Creating Original Characters

This morning I was reading the Sunday newspaper and various magazines that come with it, and found an article on sweet food. Everything from the cake shops Melbourne is famous for to city walks that take in gourmet food shops. Maybe it was because I'd just had breakfast but somehow the cupcakes and chocolate fountains looked very unappetising. Why would you eat a cupcake just for the super-thick icing? Why would you walk around the city just to eat yourself silly on chocolate or cream cakes? Before you throw something at me, I realise that most people wouldn't have a problem with either of those things!

Then I got to thinking about characters - one who couldn't stop eating cupcakes and chocolate, and one like me who couldn't be bothered. The big question is Why. If I was a fictional character, I could tell you (if it was part of the story) that I grew up on a farm, hence my aversion to cream. And that a long time ago, to earn extra money, I spent three weeks making hand-crafted chocolates and it took me five years before I could face chocolate again. Just the smell made me feel ill. And even now, chocolate and sweet stuff are not my things.

Why can't that other character stop eating chocolate and cupcakes? Is she compensating for something she's missing? Is she lonely? Is she addicted to sugar? (I know a couple of people like this.) If she was my character, I'd need to know all of that, and more. I'd want to know how she feels about the people who stare at her, how her mother treats her, if she's married. Was she a fat kid? (Been there.) As for my anti-sweets character - is she anorexic? Is she diabetic? Was she a fat kid? Was she Weight Watcher of the Year a while ago?

I confess I think about this stuff a lot, especially while watching TV. Nothing annoys me more than characters in TV shows who have no depth, who are just walking through the story like a cardboard cut-out. (OK, one thing annoys me more - my husband walking in halfway through a show and saying a character is stupid because he hasn't seen the set-up!!) British shows seem to do a great job of complex characters, ones with flaws and inner conflict. That's how we get more than just the plot - we get character arcs, and characters we empathise with.

At the moment, there is a new show on the ABC called Luther. He's been in trouble before the show starts, and things don't improve for him at all, but he is good at his job - police detective. He's the kind of guy who observes others very closely and can work them out, but can't work himself out. He's an uncomfortable character to watch, but you persevere in the hope he'll change and grow, just like you do with characters in a novel.

I also watched the last episode of The Bill (I haven't been a regular watcher, but it was the last). And marvelled at the way each character, in quite a large cast, was an individual. I had no idea of their names - it wasn't that important, really. It was more about how each one reacted to a horrific crime, and what they did next. It reminded me of another key element about characters - their need or lack. I often talk to students about "what your character really needs or wants" and forget about the other half of the equation - what is the lack inside your character? I'll return to my current work-in-progress with that question to answer.

The Likeable Character

In the past week, the question has arisen several times about the main character of your novel - how likeable do they have to be? Is it possible to have an unlikeable mc? What will make your reader like your character from the first couple of pages? Is this important?
I'd say yes. Very important. It rates up there with voice and story questions. When someone picks up your book and reads the first couple of pages, what is going to keep them engaged? Voice and tone play a big part, and more particularly, creating confidence in the reader that you can tell a good story. Story questions create hooks - the reader wants to know the answers, wants to be intrigued.

But the character element is vital. We often talk about "going on the journey" with the main character, and how if the reader doesn't care about the mc, then they won't keep reading. How do you create the caring? An overly sarcastic narrator might put a lot of readers off. A wimpy, passive character may well do the same. We often read with the hope that events will change the character for the better, but we don't want to wait too long for the first positive signs.

Some of the character traits that personally put me off a book from the first couple of pages include: the whiny YA narrator who feels life is totally unfair and everything sucks; the character who is a total victim with not even a smidgin of guts showing; the twisted character who promises nothing but gore and blood and no empathy; the twee character for whom everything is full of light. Mostly I want to see some clue as to how this character is going to deal with the disasters the writer is going to inflict on them. Some sign of intelligence and gumption, even if it's only through thoughts at the beginning.

Which brings me to the book I'm reading right now. Reading so fast (because it's really good) that I'll probably finish it tonight and then be sorry I was such a glutton and couldn't slow down. It's The Two Pearls of Wisdom by Alison Goodman. (It's called "Eon: Rise of the Dragoneye" in the US, though why they'd want to create confusion with Eragon, I don't know.) The main character of this book is, firstly, a cripple. A boy who is about to compete with eleven able-bodied boys for the role of apprentice dragoneye.

What immediately engaged me with this book was that this character is no wimp. Despite obvious disadvantages, obvious fear and obvious lack of skills, we know straight away that Eon is not a wimp. He's going to give it his best shot. People are relying on him. And he's spurred on by the reality of what he'll be sent back to if he fails. He grits his teeth against the pain and keeps going. But most of all, Alison Goodman gives us a deep insight into his thoughts and emotions in such a way that Eon springs from the page and into our minds. We're on his side.

Then we very quickly discover that Eon is a girl. I'm not doing a big spoiler here - you're told this quite quickly, and then it becomes an even stronger reason to cheer for her. She really is going against all odds. No girl has ever even attempted to compete for the dragoneye. But she has special talents that you know will either make all the difference or be the death of her. The stakes are raised to higher and higher levels, and each time it serves to connect you more to the character.
Even if you insist you don't like fantasy (and this is based on Chinese mythology more than anything), you might want to read this just for the characters.

Moving the Story Forward

One of the hardest things to get right in a novel is the pacing. Going all the way through at break-neck speed doesn't work - you don't give the reader any breathing space and after a while, the constant high drama is like a plateau to skim across. You don't want a reader to skim. But taking it slowly and developing everything in depth all the time doesn't work either. The reader keeps nodding off. The obvious answer is that the dramatic scenes take longer and the reflection scenes are shorter. But it doesn't neatly work like that either.

Every story has its own pace. The pace will vary, it will soar and dive, it will increase to top speed and slow for thinking space. So how do you work out speed and slowness for yourself? I've been doing some research on this and a few important points have emerged. One is your main character, and who they are. A slower, more thoughtful character will create a story that reflects who they are (think Alistair McCall-Smith's series with Mma Ramotswe, set in Botswana). A forceful character who leaps in before thinking will make for a higher-paced, more breathtaking story.

The trap with characters, I have found, is this: mostly we create people who are going to grow and change in the course of the story. That's natural and desirable. But it is very easy to end up with a story where things happen to the character all the time, so that the plot is pushing the character and directing her, instead of the other way around. It was something I hadn't considered in depth before, until I was trying to rewrite a novel and felt like I was stuck in mud. Except it wasn't me, it was my character.

Lots of exciting, suspenseful things were happening in the story, but they were happening TO her, not being caused or pushed along by her. It's a fundamental error, and I think it is very easy to fall into if you are not aware of it. The trap, I think, lies within the "grow and change" principle - we write about all these things that occur and how the character reacts and what they learn, but really they are learning by example, not learning by getting out there and taking risks and ACTING, rather than reacting.

This quote is from Cynthia Lord's blog - she is also revising right now, and asking some important questions as she goes along. This is the first on her list:

Can I change this plot development so it's the main character's idea? Or a result of her actions? to keep the main character driving the story. Not having the story happen to her--have it happening because of her.

It's a handy reminder that I want to keep on a piece of paper in front of me as I work through yet another draft. What's your favourite (current) revision question?

Do You Love Your Characters?

I read an interesting post this morning (while trundling around the net, procrastinating about marking assignments) that talked about "liking" and enjoying your characters, especially your viewpoint/main character, rather than being "in love" with them. The writer said she thought being in love with your character can blind you to how you are writing about them - you might be having a wonderful time, getting them to do all sorts of enjoyable things in the story, but actually end up writing drivel. In other words, fun for you but what about the poor reader?

It's an interesting thought. How often are we told we must love our main character, know them inside out, want to tell their story, etc etc. Writers talk about how the characters "just took over the story and I had no control over them", and that certainly does happen, but I do believe your subconscious comes into play at that point. Your own suspension of disbelief (i.e. these are not real people) allows you to fully engage in what is possible for them. If you hold the characters at arms-length and manipulate them on the page, the "taking over" is not possible.

For me, the idea that being in love with your character can blind you to bad writing rings true. When I know a character well, but am not in love with them, I can see their flaws as well as their good points. I also like writing in order to find out more about them. Sometimes this happens in the novel, but often it happens in the extra writing. If I feel I'm not getting to grips with a character well enough, I'll free write about them, ask them questions, let them answer in their own voice. Free writing unlocks the subconscious element of character creation far better than the actual novel does, because you are not constrained by story. And it's the subconscious part that reveals things about the character that you didn't know you knew.

OK, so all this subconscious stuff sounds weird, or at least a bit suspicious. Try it for yourself. Free write a scene where you sit behind a desk and your character enters the room and sits on the other side. Ask them questions, and then free write their answers. The key is in the free writing - you do it fast, without stopping, without editing, and you keep going for at least twenty minutes. If you've never tried free writing before, make sure you stick to the rules. If you want to know more about it, Wild Mind by Natalie Goldberg is a great book.