Sympathetic Characters

[JCFarnham]

I recently watch the Brandon Sanderson lecture on Sympathetic characters and, considering I hadn't even noted anything down for some of mine, I decided it would be worth thinking about how these character are sympathetic, or not, depending on the situation.

Brandon lists the things he thinks you should do as follows:

• they have similarities to you or people you know [of].
• they face problems [underdog syndrome].
• they are consistant.
• they have depth [and/or quirks].
• you might aspire to be them.
• they have some sort of expertise.
• they are PROACTIVE.

I can hit a lot of these points for the protagonist of my Faebound books, I think. My main reason for this thread is to get everyone thinking about their characters as well, but my sneaky, sneaky, underlying reason is to get some feedback on Catherine.

I'm stuck on her proactivity and what this says about her character (since the books are first person, the way she talks about herself does a lot of heavy lifting in characterisation). Here's what I wrote in my notes:

Even when she complains about being proactive, she is enduringly curious enough to do them anyway. It is however possible that this is too contradictory - does it make sense? It could just be that she’s a cynic, but is she? Is it complicating things to call her this, and show her doing nearly the exact opposite things? Considering we are in first person the simple fact she is calling herself docile and boring says a lot. She doesn’t trust in herself?

So what do you guys think?

Despite her hitting the majority of the other points (and I know I don't need them to all be present) proactivity is the biggest of them. If a fantasy character isn't proactive you have a boring book. To me it's as simple as that. Even though Catherine is active in a way, do you think her complaining about it cheapens it, confuses it, complicates it, or adds to that sympathetic quality I'm looking for?

Remember, although I'm looking for specifics to my character problem, I'd love at the end of the day for this thread to become general advice.

[An aside: dealing with this nature of hers would be her growth arc.]

[Another: I've got a blog post lined up for some time this month or next on more or less this subject, so please don't be too peturbed if I end up using some of your points. Be flattered I consider you guys representative ]

 

[danr62]

In one of Brandon's other videos he talks about how he had to rewrite Dalinar's character in The Way of Kings. Dalinar had a lot of internal struggles, and Brandon felt this made him appear weak. Brandon ended up creating a new character so he could move these struggles to an external source, which worked extremely well, in my opinion.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think her complaining confuses things, JC. I could see it getting irritating if it was incessant, particularly in a first person POV, but if done well it could add depth and internal conflict to the character. Hard to say without seeing the execution.

I haven't watched the Sanderson video, but let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.

 

[danr62]

I haven't watched the Sanderson video, but let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.

Could you elaborate on why you say this? To me, if a story features unsympathetic characters then there is no reason to care about the outcome of the plot.

 

[JCFarnham]

I don't think her complaining confuses things, JC. I could see it getting irritating if it was incessant, particularly in a first person POV, but if done well it could add depth and internal conflict to the character. Hard to say without seeing the execution.

I'm certainly worried about the execution of it. Very much so.

On the subject of you seeing that execution, I have the first part of the first chapter up some where in Showcase but I can't say myself how far it goes towards characterising her. Although I am always looking for people to be writing buddies with. Someone to read and give feedback, and vice verse, as we both write the novel...

I haven't watched the Sanderson video, but let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.

Well. Not quite.

I think what you're talking about is likeable. And no, you're absolutely right, the character doesn't need to be likeable to be a successful character. By sympathetic Brandon meant that quality that can tempers villains giving them reasoning, or turn heroes from superman into spiderman. Both become someone you can relate to. In the lecture he goes on to give tips on how to achieve this.

In one of Brandon's other videos he talks about how he had to rewrite Dalinar's character in The Way of Kings. Dalinar had a lot of internal struggles, and Brandon felt this made him appear weak. Brandon ended up creating a new character so he could move these struggles to an external source, which worked extremely well, in my opinion.

Externalising character struggles certainly can help. You make a good point. Only one could come unstuck doing this if they end up removing all that gives the character depth and resigning them to reacting only.

 

[danr62]

I'm certainly worried about the execution of it. Very much so.

Externalising character struggles certainly can help. You make a good point. Only one could come unstuck doing this if they end up removing all that gives the character depth and resigning them to reacting only.

Which goes back to the whole "proactive" thing again. If I remember correctly, Dalinar did have a big moment where he had to struggle with his identity. So while most of his struggles had been moved externally, he still reached the point where everything came crashing down on him and he had to decide whether he believed the things his son (the new character Brandon created) was saying. And he was definitely a proactive character.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Most POV characters start out reactive then move to being proactive.

Stuff happens to them, they are forced to react. Eventually they realize they have to take the fight on themselves and become proactive,

Your character's internal doubts and struggles are okay as long as she doesn't stay that way. As you stated above this is part of her character arc. So if her internal thoughts originally focus on what she views as weakness but those ideas change as she changes (because she is becoming more & more proactive) then you are fine.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, maybe likeable is more accurate. I don't know. I've mentioned before Ian Graham's book Monument. It's a very good book. The main character Ballas, is not only unlikeable but has no redeeming qualities. While I did want the world to be saved, it wasn't through any sympathy at all for the main character, who I despised completely throughout the entire book. So there was no liking or sympathy from me for that character. I wanted him to save the world, but that didn't translate to sympathy, for me, if that makes sense.

 

[Steerpike]

Could you elaborate on why you say this? To me, if a story features unsympathetic characters then there is no reason to care about the outcome of the plot.

I don't need a likeable or sympathetic character to care about the plot. If the stakes are high (like the end of the world), then I'm going to care about the outcome whether I feel anything positive toward the characters at all.

 

[BWFoster78]

JCF,

Thanks for posting this. I love adding new rules to my list

Regarding your character: that's a tough one. It's sounds like you're describing a reluctant hero. That type has obviously worked well in any number of books, so it can be done. On the other hand, it's the main problem I had with the heroine of The Hunger Games. Things happened to her instead of her influencing events of her own accord. It really depends on what you want for the character.

Regarding the discussion with Steerpike:

I much prefer reading about likeable characters. However, I agree completely with you that the protagonist does not have to be likeable for the story to work. I just read Critical Failures. I don't think I liked any of the characters, but the book worked great.

The watchword of the day seems to be that relatable is what you have to achieve.

The list above seems to refer more to likeability than relatability. Since I'm trying to create likeable/sympathetic characters, that works for me.

 

[Steerpike]

@BWFoster78:

You really should check out Monument. If I could find my copy, I might even mail it to you Seriously, I couldn't relate to Ballas. I didn't like him. He didn't have my sympathy. There were a number of times I wanted the bastard to die. Nevertheless, good book. Graham pulls it off quite well

 

[BWFoster78]

Steerpike,

I'll put it on my "to read" list.

I have read and enjoyed books with unlikeable characters, but it's not my personal preference. Just as I've read and enjoyed books that don't end with the characters living happily ever after. If I had my choice, though, I'd prefer the happy ending.

 

[danr62]

@Steerpike: I would probably have a hard time getting into a story like that, myself, but I see your point.

 

[Steerpike]

I have read and enjoyed books with unlikeable characters, but it's not my personal preference. Just as I've read and enjoyed books that don't end with the characters living happily ever after. If I had my choice, though, I'd prefer the happy ending.

Yeah. It has to be done well for me to enjoy it, if the author is taking that route. Probably the best example of a character that one despises, but also finds engaging (he is presented as intelligent and witty) is Humbert Humbert, from Lolita. Unreliable narrator, and a very sick man. Nevertheless, brilliant book.

 

[Steerpike]

@Steerpike: I would probably have a hard time getting into a story like that, myself, but I see your point.

It was an interesting read. I read a review of Monument, which is what made me try the book. The review was very good, but the reviewer noted that it was the only time he could think of where he couldn't find anything redeemable about the main character. That intrigued me, but I admit I was leery about whether I would like it. In that case, I did. But I could see myself hating a lot of attempts to do the same thing.

 

[Lorna]

This is interesting. Thought I'd go through it with my MC.

•they have similarities to you or people you know [of]. (Pyric warrior in elemental world ruled by a totalitarian regime / fledgling writer living in Britain under a capitalist system. Vague analogy but on a whole, no).
•they face problems [underdog syndrome]. (Problems. That's an understatement. Yes).
•they are consistant. (Inconsistent and irrational. Comes from being part human / elemental. No).
•they have depth [and/or quirks]. (Yes).
•you might aspire to be them. (Noooo).
•they have some sort of expertise. (Yes).
•they are PROACTIVE. (Yes).

Result- 1/2 and 1/2. Summarises my attitude toward him. Some admirable qualities on the one hand, but some aspects of his character I can't relate to at all. I think some readers would struggle to sympathise with him at all but I don't see this as a problem.

let me say that if the premise is that your characters have to be sympathetic for a story to work, I disagree.

I'm in agreement with Steerpike. Even if you don't like a character you can still enjoy following them, be involved in the ups and downs of the story and care about the overall outcome of the book.

Despite her hitting the majority of the other points (and I know I don't need them to all be present) proactivity is the biggest of them. If a fantasy character isn't proactive you have a boring book. To me it's as simple as that. Even though Catherine is active in a way, do you think her complaining about it cheapens it, confuses it, complicates it, or adds to that sympathetic quality I'm looking for?

I don't think a lack of proactivity in any novel is an issue if well executed. For example in Kashuo Ishiguro's Remains of the Day the butler never acts out his feelings for the house keeper but you still feel sympathy for him.

Catherine's self criticism could work two ways. If she's conscious of her flaws yet doesn't act on them depending on how you handle it, this could become irritating or generate tension and a sense of pathos.

I wouldn't base a character sketch on anybody else's 'instructions.' You've got to create your own.

 

[JCFarnham]

Brandon's main point was that no, you don't have to like the character (he did reference some book I've never heard of...), but if there's that relatable element, as in you understand why they do/have to do the things they do, then the character is better for it. He says that even if this guy kills people, is constantly snarky, etc. etc. he has expertise (reeeally good at killing people), and is always doing things. So as a protagonist he works. You hate him a LOT, but still want to know what he gets himself into next.

Proactivity is the big one when it comes to the protagonist (pro- and pro-). Any other character you wish to be relatable doesn't necessarily have to be all those things on the list. They need not be proactive say if you can aspire to be them, or they appeal to your want to root for the underdog (like Ishiguro's butler). Any mix will do really. Villains - not likeable, wouldn't want to be them, but if they know what they are doing now, what they need to do, and whole heartedly believe they are right - well that's a fairly "sympathetic/relatable" character and one that has more depth because of it.


Thank for the comments on Catherine, guys. I think the trick is going to be "pay attention to your betas"... as usual. I'm glad people don't think it'll inherently be a problem though.


EDIT: Here's an example of a pretty unlikeable character that's given a sympathetic edge that makes us root for him: Sherlock Holmes. In a lot of adaptations he's a borderline sociopath, but because he has a friend (Watson) it kind of takes that edge of him doesn't it.

I once wrote a blog on the company your protagonists keep. The bottom line was, your secondaries can do an awful lot of heavy lifting for you if you work it right.

 

[Helen]

they are PROACTIVE.

Can't go with that. Lots of them start out reactive before turning proactive.

EDIT: just realized that's already been said.

they face problems [underdog syndrome]

I'm thinking Michael Clayton - we're sympathetic to Karen Crowder because we see her insecurities when she's practicing her dialogue in front of the mirror.

 

[JCFarnham]

Can't go with that. Lots of them start out reactive before turning proactive.

EDIT: just realized that's already been said.

Exactly. If they're not proactive at some point in the story, to most (I know a couple of you will immediately throw examples at my to disagree with this but, it's mostly true. You know it ) that constitutes a pretty awful protagonist.

 

[Ireth]

Can't go with that. Lots of them start out reactive before turning proactive.

EDIT: just realized that's already been said.

Indeed. They say that in many cases "the villain makes the plot," and by that logic the hero has to be reactive, at least at first. They can later do their best to turn events in their favor, of course.