsoever.
I hate that when I read it in books or stories written by others. I will put a book down if the main character angsts too much, never mind being completely useless. Why would I write so many characters like this? Most of the cases I was looking at were old - one was written when I was seventeen - but I can't comfort myself with that because, when looking at a more recent story, I realized I was doing the same thing, and was just slightly better at hiding it.
I would say I wrote that character type over and over again because it was in my experience. I was like that. I let things happen to me and thought I was a victim, and let depression and inertia keep me from doing anything about it until someone grabbed me by the arm and threw an opportunity in my face. I hate that kind of character because I hate that I did that to myself, and I hate that I still have to fight the urge to sit in a corner and curl up until someone fixes things for me. But unlike a real experience of that sort, in which you or I may not be able to see the situation from the outside and come up with better decisions, a novel allows us a better view of what's happening. A character like this appears to be wasting their opportunities, being stubborn, stupid, being whiny. Who wants to read about a character angsting for thirty chapters when the solution is right there, in reach? Besides, characters are supposed to do things.
Now... this happens, of course, and I myself am an example in full living color. People behave like this, and I don't want to say it's stupid or annoying to be depressed or exhibit this behavior for some other reason. I know people who are doing this right now (and wow, is it frustrating!). And realistically, you can't always just do something about yoru situation, or fix it, or suck it up and deal with it. It's fair that characters exist who will not or cannot do those things. An article on characterization might even admit that characters who do nothing are also making a valid choice. Characters change-- unless the point is that they don't. But should every character be like that? I'm thinking... probably not.
I mentioned Sansa because she's another character type that annoys me, and I think the same reasons apply to a point. Near her age I was a lot like that. It bothers me, because reality was driven home pretty harshly at around that time, and it's sad to look back at myself when I was nine and realize how naive I was about how people work. It's only natural-- I was a child. Fictional Sansa was also a child. You can't blame a child for not understanding that a lot of people are assholes under their smiling faces, but Sansa frustrated me terribly because I wished she'd figure it out.
(Now it's Catelyn that frustrates me, and for different reasons. I would so NOT do that, my god. *head in hands*)
I'd really love to write a badass. Can I write a Toph or a Lin Beifong? I know the answer is 'yes.' Write what you want to read, and all that. How is it I ended up writing what I didn't want to read? >_>
no subject
This is a beautiful statement! It's why we like to read about characters, after all. They're placed in a fluid, dynamic, dramatic situation, even if it doesn't appear to be moving (not unlike a film lingering on a still scene), and we become invested in their actions.
People, unfortunately, aren't characters. We're rather frequently shit, in fact, but we also tend to be trapped in situations that aren't dynamic, the irony there being that, while our characters aren't alive the way that we are, they can do more living than we can.
As for characters who don't act, they seem to pay a heavy price. I think chiefly of Hamlet here. His father's ghost exhorted him to action, and yet he angsted, dilly-dallied, malingered, etc., ultimately to his doom when he did decide to act. The contrast here is Macbeth, who acted decisively, but made the wrong decision. Which of these two is more right?
As far as being relatable goes, I don't know how I feel about that. None of my characters, be they in 'fic or original, are really anything like me, nor are they idealized versions of me. (The closest I've come to breaking this, aside from back in Sailor Moon fandom and certain projects that "bank" on the whole Mary Sue concept, is Mark in FE7, but my take on him is really more inspired by Spock than by myself.) I'm merely an observer of sorts. It's my job as a writer to be an invisible reporter, so, regardless of how I feel about a character, there's got to be something there, a P.O.V. that I can occupy and explore, regardless of how alien it is.
I might be playing a bit with this very concept in yonder novel, now that I think about it. My two alternating mains represent a bit of this. One is more decisive than the other, though both arrive at agency through alternate means. (Not making the same mistakes as the prior generation is an overriding theme, so each is influenced by mentors, parents, enemies, etc.)
Possible to ruminate on what you present here for quite a while, so I'll stop myself here before I drown in my own blather.
no subject
A character who sits and angsts and is paralyzed into inaction is fine, I think, so long as we eventually get to see them do something. Prior to that act, it's just a victim narrative: they are sad and life is hard, etc. There's just not much to agree or disagree with there; you're just watching and feeling bad and sympathizing, but it's hard to empathize. But the second that character actually does something is the moment the reader can identify/empathize with them, or be shocked by them, or be repulsed by them, or whatever. (And I think it's a fairly common construction in short stories, really, to have lots of passivity and observation concluding with One Moment of Finally the Character Does Something: but that one moment is all it takes.)
(And also, obviously, a longer work probably needs to be punctuated by a character doing More than One Thing—just like you can't have an entire novel that is just raw suspense with no payoff til the final chapter, but you certainly can do that with a short story.)
I think I heard someone mention once that they only really grew to like Pelleas on a second playthrough of RD, particularly in that scene near the end where he tells Almedha that he's not her son. I think something similar may be happening there—prior to that Pelleas is pretty much just letting himself be pushed around by the forces around him; you could argue that the bit with Almedha is his first strong act of agency. (And everything that's happened to him, pushed him around, etc, up to that point has prepared us for him doing that.)
no subject
I kind of feel like that's the only way to write a short story. It probably isn't, but it's the form so many of them take. The more you try to fit in, the more you have to explain, and then it's not short anymore. Short stories have a lot of characters who sit around thinking while things happen, now that I think about it. You can only do so much characterization with your descriptions.
(This isn't as true in fantasy stories, I want to say, not always. The ones I've read recently have more of a mini-epic quality. A girl figures out how to use a sword to fight a boogey man over the rooftops, a man takes a baby on a journey to find a name before the shadows get the kid, etc.)
no subject
This is an interesting way of looking at it, and I think I like it.
Characters are able to do this, I would think, because even though they suffer consequences for their actions, just like we do, those consequences do not hurt in the same way or have any real life repercussions. We are not able to act so decisively (or not) for that very reason. Or, if we do, it has the potential to hurt a lot more.
As far as being relatable goes, I don't know how I feel about that. None of my characters, be they in 'fic or original, are really anything like me
All the better, I think. It's too easy to get too attached to this or that, to fall into the trap of not letting them do anything wrong, and so on. I've done this with characters in fic, too; after a while, if I write the same character too often, I start to relate too much (or put too much of myself in them) and get too attached to things (storylines, pairings, headcanon).
So I think it's a definite, even awful weakness in my early characters, that I found them SO relatable. And it's a weakness in my current characters also, just not so obviously, or not to the same extent. At the moment I'm going to let myself go with it and see if it provides some mental catharsis, but I doubt it'll end up making the character a good one, and she'll need to be revamped later.
no subject
I used to write a lot of those in original fic-- male and female. I think part of it was a developmental thing, a reaction to being a awkward teenager who felt pushed about by events, and part of it stemmed from a desire to make the characters not at fault. If they don't do anything (right or wrong), and sorrows are just heaped upon their precious little heads, then they're blameless lambs and it just heightens the sadness, right?
It took a long time to get past that as a concept of virtue. Blech.
no subject
:/