Male Characters and Justifying an Epic Series

It's a double header day for me today.

I'm taking on the topic of writing male characters when you're female over at Eli Ashpence's blog. Several good links to other blogposts on the topic included.

And I take a bite out of what justifies an epic series, and what doesn't at Robert Courtland's blog.

The Subtle Antagonist

The most commonly known and used trope to set up conflict is man vs. man. We use another person (or creature as the case may be) to fight against our protagonist and give us a story worth reading. And I think we've all scoffed a bit when that antagonist gets too cheesy or isn't strong enough to put up much of a fight. We've all secretly thrilled, adored, or hated a strong villain. Villains make stories go round.

You don't have to use a man vs. man conflict in a speculative story, though. It's usually the first thing we writers think of. "I need a bad guy." But in truth, maybe we'll have a stronger story if we don't have someone bagged and tagged as the villain of the piece.

We can use man vs. nature or man vs. the establishment as a more subtle antagonist. Anything from the clock ticking during or before a natural disaster to a restrictive society that the protagonist must rebel against. I've read some good stories that use subtle antagonists, usually in science-fiction, but also in the occasional fantasy or dystopian work.

Identifying what the main conflict of the story needs to be is a great way to determine if you need a poster child bad guy or a subtle antagonist. And in some cases, you can use both to keep the conflict flowing. Every scene doesn't need to be the protagonist vs. the antagonist (embodied). Maybe the human antagonist has set in motion a sub-conflict that uses a subtle antagonist. Or maybe you've started out with that restrictive society subtle antagonist and the further in your protag gets, the societal movement gets a face in a political leader, peace officer, or socialite.

Having a subtle antagonist propelling the main conflict is a bit freeing in some ways. There's no character development to be done with a natural disaster or plague of killer frogs. This opens up word space real estate to dive in deep into the protagonist and any secondary or tertiary characters. We can explore their darker sides even, where the line of friend and foe blur a bit as normal human reactions override goodwill and intentions.

What books have you read that use a subtle antagonist as the main conflict? Are you writing a story that uses a subtle antagonist? What do you think about mixing the two?

We Are Onions Not Turnips

When we first meet someone, whether we intentionally mean to or not, we automatically do an analysis of the other person and categorize them. First impressions put that new person into a slot based on what they are wearing, the sound of their voice, the shape of their face, or even what they are doing. Most people we meet only receive the benefit of a first impression. What about subsequent impressions then?

On a second meeting with a person, our category sorter goes to work again. This time maybe, we get to talk longer to that person or have a completely different exchange with them. These can be either positive or negative. Maybe the person looks very different in their dress or hairstyle than before. Maybe they are doing an activity that shoves them out of the category our first impression put them in.

The more you interact with someone, the more you discover that person doesn't deserve a single category or even the first one you put them in. First impressions are what I like to call turnip impressions. When you cut into a turnip it pretty much looks the same the entire way through. It's a bland, solid, single-factor vegetable. Our turnip impressions of people, in a big picture sort of way, are unfair, unjust, and often far off the mark. The reason is that people are actually onions. We have layers and those layers go deep. We have different sides, some of which polarize each other. While we think we may have someone pegged and boxed-in neatly into a category or two or three categories, the truth is, no one can ever completely know someone else. Even if you've spent years with someone. It's impossible to uncover all of the layers within another.

The same holds true for writing about your characters. Our initial ideas of a story and the people or creatures that inhabit them are turnip impressions. And, sad to say, sometimes we leave them in those turnip impression slots. Think how much more enjoyment you'd get from writing about someone after uncovering a few of their layers in an onion evaluation. In good, character-driven stories, the author takes the time to do an onion analysis of their characters. And then, using that knowledge, she uses those layers to drive the story. The same can hold true in a story which is meant to be mostly plot-driven. You don't have to leave your characters at the turnip stage. If you unpeel a few of their layers and include some strong inner growth or motivation to add tension, plot twists, or even outright conflict, you've also added depth to your story.

The next trick is to use those multiple layers to your advantage. You don't spell them all out at once for the reader. Readers need mystery and surprise. This is one reason why giving a character's entire fact sheet at the beginning of a story is so frowned upon. Give the reader a first impression and only a first impression. Let them draw the wrong conclusions, and don't fret. Because if you're smart, you'll give them also a second impression, and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth, and so on throughout the book. This can be done in a number of ways, not limited to:

1) Change of appearance.
2) Relevant backstory inserted at the right moment.
3) Reactions to events and other characters in the story.
4) Needs and wants.
5) What motivates them, pushes them, and forces them to make hard decisions.
6) Quirks, weaknesses, and strengths.
7) Choices they make in both action, thought, and speech.

There's nothing wrong with fluffy, popcorn fiction. Sometimes a light read hits the spot. There are a lot of books out there that come and hit big because they are fun or thrilling. Then they drift away from the public view. They were last year's sensation. Are they really books you'd pick up and read again and again? Probably not, unless they have something you're addicted to.

If you want to create a book that people will talk about years after it's published and will go back to and read more than once, it needs depth. One way to ensure some longevity for the story is to create onion people rather than turnip people.

A Little Personality

There's always another gimmick out there. Another "well let's twist this genre in this direction this time" approach to plotting. It gets formulaic pretty fast. For example:

The Journey/Quest (classic storyline):
1. TJ + lost heir + evil overlord
2. TJ + mystical talisman + elves
3. TJ + band of thieves + dragons
4. TJ + complex magic system + lost utopian land

OR:
Dystopian future (popular storyline these days):
1. DF + plague + evil regime
2. DF + mystical old technology + mind readers
3. DF + nomadic society + mutated animals
4. DF + controlled society + rebellious movement

That's the neat thing about basic story structure, getting to play with it. The thing to watch out for is making sure you're not spending all your energy on the twists and gimmicks. Give the reader some good characters to bond with.

Not just high concept characters with heroic attributes, we need personality. I don't know if it's fear of not coming across politically correct or neutral or catering to the supposed stereotypes that are popular (such as the bad-girl heroine or the sarcastic teen) but I've seen a dearth of personality both in unpublished and published stories. All the weight of promotion is thrown after plot gimmicks or twists and while we can marvel at the writer's brilliance with such, afterwards, the characters of all those books meld together in a rather bland stew. Am I the only one who gets an "I've read about you before" feeling?

I struggle to think of a single character I've read in the last five years who really stands out for having both a memorable personality and likeability. (Some characters have come close.) Villains get better personalities sometimes than the heroes. Sidekicks will even tout more characterization, which causes another issue in that they can take over the story because of it. Is it so bad to have a heroic character with a personality disorder, a speech impediment, stranger ideas of how society should work, or a practical joker? Can that tough heroine ever chill enough to be vulnerable or even better, hilarious? Can that teen on the cusp of radical discovery within your world ever do anything silly or clumsy—on purpose? Why are we so serious all the time with our protagonists?

Think about your favorite characters (not plot devices) in books and films. Why do they stand out to you? What is it you love about them? What makes their conflicts so much better because of their personality?

Of course, this brings up the issue of stereotypes. Yes, characters can be cookie-cutter. I think that comes from a lack of personality too. We can assign traits or flaws to characters, but their personality (their actual character) defines how they react, how they think, what they say, and what they decide.

So say you want to make your protagonist a fairytale princess. Okay. Automatically you know what goes into that type of character based on stereotypes. Let's say you assign her a flaw, like a limp or a lisp. That breaks the stereotypical mold a little. Now analyze her personality. Not just things you'd like her to be angsty or excited about, but really think about what makes her tick. Look at her as a person more than as a stock character princess. What does she want and why? What does she do that makes her stand out not only from other princesses but from all the other characters in the story? What is she willing to do to achieve her goals and better yet, what isn't she willing to do? If she's forced into a situation where she must do something she never wants to do, how is her personality going to react, adapt or fail?

Stock characters are easy. Characters with personality take more time and loving care to craft. I think it's a pity when I read a book or see a movie where the plot twists and gimmicks are clever, but the characters fall flat on their little stock faces. Characterization will stay with an audience longer than a plot will. Give your audience characters that stand out and even better, that they can love, and they'll come back. Not only for other books, but also to re-read the stories you've already created. A story someone will come back to over and over again usually becomes a classic and doesn't die-out in the flames of the next big thing. While consistent story output is good to develop a brand and keep that brand alive, quality of the product will do a whole lot more.

Don't be afraid to let your characters be somebody. No, not everyone may like your non-stock character but others will love them. Even the haters will find they will remember your character long after they've forgotten cardboard cut-out characters from their favorite plot-driven stories. Have fun, enjoy the writing process here. Well-built characters tend to make the writing flow better and you'll not need to sit back and wonder what they would do in any given circumstance. Don't stress over making your hero or heroine sound and behave just like the characters in (insert popular or classic story.) There may be only a handful of basic storylines but there are billions of diverse people out there.

Let your characters work hard for you after the book is closed (or turned off, as the case may be.) You want them to haunt the thoughts of your audience. Make them memorable. Give them a personality.