Character writing

It has been over a year since the last topic posted here, so I hope I'm not violating any established Attic customs with this post! This is just a ramble on a question that gives me some concern when I write/read, as I'm a softie and (though I can't say I'm never guilty of the same thing), in both original and fanfic, I always feel sorry for characters like this.

How do you feel when it seems like the author hates a character?

I feel uncomfortable when reading a fic and a canon character seems set up to take a fall, negative qualities exaggerated and better traits ignored to the point where nothing redeemable to them remains.  Of course, sometimes personality clashes are inevitable; if your Bhaalspawn is a neutral good lesbian bard in unrequited love with Shar-Teel, Eldoth is not going to be in your party for very long.  And sometimes, it's also interesting commentary on authorial mistakes.  Some of Voldemort's strategies in the Harry Potter series are really not too clever, and it's understandable to decide that a villain's shown actions make him an idiot even though we're told he's intelligent.  In the case of villains, I think this often detracts from having a good story because antagonists should be a serious threat for suspense's sake (I hate it in one of my other fandoms where the villain is an idiot in fic even though he sometimes most definitely is an idiot in canon), but criticizing the entire genre of deconstruction would leave fandom bereft of some absolutely awesome pieces of work.  (Generally I want fics of all sorts to exist!  More fics and more space for discussion is wonderful.)

Where do you draw the line between deconstruction and character bashing?  Is it too much a change of genre or an example of hypocrisy if one character is limited to repeating their scripts for comedic humiliation purposes while other characters are permitted to develop for serious drama?  Is it just the general no-no of not wanting to see too much of the author's personal preferences warping the story (like the case of the Mary-Sues we love to hate)?  Does it completely depend on what you personally feel about the character in question?

The phrasing of this question also raises the issue of knowing author intent, whether it's really possible to tell from a story alone if the author actually hates a character and is letting that bias have too much influence.  In short, it's a grey area and I think there are some cases where it's obvious and others where it's not, and everyone'll disagree on which specific cases are which, but this isn't meant to be a specific discussion anyway.

That these matters depend upon writerly skill and the reader's own character preferences is, of course, a given.

Generally speaking, if you hate something it's best to just stay away from from it. In the case of writing canon characters, especially if its one you know lots of other people do like, it seems quite silly to risk alienating and putting off some of your audience if you don't have to.

Although, even if you hate a character its sometimes a good idea to try writing them seriously. You might learn some things, get to know them better, develop some empathy and who knows... maybe even start liking them. It's possible, trust me. I mean, although I've never hated Nalia I never really cared very much for her either; she's just a bit bland usually. But when I started writing her she grew on me a little bit.

Of course I like Aerie; that doesn't mean the Aerie I write doesn't have faults. Maybe not the faults some people imagine she has, like constantly whining (because the truth is she doesn't really), but she tends to let herself be pushed around a lot and she's never going to be a champion wrestler. I imagine that if I was writing a character I hated I'd have to do the same but in reverse; I'd have to be a big enough person to acknowledge that they do have positive traits as well. Although the trouble with me is I don't really hate any characters that much. I mean, there are plenty of real people far more deserving of my scorn.

I'd have to agree with Coutelier. If you hate the character, it generally is a good idea to avoid working with them. If you only dislike them, if you're honest about it and try to look for the balance of the character, what works and what doesn't I think you can do some very nice work.

One of the characters I ride this line with is Edwin in my Odyssey. He has taken the role of the rather scummy businessman who has hired the hero from time to time. I've never been the biggest fan of him. Just find his personality grating. But, in the case of what I was working with, he fit. But I do try to avoid making him a punching bag. He does come off poorly at times, but I see that more as a realization and manipulation of his arrogance (his greatest flaw) Yet it's still always a challenge.

But as to my opinion to the practice of bashing hated characters? I do think it should be avoided because it's hard to work with something you hate. And I think it can poison the rest of the prose. On the other hand, I have seen one or two times where the hate actually fuels it, especially in the 'Not so Magnificent Bastard Villain' pieces.

The trick, I think, is really just to be honest with yourself, going into the whole business, and that's really a lot easier said than done, unfortunately. But when you sit down to put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard, as it were, you really have to ask yourself "Ok, I'm thinking about using such and such a character in my piece."

And as you do with any character for -any- reason, you ask yourself if that character is appropriate and whether you think you can write that character properly... whether that character will come in true to form, whether you'll be able to work within the boundaries of the character as established by the existing material (while still giving it your own spin, of course.)

Just as you don't want to introduce a character you might glorify a bit too much because you're just a huge fan of that character, you don't want to introduce one who'll serve as nothing but a punching bag (as Viga put it.) But if you can decide that yes, you can put this character in, and write them in a believable manner, within what makes sense given their personality as established from canonical sources and what-not, then even if they do beaten up a bit or knocked around or what have you, well, there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

If, on the other hand, you find yourself compelled to just heap abuse upon a character simply because you don't like them, and you just can't stop yourself... and the plot starts getting away from you, and the rest of the cast seems to be going out of their way to kick this character you hate, then it's time to scrap stuff and write that character you don't get along with out of your piece. Because at that point, you're not objective enough to get the job done properly, and the story is starting to suffer as a result.

Now all of this is the "professional," (I guess) way to approach things. Sometimes, though, you just want to smack somebody you don't like, and you don't really care who knows your agenda. That... can be fine, too, but you just shouldn't disguise it as anything else, and you should also be prepared for people who -do- like that character to give you grief about it. Given that people can get VERY uppity when it comes to defending characters (or anything) they like and that "Rage of the Fanboy/Fangirl" is an attack that pretty much ALWAYS critically hits, I'd be very careful of when you decide to trot out the "bashing for bashing's sake" stuff.

Of course I like Aerie; that doesn't mean the Aerie I write doesn't have faults. Maybe not the faults some people imagine she has, like constantly whining (because the truth is she doesn't really), but she tends to let herself be pushed around a lot and she's never going to be a champion wrestler.

Although, what you have done there Coutelier, once again being annoyingly clever, is taken a characters seemingly 'negative' trait, and turned it into a really positive one; we just love Aerie for her 'valiant loser' bits, or whenever she's basically just getting the crap beat out of her, trying her best but failing. Like Imoen said it's just so human. And with Nalia I think it was identifying the kind of role she can actually be really good at -- more a 'quest giver' than an active party member. Little like Barbara Gordon; she really just kind of sucked at being Batgirl, but as Oracle she's fantastic.

Personally, I go along with the consensus; if you don't like something or someone, why not just keep it to yourself, eh? It often does end up reflecting more negatively on the writer than it does on the character.

I do agree that it's better not to write something one dislikes; hating the writing process isn't going to provide good results for either writer or reader. I think the idea is to shuffle the unwanted parts off-screen as quickly as possible whilst still...thinking about the character as a *whole*, not just the aspects one dislikes. Ensuring that one's dislike isn't colouring the canon too much. It feels mean-spirited to visit too much authorial hate, when for obvious reasons the character can't defend themselves.

I like to try and give characters I expect to dislike some quality I find admirable, either by picking it up from their canon or by expanding their existing characterization (but with that last it's important to avoid creating a character who is the same only in name). For example, Eldoth (ah, a character who seems universally disliked!) might be a sexist git with all the ethics of a slug, but by going alone into the Cloakwood and not often running away from your party he might have a good deal of *physical* courage, so making mention of that element of competence could create a more nuanced character. I find a character hated by the protagonists with something interesting about them is a better read than a character hated by the protagonists who's so incompetent as to provoke immense tedium (or even feeling sorry for them!). It relieves me from favouring some characters too much when I actively try to consider the others' goals and points of view.

Little like Barbara Gordon; she really just kind of sucked at being Batgirl, but as Oracle she's fantastic.

Babs was a terrific Batgirl. Way better than Betty Kane ever was. And it's not Babs' fault that Cass was just... you know... pretty much born for the role.

Though it is amusing seeing her mentoring Steph these days. That makes for laughs.

Little like Barbara Gordon; she really just kind of sucked at being Batgirl, but as Oracle she's fantastic.

Babs was a terrific Batgirl.

I think so too. I mean, yeah, she did kind of suck at things like fighting (she had a brown belt in judo or something), but that was okay because she was more about using her intelligence and her wits... not every heroine needs to be a Buffy clone.

Way better than Betty Kane ever was.

Oh, a gopher would make a better Batgirl than Betty (Bette) Kane

Though it is amusing seeing her mentoring Steph these days. That makes for laughs.

I only just started reading comic books again. I stopped at around the time of Infinite Crisis so I'm still not sure how Steph came back from the dead. Still, I guess it was inevitable; her dying seemed to upset a lot of people. I guess because she was another 'valiant loser' and I guess it turns out people do like losers a whole lot more than winners. Losers are usually much nicer people.

Little like Barbara Gordon; she really just kind of sucked at being Batgirl, but as Oracle she's fantastic.

Babs was a terrific Batgirl.

I think so too. I mean, yeah, she did kind of suck at things like fighting (she had a brown belt in judo or something), but that was okay because she was more about using her intelligence and her wits... not every heroine needs to be a Buffy clone.

Way better than Betty Kane ever was.

Oh, a gopher would make a better Batgirl than Betty (Bette) Kane

Though it is amusing seeing her mentoring Steph these days. That makes for laughs.

I only just started reading comic books again. I stopped at around the time of Infinite Crisis so I'm still not sure how Steph came back from the dead. Still, I guess it was inevitable; her dying seemed to upset a lot of people. I guess because she was another 'valiant loser' and I guess it turns out people do like losers a whole lot more than winners. Losers are usually much nicer people.

There's this great scene in Batgirl (With Cass as the titular character) that runs with this notion that while Babs might not have been the best fighter (Cass could take her apart with ridiculous ease,) Babs definitely had something that allowed her to keep up somehow.

It's here: http://scans-daily.d...30.html?#cutid1

As for Steph coming back from the dead, that's easy... when you just... never died in the first place.

They basically said that she never died to begin with, that Leslie faked her death and took her to Africa (when Bruce told Leslie to get the hell out of Gotham for refusing to save a patient) to save her from all the crimefighting craziness, and that Bruce... "suspected" the whole thing was a ruse, and just didn't tell Tim or any of the others because he wasn't a hundred percent certain.

There's this great scene in Batgirl (With Cass as the titular character) that runs with this notion that while Babs might not have been the best fighter (Cass could take her apart with ridiculous ease,) Babs definitely had something that allowed her to keep up somehow.

It's here: http://scans-daily.d...30.html?#cutid1

I've got it here I do think its possible though that Babs may have cheated a bit towards the end there... tired of watching herself get beat. But, well, it's how I see Imoen; she'll hardly ever win a 'straight' fight (you know, fisticuffs) unless it's against Aerie or a really girlie dryad. So she levels the playing field by... cheating, a bit. That very strip is what I always think of when I think of Immie.

As for Steph coming back from the dead, that's easy... when you just... never died in the first place.

They basically said that she never died to begin with, that Leslie faked her death and took her to Africa (when Bruce told Leslie to get the hell out of Gotham for refusing to save a patient) to save her from all the crimefighting craziness, and that Bruce... "suspected" the whole thing was a ruse, and just didn't tell Tim or any of the others because he wasn't a hundred percent certain.

Ah, so his going a bit mad back then was all for the benefit of everyone else. Makes... perfect sense.

Writing characters you don't like in a shallow manner is perhaps what bothers me the most in fan fiction. Oh, I hear all kinds of horror stories about things far worse, and I've read some of that stuff too... but other than for laughs, I don't generally read awful fan fiction, so I'm more bothered by this thing that apparently can appear even in better fan fiction, and it's just not my thing at all.

I don't know where the line goes, really, especially with minor characters. I am (as I have been for years and years) in the middle of writing my own version of the story of Baldur's Gate I. And I write several minor characters, without much depth because, well, they are minor, and for whom I have little real sympathy. There are minor antagonists who could have been party members in the game, and characters encountered along the way who become more or less hostile for rather stupid reasons. So, for example, there's Kagain, who has little by the way of either depth or redeeming features. (Wait, this is beginning to sound familiar, did I talk about this before?) But the difference seems to be that I'm not writing him angrily because I hate that he's greedy, lazy and amoral and only in it for the money. I write him as being like that because he is like that (of course, there's a dash of interpretation in that already) and because someone like that is a welcome minor addition to the subplot he's in. I have only a hint of anything like sympathy for the personalities of him and the other crooks he's currently teamed up with (and by the way, just the fact that they have is because I'm giving them some credit for independent thinking and having motives of their own; someone could have written characters they dislike as not having even that), and that is that they all have a potential to be amusing. As persons they're clearly evil, but I don't mind that as a storyteller. As characters they're fairly flat, but I've still given some thought to all their motivations and don't just have them act stupid because I feel like it, not that I do.

Then again, I'm trying to write about the Shadow Druids right now, and they're going to appear pretty much as just poster boys for fanaticism (well, except that one guy who may actually not attack in the game even if you have Jaheira with you). But then again, what else are fanatics going to do when they encounter someone they oppose fanatically? Their other sides aren't likely to show then. So they're being stupid and displaying an attitude I have a beef with, and which will definitely appear stupid, but in that situation, how else is it going to appear?

As for deconstruction, I don't really do that in this context. (Except in my Abdel Adrian parody story, but that's really a different context. I did write a chapter in that about the difference between a genuine deconstruction parody and just casting someone as stupid because you hate them. I think people didn't much like it, probably because straight out bashing stories involving character derailment are or were quite accepted here. Of course, there's technically nothing wrong with deciding to write one if that's what you want, but it's not my personal preference.) Deconstruction just doesn't seem very... constructive. Why would I want to seriously write about something where the characters are badly done, anyway? So in this BG context, I try to do reconstructions instead. If something was written badly or superficially, that's no excuse for me to do so as well. And you I can usually imagine characters could give some justifications for their actions and opinions if they were challenged about them or looked into in more detail, not just go "Duh?" Of course, this depth doesn't always have a chance to come up at all.

I've had some trouble with Kagain too, trying to acknowledge his...possible well-rounded qualities, if a character so scarcely described can have 'em. (For me, one of the best Kagains I've read was I think Oryx describing his regeneration in detail; he has his skills, and he's also a practical man who tries not to place his life above his undoubted greed, and those qualities of competence appeal to me.)

So they're being stupid and displaying an attitude I have a beef with, and which will definitely appear stupid, but in that situation, how else is it going to appear?

I would rather stupid and easily-beaten antagonists not exist at all (unless v. minor or humorous). For fanatics, personally I like the idea of exploiting that fanaticism to give the characters power; the Shadow Druid whose insanity and complete lack of restraint could make for truly scary scenes of earthquakes and hurricanes and complete unconstrained natural havoc. I can see something admirable and interesting in the character who never gives up on their religious belief even whilst beaten and bloodied and dying, even if that religious belief is utterly indefensible and really not in the least Nice. There's also the aspect that some fanatic characters might be better at compartmentalizing than others, temporarily suppressing the fanaticism for the greater good of their aims or being perfectly rational on subjects other than the fanaticism, although I think that could water down the impact of the characters. I think there's a lot that can be done with fanatics and I'm sure you'd do it well.

In the Bujold books I've read (very far from being a complete sample, so I may be misremembering), the characters that bother me are the stupid bureaucrat characters. I assume from reading that that sort of stupid evil is the sort of evil that bothers Bujold most, and she writes some of those characters as cardboard cutouts that the brilliant witty leads can defeat with their little finger and half an inch of tape. (Perhaps there is a point intended there on the stupidity of evil.) And I find those weakened antagonists a flawed part of the stories. The winners of my own personal 'Characters Most Likely To Be Stupid Evil' award might be followers of gods resembling that of Fred Phelps, or anti-abortion males. Eh, sometimes one wants a good satisfying story about what one finds thoroughly evil and/or irritating, but I appreciate people with the ability to write about nuanced issues and characters.

Deconstruction just doesn't seem very... constructive. Why would I want to seriously write about something where the characters are badly done, anyway? So in this BG context, I try to do reconstructions instead. If something was written badly or superficially, that's no excuse for me to do so as well. And you I can usually imagine characters could give some justifications for their actions and opinions if they were challenged about them or looked into in more detail, not just go "Duh?" Of course, this depth doesn't always have a chance to come up at all.

Yes, I like that. That's no reason for a fanwriter not to try and do a better job. (It sometimes frustrates me that in fandom generally, female characters are often ignored because 'they're SO badly written in the source [and the boys are hotter]'--I'd much rather write them and try to do better. Of course, I *should* write rather than complain!) I would say that I like...sophisticated and well-done deconstructions (which is just another way of saying 'to my personal taste'), but I prefer reconstructions.

So they're being stupid and displaying an attitude I have a beef with, and which will definitely appear stupid, but in that situation, how else is it going to appear?

I would rather stupid and easily-beaten antagonists not exist at all (unless v. minor or humorous). For fanatics, personally I like the idea of exploiting that fanaticism to give the characters power; the Shadow Druid whose insanity and complete lack of restraint could make for truly scary scenes of earthquakes and hurricanes and complete unconstrained natural havoc.

Well, I'm not saying they'll be un-dangerous. They can't quite cause earthquakes, but I was writing a scene that aimed at impressiveness within what limits not tremendously high-level characters could do, using Control Weather in order to follow it up with Call Lightning in the actual battle, but it turned out that didn't work in the situation I had in mind given the range limits of Control Weather. (I don't want to change universal technical details like that just because it would fit the plot; that would eat away at the consistency of my story with the rest of the world it's in. Oh, wait, except that I think I just thought of a way around it.) These Shadow Druids should certainly be dangerous, and the Shadow Archdruid the "highest-level" antagonist so far in the story. But their motives and words will be foolish.

There's also the aspect that some fanatic characters might be better at compartmentalizing than others, temporarily suppressing the fanaticism for the greater good of their aims or being perfectly rational on subjects other than the fanaticism, although I think that could water down the impact of the characters.

Well, like I hinted above, I took that only Shadow Druid who doesn't attack even when you have Jaheira in your party and made him dissent on this point and refuse to attack the heroes. Mainly it was because the druids themselves were having no luck removing the Iron Throne presence in the mines that they resented, not for any nobler motives than that, but it was still more rational thinking than the others'. Even the others compromised enough to respect his decision, or at least not object to it, but that was for yet another reason, which was his seniority and the personal respect of the Shadow Archdruid.