The Need For Pain: Why Happy Characters Are Boring

Greetings all,

First a few notes:  For starters, I have the files for the Sojourn in Captivity audio book. I’m reviewing them now. The (very early) results seem wonderful.

Next: My wife an I are officially trying to have a child. This required a surgery to reconnect her tubes (which had been done during her previous marriage). The surgery went well, and I’d just like to take a moment and thank God for that. She and I both truly wanted to have more children, and we’re grateful the door is open. Her recovery has us both growing (code word for frustrated, which is actually why I’m doing this topic today). She’s stir crazy, and my routine is shot. Her number one comfort is being outgoing and doing things, which she can’t. My number one comfort is routine and consistency, which is nonexistent when I’m working and running a house.

But I truly mean it when I say this helps us grow.  You see, I aspire to have a boring life. I love the idea that tomorrow will be just like today. (Not at all my wife’s idea of a good day, but in this case opposites attract).  It’s all fine and good for a person to like what he likes, but if we don’t experience pain, we don’t grow. No one wants to read about the guy who encountered no stress and overcame nothing.

When we encounter struggles, it changes us. Pain  helps us grow. No, I don’t look forward to it, but I’m better when it’s over. Our characters are the same way.

Image taken from A Wheel of Time Wiki for character study purposes under Fair Use Doctrine.

A lot of my favorite characters are characters who suffered plenty: Rand from Wheel of Time suffered a ton (as did my favorite character in that series, Perrin). I’d say these characters are the extremes in terms of my top three series ever. Still, all my favorite books (personally) feature characters who truly struggled.

Here’s the next part to why this is so important. The readers or viewers must believe the characters might fail. I often have playful (yet also serious) arguments with a friend of mine (Hi Terry!) regarding why I honestly don’t care for DC. The characters are too powerful.  They have near Olympian power. Sure, Marvel has some OP characters, but most DC characters are of a ridiculous power level. I’m not afraid for them. I’m not in the least bit worried they won’t win the fight or meet their goal. This makes the story boring. If you want readers interested in your story, you need to convince the reader that character might fail.  This is all the more difficult to do because most readers expect a happy ending. They anticipate that, so it’s such an art to instill an honest sense of fear of failure for the character.

The wife and I don’t hate Jodie Whittaker or her Doctor, but we really couldn’t get into her first season. Now, other than Matt Smith (who remains the greatest Doctor ever), I hated every first season of every doctor. I think the writers take time to figure out the new Doctor just like the new Doctor (in the story) takes a minute to figure him or herself out. But we couldn’t get into it. Then something occurred to me: She never lost. Yes, the grandma died (was it the first episode?), but there wasn’t a connection. In fact, I’m of the opinion that character was pretty expendable. Why? Guess:

She was happy.

Image taken from BBC.com for character study purposes under Fair Use Doctrine.

The only good thing a happy character can do in a story is die. They have no struggle, and therefore they have no interest. The most interesting thing that could happen is to see this wonderful, happy character die, thus causing all the other characters to become even more interesting as they try to adjust to life after happy character.

Most of my readers who I talk to during conventions often ask me about the characters who die. We talk about this a little. The one character I get the most (playful) anger with killing (no spoilers) was the character who was happy. But that character’s death shook the readers and gave them an emotional jolt. This loss affected not only the readers, but the characters around the the dearly departed.

So I had some interest, but then life got consistent for the Doctor. Then things got easy. I can think of a few instances when there was great opportunity for this Doctor to face true loss on a couple different stages, and the writers didn’t take the plunge. But you can only put Lois Lane on the train tracks so many times before the readers don’t even care anymore.  Sooner or later, that engine needs to plow over Lois, or the “act” gets boring. That’s what I feel happened with this latest season of Doctor Who.

So I wanted to throw out those ideas when I had a moment. Hopefully things calm down for me. (I really do appreciate growth, but I miss my routine something fierce right now, and my wife is going to go out of her mind if I can’t take her out next week.)

What do you all think? Do you have a story you realize you didn’t like so much for this reason? Do you disagree?

Let me know in the comments below.

Thanks for reading,

Matt

The Buffy Test

Greetings all,

Image taken from Wikipedia for character study. Please don’t sue me! So was the banner image.

So something I’ve been exposed to lately got me thinking about paranormal stories. I firmly believe Joss Whedon broke the mold for storytelling. I also believe Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the greatest TV show ever. So it’s only natural that any other story that comes anywhere near “Girl Takes on Evil” gets compared to Buffy.

But similarities can only go so far before it just feels too much like someone is taking the Buff formula far too literally. What are the aspects of a story that just scream “Buffy”?

1. Blonde hair: If your MC kills beasties, and she’s a blonde, you might want to think about working on the hair color. Now this is probably the smallest issue in terms of content, but it’s the most immediate in terms of visual stimuli. If you creep into a dark night and a blonde-haired woman pulls out a weapon, I’d bet metaphorical money the reader/viewer is going to think of Buffy and then compare your story to that show.
2. The trope: If you have a woman fighting anything evil, you’re probably already treading on that territory. Does this mean you can’t ever have a woman? Sure, but she probably should be … well … see #1. Still, any creator has to consider the standard against perceived imitators. If your story has that basic summary, you really need to challenge yourself. How is your story different?

3. 

   Image taken from SYFYWire.com. Pretty please don’t sue me!

   A potentially evil love interest: So why did I really hate Twilight? Honestly, because Buffy did it better. Way better! If your MC is feeling the forbidden love vibe, you’re channeling that same tension Whedon used to create the original teams (Team Angel vs Team Spike). (Tangent…anyone not Team Angel never paid attention to the show.) I don’t think anyone writing a story along the lines of #2 should take this step, it’s already too much.

4.  A love triangle: This isn’t such a bad thing in itself. Any good story needs conflict, and attraction to more than one character is a fairly good idea, unless, of course, those two opposing suitors happen to be evil or formerly evil. Even if just one of them is a bad boy looking for true love, you’re already setting yourself up to be compared to the standard.
5. A  Plucky Gang: Ensemble casts are great. They really expand the scope of a story. But if that cast revolves around a blonde demon slayer, guess whose territory you’re treading in?

6. 

   Image taken from Huntersandslayers.wikia.com. 

   A Homosexual Best Friend: Whedon received a lot of criticism for Willow’s sexual orientation. Now it’s the cool thing to do. I’m not speaking about who’s out there and what they’d like to read. I’m just pointing out that a lot of shows, books, and movies are jamming in homosexual characters into their plots to meet a demand. First, if the only reason you’re putting in someone of an alternative lifestyle into your story is to cater to that audience, they can probably tell, and it’s still offensive. Second, if you’re MC is already a blonde slayer of evil things, giving her a lesbian best friend is sort of on the nose.

So why this particular post? Well, I’m looking at a story about a blonde demon slayer who’s in love with a demon who she has to kill. She has a male friend who’s more like a younger brother and a lesbian best friend.

Is this story honestly bad? No. I’m only about a third of the way through it, but it’s OK. It’s just so much in line with all of what I think of as “the Buffy checkmarks” I stopped to wonder what they were and why I couldn’t get past it (or at least I haven’t gotten past it yet). To be clear, this story isn’t plot-point-for-plot-point a ripoff. It really isn’t, but, in my opinion, it certainly seems far too much like Buffy than not. (Maybe a touch of Ghost Whisper  thrown in.)

Stealing like an artist isn’t encouraged, it’s necessary. But those great stories should be launching points for new visions rather than templates for reproduction. This is the main reason I don’t like the slew of remakes out there in the world. We creators should challenge ourselves to push the stories we love in new directions. Change the dynamics. So as I type this, I also want to challenge myself (and other writers) to make sure they’re brutally honest with themselves.

How is your story different?

Thanks for reading,

Matt

 

Everyone is A Hero in His Own Mind, Even the Villain

Greetings all,

Image taken from thundercats-ho.wikia.com for study and education under fair use doctrine.

Do you remember 1980s cartoons?  A lot of them are being remade, but I remember a day when villains were just bad guys who did bad things. I’m still a fan of those villains in the right circumstance. Horror movies (most of them) follow that format still.

However, over the last, I’d say, ten years, readers and moviegoers have had a higher standard. They want sympathetic villains. Now, this isn’t exactly a “new” trend. I’d even admit that most great stories had sympathetic villains.  Now, I know I’ve talked about sympathy sliders, but in this case I honestly mean villains I understood and felt a connection to.

I feel this has become the standard. What I’ve tried to do is think about situations where the reader demands a connection to the villain as opposed to those situations where they don’t care so much.

This is honestly just me musing on the subject, and I’d be interested to hear your comments below.

My thesis: The more they see the villain, the more the reader wants to understand him.

Case studies:

Image taken from villains.wiki.com.

Jon Doe from Se7en. He’s the shadow in the dark. He’s the mysterious monster who we never even see until the last act of the movie. So when we finally come face to face, he’s a monster. That’s because this story is about Somerset and Mills. We get to know them. We care for them. A lot of mysteries follow this format (of course some don’t). The point is, I’ve never once talked to anyone about this movie and heard that person say, “that movie was terrible. I really couldn’t understand John Doe’s motivation.” That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, but we don’t see him a lot, so we really don’t care what his side is. We just want Mills to put that gun down.

As I think, I’d posit that this style is most common in mysteries and thrillers. When the capture of the villain is the main plot thread. Again, there are exceptions, but the point is you can have a huge hit with a villain no one understands, so long as we don’t have to keep interacting with him. Short fiction where the bad guy is one to be chased and captured seems acceptable.

This is less true with larger works. It’s rare in epic fantasy to have a villain who isn’t at least understandable.  But let’s take a look at two huge successes and see what distinguishes them.

The Lord of the Rings:

Image taken from lot.wikia.com.

Sure, we understand the motivation. Get the ring; rule the world. But it’s not like we find ourselves ever feeling for the great eye do we? Also note, that eye and all his minions have less than ten percent of the story. This does a few things. It amps up the mystery and the threat. In fact, Wheel of Time shows us that the more we see the villain, the less imposing they are. In Eye of the World, Myrddraal are just horrifying. But after a few more books, we’re not so afraid of them anymore. We only THOUGHT they were imposing, but the Forsaken! Sure, in books 2-5. Now what Jordan did with that problem is he made them more sympathetic. So the Myrddrall are just made to be minions. The Forsaken, however, begin to get personal chapters, strife and pain. I love the series, but I can admit this was a bit hit or miss. The point is, the reader learns about them, and there’s opportunity for some degree of understanding.

Here’s where I admit that I’m struggling to think of a case where the villain is known.  They’re out there, but it’s a challenge. The challenge is because while there is opposition to the main character, that opposition isn’t the main threat of the book. The main opposition isn’t seen much. The less we see them, the less we care (and I’d even argue want) to understand them.

I’m currently look at Best Fantasy Books HQ’s list of the best-selling fantasy series of all time, and I’d argue that while there is opposition to the main character, the main threat is still mostly unknown.

Image taken from harry potter.wikia.com.

Harry Potter: We don’t see that V guy (no way I’m trying to spell that name) in the flesh until the fourth book. Sure we know about him, but we don’t really build a bond do we? Was anyone I’m unaware of sitting there going, “Well, I really think he has an argument for why he should be in power”? Nope. Sure, we could argue some affection for Draco, and did anyone not cry when Snape said, “Always”?  But they weren’t “the main threat.”

Lord of the Rings:  Discussed above.

Chronicles of Narnia: Well, it depends on which book you talk about, but in the ones I can remember, that there “main villain” was pretty much only showing up when it was time for the showdown.

Wheel of Time: Discussed above.

Discworld: I’ve only read one book. I’m sorry folks. It just didn’t grab me.

A Song of Ice and Fire: Anyone on team White Walker? Yes, there are many evil, hateful people in that book, and we know their motivations. We even understand most of them. However, that Night King is THE bad guy, and no one has posted a single meme asking “why don’t we know more about why he’s trying to ruin the world?”

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: Luke, I believe, dies a hero. Kronos (the big bad) is there to scare people and get beat in the last book.

Inheritance Cycle: Murtagh is a tragic character, but he’s a victim and a pawn. Galbatorix? We saw him at the end for like, a second.

So, after careful consideration and research, I’ve formed a new thesis, especially when it comes to antagonists and big bads.

Conclusion: Fantasy sagas have two forms of opposition. 1) A sympathetic opposition. A character whom we feel something for as the series progresses. (Examples: Draco, Vader, Murtagh.) 2) a “big bad.” This is a force or evil we don’t see until the end unless it’s to threaten the hero and make him feel very small. (examples: Kronos, The Emperor, Galbatorix. Voldemort, (HEY! I spelled it right!))

I don’t feel this is an absolute. However, I do feel it is the standard. I once did a post about the symbiotic nature of heroes and villains, but those are in series and comics where the main conflict is the bond between those characters.

What are your thoughts?

Thank for reading,

Matt

 

 

 

 

Book Review: Creating Character Arcs by K.M. Weiland

This cover image was taken from Amazon for review purposes under fair use doctrine.

I’ve recently started eating more greens thanks to my friend the Quintessential Editor. (I’m pretty sure he recommended this book.) This book was something I read to help me with outlining more.

Creating Character Arcs: The Masterful Author’s Guide to Uniting Story Structure, Plot, and Character Development, does a few things that I’m a big fan of.

The first thing I’m a fan of is the case studies. Each arc description is summarized and supported with examples to help illustrate how such a plot plays out in different movies. I should explain that this book is a bit different from what I’d call plotting.

In plotting, you’re marking the key plot points and events in a story. This is so readers see progression in the overall narrative. I’d wanted to improve my development of characters as they progress through the plot points. This novel did that. Weiland breaks down three types of arcs: The positive change arc, the neutral change arc, and the negative change arc. She breaks negative change into three more I can’t recall off the top of my head. The case studies and benchmarks she provides are things I plan to pull out while outlining my next main project and editing whatever I’m working on. I think understanding these types of character arcs is a must for writers. How you feel about them and how you apply those thoughts is as unique as the storyteller in my opinion, but understanding them matters.

This image and the feature image were pulled from K.M. Weiland’s website for review purposes. As I’m trying to recommend her book, I’m hoping she’ll forgive the use of these images.

Another thing I’d like to highlight is the idea of “The Lie Your Character Believes.”  That resonated with me. I won’t go into it here because 1) I fear copyright and 2) I think authors, especially those who feel they struggle with outlining, should give this book a read. I actually listened to the audio edition, and that was super helpful for a guy like me.

I’m less inclined to be entirely beholden to some of the more rigid benchmarks. Weiland gives specific percentage marks for each point of the story. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I completely disagree, I just don’t know that I’d be that militant about where certain shifts in the story happen. What I will say is those benchmarks are great guides, but stories need a bit of leeway.

What I intend to do with this book and information is weave some of the elements of this book’s character plot points with my plotting.  This should keep the sense of progression my stories have (which I feel are solid) and give me a way to plan the emotional journey of my characters a little more carefully.

Creating Character Arcs is a great outlining tool that provides informative case studies for each type of arc. Authors or aspiring authors should pic this up and add it to their toolbox of story building tools. I’m a fan of “how-to” books that are this simple to understand and through in presentation. I can’t say enough about those case studies!

Thanks for reading,

Matt

 

I Received the Blogger Recognition Award!

I was looking at comments on the WordPress universe and was thrilled to learn I’d won the Blogger Recognition Award!

The classiest of classy gents, J.J. Azar was kind enough to award me this distinguished honor. It’s honestly one of the most flattering things in the world to have someone form your community feel you’re deserving of something even resembling recognition. As you’ll see below, he could have named any one of the blogs he’s following, and he felt I was one of those deserving.  Thank you, Sir.

To accept the award, I must:

Thank the blogger who nominated me and provide a link to his blog (CHECK)

Write a post to show my award (check)

Give a brief story as to how my blog got started (see below)

Give two pieces of advice to new bloggers (see below)

Select 15 other bloggers for this award (Just 15? Um…ok)

Comment on each blog to let them know I nominated them and link them to this post (pending)

 

How’d my blog get started? Well it was non-existant until Quintessential Editor sat me down and showed me how it was done.

 

I wanted a central location for all things Weech. I like to do reviews, character studies, and, oh yeah! I also wrote these books I’d like to sell. I had a lot of great ideas and things I wanted to talk about in addition to the shameless self promotion, and blogging seemed like the way to go.

As for my advice:

1. What do you do that others don’t? For a while, I think my Character Studies was something I did. There are a LOT of great blogs out there, but I really enjoy looking at characters and analyzing how and why they are effective. That was something I liked to do that I didn’t se others doing.  Then I had another idea. I’m an instructor at the Defense Information School, and I’m constantly reviewing work. I judge award contests, grade students and provide feedback. I’m also a fan of randomly staring at covers. That gave me the idea of the Book Cover of the Month. Every month, I post a bracket in which people can vote for their favorite covers. I’m still growing this, but it’s already been a ton of fun and hugely viewed. There’s a lot of wonderful people out there doing a lot of great things, but you have find the parts of yourself that make you unique and expose (the right word I promise) those vulnerabilities, those parts of yourself that make you special, to the world. If you’re only saying what other say, why should people come to your blog?
2. Consistency is everything.  Now, it’s okay to have some elements of randomness. My BCOTM posts happen each time a new round comes up. But those who follow my blog know that they’ll see a post of some kind every Wednesday (usually a review) and every Saturday (Usually a character study). When I see someone’s reviewed my book, I post that. If there’s some news relevant to my projects, I post that as well. But I never post more than once a day, and people always know when they’re guaranteed to see something new. Also, viewers know the BCOTM posts start on the first of every month, so even that has elements of consistency.

Now, to nominate those I can. There are a lot of blogs I follow, but those below are the ones I make it a point to visit whenever I’m doing what I call, The WordPress Tour. I don’t get to do it as often as I want, but I ALWAYS try to check these guys out.

Quintessential Editor

Red String Papercuts (Steve is my Social Media and Marketing Mentor and Jessie’s poems are lovely.)

J.R. Handley blog (Great interviews and military-based posts)

The Idiot in Tin Foil (Fantastic short works)

Rough and Ready Fiction (Wonderful Web Serials.)

Sinisterdarksoul (Absolutely HAUNTING prose. Content warning.)

Elizabeth Rose’s Site (Just a great site to visit. Lot’s of good info.)

Kristen Twardowski: A Writer’s Workshop (Simple, honest musings with author related info.)

The Excited Writer (Another solid site that, like Corey, talks about balancing writing and family.)

There are more, honestly, but these are the one’s I’m pretty driven to check up on when time allows.  They’re all wonderful blogs that I think you’d either enjoy reading or learn a lot from (usually both).

I’m honestly flattered J.J. nominated me. It’s nice to feel like I’m providing value to someone.  Thank you all as always.

Thanks for reading

Matt.

What is it to be a Hero?

My favorite thing about the blog so far is the inspiration I see from comments to older posts. I’m glad you all enjoy character studies as much as I do, and when I talked about “flawed” vs “Traditional heroes, you all gave me some great ideas.

The first idea I wanted to tackle was the idea of a hero, and what makes one heroic. I thought about this for some time, and decided it came down to sacrifice, courage, and loyalty. For my character study, I’m going to say I’d like my hero (regardless of his flaws or perfections) have all three of these if you look hard enough.

So since I have three traits, I should highlight three characters right?  Makes sense to me at least.  So without much more ado, here are three characters that I think are fantastic heroes because they exemplify these traits.  BUT as a special aside, NONE of these characters are (at least regarded) as the main character of their stories. This means Sam is out from Lord of the Rings because I honestly think  he is the hero of that book.

All images from Pixabay because I fear copyright even when I feel I fall under fair use.

Perrin Aybara is absolutely my favorite character from Wheel of Time. Oh Rand is awesome and Mat is fun (and he has my name, so he has to be awesome right?), but Perrin’s heroics are worthy of study.  (Look, Rand is easily a hero, but he’s too easy).

Sacrifice: He didn’t sacrifice his family. He LOST his family, but that doesn’t actually make one heroic. Not in my standing anyway. Instead, what he sacrificed was the simple life he always wanted. Through the whole saga he wants his wife and a simple life. This is exceptionally heroic as most people don’t long for that, especially in fantasy. Most characters dream of adventure and discovery, but Perrin just wants to be a blacksmith. He gave that up to be the man he knew he had to be. He continued to do so even thought it cost him.

Courage: Here’s where Perrin may fall short a bit in relation to the other two heroes I cover, but he still has it. No. I’m not talking about facing trollocs or whitecloaks. I’m talking about facing a part of himself that he doesn’t like. Look anyone can face external dangers. Fight or flight kicks in, and a man has to defend himself. That’s not (in and of itself) courage. It’s self preservation. Perrin faces his identity as a wolfbrother. He’s lived his whole life taught to believe wolves are evil, and THEN he realizes he’s becoming one (or like one).  He doesn’t necessarily want to embrace this part of his life. Instead, he chooses to. He has reasons, but he doesn’t just face this part of himself out of self preservation or even to save his friends. He does so because he must.

Loyalty: This is where Perrin has the title. Rand frequently puts Perrin in the most danger. He even forces Perrin to go back home to deal with events in Book 4 that Rand can’t deal with. Rand has his reasons, but Perrin never fails to support Rand. He’s the first to try and understand Rand. He’s the one who goes home to defend it. He’s the one who steps up.

Xander Harris is the only character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer who doesn’t grow into something more. Heck even Dawn gets training as a slayer. Xander is just a guy.

Sacrifice: So where Perrin has some obvious areas of sacrifice. The question, if my criteria hold up, is what did Xander give up?  This is tough because Xander is actually a pretty selfish character. Sure he LOSES people, but what does he let go of that he would have if he’d stepped away from the Scooby Gang?  I thought about it, and nearly changed characters when it dawned on me. What he gave up was any chance to be special. Most people want a chance to shine.

Most people want a chance to be in the lime light or be seen as important. Xander happily plays third or forth fiddle to a group of people that become exponentially more powerful and unique than he is. There was an adorable episode in Season 3 where all he wants to do is help. He KNOWS something’s going on, but everyone sort of shuns him away. He also finds his power there. In that same episode he sacrifices the opportunity to be exceptional just to be a part of something greater than himself. Go watch that episode and see how he eventually turns that to an advantage. Every progressing season he stays back. He is the normal, consistent part of life for individuals that are so much more. This becomes the need he fills for the team.

Courage: This is more on the nose than I’d like. But when his sacrifice is his choice to remain normal in a paranormal world, he’s also choosing to willingly put himself in danger when he’s always out of his league. It’s different from Perrin. Perrin faces his own fears because he’s bigger and stronger. Then he gets more powerful. Xander doesn’t have those advantages. All he has is the willingness to put himself in harms way over and over again just to stay near those he loves.

Loyalty: He takes a knock here, but not a big one. Let’s put this elephant on the table. He hates Angel and wants to kill him. Maybe even still. BUT, when he CHOOSES to see good in a person, he’s untouchable. He brings Willow back. What helps his loyalty shine here is how fierce he is with it. He hates who he hates, and loves who he loves. He’s as true as the North Star, and he doesn’t shift. Even his tolerance of characters he’d rather see take a stake to the heart is based on his friends’ desire to see them protected (though again, Angel makes this hard to justify).

My final character is one I’m proud of myself for. This is mostly because, again, it’s easy to point out the hero of the story. They’re usually the ones on the cover. But my point is what makes a person heroic, and is it always the main character? In this case, how about Charity Carpenter from the Dresden Files.  (Love you Waldo, but you have a (INSER COPYRIGHT) as you’re a (INSERT SPOILER) now. Don’t freak. I’m not saying he’s NOT a hero. But he was already rewarded as one, so I don’t have to defend him.)  Charity though, she’s fascinating to look at under this light.

Sacrifice: I’m in the Navy, and I’m a coward. I chose to avoid a certain problem rather than ever face it. But let someone you love put himself or herself in danger time and time again. It’s harder than ACTUALLY putting yourself in danger. (Any of my service members want to argue?) She gives up her husband for years, and THEN has to let her daughter go. She also sacrifices the VERY power that would make her able to fight, and she lets this power go to be a mom.

Courage: I’m going to double tap this. Facing danger, easy. Letting those you love PUT themselves in danger? Nope. I can’t do that. I’d rather take on the entire magical world by myself with a slingshot and a prayer (no offense to that guy who fought a giant) than let someone I love come anywhere near danger.

Loyalty: Where Xander is loyal to a fault, Charity’s loyalty shines despite her wishes. She lets Harry in her life (and those of her children) because of Michael. In point of fact, she, though begrudgingly, allows Harry to remain in that family despite every reason to turn him away. THEN she agrees to watch over his child. Loyalty isn’t always shown by being there when your needed. Sometimes loyalty is putting up with a person you’d rather not just because someone you cared about asks you to. This is where Charity shines. No, she doesn’t exactly like it, and that much is obvious, but she still does it.

What do you all think? Do I have too many qualifications? Not enough? What would you add?  What would you let go? Feel free to comment below. Or, offer other characters (I left a bajillion out).

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

A Fall From Grace: When Characters Devolve Into Villains

I honestly love character studies.  I started them in high school and learned how to write by doing case studies.  Just as I was pondering this very post, I ran into Adam’s blog post about how villains become villains.

I’ve grown up spoiled with stories.  I’ve gotten to read, watch, and listen to a ton of great stories in a litany of formats.  The most common trend I see these days is the sympathetic villain.  Perhaps a more accurate term in this case is a “relatable” villain.  Let’s face it, people just don’t wake up one day and say, “I think I’ll be a horrible person today.”  People are motivated to take action.

This got me thinking about a character study I’d like to share with you.  The most fascinating villainy turn I saw was linked to a phrase of mine. “The Devil isn’t the monster, he’s your best friend.”  I hope the Lord understands my metaphor and his worshipers don’t judge.  Let me explain the theory.  I don’t think the devil is one who threatens and yells.  It’s far easier to ENCOURAGE sin.  So that’s the meaning.  The guy who says, “Why not? Everyone else does it?  Why  not?  Who’s it really hurting.”  Temptation is the enemy of faith, and those “reasonable” steps away from what one should do is how that highway to Hell gets paved.  Now, I promise, this isn’t a theological post.  It just sets up this amazing story arch.

Brent Weeks’ Night Angel Trilogy is great just to read and enjoy, but I invite you to read it (or even better read it again) and pay close attention to Dorian Ursuul.  His arch is amazing.  You see.  He’s a good guy.  He has his struggles.  He even has this intense desire to step away from the fearful reputation of his father.  He’s a good guy right?  Well…sure.  But let’s try to avoid spoilers as much as we can.

The first thing that happens is he has to take the position his father had.  It’s all fine and good to CLAIM to want to be benevolent and kind, but that doesn’t always work out in practice when you’re in charge.  Dorian starts by hating himself and making concessions as to why it’s “necessary.”  Indeed, as a reader, I found myself noting that, “yeah, what are his options?”  Quite frankly his option was to live the bad guy or die a man of principle.  Who doesn’t understand that?

What Weeks does masterfully is up the anti.  Dorian does something else that isn’t’ very nice, but he has his reason.  Then he does something slightly worse.   By the time he makes his fifth or sixth “bad” decision, the readers have come to see him as having “gone bad.”  Even if his reason is the most noble on the surface.  This proves what I said above.  Villains descend into darkness.  I have a book on my own inspired by that very premise.

This arch is all about how power corrupts.  As Dorian progresses, he makes every decision for a number of reasons, some of which make perfect sense.  His descent was gradual and unfortunate.

This is a POWERFUL storytelling tool I’m surprised hasn’t ben made more useful in fiction.  It makes the villain sympathetic more than a plot devise.  I won’t lie.  The main character, “Grimm,” in The Journals of Bob Drifter, is a plot device.  I don’t hate any storytelling techniques on it’s surface.  I’m simply trying to provide writers a tool for an underused structure they may want to consider.

I hope the example I gave makes sense.  I really fight to avoid spoilers.  If you haven’t read the book, you should JUST to follow THAT character’s story line.  It’s amazing storytelling.

Thanks for reading,

Matt