My reviewer talked extensively about the characters. In the opening scene, the MC does a reckless, dispicable thing. It's something "normal," "well-adjusted" people may secretly be tempted to do, but should never actually do because the potential for numerous, disastrous outcomes is so blatant. But MC isn't "normal" or "well-adjusted," and one of my tasks was to make him believable and endearing to the reader. According to my reviewer, I scored a slam-dunk with the MC. It was the supporting cast that needs work.
Reviewer said, "There didn't seem to be much of Virginia (a secondary character) beyond the typical wino, but I think you mean for there to be. And I think that’s awesome. I love when a rugged character---someone people usually sneer at, like a wino---has a deeper meaning within them. The fact that she did take (MC) in says she has that, maybe, but I’d like to know for sure. I’d like to see it."
And Reviewer is so right! I'm now excited about digging deeper into Virginia's character.
The critique went on to discuss a sideline character: "Now, to me, the irate lady in the parking lot was the most real. Ohh, I wanted to slap her upside the head, but man, I know that woman. Thinks she’s doing good, but goes about it in all the wrong way with all the wrong attitude. It’s a kind of person that frustrates me, personally, to freakin’ death. And so I loved that she was in the story, making me feel that, wanting to stand between her and Rocco (the MC) and tell her to shove her cell phone up her---"
And it was this observation that got me thinking: What kind of reader am I?
Do I embrace a character I'm reading, accepting them for the person the author wrote? Or do I judge them, doubting someone would act they way the character is behaving or say the things the character does? The deeper I delved into these questions, the more I realized my answer is....both.
I thought about The Almost Moon, by Alice Sebold. I really enjoyed that book and, with absolute abandon, devoured the characters and plots. I swallowed them whole, relished their tastes and textures, never wishing for a dash of salt or to cut them up into smaller, more manageable pieces. For me, Sebold showed in that book her mastery as a character-driven author.
Other people in my book club HATED the book. The most common complaint was readers couldn't relate to Helen, the main character. They felt Helen was a wholly unbelievable character, since she acted in ways most readers rejected as cruel and unrealistic.
And then I started thinking about The Shack, by William P. Young. (Please brace yourselves for my minority opinions of this book, and be advised of my upcoming spoilers.)
I was completely frustrated by this book and actually threw it across the room when I finished it. Why? Because I couldn't believe that Mack spend an entire weekend holed up with the Blessed Trinity -- an exclusive audience with God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit -- after his five-year-old daughter was brutally raped and murdered -- and he never ever once asked God/Jesus/HolySpirit about the Devil. Not one question. Not even, "Did the Devil make the murderer act?" Mack didn't bring up the Devil's name ONCE. Sorry, but if I had a whole weekend face-to-face with God, and I was a church-going man who'd wavered in his faith in the wake of such an evil atrocity, I would have wanted to know God's take on the Devil.
So, why do I accept some characters as the authors portrayed them and reject others? I suppose it depends on the ability of the author to reach me, to unwittingly tap into my past experiences and my brand of reality.
But I also think an author who is successful in winning his character over with the reader is an author who writes that character's truth. All of it. I may not like what a character is doing, but if he is acting from the gut of his truth, I'm going to embrace him, and stay engaged in his story, until the bitter end.
Sebold wrote all of Helen's ugly truths, masterfully balancing them out with Helen's compassion and wit. And this is what I have to do with Virginia, in my short story. Find her truth. Once I know it, I'll be able to deliver her with more depth and vibrancy than I did in the original draft. And I think that if Young had been bold enough to explore all of Mack's truths, I would have enjoyed The Shack much more than I did.
So what about you? What kind of reader are you? Do you question more often than embrace the characters you read?
16 comments:
Excellent post, and your short sounds amazing! I think many readers don't realize they are questioning characters, but simply think, "I like this book, or I don't." But, truly, it is always the connection to the characters, at least in my mind. Sounds like you have a great group to bounce ideas with! Best 2U:)
Unless the characterization is glaringly off for me, I'm very forgiving. I read for pleasure, not to rip apart other people's work.
Sounds like an interesting story you're writing! I love those critiques that really hit it on the head like that.
As for me, I tend to accept characters. Mostly. :)
Interesting question! I think, like you, I'm willing to accept an unlikeable and contradictory character IF I feel the author is trustworthy--that is, giving adequate evidence of each character's truth.
That's a hard question to answer. THE ALMOST MOON was a tough read for me because I didn't LIKE the main character. I'm having a hard time writing my antagonist now because I don't LIKE him. Isn't that weird? It is almost like I put up a wall because their flaws are too dark. Even some protagonists find my back to them if their too thinly written. It's just a feeling, I guess.
As a reader, I seem to be more accepting of character flaws. I don't mind anti-heroes and unlikable characters so long as they are doing something interesting.
My biggest character sin is when they are boring. I am not saying they need to be juggling fire rings the entire time, but even ordinary characters are extraordinary in some way. In my opinion, if there isn't something extraordinary going on with them, then why are we reading about them.
I've had this debate with a lot of college professors. They tell me that great literature is filled with ordinary people. And I agree, but those people are doing extraordinary things. They quote me Hemingway and Fitzgerald, and I point out that both of those characters had extraordinary things happen to them within the context of their worlds.
It's a careful balance, sure, but it sounds like you're working on making the character believable, but interesting.
I had a Flat Stanley walking through my MS like a placecard holder. His was a secondary character and he was OK, but then I went to a writer's conference and concentrated on developing him some more...What a difference! Like you said, the whole truth has to come out...not just the parts you want to use.
Sometimes I get so mad at characters who are self-centered. That's one trait I can't stand when I'm reading. But even when a character is despicable, they can be endearing, too, if they've also got a funny streak.
i'm usually pretty forgiving. Unless i already have other issues with the book
Truth is stranger than fiction, so finding the inner truth in a character is essential.
Perhaps Sebold doesn't believe in the devil, therefore didn't write the truth for Mack. We pull from inside of us what we know, right?
It depends. If I'm reading for critique, I try to question everything, because I figure that's the most helpful to the writer. But when I read for pleasure I try to turn my inner critiquer off, so I can fully immerse myself in the story. :)
Great post!
I think I do both too. I just depends on the character and how I view them.
If I can't relate or the characters are despicable beyond belief, then it just doesn't work for me. Some people really like an anti-hero, but not me.
I'm harder on secondary characters -- are they fleshed out enough? Are they a minority just because the novelist felt the need to have diversity? Are they toooo much a foil to the mc?
I, personally, LOATHED the shack. It's hard for me to relate to Mack. It's impossible for me to buy the way it wsa presented, but I think that is because I'm a doubting Thomas. ;)
I love Alice Sebold! I need to re-read THE ALMOST MOON. I remember adoring the book, but can't quite call up every detail... except for maybe the letter she wrote at the end. (?) Yes, pulling it off my bookshelf now!
it's like you said. It depends... I haven't read The Shack or Sebold, but I do find that if I identify w/the MC and he/she behaves "correctly" I LOVE the book/story... :D <3
Wow, now you've got me thinking. Yes I agree it's a little of both, and now as a writer who reads, I question it a Lot more than I ever did! I DO absoloutely have to relate with the character on some level in order to believe what they're going through, and feel for them!
Post a Comment