A Thin Line Between Loyalty and Boring. The Value of Conflict Between Supporting Characters

Image from comicbook.com

I’m making my way through my TBR pile, and I noticed something in a book that drew my attention. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s probably not a good thing. I’ll keep things vague because there’s enough bad pub out there regarding books, and I’m not in any way trying to bash anyone. However, we can look at what some people do and make notes.

We have a  main character who has a sidekick. This sidekick is loyal and steadfast. My argument is this character might have reached the point to where that steadfastness is not only hard to believe, but has become boring because no matter what the main character puts that sidekick through, the character simply keeps being this amazingly helpful, understanding person.

While I’ve recently come to believe that conflict in stories is a must, and I think authors should find as many opportunities for conflict as possible, I’m not in any way saying there needs to be some sort of fight scene or argument in every scene. Sometimes you need tension. Sometimes you need support. The thing is though, no one can be stalwart and reliable 100 percent of the time.

From a human perspective, even lifelong friends get frustrated with one another. My brother-and-I are such close friends and so well regarded, that family members have on occasion asked one of us what we wanted and then bought it for the other.  When I go shopping, I just buy something I really want and give it to him. That doesn’t mean we’ve never fought. From that same perspective, friendships are tested through adversity. The point in live isn’t to always agree and support each other.  Support is a thing, but support doesn’t always imply, helping or (more importantly) rolling with whatever the MC wants.

From a writer’s perspective, any author should be seriously worried when character reactions or actions become predictable. Predictable characters are boring, and boring characters lead to unread books.

Disagree?  Let’s take a look at some of the most famous “friends” in fiction or entertainment:

Let’s get the obvious out of the way.  Didn’t we all see Civil War? I mean, the movie made metaphorical-astro-bucks in theaters. Wasn’t that story (in movies and comics) all about putting allies at odds? That sort of conflict takes this analogy a little farther than I want though.  What about the most loyal sidekick ever?

Image from writingishardwork.com

Samwise Gamgee: The guy tagged along with Frodo through everything. Some may Sam is the actual protagonist of the story.  while I think he was the hero, he wasn’t the protagonist. The protagonist in any story is the one who has a clear goal and encounters obstacles. The main goal of Lord of the Rings? Destroy the ring. Yes, Sam just wanted to protect his friend, but it’s not as neat as those wearing fond remembrance glasses think. For starters, Sam didn’t hear about the tale and shout, “Frodo can’t go unless I do!”  In fact, he was caught eavesdropping and ordered to follow Frodo.  The very beginning of their journey wasn’t based on friendship and support; it was based on Sam being yanked into this mess because of being nosey.

Yes, Sam was stalwart through perhaps 95% of the whole story, but there was rising conflict and an eventual clash of wills and break-up. Sure it was short lived, but Sam and Frodo argued about Gollum, which ended in Sam saying he can’t support this path. Yes, he returned, but that return as all the more heroic because the audience understood and believed how frustrating it would be.

So writers, I’m not saying the friends or sidekicks of the story need to argue at every page or end up on opposite sides of the conflict, but no one real or fictitious, can walk in the shadow of an MC and not encore some of the emotional strain, turmoil, and resentment the MC encounters.

Writers should be aware of what the MC is putting that sidekick through, and respect that those challenges have a toll on that friend. Every Robin ever has had some major conflict with Batman. Sometimes it was a conflict to earn a place beside him, and sometimes it was a more literal conflict. No one liked Jason Todd until he came back and tried took on Batman.

Image by Dragoninstall taken from agrimarques.com.

There’s another side. There are characters who get boring for the opposite reason. They almost never seem willing to support or help out that MC.  Mat Cauthon was a very hot and cold character for me.  I frankly resented him sometimes for how quickly he was ready to abandon Rand and how stubborn he was about pretty much doing anything. I understand part of this was an aspect of his arc and his fatal flaw, but he infuriated me, and there were times when I just wasn’t interested in him because I didn’t want to read another ten pages about how he wanted to avoid the situation. That said, I absolutely bawled when he mentioned a certain prank from way back in Eye of the World (I’d really appreciate anyone who remembers what that animal was by the way. I can’t seem to recall it. Might be time to read that series again.)  Mat ended up working for me because he inevitably was loyal. He fought it every step of the way, but he did come through in the end.

Consider this as you write. Tension and conflict, even between the closest characters, can make that relationship stronger.

Thanks for reading,
Matt

 

The Symbiotic Relationship Between Heroes and Villains

Adam over at Write Thoughts commented on my blog about “traditional” vs “Flawed” heroes, and he got me thinking about one of the more traditional relationships in stories that are dwindling these days (but still out there).

All images copyright free and available on Pixabay.

Do stories need good villains? What makes a good villain? This is something I’m actually pondering as I start thinking about other projects (a post which you’ll all see on Saturday).

The first thing I thought of, however, was the relationship that heroes and villains have in stories. I think there are a lot of stories in which the relationship becomes a plot in itself, and that inspired this post.  So let’s talk about a few of the more historic relationships:

Batman and The Joker: Batman is a hero who’s seemingly one bad day away from crossing the line, and The Joker seems to be the man who wants to push him over the edge. One of the things that makes Batman so compelling to me is his refusal to kill, especially in regard to Joker. What fascinates me most in this regard is that by being the man Batman refuses to kill, The Joker then becomes Batman’s very salvation.

I’ve been open about how I’m not a fan of DC, but the character I’ve always had the most interest in is Batman, and his relationship with The Joker is probably the most compelling aspect of the character. This was never more relevant than in The Killing Joke. It’s way darker than I would have liked, but it still shows that endless battle. This relationship is about temptation to me. I honestly think The Joker wants Batman to kill him, if only to show that every man could be brought below his morals.

 

Superman and Lex Luthor: I’m neither trying to go exclusively DC or comics for that matter, but this relationship is the absolute best example of this very phenomena. They are polar opposites. One has the power to do whatever he wants and doesn’t for the sake of who he wants to be and the people he cares about. The other has no physical power, yet still does whatever he wants because he doesn’t care about anyone. It’s just too perfect to leave out. I’ve had a lot of talks with friends about Smallville. Say what you want about the series as a whole, but I stand behind the first three seasons because that relationship and Lex’s progression into villainy was outstanding. Again, I’m not saying it was a great show for all its seasons, but if you want to study a relationship plot, watch that one.

In terms of comics, this is the most used technique. Xavier and Magneto. Wolverine and Sabertooth. Spider Man and the Green Goblin (or pretty much any of his villains). In terms of this relationship, comics are fish in a barrel.

Yes, I could mention a certain boy who lived, but I’ve seen a lot of people talk about him lately, and I want to give others a different point of view.

Abraham Setrakian and The Master: Before it was a TV show, the Strain was fascinating trilogy that took a horribly overdone idea and found a twist that I could get behind. This relationship is particularly fascinating because Setrakian is the obsessed killer in this. The Master is the aloof over powerful being. You could call it an inversion of Superman and Lex Luthor, and add a desire to kill, and you wouldn’t be far off. This relationship, however, brings a particular point to my argument.

In today’s world of literature, there aren’t many hero-villain relationships that are nearly as co-dependent as those found in comics. Like I said above, it’s fish in a barrel in comic books, but I have 312 books loaded on Goodreads (which is still much lower than the actual number of books I’ve read) and I had trouble finding examples in literature. Where are the man vs man conflicts? There are some subplots (Perrin vs Slayer comes to mind). But in high fantasy, the plots are larger than life.

I think this observation presents an opportunity for a creative author to bring a comic mainstay into literature. I’m not saying this plot device doesn’t exist at all in literature, but it’s not common in science fiction or fantasy. The plucky hero is always facing something larger than life. If you disagree, feel free to comment below.

One explanation to this might be the scope of the story. Comics can handle that sort of plot because they’re serial by nature. The fans can tune in next week (TV) or month (comics) and see that battle. But I find that odd because those conflicts can (and for me they do) get old. As fascinating as Batman V Joker is for me, I’m just annoyed by now. But imagine a conflict between characters who are complimentary in nature and symbiotic by design? I find that idea fascinating.

Thanks for reading,

Matt

The Line in the Sand: Discussing the “traditional” hero in comparison to the “flawed” hero

If Quintessential Editor could use a few of those greens he consumes so readily to help apply better terms, that would be amazing, but when discussing the contrast between the traditional hero and the flawed hero, I felt inspired (thanks Rough and Ready Fiction!) to offer a few case studies and offer my thoughts and opinions.

There are a lot of sources that describe a lot of hero archetypes.  The reason I didn’t narrow down to one source is more because I don’t feel there’s a TON of consistency out there, so I’ll use the terms that make the most sense to me and you can decide on what terms you like best.  I’m more interested in discussing my thoughts than I am determining the best terms in this regard.

The Traditional Hero:  He’s the nice guy’s nice guy.  He’s the white knight.  The man of principle.  He’s the example to follow.  If you had a daughter, he’s the man you’d want to date her.

Case Study:  Odd Thomas.  I won’t lie.  Odd Thomas was a very influential part of my writing The Journals of Bob Drifter.  He’s such a great character.  He’s honest, doesn’t cuss a lot. Heck, he even uses “sir” or “ma’am” when addressing people.  He’s forced to act by circumstances, and sometimes he must do things he doesn’t want to do, but he’s a good guy, and no one can deny that.  Bob is a traditional hero.  He’s honest.  He’s soft spoken.  He’s even a little shy around women.

I’m more drawn to these heroes because a part of me honestly believes that fiction should strive to show humanity what it CAN be.  This doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate flawed heroes, enjoy books about flawed heroes, or write stories about them.  When stretching to find new levels of skill, one must try new things, but my favorite books all have more traditional heroes.

The Flawed Hero:  He’s the rebel.  He’s the hero who’s a drunkard or killer.  He’s the man who’s seen stuff in life and is just trying to get by.  He’s the man you’d shoot if he showed up to ask your daughter out.

Cover for Perfect Shadow used for review and educational purposes under Fair Use doctrine.

Case Study:  Durzo Blint from The Night Angel Trilogy.  I love him.  He’s a great character, but he’s a jerk.  He’s a whore-mongering, drinking killer.   His motives are selfish, and his moral code is just about as messed up as it can be.

These characters (to a degree) feel more real to readers.  They’re more relatable.  So I don’t know how often I’ll try to psychoanalyze humanity as a whole, but I’m going to step out on that limb in this case.  Most people, myself included, feel flawed.  Everyone has “hot buttons” because those issues spark in people that which they most dislike in themselves.  Where a traditional hero provides an example to follow, flawed heroes show readers it’s okay to not be “perfect” because you can still, and always, do something worthy of the term hero.

Let’s look at this in practice (an point out my hypocrisy at the same time):  Superman vs Wolverine.

Yep…I’m going the comic book route.  Superman fights for truth, justice, and the American way.  Wolverine is a killer.  Now, based on my above comments, you’d think I like Superman, right?  Wrong.  I hate Superman.  But in this we find the complexity of art.  I don’t hate superman because he helps old ladies cross the street or reminds people that “flying is still statistically the safest way to travel.”  I hate Superman because he’s TOO perfect.  He’s (arguably) the most powerful character in comics.  I don’t mind a person who has all these morals.   What I mind about Superman is the fact that I just don’t ever feel he’s in danger.  He’s not one for whom I worry because I don’t think he’ll ever be taken down.  I don’t read the comics too much, but I hear he’s been “flawed” in some regard.  I like Wolverine because (immortal thought he may be), I’ve seen him lose fights.  I’ve seen him fail.  And failure is a key part of gaining sympathy.

It’s the setbacks characters face that create the tension readers feel when they try anything.  These setbacks don’t have to mean failure, but they are important.

So my problem with what I feel is the overabundance of flawed heroes isn’t people genuinely have flaws.  It’s that some readers argue there aren’t nice guys out there.  I served for 10 years in the Navy.  Some of the kindest, most “Superman” type people I’ve ever met (Quintessential Editor among them) are Sailors.  Corey will give you the shirt off his back while asking if you need a pair of pants.  He’ll give everything he can for people in general.  He’s capable of right and wrong like any human, but if I have a son one day, I’d be pretty proud if he grows up to be like Corey.

I have other friends.  I have friends that my other friends ask why they’re still my friends.  I obviously won’t name one.  But if I were to judge people and withhold my friendship because they’ve done things I don’t like, I’d be pretty short on friends.

So what’s my point?

The most times I hear arguments regarding these two types of heroes, they’re arguing principles when what I think they’re really discussing is the unreal reaction to events.  This was a major point of discussion with my editor about Sal in Caught.  He goes through some seriously bad stuff, and just keeps plugging along heroically.  At least, he did in the last draft of the book.  In this draft, the issues he faces causes him to doubt himself.

I don’t actually care what type of hero anyone writes, but MOST readers want realism.  They want character who reacts to situations.  Let’s do another case study.

(SPOILER ALERT FOR DOCTOR WHO..YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED)

Doctor Who:  In the episode entitled “The Doctor’s Daughter,” the doctor meets, grows to care for and loses a genetic clone of himself that seems like a “daughter.”  The fanboy in me chuckles a bit because I actually remember the doctor’s initial reaction to Jenny (I believe the word “abomination” was used, but I could be wrong).  Tennant is (from my informal, passive observation) commonly regarded as the “best” modern doctor.   He still does the “good guy” thing in the end.  He shows mercy.   He’s still the better man, but the viewers see his temptation.  They see his desire to do wrong, and he chooses to do right.  THIS is what makes characters compelling.  It’s seeing characters tested that make them sympathetic.  But test a character too much, and the reader will become annoyed.   The writers’ skill in having the doctor do “good” and “bad” is what makes him feel real in a lot of cases.  Tennant’s doctor is the greatest example of this.  He’ll be the better man when Jenny dies, but then kill a bunch of people if they don’t heed his warning.

(SPOILER OVER)

I shifted Sal’s timeline not because he was “too good” a guy, but because he receives a lot of negative stimulation without any of those events affecting his personality.  I still feel strongly it’s okay to have characters who “don’t break.”  Those characters who never shift their morals because those morals define them are important.  Ultimately, Sal’s the same “person” he was in every draft of Caught.  But his responses to what he goes through shifted to account for those events.

I think some people like “flawed” heroes because it’s easier to believe a flawed man can do right on occasion than it is to believe a man can swear never to kill, no matter how many sidekicks, women, friends and associates die because you refuse to kill a man.  (I’m looking at YOU Batman!)

So let’s talk about the caped crusader while we’re at it.  Am I mad at Batman for never killing Joker (at least he didn’t when I last glanced at the DC universe. Again, I’m not a fan of that industry)?  If you want REALISM, how does a mass murderer commit any crime and not inevitably be put to death by the legal system?

(NOTE)  Look, I’m not here to start political debates.  I won’t share my opinion on the death penalty any more than I’ll approve comments which do the same.  This is a writing blog.  The above comment was made because the death penalty exists regardless of the existence or absence of my approval.

What we should strive for as authors are AUTHENTIC characters.  If you want a white hat, help old ladies cross the road, shining smile, never lies character, go for it.  If you want a drinking, abusive, thieving character, go for it!  But when SOMETHING happens to SOMEONE, that person reacts.  I think readers have more problems with authenticity than moral values of characters.

What do you all think?  Which do you all prefer?  Feel free to throw your comments below.  (For the record, Doctor Who is a FLAWED character.  Come on people, even if you know the events of “The Day of the Doctor” he still knowingly killed an entire species.)

Thanks for reading,

Matt