analect (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
analect) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
writerslounge2011-06-01 09:53 am
analect) wrote in writerslounge2011-06-01 09:53 am
Entry tags:
Discussion: Sympathetic Characters
All right, I figured it was time for a discussion thread. Thought we might throw one of these around every week or so and see where it gets us. Please feel free to make more, and better ones.
In the meantime, your opinions: show me them!
Okay, this is partially a selfish thing. I'm currently revising the last quarter of a romantic drama-thingy novel where the characters are making me lose the will to live. I just want to scream 'Pull yourself together', but they have backstory that necessitates them being irritating for a while.
It got me thinking, though: how sympathetic do characters have to be for us - as writers or as readers - to identify with them and get behind them?
It's an interesting one. As human beings, we all have foibles, and it's often the flaws and failings in characters that draw us to them. Detective fiction, for example, wouldn't work without its stock cast of 'mavericks'.
Of course, characters who are deeply flawed - right up to the anti-heroes and antagonists of fiction - can alienate readers, as can those who are so nice they never do anything to drive the action of a story.
So, where's the line for you? As a reader, and as a writer? Do you enjoy characters whose strength you can identify with, even if they're not 'nice' people, or do you think it's more important to be able to connect with them on a more human, and humane, level?
In the meantime, your opinions: show me them!
Okay, this is partially a selfish thing. I'm currently revising the last quarter of a romantic drama-thingy novel where the characters are making me lose the will to live. I just want to scream 'Pull yourself together', but they have backstory that necessitates them being irritating for a while.
It got me thinking, though: how sympathetic do characters have to be for us - as writers or as readers - to identify with them and get behind them?
It's an interesting one. As human beings, we all have foibles, and it's often the flaws and failings in characters that draw us to them. Detective fiction, for example, wouldn't work without its stock cast of 'mavericks'.
Of course, characters who are deeply flawed - right up to the anti-heroes and antagonists of fiction - can alienate readers, as can those who are so nice they never do anything to drive the action of a story.
So, where's the line for you? As a reader, and as a writer? Do you enjoy characters whose strength you can identify with, even if they're not 'nice' people, or do you think it's more important to be able to connect with them on a more human, and humane, level?
no subject
no subject
I always think of Fanny Price in Mansfield Park, who gets such bad press for basically doing nothing except look shocked and offended for the entirety of the book. For her time, she was probably more a typical female than most of Austen's heroines, but she's definitely not to modern tastes. Perhaps we require characters to be more active because the function of the novel is more about doing than observing these days?
...or maybe it's just very irritating to endure a character who's apparently too thick to breathe and think at the same time.