Everyone alive is flawed in some way or another. None of us gets to be an adult without experiencing a load of crap that we’ve had to deal with. But I’ve noticed an extra helping of flaw and misery for the protagonists of many books I read. From the descriptions on the daily list of free or low cost books from BookBub, I’m struck by how many unhappy ones there are: alcoholics, drug abusers, “nearing 40 and desperately unhappy;” murdered spouse; broken heart; fighting cancer; “one tragedy after another.” And then, of course, there’s the perennially unhappy Kay Scarpetta.
Trust me, I understand the importance of “tension on every page.” I clearly remember a workshop I attended given by big time agent Donald Maas, who told us that to be successful writers, we must make things as bad for our protagonist as they could possibly be. Then make it worse. Then make it even worse. In fact, he spent most of a day repeating that mantra: make it even worse.
That’s a tough assignment if you like your protagonist. Putting him or her in dangerous situations is hard enough, but killing off their friends, making them ill, blowing up their house etc., takes real dedication to the craft. Claudia Rose, the heroine of my Forensic Handwriting mysteries is an ordinary person who, through her work, is thrown into extraordinary circumstances where she is forced to dig deep for courage, fortitude, and the other admirable characteristics that get her through. She’s been through her share of losses and difficulties, and I take it personally (crying real tears) when something awful happens to her.
Alcoholism, drug abuse, and all that other unhappy stuff is an ongoing part of life for many people. And when done well, those challenges can provide an interesting dimension to a character. The key, I think, is to make sure s/he is struggling to overcome those problems while keeping a sense of humor, not taking himself (or herself) so seriously that the reader can’t relate to him. We need to see the character arc—over the book, or through the series. Otherwise, there’s a danger of disliking that character, which could mean putting down the book and never picking it up again—the bane of an author’s existence. And, speaking from my own POV, I’m too old and leisure time is too limited to spend it with people I don’t like, even in books.
There’s no moral to this post. Just meandering in my mind, wondering whether any of you have had the same thoughts. I hope you all had a wonderful holiday weekend. I spent mine a bunch of mine fighting with Word (I’m a dyed-in-the-wool WordPerfect user).
I hear what you're saying. For me, some authors go too far and make their crime-fiction protagonists too flawed and unlikable. I don't relate to bitter addicts who sit alone in the dark drinking and popping pills or who are so morally corrupt it's hard to tell who the good guy is.
ReplyDeleteI put my character, Detective Jackson, through a lot of stress, but it's all external pressures, like all of us face. His core morality doesn't waver, only strengthens. I had to make him someone I could admire and get inside his head for months and years at a time.
I haven't yet had the pleasure of meeting Detective Jackson, but plan to remedy that immediately.
DeleteWow, I've been rejected once by Donald Maas's literary agency. Torturing protagonists seems wrong to me on instinct but I think it depends a lot on what one is trying to achieve. When the adventure of the story is to set it apart from readers' lives that are presumed happy and peaceful but maybe boring...they ae seeking something different and have found it. That said, some of my protagonists have a very hard time.
ReplyDeleteI think many of us have been rejected by Donald Maas :-) I'm thinking of a book I read by a bestselling author who put her protag through the most unthinkable experiences (insects burrowing under her skin was the least of it) that in real life would affect her forever. Yet, in the next book, she was back to normal. I don't buy it.
DeleteThere's a difference between bad things happening to a protagonist and the hero feeling miserable about herself. Even a hero with flaws can still have a positive world view, confidence in him/herself and a sence of humor. Two publishers rejected my book because they felt the hero was too much of a "downer." I made him less gloomy and sold the book (it's a cozy and cozy readers like brighter works). I personally don't like intensely dark, miserable heroes. If they can't see a glimmer of hope in life, why do I want to spend time with them?
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I try to give my characters inner conflict as well as outer conflict. Kind of like all of us in real life, just more interesting. Which to me means intense.
ReplyDeleteMy new book, THE SACRIFICE (releasing this fall), features a protagonist who suffers from depression who can function with medication—once he figures out what's going on. It was important to me to show that someone having depression doesn't always hide away from life. Our society used to run from the "C-Word" and now it's time to face the "D-Word." If my fictional hero can help do that in a small way, I'm good.
As a reader and not a writer, this is fascinating! Well, now I know why detective novels make me nervously cringe, on account of being encouraged as a story teller to 'make it worse'!
ReplyDeleteBut what really resonates with me is the concept of a protagonist who is an ordinary person thrust into extraordinary circumstances. I find that I gravitate to stories like this in books and cinema- so thank you Sheila, for teaching me a little bit about writing and about myself!
I don't know. I think it's more important what a character does with those flaws and if they serve a true purpose rather than how many or how severe they are. In my last book, THE LION, THE LAMB, THE HUNTED, my protagonist suffers from OCD and a disease that makes him bleed uncontrollably when cut. Oh, and he was also abused horribly as a child. You may think that's pretty over the top, but all of these things have great significance to the plot and help to move it forward. I think problems arise when authors add flaws to a character just for the sake of adding them, with no true significance.
ReplyDeleteAnd as you mentioned, I think it's okay to tear a character down, as long as you build them back up by the end without losing the reader in the process.
What Andrew said. The flaw must be integral to the plot, which is what is it that the protagonist wants, and why. Shakespeare's characters came to mind as I read the post. Then David Copperfield. And Jane Austen (of course). Macbeth's problems weren't heaped on him; they came out of who he was. Elizabeth Bennett is about as perfect a character that has ever been written, but what she suffers comes out of the exigency. This business of making the protagonist a miserable human being, someone who melodramatically rises out of an ash heap - I think that's not what "make it worse" means. Complicate the problem, up the stakes, put an obstacle in his or her way. The complication or obstacle doesn't have to be "ants under the skin." It can be as simple as missing a train, and having to deal with the frustration - and consequences. "Having a hard time" and being "miserably flawed" are not the same. It's the struggle, darn it, and that can take place in oh, so many ways.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting post, Sheila! Readers need to bond with and worry about the protagonist in order to care enough to keep turning the pages. If a protagonist was tortured, that would be a major turn-off for me. But other than extremes like that, challenges help the character grow and keep us worrying about him and turning the pages. Of course, I wouldn't bond with a really weak protagonist who can't seem to fight addictions or doesn't care enough about themselves or others to try to dig themselves out of the hole they're in.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy flawed protags as long as they are not perpetually miserable and wallowing in it. Unusual flaws are great, if kept within the bounds of credulity. Without some misery (read challenge) involved, it might be too bland to hold a readers attention, but there can be happy circumstances mixed in with the bad to maintain a good balance. JMO. Good question, Sheila.
ReplyDeleteNow there's a fine topic! There's even the word "mantra" in there — the results of which we're all too familiari with: dark protagonists all around us. And why? That mantra has worn inself out by now. Shouldn't it be a challenge for authors to come up with a sane, balanced character who is not burdened by all this, but burdened only by the troubles of his fellow men? I took the liberty of reading a novelization of the old "Columbo" TV series. One may remember the character of Columbo: a happy person, slightly chaotic (well, at face value anyway). No trace of darkness in this man. Always friendly. It was a great crime novel, I must say. But perhaps it is the way it works with Film Noir: if you see a couple, it's alright. By the time you're seeing nothing else, it becomes a bore. So to round this up: I agree that a minor flaw makes a character human (even Columbo and Maigret), but it should be very well possible to have some great stuff happening around some ordinary guy/gall. And thanks for bringing this up.
ReplyDelete