Shouts From Down Under

Who's listening to your character's conversations?

Are we writing to our characters, in faithful reproduction of someone within the ballpark of that type of person?

Or are we writing them with a restriction or tension in our minds, of how other people think they should be?

Should we write them, their appearance, attitude, bearing, countenance, features both good and bad, dialogue, brain power, status and all the rest that bring them to vivid life before the readers mind; should we write them how they appear to us, or write them as we think (and worry) other people would want them to be?

A derelict is a derelict right? Someone whose not so bright it not so bright.
A carpenter is a tradie.
A truckdriver is just that.
An Accountant is a number cruncher.

What if our character doesn't like animals, kicks the dog, gives the middle finger to people, is a social outcast, and breaks wind at every available opportunity.

Yes, what if our characters are less than endearing to the reader? We've created them to be the anti hero, the antagonist, the Goober head, the nong, the twat, the idiot and the lunatic.

Is this acceptable? Is this desirable?

Should we be writing characters, and plot for that matter, that suits what we perceive agents and publishers will gush over?

Or should we write true to ourselves, and hang the rest.

Well, search me.

I read that while our hero character / protagonist / good person should be reasonably likeable, and someone we'd consider a hero, we shouldn't make them too perfect.

Personally, I find it annoying, or a weakening of the plot, when they are portrayed as faultlessly good.

I've never liked the modern international ex military do gooder heroes, who are just boring copies of Robert Ludlum's well researched and believable Jason Bourne (David Webb / Treadstone "I DON'T KNOW WHO I AM!")

These cookie cutter books seemed to be popular with young teens for a while, until they wake up to the fact that nothing bad ever happens to the hero. He (yes it's always a he) goes in, does the extraction or fix up job, gets out and nothing goes wrong, or very little. If there is a bit of conflict it's only told, not shown, and basically the whole story is a giant yawn. (At least a yawn would have a darker part to it)

But hang on a second. WAIT.

Here's a thought.

These books are and were popular with the younger people. Our kids enjoyed them, and enjoyed a lot of other books that I consider banal.

This I believe is for a good reason. I'm not knocking our young people ok? Not by any means. I respect and love young people very much. I have a somewhat unpopular view that if there was a war, a lot of people would be surprised by how loyally and savagely our young people would spring to the defence of their respective countries. IF THEY FELT IT JUSTIFIED that is.

This generation, I believe, shies away from the trauma of life. The confrontation and sadness, the tragic, the catastrophe, the morbid and the disastrous. They shy away from death. I'm not saying all.

Have a look on Tumblr for examples of plenty who embrace death / or the undead.

Still, I'll stick to my view that many young people have read these less than realistic books, because they'd rather think on softer things, happier things, more acceptable things.

I've said this before. I was raised on a farm out in the sticks, where survival was the name of it. Seriously. We were hungry sometimes. Mum and Dad did their best and worked their butts off, but sometimes (often) it wasn't enough.
Governments being what they are didn't help at all and as always, committees in Canberra can't see past their own comfortable cushy cash conversion career caring for clauses of counter-productive composition.

Clearly my upbringing was one of far more crude and back-to-your-roots nature than those living in towns, or cities, and those of this younger generation.

I had no problem with doing away with an injured animal, if it was necessary.
I'm not hard hearted or cruel, not a monster, but hate it when an animal suffers a long and painful death, when vets aren't close by, and there is not the money to pay them.
Someone has to do it, and I'll front up for it very swiftly to end the animals suffering. That, to me, is not a person to be critical of, and it's part of life, but sadly, people do blame the person and judge them to be the worst.

We saw things on the farm and in the bush how they were, not how people think they are.
Animals mate on farms, right in front of you. As children, we didn't even think about it except were sometimes curious, but not for any dirty reason. They are the bread winning side of a farm, but as children, we learnt from our parents to love and care for animals.
This included the harsher factors, and very necessary preventative measures.

I wonder if you've ever seen an animal suffering, first hand? I'm talking pain that makes a cat pant. As far as I know, cats can't pant to cool themselves. If you see a cat panting, it's a last resort of their bodies defence.
A panting cat that's in pain is on it's last bit of life, even if it is withstanding mental trauma. It should be a sober warning prompting swift action to help it recover, and if that's not possible, then swifter action to end the suffering.

What about fly blown sheep? Ever seen that? I won't describe it, the sight, the smell or the pitiful manner of the sheep, except to say that a sheep suffering like this, if I was with my parents when they found one that bad (the sick sheep would always hide or keep away from the mob when in this condition and were difficult to spot) they would have gruff voices from the emotion. They hated cruelty.
It wasn't the money. That is part of farming, and a profit has to be made eventually, but that's not the side of my parents that I saw.

Anyway, you may see now what I'm on about. My upbringing was different to our children. And my parent's upbringing was different to mine.
My Grandparents saw the first electric lights, the first vehicles. My grandmother lived in Sydney when milk was still delivered in horse and cart. They witnessed all the wars since 1914-18.

All these different things I'm talking about; what does it have to do with being character savvy? Why is it relevant to creating and developing characters with believable and endearing traits?

Well, each generation, and setting, has their own set of values, priorities, sense of entitlement, status, vision of the future, relationship levels, things they accept or reject.

It would be a serious blooper in a novel, to have a character with much more modern attitudes than his / her era. Yes I know that there are the rebels in every generation. I was one! and still am somewhat. Old fashioned and weird, my kids would say.
Well too bad. I'm me, and often the values and standards I've tried to depend on have been the difference between success and failure.

But other times, I've found that old fashioned thinking has left me high and dry, so it's no used band standing about my life being an example of greatness.

What do you think characters should be like? A bit rogue-ish?
Less than perfect to endear themselves to the reader?
Someone with major problems who overcomes them at the end?

Some things just don't go together, in life, and in lively characters. Some things are discordant and trying to shuffle them together just won't work unless it's forced. No reader likes to feel forced.



There are a few things I feel that will never endear readers to a character. (Being boring is one of them!)
And my times up. Blog's over.

Sparky