# Writing Characters the Reader Cares Aboutâ€¦.



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

Lately I've been reading a lot about characterization. I really feel like without great, deep, strong characterization our stories have nothing to hold them up. We can have amazing plot twists and strong narrative, but without strong characters those will fall flat. 

I've been reading about the importance of establishing a character that the reader cares about as soon as possible in the first scene, and ideally in the first paragraph. Here are some quotes: 

"Young authors are often encouraged to begin with action. The theory is that if you throw an obvious protagonist into a harrowing situation, the reader will love him just because he’s in trouble. Not so. Someone in trouble may elicit a sympathetic response from me on a surface level. But to make me really concerned about what happens to this person, I first have to care about him.

Let’s say we pick up a story that begins in the middle of a fistfight. Probably we will be at least marginally interested in what the fight is about. But we aren’t going to particularly care who wins the fight unless we care about one of the contestants. Beginning the story with a fistfight is definitely a good idea (as opposed to, say, opening with the protagonist warming up before the fight), but unless you throw in a reason to make the reader care, you’re probably sunk.

For years, I struggled with the idea of adding narrative to my openings. The “call to action,” as it were, became a major stumbling block. My gut kept telling me I needed to introduce a character, not an event. I fought the idea, thinking I’d lose the reader’s attention if I slowed down long enough to sketch a few important details about the protagonist. But it dawned on me, as I pondered this question, that I had never been turned off by a few artfully placed paragraphs of narrative in a beginning’s opening. In fact, it was the straight action openings that completely turned me off.

Don’t get me wrong: action (aka conflict) and suspense is the heart of any story and definitely an essential factor in a successful beginning. But, without a strong character introduction, action isn’t going to be worth very much by itself.

This one facet of the beginning is the single most important factor, not just in opening a story, but in setting the tone for the entirety of the tale to follow." (Weiland, K.M. Crafting Unforgettable Characters.) 



"So, what are the qualities that we need to see in action in order for us to care? Everyman and Everywoman protagonists need to show us a hint of why they are not just like us, but that they're exceptional. We need to see in them something strong and good. In the screenwriting business they call this 'save the cat' but a demonstration of admirable qualities can happen in many ways." 

He offers the suggestion to think of people in real life you really admire. Thing about why you like spending time with them. Are they funny? Are they passionate? Are they romantic (Rick Riordan uses this to great success with his character Percy who spends the entire first few paragraphs telling us how beautiful and perfect his girlfriend is. He is in love. A redeeming quality.) Are they compassionate? Do they try to look after others? Try to think of a redeeming quality in your character and show it in the first few paragraphs. Something to make the reader think, "Ok, this guy is an ok guy. I like this guy.' 

"Have you ever read a published novel only to find yourself feeling indifferent about the character whose journey you're being asked to take? If so, then you see what I mean. Emotional bonding doesn't come from sympathy, perfection, or fantasy fulfilment, but from feeling that a character is worthy of our devotion ( Maas, Donald, Writing 21st Century Fiction. pg 81)." 

So after reading these books I have started to pay more attention to how this is done (particularly in movies, because my husband watches a lot of movies while I'm writing). 

So I thought it would be helpful for us to collaborate and write a list of where we have seen 'save the cat' moments established early on in movies/fiction so that we can utilize those same strategies in our own writing, and therefore develop more sympathetic characters early on.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

My Examples: 

_Collateral_ The protagonist is an everyman cab driver. Within the first few moments of the film we see him staring at a postcard image of mexico (or Hawaii?) that he keeps in the visor of his car. We see that he has hopes and dreams of becoming a limo company owner, and he fantasizes about taking vacations he can never afford. These key personality traits early on give us the 'awwww' factor and we open our hearts to him. 

_Captain Phillips_ In the very first scene in the film Tom Hanks speaks about his almost grown children in the car with his wife, and tells her how he is worried about them growing up in a much more dangerous world than they did. We see his compassion for his family, his love for his children and his concern about the direction the world is going. All redeeming qualities that again, allow us to open our hearts to him. (This also raises the personal stakes of the character)

_Hidalgo_ In the very first scene we see Vigo Mortensen calling his horse "little brother" symbolizing the affectionate relationship he has with him. He is a 'family member'. This is compared to the other contestant in the race who's horse is "Senator". When Vigo catches up with the other racer he is jovial, saying "Good morning! Lovely morning isn't it?" We see that this is a friendly cowboy with a deep connection to his horse.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

I'll begin with the last movie I watched.  A couple days ago, flipping through Netflix, I saw that _Nightcrawler_ was available.  I'd caught brief comments about it in various forums, so I thought it might be interesting to watch.  It was.  But the character Louis Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, wasn't introduced as a particularly sympathetic character.  Sure, he seemed a little down on his luck, a little desperate.  But he also attacks a security guard and steals that man's watch in the very first scene, and then in the next scene he's this creepy guy using that pseudo-intellectual babble meant to confuse/manipulate/trick the guy to whom he's trying to sell stolen property and from whom he asks for a job.  The guy isn't tricked and basically says, "I don't hire thieves."  And I know for my part, I identified with that man far more than I did with Louis Bloom.

The point:  A character that is particularly odd, even creepy, can still fascinate.  Louis Bloom was creepy throughout—basically, a psychopath—but remained fascinating.  The "promise" of this character was this:  I kept waiting to see how he'd spiral out of control and _fail_.  Surely fate had something in store for him, and I wanted to discover what fate might do.  I wanted to see it play out.  But I'm not going to spoil the movie here by going deeply into that.

Another point:  The whole thing was largely "show," not "tell."  We didn't have to be told what Louis Bloom was like, or his history (in fact, nothing of his history was revealed, only implications that he'd been pretty much the same his whole life.)  And it began with action and never really stopped, even if it wasn't the sort of action of a high-octane action-adventure blockbuster—mostly.  Jake Gyllenhaal's acting was some of the best I've ever seen on screen, so this helped; I could imagine some unknown, less experienced actor taking on the role and causing the whole movie to either fail or at least end up being only mediocre.

It is possible, probably desirable most of the time, to give hints of a character's character while in the midst of action.  How he acts or reacts, the odd or unusual way he carries himself or comments briefly on something, even a glance here or there will show what motivates him.  This can be interspersed within the action and doesn't need a lot of words strung together to make it happen.

I want to point out another thing, since we are talking about beginnings and so the nearby thread of "Show, Don't Tell" is still in my mind and I had thought of mentioning something there that also relates to this.  In one episode of _Writing Excuses_, a guest participant made the comment that movies and written fiction are different in one _key_ way that some new writers don't see.

In movies, it's common to start out the movie and even individual scenes with an "establishing shot."  The camera takes in the environment, maybe can follow a character around while he's doing some activity or even unexplained things, before eventually zooming in and getting down to the action in the scene.  

But in fiction, most of the time we need to do the _opposite_.  The key activity, the key draw (what is drawing the character forward), the key item in the environment or aspect of the environment—whatever has the character's attention or else displays the character's motivation in some way—should be hit first, and then all the ancillary observations and considerations should follow. Or, the key _activity_ should be first.  So, instead of spending words describing the environment or the character or his reason for being "here and now," at the outset—i.e., instead of establishing the shot—we should usually start with whatever is key and then develop from that.  This goes for individual paragraphs especially but also, I think, often works for the larger structure of a scene. I think that this approach generally will help readers get into the head of the MC; it is one way to strengthen a close 3rd-person development.  (The character is not usually standing around taking in the whole environment, i.e., getting an establishing shot, but already has a focus of some sort.  This doesn't mean that characters never take a step back, however.)


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

I totally agree about the difference between fiction and movies for sure. I think it's just sometimes easier to reference movies because I know I watch more movies than read books. They are just quicker, done in 2 hours in the evening, so I tend to pick them apart more. 

As far as weird MC's, yes, I get that. Ebenezer Scrooge comes to mind. Or Scarlet O'hara. Hardly redeeming characters at first glance, but exactly as you said, you sort of want to watch them fall. 

As far as I remember though, doesn't Jake Gyllenhal's character sort of redeem himself eventually?


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

FifthView said:


> It is possible, probably desirable most of the time, to give hints of a character's character while in the midst of action.  How he acts or reacts, the odd or unusual way he carries himself or comments briefly on something, even a glance here or there will show what motivates him.  This can be interspersed within the action and doesn't need a lot of words strung together to make it happen.



This I agree with 100%. It doesn't have to be a few long drawn out paragraphs. It can be a short sentence, just a glimpse at their character. I know that I don't do this enough though. I get caught up in action and forget to give the reader a clue of _who_ this person is. I _know_ the character. But I forget that the reader doesn't love them and find them as intriguing as I do right off the bat.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> As far as I remember though, doesn't Jake Gyllenhal's character sort of redeem himself eventually?



Nope.  At least, not to me.  But he's like a carnivorous dinosaur:  Would never want to meet one, would never want one anywhere near my family, yadda yadda yadda, but still a fascinating creature.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

FifthView said:


> But in fiction, most of the time we need to do the _opposite_.  The key activity, the key draw (what is drawing the character forward), the key item in the environment or aspect of the environment—whatever has the character's attention or else displays the character's motivation in some way—should be hit first, and then all the ancillary observations and considerations should follow. Or, the key _activity_ should be first.  So, instead of spending words describing the environment or the character or his reason for being "here and now," at the outset—i.e., instead of establishing the shot—we should usually start with whatever is key and then develop from that.  This goes for individual paragraphs especially but also, I think, often works for the larger structure of a scene. I think that this approach generally will help readers get into the head of the MC; it is one way to strengthen a close 3rd-person development.  (The character is not usually standing around taking in the whole environment, i.e., getting an establishing shot, but already has a focus of some sort.  This doesn't mean that characters never take a step back, however.)



I'm sort of starting to wonder about this though. I mean, I agree, because it is what we have been taught, but I'm just not seeing it practiced in successful fiction… Or maybe I am, we are just seeing it differently? Correct me if I'm way off base: 

The Last Olympian, Rick Riordan 

The end of the world started when a pagasus landed on the hood of my car. 

Up until then, I was having a great afternoon Technically I wasn't supposed to be driving because I wouldn't turn sixteen for another week, but my mom and stepdad, Paul, took my friend Rachel and me to this private stretch of beach on the South Shore, and Paul let us borrow his Prius for a short spin. 

Now, I  Know what you're thinking, _Wow, that was really irresponsible of him, blah, blah, blah, blah,_ but Paul knows me pretty well. He's seen me slice up demons and leap out of exploding school buildings… 

Dean Koontz, Odd Thomas 

My name is Odd Thomas, though in this age when fame is the alter at which most people worship, I am not sure why you should care who I am or why I exist. 

I am not a celebrity. I am not the child of a celebrity. I have never been married to, never been abused by, and never provided a kidney for transplantation to a celebrity. Furthermore, I have no desire to be a celebrity. 

CS Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader 

"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." 

*Obviously old example, but still… 


Basically, what I'm seeing (and of course there are exceptions) is that a lot of successful books start out with establishing the character first, and then get to the action, and the reading I've been doing seems to confirm this strategy. 

Thoughts?


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Eh, a full disclosure I suppose, concerning the beginning of _Nightcrawler_.  The more I've been thinking about it, the more I've realized that, at first (first three scenes especially), there was a little doubt about whether the character might just be one of those rapscallion anti-hero types: kinda clever, living by the seat of his pants, etc.  So as far as being a draw for the viewer, leaving open his characterization might have allowed for a sort of grudging respect without solidifying any distaste for him.  But as the movie continued to play out....I think, as with my dinosaur metaphor above, the respect wasn't entirely lost but one can respect a t-rex without much liking a t-rex or while actively disliking him.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Basically, what I'm seeing (and of course there are exceptions) is that a lot of successful books start out with establishing the character first, and then get to the action, and the reading I've been doing seems to confirm this strategy.



OR maybe those are examples of hitting the key information first?  I.e., we aren't treated with a couple paragraphs describing the milieu.*



> The end of the world started when a pagasus landed on the hood of my car.



This is jumping right into the heart of things.  And then there's a little stepping back from it.  

But I also wonder if 1st-person accounts in which the character is extremely focused on himself at the beginning might fall under the category of "whatever has the character's attention or else displays the character's motivation in some way" that I mentioned.  Especially when the characters are younger.  Basically, "Something happened; but first, to understand this, you need to know about me" because the "me" is a focal point, a very important point, for the narrator.

*Edit:  I mean, introductory exposition.  I'll have to think over these, because I do think that 1st-person narration is quite a bit different from 3rd-person narrative—much of the time.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

FifthView said:


> Eh, a full disclosure I suppose, concerning the beginning of _Nightcrawler_.  The more I've been thinking about it, the more I've realized that, at first (first three scenes especially), there was a little doubt about whether the character might just be one of those rapscallion anti-hero types: kinda clever, living by the seat of his pants, etc.  So as far as being a draw for the viewer, leaving open his characterization might have allowed for a sort of grudging respect without solidifying any distaste for him.  But as the movie continued to play out....I think, as with my dinosaur metaphor above, the respect wasn't entirely lost but one can respect a t-rex without much liking a t-rex or while actively disliking him.



Right? I was just thinking about Ebenezer and Scarlet as well. 

With Ebenezer we start by learning that the only person he ever cared about is dead (Marley) so even if we don't like him we begrudgingly sympathize with him. 

With Scarlet we learn of her deep rooted love for Ashley Wilkes, so again, even if we don't like her we can begrudgingly respect her passionate feelings… and feel bad for her when Ashely is engaged to someone else.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

With other anti heroes (Tyler Durden) we can admire that they are doing something we wish that we could do, on a basic human level (shirking responsibility, anarchy against authority etc…)


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> With other anti heroes (Tyler Durden) we can admire that they are doing something we wish that we could do, on a basic human level (shirking responsibility, anarchy against authority etc…)



I agree.  I don't think I'd call the character from _Nightcrawler_ an anti-hero, although at first that impression was left as a possibility.  But the fact that he proved so proficient in his pursuits was something that could inspire a grudging respect.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

Ok, just watched the beginning of Night crawler. I think there are a few things in the first 5 minutes that make the character 'likeable'. 

Like you said, he is smart, quick, appears to have good people skills. I think his general demeanour also makes him 'non-threatening' even though he could take that security guard down no problem. He is skinny, kind of geeky voice, greasy combed hair. He looks like a computer nerd which is what makes his character so intriguing. Plus, he is selling stolen construction materials, which is funny! 

Willing to negotiate "I'm willing to take less to establish a good working relationship." 

Soft spoken and polite "Excuse me sir, I'm looking for a job… I'm a hard worker, I set high goals, and I've been told that I'm persistent. Now, I'm not fooling myself (self depreciation, always a good way to deliver a likeable character) sir, having been raised with the self esteem movement so popular in schools (funny again!)… Good things come to those who work their asses off…" etc etc etc. 

Even if this is all a scam, he is still immediately likeable, and you feel for him when the guy won't give him the job. 

"I'm not hiring a f-ing theif." He looked so wounded then! He tried to keep a straight face, but you could see in his eyes he was hurt. He wants respect. He wants to be a good guy. 

Oh! My heart broke for him then!


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Hah well he wasn't immediately likeable for me.  From the start of that sequence I thought he was quite transparent:  he'd say anything, and could say anything, to get what he wants.

I actually did agree with the other guy and already suspected that guy would say no to his request for a job, for the same reason.  Not hiring a thief.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

Ok, here are some contemporary examples from fiction of 'character first, action second': 

Torment, Lauren Kate (Fallen Series) 

"Daniel stared out at the bay. His eyes were grey as the thick fog enveloping the Sausalito shoreline, as the choppy water lapping the pebble beach beneath his feet. There was no violet in his eyes now at all; he could feel it. She was too far away. 

He braced himself against the biting gale off the water. But even as he tugged his thick black pea coat closer, he knew it was no use. Hunting always left him cold. 

Only one thing could warm him today, and she was out of reach. He missed the way the crown of her head made the perfect resting spot for his lips. He imaged filling the circle of his arms with her body, leaning down to kiss her neck. But it was a good thing Luce couldn't be here now. What she'd see would horrify her."

_Awwwwwww, he loves her and wishes he could protect her from all the terrible horrors of the world. What a heroic guy._ 

Suzanne Collins, Mockingjay 

I stare down at my shoes, watching a fine layer of ash settle on the worn leather. This is where the bed I shared with my sister, Prim, stood. 

_She is remembering her sister, who she used to be so close too, both physically and emotionally)_


George RR Martin, Clash of Kings 

"…When first he came to Dragonstone, the army of stone grotesques had made him uneasy, but as the years passed he had grown used to them. Now he thought of them as old friends. The three of them watched the sky together with foreboding…" 

_Even the old Measter used to be afraid. He has come to love Dragonstone, right down to the stone statues, which he sees as his friends in a world where friends are scarce._

Anyone else have examples of where they see this immediate attempt to make the character 'likeable, relatable, admirable' in the first page _before_ getting into any serious action?


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Here's the transcript for that episode of Writing Excuses.  It's an episode dealing with first pages.  An excerpt:

[Howard] I’ve found a lot… I’ve talked about this technique before. Often, the way in which we present information in paragraphs, in pages, is upside down. We will write the things that we think needed to be written first, and then we work our way down to something specific. Often, what I’ll do, just to see if I’m… Just to see if I wrote it wrong is I will flip it upside down. I’ll take the last sentence of the paragraph and put it as the first sentence, and treat everything else as something that stands in support of that first sentence. I do this at varying points throughout the prose to see if what I was doing was in fact writing my way up to that piece of pith that summed everything up well. It’s a lot of fun, and often what I find is that that last line that needed to be the first line is actually the thing that the character is noticing first, the thing that the reader would in fact notice first. Everything else is the stuff that you notice second and third, that stands in support of that first key thing.

[Mary] One of the interesting things about the way we notice information, particularly when it’s written, is that the first thing you list is the first thing the character notices, and the last thing you list is the thing they linger on. But all the stuff in the middle? It is kind of just there for set dressing. So a lot of times, that’s one of the reasons that your first page or first line will go wrong, is because you’ve got stuff… You’ve got the good stuff buried in the middle and lost.​
I don't think the point is so much "Start with action!  And let characterization be built by interspersing other things with that action!"  Although I think that's a great way to do characterization at the first of the book, I don't think it's the only way.

The idea of using an "establishing shot," the kind that might be detrimental, is to start with unnecessary exposition, generalities, info that isn't "key" (key for whatever you are wanting to communicate to the reader) and building up from that to the more specific, important things.  It's burying the important things somewhere in the middle, or at least not putting it at the beginning.

What is or is not key will depend greatly on what you want to achieve with the first page of your book.  Action is not the only type of thing that can be key.  Also, I think that first paragraphs always establish _something._  They are introductions to the world, to a character, perhaps even to a conflict.  They can also establish a tone. I think the important thing is to not feel forced to write an introduction to that introduction.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

I get that. But then what are your thoughts on this quote: 

"Young authors are often encouraged to begin with action. The theory is that if you throw an obvious protagonist into a harrowing situation, the reader will love him just because he’s in trouble. Not so. Someone in trouble may elicit a sympathetic response from me on a surface level. But to make me really concerned about what happens to this person, I first have to care about him.

Let’s say we pick up a story that begins in the middle of a fistfight. Probably we will be at least marginally interested in what the fight is about. But we aren’t going to particularly care who wins the fight unless we care about one of the contestants. Beginning the story with a fistfight is definitely a good idea (as opposed to, say, opening with the protagonist warming up before the fight), but unless you throw in a reason to make the reader care, you’re probably sunk."

Because I agree with this. I have seen many writing examples (from myself, my students, an on this forum) where writers are going guns a blazing into action for pages, but not taking the time to really make the character _connectable_ in any way?

I was hoping to use this post to brainstorm ideas as a group as to how to make characters connectable right out of the gate using examples from either film or fiction, be it 

- humor
- self depreciation
- showing persistence
- showing love and connection to another person or place 

Etc.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Sure, avoiding characterization won't work well.  I agree with the quote in that respect.  The same thing can be seen in some bad movies, where the director thinks that non-stop, high-octane action will be enough to make viewers enjoy the movie.  Well, that and stock characters.

But I think characterization, or making relatable characters, is a novel-long process in a novel.  It's not really something that can be dumped into the first few paragraphs in order to get it out of the way.  In fact, I find little difference between a fistfight at the beginning of a novel and a few paragraphs about an unknown (new to me) MC missing an unknown lover:  that's kind of a stock scene anyway.  This doesn't mean I won't be mildly interested, won't want to learn more about that character; but, I might be similarly interested in the character who successfully pulls off a highly acrobatic win in a knife fight.

Also, I don't think we should define "action" as being only fistfights, battles, and so forth. _Active_ characters can be relatable depending on what happens to them and how they respond to it actively.  I mean, as a cheap and quick example, the rogue who takes a knife to the side trying to push a street urchin out of the way during a fight between himself and a foe.  I don't need him musing on a lost love or a lost sibling first.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 29, 2015)

Given the length of the average movie script, I'd say movies are closer to a short story or a novelette than they are to a full novel. Also, their artistic aims are different. So I don't turn to movies. I turn to novels.

"Once a guy stood all day shaking bugs from his hair. The doctor told him there were no bugs in his hair."

"The rain was a slantwise curtain across the dingy street, washing soot from city walls, the taste of it metallic on the lips of the tall, thin man who walked with a loping stride close to the buildings, watching the mouths of doorways, the gaps of alleys with a narrow-eyed intentness."

"On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays it was Court Hand and Summulae Logicales, while the rest of the week it was the Organon, Repetition and Astrology. The governess was always getting muddled with her astrolabe, and when she got specially muddled she would take it out of the Wart by rapping his knuckles."

"To wake, and not to know where, or who you are, not even to know what you are--whether a thing with legs and arms, or a beast, or a brain in the hull of a great fish--that is a strange awakening. But after a while, uncurling in the darkness, I began to discover myself, and I was a woman."


What can I say? There are as many ways to open a novel as there are novels. Not every opening will appeal to every reader, or even to the same reader every time. All I can do is write for myself first, and listen to my readers during the edit. Asking the about the right opening is like asking which key is the best for writing a song. The answer is: every one, if you do it right.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

Ugh. 

Maybe I'm just cranky today or something, but I'm not sure what the deal is with this post? 

This was me this morning: 

"Hey team! I just read some interesting things about establishing character that I thought was interesting. Let me share it with you. Hey! I have an idea, lets brainstorm examples of how this has been done in film and books so we have something to draw from when we are writing!" 

Responses: You are wrong and those articles are wrong and these are the reasons why. 

Not that I'm complaining, I just don't see what the point is in arguing. Why do we have to argue everything all the time? I wasn't trying to be 'right'. I wasn't trying to prove a point. I wasn't saying that all intros should start a certain way. I was saying "this is an interesting concept, lets see how it has been done by other authors so we can learn more about different options of creating interesting characters."

Sometimes I get the vibe a little on this site that we are all trying to be competitive or something? I don't know. I respect you guys and your thoughts and your opinions and I really value your input. I think you are both incredibly talented and knowledgable, so why can't we just chat about different ideas? Why can't we say to each other "hey, that is interesting"… sometimes instead of having to have an argument about how 'there is no right or wrong way to do it?'

Im not a very compensative person. I value collaboration and discussion. I just like working with people and talking with people (you guy fine guys). I don't claim to know everything (or anything) but I like to learn… 

Again, maybe I'm just cranky today.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 29, 2015)

Heliotrope,

I don't disagree with your general premise that establishing relatable characters is a good idea, but only with the implication that it can and ought to be done within the first few paragraphs—in a particular way.  Also, I suppose, with the idea that the most important thing to establish about a character, in the first few paragraphs, is likeability—rather than, say, interestingness.

But my disagreement may also be related to a difference in outlook, or habits of interpretation, about certain types of passages.  I mean for instance even with _Nightcrawler_, my experience of the first few scenes was different than yours, and this may not mean either of us is wrong but only that we see different things or see the same things differently.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 29, 2015)

> Sometimes I get the vibe a little on this site that we are all trying to be competitive or something? I don't know. I respect you guys and your thoughts and your opinions and I really value your input. I think you are both incredibly talented and knowledgable, so why can't we just chat about different ideas? Why can't we say to each other "hey, that is interesting"… sometimes instead of having to have an argument about how 'there is no right or wrong way to do it?'
> 
> Im not a very compensative person. I value collaboration and discussion. I just like working with people and talking with people (you guy fine guys). I don't claim to know everything (or anything) but I like to learn…



I have to disagree with this characterization that ...  Just kidding. I know I should have resisted, but I just couldn't.



> I just don't see what the point is in arguing. Why do we have to argue everything all the time?



I think that the fundamental nature of internet forums is that discussions are spawned by disagreement.  If you post something and everyone agrees with you, the response is crickets.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

I apologize for my last post. My daughter is sick and crying like crazy and I was cranky! 

Fifth view, yes, I agree with you, but Nightcrawler was exactly the type of discussion I was hoping we could have! 

That was perfect for a new writer (me) to really delve into what sorts of characteristics make a character 'interesting' or 'admirable' even if they are sketchy! That was great! That was the type of stuff I was hoping for! Lets look at a variety of characters in opening scenes and see what makes us so 'attracted to them' either good or bad, so that we want to follow them… 

I guess I was disappointed with the post because it turned into 'here are the fundamental flaws with that theory, and there can be lots of types of openers…" which was too bad because I don't care so much about the 'rule', as all rules can be broken and of course there are many different ways of starting a story! Of course! 

But as a new writer I need to get into the nitty gritty. I need to examine real cases of real characters and see what the author did to make them attractive/or not attractive. I think it is helpful to have those discussions and really get into it…? Would you disagree? 

Then, when I'm working on my characters I can look back and go "oh right, at the beginning of Mockingjay there was just a quick little line in about her sister that was really helpful in establishing character right away…" 

That is all. 

Plus my daughter was having a meltdown. 

Sorry about that.


----------



## Russ (Oct 29, 2015)

I don't turn to film much at all for inspiration, I consider the form very different from writing.

But in the spirit of co-operation I reach into my briefcase and pull out a couple novels I have been reading in my downtime to see what they open like:

(after the prologue) - 





> The bullet tore into Cotton Malone's shoulder.
> 
> He fought to control the pain and focused on the plaza.  People rushed in all directions.  Horns blared.  Tires squealed.  Marines at the nearby American embassy reacted to the chaos, but there were too far away to help.



Straight into the action.  Now this author has a bit of an advantage because Cotton is a very well established series character by this point.




> He lay sprawled upon the concrete pavement of the alley in the darkening stain of his own blood, a man I had never seen before, a man with the face of an Apache warrior, struck down from behind and stabbed repeatedly in the back as he lay there.



A short stand alone novel from 1966 by an American master.  Perhaps it would not fit with Mr. Maas' vision for the 21st century.  But it does tell us that the main character is the kind of person who has an interest in the dead guy and pays some attention to detail.

And on the other issue...thread drift happens.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

Thanks Russ! 

Great example if action opening! So at what point in the scene does the mc become 'human' or at least make you go "oh, this is a cool character' not just 'this is a cool scene' and how does the author show it?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 29, 2015)

I think the time you build the humanity is throughout the exciting scene, but more so in the sequel to the scene. For example, Indiana Jones, here we have him doing all kinds of cool and dangerous things. It is a non-stop bit of action for a fair initial part of the movie. He is being awesome...and then he fails. We see some emotional vulnerability and we also see that he _fears_ snakes. The man who braved terrors and traps if afraid of a relatively harmless creature. It's humanizing we sympathize and then we realize he's like us only cooler.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

Yes! Thank you Brian! 

That's why, for this particular exercise I used movie examples. I'm not talking about the opening words or lines of a scene, I'm talking about an opening scene in general. A character. What, in the opening scene, makes the character 'human/sympathetic/endearing/interesting/likable/different then all the other characters you have seen.' 

We also see that Indy is a good problem solver (using sand in a bag to mimic the weight of the statue, even though that failed), he's funny and has sense of humour (very endearing for a lot of people).. etc. 

In 'Raiders' we see first thing that all the girls in his class like him and it makes him uncomfortable. Also endearing.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 29, 2015)

Save the Cat is a tool everyone uses. I believe the term was first coined by Blake Snyder. He as a fantastic trio of screen writing books that I found tremendously useful for my writing, the first of which is called Save the Cat.

It's inspiration comes from the movie Alien, where Ripley literally saves the cat, giving the audience licence to connect and invest in her character. 

Other examples are in Superman, the original motion picture with Christopher Reeves. He literally saves the cat too. 

One of the most used Save the Cat short hand tricks used in TV and movies is the drop, where the MC drops a bunch of stuff and someone comes and helps them pick it up. The act of helping someone pick up their stuff elicits an immediate like for that character. This also plays off another form of Save of the Cat called Kick the Cat. 

To elicit sympathy and connection to a character, you kick them. When people see someone having a rough time of it, they can easily relate and feel sympathy because who hasn't had a rough day?

In addition, those doing the kicking, the audience tends to form an immediate dislike for them.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2015)

Thanks PP! That is exactly what I was looking for! Real concrete 'save the cat' moments in both movies or books so we can look at all the different ways "save the cat" can and has been done so we have something to draw from when doing our own.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Thanks Russ!
> 
> Great example if action opening! So at what point in the scene does the mc become 'human' or at least make you go "oh, this is a cool character' not just 'this is a cool scene' and how does the author show it?



In the second example he seems to begin to humanize the MC about a paragraph and a half later where we find out he is just a poor guy standing in his shirtsleeves outside his motel room, an "everyman" caught in the middle of something very bad that has nothing to do with him.  The way the author describes the guy standing outside his hotel room a bit disheveled and confused like any of us might be if we found a body outside our door makes him easy to identify with.

In the first example any real humanizing does not happen for about another 20 pages after Cotton has woken up from the flashback/dream and then killed some guys who have broken into his rare book store (a great profession for a character).  He then learns that an old friend is in trouble and immediately wants to go help him.  His unhesitating reaction and committment to his old friend tells us he is a "stand up guy" with morals and loyalty that we can respect and would want to emulate.


----------



## kennyc (Oct 30, 2015)

One of the best/most highly recommended instructional books on this topic is OSC's Characters and Viewpoint.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2015)

In my opinion, you should just write characters that you care about and find interesting. The more your own interest and investment comes through in the work, the more likely readers will respond to it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 30, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> In my opinion, you should just write characters that you care about and find interesting. The more your own interest and investment comes through in the work, the more likely readers will respond to it.



This is pretty much what I did for my first novel.

Let's just say that my results weren't great.

In all future writing endeavors, I will pay a whole heckava lot more attention to making sure that the readers like my characters.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> This is pretty much what I did for my first novel.
> 
> Let's just say that my results weren't great.
> 
> In all future writing endeavors, I will pay a whole heckava lot more attention to making sure that the readers like my characters.



You can't. Sorry, but readers liking your characters is something you have no control over. It's an entirely subjective thing, like pretty much every single aspect of story telling.

Personally, as a reader, I HATE the idea that writers can somehow "make" reader like or relate to or be interested in any part of a particular work. I HATE the idea that there are certain "methods" or "formulas" you can employ to ensure some kind of reader response. I HATE the idea of "hooks". Readers are not lab rats that you can manipulate at your will. And no one really knows how readers are going to respond to any given book. No one.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

KennyC, thanks for your "thanks" on my apology post. I was feeling pretty sheepish. 

Russ- thanks for getting back about the humanizing of the characters! A few paragraphs in makes sense. 20 pages for the other one! Wow! I wonder if that would be ok in today's market when agents only want you to submit the first 20 pages? What are your thoughts on that? Can I ask what keeps you going for those first 20 pages? Is it because you know the character already from other books? Or is there so much action you barely notice? 

PenPilot - I will be ordering "Save the Cat" today. That was exactly what I was looking for! 

KennyC - I will also be ordering Orson Scott Card's book. I am _very_ interested in characterization right now. I am really starting to feel that a great character is what moves the entire story (I guess I am character driven, instead of plot driven? I don't know. I'm just starting to really understand the distinction.) I know for myself I am drawn into a book as soon as, like I said to Russ earlier, I start to think "Oh, this is an interesting character.." not just "oh, this is an interesting scene." 

Foster - Thanks for your comment and honesty about your first book. I'm starting to understand (same as you) that it is not simply that easy. There is a real science to all of this (a degree in psychology might help lol!) I have recently started building myself a bit of a spread sheet/graph listing all the key points I need in each section of a story to help remind me off all these things, for example: 

Opening scene: Show the character in the 'real' world. Show the problems they have and their goals, show how they are not quite ready to solve these problems quite yet… etc etc etc. Now "show save the cat" will be added to that list.


----------



## kennyc (Oct 30, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> In my opinion, you should just write characters that you care about and find interesting. The more your own interest and investment comes through in the work, the more likely readers will respond to it.



“No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader. No surprise in the writer, no surprise in the reader.”


― Robert Frost


----------



## kennyc (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> KennyC, thanks for your "thanks" on my apology post. I was feeling pretty sheepish.
> 
> ...



Don't worry about it. We all have good and bad days/moments for a variety of reasons. So do our story Characters.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

Thanks Mythopoet  That is traditionally what I've been doing, but I feel sometimes like I need a little help breaking down my own mental characterization barriers. 

When I really examine other characters that have been done before (especially weird ones) then I think "ohhhh, that is interesting. I wonder how I can use that?"


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 30, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> You can't. Sorry, but readers liking your characters is something you have no control over. It's an entirely subjective thing, like pretty much every single aspect of story telling.



I agree to the extent that there is absolutely no way to make every reader like your characters or your book.  I'm sure that, if there's any overlap between our reading at all, there are probably characters that I loved that you hated and vice versa.

What I can do (and think that I absolutely should do) is do everything in my power to ensure that the greatest number of readers possible care about my characters.  There are well established techniques for accomplishing this.  Hopefully, if I pay attention more to the use of such techniques and I cut down on the idiotic mistakes I made, I'll have much better results.



> Personally, as a reader, I HATE the idea that writers can somehow "make" reader like or relate to or be interested in any part of a particular work. I HATE the idea that there are certain "methods" or "formulas" you can employ to ensure some kind of reader response. I HATE the idea of "hooks". Readers are not lab rats that you can manipulate at your will. And no one really knows how readers are going to respond to any given book. No one.



I feel completely opposite.

As a reader, I want the author to write with me in mind and deliberately try to manipulate my emotions in many ways.  I feel a really good writer should be able to play my emotions like a master violinist.

I also don't think that your opinion on this matter is representative of the audience that I'm trying to reach with my writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 30, 2015)

> Foster - Thanks for your comment and honesty about your first book. I'm starting to understand (same as you) that it is not simply that easy. There is a real science to all of this (a degree in psychology might help lol!) I have recently started building myself a bit of a spread sheet/graph listing all the key points I need in each section of a story to help remind me off all these things, for example:



I truly believe that understanding that writing fiction is not easy is the first step to learning how to write well.

My advice is to screw up as much as possible.  I've learned a whole lot more from my screw ups than from my successes.


----------



## kennyc (Oct 30, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> ....
> 
> I also don't think that your opinion on this matter is representative of the audience that I'm trying to reach with my writing.



Yes, we keep hearing about your take on this. Others have a different perspective, a different opinion, including me.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree to the extent that there is absolutely no way to make every reader like your characters or your book.  I'm sure that, if there's any overlap between our reading at all, there are probably characters that I loved that you hated and vice versa.
> 
> .



This is what was happening with my and FifthView about the Night Crawler character, but, we both found the character intriguing enough to carry on with the film. I saw the character as sympathetic, FifthView saw him as a weasel. However, there was enough 'strangeness' about him (geeky, skinny, nasal voice, slicked back hair, unassuming demeanour, stealing construction material… and yet, he could take down a large security guard no problem.) There was enough questions brought up in the viewer about this character "What is going on with this guy/" That he was interesting. 

That is the type of stuff I want to analyze. I need to break it down and see what was specifically done so I can use the same strategies. I think it is a science, personally.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope:

Here's a great tool that Brandon Sanderson uses for developing engaging characters: 

Writing Excuses 9.13: Three Pronged Character Development.

I think it's important to think in terms of _engaging_ characters, rather than only likeable characters.  A summary of his approach:

Each character can be thought of as having three aspects, each falling on a scale, and they are


Competence
Proactivity
Likeability/Sympathy

Characters can be unlikeable (say, "2" of ten on the likeability scale) but have high competence and proactivity and still be engaging.  A lot of villains may be like this.

Characters can be highly proactive and likeable but lower in competence and still be engaging.  I think he used Indiana Jones as an example of this.

A character arc for a whole novel will usually involve a little sliding of these scales.  A character may start out with a low competency but grow more competent as the novel progresses.  Or he may start out unlikeable and end up more likeable.  Etc.

The above podcast is a great introduction to this tool for thinking about character development.  There are three follow-up podcasts addressing in more detail how to adjust each scale:

Writing Excuses 9.25: Adjusting Character Sympathy

Writing Excuses 9.26: Adjusting Character Competence

Writing Excuses 9.32: Adjusting Character Proactivity


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 30, 2015)

kennyc said:


> Yes, we keep hearing about your take on this. Others have a different perspective, a different opinion, including me.



You're as free to share your opinion as I am to share mine.

Speaking of which, I am a little unclear on exactly where you stand:

1. Are you saying that authors cannot manipulate emotions or that they shouldn't? (Keeping in mind the stipulation that, obviously, no one can manipulate everyone in the same manner. What works for one person will not necessarily work on another person.)

2. Are you saying that you personally don't want authors to try to manipulate your emotions or you don't think that your target audience does?

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> This is what was happening with my and FifthView about the Night Crawler character, but, we both found the character intriguing enough to carry on with the film. I saw the character as sympathetic, FifthView saw him as a weasel. However, there was enough 'strangeness' about him (geeky, skinny, nasal voice, slicked back hair, unassuming demeanour, stealing construction material… and yet, he could take down a large security guard no problem.) There was enough questions brought up in the viewer about this character "What is going on with this guy/" That he was interesting.
> 
> That is the type of stuff I want to analyze. I need to break it down and see what was specifically done so I can use the same strategies. I think it is a science, personally.



So applying FifthView's excellent post, the character ranked high in both Competence and Proactivity, but low in likeability/sympathy, which made him engaging.

That makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 30, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> So applying FifthView's excellent post, the character ranked high in both Competence and Proactivity, but low in likeability/sympathy, which made him engaging.
> 
> That makes a lot of sense to me.



Exactly.  It's a very cool tool for thinking about characters.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

Yeah, that does make sense. I will have a listen to those pod casts today.

PS: fifthview I like your signature. That is so true for me too! I'm the type that needs to talk things through (or type things out) to really grasp what I'm thinking. Most of the time I re-read what I typed and do a palm/forehead slap. I go back to edit my posts all the time!


----------



## FifthView (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope:  I added the signature because...well I'm a little like you.  Sometimes I am brainstorming in comments, sometimes they are even muddled, and sometimes a lot of time needs to pass before I develop a crystal-clear way of thinking about these topics.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

Yep. And sometimes I press 'post' instead of having a cup of tea. As noted earlier.


----------



## Mythopoet (Oct 30, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I also don't think that your opinion on this matter is representative of the audience that I'm trying to reach with my writing.



I didn't say it was. I said it was personal.

And well, after looking at the reviews on Amazon for your book... I guess if you're getting feedback like that you should do something to change your approach to characters, whatever it is.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 30, 2015)

> I didn't say it was. I said it was personal.



Understood.

It's just that your view on this particular subject seems so far out of line with what I expect from readers ...



> And well, after looking at the reviews on Amazon for your book... I guess if you're getting feedback like that you should do something to change your approach to characters, whatever it is.



Yep.  I had another developmental editor take a pass at it looking solely at the character likeability, and I made a lot of changes based both on that input and my thoughts.  I haven't gotten any new reviews since posting the revisions, but I'm hoping they'll be a lot more positive when they start rolling in.


----------



## kennyc (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> This is what was happening with my and FifthView about the Night Crawler character, but, we both found the character intriguing enough to carry on with the film. I saw the character as sympathetic, FifthView saw him as a weasel. However, there was enough 'strangeness' about him (geeky, skinny, nasal voice, slicked back hair, unassuming demeanour, stealing construction material… and yet, he could take down a large security guard no problem.) There was enough questions brought up in the viewer about this character "What is going on with this guy/" That he was interesting.
> 
> That is the type of stuff I want to analyze. I need to break it down and see what was specifically done so I can use the same strategies. I think it is a science, personally.



Yeah, I think the main thing about characters is to make them literally 'characters/caricatures' -- something intriguing/interesting to engage the reader such that they want to learn more about what drives the character or makes them what they are and this in some ways can be a 'boundary' as we discussed in another thread....A driven character may be more  of a genre character while 'what makes a character do what they do/their background/thought processes/etc' may be more of a literary character....but of course there is full and complete spectrum of overlap.


----------



## Miskatonic (Oct 30, 2015)

What if your story starts with a character necessary to get the story rolling, but ultimately is not overly important to the story as a whole?


----------



## kennyc (Oct 30, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> What if your story starts with a character necessary to get the story rolling, but ultimately is not overly important to the story as a whole?



I'd suggest one of two possibilities. Either your started in the wrong place or you are writing the wrong story. 

Of course there was.....(from the Elements of Fiction - Plot): "Melville wrote a large chunk of Moby Dick thinking that the pivotal figure was going to be a man named (I'm not kidding) Bulkington, who's then abruptly washed overboard the first day the Pequod leaves harbor and is never heard of again."


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

I'm no expert (obviously) but I tend to go with Chekov in these cases. "If you are going to show a gun in the first scene it had better go off in the next scene." So, basically, this goes for stuff as well as characters. I like my stories to be pretty streamlined though. 

Obviously there are exceptions, like in Superman when we see his parents put him in the shuttle and then we never see them again. 

One exercise I read that I do that works really well is: 

Make a chart showing all your characters in the scene and the role they have (why are they there?) then see if you can combine any of them, so one character is taking on multiple roles. 

This sometimes makes for more dynamic characters, and a more streamlined approach.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 30, 2015)

Interesting discussion here. I'm just adding in my two cents to say that I believe it's crucial to show character right away from the first paragraph. One resource I recommend a lot are Brandon Sanderson's youtube videos on Write About Dragons. In the older lectures, he thoroughly explains how to construct a paragraph. He says to start with character thought/emotion (putting us in character's head), action, then dialogue, etc. Or something like that (excuse me, it's been a while and also I'm just having my coffee). 

The idea he gives is that constructing a paragraph in this way allows the reader to stay with the character as you build momentum in your story. This doesn't necessarily mean writing an action filled OP. Every story is different and how you introduce character will depend on the type of story you're telling. But from what I've learned, here's a list of things that I include in the op scene/first page:

-Situation. I find it helpful to know my ending when I start writing because that gives me a hint as to how the character begins her journey and what her  life's circumstances are.

-Story theme. This is a big one because it carries the entire story. Theme provides me usually with either my first sentence or situation. More on this one later.

-Character flaw. Second most important one. Introducing flaw right away let's readers know that MC has some personal things about her that hold her back in life. This flaw is especially going to hold her back from achieving her story goal, which I don't introduce until a bit later but flaw helps foreshadow that story goal. 

-Conflict. This is one of the hardest things for me and just yesterday downloaded three craft books on conflict because I suck so much at it. But yeah, the conflict here comes from the character's flaw and the flaw's relation to story theme.

-Setting. This one is easier than the rest for me but yes, readers need to know where they are without info dumps.

These are just a few things to help you out there, Heliotrope. Back to story theme, I find it helpful because it provides moral depth to the story. I'm not out to teach lessons, just put questions in readers' minds. It also helps to bring out character since her flaw will be related directly to theme and story goal. Anyway, sorry for the long post but hopefully this helps.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> And well, after looking at the reviews on Amazon for your book... I guess if you're getting feedback like that you should do something to change your approach to characters, whatever it is.



One might call that a classic cheap shot.

Reminds me of that old definition of a journalist "Someone who watches a battle from a safe distance and then kills the survivors."


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Russ- thanks for getting back about the humanizing of the characters! A few paragraphs in makes sense. 20 pages for the other one! Wow! I wonder if that would be ok in today's market when agents only want you to submit the first 20 pages? What are your thoughts on that? Can I ask what keeps you going for those first 20 pages? Is it because you know the character already from other books? Or is there so much action you barely notice?



Those are interesting questions, and now you have me thinking.

Firstly, it is a modern book, written in 2009.  It was successful, it made the NYT bestseller list (not sure where it peaked).

I would read it no matter what because the author is a friend of mine, but that does not really answer the question.  His craft is very, very good and he does a lot of writing teaching to very good reviews.

I think the fact it was a series character really helps keep interest up.  Plus the action sequence when there is a life and death gunfight in a rare book shop and the MC is not sure who is with him or who is against him keeps you hooked.

The lesson I would take from it is that connection with a character is only one factor in keeping a reader moving deeper into your work.  The other is the story posing questions to the reader that they want answered.  Why are these people trying to kill this guy in his book store?  What does the other shooting have to do with it?  Which of these people want to kill him and why?  I think posing questions is just as important in the earlier stages of the book.

For example you liked that line put in the other thread.  "The third failure of our AI was catastrophic."

It tells you nothing about character, it just poses a bunch of questions that a potential spec fic audience might want read.  

And if you can put both into your opening, intriguing questions and a character the reader cares about...then you got some serious mojo going.


----------



## Russ (Oct 30, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Russ- thanks for getting back about the humanizing of the characters! A few paragraphs in makes sense. 20 pages for the other one! Wow! I wonder if that would be ok in today's market when agents only want you to submit the first 20 pages? What are your thoughts on that? Can I ask what keeps you going for those first 20 pages? Is it because you know the character already from other books? Or is there so much action you barely notice?



Those are interesting questions, and now you have me thinking.

Firstly, it is a modern book, written in 2009.  It was successful, it made the NYT bestseller list (not sure where it peaked).

I would read it no matter what because the author is a friend of mine, but that does not really answer the question.  His craft is very, very good and he does a lot of writing teaching to very good reviews.

I think the fact it was a series character really helps keep interest up.  Plus the action sequence when there is a life and death gunfight in a rare book shop and the MC is not sure who is with him or who is against him keeps you hooked.

The lesson I would take from it is that connection with a character is only one factor in keeping a reader moving deeper into your work.  The other is the story posing questions to the reader that they want answered.  Why are these people trying to kill this guy in his book store?  What does the other shooting have to do with it?  Which of these people want to kill him and why?  I think posing questions is just as important in the earlier stages of the book.

For example you liked that line put in the other thread.  "The third failure of our AI was catastrophic."

It tells you nothing about character, it just poses a bunch of questions that a potential spec fic audience might to know the answers to.  

And if you can put both into your opening, intriguing questions and a character the reader cares about...then you got some serious mojo going.

You also make a good point about what author can get away with what.  The author who wrote that book had already cracked the NYT list and had his "breakout novel."  What we have to do to get published is very different than what established (or "branded") writers need to do to get their work out there.  One has to be very aware of that gulf and bring a great deal of humility to one's work.  I often see people posting about what a very successful author did in their book and implying they can do the same thing.  There are two problems with that.  Firstly, one might not have developed the skill to carry off that technique yet.  Second the audience or gatekeeper is going to treat the new author differently than the established vet.  It might not be fair or whatever, but it is a reality.

It is a tough balance to write within yourself, but still push the boundaries and grow as a writer.  But now I am wondering way far afield...


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

Russ - Thanks for coming back to answer my questions! Yes, I have been reading a lot about making sure you are making the reader ask questions to keep turning pages to find answers. That in itself is almost more important that lots of action. 

Chesterama - Thanks for chiming in! Your expertise is always valuable. I'm in a similar boat as you (but opposite). I read a ton of books and did a ton of research and analysis into conflict, and now I'm thinking "hmmmm, tons of conflict is great, but what if you don't have an engaging character? What makes the reader want to care about all that interesting conflict?" So now I'm ordering craft books like crazy on characterization.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 30, 2015)

I'm late to the party on this, and I haven't read the whole thread, but I thought I'd offer my two cents.

Instead of treating your characters as characters/caricatures, why not treat them as people? They live within the boundaries of their stories and inside your head, so write them as if they're alive in the flesh. Figure out what they want, what they fear, what they like and don't like. If they try to speak to you, listen; if they want to change your story and go their own way, try it out and see where they take you. It might be for the better.


----------



## Miskatonic (Oct 30, 2015)

kennyc said:


> I'd suggest one of two possibilities. Either your started in the wrong place or you are writing the wrong story.
> 
> Of course there was.....(from the Elements of Fiction - Plot): "Melville wrote a large chunk of Moby Dick thinking that the pivotal figure was going to be a man named (I'm not kidding) Bulkington, who's then abruptly washed overboard the first day the Pequod leaves harbor and is never heard of again."



Well it sets up the whole motivation for the MC to leave his peaceful little island and head out into the world. 

*Father owns influential shipping company.
*A country that once shunned all outside influence now wants to set up trade.
*Son is sent to speak with the ruler of that foreign land.
*Son brokers deal, brings family from his original homeland to live there.
*Children of the son are best friends of the MC.
*MC has premonition that they are in grave danger via his dreams.
*MC sets out to try and save them.
*MC is now out in the big bad world. 

So one possibility of opening the book is the Son on a merchant vessel reading the parchment his father sent him as the ship is nearly at it's destination. 

Either that or start with MC at home interacting with his friends, who are both above him as far as class status. Then shift to above part. 

Either way the childhood friends have to relocate for the MC to have his motivation to leave home.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2015)

Thanks Ireth! 

Mikatonic… interesting… 

Ok, so an example I think of when reading your synopsis is Game of Thrones. At the beginning we have the Starks. They receive message that the king is on his way to Winterfell because the Hand of the King (Lady Stark's brother in law as far as I can remember) is dead. 

A few chapters in Lady Stark receives word from her sister that she has left King's Landing and gone back to the the Eyrie because she does not feel safe at Winterfell and believes her husband was murdered. Lady Stark burns the letter. This is part of what drives Lady and Eddard to investigate what is going on at King's Landing. 

We don't ever meet Lady Starks sister until much later in the book, though she is part of the driving force at the beginning, but we do still meet her later on… 

hmmmm, toughy.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 30, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> You can't. Sorry, but readers liking your characters is something you have no control over. It's an entirely subjective thing, like pretty much every single aspect of story telling.
> 
> Personally, as a reader, I HATE the idea that writers can somehow "make" reader like or relate to or be interested in any part of a particular work. I HATE the idea that there are certain "methods" or "formulas" you can employ to ensure some kind of reader response. I HATE the idea of "hooks". Readers are not lab rats that you can manipulate at your will. And no one really knows how readers are going to respond to any given book. No one.




I don't know. I think it's a writer's job to manipulate reader's emotions. It's not an exacting science, but there are easy and proven ways to do this. The key IMHO is to do this in an honest way. Because there are cheap ways to do this and there are honest ways.

It's easy to make someone dislike a character. Just have them treat an elderly person or a child poorly. You want the audience to like a character, have them come to the elderly person or child's defence. 

To me it boils down to simple human nature. I mean forget about fiction. You see someone kick a dog, you form an immediate negative impression of them. You're inclined to hate them. And the reverse is true if you see someone save a dog.

As people we manipulate others emotions all the time. When a friend is sad, you can tell them a joke or act the fool to make them laugh. There, you just manipulated their emotions.

Like I said, it's not a matter of if you can or should. It's about how you do it and why.

In one of my early writing classes, I wrote this story where the whole point was to get the reader to a surprise gotcha moment at the end. The story involved violence, and I thought myself oh so clever for being able to manipulate the reader like I did, because the class liked it. But my writing instructor took me aside and gave me a crap for it.

It took me a while before I realized what he was saying. My story was a dishonest story. The whole point of the story was to manipulate the reader just so I could throw up a surprise. The story had no other point than that. It was a bit of an FU to the reader, and the reader should have thrown that FU right back at me, and rightly so.

But if you manipulate the reader in an honest way, some really awesome moments can happen.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 31, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> This is what was happening with my and FifthView about the Night Crawler character, but, we both found the character intriguing enough to carry on with the film. I saw the character as sympathetic, FifthView saw him as a weasel. However, there was enough 'strangeness' about him (geeky, skinny, nasal voice, slicked back hair, unassuming demeanour, stealing construction material… and yet, he could take down a large security guard no problem.) There was enough questions brought up in the viewer about this character "What is going on with this guy/" That he was interesting.
> 
> That is the type of stuff I want to analyze. I need to break it down and see what was specifically done so I can use the same strategies. I think it is a science, personally.



Today, I'm working on some pre-writing brainstorming and outlining for a new novel, but I've had this on my mind, and a few other comments, and I think I've realized some things that I want to put "out there" before I fall into that nearly-bottomless well of brainstorming for my new novel.

A lot of the examples in this thread do point at this idea of making characters _intriguing_ in the first paragraphs/scenes.  I think that Brandon Sanderson's idea of the "Three Pronged Character Development" can be used to explain how this intrigue is developed, how characters can engage early (and throughout).

If you listen to all the podcasts I linked earlier, you realize that Sanderson et. al  view those sliders—Competence, Proactivity, Sympathy—as being quite active.  I mean, they can be slid up and down the scale throughout the novel.  Especially, if you listen to their discussion of the many ways the scales may be adjusted, you find that the activities and circumstances—the "tricks" for adjustment—are "tweaks":  so many different ways of nudging a bar up and down.  So every scene, indeed every interaction between characters and between a character and her environment, may add or subtract a ".5" or a "1" on each scale.

And, these adjustments may make the _reader_ adjust her impressions.  These adjustments in fact may create some doubt, some disquiet, some hope, some suspension of belief as the reader comes to terms with the new information.

So...An example using _Nightcrawler_ again.  I do not want to spoil the movie for anyone, so I'm going to try to be as circumspect as I can here.

The more I've thought over our previous discussion of the movie and my own experience of the movie, and in light of Sanderson's three prongs—I hadn't thought of it in those terms until Brian made his comment—the more I've realized how you and I, Heliotrope, may have initially had such disagreement over the opening scenes.



BWFoster78 said:


> So applying FifthView's excellent post, the character ranked high in both Competence and Proactivity, but low in likeability/sympathy, which made him engaging.



I had responded in agreement to Brian.  But then I realized that the character, Louis Bloom, wasn't static throughout the whole movie.  Looking back at the movie as a whole, then, yes, he had high Competence and high Proactivity while having a low Sympathy for me.  But at first?  No.

I'll try to break down my own personal..._journey_ through the first few scenes, using Sanderson's sliders.

Spoiler Alert for anyone who doesn't want to have her experience of the opening colored by my reactions to it!

*

Scene 1:  Opening Scene

First, I'd vaguely known going into the movie that it had something to do with television journalism.  So when I saw Louis Bloom cutting a fence, I thought he was trying to get into some place where there was a story to be had.   (I.e., I had a slight bias that affected my reaction to the events in the first scene)  *[Proactivity: High]*

When the security guard drove up and stepped out of his car, I thought, "Ok, this tele-journalist/reporter is going to be able to talk himself out of this.  What he's doing may be illegal...but, journalism." *[Competence: Probably high?]*

Bloom has a friendly demeanor, but he's also a clever talker, liar (white lies?) at first.  Also, another bit of bias on my part:  I'm predisposed to like any main character in a movie when the actor is known to me and one I've liked before; plus, it's a movie, so I come to it thinking that surely I'll find something to like in the main character, right? *[Sympathy:  Probably high.]*

Like Bloom, I wasn't sure if this was a cop or a security guard initially.   And, sad to say (about myself), my sympathy for that guard went from a higher level to a lower level when he was revealed to be a security guard. *[Bloom's Competence: Yep, probably high.]* because *[Security Guard's Competence: Probably lower than Bloom's.]*  [Note:  Sanderson talks about how these sliders affect each other.  Competence automatically increases sympathy, at least a bit.]

As they talk, the camera pans to the security guard's wristwatch.  That wristwatch glance gave me a twinge of, "Oh no, I was wrong about this character!"  Because he might be a shady journalist—breaking in for a news story is one kind of illegal activity that might be morally "justified;" but going after a man's possessions, not so much. *[Sympathy: Lowered a notch—possibly.]*  Then he attacks the guard. * [Sympathy: Yep, lowered, but not a whole lot.]*

But the scene ends. *[Suspension of impressions.]*

Scene 2: Driving Away

He's in his car, admiring the watch while driving.  *[Yep, doubt confirmed; Sympathy:  Lowered.]* And then the camera pans to the stolen fencing in the back of his car.  *[Thief, not journalist! Sympathy:  Lowered.] * As he's driving, he glances to the side and we are shown symbols of wealth—luxury car dealership; ATMs—and his eyes seeking them out.  *[Thief through-and-through, scouting his next hit—although, abstractly.] *  And far unlike the nice demeanor and openness of expression in the opening scene, his face is severe here.  But at the same time, most of us can feel the economic disparity, have experienced that gulf between luxury and what we can get in our lives.  *[Sympathy:  Lowered, increased:  ambivalence.]*  I have some doubt about how I should feel about this guy.

Scene 3:  Offloading Stolen Merchandise; Asking for Job

I don't want to go step-by-step for this scene, so will summarize.

At first, the impression I get is that he knows this construction site boss.  But as soon as he begins to ask for a job, I realize that they are strangers.

That boss is somewhat unsympathetic at first—because he is willing to buy stolen merchandise, i.e. a corrupt business owner, and because those in positions of power with control over money are often less sympathetic than those who have naught.  I had just been treated to that disparity in the previous scene.  So in comparison, initially Bloom's *Sympathy rises* when he and this boss are put together.

At the very outset of Bloom's asking for the job, he's somewhat sympathetic.  But then he begins lying, and his *Sympathy drops sharply* for me.

This is especially the case when he says, "Who am I?  I'm a hard worker."   Because, he's a thief.  He's attacked a security guard and stolen the watch.  This is going for the quick fix, not an example of being a hard worker.

Then: "I set high goals, and..."   No.  Stealing fencing, copper, etc. is not a high goal at all.  He's a _low-level thief_.  

Eventually, I realize he is saying the sorts of things he thinks will manipulate successfully. He's disingenuous.  He's not sincere.   Someone desperate for money might be prone to exaggerate, lie, manipulate because he's downtrodden, and this may make that person sympathetic. But someone who so slickly prevaricates while seeming to take pleasure in his own genius for prevarication is far less sympathetic.  

Something Sanderson said in the podcast about adjusting the sympathy bar:  One of the ways of nudging it up is to show a character has self-awareness.  Characters with absolutely no self-awareness tend to be extremely unlikeable.  And here's a guy who believes a construction-site boss will hire someone who has already displayed a willingness to steal construction supplies in order to make a quick buck.  This was running through my mind as soon as he began to ask for the job and why I already suspected the boss would turn him down.  That boss would have to be an idiot to hire him.

Also, this scene, from start to finish, *lowers Bloom's Competency level* dramatically from where it had been from the first scene.  He fails to negotiate a good price for his stolen goods; he fails to manipulate the boss; he fails to secure a job.  (Job?  Or greater access to saleable goods?)  We kind of wonder, still, whether we should root for him.

But one thing you can say about Louis Bloom:  He's extremely Proactive throughout the movie.

Remainder of the Movie

Louis Bloom hits his stride eventually.  Ironically, it turns out he has high goals and is a hard worker, once he finds the right medium.  The rest of the movie, his Competency keeps getting pushed up and his Sympathy keeps getting pushed down.  His Proactivity never wavers.

There are many examples of things that notch Competency up and Sympathy down.  For instance, once he hires his first employee:  it turns out that employee is the "good Bloom" that we thought we might be seeing in these first scenes.  I mean, a down-on-his-luck, desperate, downtrodden sort of fellow.  And putting them together, seeing how one treats the other...well.  Much lowering of the Sympathy bar for Mr. Bloom.

But it's those initial doubts, the nudging of the bars up and down, that helped to intrigue me at the beginning.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 1, 2015)

Thanks FifthView that is a really interesting and valuable analysis, and honestly matches up with what I saw too. I think, perhaps, the fact that you had a bias already because you had an idea of what the film was about played a part, like you said. But, I agree that I also had a bias towards the actor in general.  

I read this while watching Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I think I see how this works. 

Jack Sparrow: Consistently low sympathy (not exactly honourable, honest, etc), yet the sliders for competency and proactivity are constantly in motion (probably consistently high proactivity, while competency varies considerably). 

Will Turner: High sympathy, and the sliders for competency and proactivity are in constant motion, though generally high for both.

Elizabeth Swan: High sympathy, high proactivity, yet fairly low competency (she doesn't really _do_ too much… And I get so annoyed at the scene with the Kraken where Will gives her the rifle, but through a series of events she ends up giving it to Jack and then clinging to his leg in fear).


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 1, 2015)

So actually, now that I think about it more, having the sliders move more dramatically makes for a more interesting character. 

Jack Sparrow is the most dynamic of the three. The slider for competency is all over the map. Sometimes he is very clever and smart and can outwit anyone, and sometimes he is just a total idiot and you wonder how he could possibly survive, and sometimes luck just happens to favour him. All this makes him very interesting. 

The other two are fairly static really.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> I don't know. I think it's a writer's job to manipulate reader's emotions. It's not an exacting science, but there are easy and proven ways to do this. The key IMHO is to do this in an honest way. Because there are cheap ways to do this and there are honest ways.



Say impact or affect rather than manipulate and I can agree with you. When we're talking about human interaction, the interaction between the author and the reader in this case, manipulation is a decidedly negative thing. That's my entire point. Most of the "simple formulas" and "hooks" and "tricks" come across to me as shallow and manipulative and dishonest. I can't stand them. 

I heartily agree that an author should be able to influence my emotions with their writing. The best stories are the stories that impact me meaningfully. But only when they do so in an honest way, when they tell me an honest story that I respond to willingly. Not when they use gimmicks to try to elicit emotions out of me in the moment that fall flat upon further examination.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Well it sets up the whole motivation for the MC to leave his peaceful little island and head out into the world.
> 
> *Father owns influential shipping company.
> *A country that once shunned all outside influence now wants to set up trade.
> ...



I'm even more confused by your explanation.   Why not start with the protagonist leaving or preparing to leave and fill in the back story later?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

> When we're talking about human interaction, the interaction between the author and the reader in this case, manipulation is a decidedly negative thing. That's my entire point. Most of the "simple formulas" and "hooks" and "tricks" come across to me as shallow and manipulative and dishonest. I can't stand them.



I understand how you feel the word "manipulate" has negative connotation, but in the context of books and movies, I think it is both accurate and positive.

When I open a book or walk into a movie theater, I want to author or director to manipulate my emotions, to pull out every trick they have to.  I don't want to sit there and not feel anything.

So I'm not sure how it's a negative thing if it's consensual.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Say impact or affect rather than manipulate and I can agree with you. When we're talking about human interaction, the interaction between the author and the reader in this case, manipulation is a decidedly negative thing. That's my entire point. Most of the "simple formulas" and "hooks" and "tricks" come across to me as shallow and manipulative and dishonest. I can't stand them.
> 
> I heartily agree that an author should be able to influence my emotions with their writing. The best stories are the stories that impact me meaningfully. But only when they do so in an honest way, when they tell me an honest story that I respond to willingly. Not when they use gimmicks to try to elicit emotions out of me in the moment that fall flat upon further examination.



Yep. I read a lot of short stories (because that's what I write other than poetry) and am rarely blatantly emotional about a story. I do empathize and feel for the characters etc. last week though I read one that literally put a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye. The final story in this year's Best American Short Stories - Mr. Voice by Jess Walters originally published in Tin House. I'm sure it was due to my own life/experience etc, but damn. It was quite surprising to have had happen.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I understand how you feel the word "manipulate" has negative connotation, but in the context of books and movies, I think it is both accurate and positive.
> 
> When I open a book or walk into a movie theater, I want to author or director to manipulate my emotions, to pull out every trick they have to.  I don't want to sit there and not feel anything.
> 
> So I'm not sure how it's a negative thing if it's consensual.



Because it's not consensual when you are talking about manipulating.



> Manipulate - control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.
> "the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group"
> synonyms:	control, influence, use/turn to one's advantage, exploit, maneuver, engineer, steer, direct, gerrymander; twist someone around one's little finger
> "the government tried to manipulate the situation"


----------



## FifthView (Nov 2, 2015)

Well then technically you manipulate the words on the page.

You don't sit the reader down, pin her eyelids open, put a clamp on her head so she can't move her line of vision.

No, the reader comes to the book hoping to be "cleverly influenced."

Now, the trick is in deciding whether the author manipulated those words knowing that a reader would come to them.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

FifthView said:


> Well then technically you manipulate the words on the page.



Manipulating words is fine. Using words to manipulate the reader is not, in my opinion. 

You should be able to see the difference.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

kennyc said:


> Because it's not consensual when you are talking about manipulating.



How about this definition of "manipulate:"



> to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance



or this one:



> to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> How about this definition of "manipulate:"
> 
> 
> 
> or this one:



1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.

2. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.

You see the difference in the definition applying to tools as opposed to the one applying to people?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Manipulating words is fine. Using words to manipulate the reader is not, in my opinion.
> 
> You should be able to see the difference.



I think we have a difference of opinion on a fundamental level regarding this subject.  I see it as my job as an author to manipulate reader emotions.  I won't consider myself a success as an author until I learn to accomplish that manipulation a lot better than I can now.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.
> 
> 2. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.
> 
> You see the difference in the definition applying to tools as opposed to the one applying to people?



Even the definition #2 that you quoted notes that cleverly controlling or influencing people is a legitimate usage.  Note the word "or."  That is precisely how I'm using it: I want to use writing techniques to cleverly control or influence my readers' emotions.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think we have a difference of opinion on a fundamental level regarding this subject.  I see it as my job as an author to manipulate reader emotions.  I won't consider myself a success as an author until I learn to accomplish that manipulation a lot better than I can now.



That's probably true. I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are different ways different readers look at it. I'm arguing from the POV of myself as a reader here. I do not want my emotions manipulated. If I have an emotional response, I want it to be an honest one coming from me willingly rather than being "unscrupulously manipulated".


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Even the definition #2 that you quoted notes that cleverly controlling or influencing people is a legitimate usage.  Note the word "or."  That is precisely how I'm using it: I want to use writing techniques to cleverly control or influence my readers' emotions.



That is true, but be honest with yourself. If you asked 1000 random people how they feel about being manipulated how many would say "yes, please?" A very small subset. Most people think of being manipulated in a very negative light.

And I think that most readers, if they feel like a book is trying to manipulate them, would have a very negative reaction to that. The only way an author can get away with manipulating readers is to hide the fact that they are doing so, which makes it even more dishonest.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> That is true, but be honest with yourself. If you asked 1000 random people how they feel about being manipulated how many would say "yes, please?" A very small subset. Most people think of being manipulated in a very negative light.



I kinda see reading as a special case, though.  If you're talking about advertisements or op ed or whatever, I'd agree with you.  When we're talking about reading, it goes along with suspension of disbelief.  I'm willing to buy what the author is selling as long as he doesn't stretch reality too far and too obviously.  Same thing with emotions.

When I read a book, I'm disappointed if I didn't feel anything for the characters.

From what I've experienced as a writer, it's hard to make a reader truly feel for your characters. Even when you're trying hard to make your reader feel, it's still not easy.  It seems obvious to me that you have a much better chance of making your reader feel if you're trying to do it instead of hoping it happens by accident.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Actually it's funny, I do choose a book purposely to be manipulated into feeling something. 

I think people choose Stephen King because they _want_ him to manipulate them into feeling fear. 

People choose Nicholas Sparks because they want to be manipulated into feeling romantic and teary. 

People choose Agatha Christie because they want to be manipulated into feeling suspenseful. 

People choose writers like Khaled Hosseini (1000 splendid suns) or Lawrence Hill (The Book of Negros) because they want to be manipulated into seeing world history in a different way.

I think the whole purpose of writing is to illicit emotional reactions from the readers, and that comes with manipulating the scenes to create those reactions…


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Actually it's funny, I do choose a book purposely to be manipulated into feeling something.
> 
> I think people choose Stephen King because they _want_ him to manipulate them into feeling fear.
> 
> ...



Yes but I still wouldn't call it 'manipulation.' I would call it choosing what you want to read, what you share in common with the story and looking to 'enter the waking dream' provided  by the writer when you suspend your disbelief.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 2, 2015)

I think it's true that as a general rule people don't like to _feel_ they are being manipulated in a one-sided manner.

Mythopoet's example is a case in point of the reaction people have to being manipulated.  This is why overt cases of manipulation in fiction often fail.  I mean: characters suddenly acting out-of-character, the mechanical insertion of an obvious button being pushed, even stilted dialogue.  Basically, anything inserted that doesn't seem to occur organically within the story.

This fact, along with my previous words concerning bad "establishing shots" in a novel, is why I reacted so strongly to the idea of inserting an overt "getting-to-know-you" passage at the beginning of a novel.  Your story may organically begin at a certain point, but choosing to instead write an intro for a character may come across as being out of place if the only reason you are inserting those beginning paragraphs is to try making your character sympathetic out-the-gate.  _Organically_–In the real world, I don't immediately like most people I meet; it takes time for me to be certain about a person.  This doesn't mean I actively dislike strangers when I first meet them, but only that I suspend my judgment until I've had time to get to know them.  So to be hit over the head, to be told, "This is a likeable character, and here's why!  Before we get started with the rest of the story..." can come across as artificial.

Of course, a story can successfully begin with such an intro, if it's handled delicately and if questions are raised about the character so that a reader wants to keep reading about her.

Some of this touches upon the idea of seeing the writer's "hand" while reading.  For me, there's a certain enjoyment in realizing the talent of the writer while I'm reading.  I certainly don't want anything he does to throw me out of the story; but during pauses, I can go back and savor some things.  Sometimes, I can savor those things while reading.  There's an immediate recognition.  On the other hand, a heavy-handed approach can irritate me–even more when the author isn't a good writer and is obviously trying to push some of my buttons.

Speaking of hands...we're right back to the etymology of "manipulation."   I would use the metaphor of lovemaking.  Manipulation can be a very good thing indeed during lovemaking–as long as it's consensual.  (Which, if it is truly lovemaking, it is.)  And so can witty banter:  Waiting for your friend to say the very funny, cool thing.  Etc.

But being told overtly, "You ought to see this _this way_" in a domineering manner?  Not so much.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Manipulating words is fine. Using words to manipulate the reader is not, in my opinion.
> 
> You should be able to see the difference.



The intentional manipulating of emotions is what turns me off about a lot of cinema. Especially mass-consumption, black and white morality stories. The reaction the audience is supposed to have is determined by the director from the beginning. They then throw in all the conventions and tropes necessary to get this result. If your mind revolts against this then you just end up disgusted with what you watched.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 2, 2015)

Well no, we aren't manipulating words.  We're manipulating our keyboards.  Or pencils.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> The intentional manipulating of emotions is what turns me off about a lot of cinema. Especially mass-consumption, black and white morality stories. The reaction the audience is supposed to have is determined by the director from the beginning. They then throw in all the conventions and tropes necessary to get this result. If your mind revolts against this then you just end up disgusted with what you watched.



You mean like "Citizen Kane?"


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 2, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Actually it's funny, I do choose a book purposely to be manipulated into feeling something.
> 
> I think people choose Stephen King because they _want_ him to manipulate them into feeling fear.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if it's the desire to be purposely manipulated, but the desire for authors like King to create an environment where, with the imagination of the reader, fear can manifest itself. 

Our imagination is what will ultimately create fear in our minds, it just needs a gentle nudge to get started.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 2, 2015)

kennyc said:


> You mean like "Citizen Kane?"



Well as long as its not blatantly dumbed down. I'm talking more about Spielberg than Welles. 

Besides, Citizen Kane wasn't the zillionth film to do that.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

kennyc, yes, maybe manipulation is not the right word, but I do sort of see it as the same thing. My husband and I have this conversation all the time because we always argue over what to watch on Netflix. He likes high action/low character development (Transformers, Alien, Terminator). Basically he says "there needs to be a lot of sh*t blowing up for it to hold my interest". 

I prefer movies with a story and some to lots of character development. I watched "The Imitation Game" the other night (by myself) and very much enjoyed it. 

I feel like when a writer is sitting down to write a story they have to have a good idea of who their audience is, and what that audience will want. Stephen King knows his audience wants to be scared. He designs his stories to give that to them. Agatha Christie knows her audience wants a good suspense and a crime story that takes some thought to work out. She designs her stories to do that. Micheal Bay knew that his audience wanted lots of action, huge robots, a sense of nostalgia, and probably a hot girl who doesn't really do too much. He designed his story to offer those things in order to 'manipulate' a sense of wonder and excitement. On the other spectrum, the writers of "The Imitation Game" took some liberties with the characters. Yes, he was gay, no he did not actually have a boy in his school that he loved and wrote notes to. Yes, there was a woman on the team. No, the real woman who Keira Knightly played did not look like Keira Knightly. Why did they make these changes? Because the audience loves 'feeling' something. Adding in the boy at school to 'show' the MC in love and his struggles with his sexuality made him more sympathetic and 'manipulated' the viewer into feeling something for him. I feel like this stuff is done intentionally. 

When it is done poorly, like Fifthview pointed out, then yeah, that is bad. But I do believe that these things are done intentionally.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> kennyc, yes, maybe manipulation is not the right word, but I do sort of see it as the same thing. My husband and I have this conversation all the time because we always argue over what to watch on Netflix. He likes high action/low character development (Transformers, Alien, Terminator). Basically he says "there needs to be a lot of sh*t blowing up for it to hold my interest".
> 
> I prefer movies with a story and some to lots of character development. I watched "The Imitation Game" the other night (by myself) and very much enjoyed it.



But including explosions in a movie for the people who like explosions is not manipulation. Putting lots of explosions in a trailer to get people who like explosions to go see a movie that in reality only has one explosion near the end is manipulation. (And we've all seen movie studios do exactly that.) 

Likewise, for example, putting a hook right at the beginning is far more interesting than the rest of the book is manipulation. (I'm looking at you, Eye of the World.) Or giving a character a particular quirk that creates sympathy and is mentioned once or twice before disappearing once the action gets going is manipulation. Any author who thinks to themselves "I'm going to include this thing to get my readers to keep reading" runs the risk of it becoming a manipulation. Any time you include something in a story for out-of-story reasons you risk it becoming a manipulation. 

It *is* a fine line. I admit that. Which is why it's all the more important to watch that line very carefully.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Good points. I see the difference now.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 3, 2015)

I can't believe I just read pages of people arguing what manipulation means. Especially when, at least from my post, it's clearly understood what I meant by it. It, like many other words, can be a negative, positive, or neutral depending on context. And just like what I was saying in my post, there's positive manipulation and there's negative.

Influence, manipulate, potato po-tah-toe.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 3, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> I can't believe I just read pages of people arguing what manipulation means. Especially when, at least from my post, it's clearly understood what I meant by it. It, like many other words, can be a negative, positive, or neutral depending on context. And just like what I was saying in my post, there's positive manipulation and there's negative.
> 
> Influence, manipulate, potato po-tah-toe.



You're a writer. Words are your tools. Meanings matter. Nuance matters. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say matters. Because words are our only connection with our readers (including those here reading our posts). 

I mean I just can't... with some of the people around here who throw words around haphazardly and don't pay attention to meaning and nuance... and don't even seem to _care_. Why are you even writers? (This paragraph is not specifically directed at you, Penpilot. It's just my frustration after so many ridiculous conversations here.)


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 3, 2015)

Few things are as annoying as an author going out of their way to try and force you to form an opinion about a character that they have already decided is good or evil, etc. As if the reader is too stupid to pick up on subtle hints or the possible motivations behind a character's choices.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Few things are as annoying as an author going out of their way to try and force you to form an opinion about a character that they have already decided is good or evil, etc. As if the reader is too stupid to pick up on subtle hints or the possible motivations behind a character's choices.



And yet, it is precisely the author who has written the "subtle hints or possible motivations behind a character's choices."

Unless of course it was all by accident.  Authors sometimes make accidents.  Or unless some editor or ghost writer put those words there in that order.

Although, it's not uncommon for readers to pick up on things that the author only dimly suspected or did not realize about his own characters.

Still, how are you to know the difference, unless you have a chance to ask the author about his characters?

Much of what readers "pick up" about characters is what the author has "laid down."


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 3, 2015)

There's a difference between dropping hints and outright trying to force you to like or dislike a character.

Personally I like moral ambiguity with a sprinkling of  morality or immorality as time goes on.

This is one issue I have with Stephen King. His dislike of southerners is beyond blatant. Pretty much every white southerner in his stories is ignorant, racist and potentially violent. The opposite is true for his black characters.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

Yes, there is that word "outright"—putting it into the open, showing your hand.  But I'm not 100% sure that hidden hands _can't_ manipulate.

And the general point of this thread and of those who have used the word "manipulation" as a positive is this:  

Authors _can_ choose what they write, knowing full well the likely effects on the readers' emotions and minds of whatever they put in writing.

This isn't some kind of newfangled idea.  Plato wrote about it.  A long history of the art of oratory and rhetoric precedes us—even if we were to abolish the word "manipulation" from the discussion, the idea would still remain.

Word choice matters.  As I think Mythopoet has recently said.  If it matters, then the chooser's choice of words matters.  If the chooser's choice of words has an effect on a reader or auditor, then....who chose those words first?  The writer or the reader?


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 3, 2015)

Yep. I think for the most part we've come to a general consensus in this thread. Kind of re-hashing things at this point.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 3, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Yep. I think for the most part we've come to a general consensus in this thread. Kind of re-hashing things at this point.



With that, back to the original topic ...

I've been thinking a lot lately about characters as well, and I'll use this post to try to organize my thoughts:

1. I've read lots of advice on characters.  Lots of advice.  The important thing is that they're likable. No, they need to be relateable. No, they need to be engaging.  Sometimes, it's better to ignore advice.  Since I tend to prefer likable characters as a reader, that's what I'm going to shoot for as a writer. So how do you make a character likable?

2. The advice I followed with my novel was that, if you put a reader deep inside a character's head and make that character suffer, the reader will like the character.  I'm not sure that that advice is wholly accurate.  For some readers, this works really, really well.  For a significant percentage, however, you have to pay attention to the sliders mentioned earlier in this thread.

3. Save the cat moments can be easily undermined by negative character actions.

4. For all the complaints about Mary Sues, I think readers tend to find strong, morally upright characters with few flaws much more likable than characters who do show flaws.

So I think that, in the future, I'd rather go overboard on making my character virtuous rather than making my character "real." (Note: these thoughts are only intended apply to the optimistic style fantasy that I write.)


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

Brian, I think that virtuous characters can be "real."  Particularly when you have those characters suffering, you reveal that they are not perfect–they have weaknesses, which makes them human.  But even during suffering, they don't need to lose their virtue.

There's a _great_ example of this in the anime Now and Then, Here and There, a 13-episode story.  Although there are other examples (say, Captain America), the MC of this anime is one of the most moving portrayals of obstinate virtue I have witnessed.  Perhaps this is because the MC isn't particularly aware of his virtue; he just is.  Also, the context he finds himself in is so extreme, this automatically sets up a contrast, between it and him.  And he sees it, must react to it.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> With that, back to the original topic ...
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about characters as well, and I'll use this post to try to organize my thoughts:
> 
> ...



Interesting observations Foster! 

By now you probably all know I'm a great admirer of the advice of Donald Maas… you've heard me quote him enough. He says some things similar to what Foster has just said, particularly about 'heroes'. He notes that: 

"What is it that makes a standout (character)? 

It isn't about a protagonist with whom readers can identify. A protagonist with our job, our house, and our headaches isn't an automatic grabber. We may see ourselves in Everyman and Everywoman, but so what? That doesn't mean we'll care, or at any rate care enough to ride along for hundreds of pages down a painfully familiar road. 

Nor are standout characters built of heroic muscle or dark allure. Action heroes and paranormal outsiders are popular, no question, but if unwavering fortitude or suffering sexiness were all that it took, then every action hero and tormented paranormal would be a best-seller. They're not. That's because it's not a protagonist' profile that causes us to care. It's not who they appear to be, but the qualities they demonstrate that unlock our hearts. 

… A standout protagonist is one who quickly stirs in your reader high admiration. Note the word 'quickly'. In your fiction you don't have the luxury of years to spend while your reader gets to know your main character. A bonding born of admiration needs to occur right away, meaning within a page or two of your protagonist's first appearance in the story." (Maas, Writing 21st Century Fiction). 

Ok, so then he goes on to talk about how to make a character exceptional. Better than an Everyman. 

And, if I think more about it, I sort of agree. FifthView and I were talking about the movie Nightcrawler and the controversial character who was NOT particularly likeable… and I have just started thinking about what Maas said. I had never heard of Nightcrawler. It didn't exactly win awards or high ratings. My husband hated the film and didn't last the first 10min. It had an interesting premise… but it wasn't exactly _Schindler's List._ 

If I think about what might be considered the 'best' or 'award winning' or 'most popular' stories of all time, they have a considerably high ratio of these standout/exceptional/heroic…. dare I say "mary sue" characters. 

Yes, or course there are exceptions, and I can think of a lot… but I think, at the end of the day… do people like being inspired to be better? Seeing people (like Schindler) do something they wish they could do? 

Just wondering about this. Any input?


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

Off the top of my head, if I think about 'classic' stories with standout characters, I think of: 

Luke Skywalker
Hans Solo
Gladiator Dude
Gandolf
Frodo and Bilbo
Schindler

And I'm ashamed to admit that as a teenager, I loved Richard Cypher… (so embarrassing).


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> FifthView and I were talking about the movie Nightcrawler and the controversial character who was NOT particularly likeable… and I have just started thinking about what Maas said. I had never heard of Nightcrawler. It didn't exactly win awards or high ratings. My husband hated the film and didn't last the first 10min. It had an interesting premise… but it wasn't exactly _Schindler's List._



NOT to be a nitpicker but...it has 95% on Rotten Tomatoes.  Among reviewers.  The public has given it an 85% on that site.

I was thinking about Guardians of the Galaxy, which actually scored slightly lower on RT.   But while considering the three sliders, I tried to figure out exactly where those sliders were for the characters.  They are ramped pretty high for all three sliders, although not maxed out.  In the very second scene, Peter Quill's sliders are probably nearly maxed; first scene, his sympathy bar is through the roof.

The thing about movies is that the director only has approx. 2 hours to deliver a story, and so often will want to max whatever impression he's going to leave of the characters quite early in the story.  Especially for blockbuster, summer flick types of movies.  The subtler portrayals, requiring a whole movie and even then not always being definitive about a character, are often stereotyped as art-house types.  (Although some mainstream dramas do this as well.)


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

Lol. Ok, I take that back then. Nit Picking is good. 

But I'm still wondering, when did classic heroes fall out of favour? If I think about all the stories that have stood the test of time I think about Hercules. Odysseus, Achilles, David and Goliath, Daniel and the Lions, and all the wonderful truly heroic characters that make it into the big books and blockbusters…


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

I don't think classic heroes have fallen out of favor.  Only now they are called superheroes.

BUT, perhaps the way such characters can and have been so mismanaged has hurt the brand.  It's just so easy to do, ramping everything up, that it can easily seem like clichÃ©.   Superman is a good case in point of some of the problems that arise when a character is _too_ good at everything.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

Ok… now I'm wondering if, perhaps, the it isn't about the character themselves as much as it is about the stakes they overcome. A character is only as big as the conflict they overcome… 

hmmmmmmmm…..


----------



## Russ (Nov 3, 2015)

Your post #102 contains a lot of food for thought.

I quite like Mr. Maas and find his advice good most of the time.

On the question of the heroic character, or every man character, I think each can be right for the right story.

For instance Bond or Bourne are characters that are almost superheroic but are very successful both in film and print.  And with Bond in particular in film "humanizing him" has only really come around lately.

Robert Langdon or Jack Ryan are very different, or the hero in North by Northwest (forgot his man) but still heroes nonetheless but of a completely different ilk than Bond or Bourne.

Or compare say Conan or Elric vs. Shea (forgot his whole name) in the Shannara Series or Covenant in Lord Foul's Bane.

Either kind of hero works, everyman or super talented, if it is the right hero for the story you want to tell.

I think there are more MC's of high competence out there, but a good everyman can make for a fantastic tale.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 3, 2015)

Don't forget Hannibal Lector. He may have been morally repugnant but people still gravitated towards him because the acting/writing was so superb in Silence of the Lambs. 

Not to mention it won best picture at the Oscars.


----------



## Russ (Nov 3, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Don't forget Hannibal Lector. He may have been morally repugnant but people still gravitated towards him because the acting/writing was so superb in Silence of the Lambs.
> 
> Not to mention it won best picture at the Oscars.



I still prefer Red Dragon, but if you are having a chat about memorable movie characters Lector should definately be in the conversation.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

Yeah, I've been trying to figure out how to work in Hannibal Lector. 

I can't remember what motivated him to help the cop? But he was helping the cop find the killer, so he is working for the 'good' side, which makes him redeemable? I don't know. That's a stretch. But there is something likable/admirable about him… 

Yes, Russ, I agree about the variety of heroes, but I think what is important is that they are all 'heroic' or 'larger than life' in someway. They are not Everyman. They are better.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 3, 2015)

> Brian, I think that virtuous characters can be "real." Particularly when you have those characters suffering, you reveal that they are not perfect–they have weaknesses, which makes them human. But even during suffering, they don't need to lose their virtue.



FifthView,

My methodology for my first book was:

Figure out a character
Put that character in a situation
See what happens
How the character reacted defined who that character was
Stay true to who that character was the rest of the book

If I had it to do over again, I'd deliberately choose strong traits for the character and use scenes to show those traits early on rather than letting the character be who he is.  Basically, I'd more deliberately manipulate the reader.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

There's also the fact that Hannibal Lector "seemed" to be an antihero.  It's not just that he helped Clarice Starling find the killer, but also seemed to genuinely like her and fulfilled a role as her protector in later films in the series.  He even cuts off his own hand, rather than hers!

This reminds me of one of those Writing Excuses podcasts, a couple of the methods for increasing sympathy for a character.  If you already have a character who is likeable, you can increase another character's sympathy rating by showing that character helping her out.  Also, a character who is shown to like a sympathetic character is made more sympathetic himself.

If you as reader/viewer are already on Clarice's side, then Hannibal seems to join that side with you.

Plus the fact that Hannibal is shown to choose his targets because they are reprehensible in some way helps to make him seem like an antihero.  Incidentally, this method played a large role in Dexter also.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

Yes, Thank you FV, I was also thinking about comparisons to Dexter. And great clarification. 

Brian, I think you are going in a good direction with your characterization this time around. 

At the end of each chapter of Maas' book he has checklists. One of the tools for characterization: 

- Is your protagonist an Everyman/woman? What's his or her outstanding quality? Show it in the first five pages. Terrific. Now show it within one page. 

And example I can think of is the latest Jurassic Park. Chris Pratt's character is immediately shown as protective, compassionate and an Alpha to the Raptors, instantly making him stand out from the rest. Instantly transforming him into a sort of 'hero' before the conflict has even started.

 - Is your protagonist a hero or herione, someone with a job that entails danger, big decisions, and high responsibility? Find one way (even a small one) in which he is perfectly human. Got it? Good. Show it on the page right away. 

Example: Despite the fact that Chris Pratt is the raptor Alpha, he still strikes out with the beautiful ladies.


----------



## Russ (Nov 3, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Yes, Russ, I agree about the variety of heroes, but I think what is important is that they are all 'heroic' or 'larger than life' in someway. They are not Everyman. They are better.



I think one of the traditional underlying messages in the "everyman" story is that we all have heroic elements within us, even if we can't do a 360 spinning kick or cut a man in half with one stroke, and that all we need to realize our heroism is the right situation and the right motivation.

While sometimes harder to write, it is easier for the average reader to identify with the everyman than say Conan or Bond.

Take the popularity of the downstairs staff on Downton Abbey for example.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> FifthView,
> 
> My methodology for my first book was:
> 
> ...



It would seem then that rather than creating a situation to "see" what that character is like, maybe knowing what a character is like first and then choosing a situation to accentuate that character's traits–or to put those traits on trial–might be the better method of approaching character development?

Edit: Well, since we need to choose scenes that advance the plot, then maybe we should keep in mind that we need to also choose _how_ we write them to show character traits.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

Totally. But even in Downton Abby the servants are 'more than human'. I think about the Butler with his un-yeilding desire to maintain traditional customs and order… showing a trait that is admirable because he is so passionate. 

But yes, I get what you are saying.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 3, 2015)

FifthView said:


> Edit: Well, since we need to choose scenes that advance the plot, then maybe we should keep in mind that we need to also choose _how_ we write them to show character traits.



The way I look at it, there are three things scenes generally do, advance the plot, character, or expand the world. 

Adiquat scenes only do one of those three things. Good scenes do two and great ones do all three. I strive for all three in all my scenes. Of course that doesn't guarantee greatness but it certainly doesn't hurt.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

Exactly. I was hoping someone was going to touch on this. I didn't notice it in FV's post… maybe I missed the edit? 

When I'm planning my stories I don't plan a 'save the cat' scene specifically on it's own, I just try to work it in to my opener. 

Using my Jurassic World example: 

In the scene the raptors are turning on a new worker. The new worker is cornered. Pratt's character steps in and saves the guy, while at the same time showing compassion to the raptors. 

What do we get from this scene? So much! 

Plot: We see how dangerous the animals can be. We see what the park involves. We get a sense of the setting. 

Character: We see him 'save the cat'. We see how he is different then everyone else, we see foreshadowing of the skills he will use to save everyone at the end. We learn that he is excellent at understanding predator behaviour. We learn that the raptors trust him, but also that they could turn very quickly (heightening the conflict).


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

I use a sort of chart when planning my stories, and act one has a check list. My act one is usually composed of three key parts. I show it as a large triangle on a large sheet of paper. As the triangle goes up (rising action) I must hit a few key points. This is the beginning 10%: 

- Show main character in real life. Problems she needs to solve, something in her life is making her unhappy, but she isn't ready to do anything about it. Unsatified. Show dreams, issues, redeeming qualities (Save the Cat). 

- Show problems/flaws "See how screwed up she is?" This is what she will have to fix before she can win at the end. 

- Show events that may cause the inciting event. Why will she respond the way she does? 

- Show a characteristic moment. Try to create a scene that exhibits both the MC's personality and an activity that will be important later on in the story. Create movement, mystery, questions. 

At the top of the triangle is the Inciting moment another 10%. Key points I must include are: 

- Start the story in motion. She is pushed out of normal world into story world. Opportunity to change or fix problem and HAS to choose change. Core conflict. Here is what the book is about. She CAN'T walk away and go on as before. "Rock her world in a way she didn't see coming." 

Then, as the Triangle slopes down I have a scene (or scenes) showing the final 5%: 

- Break into act 2. MC moves from normal world to story world. She makes a conscious choice to do this. Stakes are raised for the first time. Choice is the big moment. She must choose to act. Agreeing to act will force her from her comfort zone into an emotional and scary situation. The step into the unknown is vital to the external and internal goal and launches the middle. MAKE HER REACT. 

Etc. 

So in a novel length I have more time for each of these scenes. In a short story I have to be creative to hit all the key points in only a few thousand words… which is actually really fun and I love the challenge. I like to break it up into chunks so that it keeps me focussed and forces me to be creative. In my short I'm working on right now I have a limit of 6000 words. I had to fit all the points above (all parts of the triangle) into 1500 words. It was tough! But like PP noted, the scenes had to hit all key points and I had to be creative in how to go about doing it.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 3, 2015)

Excellent points, Penpilot!


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 3, 2015)

FifthView said:


> Excellent points, Penpilot!



Aww shucks. Thanks. Just bouncing off the springboard you set up.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 3, 2015)

I discovered these ages ago and totally forgot about them until now. 

Amazing worksheets for planning rounded yet heroic characters. By Donald Maas. Part of his Writing the Breakout novel workbook. 

Worksheets for The Breakout Novelist | WritersDigest.com


----------



## psychotick (Nov 4, 2015)

Hi,

Came to this late and apologies if this has already been raised, but really does our MC need to be an everyman that everone cares about? The reason I say this, and came to this late, is that I've just sent down my first draft of my latest work to the editor a day ago, and the MC is no everyman at all. Some may find him cold. It's intentional. His back story explains this but is too long to go into here. Suffice to say he's been badly hurt in the past. If I've done it right he'll be seen by most as a good man in a bad place.

My point is that I want readers to sort of like him, though at the same time be a little disturbed by some of the things he does. There's one chapter where he tortures his little brother psychologically and takes pleasure in it. Again the back story explains his reasons for that and makes it understandable if still gross. I want them to root for him as during the book he slowly comes out of his shell, dealing with his past as he battles his enemies. But I don't want them to see him as this heroic white knight etc. Think more Dirty Harry with a background story. You root for him. You cheer when he kills another baddie. But there's not actually much about the character that you like save that he kills the baddies you hate more.

My point is that the MC doesn't have to be someone likeable. Someone you understand and maybe even feel a little sympathy for, will do just as well - I hope! 

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Helen (Nov 10, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> So I thought it would be helpful for us to collaborate and write a list of where we have seen 'save the cat' moments established early on in movies/fiction so that we can utilize those same strategies in our own writing, and therefore develop more sympathetic characters early on.



I don't think it's about "saving the cat" - which may well make your character likeable.

I think it's about the beliefs your character possesses which may mis/align to the audience's.


----------

