Characters Are Fiction

Sherlock Holmes-one of the most memorable characters in fiction.

 

The other day fellow author Jack Tyler posted on his blog advice to writers: it’s the characters.

Characters do indeed make the story. But much more accurately, characters are the story. Think about a novel. Any novel. What do you remember about it? Or a movie or TV series. Any movie or TV series. What do you remember? The plots? Or the characters? Unless it’s The Twilight Zone, it’s the characters you remember. Dorothy. Columbo. Proxy Snyder on Colony. Scarlett and Rhett. Nero Wolfe. Scrooge. Sherlock Holmes.

Generally speaking, we readers read a novel or short story for the characters. People we can relate to who are in a crisis. There is a certain vicarious experience we go through when we read a work of fiction and identify with the hero or heroine. Their struggle becomes our struggle. Their win, our win.

Even in that most well-worn of story forms, the Hero’s Quest, the calamities and the setting and the nature of the obstacles to be surmounted may change, but in the end what we read the story for is not the plot. We already know the plot. It’s the characters. The hero. We read the Hero’s Quest for the hero. His (or her) journey becomes our journey.

The Hobbit is Bilbo’s story. Sure it’s an adventure tale. And we like adventure tales. But what makes The Hobbit unique is Bilbo Baggins. Not the world in which Bilbo lives. That is window dressing. Bilbo makes The Hobbit what it is. Not the orcs, not Gandalf, not the elves, not Middle Earth.

We don’t read the Hero’s Quest for the story. We know the story. We read the Hero’s Quest for the Hero (or Heroine). Is he someone we can relate to? Is the hero us? If he is, we read. If he isn’t, we put the book aside and pick up another. And this applies to any other book or story that we find memorable.

Anthony Trollope, a master at creating believable characters, told future writers what he believed to be the secret of successful fiction. Here is his advice (from his Autobiography):

“A novel should give a picture of common life enlivened by humour and sweetened by pathos. To make that picture worthy of attention, the canvas should be crowded with real portraits, not of individuals known to the world or to the author, but of created personages impregnated with traits of character which are known. To my thinking, the plot is but the vehicle for all this; and when you have the vehicle without the passengers, a story of mystery in which the agents never spring to life, you have but a wooden show.”

As Trollope advised: “…when you have the vehicle without the passengers…you have but a wooden show.”

And sad to say, there are a lot of wooden shows out there. Part of the reason we readers must endure these wooden shows is due to writers who write commercial fiction and don’t have the ability to rise above their formulas. These writers, hoping to earn enough with their keyboards to quit the day job, quite often have no idea how to tell a story. They simply follow the plot beats on the chart. If they didn’t have that chart they wouldn’t have a clue as to what comes next in the story.

As a reader, one of the reasons I steer clear of today’s most popular genres (at least for the most part) is because those genres are filled with the works of hacks who provide nothing but a wooden show. Many of these writers are only interested in the dollar. They are in a gold rush, looking to get rich quick.

Of course one hopes they will learn the craft sufficiently to rise above the wooden show. But to do so, they need to write. Not write to make a buck. Just write. And by writing, learn.

Now I’m not averse to money. I think virtually all writers would like to earn a significant chunk of change from their writing. Me included. Shoot, even Shakespeare wrote for money. But there is a difference between simply writing for money and writing because you just have to tell a story.

Lawrence Block wrote over a hundred trash novels in the ‘50s and into the ‘60s. They were what he cut his writing teeth on. Many of them are being republished now. 

I remember him writing somewhere that maybe he stayed too long writing those trash novels. But when he stopped and started writing “the good stuff”, he knocked the ball out of the park. Evan Tanner. Bernie Rhodenbarr. Matt Scudder. Ehrengraff. Just a few of the many memorable characters he created. Block cut his writing teeth by writing. Not by hiring beta readers, or editors, or submitting his work to creative writing workshops. He wrote and improved his craft.

Too many writers today want instant glory. They are mostly young, and grew up being pampered in school. Everyone’s a winner. Hogwash. The real world says otherwise.

One young woman in a closed Facebook group said she uses editors because she doesn’t want to risk losing readers. What? How is an editor going to make something unreadable readable? He/She can’t unless he or she becomes a co-author.

These writers are afraid of failure, so they are doing whatever they can to avert it. Failure, however, is part of life. Letting one’s readers tell you your book is crap, is a tremendous learning experience. In the days before Kindle, editors did that at magazines and publishing houses. Today, for indie authors, the reader takes the place of the editor. Most of today’s young writers don’t understand that.

If you writers want to write for a living, write. Write lots. Publish whatever you can. Let your readers tell you what works and doesn’t work. After all, they are the ones you are writing for. They are the ones who will buy your books.

Of course we readers share in the blame when it comes to mediocre formulaic writing, peopled with lackluster and wooden characters. We share in the blame because we tolerate such writing. We do so because we are either ignorant of quality writing, or we simply don’t care.

If we readers don’t care, then writers won’t either. They’ll shovel whatever crap or swill they can our way — just as long as we buy it and help them quit the day job.

This reader, however, as Popeye said, Can’t Stands No More!

I’ve been so disappointed with the current crop of writers who are award winners and New York Times, USA Today, and Amazon bestsellers — that I no longer even look at the book if it has one of those tags on it. We readers have let the mediocre rise to the top.

What I do instead, is search history’s dustbin for those forgotten treasures from the past. Many are free because they are no longer under copyright, or can be found very cheap on the used market.

I’ve also started looking for the hidden gems on Amazon. Those books that have never found their way into the top million. Yes, that is million. I’ve found fabulous, character-rich reads in many of those books. I’m doing my best to get the word out on those hidden treasures. Aargh, matey! There be buried treasure here!

Every week I post a Book of the Week on my Facebook page. Do make a point to check it out. However, because money hungry Zuckerberg has monetized pages, not all of my 105 followers see my posts. At most 25 do. If I want them all to see the posts, I have to give the Z man $5 to boost the post. So do make a point to check out the Book of the Week each Monday. Good reads are there to be found.

This week’s Book of the Week is Tales of Horror by Bryan C Laesch. A superb trio of monster stories. Give it a read. You won’t be sorry.

Past Book of the Week authors are Dusty Sharp, Zara Altair, Simon Osborne, Jacquie Rogers, and Andy Graham. Writers guaranteed to bring you a respite from your day, or just plain give you a good time.

Characters are fiction. If, my dear fellow readers, you’ve been caught up in the thriller hype. You know, the pages-turn-themselves kind of crap, where the writer simply piles on more and more problems — usually paying little attention to character development. If you’ve been sucked into the fast is better mentality, take some time to experience character-driven fiction.

While character-driven fiction may be slower than the hyperdrive thriller, it doesn’t have to be and often isn’t. Tom Clancy’s novels don’t lack for character — or action.

The plot-driven stuff is fine if you just want a snack. If, however, you want the full-meal deal, you need books with fabulous characters. Because they are like Tootsie Rolls: they last a long time.

Comments are always welcome. And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!
Facebooktwitterpinterest

6 thoughts on “Characters Are Fiction”

  1. An interesting viewpoint, Christopher, and consistent with your earlier posts. I must say I enjoy and remember much more than characterization from novels and stories I’ve read, particularly situations, set-pieces and other events, particularly when I identify closely with one or more characters. Deep characterization is not necessary for such identification and may not even be desireable. But the character does not have to closely resemble me either. Becoming someone else for a while can be refreshing for a reader.

    C. S. Lewis’ 1960 essay ‘THE MYTHOPOEIC GIFT OF RIDER HAGGARD’ argues strongly against the application of deep ‘literary’ characterization to adventure stories. No doubt some modern commenters will find his view extreme but I at least partly agree with him. Mind you, characters must be suitable for their roles, even if they are not deeply and elaborately drawn. Sometimes less is more, and a few telling details can give the reader a cameo of the character.

    1. Thanks for sharing, John. I don’t disagree with you. Obviously Middle Earth is very memorable. Decades ago I read Stanton A Coblenz’s Hidden World. Decades later, not remembering title or author – or even the main characters – I described the world to a friend and he supplied me with author and title.

      So I agree: a novel is a whole experience.

      And we don’t need deep characterization. In fact, as Lewis pointed out, it may not even be genre appropriate. But I do think we need memorable characterization.

      It seems to me Haggard’s She is not deeply drawn, but she is memorably drawn and that’s what makes her a great literary character. The same could be said for Sherlock Holmes, or Nero Wolfe, or Tarzan, or Indiana Jones.

      And we can’t forget the master of the non-character, HP Lovecraft. Because philosophically people are insignificant, the Lovecraftian “hero” is little more than a mouthpiece. Atmosphere and the unnamable horror are what carry the day in Lovecraft’s work.

      So it seems we are on the same page. Perhaps I overstated my case in reaction to some of the novels I’ve read or attempted to read of late.

      Thanks for providing balance. I appreciate it!

      1. Thanks, Christopher. Memorable indeed! In fact, what makes the characters you mention memorable may be in part their very lack of the kitchen-sink realism of ‘literary’ characters. They are all larger-than-life and deliberately oversimplified in some respects. They don’t develop from book to book, much less within each book, because we readers don’t want them to change.

        Ayesha, in particular, is a character whose conscious refusal to develop or change in any way is a defining characteristic. Her sudden aging to death could be seen to represent centuries of change overwhelming and destroying her. I have a kind of positive Ayesha in my Trilogy WIP, a nearly ageless woman who does not actually appear until near the end of the third book. She’s a tricky character to portray, even in the broadest strokes.

        1. It is, John, as Trollope wrote. A good writer creates real portraits. They aren’t actual people, but are personages who are given known traits of character. We could say fictional characters are life-like. They give the illusion of reality. Just as a good painting of a person gives the illusion of reality.

          We all know men who are pompous dandies, but there is no one who is Hercule Poirot. But because the traits of pompous dandies are known, when Poirot exhibits them he appears life-like to us.

          Depending on the character and the genre, these personages are more or less larger-than-life. But none are actually real.

          I guess my gripe is that there are a significant number of writers who don’t take the time to create memorable characters. Instead they feed us re-hashed and worn out tropes. As readers, I think we need to hold writers accountable to be creative. It’s what we pay them for.

          To my mind, your analysis of Ayesha is spot on.

          And I’m looking forward to your trilogy!

          1. C. S. Lewis joked that, if Ayesha really was ‘Wisdom’s Daughter’ she didn’t take after her mother!

Comments are closed.