Writing Characters the Reader Cares About….

[BWFoster78]

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]

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]

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…

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[kennyc]

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]

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…

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good points. I see the difference now.

 

[Penpilot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)