On Writing: Character Building

[resonant]

When I went back to work, I said to myself: OK, it's basically as if my scholarship money ran out before I quite finished my MFA. I've got to bring some money in, but getting the homework done still has to be a priority.

So, on a recommendation from someone in my romance writers' group, I've been reading Tami Cowden's The Complete Writer's Guide to Heroes and Heroines.



Initially I had a wildly negative reaction to the very idea of this book. What it does is divide all characters into eight male and eight female "archetypes" -- the Chief, the Crusader, the Waif, etc. And my first thought was, "Oh, great, it's a list of cliches I can choose from."

But I read through the whole list of "archetypes." (I can't seem to use such an exalted word without irony when we're talking about a list drawn from things like the Die Hard movies.) And then I read through the list of their various interactions. And I had to admit that (1) they allowed for quite a lot of complexity, and (2) every fictional character I could think of could be described, meaningfully if not comprehensively, with either a single archetype or a combination of two.

Real people can't, however, and this was a stumbling block for me for some time, because if they're simpler than real people, then they must be cliches, right?

Until finally I had what the Space Alien used to describe as "a blinding flash of the obvious," namely: Characters are different from people in the same way that plots are different from real life.

See, in real life, lots of things happen for lots of reasons, and some things happen for no reason at all. In a plot, though, most things happen, basically, because the character wants something and the world (on behalf of the author) wants to prevent her from getting it, right?

Well, in the same way, real people do things for lots of reasons, and they do some things for no reason at all. But characters, now -- characters are motivated either by one overriding desire that is in continual conflict with reality, or by two overriding desires that are in continual conflict with each other.

I've known for a long time that when you try to make real people into characters, they're ... fuzzy. Unfocused. And this explained why. Why I can only occasionally make characters out of people I know, and then only when I don't know them very well, but it's easy to make characters out of people I see in airplanes and people whose conversations I overhear at the coffee shop.

Fanfiction spoils you, in a way, because when you're working with other people's characters, some of these decisions have already been made for you.

The rigid gender breakdown of the book bugged me -- I realize that the writers are trying to be practical, but how can you possibly set up the Charmer (male) and the Seductress (female) and not even be tempted to analyze the differences between them in terms of sexual politics? How can you not make a note of the fact that the Librarian (female) and the Professor (male) are basically the same character except that the Librarian's secret inner passion is everyone's fantasy, while the Professor's secret inner passion apparently interests no one except slashers?

Semi-relevant story: The reason I went looking for this book in the first place is that I have a persistent problem with conceptualizing heroes who are appropriate for romances. I keep writing the kind of guys I find irresistible, and the people in the romance writers' group keep telling me that they read as gay.

I actually think it would be more accurate to say that, within the rather limited context of romance fiction, the guys I like read as women. They talk a lot, they're curious and intelligent and imaginative, they think before they act, and they don't require a whole novel's worth of conflict before they begin to treat the women as human beings.

Benton Fraser, for instance, would totally not make it as the hero of a romance novel. All that stuff with the score of a Mahler symphony? No amount of wavy hair and daring rescueage can make up for that.

Comments

[nestra.livejournal.com]

I've been culling through a lot of the series romance novels I have (what, I went through a phase, shut up), and I can't imagine how I ever made it through these books without my eyes rolling out of my head. Do you know any men who are in the habit of letting out "war whoops" as they "stake a claim" to their women? I don't, and I live in Texas. But obviously someone's eating it up, because it shows up in book after book.

I'm afraid the kind of guys I like to read about would read as gay too.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I went through a romance novel phase, too. In fact, I actually think I'm out of phase in terms of writing one -- if I'd started six years ago (which would be, yes, before I discovered slash), I would have had enough enthusiasm to have finished by now.

You know something else I used to adore before I discovered slash? Soft-erotic vampire stories. Used to really do something for me, and now they're just a head-scratcher. Evidently I was sublimating.

[halimede.livejournal.com]

And the fact that those guys, the geeky, responsive, nice ones are so very, very *rare* in romance novels (rarer than in real life, for goodness sake!) is exactly why I stopped reading them. And why I was instantly addicted to slash when I found it.

Could I possibly tempt you into starting a new genre? :)

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Rarer than in real life or on television/movies! I was counting the number of characters who were fine in TV/movies but wouldn't make it as romance heroes -- in addition to Fraser, there's Blair Sandburg and Daniel Jackson and most of the Buffy guys (with the exception of Angel, who'd be perfect) ... and, and, Sherlock Holmes, for heaven's sake!

Now, I admit that many of the guys I mentioned are the less-macho half of a buddy pairing, but still. Women like them. That's why they tend to cast them pretty.

Category romance is suffering economically, and I think one of the reasons is because it has these set formulas, and they're not changing as fast as the reading population is.

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

You had all sorts of smart things to say, and then I read this...

I keep writing the kind of guys I find irresistible, and the people in the romance writers' group keep telling me that they read as gay.

...and all my responses evaporated in a bout of giggling. *g*

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I told this to the spouse, and he said, "Man, that explains so much about who does and does not make passes at me."

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

Sounds like an interesting and potentially useful book - although I neither read nor write genre romance, it sounds as if at least some of it should carry over to other genres.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

It's not romance-specific -- in fact, it's actually intended for screenwriters.

I got it through interlibrary loan -- if you wanted to try it out and see if it worked for you, that would be a free way to do it.

[estrella30.livejournal.com]

It's funny because I used to read romance books ALL the time. Dozens of them. I couldnt get enough.

Then I started writing fic, and being more involved in fandom and slash,. etc, and now I cant make it through a CHAPTER of many things I used to read and love. It's just - you read and see things differently, I think, and like you said, the guys I want to read about aren't showing up in those books either.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Yes, me too! I was obsessed with them before I found slash. Wish I'd started writing mine back when I was actually interested. (The spouse says, "But you weren't ripe yet.")

There were always a few guys I liked -- the reliable writers were always in the minority. There are probably still some out there, but I haven't been keeping up. Alexandra Sellers used to write men I loved, but she's all in sheiks now. (How on earth do you spell that word?)

[neery.livejournal.com]

I actually think it would be more accurate to say that, within the rather limited context of romance fiction, the guys I like read as women. They talk a lot, they're curious and intelligent and imaginative, they think before they act, and they don't require a whole novel's worth of conflict before they begin to treat the women as human beings.

This is exactly why I can't stand to read romance novels. (Well, aside from the purple, but as my knowledge of the genre is rather limited, they might not all be as full of purple prose as the ones I know). I like my guys just like you described them here, but really the most important thing for me is that they treat women with respect, and most men in romance (well, in the limited amount I've read) usually don't. Give me a Benton Fraser over that any time.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I once read a romance in which the heroine's brother lost his truck in a poker game, and to win it back, he bet a weekend with his sister. The hero won it. And the heroine, rather than handing over the money to buy back the truck and then telling her brother that if he ever tried a stunt like that she'd have him arrested as a pimp, actually went. I couldn't believe it. I have a big problem with stories where the whole conflict hinges on the heroine having assertiveness problems.

[ellen-fremedon.livejournal.com]

I bet you could get a fascinating novel out of gender-swapping all the archetypes and throwing them together.

Possibly not a saleable romance novel, though :-(.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Half the female archetypes have an exact male equivalent, and many of the others have an approximate male equivalent. But it would be interesting to write, say, a female Swashbuckler with a male Waif.

Though I don't think you could have an adult male Waif. I personally don't even buy adult female Waifs, but apparently they're perenially popular.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

This is just fascinating. Thank you for your post.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad. I like to ramble on about whatever I'm reading, and I'm always hoping that someone will find it useful.

[dsudis.livejournal.com]

I was just rereading a favorite romance novel(la) the other day, and it kept talking about how no woman had ever satisfied the hero's desire. Repeatedly, and in exactly those terms. No women. Even knowing he was going to wind up happily married off to the feisty virginal redhead, I was thinking, "So, how about giving the guys a try, then?"

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

[laughing]

[amalthia]

I used to love romance novels until I found slash....your essay may explain some of what happened to my interest...I just assumed the male characters were chauvinistic pigs and I couldn't imagine why anyone would fall in love with them.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too! The men in romances are much less varied than the men in real life (or even in television and movies), and eventually I get tired of that same old Lonely Powerful Bastard.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Forgive my ignorance, but have you already published original fiction? It's sad to read that even in your romance writer group, the rules for publishing seem to apply, and if there's anyone I'd love to read some OF from it'd be you. But I already noticed with other slash writing friends in the nanowrimo that they suddenly wrote towards the necessary plot points and character traits I knew and refused to read in mainstream romance. I am not surprised though I guess I'm still stupidly hoping, and when Minette Walters also said that you have to be unique to make it as a writer, for a moment I guess I hoped again.

[raine-wynd.livejournal.com]

My impression - and I may be wrong - is that one of the reasons to join a writer's group was to get help with adhering to the "rules of publication." The vast majority of romance novels being published today -- at least the ones I see -- are "category romance novels", for which there's a very definite "formula" to the style of story being written. It doesn't mean that you have to stop being unique to make it as a writer, it just means that you are likely going to be marketing your work in a possibly more difficult arena.

[raine-wynd.livejournal.com]

One of the things I learned years ago when I built very realistic characters is that, at some point, you have to choose which characteristics are most important to focus on in order to tell the story, if you're going to write anything that's driven by your characters more than the plot. If you're going to write a plot-driven story, then perhaps it's not as necessary to flesh out your characters as fully. Either way, it sounds like you may need to give your characters a bit more justification in their backgrounds so they sound like the guys you know/want. (It may also be that your writing group hasn't known anyone like the guys you describe, which is why they're reacting the way they are.)

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Well, they're not saying they're not plausible as guys. They're saying they're not plausible as romance novel heroes, which is a much more limited (not to say trite) category!

[gurrier.livejournal.com]

the people in the romance writers' group keep telling me that they read as gay.

Hee! Actually, many heroes in romance novels read as gay to me, in a Village People sort of way. They over-play the maleness, and career is such a big part of the character description. Cowboy, Indian, construction worker ...

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Hee! I never thought of that, but you're right -- naturally the more a guy is into masculinity, the more gay he's going to seem.

[fenris_wolf0]

Just to throw a monkey's wrench in the works, what do you think of Lois McMaster Bujold's books? She herself says that she wrote them as romance novels and was quite surprised of their reception as scifi books.

In that light, one has to admit that most of her stories have a classical romance novel structure, especially the first one, 'Shards of Honor'.

The main character is female but the main romantic interest does not seem typical. Then again, 'Ethan of Athos' is really the mirror image of the same type of story with a male protagonist...

Opinions? Anyone? Bueller?

[persephone-il.livejournal.com]

I don't know. None of the Miles books strike me as romance-y - Shards of Honor, definitely, and Barrayar too to a lesser extent, but the other ones? Definitely space opera.

As for Ethan of Athos... Possibly. It does have that "protagonist is attached to someone who doesn't treat them right, encounters a Mysterious Stranger and elopes with him"-vibe. Not to mention the virginal-ish thing Ethan has. On the other hand, while Ethan of Athos was all about sexual orientation, it had very little actual sexuality in it, and all of it was pretty understated (this is actualy my favorite thing about the book - this approach to sexuality just suits Ethan so well), which is pretty unlike the romance genre. I mean, we don't even get an onstage kiss, which is more-or-less necessary.

Though you wouldn't believe how relieved I was that the book ended the way it did. I was certain that Bujold was going to hettify Ethan into a romance with Quinn, and while I adore her... No. Just no.

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

Oh, very interesting! I think a lot of people understand that plots are different from real life, but don't make the connection that characters are different from real people.

the Professor's secret inner passion apparently interests no one except slashers

Hee!

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I made the connection for the first time today!

And you wouldn't believe how many of my favorite characters fall into the Professor category. Rodney McKay, Blair Sandburg, Severus Snape ...

[randomblade.livejournal.com]

that's interesting. I've been thinking about writing my thesis about these kinds of character archetypes and basic romantic novel plot structure. It looks like this lady got there first. Would you recommend buying this book?

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Hm. I have mixed feelings about reccing it. If you're interested enough in the subject to have considered it as a thesis, I'd definitely say it's worth reading, but I think one read would probably be enough, so if it were me, I'd try getting it through the library.

[pun.livejournal.com]

Characters are different from people in the same way that plots are different from real life.

That is an excellent insight. Thank you!

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I"m so glad I'm not the only one who didn't already know that!

[mergatrude.livejournal.com]

I actually think it would be more accurate to say that, within the rather limited context of romance fiction, the guys I like read as women.

This bit jumped out at me, a little more than the rest, and it immediately put me in mind of a thread a couple of years ago in which cesperanza (I think) talked about how slashing a pair of characters may be a desire to recover our own female friendships. It makes me think that maybe, when we reach a certain point in our own evolution, what we desire from a mate is that same interaction we get from that type of close friendship: respect, a basic understanding of the constraints and freedoms of being a woman in our society, being on the same wavelength, to an extent, if you like. A particular kind of equality, which a typical romantic hero is not in a position to participate in, given the requirements of 'hero-dom.' I'm an ex-romance reader, and enthusiastic slash reader for precisely that reason - the potential for real equality between the partners, both internally and externally to the relationship. (I should qualify that by 'equality' I mean 'balance', rather than a more pedantic interpretation that both partners can do the dishes and change the oil in the car.)

Thanks for making my brain tick over.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I read that post about female friendship. I can see it, though it doesn't really work that way for me -- a lot of the 'zing' in slash, for me, comes from men having to exercise courage to act in ways that the culture forbids. To be tender with each other, protective of each other, instead of being forced to constrict their relationships with other men and focus all their tenderness and protectiveness on women.

I do like the balance and equality, though. And, oddly, to me protectiveness is more moving when the protected person is strong. I mean, when a man is protective of a woman, it's a little less of a pure pleasure for me to read, because I'm always aware of the real ways she could be hurt.

(Of course, this is an ordinary woman I'm talking about; protectiveness towards, say, Buffy or Xena would probably get to me just as protectiveness toward a man would.)

[crysothemis.livejournal.com]

Oooh, I totally agree about only being able to make acquaintances into characters. People you know well just don't work at all, for all of the reasons you describe. Acquaintances can be fun, though . . .

And have I mentioned that I gobble up your musings on writing like a castaway at a smorgasbord? I've always thought archetypes were a bunch of hooey, but you've made a fascinating case for them.

Especially since I agree about the plot : reallife as character : realperson analogy.

So, um, thanks.

And I haven't read any romances in a while, but I once spend a summer of my misspent youth working my way through my local library's collection. I seem to recall a certain tendency for character types to come and go in the genre, like fads. You could tell if a book was recent or five years old by whether the hero was a seasoned, arrogant man of the world, or a more sensitive, serial-monogamous type. (This was in the mid-80s.) It sounds like the pendulum has swung back (maybe a few times), but that doesn't mean the current favored archetype will be popular forever . . .

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's fun to write about acquaintances. I couldn't write about, say, my mother or the spouse (or myself) without deciding I was just going to abstract this trait out of the whole and use it to grow a whole new character from.

I'm so glad the writing stuff is as interesting to read as it is to write!

When I was in college (mid-80s, too) I did a sociology project on touch in romance novels. Looking back, it wasn't as scientific as it could have been, since I didn't understand the different lines and was thus comparing apples to oranges (or at least Granny Smiths to Cortlands), but the interesting thing I discovered was that the huge majority of the touching, in those particular books, was not romantic or sexual but coercive.

I would imagine that's changed a lot since then -- I don't remember it from my most recent romance binge in the '90s.

[j-bluestocking.livejournal.com]

I've always tended to look at my favorite characters in terms of their archetypes. Archetypes will behave according to certain patterns in an overall way, but obviously what makes them fun in the end is taking the archetype and fleshing out an individual, eccentric person from it. But the reader can sense, even unconsciously, the power of the archetypal engine behind it, and it grabs their attention.

I do think that romantic male leads can get away with a lot of markers that might read as gay if they're (1) funny and (2) have some sort of history of physical bravery.

Similarly, if I'm writing a character I consider a hero, and I give him, say, a dominatrix, I make sure I also give him a gun and some mean streets to walk down.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

In answer to the accusation that archetypes would make all the characters alike, the book named off a number of characters who would fit the Professor archetype, just for comparison. Spock, and Data, and Sherlock Holmes ...

I do think that romantic male leads can get away with a lot of markers that might read as gay if they're (1) funny and (2) have some sort of history of physical bravery.

That's interesting. I believe it, too. I keep wanting to write intellectuals, scholars. Maybe I need to make them scholars on the Indiana Jones model.

[ardent-muses.livejournal.com]

I have this book too, and I haven't quite decided what to do with it. One thing that's been useful for me is to identify which archetypes are most like my characters and to see if there are pieces of that archetype I'm not using -- and why. In the case of this particular piece -- which I'd like to say I'm writing but I'm actually just stressing about writing -- two of the characters are very much aspects of me. It's helpful to keep the archetypes (Best Friend and Crusader) in mind so those characters don't just degenerate (heh) into a confusing, undifferentiated mess.

Not sure that makes sense. In any case, I wish you luck with the book. :)

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

identify which archetypes are most like my characters and to see if there are pieces of that archetype I'm not using -- and why.

Now that's an excellent idea. Because sometimes there's a really good reason, but other times I find I'm just avoiding the full expression of some trait that follows logically from some other trait, and I don't even know why.

It's helpful to keep the archetypes (Best Friend and Crusader) in mind so those characters don't just degenerate (heh) into a confusing, undifferentiated mess.

Yeah -- that's a better way of putting what I meant when I said 'fuzzy.'

[celli]

I keep getting a romance novel every once in a while, just to see if I can like them again...and even the authors I used to like, just, no. I hear they're getting more and more pressure not only to conform, but to conform with insane deadlines, so I suppose that's it. *sigh*

The ones I do still keep buying, though, are Regencies. I think because I can accept alpha men better if they're in a time period that requires alphaness.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I find historical alphaness somewhat less annoying than contemporary alphaness, too -- not so much because of the demands of the time period, I think, as because the alphaness of an ancient Greek or a Regency man is unlikely to remind me of some asshole who used to call me "sugar."

[tesseract-5.livejournal.com]

hmmm... In romance novels, yes, the characters are stereotypes by necessity. There is a classic opposites attract, struggle, make mad love, and find understanding.

However, in fiction real characters are amazingly complex and interesting -- read anything by Jonathan Franzen or Jonathan Lethem

I can't accept that book's premise.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

For me personally, I don't think I'd be thinking in these terms if a character was already working for me -- if the person felt fully alive, was active, seemed to have a reason for doing things. But if a character isn't working, I think this way of thinking could be useful in figuring out why.

Bujold heroes

[wordwitch.livejournal.com]

Actually, there's an analysis of Bujold's writing that points out that Miles is rather thoroughly coded as female.


© 1998 Sylvia Kelso

And ... *ahem* ... do please remember that Hero is a woman's name ....

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I really am going to have to read Bujold soon, aren't I?

Here via daily_snitch

[parallactic.livejournal.com]

To paraphrase Mark Twain: Fiction has to make sense, unlike real life. So that means no random things happening in terms of plot, or whole stretches of time where nothign happens, and it also means that the character has to make *sense*. I don't think there's anything harmful about archetypes, but you'd have to flesh them out, give little contradictory traits (but not too much), and give them some motivations.

I remember how I was in another book fandom, where the romance genre got brought up, with lots of back and forth arguing. I tried some romance genre recommendations, and they didn't quite take. I liked one or two books, but didn't think much of the others. Nowadays, I wouldn't even be able to get through a romance, since I'm going through a phase where I want plot.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

it also means that the character has to make *sense*.

Yeah. And sometimes a character makes sense because they're familiar ("Oh, yeah, in a movie this one would be played by Tom Hanks"), but sometimes it's just because certain traits seem to cluster -- or certain flaws are the flipside of certain virtues.