“I don’t CARE what happens to these people.” – Dorothy J. Heydt
Stories are, at bottom, about people (or people-analogs, like anthropomorphized talking animals). But more than that, they’re about people or people-analogs that the reader cares about. Hooks and cliffhangers, opening in medias res, lots of fast-paced action, brilliant worldbuilding, intricate plots – all these things that are supposed to get readers interested in a book and keep them reading – won’t matter if the reader doesn’t care about the characters on some level.
Well, OK, there are some people who don’t care about characters, but most of them are reading nonfiction. And even with nonfiction, there are all those folks reading biographies and the story of the people who did X or Y and historical anecdotes of all kinds that are mainly about people. Because what draws most readers back to the book every time they put it down is wondering what is going to happen to these people next, and whether they’re going to get out of whatever trouble they’ve gotten into.
It is even more important for the writer to care what happens to these people. You are going to be living with them for a lot longer than the readers are, and if you don’t like these people and you aren’t interested in them, you’re going to have a much harder time keeping at it at all, much less actually making an interesting story out of what happens.
Not to mention the fact that if the writer doesn’t care, why on earth should the reader?
So the first thing to ask yourself is, what kind of people do you like to read about? I’m not talking about vampires vs. wizards vs. spacemen here; I’m talking about whether you like to read about people who focus on things outside themselves (like politics or engineering or dragon slaying) or people who focus on their internal problems (like getting over a traumatic past or learning new skills). Do you like to read about outgoing characters or shy ones who need to be coaxed out of their shells? Can-do go-getters, or Gen Y slackers? One-of-a-kind super-powered heroes, or more ordinary folks who do a lot of just muddling through? People like you, your family, and your friends, or people who are very different in certain ways?
The next two questions are of equal importance: First, where do you like to see characters go? Do you like watching them make enormous changes in themselves or their lives or their worlds, or less dramatic ones? Are you interested in characters whose spiritual journey is at the center of their story, or ones who are more practically inclined?
Second, what kinds of trouble can these characters get into – trouble that matters to them, I mean? It’s no help to have a “problem” that the character doesn’t care about and has no personal emotional investment in; she or he will just ignore it. Also, it’s really hard to make the reader care about plot problems if the character doesn’t.
It doesn’t actually matter whether you start by thinking about your characters this way and develop the plot from there, or whether you start with a plot or an idea or something else and then look for the characters who’d be interested in doing those things. What matters is that you do think about it at some point, on some level. (Not everybody does it as a conscious and deliberate process.) It is also wise to keep in mind that you aren’t ever going to find a character that everyone likes; tastes differ in this, as in everything else, and your best bet is to please yourself.
Because if you don’t like your characters, especially your main character, odds are that you’ll get tired of living with him in your head before you actually finish your story. It’s amazing how fast an unappealing-to-the-writer character can make one go from thinking one has the best plot/idea/setup for a story ever, to thinking that one never wants to see anything related to this story, ever again.
Sometimes I think one of the main reasons I am a story-teller is that people fascinate me. All kinds, all sorts. Their motivations, what inspires them, what they are thinking and feeling. When I read history, my most common question is, “Yes, that’s an interesting event, but what was it like for the people who lived through it?”
And that’s why I write stories – to look at ordinary people living through extraordinary events, and how that shapes them, and how they effect the world around them. I honestly can’t think of anything more exciting!
See, this is why I fear I’ll never succeed as a published author. The characters I like are not the ones liked by agents and publishers (and, I have to assume, the majority of readers).
I like damaged characters with evil deeds in their past, who heroically overcome those challenges. I like stories of redemption. But redemption has to start with a villain, and that’s why all my queries come back notes like, “Good story but your protagonist is not sympathetic.”
If there is no overlap between what I like to write and what is publishable, then I’m screwed. But I have to believe an overlap exists. The problem is triangulating my way to it.
Huh, these are really good questions. The truth is, I like ordinary, everyday people suddenly thrust into situations WAY beyond them. I love for those ordinary people to have flashy friends who steal the show. You know, I’m going to stop feeling self conscious about over-the-top secondary characters. If I like reading that sort of story, chances are other people do too.
I like reading characters who consider and think a lot but who ACT. There’s so much out there where the main characters are passive which seems to be a popular trope at the moment. I don’t care at all about passive people. I want to read about people who do something.
I hope, therefore, that my characters are active.
There’s something worse than “I don’t care.”
It’s “I wish both sides could lose.”
Wonderful discussion! I think a lot of the reason I write the stories I do is because of who I want living in my head. Sometimes (not often, because I know what I like!) I’ll read a book that’s very dark with very twisted characters, and I can’t imagine how the author could stand living with them. I suppose tastes vary…but I definitely want to write characters I enjoy hanging out with.
@Chicory, I have to comment that I love over-the-top secondary characters too! One of the best devices I’ve seen in books I’ve read is to have a fairly normal main character, and then surround them by strange and wonderful supporting characters. 🙂
Remus – Perhaps you could start with a character who is further along on his/her path to redemption, and give the more villainous stuff as flashbacks?
Chicory – Ensemble casts can be a lot of fun! But if your secondary characters are stealing the show…maybe they’re not actually as secondary as you think. A lot of folks confuse the viewpoint with the main character, but while Dr. Watson is clearly the viewpoint character, Sherlock Holmes is equally clearly the main character in all those stories. It can work either way.
Alex – Having a slacker as one’s main character makes life VERY difficult for the author, IME… 🙂 So…good choice!
Cheryl – What you said. Also, one of my favorite story types is the “one sane character patiently trying to sort out the problem for a bunch of wild-eyed secondary characters.” Like Cold Comfort Farm.
You’re right- I am confusing the terms. 🙂 I adore Watson-type characters but I do like them to be part of the action even if they’re not technically the hero. (One of the things I love about the BBC Sherlock is they make sure Watson has a really strong support role so he actually IS a viewpoint character, not just comic relief.)
And so is the reason that I think many fantastical television shows are failing: not because auidences don’t like genre stories (notice the explosion in that area of the publishing world) but because all the time and attention is spent on developing the world and plot, with the characters an afterthought toward populating the world. That fits perfectly with what Mary said about wishing both sides could lose: I felt that way trying to watch the BSG prequel “Caprica.”
@Chicory: I also loved the use of Watson in the recent BBC series for the same reason, that they made him an actual supporting character rather than just an inept comic bumbler. The relationship between Sherlock and Watson as explored in the show is so true to the original Doyle stories.