Dollhouse got cancelled, so we've only got a few episodes left and Joss is really ramping things up. In episode 11, a whole heck of a lot happens. We've just been plunged into the beginning of the big showdown and, among other things, there has been one particularly big revelation. For a few episodes now, there's been the question of the identity of the man behind Rossum. Our heroes are working hard to find out his identity.
Next comes the spoiler-y bits, though I'll try to not give everything away.
I've been following Joss long enough that I can see his patterns, so when a certain character who's been gone suddenly reappeared, I knew she was there for a reason. When she entered a scene right after two other characters had a "moment," I knew no good could come of that. Sure enough, she killed one of them.
But, the biggest thing came later, in the last few seconds of the episode. The whole time we've been leading up to seeing, through Caroline's eyes, the identity of the man behind the curtain. Caroline finally walks into the office and meets him. I was immediately confused because, in keeping with Joss's M.O., this dude should have been someone we know, and he wasn't.
Then comes the turn. She meets him again (there's logic here with the technology), and this time, he is a character we know. Not only that, but the reveal comes through her memory, while in "real time" she's alone in a room with none other than that same character. Next come the credits, leaving that moment just hanging there for a week. Joss is a cruel, cruel man sometimes.
During the first season of the show, I was pretty neutral. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it. Now that it's been cancelled, the stakes are higher and everything is bigger, more focused, and more urgent. I knew Joss had it in him, it's just a shame that we had to wait until it was already too late to see it.
I can't wait to see what he does next week.
Showing posts with label Characters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Characters. Show all posts
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Monday, November 23, 2009
Character Thoughts, Revision, and Guiding Principles
There's another good post over at Edittorrent. This one looks at character, which I'm all about this month, and I've started thinking about it in relation to Cass. I have a pretty good idea about her first principle and how it gets her into trouble. As I work on revision, I'm thinking about ways I can draw that out a little more to help solidify her character and especially to make her more sympathetic, which is a struggle I'm having.
At the last meeting, Jenny commented on a few portions of the sub which I had missed when I was switching a scene over to 3rd person from 1st. Believe it or not, Jenny liked the 1st person better. Even though I've changed things over so the reader isn't in Cass's head, it seems I need to get them in there anyway. Jenny, ever helpful, suggested I re-write the whole thing to 1st person, and do it in two months. She smiled when she said it, too. How evil is that?
At the last meeting, Jenny commented on a few portions of the sub which I had missed when I was switching a scene over to 3rd person from 1st. Believe it or not, Jenny liked the 1st person better. Even though I've changed things over so the reader isn't in Cass's head, it seems I need to get them in there anyway. Jenny, ever helpful, suggested I re-write the whole thing to 1st person, and do it in two months. She smiled when she said it, too. How evil is that?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
October Challenge: Quite the Character
Convergence is a good word. It's like relevance, or coincidence, or anything else we talk about when we talk about things lining up. For October, I'm taking my cue from convergence and focusing on character.
A common critique theme during the last CWC meeting was discussing characters. Edittorrent is doing a series of posts about strong character development and POV. And, to top it all off, I'm back into the swing of Oracle, where I'm juggling a pretty big cast of characters, six of whom are POV characters. See the convergence?
Switching around between characters means it's that much more important that each character's voice/perspective be unique and true to that particular character. I've got to really make my 42 year-old ruffian different from my 19 year-old inn keeper's daughter. To start, I've got to hammer down what makes each tick and what their goals are, etc. They're all getting swept up in the big adventure, but they're each invested for different reasons, which colors how they see the world, which colors everything else. So, I've got to make sure that Sedge doesn't bleed into Arnell, or else it's just not going to work.
I've got my character sheets in my world building bible, but I'm thinking I might need to redo them in a format where I can add more detail, like notes about each character's goals and motives. They're generally clear in my head, but not always articulated, so I think jotting things down would help.
How about you? What can you do this month to really flesh out the characters in your current project?
A common critique theme during the last CWC meeting was discussing characters. Edittorrent is doing a series of posts about strong character development and POV. And, to top it all off, I'm back into the swing of Oracle, where I'm juggling a pretty big cast of characters, six of whom are POV characters. See the convergence?
Switching around between characters means it's that much more important that each character's voice/perspective be unique and true to that particular character. I've got to really make my 42 year-old ruffian different from my 19 year-old inn keeper's daughter. To start, I've got to hammer down what makes each tick and what their goals are, etc. They're all getting swept up in the big adventure, but they're each invested for different reasons, which colors how they see the world, which colors everything else. So, I've got to make sure that Sedge doesn't bleed into Arnell, or else it's just not going to work.
I've got my character sheets in my world building bible, but I'm thinking I might need to redo them in a format where I can add more detail, like notes about each character's goals and motives. They're generally clear in my head, but not always articulated, so I think jotting things down would help.
How about you? What can you do this month to really flesh out the characters in your current project?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Turn That Never Came
Last night I watched the pilot episode of Eastbound & Down and experienced sore disappointment. The premise: hotshot pro baseball player who in love with himself to the Nth degree wrecks his pro career and winds up teaching PE in a public school. Sounds entertaining, doesn't it? I sure thought so.
About half way through the episode, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't stand the protagonist. I mean, couldn't stand him in the way that the sound of his very voice made the muscles in my back tense up. It was a visceral, disgusted response. A good part of it, no doubt, informed by all the times when I was waitressing and got stuck serving some version of this guy. In short, completely obnoxious and I can't stand him.
Yet, I waited it out. I thought I saw potential. The kind where, after almost a whole episode of making the audience hate the guy, the writers, if they were smart, would put in a turn toward the end that would hook me. I mean, it's the pilot, right? It's all about the hook. The final scene, instead of redeeming Kenny Powers, made him even more obnoxious. Ugh.
It was very disappointing. Me, I'm all about rough characters. I love my anti-heroes, reluctant heroes, sympathetic villains, and all the rest. Make them flawed, make them unreliable, make them messy, and I'm there. But, and it's a big "but," they still need to be redeemable. One of my latest favorite examples of a flawed hero is Dennis Leary's character, Tommy Gavin, on Rescue Me. He's all kinds of shady, selfish, and untrustworthy, but he's got enough about him that's admirable that he's redeemable. There's depth there. It's beautiful.
Kenny Powers? Total caricature, and a character who falls completely flat for me. If they had balanced out the over-the-topness just a little more, I could have gotten into the show. Lack of balance wrecks a character far faster than anything else.
About half way through the episode, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't stand the protagonist. I mean, couldn't stand him in the way that the sound of his very voice made the muscles in my back tense up. It was a visceral, disgusted response. A good part of it, no doubt, informed by all the times when I was waitressing and got stuck serving some version of this guy. In short, completely obnoxious and I can't stand him.
Yet, I waited it out. I thought I saw potential. The kind where, after almost a whole episode of making the audience hate the guy, the writers, if they were smart, would put in a turn toward the end that would hook me. I mean, it's the pilot, right? It's all about the hook. The final scene, instead of redeeming Kenny Powers, made him even more obnoxious. Ugh.
It was very disappointing. Me, I'm all about rough characters. I love my anti-heroes, reluctant heroes, sympathetic villains, and all the rest. Make them flawed, make them unreliable, make them messy, and I'm there. But, and it's a big "but," they still need to be redeemable. One of my latest favorite examples of a flawed hero is Dennis Leary's character, Tommy Gavin, on Rescue Me. He's all kinds of shady, selfish, and untrustworthy, but he's got enough about him that's admirable that he's redeemable. There's depth there. It's beautiful.
Kenny Powers? Total caricature, and a character who falls completely flat for me. If they had balanced out the over-the-topness just a little more, I could have gotten into the show. Lack of balance wrecks a character far faster than anything else.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test
I heard about a character test, designed to judge if your character is a "Mary Sue," or in danger of becoming one. Since I'm in the midst of working on the new stories about the new character, I ran her through it. Her score: 18 (probably not, but be careful).
It's an entertaining test, to be sure, but far from the be-all, end-all on character construction (as the authors themselves point out). For instance, the test-writers don't like characters who are too unique. You get strikes against you if your character is a tom boy, has special abilities, is something other than pure human, or is the best at something. Oops, my bad. Then again, also Joss's bad (or anyone else's who I like). Angel, one of my favorite genre characters, isn't human, is incredibly powerful, saves the day more than anyone else, etc. Shame on him.
Now, toward the end of the test there is a section of de-Suifiers, which can help make up the difference. This is the spot where you get to click on character flaws. There are far fewer options for flaws than for perfections. Feels a bit weighted. If your character is overweight, middle aged, and a wuss, you're in good shape. Angel is none of these. Bad Joss. Angel has other flaws, some of which are listed on the test, but most of which are not. Flaws like arrogance, vanity, a savior complex, etc. But, since they're not on the test, they don't count, right?
Anyhow, the test is fun. Take it for one of your characters, but take it with a grain of salt.
For me, I'm thinking now about my character. She's the hero in an urban fantasy world, so there are certain things that go along with that - she's a bit special, she's not purely human, and she tends to be the one to save the day. I've done my best to make her personality flawed, but now I'm thinking of how else I can make life hard for her. I think I need to take some time to think about what her vulnerabilities really are. What are her weaknesses? Her vices? What's she most afraid of? What abilities/virtues does she have that could get pushed too far and turned into weaknesses? Good questions to have answers to.
Along with/instead of running one of your own characters through the test, I also recommend substituting some of your favorite characters from your favorite story tellers. I wonder how their hero does? If, according to the test, said character is a Mary Sue, what is it that the test doesn't account for which redeems them?
It's an entertaining test, to be sure, but far from the be-all, end-all on character construction (as the authors themselves point out). For instance, the test-writers don't like characters who are too unique. You get strikes against you if your character is a tom boy, has special abilities, is something other than pure human, or is the best at something. Oops, my bad. Then again, also Joss's bad (or anyone else's who I like). Angel, one of my favorite genre characters, isn't human, is incredibly powerful, saves the day more than anyone else, etc. Shame on him.
Now, toward the end of the test there is a section of de-Suifiers, which can help make up the difference. This is the spot where you get to click on character flaws. There are far fewer options for flaws than for perfections. Feels a bit weighted. If your character is overweight, middle aged, and a wuss, you're in good shape. Angel is none of these. Bad Joss. Angel has other flaws, some of which are listed on the test, but most of which are not. Flaws like arrogance, vanity, a savior complex, etc. But, since they're not on the test, they don't count, right?
Anyhow, the test is fun. Take it for one of your characters, but take it with a grain of salt.
For me, I'm thinking now about my character. She's the hero in an urban fantasy world, so there are certain things that go along with that - she's a bit special, she's not purely human, and she tends to be the one to save the day. I've done my best to make her personality flawed, but now I'm thinking of how else I can make life hard for her. I think I need to take some time to think about what her vulnerabilities really are. What are her weaknesses? Her vices? What's she most afraid of? What abilities/virtues does she have that could get pushed too far and turned into weaknesses? Good questions to have answers to.
Along with/instead of running one of your own characters through the test, I also recommend substituting some of your favorite characters from your favorite story tellers. I wonder how their hero does? If, according to the test, said character is a Mary Sue, what is it that the test doesn't account for which redeems them?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Robin Hood
In the past couple of days I've watched season one of the BBC show Robin Hood. It's been interesting. The show does a good job of certain things, but bungles others, and I'm conflicted on figuring out how much I like it.
The lead guy was excellently cast - he's immediately likeable and although his character is mostly shallow, he has some interesting things going on. They establish him as a guy who's seen enough violence in the Crusades that he'll do just about anything to avoid taking another life. This is key when you have a show where your hero and villain are constantly bumping up against each other and your hero keeps not killing him.
So, since we're talking about heroes, why not talk about one of the ways of making a hero interesting? Even the coolest heroes can't be interesting on their own. No, you've got to bounce other characters off the hero and see what happens. In that, the show is usually smart.
Guy of Gisborne is the sheriff's right hand man. The BBC puts it quite nicely in the character summaries when they list each character's weapon (axe, bow, sword, etc). The sheriff's weapon: Guy. Whoever's idea it was to have him as a character was really on to something. He's set up as the darker reflection of Robin. He takes over Locksley and becomes engaged to Marian in the first season, setting up some parallel there. The best part, though, is that he's got a lot of depth. He knows the sheriff's using him, he knows he's done some bad things, but he genuinely cares for Marian and even has thoughts of trying to redeem himself. He's complicated. There are times when I think he's a better drawn character than Robin is. It's great.
Marian is very cool. No docile thing, this one. The first time she's introduced, she aims a bow at Robin and tells him to clear out. As things go on, she constantly argues with Robin about the choices he makes and tells him that the only way to win the game is to actually play it. Love interests who always agree with the hero are boring. Love interests who tell the hero he's being stupid are fun.
Then there are the outlaws who are pretty nicely drawn. They're not real fleshed out and I was sorely disappointed when a love triangle among them was briefly mentioned then promptly dropped and never mentioned again. However, there are good touches. Kudos to the person choosing costumes and props because they took some care in what people wear and use in a fight: Robin's Saracen bow, Much's enameled shield, Will's axe, the outlaws tend to wear green...
My biggest problem is that the people making the show have made the decision to keep the episodes largely stand-alone. So, by the end of each episode, things are put back more or less to how they started. Every now and again an interesting complication comes up, then gets tied up too tidily by the end. Problematic characters disappear. Secret identities are preserved, and life goes on as usual. I watch these episodes and I keep thinking "Now, if this were a Joss show, this is what'd happen" and then they don't do it. Ugh.
It's an alright show, but if they'd just get their hands messier, it could be a great one. We'll see what season two holds once I can Netflix it.
The lead guy was excellently cast - he's immediately likeable and although his character is mostly shallow, he has some interesting things going on. They establish him as a guy who's seen enough violence in the Crusades that he'll do just about anything to avoid taking another life. This is key when you have a show where your hero and villain are constantly bumping up against each other and your hero keeps not killing him.
So, since we're talking about heroes, why not talk about one of the ways of making a hero interesting? Even the coolest heroes can't be interesting on their own. No, you've got to bounce other characters off the hero and see what happens. In that, the show is usually smart.
Guy of Gisborne is the sheriff's right hand man. The BBC puts it quite nicely in the character summaries when they list each character's weapon (axe, bow, sword, etc). The sheriff's weapon: Guy. Whoever's idea it was to have him as a character was really on to something. He's set up as the darker reflection of Robin. He takes over Locksley and becomes engaged to Marian in the first season, setting up some parallel there. The best part, though, is that he's got a lot of depth. He knows the sheriff's using him, he knows he's done some bad things, but he genuinely cares for Marian and even has thoughts of trying to redeem himself. He's complicated. There are times when I think he's a better drawn character than Robin is. It's great.
Marian is very cool. No docile thing, this one. The first time she's introduced, she aims a bow at Robin and tells him to clear out. As things go on, she constantly argues with Robin about the choices he makes and tells him that the only way to win the game is to actually play it. Love interests who always agree with the hero are boring. Love interests who tell the hero he's being stupid are fun.
Then there are the outlaws who are pretty nicely drawn. They're not real fleshed out and I was sorely disappointed when a love triangle among them was briefly mentioned then promptly dropped and never mentioned again. However, there are good touches. Kudos to the person choosing costumes and props because they took some care in what people wear and use in a fight: Robin's Saracen bow, Much's enameled shield, Will's axe, the outlaws tend to wear green...
My biggest problem is that the people making the show have made the decision to keep the episodes largely stand-alone. So, by the end of each episode, things are put back more or less to how they started. Every now and again an interesting complication comes up, then gets tied up too tidily by the end. Problematic characters disappear. Secret identities are preserved, and life goes on as usual. I watch these episodes and I keep thinking "Now, if this were a Joss show, this is what'd happen" and then they don't do it. Ugh.
It's an alright show, but if they'd just get their hands messier, it could be a great one. We'll see what season two holds once I can Netflix it.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Men in Trees
I started watching the show when it first came on. My first reaction was not an impressed one, but then I kept watching because I was home and it was on and it was far more interesting than whatever reality show it was scheduled against. Then it started to grow on me, and not just because I'm secretly in love with Alaska.
Last semester, my schedule kept me away from the TV when it was on, but now I'm catching up. I like being able to watch TV shows in rapid succession, it highlights things I wouldn't have noticed watching the episodes one at a time.
Mostly, these past couple of days, I've been struck by two things: characters and plot. You want archetypes? Men in Trees has got loads of 'em. Last night, I couldn't help but notice one in particular.
Ben is a character who's near and dear to my heart because he's a bartender/bar owner. He's also a nicely drawn bartender archetype-type character. I'm most impressed because it took me so long to notice what the writers were doing. In many episodes he's the one behind the bar who's subtly getting into everybody's business and acting as a foil for a number of the characters. As the show goes on, they develop this really great dynamic between him and Jack. Ben is the one who points out, to Jack, what the audience knows. Ben is the one who gives the "hey man, pay attention" talks.
Also, as the one who runs the one bar in the tiny Alaskan town, he's automatically a character who often fulfills the role of host in terms of bringing people together. His bar is something of a refuge (literally, even, in one episode) and sooner or later, everyone it town winds up there. For the sake of the show and getting plots moving, The Chieftain is essential. It's easy to see, from a writing perspective, why the bar and Ben exist. However, it's also easy to forget about the man behind the curtain and just have fun with the story.
Plotwise - they do a good job of building up relationships and making them unique. So, even when I realized they had two simultaneous love-triangle stories going on, I also realized that making that choice wasn't just a matter of laziness and that there were some interesting things going on by having the simultaneous plots. Cool.
So, while the show does certain things that are fairly easy to see why they were done and where they're going, the writers do a good enough job that the transparency doesn't bother me.
Last semester, my schedule kept me away from the TV when it was on, but now I'm catching up. I like being able to watch TV shows in rapid succession, it highlights things I wouldn't have noticed watching the episodes one at a time.
Mostly, these past couple of days, I've been struck by two things: characters and plot. You want archetypes? Men in Trees has got loads of 'em. Last night, I couldn't help but notice one in particular.
Ben is a character who's near and dear to my heart because he's a bartender/bar owner. He's also a nicely drawn bartender archetype-type character. I'm most impressed because it took me so long to notice what the writers were doing. In many episodes he's the one behind the bar who's subtly getting into everybody's business and acting as a foil for a number of the characters. As the show goes on, they develop this really great dynamic between him and Jack. Ben is the one who points out, to Jack, what the audience knows. Ben is the one who gives the "hey man, pay attention" talks.
Also, as the one who runs the one bar in the tiny Alaskan town, he's automatically a character who often fulfills the role of host in terms of bringing people together. His bar is something of a refuge (literally, even, in one episode) and sooner or later, everyone it town winds up there. For the sake of the show and getting plots moving, The Chieftain is essential. It's easy to see, from a writing perspective, why the bar and Ben exist. However, it's also easy to forget about the man behind the curtain and just have fun with the story.
Plotwise - they do a good job of building up relationships and making them unique. So, even when I realized they had two simultaneous love-triangle stories going on, I also realized that making that choice wasn't just a matter of laziness and that there were some interesting things going on by having the simultaneous plots. Cool.
So, while the show does certain things that are fairly easy to see why they were done and where they're going, the writers do a good enough job that the transparency doesn't bother me.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Pseudonym
For my Scottish Lit. class, we're going to have a blog. Since this blog will be out in the public realm, that means the comments of people from my class (and the corresponding undergrad class) will be visible for whoever wanders along. This is fuzzy ground, thanks to the university's policies about student privacy.
Ergo, Margaret has told us that we will all be using pseudonyms to do our postings. Cool, huh?
Of course, this creates a huge pile of possibilities. Should I pick a name which represents some homage to a favorite writer? Should I plug in the name of a character from something I've written? Should I use some kind of name pulled from my family? Should my name reflect my course of study for the class and come from a folk song? Or, given the subject of the class, should I pull my name from a Scottish book, or from folklore? So much to choose from, I just don't know. I get the chance here to call myself anything I want. Fun and intimidating at the same time.
"Come on," you say, "It's just a pen name for a class, it's hardly a major decision."
Yeah, I know. But the writer in me loves names. I love finding just the right name for a character, and if I'm going to be a character, I ought to have just the right name too. Oughtn't I?
I guess the real question here is: if I were fictional, what would my author name me?
How about you? If you were in a book, what would your name be? No, your given name doesn't count.
Ergo, Margaret has told us that we will all be using pseudonyms to do our postings. Cool, huh?
Of course, this creates a huge pile of possibilities. Should I pick a name which represents some homage to a favorite writer? Should I plug in the name of a character from something I've written? Should I use some kind of name pulled from my family? Should my name reflect my course of study for the class and come from a folk song? Or, given the subject of the class, should I pull my name from a Scottish book, or from folklore? So much to choose from, I just don't know. I get the chance here to call myself anything I want. Fun and intimidating at the same time.
"Come on," you say, "It's just a pen name for a class, it's hardly a major decision."
Yeah, I know. But the writer in me loves names. I love finding just the right name for a character, and if I'm going to be a character, I ought to have just the right name too. Oughtn't I?
I guess the real question here is: if I were fictional, what would my author name me?
How about you? If you were in a book, what would your name be? No, your given name doesn't count.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Heath Ledger as Fiction
"Is that it? Am I done?"
-Doyle, Angel season one
The big news this week is Heath Ledger's death. Along with that big news is a lot of conversation about our various reactions to the news.
One one hand, we have the camp that says, "Yes, it's sad, but many people die all the time and very few of them ever get the same kind of press coverage."
On the other, we have the camp that says, "Holy crap, I'm gonna miss him."
Neither camp has ever met him, talked to him, or known him in the context that you know the people you work with, see on the streets, or are related to. Yet, a lot of people care that he's gone. What gives?
In all reality, Heath Ledger's death is, for most people, the same as the death of a fictional character in a well-liked novel, TV series, etc. Ledger fans have been watching him for years now, following the news about his personal life, going to the theater to catch his latest movie, hoping that his career will continue going strong... then, suddenly he's dead. All that investment is suddenly not going to pay off.
Now, take a show like Angel. *Warning, spoilers*
In the first episode we meet Doyle. He's instantly likeable, but with plenty of personal obstacles to work out. It takes about five minutes to get invested in this character and start hoping that things will work out for him. Then, mid-way through the first season, suddenly and without warning, he dies. If you were at all invested, you probably got mad. And yet, you never knew him as a real person. He doesn't even exist as a real person. So, why should you care if he's dead?
In short, those who are affected by Heath Ledger's death have a lot in common with those who were affected by Doyle's death. It's all about investing in a character.
By saying this, I don't mean to make light of the fact that Ledger was a real person who had real friends and real family who are just beginning to grieve. I am saying that I never met him. I can't treat his death the same way I would treat the death of someone I know, simply because the actual impact he's had on my life is identical to the impact a fictional character has. For all practical purposes, he's fiction to me. Still, I'm sad to see him go, just as I was pissed as hell that Joss killed Doyle.
To sum up, I'm bummed about his death because I feel cheated not to get more of that character.
-Doyle, Angel season one
The big news this week is Heath Ledger's death. Along with that big news is a lot of conversation about our various reactions to the news.
One one hand, we have the camp that says, "Yes, it's sad, but many people die all the time and very few of them ever get the same kind of press coverage."
On the other, we have the camp that says, "Holy crap, I'm gonna miss him."
Neither camp has ever met him, talked to him, or known him in the context that you know the people you work with, see on the streets, or are related to. Yet, a lot of people care that he's gone. What gives?
In all reality, Heath Ledger's death is, for most people, the same as the death of a fictional character in a well-liked novel, TV series, etc. Ledger fans have been watching him for years now, following the news about his personal life, going to the theater to catch his latest movie, hoping that his career will continue going strong... then, suddenly he's dead. All that investment is suddenly not going to pay off.
Now, take a show like Angel. *Warning, spoilers*
In the first episode we meet Doyle. He's instantly likeable, but with plenty of personal obstacles to work out. It takes about five minutes to get invested in this character and start hoping that things will work out for him. Then, mid-way through the first season, suddenly and without warning, he dies. If you were at all invested, you probably got mad. And yet, you never knew him as a real person. He doesn't even exist as a real person. So, why should you care if he's dead?
In short, those who are affected by Heath Ledger's death have a lot in common with those who were affected by Doyle's death. It's all about investing in a character.
By saying this, I don't mean to make light of the fact that Ledger was a real person who had real friends and real family who are just beginning to grieve. I am saying that I never met him. I can't treat his death the same way I would treat the death of someone I know, simply because the actual impact he's had on my life is identical to the impact a fictional character has. For all practical purposes, he's fiction to me. Still, I'm sad to see him go, just as I was pissed as hell that Joss killed Doyle.
To sum up, I'm bummed about his death because I feel cheated not to get more of that character.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Tall, Dark and Handsome
Today's post comes from having recently read Survival of the Prettiest by Nancy Etcoff, which I enthusiastically recommend to anyone because it's great.We all spend time describing what our characters look like. Their height, their build, their eye and hair color, the length of their fingers, the presence of a scar and so on. Chances are the more important a character is, the more defined their physical appearance is to you as a writer.
The characters most vivid in my mind are those from Oracle. They're also the characters I know the best and have spent the most time with. After envisioning them for so long, I can't imagine they could ever have looked differently than they do. I've been thinking about their appearances and what kinds of things I'm saying, both intentionally and not, about the character because of how they look.
So far, the one that strikes me the most is one who gets killed. In my mind she's always been a really slender gal with white-blonde hair and incredibly fair skin. Using Etcoff, the character's slim build and fairness are both indicators of youth (and therefore innocence) since a mature woman's figure is typically more filled in, and a woman's skin actually darkens when she has children. This character is also one of the few who remains a relative innocent.
For a quick run-down of some of the information from the book, check out this link.
While there's a lot more to a character's physical appearance than just how masculine or feminine they are, feminine or masculine traits have a lot of sway over how we perceive a character (just as they have a lot to do with how we perceive the people we see in real life). Have you ever stopped to think how a novel or movie would change if the main character had stronger feminine facial features? Stronger masculine features? Take a minute to picture a character you've created, pick your favorite. Got a clear mental image? Now, wherever your character lands on the masculine/feminine scale, imagine their features changed to more strongly reflect the other end of the scale. Hold that image and put the made-over character back in the story from which they came. Awkward fit?
Monday, December 24, 2007
Blood Diamond
It's not particularly often that I watch a movie where, upon finishing it, my first impulse is to watch it again. This one impressed me.
For one thing, Edward Zwick does a fantastic job of scale and balance. You get the whole picture without getting overwhelmed or desensitized by it and he has a great touch for inter-cutting perspectives and stories. Then you have fantastic lead characters and actors who pull them. Wow.
My favorite part of this is the intense believability and DiCaprio's character, Danny Archer. Of course, as we know, I'm all about a good redeption story, especially when it's complex. Nice. If you haven't seen this one yet, you should remedy that. Excellent storytelling.
As an added note - Zwick's other choice for Danny Archer was none other than Russell Crowe. This is particularly fun since 3:10 To Yuma is also an excellent redemption story.
For one thing, Edward Zwick does a fantastic job of scale and balance. You get the whole picture without getting overwhelmed or desensitized by it and he has a great touch for inter-cutting perspectives and stories. Then you have fantastic lead characters and actors who pull them. Wow.
My favorite part of this is the intense believability and DiCaprio's character, Danny Archer. Of course, as we know, I'm all about a good redeption story, especially when it's complex. Nice. If you haven't seen this one yet, you should remedy that. Excellent storytelling.
As an added note - Zwick's other choice for Danny Archer was none other than Russell Crowe. This is particularly fun since 3:10 To Yuma is also an excellent redemption story.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Angel: Redemption Stories
We all have our themes we're attracted to, and one that endures for me is that of redemption. I've always liked Angel better than Buffy and one of the reasons is the fact that while Buffy is trying so hard to protect what she loves, Angel has already lost it. Sure, there are times when Buffy has losses, but nothing she goes through is ever so complete.
Heck, when you get down to it, Oracle is a redemption story (or, will be once I finish it). Everybody has something they've lost, something to try and regain. I think I'm drawn to redemption stories because they feel genuine. No matter who you are, you can relate.
They talk about story archetypes, about how there are only a handful of major plots that all stories somehow correspond to. I suppose I could look them up, but I'm going to skip it. Instead, I'm going to ask another question: Archetypically speaking (yeah it's not a real word, so sue me) what are the stories you're consistently drawn to? Any thoughts on why?
Heck, when you get down to it, Oracle is a redemption story (or, will be once I finish it). Everybody has something they've lost, something to try and regain. I think I'm drawn to redemption stories because they feel genuine. No matter who you are, you can relate.
They talk about story archetypes, about how there are only a handful of major plots that all stories somehow correspond to. I suppose I could look them up, but I'm going to skip it. Instead, I'm going to ask another question: Archetypically speaking (yeah it's not a real word, so sue me) what are the stories you're consistently drawn to? Any thoughts on why?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Boring Heroes
"But, what's so bad if the guy is truly a thoroughly good person?"
-John
A simple question with a sort of simple answer. If a character is a thoroughly good person (i.e.already perfect), they're not going to grow. Doing the "right" thing is what they do, they treat people around them decently, pay their taxes, etc. It also means there's little to redeem, and isn't that ultimately what we want? Redemption is a powerful concept.
Quick, think of some of your all-time favorite characters, or just those that come to your mind first. Let's say five. Or, we can talk about mine:
Mal Reynolds, Firefly/Serenity
J.D., Scrubs
Dexter Morgan, Dexter
Thomas Build-the-Fire, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven
Queen Elizabeth (a la Cate Blanchett), Elizabeth
Each are, to a greater or lesser extent, flawed. On one end of the spectrum is J.D. who's sometimes bumbling, frequently confused, and who usually says things he should have kept to himself. On the other is Dexter, the serial killer. I'd put the rest somewhere in between.
There are also varying degrees of redemption, when the respective characters overcome themselves - like moments when Dexter has a flicker of humanity, or when Elizabeth asserts herself as queen.
Now, let's add the "perfect" character into the equation. What does he have to overcome? The perfect character's problems are due to other people and circumstances, like a burning building, for one. When a character only has to overcome things that are outside of their control, they don't really grow as a character. Yes, any story has an element of things that are outside of the character's control, but the good stories tie them in with things the character does have control of. Mal's confronted with fugitives on his ship, but he choses to keep them aboard. It's his decision that creates more conflict which he then has to overcome.
Even more importantly than that, is the fact that no one who reads about/watches these "perfect" characters is themselves perfect. Since most of why we read is to live vicariously, the system doesn't work if we don't relate. No, I haven't had to solve Dexter's problems of how to murder people without getting caught. However, I can relate to his struggle to understand the ways people connect to each other.
The fireman's life went so smoothly. He gets the job, gets good at the job, befriends all his coworkers, meets the girl, marries the girl, has the kid... It's all so organized and clean. I can't relate to that at all.
So, why is perfection boring? Because we are most interested in people we can relate to, and none of us are perfect. We relate better to characters who are working toward redemption than those who have no need for it.
Anyone else want to add?
-John
A simple question with a sort of simple answer. If a character is a thoroughly good person (i.e.already perfect), they're not going to grow. Doing the "right" thing is what they do, they treat people around them decently, pay their taxes, etc. It also means there's little to redeem, and isn't that ultimately what we want? Redemption is a powerful concept.
Quick, think of some of your all-time favorite characters, or just those that come to your mind first. Let's say five. Or, we can talk about mine:
Mal Reynolds, Firefly/Serenity
J.D., Scrubs
Dexter Morgan, Dexter
Thomas Build-the-Fire, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven
Queen Elizabeth (a la Cate Blanchett), Elizabeth
Each are, to a greater or lesser extent, flawed. On one end of the spectrum is J.D. who's sometimes bumbling, frequently confused, and who usually says things he should have kept to himself. On the other is Dexter, the serial killer. I'd put the rest somewhere in between.
There are also varying degrees of redemption, when the respective characters overcome themselves - like moments when Dexter has a flicker of humanity, or when Elizabeth asserts herself as queen.
Now, let's add the "perfect" character into the equation. What does he have to overcome? The perfect character's problems are due to other people and circumstances, like a burning building, for one. When a character only has to overcome things that are outside of their control, they don't really grow as a character. Yes, any story has an element of things that are outside of the character's control, but the good stories tie them in with things the character does have control of. Mal's confronted with fugitives on his ship, but he choses to keep them aboard. It's his decision that creates more conflict which he then has to overcome.
Even more importantly than that, is the fact that no one who reads about/watches these "perfect" characters is themselves perfect. Since most of why we read is to live vicariously, the system doesn't work if we don't relate. No, I haven't had to solve Dexter's problems of how to murder people without getting caught. However, I can relate to his struggle to understand the ways people connect to each other.
The fireman's life went so smoothly. He gets the job, gets good at the job, befriends all his coworkers, meets the girl, marries the girl, has the kid... It's all so organized and clean. I can't relate to that at all.
So, why is perfection boring? Because we are most interested in people we can relate to, and none of us are perfect. We relate better to characters who are working toward redemption than those who have no need for it.
Anyone else want to add?
Learning People By Inches
Working in a bar is just like reading a book.
You open a book and see a character doing something, or thinking something, and you start building who that person is in your mind, sentence by sentence, page by page. Unless the author is very lazy, they don't lay out the character all in one go, and you don't get all the answers about who this character is right away.
Someone walks into the bar. Maybe the bartender greets them by name, maybe the person walks in as part of a couple or a group. They order their drink(s), sit and chat (or read a book) and bit by bit, I get an idea of who they are. I don't always like to ask questions, unless I'm making chitchat, because it's more fun to see what you can overhear. For instance, a gal today mentioned the time, then said "So it's 11:00 Florida time," so I'm guessing she's just visiting, and so it goes.
It's a lot like what the Eavesdropping Writer gal does, but in this case there are people who keep coming back. After a while, the eavesdropping and casual comments add up and I know that Rod works at the convention center, makes great barbeque, has a wife named Alice... Of course, working in a bar also gives a great opportunity for learning about people through how they tip, too. At this point, I'm pretty good at guessing how a given person/table will tip. Coincidentally, people who enthusiastically tell the bartender/server how good of a tipper they are often tip poorly.
The often little things they do are what add up to make a character, or a person.
So, let me ask: How often do you find yourself playing the game of watching people and putting together the bigger picture of who they are based on the small things you can directly observe? Do you usually find your first impressions of people hold true? What kinds of things stick out to you during first impressions? What are the first things you notice when you meet someone new? How does all this relate to your writing?
You open a book and see a character doing something, or thinking something, and you start building who that person is in your mind, sentence by sentence, page by page. Unless the author is very lazy, they don't lay out the character all in one go, and you don't get all the answers about who this character is right away.
Someone walks into the bar. Maybe the bartender greets them by name, maybe the person walks in as part of a couple or a group. They order their drink(s), sit and chat (or read a book) and bit by bit, I get an idea of who they are. I don't always like to ask questions, unless I'm making chitchat, because it's more fun to see what you can overhear. For instance, a gal today mentioned the time, then said "So it's 11:00 Florida time," so I'm guessing she's just visiting, and so it goes.
It's a lot like what the Eavesdropping Writer gal does, but in this case there are people who keep coming back. After a while, the eavesdropping and casual comments add up and I know that Rod works at the convention center, makes great barbeque, has a wife named Alice... Of course, working in a bar also gives a great opportunity for learning about people through how they tip, too. At this point, I'm pretty good at guessing how a given person/table will tip. Coincidentally, people who enthusiastically tell the bartender/server how good of a tipper they are often tip poorly.
The often little things they do are what add up to make a character, or a person.
So, let me ask: How often do you find yourself playing the game of watching people and putting together the bigger picture of who they are based on the small things you can directly observe? Do you usually find your first impressions of people hold true? What kinds of things stick out to you during first impressions? What are the first things you notice when you meet someone new? How does all this relate to your writing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
